Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Petition filed on trustees for dead, missing, or incapacitated solo practitioners

On June 29, 2010 Douglas W. Kammer, President, State Bar of Wisconsin, filed a Petition and supporting memo with the Wisconsin Supreme Court
for a revision to Supreme Court Rules 12.02(6) and 12.03(7), concerning the relationship of attorneys appointed as trustees to handle the law practices of sole practitioners who have died, disappeared or become medically incapacitated and the Lawyers Assistance Corporation, which was created by the State Bar of Wisconsin in response to these Rules.
The petition of the State Bar of Wisconsin proposing revisions to SCR 12.02(6) and SCR 12.03(7) concerning the Lawyers Assistance Corporation (10-07)

Decision in 'McConkey v. Van Hollen' 2010 WI 57

Marriage Amendment Was Validly Enacted, by Rick Esenberg at Shark and Shepherd

Wisconsin constitution constitutional, by Thomas Foley at Illusory Tenant

Wisconsin’s constitutional marriage amendment survives procedural challenge, by Joe Forward, State Bar of Wisconsin


Wisconsin Supreme Court decision today in this case (2008AP1868) on certification from the Court of Appeals. See Argument.

Opinion by Justice Gableman for a unanimous court.
¶5 Though the precise nature of McConkey's alleged injury is difficult to define, we conclude that the policy considerations underlying our standing doctrine support addressing the merits of McConkey's claim, which we therefore choose to do.

¶6 We hold that Article XIII, Section 13 of the Wisconsin Constitution——the marriage amendment——was adopted in conformity with the separate amendment rule in Article XII, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution, which mandates that voters must be able to vote separately on separate amendments. Both sentences of the marriage amendment relate to marriage and tend to effect or carry out the same general purpose of preserving the legal status of marriage in Wisconsin as between only one man and one woman.

Decision in 'State v. Conger' 2010 WI 56

Supreme Court upholds trial judges' broad power to reject plea deals, by Bruce Vielmetti at Proof and Hearsay

Plea Bargain – Rejection, by the Wisconsin State Public Defender, at On Point

Courts may reject plea agreements, by David Ziemer, Wisconsin Law Journal

Trial court can veto plea agreements if in the public interest,by Joe Forward, State Bar of Wisconsin


Wisconsin Supreme Court decision today in this case (2008AP755-CR) affirming the Court of Appeals orders denying motions to amend and to recuse, and remanding its order designating the circuit court an intervenor-respondent. See Argument.

Opinion by Justice Crooks, joined by Justices Bradley, Roggensack, Ziegler, and Gableman.
Concurrence by Chief Justice Abrahamson.
Dissent by Justice Prosser.

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

State Bar governors reject bar membership status petition, unite on other issues

Our State Bar reports further from the June 25th Board of Governors meeting.


Update: Membership petition falls 1 vote short, by Jack Zemlicka, Wisconsin Law Journal

Decision in 'Sheboygan County DH&HS v. Tanya M. B.' 2010 WI 55

The Wisconsin Supreme Court today issued its decision in these cases (2008AP3065, 2008AP3066, 2008AP3067, 2009AP136, 2009AP137, 2009AP138) reversing the Court of Appeals. See Argument.

Opinion by Justice Roggensack, joined by Justices Crooks, Prosser, Ziegler, and Gableman.
¶83 ... The specific services are found in the orders' direction to the Department to provide supervision, services and case management to the children and family coupled with the orders' detailed conditions that Tanya and William must meet for the children's return to them. Those detailed conditions implicitly required the Department to provide services necessary to assist the parents in meeting the court ordered conditions for the return of their children. We further conclude that the Department proved by clear and convincing evidence that it "ma[d]e a reasonable effort to provide the services ordered by the court."
Concurrence by Chief Justice Abrahamson, joined by Justice Bradley.
¶94 This case should be decided against the parents on the ground of forfeiture. ... Here the parents and the Department worked under the terms of the dispositional orders for over four years, without any parental objection to the contents of the orders.

Monday, June 28, 2010

Kagan Confirmation Hearings video

Live feed and replay at C-Span (via Althouse)

Board of Governors debate membership status and other issues at June 25 Board meeting

Our State Bar's report includes that "a petition regarding the association’s mandatory (integrated) structure to the Wisconsin Supreme Court" fell "one vote short of the 26 required to achieve the 60 percent supermajority of those present specified by State Bar bylaws."

