E-mail            

The purposes of the State Bar of Wisconsin are stated in Supreme Court Rule 10.02(2). WisBar Watch is intended to provide information to assist readers, particularly members of the State Bar of Wisconsin, in judging whether and how well the Bar is fulfilling its purposes.

At the State Bar of Wisconsin website are its News Center, and online editions of the Wisconsin Lawyer magazine, the Newsletter, and the Capitol Update. There is also information on the activities of the Bar's Board of Governors, Committees, Divisions, and Sections. There are also special Reports and Surveys and the Bylaws.

On the legislative front,

The Assembly Judiciary Committee has scheduled a public hearing on the Product Liability Bill (Assembly Bill 101) on Thursday, March 17 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 328 NW of the Sate Capitol. The State Bar opposes this legislation as overreaching; rolling back 40 years of common law and severely limiting the right to recover damages.

The Board of Governors voted to retain counsel on the legality of the Supreme Court order that each bar member be assessed $50 per year to be paid to WisTAF. The WisTAF assessment is also the subject of President Behnke's February column.

The April election for State Bar offices will include three candidates for President-elect. The Nominating Committee selected Dean R. Dietrich and G. Jeffrey George, while Steve Levine was nominated by a petition of members. Levine's platform is unusual in opposing mandatory bar membership.

The latest minutes of the Diversity Committee currently posted on line are from its meeting of November 18, 2004. Among the topics of discussion was including gender and ethnicity in ethics programming.

The State Bar's Board of Governors has referred to its Executive Committee for further study a petition by the Individual Rights and Responsibilities Section that the Bar file a brief amicus curiae in Kelly v. Warpinski. This is the "Civil Gideon" case, a petition for original jurisdiction asking that the court to to declare a state constitutional right of indigent persons to counsel in civil cases. The Bar request member comment no later than February 24, 2005. The Executive Committee meets the following day.

The latest (draft) Board of Governors minutes posted online are from the November 2004 meeting. You'll find discussion on:
- AJR 66, the Same Sex Marriage Amendment, at item 4;
- WisTAF Petition, Wisconsin Supreme Court Order 04-05, at items 5, 9 and 20; and
- election of Edward Hannen to the ABA House of Delegates at item 12.

The latest Individual Rights and Responsibilities Section newsletter posted online is the Spring 2003 issue. It includes on page 1 a farewell message from then Section Chair, now state Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler. On page 8 is the Section's Legislative Update, reporting the Section's opposition to:
- Assembly Bill 111 (Photo Identification Requirement for Voting);
- Assembly Bill 120 (Notice of Felon Ineligibility to Vote);
- Assembly Bill 41 (Felon Employment Discrimination by Schools); and
- Senate Bill 14 (Peeping Tom).

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has voted to assess each lawyer $50 per year for the Wisconsin Trust Account Foundation, which pays for legal services for the poor in civil cases. The State Bar of Wisconsin opposed the petition.

The State Bar's chronology of the WisTAF petition for the $50 assessment.

State Bar board opposes mandatory fee to help the poor

Lawyers argue over $50 fee designed to replenish fund that helps poor, by Georgia Pabst

2004-03-07

The State Bar's Capitol Update for February 16th reports on a hearing before the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Corrections and Privacy regarding the "Family Justice Bill," SB-467. The bill would permit parents to sue for the loss of the society and companionship of adult child who died as a result of medical malpractice, and permit adult children to sue for the loss of the society and companionship of a parent who died as a result of medical malpractice. The State Bar supports SB-467 because, in its view, "it would open our civil justice system to families whose loved ones die at the hands of negligent medical professionals."

2004-02-01

The "Main Street Bill" AB-651 would, among other things, raise the small claims jurisdictional limit from $5,000 to $10,000 except in negligence cases, reduce the exemption from garnishment of wages and bank accounts, increase the amount of exemplary damages and attorney fees awardable in actions on worthless checks, and permit licensed collection agencies to bring actions for their principals.

The State Bar's Public Interest Law Section opposes AB-651 because, in its view, the small claims jurisdictional limit ought not be increased, and the bill raises issues of the unauthorized practice of law.

2004-01-10

The State Bar's Administrative & Local Government Law Section has asked the Board of Governors for authority to file a friend of the court brief in GPS, Inc. v. Town of St. Germain which is pending before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The issue of concern is the conflict between the Open Records Law and the attorney-client privilege of a government body and its lawyers. Links to background information and for comment were posted on the Bar's website.

2004-01-01

We've been waiting for the December 8, 2003 edition of the State Bar's Capitol Update to be posted on the State Bar web site. As of this writing it has not, although its archive links to the editions of December 1 and December 15. The December 8, 2003 print edition has this item.

