InsideTrack | State Bar of Wisconsin

April CLE Spotlight: Effective Contract Drafting and the Legal Issues Shaping Wisconsin's Outdoors

2026-04-01 00:00:00

April 1, 2026 – Whether your work involves drafting agreements or advising clients whose legal issues touch land, water, wildlife, or recreation, practical judgment matters. Two upcoming State Bar of Wisconsin PINNACLE® CLE programs in April give Wisconsin lawyers the chance to strengthen that judgment with focused, practice-ready instruction.

Are these areas outside your practice? Here’s a link to help you see what else is going on in April.

Drafting More Effective Contracts

6.0 CLE; in person and via webcast 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. on Wednesday, April 8, 2026, and on specific dates through November 10, 2026.

This CLE program from PINNACLE focuses on the choices that matter most in contract creation and negotiation, offering practical guidance applicable to various types of agreements.

Learn how unclear language, inconsistent structure, and overlooked provisions create problems that persist long after signing. Experienced practitioners break down common drafting trouble spots and share strategies for producing clear, workable agreements built to hold up under pressure.

Gain concrete tips on style, structure, clarity, and consistency, and be better prepared to draft and refine key provisions, including:

representations and warranties;
limitations on liability;
indemnification clauses;
confidentiality provisions; and
force majeure clauses.

You’ll also learn where and when specific provisions make sense, when they don’t, and the trade-offs involved in arbitration, mediation, and noncompete clauses.

The Great Outdoors 2026

7.0 CLE; in person and via webcast 8:30 a.m. to 3:50 p.m. on Wednesday, April 29, 2026, and on specific dates through Sept. 15, 2026.

Wisconsin’s natural landscape raises legal questions about tribal jurisdiction, real estate, environmental law, and intellectual property (among others). A cabin, a shoreline, or an outdoor business can trigger overlapping rules, competing authorities, and disputes that don’t fit neatly into a single practice area.

The Great Outdoors brings those topics together in one place, illustrating how the legal frameworks governing Wisconsin’s land, water, wildlife, and recreation intersect – and where conflicts are most likely to arise.

Topics include:

how Wisconsin law defines ownership and regulation of wildlife, including the Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) authority and enforcement structure;
the scope of tribal rights related to hunting, fishing, and natural resources, on and off reservation land;
legal considerations in short-term rentals and vacation properties, from agreements to regulatory oversight;
common boundary disputes and access issues involving recreational property;
riparian rights and waterfront land use regulation; and
intellectual property mishaps to avoid when advising outdoor-focused businesses.

From cabin rentals to trademark infringement, the legal terrain of Wisconsin’s outdoors is broad, interconnected, and easy to underestimate.

Endorsed by the Environmental Law and Indian Law Sections of the State Bar of Wisconsin

Invest in Your Practice with PINNACLE Seminars

Visit Wisbar’s Marketplace to see schedules, credit details, and registration options, and use this link to see what else is coming this month. Many programs offer both in-person and webcast formats, easy to fit into your busy schedule.

Petition 24-05: In Re Amendment of SCR 40.04 and 40.14 Relating to The Wisconsin Bar Examination

2026-04-01 00:00:00

Wisconsin Supreme Court Final Order

Rule Petition 24-05: In Re Amendment of SCR 40.04 and 40.14 Relating to The Wisconsin Bar Examination

On Dec. 17, 2025, the Board of Bar Examiners (BBE), by its director Jacquelynn Rothstein, filed this rule petition asking the court to amend Supreme Court Rules (SCR) 40.04 and 40.14, relating to the administration, content, and fees for the Wisconsin Bar Examination. This petition proposes eliminating the existing Wisconsin Bar Examination and replacing it with the Uniform Bar Examination (UBE), and then with the successor to the UBE in 2028 (NextGen exam). Under the proposal, the current Wisconsin essay portion of the bar exam would be eliminated and replaced with a Wisconsin law and practice educational component. The petition also includes a provision for transferring eligible UBE scores (260 and higher) from other jurisdictions with a 36-month look-back period, as well as an increase in related bar examination fees. The petition proposes implementing these changes for the July 2026 bar exam.

ORDER ISSUED: March 24, 2026

DISPOSITION: Repealed and recreated, with newly created sections.

Quick Reference for Official Notices

Visit the Official Notices page for a quick reference for locating recent official notices of Wisconsin Supreme Court orders adopting, amending, or repealing rules, statutes, or policies related to Supreme Court rules and State Bar of Wisconsin rules and bylaws. SCR 10.12 allows the State Bar to provide these notices to members through print or electronic media, including the Wisconsin Lawyer magazine, WisBar InsideTrack, or WisBar.org.

For a comprehensive collection of all official notices, including pending rule petitions, court orders, and other material such as audio of public hearings, visit the Wisconsin Court System’s website or use the quick links on this page. Refer to the Publication Plan for more information on how the State Bar delivers notices to its members.

Quick Links to Wisconsin Court System

16 Awards Announced! Recognizing Standout Leaders in Wisconsin's Legal Profession

2026-04-01 00:00:00

April 1, 2026 – Join the State Bar of Wisconsin in celebrating those who make a difference in the legal profession and in their communities. Recognized by their peers and colleagues, they are members of Wisconsin’s legal community who make a difference – through leadership, service, mentorship, pro bono work, and dedication to others.

Congratulations to these award recipients, recognized for strengthening the profession and serving their communities!

Jump to an Award Recipient Below

Judge William Griesbach: Lifetime Jurist
Judge Michael Zell: Judge of the Year
U.W. Law School Immigrant Justice Center: Gordon Sinykin Award of Excellence
Judge Thomas Walsh: Charles Dunn Wisconsin Lawyer Author Award
Christa Westerberg & Leslie Anne Freehill; Charlotte Gibson & Colin Roth: Appellate Best Briefs
Judge Ashley Morse: Diversity & Inclusion Trailblazer Award
Naomi Swain: Pro Bono Attorney of the Year
Michael Levey: Pro Bono Lifetime Achievement Award
Brynne McBride: Dan Tuchscherer Outstanding Public Interest Law Attorney
Meagan Winn: Ryan Klesh Outstanding Public Interest Legal Worker
Melodie Wiseman: Nonresident Lawyers Division Founder’s Award
Alaina Fahley: Government Lawyers Division Grant F. Langley Service Award
Myron LaRowe: Senior Lawyers Division Leonard L. Loeb Award
Beth Ann Richlen: Young Lawyers Division Outstanding Mentor Award
Miranda Tichareva: Young Lawyers Division Outstanding Young Lawyer Award
Andrea Bishop & Glenn Cofer: Outstanding Public Interest Law Students

Since 1993, State Bar members have gathered to honor the contributions of those in Wisconsin’s legal community. These award recipients will be honored in person June 11 at the Member Recognition Celebration during the State Bar Annual Meeting & Conference in La Crosse.

Join us in celebrating these leaders who are dedicated to improving the practice of law and the administration of justice in Wisconsin and serving their communities.

Judge William Griesbach: Lifetime Jurist

Judge William Griesbach, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, is the 2026 recipient of the Bench and Bar Committee's Lifetime Jurist Award.

The award recognizes jurists who, during their tenure on the bench, were fair and impartial, and demonstrated high ideals and personal character along with outstanding, long-term judicial service.

Judge Griesbach served as a Brown County Circuit Court judge from 1995 to 2002, and in the Eastern District since 2002. He took senior status in 2019 but continues to maintain a large caseload.

Bench and Bar Committee members said that Judge Griesbach has been an exemplary jurist for the last 31 years, serving the people of Wisconsin. He has always demonstrated high ideals, exemplary personal character, judicial competence, and has been actively involved in community efforts that enhance the judicial system. “Even though he has a large caseload, his decisions are timely and always spot on. He is also more than fair in ensuring that if there are disputed facts in a case, the parties get their right to a bench or jury trial. And during those trials, he is fair, patient and in control of his courtroom.”

Judge Michael Zell: Judge of the Year

Judge Michael Zell, Portage County Circuit Court, is the recipient of the Bench and Bar Committee’s Judge of the Year Award. The award recognizes an outstanding circuit court judge who has improved the judicial system during the past year through leadership in advancing the quality of justice, judicial education, or innovative programs.

The Bench and Bar Committee said Judge Zell is a natural leader who knows the law. He is an outstanding circuit court judge who strives to do the "right thing" no matter the personal cost. He has also overseen a recent rewrite of the court’s local rules.

This was “an extraordinary undertaking,” one observer noted. The rules also include those specific to the use of artificial intelligence. At Judge Zell’s urging, Portage County also changed its local court rules to require that individuals have actual notice of actions being filed against them for debt collection. Default judgments in Portage County now have greater meaning in that respondents are personally aware that someone is seeking a judgment.

U.W. Law School Immigrant Justice Center: Gordon Sinykin Award of Excellence

The U.W. Law School’s Immigrant Justice Center (IJC) is the recipient of the Wisconsin Law Foundation’s 2026 Gordon Sinykin Award of Excellence. The award recognizes a lawyer, law firm, or group of lawyers for their work on an individual law-related education or public service project.

The IJC, directed by U.W. Law School professor Erin Barbato, operates a year-round, service-learning program that provides legal services to underserved people across Wisconsin who need assistance with immigration matters.

“Amid heightened tensions surrounding enforcement, asylum, and social movements concerning immigration, IJC serves as a beacon of light not only for those requiring assistance but for all those who care about due process and the rule of law,” said U.W. Law School Dean Daniel Tokaji.

Under faculty supervision, law students offer direct representation to clients seeking humanitarian relief or help defending against removal in Immigration Court. IJC conducts monthly screenings at the Dodge County Detention Center, where students provide legal assistance to detained immigrants and identify cases that warrant further legal intervention. At the appellate level, IJC files briefs with the Board of Immigration Appeals and trains students on effective oral advocacy. IJC also advises family law attorneys on immigration-adjacent issues and collaborates with criminal defense attorneys to negotiate plea agreements that avoid jeopardizing immigration status.

“The Immigrant Justice Center exemplifies the very purpose of the Gordon Sinykin Award of Excellence,” said Deanne Koll, chair of the award committee. “Through its tireless work providing legal services to Wisconsin’s underserved immigrant community – particularly victims of crime, persecution, and human trafficking – IJC advances both public understanding of the law and meaningful access to justice. Their commitment ensures that some of our most vulnerable neighbors are able to navigate the legal system with dignity, fairness, and hope.”

Judge Thomas Walsh: Charles Dunn Wisconsin Lawyer Author Award

Presented by the State Bar Communications Committee, which serves as the editorial board for Wisconsin Lawyer magazine, the Hon. Charles Dunn Author Award recognizes writing excellence in the publication. The award was named in honor of the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s first chief justice.

The 2026 Charles Dunn Award goes to Brown County Circuit Court Judge Thomas J. Walsh, who is a member of the State Bar of Wisconsin’s Family Law Section and the editor of The Wisconsin Journal of Family Law.

The award recognizes Judge Walsh’s article, “Lawyers, Judges, the Third Branch: ‘A Republic, If You Can Keep It,’” 98 Wis. Law. 32-37 (July/August 2025).

Judge Walsh’s examination of the legal profession – and the vital role attorneys and judges play in preserving the dignity and integrity of the justice system and the balance of government – was compelling, engaging, and especially timely.

According to the Dunn Award Subcommittee, opinion pieces can easily become overstated or so one-sided that they alienate those who disagree in today’s political climate.

“Judge Walsh’s article, while clearly taking a position, avoids that pitfall. Instead, it invites readers to pause and thoughtfully consider our shared responsibilities within the judicial system. His reflections on how we conduct ourselves each day – and his reminder that our duty extends beyond client advocacy to stewardship of the profession itself – strongly resonated with us and, we hope, with many others,” the subcommittee noted.

“By weaving in historical context and literary references, he offered a perspective that was both insightful and accessible. The writing was engaging and easy to follow, striking a careful balance at a time when measured voices are essential. Ultimately, the article succeeds in rekindling a sense of pride and responsibility among lawyers and judges without veering into extremes.”

The subcommittee concluded that Judge Walsh’s article “stands as a powerful call to action and a timely reminder of what is at stake if we fail to uphold our obligations and defend the rule of law. Thoughtfully crafted and forward-looking, the piece presents multiple perspectives while grounding its message in history, making it both reflective and impactful.”

Judge Ashley Morse: Diversity & Inclusion Trailblazer Award

Judge Ashley Morse of Rock County Circuit Court is this year’s recipient of the Diversity & Inclusion Trailblazer Award. The award, from the Diversity & Inclusion Oversight Committee, celebrates an individual who contributes to and enhances diversity and inclusion within the Wisconsin legal profession.

Judge Ashley Morse was appointed by Gov. Tony Evers in 2022 and elected the following spring to Branch 4 in Rock County. “Notably, she is the first woman of color to serve in this role,” her nominators said.

Prior to taking the bench, Judge Morse worked for the Wisconsin Public Defender, where she was a leader in diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, and she remains so while on the bench. She volunteers to serve on committees to ensure that judicial conferences and presentations include both diverse topics and inclusive speakers, her nominators noted.

“This work has not been easy, but she never backed down on the promotion of these issues, because she understands that our judiciary must be equipped with the skills to address every litigant before them. She is the very definition of a trailblazer,” said the award committee.

Michael Levey: Pro Bono Lifetime Achievement Award

Michael Levey of Quarles & Brady LLP, Milwaukee, is the recipient of the Pro Bono Lifetime Achievement Award from the State Bar’s Legal Assistance Committee.

This Lifetime Achievement Award, presented by the State Bar’s Legal Assistance Committee, is the first time that the committee has made this distinction. Levey’s accomplishments “make him an outlier in pro bono community,” according to the committee, and this award celebrates him as he begins his retirement.

Levey was a Business Law and Health & Life Sciences partner at Quarles & Brady for more than 30 years. Committed to pro bono service throughout his career, Mike served as the firm’s national pro bono partner from 2014 until his retirement from the firm at the end of 2025, the committee noted.

Under his leadership, Quarles established significant pro bono partnerships with a variety of national organizations, including Legal Services Corporation, the Veterans Consortium Pro Bono Program, Kids in Need of Defense, National Immigrant Justice Center, HIAS, Sanctuary for Families, ALIGHT, and Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Additionally, during Mike’s tenure, Quarles continued its commitment to a variety of local pro bono causes and legal aid organizations, including Legal Action of Wisconsin, the Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee and the ACLU of Wisconsin.

Mike’s dedication to helping others extends beyond his work at Quarles. He has made a meaningful difference to civil legal aid in Wisconsin through his ongoing support of the Wisconsin Equal Justice Fund (WEJF) since 2015.

Currently a member of its Executive Committee, Mike served as WEJF president in 2019. Mike was also recently appointed to the Legal Services Corporation’s Leaders Council. He is also an active member of Congregation Shalom and the Milwaukee Jewish Federation, where he serves as Chair of its Business & Professional Network, according to the committee.

Naomi Swain: Pro Bono Attorney of the Year

Naomi Swain of Hawks Quindel, S.C., Madison, is the recipient of this year’s Pro Bono Attorney of the Year Award. The award, presented by the State Bar’s Legal Assistance Committee, recognizes dedication to the development and delivery of legal services to low-income individuals or those who develop innovative ways to deliver volunteer legal services.

Swain shows a commitment to the legal clinics of Dane County, and the legal community in general, that is inspiring for young lawyers. She leads by example in her commitment to serving others and expanding access to justice in our community.

She currently volunteers with the Dane County Bar Association Family Law Assistance Center and the Sunshine Legal Clinic, “where she provides compassionate, practical legal help to individuals facing difficult and often overwhelming circumstances,” said the committee. “She approaches this work with empathy, patience, and a deep respect for the people she serves. Her earlier volunteer work with the Rape Crisis Center hotline and the Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault reflects a long-term dedication to supporting survivors and advancing equity.”

“Beyond direct service, Naomi gives back through leadership and education, including her service on the boards of YWCA Madison and the Legal Association for Women, and her work with the State Bar’s Labor and Employment Section. She leads by example and consistently goes above and beyond to make the legal system more accessible and humane,” the committee noted.

Brynne McBride: Dan Tuchscherer Outstanding Public Interest Law Attorney

Brynne McBride is the recipient of the 2026 Dan Tuchscherer Outstanding Public Interest Law Attorney.

The award, presented by the State Bar Public Interest Law Section, recognizes a lawyer who embodies the elements of the award: demonstrating a lifetime commitment to working in the public interest, a commitment to volunteerism beyond employment responsibilities, and a selfless commitment to helping the community.

McBride is chief operating office with ABC for Health in Madison, where she oversees statewide advocacy and legal services for children and families navigating complex health coverage systems. “She has dedicated over two decades to public interest law, clients’ rights, and empowerment and systemic reform,” the committee said.

Beyond her work, she has initiated creative innovative programs, mentored future advocates, and volunteered extensively in community projects. “Her work improves individual lives while driving policy changes that benefit entire communities,” said her nominators. “Brynne’s leadership and vision reflect an unwavering commitment to justice, systemic reform, and community empowerment.”

Meagan Winn: Ryan Klesh Outstanding Public Interest Legal Worker

Meagan Winn is the recipient of this year’s Public Interest Law Section’s Ryan Klesh Outstanding Public Interest Legal Worker Award.

The award recognizes an individual who captures the essence of the late Ryan Klesh: selflessness, work ethic, kindness, intellect, authenticity, and humor in working to seek justice for low-income neighbors, family, or friends.

Winn currently serves as the coordinator for the Milwaukee County Eviction Diversion Initiative. “Through her work, Winn has been an agent for change to benefit both tenants and small landlords in the Milwaukee County Circuit Court,” her nominators said.

Winn has developed two significant systems for Milwaukee County, according to the nominators: A new administrative case seal process that eliminated a months-long backlog of cases in Milwaukee courts and an online dispute resolution program that encourages landlords and tenants to work toward a resolution ahead of their court date, clearing the case from the court’s calendar.

“Meagan is a model of tenacity on behalf of the people she serves,” her nominators said, “advocating for and implementing improvements while navigating a system that struggles with change.”

Melodie Wiseman: Nonresident Lawyers Division Founder’s Award

Melodie Wiseman, Reston, Virginia, is the recipient of the Nonresident Lawyers Division Founder’s Award for her many years of service to the Nonresident Lawyers Division (NRLD). This award recognizes a nonresident State Bar member who has brought positive change to the division and has actively participated in State Bar activities for many years.

Wiseman is a past president of the NRLD and former chair of the State Bar Board of Governors. “She remains highly active in promoting the State Bar of Wisconsin and the Nonresident Lawyers Division, regularly contributing her legal writing skills and time to further their missions,” according to her nominators.

Wiseman is a natural and impactful mentor, her nominators said. “Her guidance is thoughtful, generous, and empowering. She leads by example, offering support and encouragement while helping others grow with confidence and clarity.”

“Melodie’s sustained service, leadership, and genuine investment in people embody the values of the Founder's Award, making her truly deserving of this award,” they said.

Alaina Fahley: Government Lawyers Division Grant F. Langley Service Award

Alaina Fahley of Appleton is the recipient of the 2026 Grant F. Langley Service Award from the Government Lawyers Division (GLD).

The Langley Service Award is presented to an attorney with accomplishments in the legal profession who serves not only the government and citizens, but also other government attorneys. The attorney is someone involved in activities that increase the public’s respect for government lawyers while promoting government legal work as a rewarding career choice.

Fahley is the family defense practice coordinator with the State Public Defenders Office in Appleton and is a member of the GLD.

Fahley has spent nearly 13 years with the Wisconsin State Public Defender’s Office, “building a reputation as a fierce advocate for children, families, and others involved in the child welfare, youth, and criminal legal systems,” her nominators said.

“As the SPD’s Family Defense Practice Coordinator, she has strengthened representation statewide by training and mentoring attorneys, supporting difficult cases, and helping lawyers navigate evolving legal issues. She is a leader through her service on the State Bar Children and the Law Section, her published writing on systemic inequities, and her role as a national trainer,” they said.

“Her impact reaches beyond individual cases to broader efforts aimed at improving justice for young people and families across Wisconsin, especially those facing systemic barriers. She is an exemplary public defender whose unwavering commitment to social justice and tireless advocacy for children and families has left an enduring mark on Wisconsin's legal landscape,” those who nominated her said.

Myron LaRowe: Senior Lawyers Division Leonard L. Loeb Award

Myron LaRowe is the posthumous recipient of the 2026 Leonard L. Loeb Award from the Senior Lawyers Division. This award is given to a senior lawyer who has made significant contributions to the legal community, shown respect for the legal system, demonstrated a love for the law and high ideals and personal character, participated in organizations to improve communities, and participated in state and local bar activities.

LaRowe served Wisconsin’s legal community with distinction for more than five decades, including as Reedsburg’s city attorney for 18 years, continuing his service even after retirement. As chair of the State Bar’s Lawyer Referral Committee, he helped launch the lawyer hotline, recognizing that lawyers, like their clients, sometimes need help and support. During his term as State Bar president, the Lawyer Referral and Information System expanded statewide, improving access to attorneys for Wisconsin residents.

He also helped explore ways to make legal services more affordable and was a founding member of Wisconsin Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company (WILMIC), created to address the malpractice insurance crisis facing Wisconsin lawyers. LaRowe later served as WILMIC’s second CEO and remained on its board for nearly 30 years, while also serving in leadership roles with the State Bar’s Senior Lawyers Division, Board of Governors, and the American Bar Association.

“Myron’s accomplishments reflected both his deep respect for the legal system and his enduring love for the law. He worked to connect clients with lawyers, improve access to legal services, support lawyer wellness, and strengthen the profession through practical leadership and collaboration,” his nominators said.

LaRowe passed away in March 2023 and is deeply missed. “Those who worked with him remember his professionalism, compassion, kindness, and quiet but steady leadership,” the nominators said.

Beth Ann Richlen: Young Lawyers Division Outstanding Mentor Award

Beth Ann Richlen is the recipient of the Young Lawyers Division’s Outstanding Mentor Award. The award honors a Wisconsin attorney with six or more years of practice who has made an exceptional contribution to the life and career of a young attorney.

Richlen is chief strategy officer at Legal Action of Wisconsin. Her nominators said: “Beth exemplifies what it means to be an outstanding mentor. She has guided young attorneys through complex case questions, especially for young attorneys new to working with people living in poverty. She encourages trauma-informed, holistic approaches to casework, recognizing the intersecting challenges our clients face and addressing their broader needs. This mindset has not only shaped my approach to legal practice but has also encouraged greater connections with community organizations providing critical services to our shared clients. She creates a culture of genuine care and support, and her approachable leadership style demonstrates that no task or conversation is too small when it comes to building a strong and supported team.”

Miranda Tichareva: Young Lawyers Division Outstanding Young Lawyer Award

Miranda Tichareva is the 2026 Young Lawyers Division’s Outstanding Young Lawyer of the Year. This award is given to young lawyers who make an impact in their practice areas and in service to the State Bar and to their community.

Tichareva is with Nash Law Group in Wisconsin Rapids. After graduating from University of Wisconsin Law School in 2024, she founded and expanded an immigration law practice in northern Wisconsin, identifying a critical need for immigration representation in rural and central parts of the state. “As an immigrant herself, Miranda recognized that many individuals and families in these communities face high-stakes immigration issues with limited local legal resources. Rather than waiting for the ideal conditions, she built a practice from the ground up by developing a plan, finding clients, and mastering complex areas of immigration law through disciplined self-study and real-world advocacy,” her nominators said.

“Her dedication goes beyond legal knowledge. To better communicate with and advocate for her clients, Miranda pursued Spanish-language education through U.W.-Milwaukee, dedicating substantial study time outside of her demanding work schedule.”

Her nominators said: “Miranda exemplifies what it means to be an outstanding young lawyer. She has built a practice that few would attempt, serves the court and bar with integrity and generosity, and shows up for her community with sustained, meaningful action. Her initiative is rare, her work ethic is exceptional, and her impact is measurable.”

Christa Westerberg and Leslie Anne Freehill; Charlotte Gibson and Colin Roth: Appellate Best Briefs

The State Bar of Wisconsin's Appellate Practice Section recognizes outstanding briefs with its biennial brief-writing competition. Entries, which are limited to briefs filed within a specific time frame, are evaluated for clarity of writing, depth of analysis, and persuasiveness, and not on the apparent merits of any issue.

The sixth biennial Best Briefs competition was comprised of briefs filed between Jan. 1, 2024, and Dec. 31, 2025. There were 36 entries submitted anonymously. Five section members narrowed the number down to nine, which were then reviewed by a panel of three judges: Former Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Patience Roggensack, Judge Michael Fitzpatrick, and Judge Jeffrey Davis.

“It continues to be a strong competition with a significant number of entries as well as strongly written briefs,” said the reviewers.

Two briefs, each written by two attorneys, were selected as winners of the competition:

Christa Westerberg and Leslie Anne Freehill, for their response brief in Kohler v. Wis. Dept. of Nat. Resources, 21AP1187. Westerberg is an attorney with Pines Bach, LLP, in Madison. Freehill is deputy legal counsel for Gov. Evers with the Office of the Governor, Madison.

“This brief followed appellate practice rules to a ‘T,’ used concise sentences, well-organized paragraphs, and clear legal arguments. It was respectful in tone, with no unnecessary attacks on the opposing party or counsel,” the reviewers said. “It is a compelling statement of facts that uses subtle persuasion even in reciting witness testimony.”

Charlotte Gibson and Colin Roth, for their opening brief in Evers v. Marklien, 23AP2020. Gibson is senior counsel for appeals and complex litigation with the Wisconsin Department of Justice in Madison. Roth is an assistant attorney general with the Special Litigation and Appeals Unit with the Wisconsin Department of Justice in Madison.

“This brief presents a scholarly explication on constitutional separation of powers, and its superb organization contributes to a forceful, clear, and persuasive argument,” the reviewers said. “The writing is good, with short, clear sentences that provide good background on the facts and issues and the application of law. It has a nice flow to it in that the arguments move logically throughout.”

Andrea Bishop and Glenn Cofer: Outstanding Public Interest Law Students

The Public Interest Law Section honors law students who demonstrate a commitment to public interest work, to volunteer work or activism in their community, and to helping others in their communities.

This year, the Outstanding Public Interest Law Students are Andrea Bishop, Marquette Law School (Class of 2026), and Glenn Cofer from University of Wisconsin Law School (Class of 2026).

“Bishop stands out for her exceptional commitment to public service, the consistency of her pro bono work, and the compassion she brings to clients facing serious barriers to justice,” the committee said.

She began pro bono work her first semester of law school and has now completed more pro bono hours than any other law student at Marquette, approaching 300 hours. “Her extensive service across multiple legal settings, especially her work with tenants facing housing instability, reflects both strong legal skills and a deep commitment to helping others. She has assisted individuals seeking U.S. citizenship, supported self-represented family law litigants, helped survivors of domestic violence pursue restraining orders, and volunteered in clinics serving first responders and other community members,” said her nominators.

“Cofer is recognized for his strong commitment to public interest work, his meaningful impact on vulnerable clients, and his leadership among fellow law students during his law school tenure,” according to the award committee. “Through his work with Legal Action of Wisconsin’s Bankruptcy Clinics, the Neighborhood Law Clinic, the Marquette Volunteer Legal Clinic, and the Dane County Basic Estate Planning Clinic, he has provided critical free legal assistance to underserved communities. Across these roles, he has helped clients achieve life-changing results while also mentoring peers with empathy, professionalism, and a clear dedication to justice,” his nominators said.

Join Us for the Celebration this June in La Crosse

Want to celebrate a friend, family member, or colleague being honored at the Member Recognition Celebration? Join us for this free event from 5:45 p.m. to 7 p.m. on Thursday, June 11, in La Crosse.

The celebration takes place at the State Bar Annual Meeting & Conference, June 11-12, 2026. Register now to choose from CLE sessions covering top trends, hot topics, and enduring advice for today’s lawyers.

In addition, featured plenary speakers, the Legal Expo, networking luncheons, and the Presidential Swearing-in Ceremony will help you connect, learn, and relax.

Reserve your spot today!

Wisconsin Supreme Court Adopts Uniform Bar Exam

Jay D. Jerde — 2026-04-01 00:00:00

April 1, 2026 – The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Tuesday, March 24, adopted the Uniform Bar Examination (UBE), which provides the ability to transfer UBE scores from tests taken in other states.

The order, 2026 WI 9, marks the first enactment of a proposal from the Supreme Court’s Attorney Recruitment and Retention Committee Report and Recommendations released in November.

“Wisconsin is facing real challenges in recruiting and retaining qualified attorneys,” said Chief Justice Jill J. Karofsky. “This change reduces barriers to practice while maintaining the standards our courts and communities expect.

“It is a practical step that helps connect more attorneys with the people who need them.”

The order changes parts of Supreme Court Rule (SCR) chapter 40 governing admission to the bar, effective July 1, 2026.

The first bar examination in Wisconsin using the UBE will take place in July.

Transferability

The UBE, developed by the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE), offers the possibility that law school graduates taking the test in other states will be able to transfer their score to seek Wisconsin bar admission without taking an additional bar exam.

Jay D. Jerde, Mitchell Hamline 2006, is a legal writer for the State Bar of Wisconsin, Madison. He can be reached by email or by phone at (608) 250-6126.

Wisconsin is the 40th state to adopt the UBE.

The Supreme Court report viewed the UBE as a means of bringing in new lawyers to practice from nearby states.