On appeal, week of June 28, 2010

Opinions issued this week by the Wisconsin Supreme Court and Wisconsin Court of Appeals


Wisconsin Supreme Court Pending Cases (updated July 2, 2010)


Wisconsin Supreme Court Pending Rules Petitions (updated June 29, 2010)


Wisconsin Supreme Court Oral Argument - none currently scheduled


Wisconsin Court of Appeals Oral Argument Schedule (updated May 10, 2010)


Decisions and orders 2009-2010 Term of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Decision in 'Ehlinger v. Hauser' 2010 WI 54

Deficient financial records preclude contract enforcement, supreme court holds, by Joe Forward, State Bar of Wisconsin


Wisconsin Supreme Court decision Friday in this case (2007AP477) modifying and affirming the Court of Appeals decision, 2008 WI App 123, 313 Wis. 2d 718, 758 N.W.2d 476. See Argument.

Disposition table for January and February 2010, 2010 WI 53

Released June 23, 2010 by the Wisconsin Supreme Court [html | pdf]

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Meeting of the Wisconsin Judicial Council May 21, 2010

Minutes approved at the June 18, 2010 meeting.

Decision in 'Johnson Controls, Inc. v. London Market' 2010 WI 52

Wisconsin Supreme Court decision today in this case (2007AP1868), on certification by the Court of Appeals, affirming the Circuit Court. See Argument.

Opinion by Justice Bradley, joined by Chief Justice Abrahamson, and Justices Crooks and Prosser.
¶4 Based on the language of the policies, we conclude that London Market had a duty to defend. Although its excess umbrella policy does not have a duty to defend provision, it does contain a follow form provision that incorporates the duty to defend found in the underlying Travelers policies.

¶5 We further determine that its duty to defend was not conditioned upon exhaustion of the underlying Travelers policies. Rather, under the terms of the "other insurance" provision, London Market's duty to defend was triggered when the underlying insurer "denie[d] primary liability under its policy."
Dissent by Justice Ziegler, joined by Justices Roggensack and Gableman.
¶100 ... the London Market policy does provide terms other than the "other insurance" clause in the Travelers policy. As such, the Travelers policy's "other insurance" clause cannot be incorporated into London Market's policy, even under the majority's logic.[citation omitted]
...
¶110 ... the London Market excess umbrella policy states: "[L]iabilities shall attach to [London Market] only after the Underlying Umbrella Insurers have paid or have been held liable to pay" their policy limits. Thus, despite the majority's creativity, any assumed duty to defend under the excess umbrella policy cannot arise when the coverage under the excess umbrella policy is yet to be invoked.

Excess insurers have duty to defend under “follow form” provision if not expressly disclaimed, by Joe Forward, State Bar of Wisconsin

Decision in 'Groshek v. Trewin' 2010 WI 51

Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules Punitive Damages Unavailable When No Compensatory Damages Awarded, by Andrew Cook, Hamilton Consulting Group


Wisconsin Supreme Court decision today in this case (2008AP787) affirming the Court of Appeals. See Argument.

Opinion by Justice Crooks, joined by Justices Bradley, Prosser, Roggensack, Ziegler, and Gableman.
¶1 This is a review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals[footnote omitted] concerning rescission of a real estate contract on the grounds that the circumstances surrounding the transaction——an attorney's purchase of land from clients whose bankruptcy petition he handled——constituted a breach of fiduciary duty.
...
¶3 We conclude that the findings of fact are supported by the evidence and that they satisfy the elements of a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, and we therefore affirm the court of appeals' decision that the attorney breached his fiduciary duty and that rescission is therefore warranted.

¶4 We also affirm the court of appeals' decision that punitive damages are not available in this case. The court of appeals' rationale focused on the equitable nature of the case; however, our decision is based on the rule articulated in Tucker v. Marcus[142 Wis. 2d 425, 439, 418 N.W.2d 818 (1988), footnote omitted], that where there is no award of compensatory damages, punitive damages are not available.
Concurrence and dissent by Chief Justice Abrahamson.
¶52 ... the actual damages requirement means that the claimant must establish a cause of action, whether at law or in equity, before punitive damages can be awarded.[footnote omitted] Once there is a valid cause of action and thus a legally cognizable harm, no reason exists to deny punitive damages merely because the claimant's relief is not pecuniary. ...

