Title: State v. Nielsen
Citation: 2011 WI 94
Docket Number: 2010AP000387-CR
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: November 1, 2011

2011 WI 94 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2010AP387-CR 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In the matter of sanctions imposed in 
State v. Gregory K. Nielsen: 
 
State of Wisconsin, 
          Plaintiff-Respondent, 
State of Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 
          Respondent, 
     v. 
Gregory K. Nielsen, 
          Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
November 1, 2011   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
October 6, 2011 
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Court of Appeals, District II 
 
COUNTY: 
 
 
JUDGE: 
 
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
   
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the defendant-appellant-petitioner there were briefs 
and oral argument by Joseph N. Ehmann, assistant state public 
defender.  
 
For the respondent there was a brief and oral argument by 
Beth Ermatinger Hanan, with whom on the brief was Gass Weber 
Mullins LLC, Milwaukee. 
 
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Robert R. Henak,  
Rebecca R. Lawnicki and Henak Law Office, S.C., Milwaukee, on 
behalf of the Wisconsin Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. 
 
 
 
2
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Anne Berleman Kearney, 
Appellate Consulting Group, Milwaukee, G. Michael Halfenger, 
Foley & Lardner LLP, Milwaukee, Thomas M. Hruz, Meissner Tierney 
Fisher & Nichols S.C., Milwaukee, and Todd G. Smith, Godfrey & 
Kahn S.C., Madison, and oral argument by Thomas M. Hruz on 
behalf of the Appellate Practice Section of the State Bar of 
Wisconsin. 
 
 
2011 WI 94
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2010AP387-CR 
(L.C. No. 
2008CF982) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In the matter of sanctions imposed in 
 
State v. Gregory K. Nielsen: 
 
 
 
State of Wisconsin, 
 
          Plaintiff-Respondent, 
 
State of Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 
 
          Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Gregory K. Nielsen, 
 
          Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. 
 
 
 
FILED 
 
NOV 1, 2011 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of Supreme 
Court 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a part of an order of the Court of Appeals.  
Remanded with directions.   
 
No. 
2010AP387-CR   
 
2 
 
¶1 
SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J.   This is a review of an 
unpublished opinion and order of the court of appeals.1   
¶2 
The Office of the State Public Defender seeks review 
of part of an order2 and footnote 2 in the unpublished opinion 
and order of the court of appeals.  In this footnote the court 
of appeals imposed a sanction of $150 on the Office of the State 
Public Defender after finding that the appendix to the Assistant 
State Public Defender's brief was deficient and the attorney's 
certification of the appendix was "false."  The footnote, in its 
entirety, reads as follows: 
Notably the appellant's appendix includes only a 
select portion of the sentencing court's pronouncement 
and excludes that portion where the court discussed 
these aspects of Nielsen's character.  The appellant's 
brief contains the required certification by staff 
counsel from the Office of the State Public Defender 
that the appendix contains the "portions of the record 
essential to an understanding of the issues raised, 
including oral or written rulings or decisions showing 
the circuit court's reasoning regarding those issues." 
See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.19(2)(a).  By omission of the 
entirety of [the] sentencing court's remarks, the 
certification is false.  The false certification and 
omission of essential record documents in the appendix 
                                                 
1 State v. Nielsen, No. 2010AP387-CR, unpublished slip op. & 
order (Wis. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2010).   
The defendant, Gregory K. Nielsen, the appellant in the 
court of appeals, does not seek review of that part of the 
opinion and order of the court of appeals affirming the judgment 
of his conviction and the order denying his post-conviction 
motion for resentencing. 
2 At the conclusion of its unpublished opinion, the court of 
appeals ordered "that for a violation of Wis. Stat. Rule 
809.19(2)(a), the Office of the State Public Defender shall pay 
a $150 penalty within thirty days of the date of this decision."  
No. 
2010AP387-CR   
 
