Court Opinion

ID: 9809038
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:59:04.68761+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:24:10.637103
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.
¶ 55. (concurring). I join the per curiam. I write separately to point out that Attorney Winkel's comments about bifurcating the hearing to determine the merits of the violation apart from determining sanctions might be a subject of study for the Lawyer Regulation Committee that I am proposing.
¶ 56. On February 6, 2015, I filed rule petition 15-01 to create supreme court rules providing for a Lawyer Regulation Committee to review the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys (chapters 20 and 22 of the supreme court rules) and the organization, operation, and procedures of the lawyer discipline system, including the OLR, District Committees, Preliminary Review Committee, Referees, and Board of Administrative Oversight, and to create a Lawyer Regulation Review Committee. The court unanimously agreed to conduct a public hearing on this proposal in the fall of 2015. The subject of bifurcation can be a subject of study for the Lawyer Regulation Committee, if my rule petition is adopted.