State Ex Rel. Fiedler v. Wisconsin Senate
1990 Wisc. LEXIS 239, 454 N.W.2d 770, 155 Wis. 2d 94 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The regulation of attorney competence and practice after initial admission to the bar is an area of exclusive judicial authority, and legislative enactments that intrude upon this authority are an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers doctrine.
Facts:
- The Wisconsin legislature passed 1987 Wis. Act 355, which amended section 757.48(1)(a) of the Wisconsin Statutes.
- The amended statute mandated that any attorney appointed as a guardian ad litem in a family law case under ch. 767 must first have completed three hours of approved continuing legal education.
- This education had to relate specifically to the functions and duties of a guardian ad litem.
- The statute created a specific educational prerequisite for attorneys to be eligible for certain court appointments, affecting them after they had already been admitted to the bar.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioners filed a petition for leave to commence an original action directly in the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
- The petition sought a declaratory ruling on the constitutionality of Wis. Stat. sec. 757.48(1)(a).
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court issued an administrative directive instructing state circuit judges to refrain from implementing the statute's requirements pending a decision.
- Respondents filed a response stating they did not oppose the court exercising its original jurisdiction.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court granted the petition for leave to commence the original action.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state statute requiring attorneys to complete specific continuing legal education before being appointed as a guardian ad litem by a court unconstitutionally violate the separation of powers doctrine by intruding on the judiciary's exclusive authority to regulate the practice of law?
Opinions:
Majority - Bablitch, J.
Yes. The state statute violates the separation of powers doctrine because it improperly intrudes on the judiciary's exclusive authority to regulate the practice of law. While the legislature may set minimum standards for initial admission to the bar to protect the public welfare, the judiciary holds the exclusive authority to regulate the activities and competence of attorneys after they are admitted. This includes determining whether special training is needed for particular legal tasks. The statute usurps this uniquely judicial function of determining the qualifications for representation in court, and therefore it is void.
Dissenting - Abrahamson, J.
No. The state statute does not violate the separation of powers doctrine because it falls within an area of shared authority between the legislature and the judiciary. The legislature has a valid interest in protecting the welfare of children and has a long history of regulating guardians ad litem. The law should be viewed as an exercise of a shared power and is constitutional so long as it does not unreasonably burden or substantially interfere with the judicial branch, which it does not. The majority's holding improperly expands the court's exclusive power, creates a danger of unchecked judicial authority, and blocks a legitimate legislative function.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the judiciary's exclusive control over the post-admission regulation of attorney practice in Wisconsin, drawing a sharp line between the legislature's power to set initial bar admission standards and the court's power to govern attorney competence thereafter. It establishes a strong precedent that legislative attempts to impose specific competency or educational requirements for particular legal roles, such as court appointments, are unconstitutional intrusions. This ruling limits the legislature's ability to mandate specialized training for lawyers in specific fields, reserving that power entirely to the state's highest court.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: State Ex Rel. Fiedler v. Wisconsin Senate (1990)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"