High court unanimously approves changes to appellate briefing rules

Listen to this article

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has approved changes to the appellate rules of procedure for multi-party briefs and briefs concerning guardians ad litem.

The proposal is meant to clear up parts of Wis. Stat. 809.19, which allows co-appellants to file either separate or joint briefs. The proposal, among other thinga, sets clear deadlines for filing of briefs.  It also stipulates when a lawyer is representing more than one party, he may file a single brief.

The same proposal includes changes to the appellate-briefing rules found in Wis. Stat. 809.17(6). Those rules apply to guardians ad litem in cases concerning the termination of parental rights.

The Judicial Council, which is a 21-member body charged with offering up changes or revisions to the state’s rules of procedure, filed the petition in May. The justices had voted in their previous term to send the matter to a public hearing.

On Monday, Court of Appeals Chief Staff Attorney Jennifer Anderson gave a presentation to the justices on behalf of the council, urging the court to adopt the rule change. Anderson was on a committee that had helped the council draft its proposal.

Clerk of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Diane Fremgen testified in support of the proposal, saying the changes would make her office more efficient at processing cases. Fremgen was also part of the committee that had helped the council draft the proposal.

Shortly after Monday’s public hearing, the justices met in closed conference and unanimously approved the proposal, said Supreme Court Commissioner Julie Rich.

The changes will now take effect on July 1, 2018. An order with the final language will be issued in the coming weeks, Rich said.

Six other rule-change proposals remain on the court’s docket. Two of them, which involve changes to the state’s class action rule and mandatory bar dues, have already been given a public hearing. The justices have voted to grant the changes involving the class-action rule but have put the bar-dues petition on hold until Dec. 4.

The remaining four petitions, including a proposal involving the private bar rate for attorneys who take State Public Defender appointments and a proposal to increase pro hac vice fees, have, not yet been scheduled for a public hearing. Follow @erikastrebel