3 
 
places an unwarranted burden on the court and is 
grounds for imposition of a penalty.  State v. Bons, 
2007 WI App 124, ¶25, 301 Wis. 2d 227, 731 N.W.2d 376; 
see also Rule 809.83(2).  Accordingly, we sanction the 
Office of the State Public Defender and direct the 
payment of $150 to the clerk of this court within 
thirty days of the release of this opinion.3 
¶3 
Today's dispute centering on footnote 2 arose in the 
midst of Nielsen's challenge to the sentence the circuit court 
imposed on him.  Nielsen's argument in the court of appeals was 
that the circuit court's rationale for the sentence did not 
satisfy the requirements of State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, 270 
Wis. 2d 535, 678 N.W.2d 197. 
¶4 
The possibility of sanctions for violations of the 
rules governing the content of an appendix is not limited to 
criminal cases or to the Public Defender.  This issue affects 
civil cases as well as criminal cases, and prosecutors as well 
as defense counsel.4 
¶5 
Considering the interests of the court of appeals, the 
interests of counsel, the interests of litigants, and the 
                                                 
3 Nielsen, No. 2010AP387-CR, ¶4 n.2.   
We note that the court of appeals may have created a risk 
of confusion when it wrote: "By omission of the entirety of 
[the] sentencing court's remarks, the certification is false."  
Nielsen, No. 2010AP387-CR, ¶4 n.2 (emphasis added).  Wisconsin 
Stat. § (Rule) 809.19(2)(a) does not require the entirety of the 
sentencing court's remarks, unless, in a particular case, the 
entirety is "essential."  
4 The Appellate Practice Section of the State Bar of 
Wisconsin filed a non-party brief and participated in oral 
argument in support of the Public Defender.  The Wisconsin 
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers also filed a non-party 
brief in support of the Public Defender. 
No. 
2010AP387-CR   
 
4 
 
effective and efficient administration of justice, we suggest 
that hereafter when the court of appeals is considering imposing 
a sanction on an attorney for filing a brief with a deficient 
appendix, an order should be issued (separate from the court's 
opinion on the merits of the appeal) directing counsel to show 
cause why a violation of the rules governing appendix content 
and certification, Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.19(2)(a) and (b) 
(2009-10),5 should not be found and why the attorney should not 
pay a stated amount of money to the clerk of the court of 
appeals as a sanction for failing to include in the appendix 
portions of the record that may have been essential to an 
understanding of the issue on appeal and for filing an incorrect 
certification.  The order to show cause should also state that 
alternatively, the attorney may pay the amount of money set in 
the order within 30 days of the order without showing cause why 
the attorney should not be relieved of this obligation.6 
¶6 
We put this suggestion in context by setting forth the 
rules governing the content and certification of an appellant's 
appendix and then by discussing the interests of the parties and 
                                                 
5 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 
the 2009-10 version unless otherwise specified. 
6 Sanctions for violations of a rule in chapter 809 are set 
forth in Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.83(2) as follows: "Failure of a 
person 
to 
comply . . . with 
a 
requirement 
of 
these 
rules . . . is grounds for dismissal of the appeal, summary 
reversal, striking of a paper, imposition of a penalty or costs 
on a party or counsel, or other action as the court considers 
appropriate." 
No. 
2010AP387-CR   
 
5 
 
how they relate to the effective administration of the judicial 
system.  
¶7 
Wisconsin Stat. (Rule) § 809.19(2)(a) and (b) are the 
focus of this review.  Subsection (2)(a) governs the contents of 
the appellant's appendix.  Subsection (2)(b) governs the 
appellant attorney's certification:   
Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.19(2) Appendix. 
(a) 
Contents.  The appellant's brief shall include a 
short appendix containing, at a minimum, the 
findings or opinion of the circuit court, limited 
portions 
of 
the 
record 
essential 
to 
an 
understanding of the issues raised, including 
oral or written rulings or decisions showing the 
circuit court's reasoning regarding those issues, 
and a copy of any unpublished opinion cited under 
s. 809.23(3)(a) or (b).  If the appeal is taken 
from a circuit court order or judgment entered in 
a judicial review of an administrative decision, 
the appendix shall also contain the findings of 
fact and conclusions of law, if any, and final 
decision of the administrative agency.  The 
appendix shall contain a table of contents.  If 
the record is required by law to be confidential, 
the portions of the record included in the 
appendix shall be reproduced using first names 
and last initials instead of full names of 
persons, specifically including juveniles and 
parents of juveniles, with a notation that the 
portions of the record have been so reproduced to 
preserve confidentiality and with appropriate 
references to the record. 
(b) 
Certification. 
An 
appellant's 
counsel 
shall 
append to the appendix a signed certification 
that the appendix meets the content requirements 
in par. (a) in the following form: 
I hereby certify that filed with this brief, 
either as a separate document or as a part of 
this brief, is an appendix that complies with s. 
809.19(2)(a) and that contains, at a minimum: (1) 
No. 
2010AP387-CR   
 
