July 1 will be a landmark day in Wisconsin legal history.

Starting that day, attorneys will be allowed to cite some unpublished Court of Appeals' opinions. Unpublished but authored opinions issued on July 1 or after can be cited for persuasive, but not precedential, authority. Per curiam opinions and summary dispositions still won't be citable.

When the Supreme Court amended the rule, it also created a committee to study how the rule change works out and ultimately report back to the court.

I'm a member of that committee, along with a bunch of other great people, and I'd like you all to know that you are welcome to call me anytime, and let me know how the rule change affects your practice: the good, the bad, and the ugly.

I should let you know from the start that I supported this rule change, and let you know why.

The biggest reason to me is that so many Court of Appeals cases are heard by only one judge, and those cases are ineligible for publication. Small claims cases and misdemeanors are included; unless the court takes the trouble to convert the case to a three-judge panel, such opinions never get published.

Some important legal questions arise day after day but must be argued and decided without any Wisconsin cases even shedding persuasive authority on them.

Is the recording of a 911 call admissible in a domestic violence battery trial?

Can an officer stop a vehicle based on a cell phone call from another driver saying 'the driver of a blue Dodge going north on Main is drunk as a skunk'?

These questions arose day after day, year after year, yet always had to be considered on a blank slate, because the Court of Appeals' opinions addressing them were always unpublished.

Suppose a residential lease says it converts to a month-to-month tenancy after a year, but also has a clause requiring two months notice before vacating. There's still no published opinion to say whether the two-month notice provision is valid or if it is inconsistent with creation of a month-to-month tenancy.

But court commissioners handling landlord-tenant matters have to grapple with this issue every day.

Having attended every public hearing and administrative conference on this issue that the Supreme Court has held over the last nine years, I'm very familiar with the arguments pro-and-con.

As for the reasons against citing unpublished opinions, I assure you that I genuinely share those concerns, too, except for one.

Occasionally, someone will argue that allowing citation to unpublished opinions gives an unfair advantage to attorneys with more access to them, or those who are better at electronic research.

However, we do not limit closing arguments because some attorneys are more eloquent than others; we don't limit the body of evidence that a party can present, because some parties have more resources to gather evidence. And we shouldn't limit what persuasive authorities a court may consider, just because some attorneys are more savvy with electronic research.

But I'm not on the committee to preach my views. I'm there because I'm in a unique position to get input from members of the bar about how the new rule plays out in our courts every day.

So, whether the rule works out well, or is a disaster, you've got my ear. Give me a call, and I will make sure that the rest of the committee, and ultimately, the justices on the Supreme Court, hear what you've got to say about the rule.