Source: https://www.wisbar.org/NewsPublications/OfficialNotices/Pages/noticedetails.aspx
Timestamp: 2020-05-29 11:44:58
Document Index: 632271342

Matched Legal Cases: ['§3', '§ 802', '§ 802', '§ 802', '§ 802', '§ 751', '§ 802', '§ 3', '§ 801', '§ 3', '§ 808', '§ 808', '§ 3', '§ 751', '§ 757', '§ 751', '§ 751', '§ 801', '§ 3', '§ 808', '§ 808', '§ 757', '§ 753', '§ 757', '§ 753', '§ 809']

Home > News & Publications > Official Notices > Details
Order Issued: May 18, 2020
On November 8, 2019, the Honorable Jason Rossell, on behalf of the Chief Judges' Subcommittee on Judicial Education (the Committee), filed a rule petition asking the court to amend several rules pertaining to continuing education for the Wisconsin judiciary and circuit court commissioners. The court discussed the petition at a closed administrative rules conference on January 17, 2020. It voted to seek written comments. The court issued its standard interested persons letter on January 23, 2020 requesting public comment. The Honorable Shelley J. Gaylord and Jennifer D. Andrews, Chief Staff Attorney, Wisconsin Court of Appeals, filed comments in support of the petition. The Honorable Juan B. Colás recommended the court reject the proposal to allow judicial education credit for serving as a chief judge because Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 70.19(5) already permits a chief judge to adjust caseload to reflect administrative duties. The petitioner filed a response on March 5, No. 19-22 2 2020 agreeing with the friendly amendment proposed by Attorney Andrews and maintaining its request to permit credit for service as a chief judge. The court discussed the matter again at a closed administrative rules conference on April 30, 2020. After discussion, the court concluded that it would accept the petition in part and deny the petition in part. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that effective July 1, 2020 the petition is granted, in part, as follows: SECTION 1. Consistent with Section 1 of the petition, Supreme Court Rule 32.002 is amended to read: 32.002 Applicability. The commissioners of the supreme court and staff attorneys of the court of appeals are subject to the educational requirements of this chapter in the same manner as judges, are as defined in SCR 32.001. SECTION 2. Consistent with Section 3 of the petition, Supreme Court Rule 32.04 is amended to read: 32.04 Required programs. During each 6-year period, a judge shall attend at least once the Wisconsin judicial college, the child welfare law orientation, the criminal law-sentencing institute and the prison tour. This rule does not apply to commissioners of the supreme court and staff attorneys of the court of appeals. The requirement to attend the child welfare law orientation applies only to judges whose most recent term of office begins on or after August 1, 2020. Credit earned for attendance at these programs is to be included as part of the required 60 credits. No. 19-22 3 SECTION 3. Consistent with Section 4 of the petition, Supreme Court Rule 32.05 is amended to read: 32.05 Minimum and maximum. A judge shall during each year earn no less fewer than 5 nor more than 15 credits at an in-state educational activity. The 15 credit maximum may be waived upon prior approval granted by the judicial education committee or its designee upon application of an individual judge. The 15 credit maximum does not apply to the year the judge attends the Wisconsin judicial college, the child welfare law orientation, and/or the criminal law-sentencing institute and prison tour. A trial judge may not earn more than 24 credits for attendance at national educational activities in any 6-year period. A judge is not required to attend any national educational activity. SECTION 4. Consistent with Section 5 of the petition, Supreme Court Rule 32.06 is amended to read: 32.06 Programs receiving credit. Credit shall be granted for attendance at all programs for judges sponsored or approved by the judicial education committee. In addition, credit for other programs shall be given for that portion of the program addressed to judicial education and approved by the judicial education committee. SECTION 5. Consistent with Section 7 of the petition, Supreme Court Rule 32.08(1) is amended to read: (1) To be eligible for appointment or reappointment as a reserve judge to perform judicial assignments, a person otherwise entitled to appointment shall earn 5 4 credits during the calendar year immediately preceding appointment or reappointment. The director of state courts shall determine which judicial education programs may be attended to No. 19-22 4 earn the required 5 4 credits. One credit is awarded for each half day of attendance at programs sponsored or approved by the judicial education committee. Reserve judges are not required to comply with SCR 32.04. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following proposals set forth in the petition are denied: Section 2 (proposing to add the chair of the committee of chief judges to the judicial education committee); Section 6 (proposing to award a judge 3 credits for each 12-month period the judge serves as chief judge for the judge's judicial administrative district, but noting that chief judges may request judicial education credit for additional educational-related service);1 Section 8 (proposing to amend the Comment to SCR 60.05(8)); Section 9 (proposing to amend SCR 60.07(2) to increase the hours threshold for part-time service as a circuit court commissioner); Section 10 (proposing to amend the Comment to SCR 60.07(2)); and Section 11 (proposing to amend SCR 75.05(3) to increase the threshold for part-time work as a circuit court commissioner for purposes of judicial education).2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the rules amended pursuant to this order are subject to a temporary administrative order issued by this court on April 3, 2020, which temporarily modified certain judicial education 1 Kelly and Hagedorn, J.J., dissent from the court's decision on Section 6 of the rule petition. They would permit additional judicial education credit for service as a chief judge. 2 See In the Matter of the Petition to Amend Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 60.05(8)(b) and SCR 60.07(2), S. Ct. Order 18-06, 2019 WI 18 (issued Feb 25, 2019, eff. Feb. 25, 2019). No. 19-22 5 requirements and deadlines in response to the public health emergency caused as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of the above amendments be given by a single publication of a copy of this order in the official publications designated in SCR 80.01, including the official publishers' online databases, and on the Wisconsin court system's website. The State Bar of Wisconsin shall provide notice of this order. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 18th day of May, 2020. BY THE COURT: Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court
In RE: The Matter of Waiver of In-Person Attendance for State Bar of Wisconsin Board of Governors Meetings and Annual Meeting Requirement
On May 12, 2020, the President and the Chair of the Board of Governors of the State Bar of Wisconsin requested the court authorize the temporary waiver of Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 10.07 (Meetings of the association) and State Bar of Wisconsin Bylaws Article III, Section 11(a) and (b) and Section 13(b) due to circumstances caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. These sections relate to the annual meeting of the members, meetings associated with the annual meeting, and in-person voting requirements for regular meetings of the Board of Governors.
Order Issued: May 15, 2020
On May 12, 2020, the President and the Chair of the Board of Governors of the State Bar of Wisconsin requested the court authorize the temporary waiver of Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 10.07 (Meetings of the association) and State Bar of Wisconsin Bylaws Article III, Section 11(a) and (b) and Section 13(b) due to circumstances caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. These sections relate to the annual meeting of the members, meetings associated with the annual meeting, and in-person voting requirements for regular meetings of the Board of Governors. The State Bar has determined that the annual conference scheduled for June 2020 should be cancelled due to safety and health concerns. The State Bar holds its annual meeting, as required under SCR 10.07, as well as its final general meeting of the Board of Governors, concurrently with that conference. The State Bar leadership requests this court temporarily waive the requirements related to these meeting requirements. The State Bar advises the court that it intends to hold one final regular meeting of the Board of Governors in June 2020 via remote technology. However, in order to conduct business, the in-person voting requirement must also be temporarily waived. Accordingly, the State Bar requests this court issue an order waiving these requirements pursuant to its authority over the State Bar of Wisconsin, SCR Chapter 10, and its inherent authority over the legal profession in this state. Wis. Const. Art. VII, §3; In re Kading, 70 Wis. 2d 508, 519-20; 235 N.W.2d 409 (1976). Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the request of the State Bar of Wisconsin President and the Chair of the Board of Governors is granted, and requirements for an annual meeting of the members, requirements associated with that annual meeting and requirements for in-person voting at regular meetings of the Board of Governors are waived for the remaining fiscal year to end on June 30, 2020; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the State Bar of Wisconsin shall take all reasonable steps to notify its members of the contents of this order.
Petition 19-16 In the Matter of Amending Wis. Stat. § 802.05(2m) relating to Ghostwriting, a Form of Limited Scope Representation.
On May 15, 2019, Attorney James E. Goldschmidt, on behalf of Quarles & Brady, LLP, filed a rule petition asking the court to restore Wis. Stat. § 802.05(2m) to its previous iteration to permit attorneys in limited-scope representations to assist otherwise self-represented persons in drafting a pleading, motion, or other filed document without disclosing their name or state bar number, a practice referred to as "ghostwriting."
Order Issued: April 17, 2020
On May 15, 2019, Attorney James E. Goldschmidt, on behalf of Quarles & Brady, LLP, filed a rule petition asking the court to restore Wis. Stat. § 802.05(2m) to its previous iteration to permit attorneys in limited-scope representations to assist otherwise self-represented persons in drafting a pleading, motion, or other filed document without disclosing their name or state bar number, a practice referred to as "ghostwriting." At a closed administrative rules conference on September 13, 2019, the court conducted a preliminary discussion and voted to seek written comments and conduct a public hearing. A letter soliciting comment was sent to interested persons on November 4, 2019. The court received 28 comments in support of the petition. The court received one comment in opposition to the petition, which requested the court consider a No. 19-16 2 different revision to the "ghostwriting" rule. The petitioner responded to the comments by the court ordered response date of December 16, 2019. Meanwhile, on January 3, 2020, 2019 Wisconsin Assembly Bill 705 (2019 AB 705) was introduced, proposing a different revision of Wis. Stat. § 802.05(2m), also intended to address the issue of ghostwriting. On January 7, 2020, the Committee on Housing and Real Estate conducted a public hearing on the bill. On January 17, 2020, the court received a letter from State Representative Robert Brooks, the principal author of 2019 AB 705, explaining the goal of the bill and the concerns it was intended to address. He expressed willingness to work with the petitioner on this matter. No action was taken on 2019 AB 705. The court conducted a public hearing on January 17, 2020. Attorney James E. Goldschmidt on behalf of Quarles & Brady, LLP, presented the petition to the court. The following people spoke in support of the petition: Attorney Dean R. Dietrich, Dietrich VanderWaal, S.C.; Attorney Margaret Niebler-Brown, Legal Action of Wisconsin; Attorney Elizabeth Anne Groeschel, Legal Action of Wisconsin; Attorney Raphael F. Ramos, Legal Action of Wisconsin; Attorney Aaron Thomas Olejniczak, Andrus Intellectual Property Law LLP; Attorney Michael Dwyer, Hansen & Hildebrand, S.C.; Attorney Kyla N. Motz, Milwaukee Justice Center; Attorney Rebecca Emily Rapp, Ascendium Educational Group Inc. and Affiliates; and Attorney Daniel Johann Hoff, Hoff, Bushaw & Matuszak, LLC. Attorney Heiner Giese, Giese Law Offices, spoke in opposition to the petition. At the ensuing closed administrative rules conference, the court voted to seek supplemental briefing about the respective authority of No. 19-16 3 the court and the legislature to act in this matter. The court also requested briefing from the petitioner on the question of how the petitioner's alternative suggestion, that the court suspend the existing rule, would be accomplished procedurally. See Wis. Stat. § 751.12(2) ("[a]ll statutes relating to pleading, practice, and procedure may be modified or suspended by rules promulgated under this section.") The court received supplemental written comments from Attorney Heiner Giese and from Attorney James Goldschmidt, on behalf of the petitioner. The court discussed the matter in a subsequent closed administrative rules conference and voted to grant the petition with the addition of a comment intended to address the concerns identified by Representative Brooks and Attorney Giese. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that effective July 1, 2020: SECTION 1: 802.05(2m) of the statutes is amended to read: 802.05(2m) An attorney may draft or assist in drafting a pleading, motion, or document filed by an otherwise self-represented person. The attorney is not required to sign the pleading, motion, or document. Any such document must contain a statement immediately adjacent to the person's signature that "This document was prepared with the assistance of a lawyer,." followed by the name of the attorney and the attorney's state bar number. The attorney providing such drafting assistance may rely on the otherwise self-represented person's representation of facts, unless the attorney has reason to believe that such representations are false, or materially insufficient, in which instance the attorney shall make an independent reasonable inquiry into the facts. No. 19-16 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Comment to s. 802.05(2m) is created to read: A previous version of s. 802.05(2m) required an attorney to include his or her name and state bar number on documents prepared under s. 802.05(2m). This requirement was removed because of its chilling effect on the effectiveness of limited scope representation. However, attorneys are reminded that, even in the context of limited scope representation, all of the rules of professional conduct for attorneys apply, and limited scope cases should be conducted consistent with the attorney's professional obligations, including SCR 20:1.1 (competence) and SCR 20:3.1 (meritorious claims and contentions). Lawyers are reminded to be wary that the client is not using the lawyer's limited assistance to assert meritless claims. Providing limited scope representation will not insulate a lawyer from the potential disciplinary consequences of violation of applicable rules. Sua sponte or on motion to the court, a court may order a litigant to disclose the name of the attorney who assisted with preparation of the document, if known, and may direct the attorney to appear before the court to respond to the concerns raised. This comment is intended as a reminder of the existing ethical obligations imposed on all attorneys and an avenue for relief if a court is confronted with meritless filings submitted under this rule. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Comment to Wis. Stat. § 802.05(2m) is not adopted, but will be published and may be consulted for guidance in interpreting and applying the rule. No. 19-16 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of the above amendments be given by a single publication of a copy of this order in the official publications designated in SCR 80.01, including the official publishers' online databases, and on the Wisconsin court system's website. The State Bar of Wisconsin shall provide notice of this order. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 17th day of April, 2020. BY THE COURT: Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court
In re the Matter of Filing of Court Documents in Circuit and Appellate Courts (Temporary Mailbox Rule)
This order pertains to the filing of paper documents in all courts of this state by those unable to access and use the electronic filing system (eFiling). Parties should first consult the appropriate statutes and/or rules, and any previous orders issued by the court in which the action is pending, including general orders relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. This order does not alter existing rules pertaining to eFiling.