“[G]iven that the decline in Wisconsin’s attorneys is most pronounced in areas that border neighboring states,” the report said, “adopting the UBE may expand options for recent graduates from adjacent states to become licensed in Wisconsin more readily.”

Under the new rule, a UBE score of at least 260 (out of 400 points) from a UBE taken within the past 36 months in another jurisdiction is good for transfer into Wisconsin. The transferred score replaces taking a bar exam in Wisconsin.

Wisconsin-Specific Law

The applicant will also be required to take 21 hours of Wisconsin law and practice education. The subjects are based on the requirements for diploma privilege in SCR 40.03.

Diploma privilege allows graduates from U.W. Law School and Marquette University Law School to apply for Wisconsin bar admission without taking a bar exam if the applicant successfully completed the prescribed law school courses.

The State Bar will offer the required educational hours, as approved by the Board of Bar Examiners (BBE).

“While the State Bar of Wisconsin hosts hundreds of Wisconsin-specific CLE programs, the new UBE pathway will prioritize a core set of 21 credits that establish a foundational grasp of Wisconsin’s distinctive legal framework,” said Theresa Elliott, State Bar director of professional development.

“This curated guidance will equip out-of-state attorneys with pertinent Wisconsin cases and outcomes to deepen their understanding of our unique law and its application.”

Applicants for Wisconsin bar admission have 12 months after receiving notification of a passing UBE score or within 12 months of filing an application for admission to transfer a UBE score to complete the educational component.

Costs of Admission

The bar examination fee will remain unchanged at $450. The fee to apply for Wisconsin bar admission with a transferred score will also be $450.

The rule change also commits Wisconsin to use the UBE successor test, the NextGen Bar Exam, starting in July 2028.

The final rule represents a change from the rule proposal submitted by the BBE on Dec. 17 in reducing the number of legal education hours required and doubling the time available to complete the educational requirement.

The rule, as modified, received unanimous approval from the Supreme Court in its concern for making it easy for lawyers to come to Wisconsin.

During the March 12 public hearing on the rule petition, Supreme Court justices questioned proposed limitations, such as the time to complete the educational component, the number of hours required, and fees.

“Let’s make this as cheap and easy as possible to get more lawyers in Wisconsin as soon as possible,” Justice Brian Hagedorn said – a refrain repeated in open administrative conference by Chief Justice Karofsky.

During the hearing, Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler likewise said, “We have legal deserts in Wisconsin. We need lawyers to come here.”

The Supreme Court requested input from the deans of Wisconsin’s two law schools about their opinions on the changed number of Wisconsin educational hours. Both deans wrote responses indicating approval.

Pathways to Wisconsin Practice

Most Wisconsin lawyers enter practice through diploma privilege. Lawyers who have proof of practice for three out of the past five years may also apply for admission.

UBE transferability will assist applicants who have practiced less than the years necessary for admission on practice.

The UBE will replace the existing Wisconsin Bar Exam, which included an essay component with questions about state-specific law and the Multistate Bar Examination (MBE), a multiple-choice test.

The UBE includes a Multistate Essay Examination (30%), a Multistate Practice Examination (20%), and the MBE (50%). States may change the weight of the components and create requirements covering state-specific law, the NCBE website explained.

All applicants for Wisconsin bar admission must pass BBE’s character and fitness evaluation.

SCOTUS Watch: Major Decisions in March, More to Come

2026-04-01 00:00:00

April 1, 2026 – As of April 1, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court has heard 48 cases, with 30 cases awaiting decisions after oral argument and 9 oral arguments scheduled for April.

Major Decisions in March

Chiles v. Salazar (March 31, 2026)

On appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, the Supreme Court reversed 8-1, holding that Colorado’s law banning conversion therapy, as applied to Chiles’s talk therapy, regulates speech based on viewpoint, and the lower courts erred by failing to apply sufficiently rigorous First Amendment scrutiny.

GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, ALITO, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. KAGAN, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined. JACKSON, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi (March 20, 2026)

On appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Supreme Court unanimously held that Olivier’s suit seeking purely prospective relief – an injunction stopping officials from enforcing an ordinance in the future – can proceed, notwithstanding Olivier’s prior conviction for violating that ordinance. The prohibition in Heck v. Humphrey doesn’t apply to his Section 1983 claim, the Court ruled, reversing the lower court.

KAGAN, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment (March 25, 2026)

On appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the Supreme Court reversed 9-0, holding that the provider of a service is contributorily liable for a user’s copyright infringement only if it intended that the provided service be used for infringement, which can be shown only if the party induced the infringement or the provided service is tailored to that infringement. Cox neither induced its users’ infringement nor provided a service tailored to infringement. Accordingly, Cox is not contributorily liable for the infringement of Sony’s copyrights.

THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, KAGAN, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which JACKSON, J., joined.

Rico v. United States (March 25, 2026)

On appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court reversed 8-1, holding the Sentencing Reform Act does not authorize automatically extending a defendant’s term of supervised release when the defendant absconds. In this case, during Isabel Rico’s second abscondment from supervised release, she violated, and was later convicted, of a state drug offense that occurred after her supervised release term ended. Back in federal district court, the judge treated Rico’s drug offense as a Grade A violation of her supervised release conditions and sentenced her to 16 months of incarceration followed by two more years of supervised release, affirmed by the Ninth Circuit.

GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, KAVANAUGH, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Featured March Oral Argument

Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction. (argued March 24, 2026)

The case addresses whether the doctrine of judicial estoppel can be invoked to bar a plaintiff who fails to disclose a civil claim in bankruptcy filings from pursuing that claim simply because there is a potential motive for nondisclosure, regardless of whether there is evidence that the plaintiff in fact acted in bad faith.

The principle as applied here prevented the debtor in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan from suing a party at fault for injuries from a car-truck accident.

As the petitioner’s brief described it, “The question in this case is what happens when a debtor pursues an action against someone outside of bankruptcy but neglects to timely advise the bankruptcy court of his claim.”

Although Keathley informed his bankruptcy lawyer of the claim, of value to his creditors for its potential proceeds, his lawyer failed to present it to the bankruptcy court. Keathley described the omission as “inadvertent.”

The district court granted the respondent’s summary judgment motion and dismissed this personal injury case.

That’s what Mann said: “You know it is a bad sign at oral argument when several different justices debate among themselves the best rationales for an opinion ruling against you. And that was the experience of William Jay yesterday, who represents the other driver’s employer. His most determined opponent was Justice Neil Gorsuch, who repeatedly floated the idea of a ‘short and succinct’ opinion telling the lower court that characterizing Keathley’s misstep as either a ‘mistake’ or ‘inadvertence’ would be enough to excuse it. Another thread came from Justice Elena Kagan. For her, complete inadvertence and the absence of any intention to mislead would also seemingly weigh against barring the suit.” – Ronald Mann, SCOTUSblog

Executive Action Case Scheduled for Oral Argument

Trump v. Barbara (oral arguments April 1)

The Supreme Court will determine whether a presidential executive order that would end the guarantee of citizenship for all persons born in the U.S. violates a provision of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment, which says “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Of Interest in Wisconsin

Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel

A Supreme Court decision may be the tip of the iceberg for an issue, which in this case involves Enbridge’s ability to operate and upgrade the “Line 5” pipeline.

The pipeline transports crude oil from the Athabasca Tar Sands in Alberta to refineries in eastern Canada through northern Wisconsin and Michigan.

In the Supreme Court case, argued Feb. 24 and with a decision pending, the only issue is whether a district court has the discretion to remove a case to federal court contrary to the limits in 28 U.S.C. section 1446(b)(1), which provides a 30-day deadline.

The district court granted removal 30 months after the filing of the original lawsuit in which the Michigan attorney general sought to shut down part of the pipeline that sits at the bottom of the Straits of Mackinac, both a key Native American fishing location and seafaring pinch point. Environmental concerns justified the lawsuit.

A case filed by Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer inspired the removal action. Whitmer also sought to shut down the pipeline. Enbridge successfully removed the case to federal court. The case was dismissed. Enbridge then sought, and obtained, federal removal for Nessel.

But, Nessel is only one of the pipeline’s many challenges.

The Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa in Wisconsin chose not to renew an easement allowing the pipeline to go through the reservation. Enbridge resisted, and the tribe sued and won in federal court. Enbridge is appealing the decision, which some experts say may end up at the U.S. Supreme Court

Meanwhile, Enbridge seeks federal and state permits to reroute the pipeline around the reservation. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) granted permits in 2024, which are now challenged in state court on administrative procedural issues.

Enbridge also seeks to bury its pipeline under the Straits. Ship anchors have damaged the current pipeline that rests on the lake bed. Opposition has arisen in Michigan, especially from Native American tribes seeking protection for fishing under treaty rights – another issue likely complicated enough to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

As Bradley Joondeph of SCOTUSblog summarized about the Supreme Court’s oral arguments, “Ultimately, the hour of discussion revealed little about where the justices stood. We must wait to find out until the court hands down its decision, likely by the end of June.”

That uncertainty may apply to all issues Enbridge faces for Line 5.

West's Jury Verdicts, Bench Decisions, Settlements, and Arbitration Awards

2026-03-25 00:00:00

March 25, 2026 – A selection of recent Wisconsin case verdicts are shared below. The information is provided as a service to State Bar of Wisconsin members in cooperation with Westlaw's® West's Jury Verdicts – Wisconsin Reports, a Thomson Reuters business.

Featured Cases

Young v. Monroe County (U.S.D.C. - W.D. Wisconsin)

Labor and Employment - Jury: $0
Federal Jury Finds in County's Favor Regarding Dispatcher's Claims for FMLA Violations

Case Summary: 2025 WL 2924886
Free "Case of the Month" Case Summary
Plaintiff's complaint: 2023 WL 12152484
Defendant's memorandum of law in support of motion for summary judgment: 2025 WL 2830973
Special verdict: 2025 WL 2829615
Judgment 2025 WL 2830976

In re the Matter of A.K. (Wis. Cir. Ct. - Monroe)

Vehicle Negligence - Settlement: $40,000
Parties Reach $40K Settlement for Minor Passenger's Injuries Due to Rear-End MVA on Interstate 94 Near Tomah

Case Summary: 2024 WL 6972175
Request 1 Free Case Summary by E-mail
Plaintiff's petition for approval of minor settlement: 2024 WL 6934562
Order approving minor settlement: 2024 WL 6934564

In re M.S. (Wis. Cir. Ct. - Taylor)

Animals - Settlement: $35,500
Parties Reach $35.5K Settlement for Minor's Dog Bite Injuries in Taylor County

Case Summary: 2025 WL 2643676
Request 1 Free Case Summary by E-mail
Plaintiff's petition for approval of minor settlement: 2025 WL 2625065
Order approving minor settlement: 2025 WL 2625066

In re the Matter of A.R.C. (Wis. Cir. Ct. - Eau Claire)

Vehicle Negligence - Settlement: $30,000
Minor Recovers $30K Following Automobile Accident in Eau Claire

Case Summary: 2025 WL 3883370
Request 1 Free Case Summary by E-mail
Order approving settlement for a minor: 2025 WL 3186986

In re N.S. (Wis. Cir. Ct. - Juneau)

Vehicle Negligence - Settlement: $17,500
Minor Recovers $17.5K for Injuries Suffered Due to Motorist's Automobile Strking his Residence in Lemonweir

Case Summary: 2022 WL 23030293
Request 1 Free Case Summary by E-mail
Plaintiff's petition for order approving settlement: 2022 WL 22989904
Order approving minor settlement: 2022 WL 22989860

In re the Matter of L.W. (Wis. Cir. Ct. - Monroe)

Vehicle Negligence - Settlement: $3,500
Parties Reach Settlement for Minor Passenger's Injuries Following MVA in Monroe County

Case Summary: 2024 WL 6972176
Request 1 Free Case Summary by E-mail
Plaintiff's petition for approval of minor settlement: 2024 WL 6934561
Order approving minor settlement: 2024 WL 6934563

State Bar members can:

Request a full case summary, free of charge
Submit their own case results for online publication in Westlaw's ® West's Jury Verdicts – Wisconsin Reports, free of charge
Order a paid online subscription to Westlaw's ® West's Jury Verdicts – Wisconsin Reports
Contact West: west.juryverdicts@thomsonreuters.com or 800-689-9378

For State Bar members submitting their own results for publication, West will:

Send each submitter a pdf of his/her published case as it appears online in Westlaw's ® West's Jury Verdicts – Wisconsin Reports, free of charge
Consider featuring the case in the State Bar's WisBar InsideTrack e-newsletter

© 2026 Thomson Reuters/West. All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this Web site for their own personal and noncommercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Thomson Reuters/West content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Reuters/West.

Ethics Watch: Who Should Investigate U.S. DOJ Attorneys First, the Feds or the State?

Jay D. Jerde — 2026-03-25 00:00:00

March 25, 2026 – Attorney General Pamela Bondi, the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, wants the first chance to review claims that her Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys committed ethics violations.

The proposed rule under her signature in the March 5 Federal Register would “establish a process for reviewing bar complaints and allegations against its attorneys” within 28 C.F.R. Part 77.

Although the proposed rules are exempt from the usual notice and comment requirements, DOJ requested public comments, which are due by April 6 on www.regulations.gov.

Part 77 responded to 28 U.S.C. section 530B, which requires government attorneys to be “subject to [s]tate laws and rules, and local [f]ederal court rules, governing attorneys in each [s]tate where such attorney engages in the attorney’s duties.”

‘Right to Review … in the First Instance’

The brief proposed rule would grant the attorney general “the right to review the allegations in the first instance,” whether knowledge of the alleged violation came from DOJ or from an outside source.

Jay D. Jerde, Mitchell Hamline 2006, is a legal writer for the State Bar of Wisconsin, Madison. He can be reached by email or by phone at (608) 250-6126.

Ethics Watch is a monthly article that tracks ethics trends and developments nationwide. It is NOT reviewed or written by the State Bar of Wisconsin’s ethics counsel attorneys, who write Ethical Dilemmas.

The attorney general could either conduct the initial review or direct it to the applicable state bar disciplinary authority.

If the attorney general chooses to review the ethics violation, the office “shall request that the bar disciplinary authorities suspend any parallel investigations or disciplinary proceedings until the completion of the review.”

Although the state disciplinary authority could continue its investigation – “request” is not a command – “the [DOJ] shall take appropriate action … to prevent the bar disciplinary authorities from interfering with the [a]ttorney [g]eneral’s review.”

As the notice for proposed rulemaking (NOPR) explains, the state disciplinary authority won’t get “any non-public information” until after the DOJ review.

Once the attorney general has completed review, the office will notify the state disciplinary authority.

If the attorney general chose to investigate, the state disciplinary authority would receive the results of the DOJ investigation. This helps state authorities who have limited resources, the NOPR said.

The state disciplinary authority then remains free to complete its investigation and decide punishment.

A state’s disciplinary authority’s range of discipline exceeds the DOJ’s, the NOPR explains. The DOJ can only reprimand, suspend, or fire. The disciplinary authority “may suspend or revoke an attorney’s license.”

Under the proposed rule, the government attorney has a choice, the NOPR describes.

If the attorney notifies the DOJ of a state bar complaint and cooperates with the DOJ investigation, the DOJ under the proposed rule may investigate first.

But, if the attorney doesn’t cooperate with the DOJ investigation, the attorney general will close its review and hand it over to the state, the NOPR explains.

The rule acts similarly to a choice of venue.

No Change

The proposed rule makes no practical change in how these ethics investigations proceed, the NOPR states.

The DOJ describes its duty in 28 C.F.R. section 77.1(a) “to ensur[e] that its attorneys perform their duties in accordance with the highest ethical standards.”

Ethics complaints at the DOJ begin at the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), which refers a “clear and unambiguous” violation to the Professional Misconduct Review Unit (PMRU) for investigation.

The PMRU investigates and reports its recommendations to the OPR, which then acts and communicates to the state disciplinary authority, the NOPR explains.

If the Office of Inspector General (OIG) finds an attorney violation, the OIG will refer any attorney ethics matter to the PMRU, which makes a recommendation to the OPR for resolution, and then to the state disciplinary authority.

The proposed rule would allow the OPR’s expertise to ensure “consistent application of the [s]tate ethics rules.”

The “OPR has 50 years of experience in evaluating allegations of professional misconduct against [DOJ] attorneys,” the NOPR said. “It is intimately familiar with all [s]tate rules of professional conduct and how they apply to the work of [DOJ] attorneys.”

State rules and discipline will still apply to DOJ attorneys, the NOPR emphasizes.

“For example, a [s]tate ethics rule that prohibits attorneys from deceiving the court would apply to both [DOJ] attorneys and non-[DOJ] attorneys alike, and it would prohibit both [DOJ] attorneys and non-[DOJ] attorneys from making deceptive statements to the court.”

The OPR is usually the first to know about an alleged ethics violation, the NOPR explained.

When a state bar receives a complaint about a DOJ attorney, “most [s]tate bars refrain from taking further action until [the] OPR is able to complete the investigation so that the bar has a full account, through [the] OPR’s report of investigation, of the evidence and [the] OPR’s analysis, as well as the PMRU’s conclusions.”

When a state disciplinary authority refers the complaint to the OPR, the NOPR said, “most [s]tate bars do not take additional action.”

Nationwide Access

The attorney general leads the DOJ upon appointment by the president and advice and consent of the Senate.^[1] This top attorney advises on legal questions as requested by the president and executive department heads.^[2]

“The [a]ttorney [g]eneral has the authority to send [DOJ] officers ‘to any [s]tate or district in the United States to attend to the interests of the United States in a suit pending in a court of the United States, or in a court of a [s]tate, or to attend to any other interest of the United States,’” said the NOPR, quoting 28 U.S.C. section 517.

Similarly, DOJ “attorneys are not required to be licensed in each [s]tate or jurisdiction in which they practice – and are not liable for the unlicensed practice of law when they do so – because the [DOJ’s] officers and agents do not need approval from a [s]tate … to discharge their [f]ederal responsibilities,” the NOPR explains.

Nationwide duties require access to all courts.

But state ethics disciplinary panels, the NOPR alleges, have fallen prey to “political activists” who have “weaponized” the process – and state authorities are willing “to give credence to such complaints,” the NOPR said.

“Recently, for example, certain [s]tate bar disciplinary authorities have undertaken investigations of [DOJ] attorneys without notifying and coordinating with OPR.”

Such unbridled actions, the NOPR concludes, could chill the necessary zealous advocacy DOJ attorneys must practice to defend the United States, or “impede an unpopular initiative.”

In its regulatory certifications, the DOJ “determined that this proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.”

“The proposed rule would merely better reflect the existing balance of responsibilities between [s]tate bar authorities and the [DOJ].”

Endnotes

[1] 28 U.S.C. section 503. ↩

[2] 28 U.S.C. section 511 (president); 28 U.S.C. section 512 (executive department heads). ↩

AMC in La Crosse: Best Rates Available Now

2026-03-25 00:00:00

March 25, 2026 – Each year, the State Bar of Wisconsin Annual Meeting & Conference (AMC) creates a shared professional experience for Wisconsin’s legal community to connect, learn, and relax.

Meet us in June on the Mississippi River for a chance to step away from the pace of daily practice and spend a few days in a setting that encourages both focus and perspective.

visit WisBar.org’s Marketplace;
call (800) 728-7788 (credit card or Ultimate Pass™);
download the registration form and mail to: State Bar PINNACLE Registrations, P.O. Box 7158, Madison, WI 53707-7158 (check, credit card, passbooks, or Ultimate Pass™)

See more information on the registration page at amc.wisbar.org.