6 
 
a table of contents; (2) the findings or opinion 
of 
the 
circuit 
court; 
(3) 
a 
copy 
of 
any 
unpublished opinion cited under s. 809.23(3)(a) 
or (b); and (4) portions of the record essential 
to 
an 
understanding 
of 
the 
issues 
raised, 
including oral or written rulings or decisions 
showing the circuit court's reasoning regarding 
those issues. 
I further certify that if this appeal is taken 
from a circuit court order or judgment entered in 
a judicial review of an administrative decision, 
the appendix contains the findings of fact and 
conclusions of law, if any, and final decision of 
the administrative agency. 
I further certify that if the record is required 
by law to be confidential, the portions of the 
record included in the appendix are reproduced 
using first names and last initials instead of 
full names of persons, specifically including 
juveniles 
and parents of juveniles, with a 
notation that the portions of the record have 
been so reproduced to preserve confidentiality 
and with appropriate references to the record.  
Signed: .... 
Signature 
¶8 
The rules governing the contents of appendices have 
changed over the years.7  What has not changed, however, is the 
                                                 
7 For a former version of the rule governing the contents of 
briefs, see Milwaukee Cold Storage Co. v. Dexter, 99 Wis. 214, 
230-31, 74 N.W. 976 (1898).  See also Wis. Stat. § 251.34(5)(c) 
(1961). 
With regard to enforcement of a prior rule, Justice Marvin 
Rosenberry wrote that the rule  
was difficult of enforcement because it was general in 
character.  The result was that in many appeals the 
entire record was printed, including notices of trial, 
summonses, affidavits used on motions, and a mass of 
inconsequential material.  The present rule is also 
general.  However, the revised rule does away with the 
No. 
2010AP387-CR   
 
7 
 
notion that the purpose of the appendix is to aid an appellate 
court and opposing counsel in understanding the appeal.8  The 
courts have long emphasized the importance of the appendix.  In 
1955, the supreme court described the importance of the contents 
of an appendix as follows:  
The volume of work to be done by this court does not 
leave time for the justices to search the original 
record for each one to discover, if he can, whether 
appellant should prevail. An appendix conforming to 
[the rules] makes readily available to each justice 
the matters which he must know if he is to give 
intelligent attention to the issues presented by the 
appeal. It is counsel's duty to the court as well as 
to his client to furnish it . . . .9  
                                                                                                                                                             
printed case and provides for an appendix in its 
stead.  Conformity to the rules relating to the 
appendix will do away with much of the unnecessary 
printing on appeals.   
Marvin B. Rosenberry, Briefs on Appeal in Wisconsin, 1943 
Wis. L. Rev. 5, 8-9.   
The rules governing the content of appendices have been 
revised since 1943, but Justice Rosenberry's words apply to the 
current version as well as to the version he was discussing.     
8 Reserve Supply Co. v. Viner, 9 Wis. 2d 530, 534, 101 
N.W.2d 530 (1960) ("An insufficient appendix deprives opposing 
counsel 
and 
the 
court 
of 
a 
much-needed 
aid 
in 
their 
consideration of the appellant's contentions."). 
9 Peterson Cutting Die Co. v. Bach Sales Co., 269 Wis. 113, 
118, 68 N.W.2d 804 (1955), quoted with approval in Dutcher v. 
Phoenix Ins. Co., 37 Wis. 2d 591, 610, 155 N.W.2d 609 (1968). 
See also Lindahl v. Lindahl, 19 Wis. 2d 379, 384, 120 N.W.2d 142 
(1963) ("The purpose of this rule is to enable us in the limited 
time available to give due consideration to all the cases 
presented to us." (citing Dziengel v. Dziengel, 269 Wis. 591, 70 
N.W.2d 21 (1955)). 
No. 
2010AP387-CR   
 
