Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Justices consider nonprofit corporation to address access to justice

By: dmc-admin//December 22, 2008//

Justices consider nonprofit corporation to address access to justice

By: dmc-admin//December 22, 2008//

Listen to this article

The Wisconsin Supreme Court took its first step in formally endorsing a plan to address the state’s ongoing problem of unavailable legal services for poor people.

On Dec. 17, the court voted, 6-0, with Justice David T. Prosser Jr. abstaining, to create a nonprofit corporation designed to increase access to justice in the state.

Although the justices were universally supportive of the general idea, several raised concerns about the petition submitted by the State Bar of Wisconsin to form an Access to Justice Commission.

“I think all the members of the court find the concept very desirable, but the issue for me is how do you structure an entity to assist in access and how do you define its mission,” said Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson during the open administrative conference Wednesday.

Broad goals within the bar petition included fundraising for legal services for the poor beyond mandatory lawyer assessments and the interest on trust accounts, as well as an increased focus on pro bono efforts throughout the state.

Independent Entity

Abrahamson recommended that the court look into forming a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, similar to the Wisconsin Trust Account Foundation (WisTAF), so that a board could operate independently, but still coordinate its efforts with the court.

The State Bar of Wisconsin requested that the court draft a Supreme Court Rule to permanently establish a 17-member commission to be staffed by the bar.

Bar President Diane S. Diel said she was pleased that the court decided to move forward with the concept, and the nonprofit recommendation did not come as a total surprise.

“I personally thought that might be coming after some of the earlier discussions I had with the chief,” Diel said in an interview. “I know [the justices] were struggling with forming the correct entity.”

Diel also said she is optimistic that whatever group is created to administer access to justice, will be consistent with what bar leaders intended when they drafted the original petition in June.

“The entity they are describing presents some opportunities and some limitations, but I don’t read this as a step away from the general purpose of an access commission.”

One of the issues yet to be decided is who would be appointed to the nonprofit board.

Justice N. Patrick Crooks suggested that members of the high court not be members.

Rather, he said the board of directors should meet regularly with the court.

Prosser, who said he was “not comfortable with voting” on any proposal Dec. 17, recommended that any board include several legislative members.

“They are the ones who have the money,” Prosser said.

He also suggested that, given the current budgetary concerns, it may be difficult to generate any financial support for a court-created entity.

“Most commissions are created by the Legislature,” Prosser said. “If they are not willing to create such a commission, that’s not a good sign.”

Mission Statement

Several justices, as well as representatives from legal service providers, questioned a commission’s ability to lobby for funding beyond the initial three-year commitment from the bar.

The bar has established an access to justice fund which contains $300,000. According to the petition, the bar would dedicate $20,000 the first year and between $50,000 and $60,000 the next two years.

After that time, the commission would theoretically be funded by the state Legislature and the Supreme Court. If a nonprofit corporation is formed, Crooks recommended that the court evaluate its progress after the first three years.

John Ebbott, executive director of Legal Action of Wisconsin Inc., expressed some skepticism as to whether the commission could last beyond the initial three-year period, and also questioned what the primary goal of a corporation would be.

“If the mission is limited to try and enhance resources available so there is equal justice, that’s fine,” Ebbott said in an interview. “If the mission is so broad and vague that whoever is on this future corporation gets involved in central planning systems delivery, then that’s going to be a problem.”

DeEtte Tomlinson, executive director of WisTAF, said that formation of a nonprofit organization would allow for a broader approach to access to justice.

“I am actually very pleased they decided to go with a second nonprofit,” Tomlinson said.

“I do believe that the independence that a nonprofit can encompass can really build energy in ways that a more organized or established agency may not be able to invest the time and resources into.”

Diel said ultimately, the “devil will be in the details” but she anticipates that whatever entity is formed, will be able to attack the issue on several fronts.

“It’s more than just money,” Diel said. “It’s also recognition and a partnership with the courts and the public to focus on the problem.”

No timetable has been set for when a proposal to officially form a nonprofit corporation will come from the court, though Diel expected something to be drafted early next year.

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