Order Issued: April 13, 2020
Disposition: Administrative Order
This order pertains to the filing of paper documents in all courts of this state by those unable to access and use the electronic filing system (eFiling). Parties should first consult the appropriate statutes and/or rules, and any previous orders issued by the court in which the action is pending, including general orders relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. This order does not alter existing rules pertaining to eFiling. The Supreme Court has administrative and superintending authority over the courts and judicial system of this state and a duty to promote the efficient and effective operation of the state's judicial system, Wis. Const. Art. VII, § 3; In re Kading, 70 Wis. 2d 508, 519-20; 235 N.W.2d 409 (1976). On March 24, 2020, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, at the direction of Governor Evers, issued a "Safer at Home" order requiring Wisconsin residents to stay at home unless they must perform certain exempted activities. See Emergency Order #12, "Safer at Home." The Supreme Court has determined that, in light of the existing public health emergency declared in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic, and to protect the health of the public and the individuals who work for the courts of this state, it is necessary to limit temporarily the number of individuals who are physically present within the courts of this state and to temporarily modify certain procedures to ensure that the essential operations of the courts continue in an appropriate manner during the present public health emergency. Page 2 April 13, 2020 In re the Matter of Filing of Court Documents in Circuit and Appellate Courts The offices of the Clerks of Circuit Court and the Clerk of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals remain open. However, hand-delivery of any documents to any clerk's office, including juvenile court clerk offices and registers in probate, is strongly discouraged because of the risk of transmission of COVID-19 between members of the public and court staff. The court recognizes that under the current restrictions imposed by COVID-19, individuals who do not have access to eFiling cannot or should not take the steps litigants typically take to ensure that the Clerk of the Circuit Court or the Clerk of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals receives and stamps their filings to establish the date on which the court received the document. For those unable to file documents electronically, their control over the filing process is circumscribed by the current restrictions on travel and access as a result of COVID-19, and there may be concerns about relying on the "vagaries of the mail." State ex rel. Nichols v. Litscher, 2001 WI 119, ¶28, 247 Wis. 2d 1013, 635 N.W.2d 292. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that to address the concerns about the timely filing of paper documents, the court, as a temporary measure, hereby creates a "Temporary Mailbox Rule." Temporary Mailbox Rule. During the effective dates of this order, a document that has been correctly addressed to the appropriate clerk of court and deposited in the U.S. mail or tendered to a commercial carrier (collectively referred to as "Mailing"), with proper postage and with a Statement of Mailing, will be deemed to have been filed as of the date of the Statement of Mailing, described below. If the Statement of Mailing, U.S. Postal Service mark, or commercial carrier documentation does not bear a date on or before the required filing date, the document will not be Page 3 April 13, 2020 In re the Matter of Filing of Court Documents in Circuit and Appellate Courts deemed timely filed, regardless of when it was actually deposited in the mail or tendered to a commercial carrier. This order does not alter in any way the prison mailbox tolling rule adopted in State ex rel. Nichols v. Litscher, 2001 WI 119, 247 Wis. 2d 1013, 635 N.W.2d 292. Filing deadlines for documents that confer jurisdiction. Litigants may not rely on the Temporary Mailbox Rule if their filing is required to confer jurisdiction on any Wisconsin court. The filing dates for those documents remain as stated in the statute or rule that confers jurisdiction. Litigants should ensure that these documents are received by the appropriate clerk's office by the date required by law.1 Statement of Mailing. In the event of a challenge to the timely filing of a document, the court in which the document is filed will have to make a factual determination as to whether the document was timely filed. Accordingly, individuals filing by mail shall include a Statement of Mailing that: (1) certifies the document was placed in a U.S. mailbox or tendered to a commercial carrier; and (2) specifies the name of the individual who placed the document in the mailbox or provided it to the commercial carrier, a contact address, and the place and date of mailing or tender to a commercial carrier. A Statement of Mailing will create a rebuttable presumption that the individual placed the document for filing in the U.S. Mail receptacle or tendered it to a commercial carrier for delivery on the particular day stated. A determination of timely filing may also consider the date of the 1 See, e.g., this court's order, In re the Matter of Appellate Court Operations During the COVID-19 Pandemic, (S. Ct. Order issued Mar. 17, 2020), https://www.wicourts.gov/news/docs/ covid19coa.pdf. Page 4 April 13, 2020 In re the Matter of Filing of Court Documents in Circuit and Appellate Courts U.S. Post Office's postmark, any documentation from a commercial carrier, and/or the date the document was file stamped as received by the clerk. Copies and Service. During the duration of this order, the requirement of filing multiple copies is waived. The original and one copy of the document is sufficient. If the filer wants an authenticated and conformed copy returned, an additional (3rd) copy should be included together with a self addressed stamped envelope, however, a delay in returning a paper file-stamped document should be expected. Service requirements remain in effect. Appellate briefs are exempted from this order. Wis. Stat. (Rule) s. 809.80(4). The number of copies required by statute for appellate briefs remains unchanged. Filing Fee. The filing fee, if required, may be paid electronically or with a paper check included with the filing. If that is not an option, the appropriate clerk's office will send an invoice to the sender upon receipt of the filing, as soon as reasonably practicable. A filer may also seek a waiver of the fee for reasons of indigency by submitting an affidavit of indigency which can be completed and returned to the clerk's office.2 Other Considerations. This Temporary Mailbox Rule will not excuse a person's ultimate failure to pay filing fees, address the document properly, pay proper postage, or otherwise comply with filing requirements. 2 The circuit court form, CV-410A, Petition for Waiver of Fees and Costs–Affidavit of Indigency, is available at https://www.wicourts.gov/forms/CV-410A.PDF. For filings in the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court, the Clerk of Supreme Court and Court of Appeals will provide the form, upon request. Page 5 April 13, 2020 In re the Matter of Filing of Court Documents in Circuit and Appellate Courts This order does not transcend other existing legal restrictions on filing. See, e.g., Wis. Stat. § 801.02(7)(d) (a circuit court must dismiss an action by a prisoner seeking to waive the prepayment of filing fees where that prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while he or she was incarcerated, imprisoned, confined or detained in a jail or prison, brought an appeal, writ of error, action or special proceeding, including a petition for a common law writ of certiorari, that was dismissed by a state or federal court for any of the reasons listed in s. 802.05(4)(b) 1. to 4.) Clerk's Offices Remain Open; Posting. In order to protect the public and the staff of the clerk's office, the Clerk of Circuit Court, subject to the approval of the Chief Judge of the Judicial District, and the Clerk of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, subject to the approval of the Supreme Court, may modify procedures governing physical access to the office (such as, but not limited to, limiting the number of persons permitted to enter and/or isolating paper documents). Notices with appropriate mailing addresses, information about access, information about proper procedures for emergency filings, locations of drop boxes, and other filing information, as applicable, will be posted where visible to the public in or proximal to the clerk's office and, if practicable, will also be posted on the court's website. If a person wishes to have in-person access to a court file that is currently in the possession of the clerk of circuit court, the person shall submit a request for such access to the clerk via email, via telephone call, or via written request mailed to the clerk's office. The clerk shall then make reasonable arrangements for the person to receive or to view the requested document or file, consistent with public safety. Page 6 April 13, 2020 In re the Matter of Filing of Court Documents in Circuit and Appellate Courts This order is intended to be interpreted broadly for protection of the public, court staff, and judges from the risks associated with COVID-19. The provisions of this order shall be subject to further modification or extension by future orders. The State Bar of Wisconsin shall take all reasonable steps to notify its members of the contents of this order.
In RE: The Matter of Appellate Court Operations During the Covid-19 Pandemic: Supplemental Order Regarding Notices of Appearance, Motions, and Responses to Motions
By temporary administrative order dated April 2, 2020, this court extended its March 17, 2020 temporary administrative order modifying certain procedures of the appellate courts of this state to ensure that the essential operations of the appellate courts continue in an appropriate manner during the present public health emergency. As set forth in that order, the appellate courts are expanding remote working capabilities and are reducing the number of employees in the physical offices of the courts. This temporary administrative order supplements the order dated April 2, 2020, and provides an additional method of filing for notices of appearance, motions, and responses to motions in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals
Order Issued: April 8, 2020
Disposition: Supplemental Order
By temporary administrative order dated April 2, 2020, this court extended its March 17, 2020 temporary administrative order modifying certain procedures of the appellate courts of this state to ensure that the essential operations of the appellate courts continue in an appropriate manner during the present public health emergency. As set forth in that order, the appellate courts are expanding remote working capabilities and are reducing the number of employees in the physical offices of the courts. This temporary administrative order supplements the order dated April 2, 2020, and provides an additional method of filing for notices of appearance, motions, and responses to motions in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that through May 22, 2020 (inclusive), notices of appearance, motions, and responses to motions filed in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court may be filed electronically in pdf format, as attachments to emails directed to clerk@wicourts.gov. Notices of appearance, motions, and responses to motions that are filed via email pursuant to this order shall be deemed filed at the time the email is received by the Clerk’s office. (Notices of appearance, motions, and responses to motions that are received after 5:00 p.m. shall be deemed filed as of the next business day.) The Clerk’s office will also continue to accept paper copies of notices of appearance, motions, and responses to motions that are filed by mail or physically filed at the office of the Clerk. In order to protect the public and the staff of the Clerk’s office, only one person at a time shall be allowed to enter the physical office of the Clerk and the person shall follow the directions of the Clerk’s staff as to the procedure for filing documents. Appellate filings other than notices of appearance, motions, and responses to motions shall continue to be filed in the usual manner, subject to this court’s order dated April 2, 2020. Parties are reminded that, consistent with the terms of our prior orders, non-emergency motions to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court on or before May 22, 2020 (inclusive), are discouraged. If a party truly requires immediate emergency relief from the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, the party shall identify their motion with the word "EMERGENCY" on the face of the document and in the subject line of the email to the clerk’s office. The Supreme Court and Court of Appeals shall retain discretion to determine whether the motion represents an emergency sufficient to require immediate action by the court; and During the duration of this order, the requirement of filing multiple paper copies is waived for notices of appearance, motions, and responses to motions. For notices of appearance, motions, and responses to motions that are filed via email pursuant to this order, the filing party shall, within three (3) business days of the date of the email, place in the mail addressed to the Clerk’s office or deliver to the Clerk’s office the paper original and one paper copy of the notice of appearance, Page 2 April 8, 2020 In re the Matter of Appellate Court Operations during the COVID-19 Pandemic 2 motion, or response to a motion. In addition to placing the case caption and case number at the top of the first page, the paper original and paper copy of any notice of appearance, motion, or response to a motion filed via email shall contain the following clearly visible notation on the top of its first page: “THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREVIOUSLY FILED VIA EMAIL.” If the filer wants an authenticated and conformed copy returned to the filer, an additional copy should be included together with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. However, a delay in returning a paper file-stamped document should be expected. Service requirements remain in effect; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that through May 22, 2020, the appellate courts may serve by only electronic mail (email) orders on circuit court clerks, circuit court judges, counsel of record, or self-represented persons who have provided an electronic mail address; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the provisions of this order shall be subject to further modification or extension by future orders of the Supreme Court. In addition, the Court of Appeals may issue separate orders addressing the handling of matters pending in that court; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the State Bar of Wisconsin shall take all reasonable steps to notify its members of the contents of this order.
In RE: The Matter of Judicial Education During the Covid-19 Pandemic
The Wisconsin Supreme Court recognizes that the public health emergency caused as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic may affect the ability of persons subject to judicial education requirements to complete mandatory judicial education required by Supreme Court Rules, (SCR) Chapters 32, 33, or 75. In a closed administrative conference on March 23, 2020, the court concluded that certain judicial education requirements will be temporarily modified in light of the cancellation and postponement of several judicial education programs.
