 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Konnor3/25/2005
certainty and uniformity; it is simple to administer. All members of the state bar would bear the expenses of prosecuting individual cases rather than the individual lawyer involved. If the court were to adopt this alternative, the assessment of each member of the state bar would probably increase by about $5.00 per year, a relatively small amount.
. (4) The court can adopt a rule that the court (or referee) shall levy costs on the basis of the counts successfully proved against the lawyer, if the lawyer is found guilty of some of the charges. One of the Polich's dissents proposes this solution and suggests two ways of allocating costs on the basis of counts proved and dismissed. Both solutions are not as easy or as fair in application as they might initially sound. Costs do not necessarily increase proportionally with the number of counts, some of which are proved and some not, and the members of the bar upon whom costs are imposed are innocent, while the disciplined lawyer is not.
. (5) The court can adopt a rule that all costs shall be levied against the lawyer except the attorney fees. Attorney fees seem to have generated the most discussion in the court and eliminating the levy of attorney fess would substantially reduce costs levied against the lawyer involved. Under this proposal attorney fees would be treated as administrative costs to be funded by an increased assessment imposed on all members of the state bar. This alternative is proposed by a petition by Keith L. Sellen, Director of the Office of Lawyer Regulation recently filed in this court. It will be heard sometime in the fall of 2005.
. (6) The court can adopt a rule levying a fixed or graduated administrative fee rather than an expense-based amount. Several states employ this technique. Under this system, probably a much smaller amount would be collected from the lawyer involved.
. No method has clearly distinct advantages over imposing full costs on a disciplined lawyer or is free from significant pitfalls.
V.
. The fundamental issue presented is who should fund the costs incurred to prosecute individual cases against disciplined lawyers: The disciplined lawyer against whom proceedings were brought after probable cause was found, or the members of the bar? And in what proportion should these costs be borne? The court has asked the Office of Lawyer Regulation, the Board of Administrative Oversight, and the state bar to consider this issue and report to the court. A petition has been filed recently.
. In the absence of a proposal that has been clearly articulated, debated, and adopted, I conclude that levying partial costs without any principles, criteria, or guidelines degenerates into unbridled discretion. We demand that circuit courts exercise discretion according to principles. And rightly so. We demand that circuit courts explain their exercise of discretion. And rightly so. We should hold ourselves to this same high standard. Therefore I conclude that full costs should be levied on the lawyer disciplined until the court can levy partial costs according to established principles.
. For the reasons set forth, I write separately, in the hope that with costs put in perspective and context, we can develop a sound proposal for determining whether and when partial costs should be levied.
DAVID T. PROSSER, J. (concurring in part, dissenting in part).
. I agree with the public reprimand of Attorney Chris K. Konnor but dissent from the court's decision to levy the full cost of the disciplinary proceeding against him.
. In this case, Attorney Konnor offered to stipulate to a public reprimand on the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Wisconsin Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|