Supreme Court to debate petitions next week

Listen to this article

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is scheduled to debate proposals related to tribal courts, trust accounts and disciplinary procedures next week.

Among other things, the justices on Monday will discuss the fate of a rule that now lets circuit courts transfer cases to tribal courts. The rule, contained in state statute 801.54, was passed six years ago and has since been modified to let tribes hear child-support cases that were sent to them by state courts.

The court heard testimony from about a dozen members of the public Nov. 10, including tribal court judges, court officials and members of various tribes throughout the state. The public hearing lasted all day, and the court’s hearing room was packed.

The justices are reviewing the rule as well as a proposal to do away with it. That second petition was brought forth by a group of Oneida Nation tribe members, who have said that 801.54 should be eliminated in order to take away power from the Oneida Nation’s judiciary, which they say is biased and favors nepotism over justice.

The justices are also scheduled to take up two other proposals related to attorney conduct and discipline. One proposal would revise and expand the state’s attorney trust account rule. The court heard testimony on the change at a Dec. 4 public hearing.

The proposal, among other things, would expand the kinds of electronic transactions attorneys can accept. In doing so, it removes the record keeping requirements from the rule and places them in the OLR’s guidelines. Moreover, the rule creates two rebuttable presumptions meant to help the OLR in investigating alleged misdeeds of attorneys.

The court will also take up a proposal — filed by both the State Bar and the OLR — asking for the establishment of a procedure for enforcing Supreme Court disciplinary orders. The court heard public comments on the proposal in October 2013.

The justices, on a 4-3 vote, had previously denied the petition, but Justice Michael Gableman and the late Justice Patrick Crooks moved to reopen the matter. The court later voted 5-2 to reconsider the petition. The court instructed the OLR to convene a commission to refine the proposal and amend the petition. The petitioners filed an amendment to the proposed rule in March.