Order Issued: April 3, 2020
Disposition: Modified
The Wisconsin Supreme Court recognizes that the public health emergency caused as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic may affect the ability of persons subject to judicial education requirements to complete mandatory judicial education required by Supreme Court Rules, (SCR) Chapters 32, 33, or 75. In a closed administrative conference on March 23, 2020, the court concluded that certain judicial education requirements will be temporarily modified in light of the cancellation and postponement of several judicial education programs. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED: 1. Annual Credit Requirements for All Persons Subject to Judicial Education. Judges, supreme court commissioners, and court of appeals staff attorneys are required to earn no less than 5 credits at an in-state educational activity each year. SCR 32.05. Municipal court judges are required to earn at least 4 credits in each calendar year at a municipal judge orientation institute. SCR 33.04. Circuit court commissioners authorized to perform their duties on a temporary or occasional basis are required to earn not less than 3 education credits in any year in which the performance of those duties requires 40 or more hours. SCR 75.05(3). With the exception of municipal court judges, the annual credit requirements for these individuals, required to be accrued on or before December 31, 2020, are waived, provided, however that individuals subject to judicial education requirements are still required to obtain the Page 2 April 3, 2020 In re the Matter of Judicial Education During the COVID-19 Pandemic full number of required credits by the close of their reporting period (e.g., 60 credits for judges, circuit court commissioners, supreme court commissioners, and court of appeals staff attorneys). Extensions of time for municipal court judges to earn their annual 4 judicial credits will be determined by the Municipal Judge Education Committee for good cause, upon request, on a case by case basis. Municipal court judges who face difficulty complying with the requirements of SCR 33.04(1), (2), or (3) as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic may seek an extension from the Municipal Judge Education Committee, for good cause, which may be submitted to the Office of Judicial Education. 2. Expiration of Judicial Education Reporting Period. The six-year reporting period for completing judicial education requirements may be expiring for certain persons subject to judicial education requirements. SCRs 32.02(1); 75.05(2)(a). An automatic six-month extension of the reporting period is granted for all whose judicial education reporting period expires on or before July 31, 2020. 3. Inability to Complete Other Required Judicial Education. Any person subject to judicial education requirements who is unable to complete required programs such as the Wisconsin Judicial College, the Criminal Law and Sentencing Institute, or the prison tour as a result of COVID-19 restrictions, may seek an extension from the Judicial Education Committee for good cause. SCRs 32.04; 32.09(1). Municipal court judges unable to complete the mandatory Municipal Judge Orientation Institute when next offered may seek an extension from the Municipal Judge Education Committee for good cause, which may be submitted to the Office of Judicial Education. SCRs 33.03; 33.04(1). Page 3 April 3, 2020 In re the Matter of Judicial Education During the COVID-19 Pandemic 4. Reserve Judges. Reserve judges are required to earn 5 credits during the calendar year immediately preceding their appointment or reappointment. SCR 32.08. Typically, reserve judges obtain these credits at the Wisconsin Judicial Conference, which is scheduled to occur on November 4-6, 2020. If the Judicial Conference is postponed, the court will revisit the question of judicial education for reserve judges. Reserve judges may, for good cause, request a waiver of their educational requirements from the director of state courts, which may be submitted to the Office of Judicial Education. SCR 32.08(3). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order is intended to be interpreted broadly for protection of the public, court staff, and judges from the risks associated with COVID-19. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the provisions of this order shall be subject to further modification or extension by future orders.
Updated: In RE: the matter of Appellate Court operations during the Covid-19 Pandemic
You are hereby notified that the Court has issued the following order, extending the order issued March 17, 2020
Order Issued: April 2, 2020
Disposition: Updated Order
You are hereby notified that the Court has issued the following order, extending the order issued March 17, 2020: WHEREAS Governor Evers has declared a public health emergency for the State of Wisconsin in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic; and WHEREAS on March 24, 2020, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, at the direction of Governor Evers, issued a "Safer at Home" order requiring Wisconsin residents to stay at home unless they must perform certain exempted activities. See Emergency Order #12, "Safer at Home." WHEREAS the Safer at Home Order excepts the performance of "essential activities" by all residents of the state, the operation of "essential businesses and operations," and the operation of "essential governmental functions," which includes the operation of the Wisconsin court system, however. even while performing those exempt activities, the Safer at Home Order requires people "as reasonably possible [to] maintain social distancing of at least six (6) feet from any other person." WHEREAS the United States Centers for Disease Control has issued guidance related to the COVID-19 pandemic recommending, inter alia, that organizations develop and implement flexible attendance policies that allow employees to stay home when sick, to remain home to care for sick household members, or to work from home when possible; and WHEREAS the Supreme Court has administrative and superintending authority over the courts and judicial system of this state and a duty to promote the efficient and effective operation of the state's judicial system, Wis. Const. Art. VII, § 3; In re Kading, 70 Wis. 2d 508, 519-20; 235 N.W.2d 409 (1976); and WHEREAS the Supreme Court has determined that, in light of the existing public health emergency and to protect the health of the public and the individuals who work for the appellate courts of this state, it is necessary to limit temporarily the number of individuals who are physically present within the offices of the appellate courts of this state and to modify temporarily certain procedures of the appellate courts of this state to ensure that the essential operations of the appellate courts continue in an appropriate manner during the present public health emergency; Page 2 April 2, 2020 In re the Matter of Appellate Court Operations during the COVID-19 Pandemic NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the essential operations of this court and the Court of Appeals shall continue, but those courts will be expanding remote working capabilities and will be reducing the number of employees in the physical offices of the courts; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals shall remain open to accept filings. Through May 22, 2020 (inclusive), however, the hours that the Clerk's office shall be open shall be modified, and the office shall be open to receive filings between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. each business day. During this time period, parties are encouraged, if feasible, to file documents with the Clerk's office by mail using the post office box (P.O. Box 1688, Madison, WI 53701-1688). If necessary, parties may also physically file documents at the office of the Clerk, which is located on the second floor of the Tenney Building, 110 E. Main St., Madison, WI. In order to protect the public and the staff of the Clerk's office, only one person at a time shall be allowed to enter the physical office of the Clerk and the person shall follow the directions of the Clerk's staff as to the procedure for filing documents and obtaining file-stamped copies, if requested; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if a person wishes to have in-person access to a court file that is currently in the possession of the Clerk of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals, the person shall submit a request for such access to the Clerk via email to clerk@wicourts.gov, via telephone call, or via written request physically filed with the clerk's office in the same manner as set forth above. The Clerk shall then make reasonable arrangements for the person to receive or to view the requested document or file; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, subject to the modifications set forth below, all deadlines in all matters pending in the appellate courts of this state that would expire on or before Friday, May 22, 2020 (inclusive) and all deadlines for the filing in the circuit courts of documents under Wis. Stat. §§ (Rules) 809.107, 809.30, and 809.32 that would expire on or before May 22, 2020 (inclusive), shall be tolled for a period of 21 days, except as provided below. (This means that 21 calendar days should be added to whatever the deadline would otherwise be.) This tolling shall include, but not be limited to, deadlines for briefs, motions, responses to motions, docketing statements, statements on transcripts, etc.; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the tolling set forth in the preceding paragraph shall not apply to the following matters: 1. Deadlines for the filing of any documents in the circuit courts, including the filing of notices of appeal, but the tolling shall apply to deadlines for documents filed under Wis. Stat. §§ (Rules) 809.107, 809.30, and 809.32, as provided above. All deadlines for the filing of notices of appeal in the circuit courts shall not be affected by this order. For circuit court deadlines, parties should consult the appropriate statutes and/or rules, and any orders issued by the circuit court in which the action is pending, including general orders relating to the COVID-19 pandemic; Page 3 April 2, 2020 In re the Matter of Appellate Court Operations during the COVID-19 Pandemic 2. Deadlines for the filing of petitions for review in the Supreme Court pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ 808.10 and 809.62 shall not be extended. Petitions for review must be physically filed in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court within the time period required under Wis. Stat. § 808.10. However, if the deadline for filing a petition for review falls on or before May 22, 2020 (inclusive), a party may comply with the deadline for filing a petition for review by filing a short statement that the party seeks Supreme Court review of an identified decision of the Court of Appeals, which statement shall be deemed to be a timely petition for review. A party who complies by filing such a short statement shall file a supplemental petition that contains all of the items set forth in Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.62(2) within 21 days after the filing of the short statement. Absent an extension of time granted by the Supreme Court for good cause shown, the failure to file the supplemental petition conforming to Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.62(2) within the 21-day period shall subject the petition for review to dismissal. The time period for responses to petitions for review will begin upon the service of a complete petition for review or the service of a supplemental petition pursuant to the provision allowing supplemental petitions above, and the response time period in either situation will be subject to the 21-day tolling as set forth above; 3. The parties in the following cases which are pending in the Supreme Court have been contacted regarding deadlines for the filing of briefs, motions, or other documents: a. State v. Brooks, No. 2018AP1774-CR; b. Quick Change Kiosk LLC v. Kaul, No. 2018AP947; c. Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Menard, No. 2018AP659-D; d. State v. Dobbs, No. 2018AP319-CR; e. Town of Delafield v. Central Transport Kriewaldt, No. 2017AP2525; f. State v. Muth, No. 2018AP875-CR; g. Bartlett v. Evers, No. 2019AP1376-OA; h. Wisconsin Small Business United, Inc. v. Brennan, No. 2019AP2054-OA; i. Hammer v. Board of Bar Examiners, No. 2019AP1974-BA; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that non-emergency motions to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court on or before May 22, 2020 (inclusive), are discouraged so that court personnel may focus on essential court functions. If non-emergency motions are filed during that time period, the parties may expect that a ruling on those motions may be delayed to some degree. If a party truly requires immediate emergency relief from the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, the party shall identify their motion, petition for leave to file an interlocutory appeal, writ petition, original action petition, or other filing with the word "EMERGENCY" on the face of the document. The party shall also at the beginning of the document state the nature and reason for the emergency, shall specify the date by which the emergency relief is needed, and shall identify with specificity the harm the party will suffer if the emergency relief is not granted by the requested date. The Supreme Court and Court of Appeals shall retain discretion to determine whether the filing represents an emergency sufficient to require immediate action by the court; and Page 2 April 2, 2020 In re the Matter of Appellate Court Operations during the COVID-19 Pandemic IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties in the cases originally scheduled for oral argument in the Supreme Court on March 30, 2020, April 1, 2020, and April 20, 2020, have been contacted and arrangements made to reschedule or waive oral argument; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the provisions of this order shall be subject to further modification or extension by future orders of the Supreme Court. In addition, the Court of Appeals may issue separate orders addressing the handling of matters pending in that court; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the State Bar of Wisconsin shall take all reasonable steps to notify its members of the contents of this order. REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J. (dissenting). The approved extension is longer than necessary. I would make the extension of this order coterminous with the Safer at Home order issued March 24, 2020, by the Wisconsin Department of Health Services. See Emergency Order #12, "Safer at Home."
No. 20-02 In the matter of an Interim Rule Re Suspension of Deadlines For Non-Criminal Jury Trials Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Public Hearing Notice
This order provides notice that the Wisconsin Supreme Court will conduct a public hearing to consider an Interim Rule adopted by the court that temporarily suspends statutory deadlines for jury trials in non-criminal matters due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Order Issued: March 31, 2020
Disposition: Public hearing scheduled on May 1, 2020 at 9:30 a.m.