8 
 
¶9 
These words apply with equal force to the court of 
appeals today.  We fully appreciate the usefulness of appendices 
and understand how frustrating it is for members of an appellate 
court to study a brief with a deficient appendix.    
¶10 Wisconsin Stat. § (Rule) 809.19(2)(a) was proposed by 
the Judicial Council and was adopted by the supreme court in 
1978 upon the establishment of the court of appeals. This 
provision governing the contents of appellant's appendix in the 
court of appeals remains the same to this date.  
¶11 As the Judicial Council Committee's Note explains, 
subsection (2)(a) adopted the system for appendices used by the 
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and 
replaced the former rule, which had required attorneys to 
provide a narrative explanation of trial testimony.  The 
Judicial Council Committee's Note explains that under these new 
rules the appendix becomes "a very abbreviated document with 
only those items absolutely essential to an understanding of the 
case," "a useful tool to the members of the court."10   
¶12 Then Judge (now Chief Judge) Richard Brown of the 
court of appeals aptly expressed the purpose of the appellant's 
appendix as an important tool for appellate decision making as 
follows in a 2007 court of appeals decision: 
[T]his court has a very high caseload.  In our 
struggle to keep up and make sure cases do not lag, we 
take our work home or on the road with us while the 
                                                 
10 Judicial Council Committee's Note, 1978, Wis. Stat. 
§ (Rule) 809.19; see also In re Rules of Appellate Procedure, 83 
Wis. 2d xiii, xxix (1978).   
No. 
2010AP387-CR   
 
9 
 
file itself remains at the court.  The briefs are all 
we 
have 
when 
we 
are 
operating 
under 
these 
circumstances.  It is exasperating, to say the least, 
to read a brief and not be able to see for ourselves 
how the trial court dealt with an issue before us on 
appeal.  We have to wait until we are back at court to 
dig out the file and search for the parts of the 
record that are pertinent.  And that goes for all 
three 
judges 
on 
a 
panel. 
 
The 
good 
appellate 
litigators, and there are many, provide us with the 
information we need so that we can do our work in an 
efficient manner.  How hard can it be for all 
attorneys writing a brief to do the same?11 
 
¶13 The court of appeals rests its practice of imposing a 
sanction for failure of appellant's counsel to comply with Wis. 
Stat. 
§ (Rule) 
809.19(2)(a) 
on 
the 
simple——and 
correct——
assertion that an appendix that complies with the rule is an 
invaluable resource.  Even when working in chambers, it is 
tremendously helpful for an appellate judge to rely, at least 
initially, on an appendix to understand a case.  A record may 
consist of boxes upon boxes of transcript pages and exhibits.  
Consulting a record is not a trivial task.12    
¶14 Wisconsin 
Stat. 
§ (Rule) 
809.19(2)(a) 
presents 
a 
contextually dependent standard for appendices, not a bright-
line rule.  The court of appeals is very capable, and has been 
very capable, of enforcing the standard in Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 
809.19(2)(a) consistently and predictably.  The words "short," 
                                                 
11 State v. Bons, 2007 WI App 124, ¶28, 301 Wis. 2d 227, 731 
N.W.2d 326 (2007) (Brown, J., concurring).
12 Bons, 301 Wis. 2d 227, ¶27 (Brown, J., concurring) ("When 
an appendix fails to provide the circuit court's rationale, our 
full understanding of the case is put on hold until we can 
ferret it out in the record."). 
No. 
2010AP387-CR   
 
10 
 
"limited," and "essential" do not apply exactly the same way 
from case to case, but applying a standard to a set of facts is 
a central component of a court's job; it is what courts do all 
the time and are well equipped to do.  Some components of a 
record will certainly fall into a gray area in some cases, but 
that there is a gray area does not mean the rule is flawed. 
¶15 Because of the value of an appendix that comports with 
Wis. Stat. § 809.19(2)(a), the large number of appeals filed in 
the court of appeals, and the need for increased compliance with 
the rule governing the contents of an appendix, in 2004 the 
chief judge of the court of appeals filed a petition with the 
supreme court to require certification of compliance with Wis. 
Stat. § (Rule) 809.19(2)(a), in the belief that "a certification 
requirement, similar to the form and length certification 
required by Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.19(8)(d) will result in 
increased 
compliance 
with 
renumbered 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ (Rule) 
809.19(2)(a) and improve the quality of appendices that are 
filed with the court."13   
¶16 In 2005 the supreme court adopted Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 
809.19(2)(b) requiring appellant's counsel to certify that the 
appendix complies with Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.19(2)(a).  As the 
court of appeals explains in its brief before this court:  "The 
certification rule functions as a 'double-check' so that the 
                                                 
13 In the Matter of the Proposed Amendment to Wis. Stat. 
§ (Rule) 
809.19 
(Briefs 
and 
appendix) 
Relating 
to 
the 
Certification of Compliance with Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.19(2), 
283 Wis. 2d xix, xx (Comment) (2005). 
No. 
2010AP387-CR   
 
11 
 
signing lawyer will satisfy him- or herself that the appendix is 
complete, and not merely rely on colleagues or staff to make 
that assessment.  The court of appeals is entitled to, and does, 
rely on that certification."14  We agree with the court of 
appeals about the importance of the appellant's appendix and the 
value of a certification.  
¶17 With that summary of the background of Wis. Stat. 
§ (Rule) 809.19(2)(a) and (b), we explain what matters we do not 
address.  We do not address the validity of Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 
809.19(2).  We do not address the correctness of the court of 
appeals' findings in footnote 2 or the imposition of the 
sanction.  We do not address the obligations of a respondent to 
file a supplemental appendix when the appellant's appendix has 
failed to conform to Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.19(2)(a).15 
¶18 We do address the Public Defender's objection to the 
summary procedure used by the court of appeals in finding a 
violation of Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.19(2)(a), in declaring the 
certification false, and in imposing a monetary penalty, without 
giving 
notice 
to 
counsel 
and 
without 
giving 
counsel 
an 
opportunity to be heard in writing.   
¶19 Counsel in the Office of the State Public Defender and 
other counsel contend they have serious interests at stake when 
the court of appeals declares a violation of the rules governing 
                                                 
14 Brief of Respondent Wisconsin Court of Appeals at 6. 
15 "The respondent may file with his or her brief a 
supplemental appendix."  Wis. Stat. § 809.19(3)(b).  
No. 
2010AP387-CR   
 
12 
 
the contents of the appellant's brief and declares that a false 
certification has been filed.  Although the monetary sanctions 
are modest, they are not trivial.  And perhaps more importantly, 
publicly announcing that an attorney has violated Wis. Stat. 
§ (Rule) 809.19(2)(a) and has filed a "false" certification 
could have damaging reputational effects for the individual 
attorney involved.  The Public Defender asserts that it is 
unfair to call a certification "false," branding the attorney a 
liar, without notice to the attorney and giving the attorney an 
opportunity to be heard in writing. 
¶20 These damaging effects are inflicted, according to the 
Public Defender, when the perceived rule violation may really 
boil down to a good faith difference of opinion about how a 
standard, not a bright-line rule, applies to particular facts.  
The Public Defender argues that Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.19(2)(a) 
requires attorneys (and the court of appeals) to make judgment 
calls about what is a "short appendix," what are "limited 
portions of the record," and what parts of the proceedings are 
"essential to an understanding of the issues raised."   
¶21 According to the Public Defender, the present case 
provides a good example of the "subjective" and elastic nature 
of the rule.  To comply with Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.19(2)(a), 
the Assistant State Public Defender had to provide a "short" 
appendix with only "limited," "essential" portions of the 
record.  The attorney in the present case decided to provide 
three pages of the sentencing hearing transcript, which were 
arguably the most essential three pages, but it is certainly 
No. 
2010AP387-CR   
 
13 
 
also arguable that another five pages of the circuit court's 
remarks were required by the standards embodied in Wis. Stat. 
§ (Rule) 809.19(2)(a).16   
¶22 The 
Public 
Defender 
claims 
that 
its 
attorneys 
diligently and honestly attempt to comply with the rule 
governing the contents of appendices and that an attorney has 
now been labeled a liar (without an opportunity to be heard) 
because the court of appeals determined that the attorney filed 
a "false" certification.  
¶23 In contrast, the court of appeals correctly stresses 
its heavy work load and its reliance on appendices to do its 
important work.  It points out that most lawyers comply with the 
                                                 