Attorney breached fiduciary duty, Wisconsin Law Journal

Decision in 'Brunton v. Nuvell Credit Corporation' 2010 WI 50

Wisconsin Supreme Court decision today in this case (2007AP1253) reversing the Court of Appeals, 2009 WI App 3, 316 Wis. 2d 313, 762 N.W.2d 685 (2009). See Argument.
Opinion by Justice Roggensack, joined by Justices Crooks, Prosser, and Ziegler.
¶22 We conclude that Wis. Stat. §§ 801.50 and 801.51, the general venue statutes, do not apply to actions arising from consumer credit transactions. Rather, the venue provision in Wis. Stat. § 421.401 applies.
...
¶49 ... Nuvell did not expressly waive the improper venue. This is so because there was no written stipulation filed with the court or oral stipulation made in open court on the record stating that Nuvell intended to waive its right to proper venue. ...
¶50 ... Continued litigation of an action does not unambiguously demonstrate an intention to relinquish the right to proper venue. This is so because such conduct may also reasonably be interpreted as Nuvell defending itself against Brunton's lawsuit.[footnote omitted]
Concurrence by Chief Justice Abrahamson, joined by Justice Bradley.
¶66 I disagree that "waives" in Wis. Stat. § 421.401(2) includes waiver by conduct.[footnote omitted] Rather, I agree with Nuvell Credit that the meaning of "waives" in Wis. Stat. § 421.401(2) requires an express waiver of improper venue. An express waiver is an affirmative expression in writing or by oral stipulation on the record in open court. Such an affirmative expression must be voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made.
Concurrence and dissent by Justice Gableman.
¶83 ... Nuvell litigated this suit for more than a year before raising its venue objections. Nuvell may have known that venue was improper when filing the replevin action in May 2006, and indisputably knew that venue was improper in August 2006. Therefore, Nuvell knew the place of proper venue, knew it had the right to dismissal, and yet continued to actively litigate for at least six months, and perhaps as many as nine months. I conclude that only one reasonable inference can be drawn from Nuvell's conduct: it intentionally relinquished its right to challenge venue.[footnote omitted]

Party must intentionally relinquish venue rights to waive in consumer transaction cases, by Joe Forward, State Bar of Wisconsin

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Board of Governors to consider membership petition

Jack Zemlicka reports at Wisconsin Law Journal
After deciding to seek state Supreme Court review of the membership status of the State Bar of Wisconsin at its May meeting, the Board of Governors could vote on a proposed petition on June 25. ...

Whose Constitution

for all its elegant simplicity and its ubiquity in the lives of citizens, there was, until now, no practical guide to which ordinary Americans could resort for concise answers to what the Constitution requires in a given situation. To the contrary, there is either too little (namely, the pocket-size copies without annotation that many of us carry about) or too much (the lengthy treatises with page counts that run into the thousands and are geared for the scholar or practitioner). The latter is plainly impractical for the common man. The former, while helpful, is of limited value.
--Andrew C. McCarthy, Decoding the Framers, review of 'The Citizen's Constitution: An Annotated Guide', by Seth Lipsky,

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Decision in 'Roehl Transport, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.' 2010 WI 49

The Wisconsin Supreme Court today issued its decision in this case (2008AP1303) on certification from the Court of Appeals affirming in part and reversing in part the Circuit Court. See Argument. Opinion by Chief Justice Abrahamson for a unanimous court.
¶7 We hold as follows:

(1) Roehl Transport, an insured with a deductible for its liability coverage, has a cognizable bad faith claim against its insurance company when the company has control over settlement of a third-party claim and engages in bad faith conduct toward the insured, even though the judgment does not exceed the policy limits.

(2) Sufficient credible evidence supports the jury's finding of bad faith and the jury's determination of damages in this case.

(3) Judicial public policy considerations do not preclude Roehl Transport's bad faith claim.

(4) Roehl Transport is entitled to attorney fees as a matter of law upon the jury's finding of bad faith. The amount of attorney fees to be awarded is for the circuit court to determine on remand.

(5) The circuit court did not err in denying Roehl Transport's claim for punitive damages.

Insured recovers bad faith judgment, by David Ziemer


Wisconsin Supreme Court expands reach of insurance doctrine of bad faith, by Joe Forward, State Bar of Wisconsin

Decision in 'Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Varga' 2010 WI 48

The Wisconsin Supreme Court today issued its decision in this case (2010AP657-D) ordering revocation. Opinion Per Curiam.