Liability for Obesity. Should food manufacturers, marketers, packers, advertisers, distributors and sellers be liable for obesity? The Senate Committee on Labor, Small Business Development and Consumer Affairs doesn't think so. On a 4-1 vote, the committee endorsed Senate Bill 289 which provides a civil liability exemption for these entities. The Litigation Section opposes legislation, like SB 289, which grants an exemption from liability absent a strong public policy reason.

2003-12-15

The December 1, 2003 edition of the State Bar's Capitol Update includes recent action on AB-615 and AB-550.

AB-615 provides that a first conviction for drunk driving would be purged after ten years if the person does not reoffend. The law currently limits this to those offenders with a blood alcohol concentration between .08 and .10 at the time of the first violation. The State Bar's Criminal Law Section supports AB 615 because, in its view, it would remove the stigma of conviction from a person's driving record where a person has not proven to be a habitual offender and it brings consistency to the law.

AB-550 provides that law enforcement agencies may disclose information from the sex offender registry relating to juvenile offenders if doing so is determined to be necessary to protect the public. The State Bar's Children and the Law Section opposes the legislation because, in its view, it provides no criteria to assist law enforcement officials in determining the potential risk to the public and there is no way to monitor the release of information effectively. The State Bar's Criminal Law Section also opposes the bill.

2003-10-20

The October 13, 2003 edition of the State Bar's Capitol Update notes that the Assembly Judiciary Committee votes October 21st on AB-317 on product liability. As we noted previously, the bill

would establish criteria to determine if a product manufacturer, distributor, or seller is liable to a person injured by the manufactured product. Proof that an injured person had a blood alcohol level of .10 or more or was under the influence of a controlled substance would create a rebuttable presumption that the intoxication or drug use caused the person's injuries. The bills would reduce liability by the percentage of responsibility attributable to injured person's misuse, alteration, or modification of the product. They provide that if the injured person's percentage of responsibility for the injury is greater than the percentage resulting from the defective condition of the product, the injured person may not recover from the manufacturer or any other person responsible for placing the product in the stream of commerce. They would limit a defendant's liability to those products manufactured within 15 years before the event that resulted in the damages. There would be a rebuttable presumption that a product is not defective if it is in compliance with standards under federal or state law.

There is an account of the debate on this bill before the State Bar's Board of Governors in the Bar's October 2003 newsletter.

2003-10-08

The September 29, 2003 edition of the State Bar's Capitol Update notes "For those keeping score at home..." that the legislature failed to override Gov. Doyle's veto of AB-111 which would have required electors to present photo identification to vote. The Individual Rights and Responsibilities Section opposed the legislation because, in its view, it would erect barriers to voting and would have a disparate impact on the poor, elderly, rural residents and working people. (Those keeping score at home can check our math; we calculate that Gov. Doyle's nine months without a veto override leaves him only 160 months short of Gov. Thompson's record.)

The Senate Committee on Judiciary, Corrections and Privacy voted to approve SB-49 changing the rules of evidence on expert witness testimony. Capitol Update characterized support for the bill as the committee being "Under pressure from insurance and business representatives... ." It characterized opposition to the bill thus: "The State Bar of Wisconsin, the Wisconsin District Attorneys Association, and the Judicial Conference are all on record opposing the bill." The State Bar took the position that any such changes ought to be made by Supreme Court rules, not by the legislature.

2003-08-10

Debate continues over the State Bar's proposed amicus brief in the recent affirmative action case in the U.S. Supreme court. The July 2003 issue of Wisconsin Lawyer has a letter from Steve Dries of Green Bay responding to now former Bar President Patricia Ballman's reply to the earlier letter from David W. Simon.

2003-06-20

SB-132 would require an adult court that convicts a juvenile of throwing bodily substance at or toward another person while placed in a secured correctional facility, a secure detention facility, a secured child caring institution, or a secured group home, to sentence the juvenile to a mandatory minimum period of imprisonment of two years.

The State Bar's Children and the Law Section opposes this legislation because, in its view, it would remove judicial discretion and imprisoning a juvenile for a minimum of two years may not be appropriate in every case.

Rebecca L. Murray, the State Bar's Marketing and Research Coordinator, has again, on June 3rd, solicited members to download, complete, and mail a four page survey. She doesn't say so specifically, but presumably this means the May 23rd deadline on the survey has been extended.

AB-342 would make a college student convicted of certain drug offenses ineligible for a state grant, loan, or work assistance for a period of two years following the conviction. If the student has a previous conviction for such a crime, the student would be ineligible for an indefinite period, unless the student satisfactorily completes a drug rehabilitation program or the conviction is reversed, set aside, or vacated.