16 The transcript of the sentencing hearing spanned 46 
pages.  Much of the hearing was devoted to statements by the 
victim's 
family, 
the 
defendant's 
family, 
the 
defendant's 
attorney, and the defendant.  The circuit court's statements 
leading up to and including the announcement of a sentence 
spanned eight transcript pages. 
The appendix did not include the first five pages of the 
circuit court's eight pages of remarks.  In these five pages, 
the circuit court briefly addressed the circumstances of the 
crime and observed that the defendant was not honest with police 
about whether he had been drinking on the night of the crime.  
The circuit court also noted that the defendant had historically 
been untruthful to agents while on probation.  Additionally, the 
circuit court briefly discussed the defendant's bipolar disorder 
and relationship with his parents.  
The appendix to Nielsen's court of appeals' brief included 
three pages of the circuit court's remarks.  These pages 
contained the circuit court's explicit discussion of the 
"factors that the Court is required to consider," including 
"protection 
of 
the 
community," 
"[p]unishment," 
"[r]ehabilitation," and "deterrence."  The pages also included 
the circuit court's pronouncement of a sentence. 
No. 
2010AP387-CR   
 
14 
 
rules governing the content of appendices and that the court is 
very careful in imposing sanctions.  In the vast majority of 
cases, attorneys provide appendices that the court of appeals 
finds satisfactory.  On only very few occasions has the court of 
appeals sanctioned lawyers for violation of Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 
809.19(2)(a).  The court of appeals' best approximation is that 
annually since 2005, such costs have been imposed in less than 
1% of the appeals where appendices are filed.17  No one disputes 
the court of appeals' statistics. 
¶24 The court of appeals asserts that its current process 
is adequate protection for counsel and serves the needs of the 
court.  The court of appeals correctly notes that its current 
practice of imposing a sanction allows counsel to seek review of 
the sanction.  The imposition of a monetary sanction allows a 
30-day period for payment, during which time counsel can seek 
reconsideration in the court of appeals under Wis. Stat. 
§ (Rule) 809.24 or can seek review in the supreme court by a 
petition for review under Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.62.18 
¶25 The Public Defender counters that the attorney has not 
had an opportunity to be heard before the court of appeals finds 
a violation and imposes a sanction.  The Public Defender further 
contends that neither a motion for reconsideration nor a petition 
for review in the supreme court is tailored for review of the 
                                                 
17 Brief of Respondent Wisconsin Court of Appeals at 6-7.  
18 On rare occasions, the court of appeals has given counsel 
only 14 days, but counsel for the court of appeals stated at 
oral argument that 30 days was more appropriate. 
No. 
2010AP387-CR   
 
15 
 
court of appeals' opinion and order.  We agree that the attorney 
is currently allowed only an after-the-fact opportunity to be 
heard, which, to some, may not appear to be meaningful. 
¶26 A motion for reconsideration and a petition for review 
are problematic because litigation about the content of the 
appendix and the sanctions imposed on counsel in the opinion and 
order remains attached to the merits of the case.  As we noted 
at the outset, this case no longer involves Gregory K. Nielsen.  
It has morphed into an altogether different dispute.  The two 
disputes——Nielsen's and counsel's——should be untethered from one 
another to avoid any risk of confusion or conflict.  If the 
court of appeals had granted Mr. Nielsen a new sentencing, the 
defense attorney would want to appeal the monetary sanction to 
this court, but the client would be expecting the litigation to 
move back to the circuit court. 
¶27 Although our synopses of some of the arguments might 
indicate that the Public Defender and the court of appeals 
appear to have adopted adversarial stances, they are not truly 
adversaries.  The Public Defender and the court of appeals agree 
about the importance of appendices.  The Public Defender asserts 
that its attorneys make sincere efforts to comply with Wis. 
Stat. § (Rule) 809.19(2)(a).   
¶28 The court of appeals and counsel share the common goal 
that justice be administered fairly and efficiently in the State 
of Wisconsin.  They agree that counsel should be treated fairly 
and that the time and energy of the court of appeals must be 
conserved.   
No. 
2010AP387-CR   
 
16 
 
¶29 The Public Defender and the court of appeals agree 
that fair rules regarding the appendix and compliance of counsel 
with the rules aid in achieving a just result in each case and 
in attaining the fair and efficient administration of the court 
system.  Counsel and the court of appeals are thus united in 
interest, yet both have reasonable concerns regarding the 
contents of the appendix and sanctions for violations of Wis. 
Stat. § (Rule) 809.19(2)(a).   
¶30 Both the court of appeals and the Public Defender 
recognize that a procedure other than the one used by the court 
of appeals in the present case exists in other jurisdictions for 
addressing violations of rules governing appendices.  The court 
of appeals diplomatically states that it is "prepared to assist 
this Court in assuring not only that Wisconsin courts continue 
to afford reasonable process, but also that adequate enforcement 
mechanisms remain."19   
¶31 We appreciate the court of appeals' working with 
counsel and this court to reach a resolution that respects the 
concerns that counsel and the court of appeals share and the 
interests of all involved.       
 
¶32 The significance of counsel's interests, especially 
counsel's reputational interests, makes us wary of the risk, 
however 
slight, 
that 
an 
attorney 
who 
acts 
diligently, 
reasonably, and in good faith might unfairly be labeled a liar.  
In 
an 
age 
of 
instantaneous 
transmission 
of 
information, 
                                                 
19 Brief of Respondent Wisconsin Court of Appeals at 3. 
No. 
2010AP387-CR   
 
17 
 
reputational damage may be inflicted the moment an opinion and 
order is released that contains an announcement that an attorney 
has filed a "false" certification.  Even if that opinion and 
order is later changed on a motion for reconsideration in the 
court of appeals or reversed by this court on a petition for 
review, this reputational damage may linger.  Under these 
circumstances one can understand why attorneys seek a forum in 
which to explain their decisions about the contents of an 
appendix before the label "false certification" is attached.  
¶33 We suggest that hereafter when the court of appeals is 
considering imposing a sanction on an attorney for filing a 
brief with a deficient appendix, an order to show cause should 
be issued directing counsel to explain why a violation of Wis. 
Stat. § (Rule) 809.19(2)(a) and (b) should not be found and why 
the attorney should not pay a stated amount of money to the 
clerk of the court of appeals as a sanction for failing to 
include in the appendix portions of the record that may have 
been essential to an understanding of the issue in the case and 
for filing a false certification.20  We also suggest that the 
order to show cause should state that alternatively, the 
attorney may pay the amount of money stated in the order within 
30 days of the date of the order without showing cause why the 
attorney should not be relieved of this obligation.   
                                                 
20 The court of appeals' specific concerns with the contents 
of the appendix should be set forth, as in footnote 2 in the 
present case. 
No. 
2010AP387-CR   
 
18 
 
¶34 An order to show cause procedure has several benefits.  
An order to show cause would give attorneys the opportunity to 
explain their conduct before the court of appeals reaches a 
final decision about any violation of the rules governing the 
content of an appendix.  An understanding of the attorney's 
position will better enable the court of appeals to gauge 
whether a violation has occurred and whether a sanction should 
be imposed. 
¶35 An order to show cause separate from the opinion on 
the merits of the underlying case allows attorneys to pursue and 
argue the dispute about the appendix without distracting from, 
delaying, or undermining the client's cause.       
 
¶36 Finally, and most importantly, this procedure will not 
interfere with the court of appeals' ability to effectively 
manage its high volume of cases.  Currently, aggrieved attorneys 
have the opportunity to file a motion for reconsideration with 
the court of appeals.  As best we can determine from the briefs 
and the oral argument, the time the court of appeals takes to 
issue and decide an order to show cause is no longer than the 
time it now takes the court of appeals to find a violation, 
order a sanction, and then address a motion for reconsideration.  
 