Out-of-state lawyer disbarred in Wisconsin, by Bruce Vielmetti, Proof and Hearsay

Monday, June 21, 2010

On appeal, week of June 21, 2010

Opinions issued this week by the Wisconsin Supreme Court and Wisconsin Court of Appeals


Wisconsin Supreme Court Pending Cases (updated June 25, 2010)


Wisconsin Supreme Court Pending Rules Petitions (updated June 2, 2010)


Wisconsin Supreme Court Oral Argument - none currently scheduled


Wisconsin Court of Appeals Oral Argument Schedule (updated May 10, 2010)


Decisions and orders 2009-2010 Term of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Friday, June 18, 2010

A Fragment on Shall and May

A Fragment on Shall and May, by Nora Rotter Tillman and Seth Barrett Tillman, is forthcoming in the American Journal of Legal History (circa 2010-2011) and is available for download at SSRN.
Abstract:
This short paper has some comments on the Constitution's use of the verbs shall and may (and will). We suggest that the American English of the founding generation was a more capacious language than its modern successor and that which came into being post-Noah Webster's first dictionary and grade school primer, A Grammatical Institute of the English Language, first published in 1783. As we explain more fully, where a word once had multiple meanings, but only one variant is now remembered and understood, we may be seriously mistaken when we ascribe near certainty to our understanding of how a constitutional term was used.

State Bar Board of Governors Agenda for June 25, 2010

Agenda for the Board's June 25, 2010 meeting at the State Bar Center, Madison

Decision in 'Saddle Ridge Corp. v. Board of Review for Town of Pacific' 2010 WI 47

Wisconsin Supreme Court decision today in this case (2007AP2886) reversing the Court of Appeals. See Argument.

Opinion by Chief Justice Abrahamson for a unanimous court.
¶2 The question presented is whether Saddle Ridge was properly assessed by the Town of Pacific for property tax due on 41 tax parcels in three condominiums developed by Saddle Ridge. These parcels correspond to 41 condominium units that are declared and platted in the condominium instruments but were not constructed at the time they were assessed by the Town. As stated by the Town, the issue is, "Who is responsible for paying property taxes on declared but unbuilt condominium units?"[footnote omitted]

¶3 For the reasons set forth, we conclude that the Board "acted according to law" in assessing Saddle Ridge for the unbuilt units. Saddle Ridge owns the declared but unbuilt condominium units and these unbuilt units are tax parcels, the assessment value of which is assessed to Saddle Ridge. ...
...
¶69 ... if Saddle Ridge does not pay the taxes assessed on the percentage share of each of the declared but unbuilt units, then one of two things must happen: either no one pays the pro-rata share of taxes for that fraction of the common elements or the taxes for that portion of the common elements will be shifted to the unit owners of the already-built units.


Towns can tax properties approved for condos, by Sean Ryan, The Daily Reporter


Taxable condominium units include units not built, supreme court holds, by Joe Forward, State Bar of Wisconsin

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Decision and Order in 'Gibson v. American Cyanamid Co.'

Risk contribution rule violates substantive due process, by David Ziemer, Wisconsin Law Journal


Judge Randa of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin rendered a Decision and Order June 15, 2010 in this case (07-C-864) granting summary judgment to the successor to a lead pigment manufacturer on the ground that "the creation [in 'Thomas v. Mallett' 2005 WI 129] of the risk contribution rule on due process principles pursuant to Article I, Section 9 of the Wisconsin Constitution in turn violates ARCO’s substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."


More on 'Thomas v. Mallett'

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Rachel Brand 'What to Expect During Elena Kagan's Confirmation Hearing' June 21, 2010

Rachel Brand of Wilmer Hale, Washington, DC, will speak on "What to Expect During Elena Kagan's Confirmation Hearing" at a Noon luncheon Monday, June 21, 2010 at the Milwaukee Athletic Club, 758 North Broadway.

The following Monday, June 28th, is the scheduled start for the confirmation hearings on President Obama's nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

More on Ms. Brand and can be found here.



Presented by the Milwaukee Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies.


Our next scheduled event is Professor Christopher Wolfe on "The Cultural Preconditions of American Liberty" July 13, 2010

More petitions, complicated issues have court running behind

Jack Zemlicka reports in the Wisconsin Law Journal on a backlog of rules petitions in the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Update: Supreme Court wraps up busy year of rule-making proceedings,
by Adam Korbitz, Government Relations Coordinator, State Bar of Wisconsin
during which the court approved four petitions filed by the State Bar of Wisconsin, including the Bar’s 2007 petition regarding the unauthorized practice of law.