The State Bar's Individual Rights and Responsibilities Section opposes the bill because, in its view, it would have a disproportionate impact on low-income individuals and minorities.

The State Bar's Criminal Law Section opposes the bill because, in its view, it is discriminatory and is counterproductive to the rehabilitation of offenders.

We noted these items at the Individual Rights and Responsibilities Section.

The section has a link to President Bush's Executive Order to Create Military Tribunals, followed by links to two items of commentary, an abstract of William Safire's essay in The New York Times titled "Seizing Dictatorial Power" and Matthew Rothschild's column in The Progressive titled "A Grave Assault on the Constitution".

There is also the section's 1999 Resolution Opposing Execution and Supporting a Re-Trial of Mamia Abu-Jamal.

The State Bar has a Strategic Plan. Item 6.1 is to "Increase and diversify membership." Since it cannot mean that the Bar hopes to increase the percentage of Wisconsin lawyers who belong, this must mean the Bar is working to increase the number of lawyers in Wisconsin.

The latest print edition of the Lawyers Legislative Action Network "Capitol Update" notes that the Assembly Committee on Children and Families will vote on several bills shortly, including AB-169. That bill would require a library that is supported by public funds to disclose to the parents of a child under age 16, on the parents' request, all records relating to the child's use of library resources.

The State Bar's Children and the Law Section opposes the bill because, in its view, it makes libraries the investigative arm of parents and results in a loss of privacy for children.

SB-126/AB-317 would establish criteria to determine if a product manufacturer, distributor, or seller is liable to a person injured by the manufactured product. Proof that an injured person had a blood alcohol level of .10 or more or was under the influence of a controlled substance would create a rebuttable presumption that the intoxication or drug use caused the person's injuries. The bills would reduce liability by the percentage of responsibility attributable to injured person's misuse, alteration, or modification of the product. They provide that if the injured person's percentage of responsibility for the injury is greater than the percentage resulting from the defective condition of the product, the injured person may not recover from the manufacturer or any other person responsible for placing the product in the stream of commerce. They would limit a defendant's liability to those products manufactured within 15 years before the event that resulted in the damages. There would be a rebuttable presumption that a product is not defective if it is in compliance with standards under federal or state law.

The Litigation Section opposes these bills because, in its view, there is no demonstrated need for them, they could deny an injured party the right to recover, and they may act as a disincentive to implement product safety technology.

The May 2003 issue of the Inside the Bar newsletter has this article informing us that

This year's Keller dues reduction is set at $7.25 per member, under the standard set in SCR 10.03(5). For the fifth year, State Bar dues remain at $210 for members with an active status.

Under Keller, the State Bar cannot use compulsory dues of objecting members for political or ideological activities that are not reasonably related to regulating the legal profession or improving the quality of legal service.

The dues reduction allows members to decline to support activities they consider political or ideological. The reduction amount is determined using the financial statements and activities for the Bar's most recent audited fiscal year...

George C. Brown, executive director of the State Bar, explains how the dues dollar is divided up in this column in Wisconsin Lawyer.

Almost a third of dues goes to communications, including underwriting the cost of this magazine and the annual directory, the newsletter, the two Web sites, WisBar and LegalExplorer, and other sources of accurate and timely legal information. Another 20 percent funds the work of the numerous State Bar committees and divisions. Nearly 25 percent funds member and public services, including the Lawyer Referral and Information Service and law-related education. The remainder funds government and public relations and other activities that impact Wisconsin's justice system.

A recently mailed issue of the print version of the "Capitol Update" from the Lawyers Legislative Action Network tells how to contact three members of "Your State Bar Government Relations Team." It and the May 12, 2003 on-line edition also discuss two pending bills.

AB-239 would allow a court to restrict, deny or suspend a professional license on the sixth or subsequent conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. The State Bar's Criminal Law Section opposes the bill because, in its view, it imposes an arbitrary punishment, could hinder an offender's ability to support a family, and could trap offenders in abuse or addiction.

SB-58/AB-41 would allow an eductional agency to refuse to employ a person based on a felony record, whether or not the elements of the offense substantially relate to the circumstances of the job. The State Bar's Individual Rights and Responsibilities Section opposes the bill because, in its view, it would result in denial of jobs to qualified applicants without justification.

Litigation Section Chair Thomas Kent Guelzow's "Message From the Chair" column in the Spring 2003 issue of Litigation News, the section's newsletter, was titled "Tie a Yellow Ribbon...."