This order provides notice that the Wisconsin Supreme Court will conduct a public hearing to consider an Interim Rule adopted by the court that temporarily suspends statutory deadlines for jury trials in non-criminal matters due to the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 24, 2020, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, at the direction of Governor Evers, issued a "Safer at Home" order requiring Wisconsin residents to stay at home unless they must perform certain exempted activities. See Emergency Order #12, "Safer at Home." All non-essential businesses and operations "are required to cease all activities located within Wisconsin." The Safer at Home Order excepts the performance of "essential activities" by all residents of the state, the operation of "essential businesses and operations," and the operation of "essential governmental functions," which includes the operation of the Wisconsin court system. Even while performing those exempt activities, however, the Safer at Home Order requires people "as reasonably possible [to] maintain social distancing of at least six (6) feet from any other person." No. 20-02 2 The Supreme Court has administrative and superintending authority over the courts and judicial system of this state and a duty to promote the efficient and effective operation of the state's judicial system. Wis. Const. Art. VII, § 3; In re Kading, 70 Wis. 2d 508, 519-20; 235 N.W.2d 409 (1976). That authority includes the authority to create, suspend, and modify rules governing pleading, practice, and procedure in the courts of this state. This authority has been recognized by the legislature. Wis. Stat. § 751.12(3). We note, too, that the legislature has long recognized that in times of public emergency, this court has the authority to alter statutes and rules governing how the court system operates. See Wis. Stat. § 757.12 (originally enacted in 1849; stating that, "[w]henever it is deemed unsafe or inexpedient, by reason of war, pestilence or other public calamity, to hold any court at the time and place appointed therefor the justices or judges of the court may appoint any other place within the same county and any other time for holding court. All proceedings in the court may be continued at adjourned times and places and be of the same force and effect as if the court had continued its sessions at the place it was held before the adjournment.")1 In the exercise of its administrative and superintending authority, the Supreme Court has determined that, in light of the existing public health emergency declared in connection with the COVID 19 pandemic, and to protect the health of the public and the individuals who work for the courts of this state, it is necessary to limit temporarily the number of individuals who are physically present within 1 We do not decide at this time whether this statute applies to the current public health emergency. No. 20-02 3 the courts of this state and to temporarily modify certain procedures to ensure that the essential operations of the courts continue in an appropriate manner during the present public health emergency. In accordance with this determination, this court has temporarily suspended or continued all jury trials that were scheduled to commence between March 22, 2020, and May 22, 2020. In re the Matter of Jury Trials During the COVID-19 Pandemic (S. Ct. Order issued March 22, 2020). Also in accordance with this determination, at a closed administrative conference on March 25, 2020, the Supreme Court considered the need to temporarily suspend certain statutory deadlines for the conduct of non-criminal jury trials. The Supreme Court concluded that it is necessary to expedite its consideration of this matter so as to provide prompt guidance to the circuit courts of this state, which are presently striving to balance deadlines set by statutes and serious public safety concerns caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. At a closed administrative conference on March 27, 2020 the Supreme Court approved an Interim Rule that suspends the deadlines for non criminal jury trials, attached as Appendix A to this order, effective the date of this order and until further order of this court, subject to pending further review and consideration at a public hearing to be conducted on May 1, 2020. Wisconsin Stat. § 751.12 sets forth procedures that the court has employed for promulgating rules regulating pleading, practice, and procedure in judicial proceedings in all courts, for the purposes of simplifying the same and of promoting the speedy determination of litigation upon its merits. The time-sensitive nature of statutorily No. 20-02 4 imposed deadlines for jury trials, and the serious public safety risks associated with conducting a public hearing during the COVID-19 pandemic require the court to act at this time. The public hearing on the Interim Rule is duly noticed in accordance with the deadlines set forth in Wis. Stat. § 751.12 (requiring notice not more than 60 days nor less than 30 days before the date of hearing). However, we find good cause to modify the manner in which we conduct the public hearing. Accordingly, we will proceed as follows: 1. Consistent with our standard administrative rules practice, this public hearing notice, together with the Interim Rule, will be distributed to the standard Interested Persons list the court uses to provide notice of scheduled administrative rules matters; posted on the court's website; and the State Bar is directed to provide notice of the hearing and the Interim Rule. 2. Consistent with our standard administrative rules practice, we invite written comment on the Interim Rule. Written comment may be submitted by email on or before 5:00 p.m. on Friday, April 24, 2020 using the procedure set forth below. 3. The Supreme Court will conduct the public hearing on May 1, 2020, commencing at 9:30 a.m. via videoconference or other remote means that will be streamed for public viewing via www.wicourts.gov so it may be observed by interested persons. Details on how to access the public hearing will be posted on the court's website at: https://www.wicourts.gov/opinions.jsp. 4. Although the Supreme Court cannot permit any member of the public to appear in person at the public hearing due to the No. 20-02 5 public safety concerns outlined above, any interested person may, in addition to providing written comment, submit written questions to the Supreme Court regarding this matter using the process set forth below. The Supreme Court will endeavor to address these questions during the public hearing. 5. Following the public hearing, the Supreme Court will convene in closed administrative conference to decide whether to continue, modify, or repeal the Interim Rule and will issue an order setting forth the Supreme Court's decision on the matter. Instructions for Providing Comment or Submitting Questions Public comments and questions for the Supreme Court are due by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, April 24, 2020. They shall be sent by email to: clerk@wicourts.gov. The subject line shall state: "May 1 public hearing." The email shall include the full name and contact information for the person submitting the comment. Comments may also be mailed to the Clerk of Supreme Court, Attention: Deputy Clerk-Rules, P.O. Box 1688, Madison, WI 53701-1688, however, email is strongly preferred. The court reserves the right to consolidate duplicative questions and to screen questions that may not be germane to this proceeding. We emphasize that the Interim Rule is a temporary rule, required in response to the extraordinary circumstances caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The court uses temporary or interim rules to explore potential modifications to existing administrative rules and procedures, such as when the court authorizes a pilot project. The now mandatory circuit court eFiling program in the state commenced with a No. 20-02 6 temporary rule.2 When the court commenced its ongoing consideration of whether to adopt a Statewide Business Court Docket, it adopted an Interim Rule and convened a public hearing to further consider it.3 Using the procedure described in this order, the court strives to address the immediate and practical challenges confronting the circuit courts while complying to the extent possible with the existing parameters by which it considers administrative rule changes. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the Interim Non-Criminal Jury Trial rule set forth in Appendix A, attached hereto, is adopted by the court and shall apply to cases in the circuit court effective the date of this order and until further order of the court, subject to further review and consideration at a May 1, 2020 public hearing. 2 As an example, on September 9, 2004, the Director of State Courts sent the court a memorandum requesting the court approve a temporary rule governing a pilot project for voluntary small claims eFiling. The court met on September 16, 2004 and issued an order approving the pilot project on February 25, 2005. The file in the clerk's office does not indicate that a public hearing was held or that the order was published. An article announcing the pilot project appeared in the April 2005 Wisconsin Lawyer. The temporary order adopted in that matter was renewed in 2006. In 2008, the Director of State Courts requested formal rule changes by filing Rule Petition 06-08, In the matter of the Creation of a Court Rule Governing Electronic Filing in the Circuit Courts, S. Ct. Order 2008 WI 36(issued May 1, 2008, eff. July 2, 2008). See also S. Ct. Order 14-03, In the Matter of the Petition to Create Wisconsin Statute § 801.18, 2016 WI 29 (issued Apr. 28, 2016, eff. July 1, 2016) (adopting and implementing mandatory eFiling rule following a public hearing on the matter). 3 Rule Petition 16-05, In re creation of a pilot project for dedicated trial court judicial dockets for large claim business and commercial cases, S. Ct. Order 16-05, 2017 WI 33 (issued Apr. 11, 2017, eff. July 1, 2017) (adopting Interim Rule and authorizing pilot project then conducting public hearing to confirm the Interim Rule). No. 20-02 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a public hearing on this matter shall be held on May 1, 2020, at 9:30 a.m. and shall be conducted remotely and available to the public via www.wicourts.gov in the manner and according to the procedures set forth in this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of the hearing be given by a publication of a Notice of Public Hearing in the official state newspaper once each week for three consecutive weeks, and publication of a copy of this order and the Interim Rule in an official publication of the State Bar of Wisconsin not more than 60 days nor less than 30 days before the date of the hearing. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the full text of this order and the Interim Rule shall be placed on the Internet site maintained by the director of state courts for the Supreme Court. See www.wicourts.gov/scrules/pending.htm. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 31st day of March, 2020. BY THE COURT: Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court
Petition 19-25, In the Matter of the Petition to Amend Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 12.07(2)(a), Relating to the Annual Assessment of Attorneys for the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (Public Hearing Postponed)
By order dated February 25, 2020, the court scheduled a public hearing for Thursday, April 2, 2020, in the above matter. Governor Evers has declared a public health emergency for the State of Wisconsin due to COVID-19. All branches of Wisconsin government are working to contain the spread of COVID-19
Order Issued: March 17, 2020
Disposition: Public Hearing on Thursday, April 2,2020 is cancelled.
By order dated February 25, 2020, the court scheduled a public hearing for Thursday, April 2, 2020, in the above matter. Governor Evers has declared a public health emergency for the State of Wisconsin due to COVID-19. All branches of Wisconsin government are working to contain the spread of COVID-19. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the public hearing on rule petition 19-25, scheduled for Thursday, April 2, 2020, is hereby cancelled. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of any rescheduled hearing will be posted on the supreme court website and provided to all persons who routinely receive notice of the court's administrative rule matters. See www.wicourts.gov/scrules/pending.htm. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 17th day of March, 2020. BY THE COURT: Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court
Pietition 20-01, In the matter of the temporary amendment of SCRs 31.02 and 31.05 relating to the continuing legal education requirements: On-demand CLE programming in response to COVID-19
he Wisconsin Supreme Court recognizes that the public health emergency relating to COVID-19 may impact lawyers' ability to complete mandatory continuing legal education (CLE) required by SCR 31.02 in order to remain eligible to practice law in Wisconsin.1 Many CLE seminars have been cancelled or postponed and many lawyers may need to self-isolate or avoid public gatherings because of the risk of acquiring and/or transmitting the virus. In an effort to mitigate the impact of these measures on a lawyer's eligibility to practice law, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has, at the request of the State Bar of Wisconsin, elected to temporarily increase the number of credits from on-demand programs that lawyers may use to satisfy the requirements of SCR 31.02. See SCR 31.12(2) (authorizing the board of bar examiners (board) to waive attendance and reporting requirements where to do otherwise would work an injustice).
Disposition: Temporarily increase the number of CLE from on-demand programs
The Wisconsin Supreme Court recognizes that the public health emergency relating to COVID-19 may impact lawyers' ability to complete mandatory continuing legal education (CLE) required by SCR 31.02 in order to remain eligible to practice law in Wisconsin.1 Many CLE seminars have been cancelled or postponed and many lawyers may need to self-isolate or avoid public gatherings because of the risk of acquiring and/or transmitting the virus. In an effort to mitigate the impact of these measures on a lawyer's eligibility to practice law, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has, at the request of the State Bar of Wisconsin, elected to temporarily increase the number of credits from on-demand programs 1 SCR 31.02 provides that a "lawyer shall attend a minimum of 30 hours of approved CLE during each reporting period." SCR 31.02(1). The mandatory ethics requirement provides that "[a] lawyer shall attend a minimum of 3 of the 30 hours required under sub. (1) on the subject of legal ethics and professional responsibility in every reporting period." SCR 31.02(2). No. 20-01 2 that lawyers may use to satisfy the requirements of SCR 31.02. See SCR 31.12(2) (authorizing the board of bar examiners (board) to waive attendance and reporting requirements where to do otherwise would work an injustice). Under current rule no more than 15 credits may be claimed for repeated on-demand programs during a lawyer's CLE reporting period. SCR 31.01(6m).2 For purposes of reinstatement, readmission, or reactivation, no more than 50 percent of the lawyer's CLE may come from on-demand programs. SCR 31.05(5)(a). IT IS ORDERED that effective the date of this order and until December 31, 2020, for the continuing legal education reporting period ending December 31, 2020 (even-year reporters), lawyers may, in their discretion, claim additional CLE credit from repeated on-demand programs, up to 30 credits. Repeated on-demand courses that will be claimed in excess of the usual 15 credit hour limit must be completed on or before December 31, 2020. Because of the importance and time sensitive nature of instruction on the subject of legal ethics and professional responsibility, these courses are to be completed with live on-online programming or in-person courses; repeated on-demand programs may not be used to satisfy the mandatory 3 legal ethics and professional responsibility credit hours. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that lawyers who have failed to demonstrate compliance with CLE reporting requirements for the reporting period ending December 31, 2019 (odd-year reporters) may use repeated on 2 "Repeated on-demand program" means an on-line program delivered over the Internet, consisting of a program previously approved by the board. No. 20-01 3 demand programs to satisfy deficiencies in their credit hours. This does not include the mandatory 3 hours required on the subject of legal ethics and professional responsibility which are to be completed using live on-line programming or in-person courses, and does not waive the late fee imposed for late reporting under SCR 31.03(2). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that lawyers required to satisfy CLE requirements as a prerequisite to reinstatement, readmission, or reactivation may satisfy 100 percent of their required CLE using on demand programs for petitions, provided that make up credit requirements are completed on or before December 31, 2020. This does not include the mandatory 3 hours required on the subject of legal ethics and professional responsibility, which are to be completed using live on line programming or in-person courses. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any lawyer whose license to practice law may be suspended because the lawyer is unable to complete legal ethics and professional responsibility credits, either in person or live on-online, may file a request for a waiver with the board under SCR 31.12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because this temporary measure is effective immediately, there may be a delay before the board's electronic filing system can accept late-filed electronic reports documenting attendance of on-demand courses in excess of the usual 15 credit rule. In this event, lawyers are directed to submit a statement of their request for continuing legal education credit in writing, together with documentation of the on-demand course(s) for which credit is claimed, and the late fee. Per SCR 31.03(4), a late filed report is No. 20-01 4 deemed filed upon the board's receipt of payment of the late fee, for which payment may be made electronically. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of the above amendments be given by a single publication of a copy of this order in the official publications designated in SCR 80.01, including the official publishers' online databases, and on the Wisconsin court system's web site. The State Bar of Wisconsin shall provide notice of this order. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 17th day of March, 2020. BY THE COURT: Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court
In RE: the matter of Appellate Court operations during the Covid-19 Pandemic
Today, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued the attached administrative order in response to the public health emergency declared in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic. As the order states, the appellate courts of this state remain open and the essential operations of the appellate courts will continue, but certain appellate procedures and deadlines will be modified during the period from March 19, 2020 through April 3, 2020.
Disposition: Ordered
You are hereby notified that the Court has issued the following order: WHEREAS Governor Evers has declared a public health emergency for the State of Wisconsin in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic; and WHEREAS the United States Centers for Disease Control has issued guidance related to the COVID-19 pandemic recommending, inter alia, that organizations develop and implement flexible attendance policies that allow employees to stay home when sick, to remain home to care for sick household members, or to work from home when possible; and WHEREAS the Supreme Court has administrative and superintending authority over the courts and judicial system of this state and a duty to promote the efficient and effective operation of the state’s judicial system, Wis. Const. Art. VII, § 3; In re Kading, 79 Wis. 2d 508, 519-20; 235 N.W.2d 409 (1976); and WHEREAS the Supreme Court has determined that, in light of the existing public health emergency and to protect the health of the public and the individuals who work for the appellate courts of this state, it is necessary to limit temporarily the number of individuals who are physically present within the offices of the appellate courts of this state and to modify temporarily certain procedures of the appellate courts of this state to ensure that the essential operations of the appellate courts continue in an appropriate manner during the present public health emergency; NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the essential operations of this court and the Court of Appeals shall continue, but those courts will be expanding remote working capabilities and will be reducing the number of employees in the physical offices of the courts; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals shall remain open to accept filings. From March 19, 2020, to April 3, 2020 (inclusive), however, the hours that the Clerk’s office shall be open shall be modified, and the office shall be open to receive filings between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. each business day. During this time period, parties are encouraged, if feasible, to file documents with the Clerk’s office by Page 2 March 17, 2020 In re the Matter of Appellate Court Operations during the COVID-19 Pandemic 2 mail using the post office box (P.O. Box 1688, Madison, WI 53701-1688). If necessary, parties may also physically file documents at the office of the Clerk, which is located on the second floor of the Tenney Building, 110 E. Main St., Madison, WI. In order to protect the public and the staff of the Clerk’s office, only one person at a time shall be allowed to enter the physical office of the Clerk and the person shall follow the directions of the Clerk’s staff as to the procedure for filing documents and obtaining file-stamped copies, if requested; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if a person wishes to have in-person access to a court file that is currently in the possession of the Clerk of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals, the person shall submit a request for such access to the Clerk via email to clerk@wicourts.gov, via telephone call, or via written request physically filed with the clerk’s office in the same manner as set forth above. The Clerk shall then make reasonable arrangements for the person to receive or to view the requested document or file; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, subject to the modifications set forth below, all deadlines in all matters pending in the appellate courts of this state that would expire between Thursday, March 19, 2020, and Friday, April 3, 2020 (inclusive) and all deadlines for the filing in the circuit courts of documents under Wis. Stat. §§ (Rules) 809.107, 809.30, and 809.32 that would expire between March 19, 2020, and April 3, 2020 (inclusive), shall be tolled for a period of 21 days, except as provided below. (This means that 21 calendar days should be added to whatever the deadline would otherwise be.) This tolling shall include, but not be limited to, deadlines for briefs, motions, responses to motions, docketing statements, statements on transcripts, etc.; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the tolling set forth in the preceding paragraph shall not apply to the following matters: 1. Deadlines for the filing of any documents in the circuit courts, including the filing of notices of appeal, but the tolling shall apply to deadlines for documents filed under Wis. Stat. §§ (Rules) 809.107, 809.30, and 809.32, as provided above. All deadlines for the filing of notices of appeal in the circuit courts shall not be affected by this order. For circuit court deadlines, parties should consult the appropriate statutes and/or rules, and any orders issued by the circuit court in which the action is pending, including general orders relating to the COVID-19 pandemic; 2. Deadlines for the filing of petitions for review in the Supreme Court pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ 808.10 and 809.62 shall not be extended. Petitions for review must be physically filed in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court within the time period required under Wis. Stat. § 808.10. However, if the deadline for filing a petition for review falls between March 19, 2020, and April 3, 2020 (inclusive), a party may comply with the deadline for filing a petition for review by filing a short statement that the party seeks Supreme Court review of an identified decision of the Court of Appeals, which statement shall be deemed to be a timely petition for review. A party who complies by filing such a short statement shall file a supplemental petition that contains all of the items set forth in Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.62(2) within 21 days after the filing of the short statement. Absent an extension of time granted by the Supreme Court for good cause shown, the failure to file the supplemental petition conforming to Wis. Stat. Page 3 March 17, 2020 In re the Matter of Appellate Court Operations during the COVID-19 Pandemic § (Rule) 809.62(2) within the 21-day period shall subject the petition for review to dismissal. The time period for responses to petitions for review will begin upon the service of a complete petition for review or the service of a supplemental petition pursuant to the provision allowing supplemental petitions above, and the response time period in either situation will be subject to the 21-day tolling as set forth above; 3. Deadlines for the filing of briefs, motions, or other documents in the following cases pending in the Supreme Court, which are currently scheduled to be argued on March 30, 2020, April 1, 2020, and April 20, 2020: a. State v. Brooks, No. 2018AP1774-CR; b. Quick Change Kiosk LLC v. Kaul, No. 2018AP947; c. Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Menard, No. 2018AP659-D; d. State v. Dobbs, No. 2018AP319-CR; e. Town of Delafield v. Central Transport Kriewaldt, No. 2017AP2525; f. State v. Muth, No. 2018AP875-CR; g. Bartlett v. Evers, No. 2019AP1376-OA; h. Wisconsin Small Business United, Inc. v. Brennan, No. 2019AP2054-OA; i. Hammer v. Board of Bar Examiners, No. 2019AP1974-BA; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that non-emergency motions to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court between March 19, 2020, and April 3, 2020 (inclusive), are discouraged so that court personnel may focus on essential court functions. If non-emergency motions are filed during that time period, the parties may expect that a ruling on those motions may be delayed to some degree. If a party truly requires immediate emergency relief from the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, the party shall identify their motion, petition for leave to file an interlocutory appeal, writ petition, original action petition, or other filing with the word “EMERGENCY” on the face of the document. The party shall also at the beginning of the document state the nature and reason for the emergency, shall specify the date by which the emergency relief is needed, and shall identify with specificity the harm the party will suffer if the emergency relief is not granted by the requested date. The Supreme Court and Court of Appeals shall retain discretion to determine whether the filing represents an emergency sufficient to require immediate action by the court; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the oral argument schedules in the Supreme Court for March 30, 2020, April 1, 2020, and April 20, 2020, shall remain in effect, subject to further order of the court. Parties with arguments in the Supreme Court scheduled for those dates shall be prepared to proceed with arguments as scheduled; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the provisions of this order shall be subject to further modification or extension by future orders of the Supreme Court. In addition, the Court of Appeals may issue separate orders addressing the handling of matters pending in that court; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the State Bar of Wisconsin shall take all reasonable steps to notify its members of the contents of this order.
No. 16-05C In re creation of a pilot project for dedicated trial court judicial dockets for large claim business and commercial cases (Dane County)
In 2017, the Wisconsin Supreme Court approved creation of a pilot project for commercial court dockets for large claims business and commercial cases (commercial court docket or pilot project). See S. Ct. Order 16-05, 2017 WI 33 (issued Apr. 11, 2017, eff. July 1, 2017) (approving pilot project following receipt of public comment and public hearing), as amended by S. Ct. Order 16-05A (issued Feb. 12, 2020) (extending and expanding project); S. Ct. Correction Order 16-05B (issued Feb 22, 2020). This order reflects Interim Rule amendments to accommodate the addition of Dane County to the pilot project.
Order Issued: March 13, 2020
In 2017, the Wisconsin Supreme Court approved creation of a pilot project for commercial court dockets for large claims business and commercial cases (commercial court docket or pilot project). See S. Ct. Order 16-05, 2017 WI 33 (issued Apr. 11, 2017, eff. July 1, 2017) (approving pilot project following receipt of public comment and public hearing), as amended by S. Ct. Order 16-05A (issued Feb. 12, 2020) (extending and expanding project); S. Ct. Correction Order 16-05B (issued Feb 22, 2020).1 This order reflects Interim Rule amendments to accommodate the addition of Dane County to the pilot project. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that, effective the date of this order: 1 The interim commercial court rule applies only to this pilot project. If, upon the conclusion of the pilot project, the Business Court Advisory Committee recommends the Wisconsin Supreme Court adopt a statewide commercial court docket, the Committee will file a formal rule petition, whereupon the court will invite public comment and schedule a public hearing on the matter. No. 16-05C 2 SECTION 1. Section 2 d) of the Interim Commercial Court Rule is amended to read: 2. d) The circuit courts for Waukesha County and in the Eighth Judicial Administrative District are hereby designated as the initial locations for the Commercial Court dockets. The circuit courts of Dane County, The the circuit courts of the Second Judicial Administrative District, and the circuit courts of the Tenth Judicial Administrative District are hereby designated as additional locations for the Commercial Court dockets. For the purposes of this pilot project, Iron County shall be considered part of the Tenth Judicial Administrative District forthwith.2 SECTION 2. Section 2 e) of the Interim Commercial Court Rule is amended to read: 2. e) The Chief Justice shall select the circuit court judges in the counties and judicial administrative districts participating in the pilot plan who will be assigned to the Commercial Court docket. Selection of a judge for the Commercial Court docket shall not preclude the judge from continuing work on any other assigned docket. The Chief Justice shall select no fewer than: three circuit court judges in Waukesha County; no fewer than three circuit court judges in Dane County; no fewer than four circuit court judges within the Eighth Judicial Administrative District; no fewer than four circuit court judges within the Second Judicial Administrative District; and no fewer than three circuit court judges within the Tenth Judicial Administrative 2 See S. Ct. Order 19-21, 2020 WI 17 (issued Feb. 13, 2020) (transferring Iron County to Tenth Judicial Administrative District effective July 1, 2020). No. 16-05C 3 District. The Chief Justice may also add additional counties and/or districts to the Commercial Court docket upon the recommendation of the Director of State Courts. SECTION 3. Section 7 b) of the Interim Commercial Court Rule is amended to read: 7. b) Clerk of court duties. 1. In Dane County and Waukesha County, upon the filing of a case qualifying for the Commercial Court docket, the clerk of court shall assign the case to the Commercial Court docket and to one of the judges designed for the commercial court docket. In the event of a request for judicial substitution, the case shall be transferred to the next Waukesha County circuit court judge who is assigned to the Waukesha County Commercial Court docket in that county. SECTION 4. Section 10 b)1. of the Interim Commercial Court Rule is amended to read: 10. b) The procedure for a joint petition for transfer shall be as follows: 1. A joint petition for transfer of a case under this section shall be submitted to the District Court Administrator for the Eighth Judicial District. The District Eight Court Administrator shall refer the petition to the Chief Judges for the Second, Third, Fifth, Eighth, and Tenth Judicial Administrative Districts. SECTION 4. Section 10 b)3. of the Interim Commercial Court Rule is amended to read: 3. The Chief Judges shall, upon allowing a transfer, assign the cases to the Commercial Court docket and to one of the judges designated No. 16-05C 4 for the Commercial Court docket in Dane County, Waukesha County, or within the Second, Eighth, or Tenth Judicial Administrative District. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Dane County Circuit Court may commence the pilot project effective the date of this order or as soon thereafter as reasonably practicable. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order and the interim commercial court rule, as amended, shall be made available to the public on the court's website. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 13th day of March, 2020.
Petition 19-25 In the Matter of the Petition to Amend Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 12.07(2)(a), Relating to the Annual Assessment of Attorneys for the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection
On December 23, 2019, Attorney Benjamin T. Kurten, on behalf of the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (the "Fund"), filed a rule petition asking the court to amend Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 12.07(2)(a) to increase the annual assessment of attorneys for the Fund to provide sufficient income for payment of eligible claims.
Order Issued: February 25, 2020
Disposition: Hearing Order scheduled for Thursday, April 2, 2020, at 9:30 a.m.
On December 23, 2019, Attorney Benjamin T. Kurten, on behalf of the Wisconsin Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (the "Fund"), filed a rule petition asking the court to amend Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 12.07(2)(a) to increase the annual assessment of attorneys for the Fund to provide sufficient income for payment of eligible claims. IT is ORDERED that a public hearing on the petition shall be held in the Supreme Court Hearing Room in the State Capitol, Madison, Wisconsin, on Thursday, April 2, 2020, at 9:30 a.m. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of hearing be given by a publication of a copy of this order and of the petition in the official state newspaper once each week for three consecutive weeks, and in an official publication of the State Bar of Wisconsin not more than 60 days nor less than 30 days before the date of the hearing. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the full text of the proposed rules, including changes, if any, in existing rules, shall be placed on the No. 19-25 2 Internet site maintained by the director of state courts for the supreme court. See www.wicourts.gov/scrules/pending.htm. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 25th day of February, 2020.
SC Rule Order 16-05B (Correction Order)
The court, on its own motion, has identified the need for a technical correction to the interim commercial court rule. See S. Ct. Order 16-05, 2017 WI 33 (issued Apr. 11, 2017, eff. July 1, 2017) (approving pilot project following receipt of public comment and public hearing); S. Ct. Order 16-05A (issued Feb. 12, 2020) (amending interim commercial court rule).