CLE Highlights

These sessions are designed for the whole profession and tackle issues affecting Wisconsin lawyers, including these:

Advocate, Don't Agitate: Mastering Mediation

Gain practical techniques for advancing your client's position without hardening opposition, and learn how preparation, framing, and strategic patience can influence outcomes. You’ll leave with a clearer sense of how to recalibrate your advocacy for both court-ordered and voluntary mediation.

Admissible or Not? Addressing Evidentiary Issues in the AI Age

Work through fast-paced fact scenarios presented by two circuit court judges, vote anonymously on the outcome, and test your reasoning against a structured analytical framework. Develop a practical approach to evaluating AI-affected evidence and hone your ability to argue – or rule on – emerging evidentiary challenges.

At the 2025 AMC in Madison, CLE sessions included "Demystifying Reverse Mortgages," with speakers Mark Johnson (right) and Noe Rincon (left).

Check Out the Plenary Sessions

Thursday Opening Plenary: Wisconsin’s Lawyer Shortage: Lessons from Other States

Join leaders from the judiciary, national legal services, and academia to examine why lawyer distribution affects every lawyer, firm, and court—and to explore how strategies being tested in other states may offer practical insights and potential solutions to Wisconsin’s challenges.

Friday Closing Plenary: We Hold These Truths: The Declaration at 250

Join Wisconsin Supreme Court justices for a conversation about the Declaration’s historical significance, legal evolution, and modern relevance of these foundational documents.

See wisbar.org/AMC for the schedule. AMC will be submitted to the Wisconsin Board of Bar Examiners for up to 10.5 credit hours, with a mix of CLE, EPR, LAU, and LPM options across plenary sessions and breakouts. It will also be submitted to the Minnesota State Board for Continuing Legal Education for CLE credit.

There’s more learning after the conference ends: Select sessions will be recorded and offered as webcast replays, free for AMC attendees, during the weeks of July 17 and August 20, 2026.

Network with Bench and Bar

AMC is the largest State Bar of Wisconsin gathering of the bench and bar. Meet your colleagues and judges from the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, and circuit courts from across Wisconsin.

Several judges are among the presenters; all judges are encouraged to attend and earn judicial credit.

AMC Registration: Reserve Your Spot by May 7 for Best Rate

Take advantage of early-bird pricing when you register by May 7, 2026. Visit the AMC website for more information on registration rates. Your lowest possible registration rate will be displayed once you’re logged in to wisbar.org.

Newcomer to the State Bar’s Annual Meeting and Conference? First-time member attendees save an additional $100 off registration.

To register for AMC:

go to the registration page on amc.wisbar.org; or
call (800) 728-7788.

Radisson Hotel La Crosse: Reserve Your Room by May 12 for Best Rate

Located in the heart of downtown La Crosse, AMC takes place at the Radisson Hotel La Crosse. The Radisson Hotel offers newly renovated guestrooms, an on-site restaurant and lounge, complimentary shuttle service, and beautiful views of the Mississippi River. Guests can also enjoy easy access to hiking trails, breweries, and cultural attractions unique to La Crosse.

A room block has been reserved for AMC attendees at the Radisson Hotel La Crosse. After May 12, 2026, we cannot guarantee rooms at the group rate. Find out more on the AMC website at amc.wisbar.org.

To register for your room:

call (608) 668-2448 and use block code AZ60T6;
or go online at ChoiceHotels.com.

Join us in La Crosse, June 10-12, 2026, for AMC 2026!

Public Notice of U.S. District Court - Eastern District of Wisconsin Reappointment of Incumbent U.S. Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph

2026-03-18 00:00:00

March 18, 2026 – The current term of office of United States Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph in the Eastern District of Wisconsin is due to expire on Nov. 14, 2026. The United States District Court is required by law to establish a panel of citizens to consider the reappointment of the magistrate judge to a new eight-year term.

A full public notice for the magistrate judge position is posted on the court’s website.

Comments from members of the bar and public are invited as to whether the incumbent magistrate judge should be recommended by the panel for reappointment by the court and should be directed to:

Hon. Pamela Pepper, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Eastern District of Wisconsin
U.S. Courthouse
517 E. Wisconsin Ave.
Milwaukee, WI 53202

Comments must be received no later than May 4, 2026.

Quick Reference for Official Notices

Quick Links to Wisconsin Court System

Wisconsin's New Drinking Water PFAS Rule – On Tap or Turned Off?

Jay D. Jerde — 2026-03-18 00:00:00

This article was updated at 8:35 a.m., March 18, 2026.

March 18, 2026 – Wisconsin may have new drinking water regulations limiting permissible amounts of PFAS after approval by the Natural Resources Board (NRB) Jan. 28 and the governor’s signature March 2 – unless the Wisconsin Legislature still has power to stop it.

The amendments to Wisconsin Administrative Code chapter NR 809 signed by Gov. Tony Evers could need review by the legislature prior to promulgation, depending on how partisans interpret a 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court decision.

Reasons exist to question the stricter rules for safe water.

Although Wisconsin adopted the rules out of necessary compliance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations, for reasons political and scientific the EPA has been backing away from its rules.

If the EPA’s rule fails judicial review, Wisconsin could have more stringent regulations than the EPA – with the clock ticking fast for compliance by water utilities.

“The compliance deadlines under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) don’t seem like they’re right on top of us,” said Edward “Ned” Witte, a Wisconsin environmental attorney with Earth & Water Law, a firm based in Washington, D.C.

“But when it comes to actually planning, capital spending, construction, and achieving compliance, there’s a lot of work to be done in a relatively short period of time.”

‘Miracle Substance’

PFAS began in the 1940s as a solution. This type of chemical – and there are thousands – “was kind of a miracle substance because it was so effectively water-resistant, oil-resistant, and so durable,” Witte said.

Jay D. Jerde, Mitchell Hamline 2006, is a legal writer for the State Bar of Wisconsin, Madison. He can be reached by email or by phone at (608) 250-6126.

Consumers may recognize its applications in products such as Scotchgard and Teflon.

Less familiar, it’s what makes aqueous film forming foam (AFFF), a firefighting foam used at airports.

PFAS doesn’t break down – hence the term “forever chemicals” – and began appearing in the environment.

Exposure to PFAS has been linked to low birth weight, reduced immunity, cholesterol and hormone levels, liver and kidney damage, and cancer, according to DNR’s Fiscal Estimate & Economic Impact Analysis for the new rules.

The problem of PFAS got overlooked. Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), a manufacturer must report to the EPA any new chemical, “and that never happened,” Witte said.

Concern has grown during the last 20 years.

“I think that the regulatory agencies are hurrying to catch up, and a lot of rulemaking happened during the four years of the [President Joe] Biden administration,” Witte said.

Wisconsin’s Attempts

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) response follows that trajectory, marked by legal challenges.

The DNR published an interim decision on its website in 2019 that offered only limited liability for voluntary reporting of emerging contaminants, “specifically PFAS.”

In a subsequent letter to responsible parties and on its website, the DNR defined PFAS as a hazardous substance under the Spills Law at Wis. Stat. section 292.01(5).

A lawsuit challenged the DNR’s actions as illegal unpromulgated rules.

In Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, Inc. v. DNR, 2025 WI 26, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ended the dispute in a 5-2 decision, holding that the DNR’s communications were legitimate guidance documents.

In another conflict, Evers has fought with the Legislature to release $125 million in the 2023-25 biennial budget for PFAS cleanup.

The standoff resulted in Evers vetoing 2023 Senate Bill 312, which would have created PFAS clean-up grant programs and limitations that he believed hamstrung the DNR.

The DNR attempted to pass PFAS regulations in 2022, but the NRB didn’t agree with all of them.

The NRB voted down groundwater quality standards, approved surface water quality criteria, and modified proposed drinking water standards, raising the maximum contaminant level in the proposed regulations from 20 to 70 parts per trillion (ppt).^[1]

The EPA had no PFAS rule, only “an informally promulgated number of 70 ppt, … but it really wasn’t scientifically defensible,” Witte explained.

Out of the regulations approved in 2022, Wisconsin began monitoring PFAS levels.^[2]

Wisconsin’s Rule – and Deadline

The EPA promulgated its PFAS SDWA rule, 40 CFR Part 141, Subpart Z, in 2024. That set the clock running for the DNR.

Wisconsin has primary enforcement, called “primacy,” and may run its own drinking water program as long as the DNR keeps up with the EPA – and that means enacting state regulations “no less stringent” than the EPA’s within two years.^[3]

If Wisconsin fails, the EPA can come in and enforce the SDWA.

With that deadline, the DNR sought approval of its PFAS rule, so consistent with the EPA’s that the language ignores Wisconsin administrative rule stylistic conventions.

A lot of pages create a few fundamental requirements. Wisconsin sets PFAS and PFOA maximum contaminant levels to 4 ppt, sets levels at 10 ppt for three other PFAS substances, and adopts a hazard index.

The hazard index represents the synergistic effects of multiple PFAS chemicals even below individual maximum contaminant levels.

PFAS monitoring under Wisconsin’s rule must be completed by April 26, 2027, and water system compliance two years after that.

Administratively Orphaned

One of the criticisms raised in the DNR rulemaking process noted that the EPA has indicated its desire to limit application of the federal rule and encouraged states to ask for extensions.

After the EPA promulgated its rule, various groups sued the EPA in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The “EPA did not rely on the best available science and the most recent occurrence data, and used novel approaches as the basis for certain parts of the rule” and “significantly underestimated the costs of this rule,” plaintiffs claimed.

The EPA’s promulgation failed to follow the steps required by the SDWA, doubling up on some of those steps, eliminating required opportunities for public comment, plaintiffs said.

The hazard index itself, they argued, was novel, arbitrary, and capricious.

Under the Biden Administration, the EPA defended itself, but under President Donald Trump, the EPA asked the court for time to reconsider its position.

Last fall, the EPA sought a partial vacatur of the rule, defending its PFAS and PFOA rules but abandoning the other three substances and the hazard index.

The District of Columbia Circuit panel said the EPA’s decision had merit, Witte said.

Nationwide analysis of drinking water systems showed that the PFAS and PFOA maximum concentration level of 4 ppt “would make sense to regulate and to put in place controls for those substances.”

