Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

State Bar supports limited-license proposal for in-house counsel

By: dmc-admin//December 17, 2007//

State Bar supports limited-license proposal for in-house counsel

By: dmc-admin//December 17, 2007//

Listen to this article

ImageThe State Bar’s Board of Governors has endorsed a proposal to establish legal boundaries for in-house counsel in Wisconsin.

At its Dec. 7 meeting, the board voted in favor of adopting amendments to SCR 10.03(4), which include a limited license to practice for attorneys licensed outside of the state, but who serve as in-house counsel for a single employer in Wisconsin.

Currently, there are no Supreme Court rules or case law, allowing or forbidding in-house counsel to practice law if not a member of the State Bar.

The endorsed proposal would allow non-resident attorneys in good standing with their native bar association to practice with a Wisconsin employer and be subject to a one-time licensure fee and an annual Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) assessment.

Time the attorney spends “engaged in the practice of law in Wisconsin” under the proposal would count toward Admission by Motion eligibility, whereby an attorney serving as in-house counsel would be eligible for full licensure in Wisconsin.

Currently, time spent by non-resident in-house counsel does not count toward full-licensure in the state. According to the proposal, a non-resident attorney serving as in-house counsel would not have to become a member of the State Bar of Wisconsin.

“There seems to be a fundamental fairness that those in-house attorneys should be treated the same as lawyers in Wisconsin,” said Dean R. Dietrich, chairman of the State Bar Committee on In-House Counsel.

Dietrich noted that the committee had voted on three eligibility options, which included the American Bar Association’s Model 5.5 Rule with a provision that would not require in-house counsel to pay the OLR assessment.

Forty general counsels at Wisconsin-based companies submitted written support for wholesale adoption of the Model 5.5 Rule to the Bar. During a hearing on multijurisdictional practice last April, the Wisconsin branch of the Association of Corporate Counsel issued written concerns about excluding elements contained in Model 5.5 Rule.

“The main objection we’ve seen to the limited license proposal is that in-house counsels want to have as much freedom as possible, but not be subject to the same financial commitments,” said Dietrich. “I expect we will discuss this further at the Supreme Court hearings.”

The Supreme Court is scheduled to review the Bar’s recommended amendment to SCR 10.03(4) at an open administrative conference on Feb. 22, 2008, as well as SCR 20:8.5 regarding application of Rules of Professional Conduct as they relate to the temporary practice of law by lawyers not licensed to practice in Wisconsin.

A third aspect of what is known as the “multijurisdictional practice petition” on amendments to SCR 2:5.5 relating to corporate counsel, federal practice by non-governmental attorneys and differences between SCR 20:5.5 and Model Rule 5.5 will be reviewed on Jan. 9.

The Supreme Court originally heard Petition 06-06 to amend Chapter 20 of the Supreme Court Rules on April 12, at which time several members suggested further discussion on several aspects, including the licensing of in-house counsel.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests