Court Opinion

ID: 9853835
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:56:06.441031+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:10.075777
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J.

(concur
*264
ring).

*263¶ 37. *264I reluctantly join the per curiam. I find myself disagreeing with the governing rules and disagreeing with the result I am compelled to reach under the rules.
¶ 38. The applicant missed the time limitations set forth in our rules for admitting lawyers licensed in other states without having to sit for the Wisconsin bar examination. The applicant in the instant case appears to be a competent lawyer. The people of the state of Wisconsin are not placed in jeopardy by granting admission to this applicant because he was late. He can engage in corporate practice in Wisconsin without being a member of the bar. It seems formalistic, and not necessarily relevant to the issue of the applicant's competence and public protection, to hold the applicant to the time limits, thereby denying him admission to the Wisconsin bar, at least without a Wisconsin bar examination. But that's what time limits are— formalistic, bright lines and not necessarily relevant to the merits of the issue.
¶ 39. If the court makes an exception for this applicant it must, to be fair, make an exception for all late applicants. There's nothing special about this late application that distinguishes it from all others. If it turns out that the court does not want to adhere to its own rules, it must, in my opinion, forthrightly repeal the rules, not surreptitiously avoid or undercut them by making exceptions for some people and not for others similarly situated. Without a repeal of the rules, and because an exception is not an option, I reluctantly join the per curiam.
¶ 40. I am authorized to state that Justice LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR. joins this opinion.