“But as to the other three, plus the hazard index, the detections were far lower,” sometimes nonexistent, Witte said.

“We kind of got this a little bit backwards,” Witte summarized, “because there was such a rush to regulate PFAS that some of these standards were put in place and then this testing happened.”

“There’s some justification for why the U.S. EPA is seeking to rescind the standards that have been proposed and now are legal.”

Although both plaintiff and defendants agreed, the court didn’t.

“The merits of the parties’ positions are not so clear as to warrant summary action,” the court said in its Jan. 21 order rejecting partial vacatur.

The rule litigation creates uncertainty. If the court strikes down parts of the rule, Wisconsin could be left with regulations stronger than federal ones.

“There’s a potential issue with anti-backsliding, that once you have a regulation, it can’t become less stringent,” said Jared Walker Smith at Boardman & Clark LLP in Madison, whose municipal law practice emphasizes public water utilities.

If Wisconsin promulgates the new PFAS rule, “then regardless of what the federal EPA does, it is likely that these standards would remain Wisconsin standards going forward, even if they are more stringent than any federal requirement.”

It can also mean that any delay that the EPA allows in enforcement may not apply to Wisconsin.

‘A Big Rush’

“The vast majority of public water utilities in Wisconsin already meet the standards that have been proposed for adoption by the DNR,” Smith said.

Wisconsin has 1,025 community water systems run by municipalities and businesses for apartment buildings, mobile home parks, and condominiums, according to the DNR’s Economic Impact Analysis.

Another 893 non-transient non-community water systems are smaller, business operations.

The DNR rule analysis included the EPA’s estimated annualized compliance costs for community water systems of $24.7 million, and for the non-transient non-community water systems at about $1.9 million.

Wisconsin has 96 public water systems that have submitted to DNR at least one sample that exceeds the PFAS rule standards, the rule analysis states.

“We still have a fair amount of data from our public water utilities about whether they have PFAS in their water and, if so, at what levels, and that’s not the case in a lot of states,” Smith said.

Early testing has alerted water utilities of potential problems, Smith said. Some utilities have already responded by shutting down problematic wells or installing treatment systems.

A lot of water systems are small, and they will be looking for funding sources from grants, loans, or rate increases that raise water bills, Smith said.

The ubiquitous water utilities, often overlooked, face many pressures. Some are working to remove old lead service lines. Planned changes to NR 809 would tighten lead and copper compliance, Smith said.

The infrastructure work itself has become more challenging, Smith said, “with the decreasing number of contractors who perform and do these types of construction projects, and higher supply chain costs.”

The head start Wisconsin has may not be enough, Witte said. “I don’t think that public water systems will have enough time.”

“It’s going to be a rush. It’s going to be a big rush.”

Nearing Resolution?

The PFAS rule comes when related issues may be nearing resolution.

The dispute between Evers and the legislature about PFAS cleanup funding recently has seen “some potentially positive movement,” Smith said.

A PFAS liability and grant program proposal, 2025 Assembly Bill 131, passed the Senate on Tuesday, March 17, 2026, after the Assembly approved it 93-0.

As those promising signs remain in suspension, so is the drinking water PFAS rule, which faces the uncertainty of how much power, if any, the legislature has in reviewing administrative rules.

In Evers v. Marklein, 2025 WI 36, the Supreme Court held unconstitutional five statutes that granted the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR) “power to pause, object to, or suspend administrative rules for varying lengths of time.”

Based on that decision, Evers announced in an Aug. 12 letter that agencies may submit rules to the Legislative Reference Bureau for publication without legislative committee review.

Legislative review statutes remain in Wis. Stat. sections 227.19 and 227.26, although the Legislative Council advises “uncertainty remains regarding whether other elements in the rulemaking process are legislative actions that also constitute impermissible ‘pauses’ in the rulemaking process.”

“I don’t know how that’s going to be resolved or its impact on these particular rules, as I’ve not seen anything that’s necessarily addressed that idea,” Smith said.

Endnotes

[1] Vanessa D. Wishart, An Update on PFAS Regulation in Wisconsin, Envtl. Law Blog, Apr. 27, 2022, https://www.wisbar.org/NewsPublications/InsideTrack/Pages/Article.aspx?Volume=14&ArticleID=29063 (last visited Mar. 12, 2026).

[2] NR 809.205(1g)-(1r), Wis. Admin. Code.

[3] 42 U.S.C. section 300g-2(a)(1); 40 C.F.R section 142.2 (defining “primary enforcement responsibility”); 40 C.F.R. section 142.10 (establishing primacy requirements), 40 C.F.R. section 142.12 (setting standards for state revision to maintain primacy); Wis. Stat. section 281.17(8)(a) (permitting DNR to “establish, administer and maintain a safe drinking water program no less stringent than” the SDWA).

Your State Bar Membership Card: Now Digital and Easy to Access

2026-03-18 00:00:00

March 18, 2026 – Starting today, the State Bar of Wisconsin is introducing a Digital Membership Card designed to make accessing your credentials faster and more convenient.

Once you’ve paid your annual dues, your digital card will be available immediately in your WisBar.org account under myProfile (you’ll need to log in). There’s no waiting for mail delivery – your proof of membership is ready when you need it, whether you’re registering for a CLE, checking into a courthouse, or confirming your status with a colleague.

Prefer a paper copy? You can download and print your digital card at any time for personal or professional use. Members who want a traditional printed card can request one through State Bar Customer Service at (800) 728-7788 or service@wisbar.org.

Moving to a digital card helps streamline the process while giving members more flexibility. It reduces mailing delays, cuts down on paper use, and ensures your membership information is always within reach – on your computer, tablet, or phone.

Your Digital Membership Card offers the same official credentials you rely on today, with quicker access and more control over how you use it. Whether you choose to go fully digital or keep a printed copy on hand, the choice is yours.

Example of Digital Membership Card.

Here’s the FAQ on your Digital Membership Card:

What is the Digital Membership Card?

The digital membership card is an electronic version of your State Bar of Wisconsin bar card. It serves as your official proof of membership and credentials and can be used in place of a printed card.

Is the Digital Membership Card printable?

Yes. It is in a PDF format. Members may download and print their digital card at any time for personal or professional use.

Where can I find my Digital Membership Card?

Your digital card is available by logging into your Wisbar account and navigating to myProfile.

Why did we move to a digital card?

The State Bar transitioned to a digital membership card to provide members with immediate, convenient access to their credentials after paying annual dues. This improves accessibility and eliminates delays associated with physical card production and mailing.

If you need a traditional printed card, you can request one by contacting State Bar of Wisconsin Customer Service at (800) 728-7788 or service@wisbar.org.

From Elder Law to Condemnation, PINNACLE Titles Get Important Updates

2026-03-18 00:00:00

March 18, 2026 – Staying current is essential, and the latest updates from State Bar of Wisconsin PINNACLE® are designed to help you do that. These updated titles cover a wide range of needs, from advising older clients and navigating public records and open meetings issues to working with family law statutes and handling condemnation matters.

Check out these recently updated titles:

Advising Older Clients & Their Families Vol. I
Wisconsin Public Records and Open Meetings Handbook
Wisconsin Family Code and Related Statutes and Rules 2026
Condemnation Law and Practice in Wisconsin

Revised: Advising Older Clients and Their Families Volume I

Advising Older Clients and Their Families is written and updated by many of Wisconsin’s premier elder law attorneys, making it the foremost guide to elder law, specifically developed for Wisconsin lawyers.

This insightful overview of elder law is the perfect guide for building your elder law practice. You’ll learn about:

protecting your clients’ rights and interests;
ways to foster relationships with your clients; and
handling initial client interviews and billing.

The guide’s citations to key cases, statutes, and regulations will inform you about the laws affecting the most dynamic areas of elder law practice, including:

housing
asset protection
the ins-and-outs of Social Security benefits

This volume provides practice pointers, tips, charts, forms, and other tools essential to helping you build and maintain a successful elder law practice.

The 2025-26 revision includes these changes:

The Older Americans Act legal assistance program provides legal advice and representation to adults age 60 years old or older with the greatest social need. Legal Action of Wisconsin was awarded Older Americans Act Title III-B Legal Services funding for 2026.
Effective April 30, 2026, owners of HOME Investments Partnership program-assisted housing programs must comply with revised tenant-selection criteria.
Dollar amounts of contribution limits for traditional, Roth, and SIMPLE (Savings Incentive Match Plan for Employees) IRAs have been updated.
Various Social Security benefit amounts and computations, including dollar amounts for earning work credits, have been updated.

This volume is part of the Books Unbound Library Collection: Estate Planning, Probate & Elder Law.

Supplemented: Wisconsin Public Records and Open Meetings Handbook

In Wisconsin, there is a statutory presumption in favor of access to governmental records and meetings. But there are limits to that access.

The Wisconsin Public Records and Open Meetings Handbook thoroughly explores Wisconsin’s laws on public records and open meetings:

Part one discusses the practical applications of the public records law, including the notice provisions. There is also guidance on requesting records, responding to records requests, and applicable time limits.
Part two takes a practical look at the open meetings law, discussing the definition of open, notice requirements, when a meeting may be closed to the public, and enforcement.

Both laws are reprinted in full in the appendix, as are other useful references.

The 2025-26 supplement includes discussions of:

expanded protection for identities of election officials and election registration officials in the public records law;
legislative changes to the judicial privacy protections enacted during the previous legislative session;
a 2025 Wisconsin Court of Appeals opinion that addressed the issue of necessary parties to public records law cases; and
a 2025 Wisconsin Court of Appeals opinion about whether a city’s common council violated the open meetings law.

Whether you represent a governmental entity or employee, or a private citizen seeking information from the government, this handbook is your guide to Wisconsin's public records and open meetings laws.

Updated: Wisconsin Family Code and Related Statutes and Rules 2026

Quickly find the key Wisconsin family law statutes and administrative rules you need. Wisconsin Family Code and Related Statutes and Rules reprints Wisconsin’s Family Code, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, and more than 50 related statutes governing child support, grandchild support, paternity, custody, court costs, and more. Relevant administrative rules are also included.