Order Issued: February 20, 2020
The court, on its own motion, has identified the need for a technical correction to the interim commercial court rule. See S. Ct. Order 16-05, 2017 WI 33 (issued Apr. 11, 2017, eff. July 1, 2017) (approving pilot project following receipt of public comment and public hearing); S. Ct. Order 16-05A (issued Feb. 12, 2020) (amending interim commercial court rule). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that effective the date of this order, Section 10. b)1. of the Interim Commercial Court Rule is amended to read as follows: A joint petition for transfer of a case under this section shall be submitted to the District Court Administrator for the Eighth Judicial District. The District Eight Court Administrator shall refer the petition to the Chief Judges for the Second, Third, Eighth, and Tenth Judicial Administrative Districts. No. 16-05B 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order and the interim commercial court rule, as amended, shall be made available to the public on the court's website. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 20th day of February, 2020.
Petition 19-21 In the Matter of Amending sections 757.60(9) and (10), Wis. Stats., and Supreme Court Rules 70.17(9) and (10), and Renumbering section 753.06(9)(d), Wis. Stat. (Judicial Districts: Iron County)
On October 22, 2019, the Honorable Randy R. Koschnick, Director of State Courts, filed a rule petition asking the court to amend Wis. Stat. § 757.60(9) and (10), Supreme Court Rules (SCR) 70.17(9) and (10), and renumber Wis. Stat. § 753.06(9)(d). The petition proposes transferring Iron County from the ninth judicial district to the tenth judicial district for reasons of judicial efficiency.
Order Issued: February 13, 2020
On October 22, 2019, the Honorable Randy R. Koschnick, Director of State Courts, filed a rule petition asking the court to amend Wis. Stat. § 757.60(9) and (10), Supreme Court Rules (SCR) 70.17(9) and (10), and renumber Wis. Stat. § 753.06(9)(d). The petition proposes transferring Iron County from the ninth judicial district to the tenth judicial district for reasons of judicial efficiency. The court discussed the petition at a closed administrative rules conference on December 9, 2019. It voted to seek written comments and requested Judge Koschnick seek input from the judges and district court administrators in the affected districts. Judge Koschnick sent a letter dated December 13, 2019 inviting input from his colleagues in the affected districts and the court issued its standard interested persons letter on December 16, 2019 requesting comment by January 13, 2020. No comments were received. No. 19-21 2 The court discussed the matter again at a closed administrative conference on February 11, 2020. After discussion, the court concluded that transferring Iron County from the ninth judicial district to the tenth judicial district will manage workload disparity, improve administrative efficiency, and reduce administrative costs. The court determined that no public hearing was necessary and voted to grant the petition. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the petition is granted and that: SECTION 1. 753.06(9)(d) is renumbered 753.06(10)(gm). SECTION 2. 757.60(9) of the statutes is amended to read: 757.60(9) The 9th district consists of Florence, Forest, Iron, Langlade, Lincoln, Marathon, Menominee, Oneida, Portage, Price, Shawano, Taylor, Vilas, and Wood counties. SECTION 3. 757.60(10) of the statutes is amended to read: 757.60(10) The 10th district consists of Ashland, Barron, Bayfield, Burnett, Chippewa, Douglas, Dunn, Eau Claire, Iron, Polk, Rusk, St. Croix, Sawyer, and Washburn counties. SECTION 4. Supreme Court Rule 70.17(9) is amended to read: 70.17(9) The 9th district consists of Florence, Forest, Iron, Langlade, Lincoln, Marathon, Menominee, Oneida, Portage, Price, Shawano, Taylor, Vilas, and Wood counties. SECTION 5. Supreme Court Rule 70.17(10) is amended to read: 70.17(10) The 10th district consists of Ashland, Barron, Bayfield, Burnett, Chippewa, Douglas, Dunn, Eau Claire, Iron, Polk, Rusk, St. Croix, Sawyer, and Washburn counties. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the effective date of this order is July 1, 2020. No. 19-21 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of the above amendments be given by a single publication of a copy of this order in the official publications designated in SCR 80.01, including the official publishers' online databases, and on the Wisconsin court system's website. The State Bar of Wisconsin shall provide notice of this order. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 13th day of February, 2020. BY THE COURT: Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court
Petition 19-20 In the Matter of Amending Supreme Court Rule 31, Pertaining to Continuing Legal Education (CLE)
On October 3, 2019, Gretchen Viney, Distinguished Clinical Professor, University of Wisconsin Law School, filed a rule petition asking the court to amend Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 31.05(3) pertaining to continuing legal education (CLE). The petition seeks an amendment to ensure that a guest presenter in a law school course shall receive two hours of continuing legal education credit for each hour of class presentation. The petition states that it was prompted by a recent change in the Board of Bar Examiners' (BBE) manner of interpreting SCR 31.05(3) with respect to guest lecturers in the University of Wisconsin Law School's Lawyering Skills Course. The petition states that the BBE has allowed double credits for these instructors since the inception of mandatory CLE in 1977. The petition states that in September 2019, for the first time, the BBE informed the petitioner that it would not approve the guest instructors' application for double credits.
Order Issued: February 12, 2020
On October 3, 2019, Gretchen Viney, Distinguished Clinical Professor, University of Wisconsin Law School, filed a rule petition asking the court to amend Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 31.05(3) pertaining to continuing legal education (CLE). The petition seeks an amendment to ensure that a guest presenter in a law school course shall receive two hours of continuing legal education credit for each hour of class presentation. The petition states that it was prompted by a recent change in the Board of Bar Examiners' (BBE) manner of interpreting SCR 31.05(3) with respect to guest lecturers in the University of Wisconsin Law School's Lawyering Skills Course. The petition states that the BBE has allowed double credits for these instructors since the inception of mandatory CLE in 1977. The petition states that in September 2019, for the first time, the BBE informed the petitioner that it would not approve the guest instructors' application for double credits. No. 19-20 2 The court discussed the rule petition on October 15, 2019 and requested the BBE file a response to the petition. On October 30, 2019, BBE Director Jacquelynn Rothstein filed a letter with the court, stating that the BBE reviewed the rule petition at its regularly scheduled meeting on October 25, 2019. Essentially, the BBE acknowledges the past practice of approving double credit for these instructors, but believes that as written, the rule does not provide for double credit.1 The BBE told Professor Viney that it would grant the two hours of continuing legal education credit for the 2019- 2020 academic terms but thereafter would cease to award the double credit. After discussion, the BBE states that it now agrees that the court should amend SCR 31.05(3) and recommends the court do so in a manner that would extend double credit to all those who teach in approved settings. This proposal is consistent with an alternative proposal offered by Professor Viney in her memorandum submitted in support of her petition. The court has determined that the proposed change to SCR 31.05(3) will clarify the rule and will have positive consequences for the recruitment and retention of guest faculty, who serve an important role in the training and education of future lawyers.2 Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that, effective January 1, 2021, Supreme Court Rule 31.05(3) is amended to read: 1 The petitioner disagrees with the BBE's interpretation of SCR 31.05. 2 The BBE and the Wisconsin Consolidated Court Automation Programs (CCAP) should collaborate to undertake any required administrative and computer programming changes needed to implement this amendment. No. 19-20 3 (3) Teaching an approved continuing legal or judicial education activity or teaching a course, or teaching as guest presenter in a course, in a law school approved by the American bar association may be used to satisfy the requirement of SCR 31.02. The board shall award 2 hours for each hour of presentation. of the approved continuing legal or judicial education activity and one hour for each hour of presentation for teaching a course in a law school. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of the above amendments be given by a single publication of a copy of this order in the official publications designated in SCR 80.01, including the official publishers' online databases, and on the Wisconsin court system's website. The State Bar of Wisconsin shall provide notice of this order. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 12th day of February, 2020. BY THE COURT: Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court
SC Rule Order 16-05A In re creation of a pilot project for dedicated trial court judicial dockets for large claim business and commercial cases
On January 17, 2020, Attorney John A. Rothstein, on behalf of the Business Court Advisory Committee ("Committee"), filed a rule petition asking the court to approve certain amendments to extend and expand the existing pilot project for commercial court dockets for large claims business and commercial cases (commercial court docket or pilot project) and amend its interim commercial court rule. See S. Ct. Order 16-05, 2017 WI 33 (issued Apr. 11, 2017, eff. July 1, 2017) (approving pilot project following receipt of public comment and public hearing).
On January 17, 2020, Attorney John A. Rothstein, on behalf of the Business Court Advisory Committee ("Committee"), filed a rule petition asking the court to approve certain amendments to extend and expand the existing pilot project for commercial court dockets for large claims business and commercial cases (commercial court docket or pilot project) and amend its interim commercial court rule. See S. Ct. Order 16-05, 2017 WI 33 (issued Apr. 11, 2017, eff. July 1, 2017) (approving pilot project following receipt of public comment and public hearing). The court discussed this petition at a closed administrative rules conference on February 11, 2020. As this petition pertains to an ongoing pilot project, no public hearing is required. The interim commercial court rule applies only to the pilot project. If the Committee ultimately recommends the court adopt a statewide commercial court docket, the Committee will file a subsequent rule petition that will require a public hearing. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that, effective the date of this order: No. 16-05A 2 SECTION 1. Section 2 b) of the Interim Commercial Court Rule is amended to read: 2. b) The pilot project will begin and end as authorized by order of the Supreme Court. See S. Ct. Order 16-05, 2017 WI 33 (issued Apr. 11, 2017, eff. July 1, 2017). The approximate duration of the project will be from July 2017 to July 2020 2022. SECTION 2. Section 2 d) of the Interim Commercial Court Rule is amended to read: 2. d) The circuit courts for Waukesha County and in the Eighth Judicial Administrative District are hereby designated as the initial locations for the Commercial Court dockets. The circuit courts of the Second Judicial Administrative District and the circuit courts of the Tenth Judicial Administrative District are hereby designated as additional locations for the Commercial Court dockets. SECTION 3. Section 2 e) of the Interim Commercial Court Rule is amended to read: 2. e) The Chief Justice shall select the circuit court judges in the counties and judicial administrative districts participating in the pilot plan who will be assigned to the Commercial Court docket. Selection of a judge for the Commercial Court docket shall not preclude the judge from continuing work on any other assigned docket. The Chief Justice shall select no fewer than: three circuit court judges in Waukesha County; and no fewer than four circuit court judges within the Eighth Judicial Administrative District; no fewer than four circuit court judges within the Second Judicial Administrative District; and no fewer than three circuit court judges within the Tenth Judicial Administrative District. The Chief Justice may also add additional No. 16-05A 3 counties and/or districts to the Commercial Court docket upon the recommendation of the Director of State Courts. SECTION 4. Sections 4 h) to j) of the Interim Commercial Court Rule are created to read: 4. h) Cases involving receiverships in excess of $250,000; 4. i) Cases involving confirmation of arbitration awards and compelling/enforcing arbitration awards; 4. j) Cases involving commercial real estate construction disputes over $250,000; SECTION 5. Section 7 b) of the Interim Commercial Court Rule is amended to read: 7. b) Clerk of court duties. 1. In Waukesha County, upon the filing of a case qualifying for the Commercial Court docket, the clerk of court shall assign the case to the Commercial Court docket and to one of the judges designed for the commercial court docket. In the event of a request for judicial substitution, the case shall be transferred to the next Waukesha County circuit court judge who is assigned to the Waukesha County Commercial Court docket. 2. In the Second Judicial Administrative District, Eighth Judicial Administrative District, and Tenth Judicial Administrative District, for cases filed in any county in which a circuit court judge in that county has already been assigned a Commercial Court docket, the same procedures shall apply. In counties of the Second, Eighth, or Tenth Judicial Administrative District in which no circuit judge has been assigned to the Commercial Court docket, upon the filing of a qualifying case, the clerk of court shall notify the chief judge of the Eighth No. 16-05A 4 Judicial Administrative District who shall assign one of the Commercial Court docket judges from the other counties in the Eighth Judicial Administrative District. The chief judge's selection shall be made pursuant to s.751.03(3), stats. In the event a request for substitution is filed against the judge chosen by the chief judge of the Eighth Judicial Administrative District, the chief judge shall then assign another judge from the Eighth Judicial Administrative District who has been appointed for Commercial Court cases. SECTION 6. Section 10 of the Interim Commercial Court Rule is created to read: 10. Transferring a Case to the Commercial Court Docket. Parties from counties that do not have a dedicated Commercial Court docket may petition to have their cases administered within a Commercial Court docket. 10. a) Such parties may jointly petition for transfer of the case to a Commercial Court docket if all of the following are true: 1. The case is a type identified in Section 4 of the interim commercial court rule. The case is not ineligible for assignment to a Commercial Court docket under Section 6 of the interim commercial court rule. 2. The parties agree to use the forms and procedures developed for use in the Commercial Court docket pilot project. 3. The parties agree that all proceedings will be conducted in the county where the case is assigned under paragraph b) of this section, except that if the case proceeds to trial, the trial will be conducted in the county where the case was originally filed. No. 16-05A 5 10. b) The procedure for a joint petition for transfer shall be as follows: 1. A joint petition for transfer of a case under this section shall be submitted to the District Court Administrator for the Eighth Judicial District. The District Eight Court Administrator shall refer the petition to the Chief Judges for the Second, Eighth, and Tenth Judicial Administrative Districts. 2. The Chief Judges shall consider the caseload of the judges designated for the Commercial Court docket, the nature of the case, and the work requirements for cases already pending in the Commercial Court docket when determining whether to allow the transfer of a case under this paragraph. 3. The Chief Judges shall, upon allowing a transfer, assign the cases to the Commercial Court docket and to one of the judges designated for the Commercial Court docket in Waukesha County or within the Second, Eighth, or Tenth Judicial Administrative District. 4. In the event of a request for judicial substitution, the procedure set forth in Section 7 b) of the interim commercial court rule applies. 10. c) No party may withdraw his or her request for transfer to the Commercial Court docket after a judicial assignment has been made under paragraph b) of this section. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order and the interim commercial court rule, as amended, shall be made available to the public on the court's website. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 12th day of February, 2020. No. 16-05A 6 BY THE COURT: Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court
Petition 19-24 In re the Amendment of SCR 70.20, Relating to the Authority of the Chief Judge
On December 13, 2019, the Honorable James Morrison, Chair, on behalf of the Committee of Chief Judges, filed a petition seeking to amend Supreme Court Rule 70.20, relating to the authority of the chief judge. On January 30, 2020, the petitioner filed a motion to withdraw the petition.
