In re The Petition of the Wisconsin Trust Account Foundation Inc. for a Rule Assessing Members of the State Bar of Wisconsin for an Annual Sum to Support Organizations that Provide Civil Legal Services to the Indigent of This State

No. 04-05 (Wis. Supt. Ct. March 24, 2005) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55913

Description

Wisconsin Supreme Court Orders $50 Assessment on Active Bar Members to Support Legal Services for Low-Income Persons

Abstract

The Wisconsin Supreme Court granted the petition of the Wisconsin Trust Account Foundation (WisTAF) for an annual assessment of $50 on all active members of the State Bar of Wisconsin for the support of civil legal services for persons who cannot afford a lawyer. WisTAF petitioned the court to adopt a rule establishing the assessment to augment Interest on Lawyers Trust Account (IOLTA) funds. Petitioner argued that IOLTA funds depended on interest rates, which had reached historical lows, and the changing practices of lawyers who were less often demanding up-front client retainers and more often billing clients monthly. As a result, petitioner said, IOLTA funds in 2004 were less than half the amount that the court meant to provide when WisTAF was created in 1986. Petitioner argued that Wisconsin had fallen behind other states in developing alternative sources of revenue for legal services. An assessment of $50, it said, would maintain existing grant levels and allow time to seek alternative revenue sources. The court, after a public hearing, voted to adopt the petition. While access to justice is sometimes synonymous with access to a lawyer, the court said, “Wisconsin’s poor citizens increasingly lack access to legal representation.” Those who attempt to “navigate the legal system on their own experience frustration … and pose an enormous challenge” for the courts. The court ordered a study to “assess and quantify” the civil legal needs of the poor but noted that those needs would not await the study’s completion. The state constitution gives the court power “to adopt measures necessary for the due administration of justice,” and the court deemed the assessment “necessary to maintain the integrity and efficiency of the judicial system.”

Additional Information

Attorney Information
Docket Date
2005-03-24 00:00:00+00:00