Over the last year the court has also approved seven additional petitions supported by the State Bar but filed by other organizations...

Decision in 'State v. Arends' 2010 WI 46

SVP, Ch. 980 – Discharge Procedure, by the Wisconsin State Public Defender, at On Point


Wisconsin Supreme Court decision today in this case (2008AP52) affirming the Court of Appeals with modifications. See Argument.

Opinion by Justice Gableman, joined by Chief Justice Abrahamson, and Justices Bradley, Crooks, and Roggensack.
¶51 We conclude that § 980.09 requires the circuit court to follow a two-step process in determining whether to hold a discharge hearing.

¶52 Under § 980.09(1), the circuit court engages in a paper review of the petition only, including its attachments, to determine whether it alleges facts from which a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the petitioner does not meet the criteria for commitment as a sexually violent person. This review is a limited one aimed at assessing the sufficiency of the allegations in the petition. If the petition does allege sufficient facts, the circuit court proceeds to a review under § 980.09(2).
...
¶54 In this case, the circuit court reviewed the three most current reports in the record, and therefore its denial of the petition appears to have been via review under § 980.09(2). The court did not, however, review all prior reports in the record as required by the statute. Additionally, the court denied Arends' petition on the grounds that it found no "probable cause" to conduct a discharge hearing, but offered no explanation of its rationale. Probable cause is not the standard required by the statute. We remand to the circuit court to make a determination under § 980.09(2) of whether to grant a discharge hearing on Arends' petition. Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals' reversal of the circuit court, but modify its instructions.
Dissent by Justice Prosser.
¶66 ... a facially sufficient petition requires a discharge hearing under Wis. Stat. § 980.09(3) unless the state shows that the "facts" alleged in the petition cannot be substantiated or the allegations in the petition are deficient as a matter of law.

¶67 In this case, Arends' petition was facially sufficient because of the favorable report of Dr. Sheila Fields attached to the petition. I see nothing in the record that negates or invalidates the facial sufficiency of the "fact" of Dr. Shields' favorable evaluation. Thus, I perceive no legal basis for remanding the case for reconsideration of the sufficiency of the petition under Wis. Stat. § 980.09(2). Arends is entitled to a discharge hearing.[footnote omitted]
Justice Ziegler did not participate.


Supreme court clarifies procedures and standards for reviewing civil commitment discharge, by Joe Forward, State Bar of Wisconsin

Monday, June 14, 2010

Can't wait for this book to be released

"Rehabilitating Lochner," by David Bernstein.

Judges can join political parties

David Ziemer reports in the Wisconsin Law Journal on today's Seventh Circuit decision in Siefert v. Alexander (09-1713).

Update: Federal appeals court says Wisconsin judges can announce political party membership, by Joe Forward, State Bar of Wisconsin

On appeal, week of June 14, 2010

Opinions issued this week by the Wisconsin Supreme Court and Wisconsin Court of Appeals


Wisconsin Supreme Court Pending Cases (updated June 18, 2010)


Wisconsin Supreme Court Pending Rules Petitions (updated June 2, 2010)


Wisconsin Supreme Court Oral Argument - none currently scheduled


Wisconsin Court of Appeals Oral Argument Schedule (updated May 10, 2010)


Decisions and orders 2009-2010 Term of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Sunday, June 13, 2010

The Primary Law a Failure

Chapter XXII of Part One of Political Reform in Wisconsin (1910) by Emanuel L. Philipp (see Introduction and Contents)


After four years of experiment with the Wisconsin primary election law it is not difficult to point out many weaknesses and inadequacies that have become apparent in its operations. Even the original primary election advocates, those who were confident the law would prove to be an automatic cure all for political ills, now acknowledge that it must be amended. They still contend that the principle is sound; they merely propose to make certain changes in the statute in order to give the principle an opportunity to do its work.

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Decision in 'Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Fisher' 2010 WI 45

Wisconsin Supreme Court decision today in this case (2009AP2522-D) ordering revocation. Opinion Per Curiam.

Court disbars lawyer who disappeared, by Bruce Vielmetti, Proof and Hearsay

Monday, June 7, 2010

Special interest groups not above the law

Radical environmentalist groups with millions of dollars in assets have to post injunction bonds, too.