Order Issued: February 3, 2020
On December 13, 2019, the Honorable James Morrison, Chair, on behalf of the Committee of Chief Judges, filed a petition seeking to amend Supreme Court Rule 70.20, relating to the authority of the chief judge. On January 30, 2020, the petitioner filed a motion to withdraw the petition. IT IS ORDERED that the petition filed on December 13, 2019 by the Committee of Chief Judges is dismissed. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 3rd day of February, 2020. BY THE COURT: Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court
19-19 In re the Matter of the Proposed Amendment to Wisconsin Statutes § 809.86 (Petitions for Review: Online access)
On September 26, 2019, Mark A. Neuser, Supreme Court Commissioner, on behalf of the State Bar of Wisconsin Appellate Practice Section Board (the "Board"),1 filed a rule petition asking the court to facilitate online access to petitions for review and responses, in the same manner that appellate briefs are viewable online on the Wisconsin Supreme Court and Court of Appeals case access website. In order to safeguard the identity of victims and others, the petition proposes the court amend Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.86, to require petitions for review and responses to comply with the same privacy considerations presently required for appellate briefs.
Order Issued: January 29, 2020
On September 26, 2019, Mark A. Neuser, Supreme Court Commissioner, on behalf of the State Bar of Wisconsin Appellate Practice Section Board (the "Board"),1 filed a rule petition asking the court to facilitate online access to petitions for review and responses, in the same manner that appellate briefs are viewable online on the Wisconsin Supreme Court and Court of Appeals case access website. In order to safeguard the identity of victims and others, the petition proposes the court amend Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.86, to require petitions for review and 1 The Appellate Practice Section Board is comprised of the following members: Hon. Brian Blanchard, Atty. Frances Philomene Colbert, Atty. Joseph S. Diedrich, Atty. James Eric Goldschmidt, Atty. Amy Hetzner, Atty. Melissa Eleanor Love Koenig, Atty. Lisa M. Lawless, Atty. Anne-Louise T. Mittal, Comm. Mark A. Neuser, Atty. Aaron R. O'Neil, Atty. Eric G. Pearson, Atty. Jeremy C. Perri, Atty. Donald L. Romundson, Atty. Michelle L. Velasquez, Atty. Donald J. Wall. Board member Atty. Clayton P. Kawski did not participate in this petition. No. 19-19 2 responses to comply with the same privacy considerations presently required for appellate briefs. The court voted to seek written comments and conduct a public hearing. A letter soliciting comments was sent to interested persons on November 4, 2019. The court received one comment from Diane Duffey, on behalf of the Law Librarians Association of Wisconsin, Government Relations Committee, supporting the petition. The court conducted a public hearing on January 17, 2020. Mark A. Neuser, Supreme Court Commissioner, presented the petition to the court on behalf of the Board. At an ensuing closed administrative rules conference, the court voted to grant the petition and to revise the rule as requested. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that effective July 1, 2020: SECTION 1. 809.86 (title) of the statutes is amended to read: 809.86 Rule (Identification of victims and others in briefing, petitions for review, and responses to petitions for review). SECTION 2. 809.86(1) of the statutes is amended to read: 809.86(1) DECLARATION OF POLICY. By enacting this rule, the supreme court intends to better protect the privacy and dignity interests of crime victims. It requires appellate briefs, petitions for review, and responses to petitions for review to identify crime victims by use of identifiers, as specified in sub. (4), unless there is good cause for noncompliance. The rule protects the identity of victims in appellate briefs, petitions for review, and responses to petitions for review that the courts make available online. SECTION 3. 809.86(4) of the statutes is amended to read: No. 19-19 3 809.86(4) BRIEFS, PETITIONS FOR REVIEW, AND RESPONSES TO PETITIONS FOR REVIEW. In an appeal specified under sub. (2), the briefs of the parties, petitions for review, and responses to petitions for review shall not, without good cause, identify a victim by any part of his or her name but may identify a victim by one or more initials or other appropriate pseudonym or designation. SECTION 4. A Comment to 809.86 of the statutes is created to read: COMMENT By S. Ct. Order 19-19, 2020 WI 6 (issued Jan. 29, 2020, eff. July 1, 2020) the court extended the privacy protections of this rule to petitions for review and responses to petitions for review, so that they may be posted on the Wisconsin Supreme Court and Court of Appeals case access website, along with appellate briefs, in a manner that respects victim privacy concerns. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of the above amendments be given by a single publication of a copy of this order in the official publications designated in SCR 80.01, including the official publishers' online databases, and on the Wisconsin court system's website. The State Bar of Wisconsin shall provide notice of this order. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 29th day of January, 2020. BY THE COURT: Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court
19-08 In the Matter for an Order Amending Supreme Court Rules 22.02(2)(d), 22.25(3) and (4)(intro), and 22.26, Repealing Supreme Court Rules 21.01(1)(b) and 21.06, Repealing and Recreating Supreme Court Rule 22.03(4), and Creating Supreme Court Rules 21.0
On March 13, 2019, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) Procedure Review Committee ("Committee"), by its Chair, the Honorable Gerald P. Ptacek, and by Professor Marsha Mansfield, Chair of the Subcommittee on Process, filed a rule petition asking the court to amend certain Supreme Court Rules (SCR) in chs. 21 and 22 to streamline the disciplinary process, including eliminating District Committees, allowing the OLR to reach an earlier resolution of grievances in appropriate circumstances, and to promote cooperation between the OLR and attorneys.
Order Issued: December 18, 2019
Disposition: Granted in part, subjected to issuance of a further order by this court
On March 13, 2019, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) Procedure Review Committee ("Committee"), by its Chair, the Honorable Gerald P. Ptacek, and by Professor Marsha Mansfield, Chair of the Subcommittee on Process, filed a rule petition asking the court to amend certain Supreme Court Rules (SCR) in chs. 21 and 22 to streamline the disciplinary process, including eliminating District Committees, allowing the OLR to reach an earlier resolution of grievances in appropriate circumstances, and to promote cooperation between the OLR and attorneys. The court discussed the petition at a closed administrative rules conference on June 6, 2019, and voted to seek written comments and conduct a public hearing. A letter soliciting comments was sent to interested persons, including District Committee members, on August 22, 2019. The court received seven written responses in regard to the proposed rule changes. The petitioners responded to the comments. The court conducted a public hearing on October 29, 2019. The Honorable Gerald P. Ptacek, Chair of the Committee, and Professor Marsha Mansfield, Chair of the Subcommittee on Process, presented the petition to the court. Attorney Joseph Russell and Attorney Donald Christl spoke No. 19-08 2 in support of section 6 of the petition, on behalf of the Board of Administrative Oversight. Attorney Dean R. Dietrich spoke in opposition to certain aspects of the petition on behalf of the State Bar of Wisconsin Board of Governors. Keith Sellen, Director, Office of Lawyer Regulation, also presented testimony to the court. At an ensuing closed administrative rules conference, the court discussed the petition at some length and voted to grant the petition in part. The court voted to grant sections 2, 7, 8, and 9 (pertaining to special investigators), sections 4 and 5 (pertaining to consensual reprimands), section 6 (pertaining to suspension for noncooperation during the investigative process), and section 10 (pertaining to SCR 22.25). The court voted to hold in abeyance its decision on sections 1 and 3 (pertaining to elimination of District Committees) pending further consideration. Mindful that several other rule petitions proposing amendments to the OLR rules are pending, the court will hold issuance of the order delineating the specific rule changes in abeyance pending its consideration of the other pending OLR Procedure Review Committee's rule petitions. At that time, the court will issue a final order reflecting all the changes. In the interim, a marked version of SCRs chs. 10, 21, 22, and 31, reflecting the rule changes approved to date is available on the court's website at https://www.wicourts.gov/scrules/pending.htm. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that effective July 1, 2020, rule petition 19-08, In the Matter for an Order Amending Supreme Court Rules 22.02(2)(d), 22.25(3) and (4)(intro), and 22.26, Repealing Supreme Court Rules 21.01(1)(b) and 21.06, Repealing and Recreating Supreme Court Rule 22.03(4), and Creating Supreme Court Rules 21.01(1)(bg), 22.02(6)(d), No. 19-08 3 and 22.25(3m) (OLR Process) is granted in part, subject to issuance of a further order by this court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court's final order setting forth changes to SCRs chs. 10, 20, 21, 22, and 31 is held in abeyance pending the court's resolution of the remaining Office of Lawyer Regulation Procedure Review Committee petitions. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 18th day of December, 2019. BY THE COURT: Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court
19-09 In the Matter of Creating Supreme Court Rule 22.185 and Amending Supreme Court Rules 22.24(1) and 22.38, Relating to the Charging Process in Attorney Disciplinary Proceedings (Enforcement of Orders)
On March 13, 2019, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) Procedure Review Committee ("Committee"), by its Chair, the Honorable Gerald P. Ptacek, and by Attorney Paul Schwarzenbart, Chair of the Subcommittee on Charging Process, filed a rule petition asking the court to create a new rule, Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.185, to provide a mechanism for the enforcement of disciplinary orders.
On March 13, 2019, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) Procedure Review Committee ("Committee"), by its Chair, the Honorable Gerald P. Ptacek, and by Attorney Paul Schwarzenbart, Chair of the Subcommittee on Charging Process, filed a rule petition asking the court to create a new rule, Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.185, to provide a mechanism for the enforcement of disciplinary orders. The court discussed the petition at a closed administrative rules conference on June 6, 2019, and voted to seek written comments and conduct a public hearing. A letter soliciting comment was sent to interested persons on August 22, 2019. The court received one written response from Attorney Dean R. Dietrich, on behalf of the State Bar of Wisconsin Board of Governors, supporting the petition. The court conducted a public hearing on October 29, 2019. The Honorable Gerald P. Ptacek, Chair of the Committee, and Attorney Paul Schwarzenbart, Chair of the Subcommittee on Charging Process, presented the petition to the court. Attorney Dean R. Dietrich spoke in support of the petition on behalf of the State Bar of Wisconsin. No. 19-09 2 At an ensuing closed administrative rules conference, the court voted to grant the petition. Mindful that several other rule petitions proposing amendments to the OLR rules are pending, the court will hold issuance of a final order delineating the specific rule changes in abeyance pending its consideration of the other pending OLR Procedure Review Committee's rule petitions. At that time, the court will issue a final order reflecting all the changes. In the interim, a marked version of SCRs chs. 10, 21, 22, and 31, reflecting the rule changes approved to date is available on the court's website at https://www.wicourts.gov/scrules/pending.htm. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that effective July 1, 2020, rule petition 19-09, In the Matter of Creating Supreme Court Rule 22.185 and Amending Supreme Court Rules 22.24(1) and 22.38, Relating to the Charging Process in Attorney Disciplinary Proceedings (Enforcement of Orders) is granted, subject to issuance of a further order by this court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court's final order setting forth changes to SCRs chs. 10, 20, 21, 22, and 31 is held in abeyance pending the court's resolution of the remaining Office of Lawyer Regulation Procedure Review Committee petitions. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 18th day of December, 2019. BY THE COURT: Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court
19-10 In the Matter of Amending Supreme Court Rules Pertaining to Permanent Revocation of a License to Practice Law in Attorney Disciplinary Proceedings (Permanent Revocation)
On March 13, 2019, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) Procedure Review Committee ("Committee"), by its Chair, the Honorable Gerald P. Ptacek, and by Attorney Jacquelynn B. Rothstein, Chair of the Subcommittee on Reinstatement, filed a rule petition asking the court to amend Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 21.16(1m)(a) and SCR 22.29(2) to permit the court to order permanent revocation of an attorney's license to practice law.
