Court Opinion

ID: 9664885
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:32:56.595971+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:10.993908
License: Public Domain

SCOTT, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the Court’s opinion and order for the sole purpose of resolving an issue that has consumed an inordinate amount of the Court’s time since my arrival in January of 2005. In so concurring, I speak for a majority of this Court.
SCR 3.652(8) clearly allows the Continuing Legal Education Commission to extend the time for completion and certification of the New Lawyers Skills Program upon application in the case of “hardship or other good cause clearly warranting relief.” This allowance of discretion, assumes the applications, hardships and/or *602other good cause will be evaluated by the Commission prior to a referral to this Court for sanctions under SCR 3.652(9). Under the scenario of the rule, we must then consider any showing of “good cause.”
In recent cases, we have been deferential to the request of the Commission for sanctions, even though the record presented has not established the Commission’s evaluation of the “hardship or other good cause” shown. For instance in this case, as shown by the record, Mr. Nemes was attending to court business, via a direct request by the Chief Justice of this Court. Thus, he was 30 minutes late for the afternoon session. Following the directions of the Chief Justice of this Court on this Court’s business, when one is general counsel to the Court, is Court business.
That having been said, deference to the request of the Commission for sanctions has again been extended, but in the hope that the Commission will, in the future, consider its discretion allotted under SCR 3.652(8) and, when presented, make recommendations to this Court in regards to the hardship, or other good cause pled to the Commission. We are a conclusory body; not an investigative one.
GRAVES, McANULTY, MINTON, and ROACH, JJ., join this concurring opinion.