¶37 In sum, the order to show cause procedure seems 
sensible from all vantage points.  
¶38 No more work is required for the court of appeals to 
issue an order to show cause than to find a violation and impose 
a sanction.  The order to show cause will probably save the 
court of appeals from addressing motions for reconsideration.  
No. 
2010AP387-CR   
 
19 
 
¶39 Attorneys 
are given a meaningful opportunity to 
protect 
their 
professional 
reputation 
and 
avoid 
monetary 
sanctions.  Attorneys who truly deserve censure and sanction 
will still get their just deserts.   
¶40 By issuing an order to show cause separately from the 
opinion on the merits of the case, the court of appeals prevents 
the 
complication 
and 
confusion 
that 
could 
arise 
if 
two 
independent disputes that may be moving in opposite directions 
in the court system are connected to one another.  
¶41 The use of an order to show cause has support from 
other courts and in analogous contexts, although we acknowledge 
that historically we did not always see the value in the order 
to show cause procedure that we do today.21  In the same context 
as the present dispute, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals 
regularly issues orders to show cause when the panel believes a 
deficient appendix was filed.22  Additionally, the Wisconsin 
court of appeals recently issued an order to show cause before 
                                                 
21 In 1968, in Dutcher, 37 Wis. 2d at 610, this court, 
without issuing an order to show cause, summarily found that an 
appendix was deficient and imposed double costs, which was then 
an allowable penalty.  However, in another case that same year, 
Lisowski v. Chenenoff, 37 Wis. 2d 610, 632-33, 155 N.W.2d 619 
(1968), the court evidently gave an attorney an opportunity to 
explain the contents of his appendix before imposing a penalty. 
22 See, e.g., Kunz v. DeFelice, 538 F.3d 667, 682 (7th Cir. 
2008) (giving attorneys an opportunity "to show cause why they 
should not be fined or otherwise disciplined").   
No. 
2010AP387-CR   
 
20 
 
ordering sanctions to be paid for a violation of the rule 
governing the content of an appendix.23   
 
¶42 We cite these examples to demonstrate that an order to 
show cause is an oft-used procedure, well known to both the 
court of appeals and counsel.24   
¶43 We remand for the court of appeals to modify footnote 
2, which, as modified, might read as follows:  
We direct the attorney to show cause in writing why a 
violation of Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.19(2)(a) and (b) 
should not be found and why the attorney should not 
pay $150.00 to the clerk of the court of appeals as a 
sanction for failing to include in the appendix 
portions of the record that may have been essential to 
an understanding of the Gallion issue.  Notably the 
appellant's appendix includes only a select portion of 
the sentencing court's pronouncement and excludes that 
portion where the court discussed these aspects of 
Nielsen's character.  See State v. Bons, 2007 WI App 
124, 
¶¶25-26, 
301 
Wis. 2d 227, 
731 
N.W.2d 367 
(omitting essential record documents and filing a 
false certification places unwarranted burden on this 
                                                 
23 See State v. Neal, No. 2010AP986-CR, unpublished slip 
op., ¶18 n.2 (Wis. Ct. App. June 1, 2011) ("[W]e direct that 
[the attorney] shall, within thirty days of the date of this 
opinion, show cause to this court in writing why she should not 
pay $100 to the clerk of this court as a sanction for filing a 
false certification. . . . Counsel may alternatively pay the 
$100 sanction to the clerk of this court within thirty days of 
this opinion without showing cause why she should be relieved of 
the obligation."). 
24 The procedure proposed differs slightly from Kunz v. 
DeFelice and State v. Neal, cited above, in two ways.  First, 
the order is an order to show cause why a violation should not 
be found and why sanctions are not warranted, in contrast to 
finding the existence of a violation and issuing an order to 
show cause why sanctions should not follow.  Second, the order 
to show cause is issued as a separate order, rather than in the 
opinion on the merits of the underlying case.  
No. 
2010AP387-CR   
 
21 
 
court and constitutes grounds for monetary sanction).  
Alternatively, the attorney may pay the sanction of 
$150.00 within 30 days of this modification without 
showing cause why the attorney should not be relieved 
of this obligation.25   
 
¶44 Upon receiving a written response to the order to show 
cause, the court of appeals will be better able to assess 
whether Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.19(2)(a) was violated, and if 
so, whether the violation warrants a monetary sanction. 
 
¶45 For the reasons set forth, we remand the cause to the 
court of appeals for proceedings consistent with this opinion.   
By the Court.—The cause is remanded to the court of appeals 
with directions.  
                                                 
25 The court of appeals imposed the monetary penalty on the 
Office of the State Public Defender.  The issue of whether the 
attorney or the Office should be liable was not addressed by the 
parties, and we do not address it. 
No. 
2010AP387-CR   
 
 
 
1