Disposition: Not adopted, but will be published and may be consulted for guidance in interpreting and applying the rule.
On March 13, 2019, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) Procedure Review Committee ("Committee"), by its Chair, the Honorable Gerald P. Ptacek, and by Attorney Jacquelynn B. Rothstein, Chair of the Subcommittee on Reinstatement, filed a rule petition asking the court to amend Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 21.16(1m)(a) and SCR 22.29(2) to permit the court to order permanent revocation of an attorney's license to practice law. The court discussed the petition at a closed administrative rules conference on June 6, 2019, and voted to seek written comments and conduct a public hearing. A letter soliciting comment was sent to interested persons on August 22, 2019. The court received a written response in regard to the proposed rule changes from Attorney Dean R. Dietrich, on behalf of the State Bar of Wisconsin Board of Governors, opposing the petition. No. 19-10 2 The court conducted a public hearing on October 29, 2019. The Honorable Gerald P. Ptacek, Chair of the Committee, and Attorney Jacquelynn B. Rothstein, Chair of the Subcommittee on Reinstatement, presented the petition to the court. Attorney Dean R. Dietrich spoke against the petition on behalf of the State Bar of Wisconsin. Keith Sellen, Director, Office of Lawyer Regulation, responded to questions from the court but stated that the OLR took no position on this petition. After the public hearing, the court received a letter from Attorney Donald J. Christl in support of the petition, and a letter from Attorney Stephen E. Kravit opposing the petition. At a closed administrative rules conference, the court voted to add a comment to SCR 21.16 (Discipline) to clarify that revocation under SCR 21.16 is not permanent in Wisconsin. The court then voted to deny the petition. IT IS ORDERED that effective July 1, 2020 a Comment to Supreme Court Rule 21.16 is created to read: A lawyer whose license to practice law in Wisconsin is revoked under SCR 21.16 may seek reinstatement under SCR 22.29, five years after the effective date of the revocation. See SCR 22.29(2). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Comment to Supreme Court Rule 21.16 is not adopted, but will be published and may be consulted for guidance in interpreting and applying the rule. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petition to amend Supreme Court Rule 21.16(1m)(a) and Supreme Court Rule 22.29(2) to permit the court to order permanent revocation of an attorney's license to practice law is denied. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 18th day of December, 2019. No. 19-10 3 BY THE COURT: Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court
19-11 In the Matter for an Order Creating Supreme Court Rules 22.02(6)(d), 22.05(1)(e), and 22.11(2)(b) and (c), Repealing Supreme Court Rule 22.10(7)(b) and (c), Amending Supreme Court Rules 22.02(4) and (6)(a), 22.05(2), and 22.10(4) and Renumbering and
On March 13, 2019, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) Procedure Review Committee ("Committee"), by its Chair, the Honorable Gerald P. Ptacek, and by Attorney Paul Schwarzenbart, Chair of the Subcommittee on Charging Process, filed a rule petition asking the court to modify its rules to improve communications between the OLR and grievants, streamline the procedures applicable to consent reprimands, and to alleged breaches of a diversion agreement.
Disposition: Granted, subject to issuance of a further order by this court.
On March 13, 2019, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) Procedure Review Committee ("Committee"), by its Chair, the Honorable Gerald P. Ptacek, and by Attorney Paul Schwarzenbart, Chair of the Subcommittee on Charging Process, filed a rule petition asking the court to modify its rules to improve communications between the OLR and grievants, streamline the procedures applicable to consent reprimands, and to alleged breaches of a diversion agreement. The court voted to seek written comments and conduct a public hearing. A letter soliciting comment was sent to interested persons on September 30, 2019. The court received one written response from Attorney Dean R. Dietrich, on behalf of the State Bar of Wisconsin Board of Governors, supporting the petition. The court conducted a public hearing on December 9, 2019. Attorney Paul Schwarzenbart, Chair of the Subcommittee on Charging Process, presented the petition to the court. Keith Sellen, Director, Office of Lawyer Regulation, responded to certain questions raised by the court. Attorney Dean R. Dietrich, on behalf of the State Bar of Wisconsin Board No. 19-11 2 of Governors, and the Honorable Gerald P. Ptacek, Chair of the Committee, both spoke in support of the petition. At an ensuing closed administrative rules conference, the court voted to grant the petition. The petition will amend Supreme Court Rules (SCR) 22.02, 22.05, 22.10, and 22.11. Mindful that several other rule petitions proposing amendments to the OLR rules are pending, the court will hold issuance of a final order delineating the specific rule changes in abeyance pending its consideration of the other pending OLR Procedure Review Committee's rule petitions. At that time, the court will issue a final order reflecting all the changes. In the interim, a marked version of SCRs chs. 10, 20, 21, 22, and 31, reflecting the rule changes approved to date is available on the court's website at https://www.wicourts.gov/ scrules/pending.htm. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that effective July 1, 2020, rule petition 19-11, In the Matter for an Order Creating Supreme Court Rules 22.02(6)(d), 22.05(1)(e), and 22.11(2)(b) and (c), Repealing Supreme Court Rule 22.10(7)(b) and (c), Amending Supreme Court Rules 22.02(4) and (6)(a), 22.05(2), and 22.10(4) and Renumbering and Amending Supreme Court Rules 22.10(7)(a) and 22.11(2) (OLR Charging) is granted, subject to issuance of a further order by this court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court's final order setting forth changes to SCRs chs. 10, 20, 21, 22, and 31 is held in abeyance pending the court's resolution of the remaining Office of Lawyer Regulation Procedure Review Committee petitions. No. 19-11 3 Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 18th day of December, 2019. BY THE COURT: Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court
19-12 In the Matter of the Petition of the OLR Process Review Committee's for an Order Amending Supreme Court Rules 20:1.8(h)(3) and 20:8.3 (Reporting Misconduct)
On March 13, 2019, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) Procedure Review Committee ("Committee"), by its Chair, the Honorable Gerald P. Ptacek filed a rule petition asking the court to modify its ethics rules, specifically Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 20:1.8(h)(3) and SCR 20:8.3 and related comments, to encourage greater reporting of professional misconduct by lawyers.
Disposition: Granted in part and denied in part, subject to issuance of a further order by this court.
On March 13, 2019, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) Procedure Review Committee ("Committee"), by its Chair, the Honorable Gerald P. Ptacek filed a rule petition asking the court to modify its ethics rules, specifically Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 20:1.8(h)(3) and SCR 20:8.3 and related comments, to encourage greater reporting of professional misconduct by lawyers. The court voted to seek written comments and conduct a public hearing. A letter soliciting comment was sent to interested persons on September 30, 2019. The court received one written response from Attorney Dean R. Dietrich, on behalf of the State Bar of Wisconsin Board of Governors, supporting section 1 of the petition and opposing section 2 of the petition. The court conducted a public hearing on December 9, 2019. Attorney Michael Apfeld presented the petition to the court. The Honorable Gerald P. Ptacek, Chair of the Committee, spoke in support of the petition. Attorney Dean R. Dietrich, on behalf of the State Bar of Wisconsin Board of Governors, spoke in opposition to the proposed modification of SCR 20:8.3. At an ensuing closed administrative rules No. 19-12 2 conference, the court voted to grant the petition in part. The court agreed to amend SCR 20:1.8(h)(3) and the related comment. The court declined to amend the standard for reporting misconduct in SCR 20:8.3 but opted to add certain language to the accompanying comment to clarify the rule. Mindful that several other rule petitions proposing amendments to the OLR rules are pending, the court will hold issuance of a final order delineating the specific rule changes in abeyance pending its consideration of the other pending OLR Procedure Review Committee's rule petitions. At that time, the court will issue a final order reflecting all the changes. In the interim, a marked version of SCR ch. 20, reflecting the rule changes approved in this rule matter, is available on the court's website at https://www.wicourts.gov/ scrules/pending.htm. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that effective July 1, 2020, rule petition 19-12, In the Matter of the Petition of the OLR Process Review Committee's for an Order Amending Supreme Court Rules 20:1.8(h)(3) and 20:8.3 (Reporting Misconduct) is granted in part and denied in part, subject to issuance of a further order by this court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court's final order setting forth changes to SCR ch. 20 is held in abeyance pending the court's resolution of the remaining Office of Lawyer Regulation Procedure Review Committee petitions. No. 19-12 3 Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 18th day of December, 2019. BY THE COURT: Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court
19-18 In the Matter of the Petition to Amend Supreme Court Rule 10.05(4)(m)1. (LRIS)
On June 25, 2019, the State Bar of Wisconsin, by then President Christopher Earl Rogers, filed a rule petition asking the court to amend Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 10.05(4)(m)1. The proposed amendment would add the State Bar's lawyer referral assistance program (known as LRIS) to the list of assistance programs that are currently specified in the rule.
Order Issued: December 10, 2019
On June 25, 2019, the State Bar of Wisconsin, by then President Christopher Earl Rogers, filed a rule petition asking the court to amend Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 10.05(4)(m)1. The proposed amendment would add the State Bar's lawyer referral assistance program (known as LRIS) to the list of assistance programs that are currently specified in the rule. This court discussed this petition at a closed administrative rules conference on September 12, 2019 and voted to solicit written comments. On September 26, 2019, a letter was sent to interested persons seeking input. No comments were received. On December 9, 2019 the court discussed the petition and voted to approve the petition. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that effective the date of this order: Supreme Court Rule 10.05(4)(m)1. is amended to read: No. 19-18 2 (m)1. Establishment. The board of governors may provide assistance programs, including, but not limited to assistance in for lawyers with questions regarding law office management; and assistance to for judges, lawyers, law students, and their families in coping with alcoholism and other addictions, mental illness, physical disability, and other problems related to or affecting the practice of law; and assistance for both lawyers and the public regarding lawyer referrals. The board may establish committees, hire staff, and obtain volunteers as reasonably necessary to provide assistance. The board shall establish policies consistent with the purposes of the state bar and in furtherance of the public interest in the competence and integrity of the legal profession. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that notice of the above amendments be given by a single publication of a copy of this order in the official publications designated in SCR 80.01, including the official publishers' online databases, and on the Wisconsin court system's web site. The State Bar of Wisconsin shall provide notice of this order. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin, this 10th day of December, 2019. BY THE COURT: Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court
RESOLVED, that State Bar Bylaw Article III, be amended as follows: Article 3, Section 5: Section 5. Mailing Distribution of Ballots. On or before the second Friday of April in each year the Executive Director or his designee shall prepare and maildistribute the required ballots to each active member of the State Bar entitled to vote at the annual election. Ballots may be distributed by electronic or regular mail.
Order Issued: February 15, 2019
Disposition: Bylaw amendment approved by Board of Governors
Certificate of Bylaw Amendment I, Larry J. Martin, the Executive Director of the State Bar of Wisconsin, do hereby certify that the following bylaw amendment resolutions were duly voted on by the Board of Governors on February 15, 2019, and were approved by a greater than two-thirds vote. _______________________________________ Larry J. Martin RESOLVED, that State Bar Bylaw Article III, be amended as follows: Article 3, Section 5: Section 5. Mailing Distribution of Ballots. On or before the second Friday of April in each year the Executive Director or his designee shall prepare and maildistribute the required ballots to each active member of the State Bar entitled to vote at the annual election. Ballots may be distributed by electronic or regular mail. One form of ballot sent to persons entitled to vote in each State Bar District shall contain the names of the nominees for the several offices of the State Bar to be filled at the annual election, and a separate form of ballot shall contain the names of the nominees for the Office of Governor from such district. If any such person entitled to vote in such election fails to receive his or her ballots, or if it appears that any such ballot has been lost or destroyed, a new ballot shall be furnished to the person. by the Executive Director. TheTwelve noon on the fourth Friday of April in each year shall be the last day and time for voting in such election and no ballots received after that date and time shall be counted. Article 3, Section 6: Section 6. Voting of Ballots. No ballot shall be counted unless returned to the Office of the Executive Director of the Association on or before the last day and time for voting, in an envelope furnished by the Executive Director marked “Ballot.” or in the manner designated by the electronic ballot provider. Article 3, Section 7: Section 7. Checking and Custody of Ballots. The Executive Director or his designee shall receive and have custody of the ballots after they are voted until they are canvassed. All such ballots shall be segregated as to State Bar districts from which they are received. The envelope containing the ballots and shall be retained remain unopened until turned over to the certified public accountant for canvass canvassed. Article 3, Section 8: Section 8. Canvass of Ballots. The ballots shall be canvassed by a certified public accountant an independent entity selected by the Executive Committee. The candidate receiving the highest number of votes for each office shall be declared elected. In case of a tie vote the Executive Committee shall determine the successful candidate by lot drawn by the Committee. The certified public accountant independent entity shall certify the results to the Executive Director, who shall forthwith notify the candidates and announce the results. Upon completion of the canvass, the certified public accountant independent entity shall retain the ballots subject to be allowed to destroy all completed and blank ballots in the possession of the independent entity on or after August 1 unless notified otherwise by the further order of the Board of Governors.