As I am writing this article, President George Bush appears to be making the final decision of whether our country goes to war with Iraq. The President has, however, declared war on another front - the civil justice system of America. ...

Mr. Guelzow had a related concern.

As most of you are probably aware, the Wisconsin Coalition for Civil Justice in their meeting last October, set forth major civil justice reforms for the 2003 Wisconsin legislative session. ... The war on the civil justice system continues. This war will prevail if good people remain silent.

The May 2003 issue of Wisconsin Lawyer includes a letter from David W. Simon of Milwaukee taking issue with the "President's Message" column of two months before.

[State Bar President] Ballman's recommendation to those who disagree with the political views of the Board of Governors is to "get involved" - presumably to impose their own views on other Bar members who do not share their politics.

There is another option: the State Bar of Wisconsin, in which lawyer membership is mandatory, can stay out of political disputes.

The State Bar of Wisconsin was not created to avoid controversial issues, but rather was created by the supreme court to fulfill the purposes set forth in the Supreme Court Rules, some of which, such as "law reform," are controversial by their nature.

... to provide a forum for the discussion of subjects pertaining to the practice of law, the science of jurisprudence and law reform and the relations of the bar to the public and to publish information relating thereto;

The board of the State Bar's Individual Rights and Responsibilities Section, at its May 7, 2003 meeting, and the board of the Public Interest Law Section at its May 8, 2003 meeting, approved the following resolution in opposition to the proposed closing of field offices of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

RESOLUTION

Whereas, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is the primary federal agency for enforcement of the nation's laws against employment discrimination;

Whereas, the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) issued a report in late February, 2003, recommending massive restructuring at the EEOC;

Whereas, the NAPA report recommends closing EEOC offices, potentially more than 41 of its current 51 offices, and instituting a national call center to take over the intake process; and

Whereas, such sweeping change is unprecedented and would likely have significant ramifications for enforcement of anti-discrimination laws,

Whereas, the Milwaukee District Office of the EEOC is one of the offices most likely to be closed under the restructuring recommendations; and

Whereas, elimination of the Milwaukee office would mean Wisconsin parties and their representatives would have their charges handled by the Chicago or other distant EEOC offices; and

Whereas, the elimination of a Milwaukee office would make it more difficult to resolve disputes at an early stage at the local level and lead to costly litigation of claims; and

Whereas, the Administration requested a budget appropriation for FY2004 to begin the proposed restructuring without hearing from the public and stakeholders as to how such restructuring would impact on civil rights enforcement;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the [Individual Rights & Responsibilities Section] and [Public Interest Law Section] of the Wisconsin Bar requests that the Board of Governors:

1. Communicate with EEOC Chair Cari Dominguez and members of the Wisconsin Congressional delegation urging that prior to any restructuring there be nationwide public hearings on the impact of restructuring proposals on civil rights enforcement; and

2. Urge members of the Wisconsin Congressional delegation not to appropriate any FY 2004 funds for the restructuring of EEOC without public and congressional hearings.

The board of the State Bar's Individual Rights and Responsibilities (IRR) Section met on May 7, 2003 and adopted the following positions.

IRR opposes SB-106/AB-270. These bills provide that a child sex offender placed in the community may not reside within 1,000 feet of a park, multiunit public housing project, a public swimming pool, a child care facility, a youth or community center, or any private or public school premises. The section board opposed the bills because, in its view, the bills would be impossible to place sex offenders who have served their time into the community under such restrictions.

IRR opposes AB-280. That bill would create specific prohibitions against displaying a stolen registration plate on a motor vehicle or possessing, selling, or offering to sell a stolen registration plate. Violators may be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than nine months or both. It provides the violator with an affirmative defense that he or she did not know, or could not know, by reasonable effort, that the registration plate was stolen. The section board opposes because, in its view, the bill creates a presumption of guilt. To escape culpability, the defendant must prove he or she did not know the plates were stolen.

IRR opposes AB-306. This bill would decrease the dollar threshold for separating felony violations for writing bad checks from misdemeanor violations from $2,500 to $1,500. The section board opposes because, in its view, the bill would increase the number of felons which drives up costs to our justice and correctional systems and it will make it more difficult for offenders to obtain gainful employment.

IRR opposes AB-301 [pdf]. This bill would require an applicant for a driver's license or identification card who is an "alien resident of this state" to present documentary proof that the person is legally residing within the state and the date on which his or her status as a legal alien expires. It would also requires the Department of Transportation to include on the person's driver's license or identification card the date on which the person's status as a legal alien expires. The section board opposes because, in its view, the bill would have a disparate impact on minorities and departs from court decisions holding that information required on a driver's license must be for identification purposes only.