Worker's Comp Act bars ex-employee's defamation claim

The court made no reference to sec. 102.03(1)(c)1, which plainly states that the Act only preempts tort liability, “Where, at the time of the injury, the employee is performing service growing out of and incidental to his or her employment.”

As such, the opinion offers no explanation how a former employee could perform services incidental to employment that no longer exists.

On appeal, week of June 7, 2010

Opinions issued this week by the Wisconsin Supreme Court and Wisconsin Court of Appeals


Wisconsin Supreme Court Pending Cases (updated May 25, 2010)


Wisconsin Supreme Court Pending Rules Petitions (updated June 8, 2010)


Wisconsin Supreme Court Oral Argument - none currently scheduled


Wisconsin Court of Appeals Oral Argument Schedule (updated May 10, 2010)


Decisions and orders 2009-2010 Term of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Sunday, June 6, 2010

Wisconsin Has Lost Prestige

Chapter XXI of Part One of Political Reform in Wisconsin (1910) by Emanuel L. Philipp (see Introduction and Contents)

There were many who believed that, by giving the people the right to vote directly for their candidates at a primary election the personnel of the ofticeholding class would be improved--that the state would secure better officers, men of more ability and influence. This was urged as one of the reasons why the bill should pass and become a law.

Friday, June 4, 2010

Do Bilateral Investment Treaties Promote Foreign Direct Investment?

Do Bilateral Investment Treaties Promote Foreign Direct Investment? Some Hints from Alternative Evidence, by Jason W. Yackee, University of Wisconsin Law School
Abstract:
In this article I present a multi-method examination of whether bilateral investment treaties, or BITs, are likely to promote inflows of foreign direct investment. Using regression analysis I show that BITs are not meaningfully correlated with measures of political risk, and using survey evidence I show that providers of political risk insurance do not reliably take BITs into account when deciding the terms of insurance. Nor do in-house counsel in large U.S. corporations view BITs as playing a major role in their companies' foreign investment decisions. In contrast to existing empirical studies, which claim to prove that BITs can have massive positive impacts on FDI, my results suggest that such results are probably spurious. BITs are unlikely to be a significant driver of foreign investment.
(via WisBlawg)

Thursday, June 3, 2010

Decision in 'Ash Park, LLC v. Alexander & Bishop, Ltd.' 2010 WI 44

Wisconsin Supreme Court decision today in this case (2008AP1735) affirming the Court of Appeals, 2009 WI App 71, 314 Wis. 2d 772, 767 N.W.2d 614. Opinion by Justice Bradley for a unanimous court. See Argument.

Inadequacy of legal damages not a prerequisite to specific performance, supreme court holds, by Joe Forward, State Bar of Wisconsin

Supreme Court unanimously approves UPL rule but without enforcement mechanism

Adam Korbitz, Government Relations Coordinator, State Bar of Wisconsin, reported on the June 1, 2010 open administrative conference.

See prior posts on unauthorized practice.

In the Matter of the Definition of the Practice of Law and the Administration of a Rule Defining the Practice of Law(07-09)


Court sets limits of practice, by Jack Zemlicka, Wisconsin Law Journal


Court grants 1/2 of state Bar request on unlicensed practice of law, by Bruce Vielmetti, Proof and Hearsay

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Continuing education classes for hair stylists?

Or just meddling bureaucrats trying to justify their phony-baloney jobs?

Who Needs to Know?

Alan M. Dershowitz reviews 'Necessary Secrets: National Security, the Media, and the Rule of Law', by Gabriel Schoenfeld

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Notice something different on WisBar today?

Not until I saw the headline, above, which goes on State Bar reinforces commitment to members through new graphic identities. The rebranding includes a new logo, new trademarked tagline "Your Practice. Our purpose", and new trademarked name "Pinnacle" for CLE, with its own trademarked tagline "Reach New Heights In Your Practice".

On appeal, week of May 31, 2010

Opinions issued this week by the Wisconsin Supreme Court and Wisconsin Court of Appeals


Wisconsin Supreme Court Pending Cases (updated May 25, 2010)


Wisconsin Supreme Court Pending Rules Petitions (updated June 2, 2010)


Wisconsin Supreme Court Oral Argument - none currently scheduled


Wisconsin Court of Appeals Oral Argument Schedule (updated May 10, 2010)