Senate committee to set hearing for civil litigation reform bill

Listen to this article

Next week, a panel of state lawmakers will be hearing public testimony on a bill that would make various changes to the state’s civil-litigation rules.

Senate Bill 645, and its assembly counterpart, Assembly 773, propose various changes to the state’s discovery rules, including setting up a framework for regulating consumer-lawsuit financing and decreasing the interest rate charged to insurers for unpaid overdue claims.

The bills also propose repealing and replacing the state’s rule governing class-action lawsuits. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has already adopted a proposal from the Judicial Council to beef up the rule so that it would mirror its federal counterpart. The new rule goes into effect July 1.

SB 645’s proposed changes would go beyond what the council had proposed: It would add a fifth criteria that plaintiffs would have to meet to get class certification, and would allow immediate, mandatory appeals of class-certification orders. Filing for an appeal of that sort would stay all proceedings in a case.

Members of the council – both plaintiff and defense lawyers – have been expressing gripes about the bill. At Friday’s council meeting, some members said they were concerned both by the speed at which the bill was advancing and by supporters’ contentions that the bill would merely revise state rules to mirror federal rules.

Both versions were introduced in December. An Assembly committee had a public hearing on the Assembly version earlier this month.

State Sen. Van Wanggaard, a Republican from Racine and chairman of the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety, said his committee has scheduled a public hearing on SB 645 for Jan. 30.

Only two lawmakers on the Senate committee – Fred Risser and Lena Taylor, both Democrats – are lawyers. That differentiates the panel from its Assembly counterpart, on which six of the members are lawyers.

Bill Gleisner, a retired personal-injury attorney, testified on behalf of the Judicial Council this month at the committee hearing on the Assembly version of the bill. He contended that the bill’s proposed changes to the rules involving class-action lawsuits and electronically stored information would not be in keeping with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

John Orton, a  personal injury lawyer out of Mauston, submitted a written letter echoing Gleisner’s concerns.

Tom Shriner, a defense lawyer at Foley & Lardner, said Friday that what concerns him most is a proposal that would have the Court of Appeals hear challenges of class-action certification orders and halt all proceedings in trial courts until such appeals are decided.

The council’s Evidence and Civil Procedure committee voted to propose that the full council, at its next meeting, decide whether to ask that the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety let the council review SB 645 and report back on its likely advantages and disadvantages.

Should either version of the bill pass the Legislature, it would still be uncertain which version of the class-action rule will be considered the law of the land. Follow @erikastrebel