The 2026 edition is current through the 2023-24 Wisconsin statutes, as affected by Wisconsin Acts through 2025 Wis. Act 87. The administrative code provisions are current through the Wisconsin Administrative Register, No. 842 (eff. Mar. 1, 2026).

The 2026 edition includes recent legislation and administrative developments that

amended the Wisconsin Family Code by creating a procedure for a divorce by affidavit; modifying the measurement of miles when a parent proposes to relocate with a child; and changing the income change notifications for child support or maintenance orders;
recodified Wisconsin’s battery statutes (and modified cross-references throughout the Wisconsin statutes); and
updated the federal poverty guidelines for 2026.

Revised: Condemnation Law and Practice in Wisconsin

You can find guidance and insight specifically on Wisconsin's condemnation law with the publication of Condemnation Law and Practice in Wisconsin.

The book covers both perspectives of the process: that of the condemning authority, and that of the property owner. It explains the circumstances under which the state may undertake a condemnation, and it outlines the requirements for doing so. The book also describes the processes that a property owner must follow to contest a proposed condemnation or to receive compensation for a taking.

Topics include:

public policy behind condemnation
procedural details
costs and compensation
parties' rights
remedial options for those affected by condemnation

With Condemnation Law and Practice in Wisconsin, you will:

gain an understanding of the process and the timelines that must be followed both by the condemning authority and by property owners;
understand the rights of property owners;
recognize the circumstances under which a condemnation may be commenced;
learn the types of condemnations that may be initiated and the procedures that must be followed for each;
take the appropriate actions to file a condemnation;
advocate for fair compensation determinations;
understand why and when to file an inverse condemnation claim; and
file timely appeals from condemnation commission rulings.

You'll also find strategic and tactical advice for a condemnation trial. In short, this is the definitive text for litigating property rights in Wisconsin.

This volume is part of the Books Unbound Library Collection: Real Estate Law

Invest in Your Practice with PINNACLE Books

Looking for more information and more books? Visit the WisBar Marketplace for all PINNACLE books and find out more about Books Unbound™, PINNACLE’s digital book library.

How Trauma Shapes Judicial Practice: Insights from Judge Jennifer Dorow

2026-03-18 00:00:00

Waukesha County Circuit Court Judge Jennifer Dorow shares her deeply personal story of loss, trauma, and resilience, offering valuable insights for legal professionals navigating emotional challenges in their careers. This episode explores trauma-informed judicial practices, self-care, and the importance of community support.

Listening to Lawyers, an audio project of the Wisconsin Lawyers Assistance Program (WisLAP), features Wisconsin lawyers sharing personal stories of the unexpected challenges that have shaped them. Theirs are stories of struggle, resilience, persistence, and creative and brave navigation through challenging territory while lawyering. The show is hosted by Amber Ault, Ph.D, MSW, manager for WisLAP.

Listen to more episodes of the Listening to Lawyers at wisbar.org/podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.

Chapters

00:00 Introduction to Listening to Lawyers

00:29 Meet Judge Jennifer Dorow

01:22 Personal Tragedy and Professional Impact

07:40 Navigating Roles: Judge, Lawyer, and Friend

11:51 Motherhood Amidst Grief

14:03 Coping Mechanisms and Self-Care

17:22 Lessons from Past Trauma

21:30 Supporting Colleagues in the Legal Community

22:48 Advice for Judges on Handling Trauma

26:30 The Importance of Debriefing

30:43 Conclusion and Call to Action

'There Are No Losers': Mock Trial Tournament Celebrates Student Achievement

Shannon Green — 2026-03-18 00:00:00

Congratulations to the team from Brookfield Central High School, taking first place in the state finals round of the Wisconsin High School Mock Trial Tournament. Visit the State Bar of Wisconsin’s Facebook page for more photos of the finals round and the banquet celebration.

March 18, 2026 – It was the end of the state championship round of the Wisconsin High School Mock Trial Tournament.

Looking out at the two participating teams, head judge Katie Kegel, a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, stood to announce the winner. But first, she told them this: “There are no losers in this room. None.”

All the students demonstrated courage, preparation, teamwork, professionalism, and adaptability, she said. The students know the law and the case “like the back of your hand,” she said. “You know what your strengths are and you make a conscious decision about those things.”

Those are the lessons all mock trial participants learn. “You don’t get to be the first at anything, or the best at anything unless you step out and have the courage to do so,” she told them.

Congratulations to Brookfield Central

On March 6 and 7, 20 high school teams from across the state gathered in Madison for the competition’s semifinal rounds to decide which two teams faced each other in the championship finals.

By Sunday afternoon, the champion was decided: Brookfield Central High School finished first, Madison West was the runner-up. Congratulations to both teams!

The final round was a rematch from 2022, when the Brookfield Central won the finals round against Madison West in a competition that took place via Zoom due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The rematch took place March 8, 2026, in the State Capitol in Madison.

Brookfield Central will now compete in the National High School Mock Trial Championship in Des Moines, Iowa on May 7-9, 2026.

You can see the final round from March 8, 2026, on WisconsinEye.

Randa Amer, an attorney for Madison West, gives an argument during an objection from the plaintiff during the state finals round.

The Brookfield Central teams have four coaches: attorney coaches Morgan Risseeuw and Adam Schleis, and teacher-coaches Jon Vogt and Kate Korajarvi.

The team, said Vogt, both “used their intellect and personality” and “poured their hearts” into putting together their case this year. The preparation “takes countless hours on weekends, evenings, and early mornings.” The team “came together as one unit, and were able to put together a compelling plaintiff and defense case, and constantly adjusted as the season progressed.”

Shannon Green is communications writer for the State Bar of Wisconsin, Madison. She can be reached by email or by phone at (608) 250-6135.

It's not just a single-season effort, but one of years in the making. “For some, this journey began in sixth grade, and for everyone, it was a season that they voluntarily began in August. They never turned down an optional practice, worked hard at team practices, and regularly worked on their own. To see their sacrifice for all those months and years be rewarded with a state championship is one of the highest honors of my career,” Vogt said.

Madison West teacher-coach Tony Zappia also recognizes the value of mock trial for the students. In his ninth year as a volunteer coach, Zappia said that the students learn stage presence, thinking on the spot, and improvisation. Mock trial, he said, will be an important part of their high school memories. “It’s a wonderful gift for these kids,” he said.

And it’s not just the students who benefit, the coaches do as well – and that’s something he will miss as he is retiring after this school year. “Working with these kids is contagious,” he said. “They’re just wonderful people to work with.”

Lucia Brewer gives the opening arguments for the defense during the finals round on March 8, 2026.

Salem and David

Salem Eacret and David Van Hallgren, seniors at River Valley High School, have just completed their fourth year as members of their high school mock trial team.

Salem started in middle school. “One of my favorite teachers was the coach,” he said.

David had no idea at first what mock trial was. Once he joined the team, “I really loved it. I loved the coaches and the people. I like all the different aspects of it – the storytelling, the rules, the intricacies of it.” Now, he’s pondering law as a profession.

This year, David played the role of a witness. The most important skill he’s learned: improvisation. “You can have it all memorized on direct, but in cross-examination, anything gets thrown at you. I’ve really had to adapt to a lot of different situations. It’s really nerve-wracking.”

Salem was an attorney this year. “I’m going to be honest. It’s fun to argue with people. It’s fun to get an objection in and have it sustained.” This year’s case – about an ostrich gone amok – was both challenging and whimsical. “I liked the entire story of it.”

And for both, the best part: “Interacting with people from different schools. You get to meet people from all over the state who have different experiences, and you learn a ton,” said David.

Salem Eacret (left) and David Van Hallgren (right), both seniors at River Valley High School, have participated in mock trial since their freshman year.

Spirit of Mock Trial: Waukesha South Mock Trial Team

Congratulations to the Waukesha South Mock Trial Team for winning the 2026 Spirit of Mock Trial Award! Their nominators noted that the team is prepared, respectful, and gracious in welcoming opposing teams, and praised their coaches, teacher-coach Cory Ross and attorney-coach Libby Mueller, for instilling respect for fair competition and for mentoring students with thoughtful feedback that helps competitors grow in confidence, advocacy skills, and character.

Motivated by Mock Trial

There’s no question that participating in high school mock trial in Iowa changed Ann Glavan’s life. She participated starting in middle school and throughout high school.

“Mock trial is the entire reason that I became a lawyer,” she said. “I just felt very confident and comfortable, and then that carried over into a career.”

In fact, she just got a job at a firm in Iowa where one of her high school coaches is a partner.

A Wisconsin lawyer based in Madison, she is paying it back as an attorney coach for Madison West High School – one of the two teams that participated in the state final rounds on March 8. “West has an enormous program. We have four teams and over 50 students,” she said.

Even if mock trial does not lead a student into law, it is still valuable for the life skills it gives them, Glavan said. “It gives you a place to feel confident and competent in high school, which can be a trying time as a teenager.”

From left: Lucia Brewer, Rageshri Barad, and Tess Pierce celebrate Brookfield Central's first-place finish in the state finals.

Courtroom Artist Winner

This year is the second year for the courtroom artist competition. Congratulations to Beyla Fritz of D.C. Everest High School! Winners are decided by popular vote by mock trial participants, including both students and coaches.

Mock Trial: Funded by the Wisconsin Law Foundation

The Wisconsin High School Mock Trial Tournament is a State Bar of Wisconsin program funded by the Wisconsin Law Foundation, the charitable arm of the State Bar.

The Wisconsin High School Mock Trial program is funded by a generous grant from the Wisconsin Law Foundation, the charitable arm of the State Bar of Wisconsin, supporting law-related education and public service programs statewide. Donations to the Wisconsin Law Foundation’s Mock Trial Fund can be made online at wisbar.org/wlfdonate.

Institutional House Investors: Danger or Distraction?

Jay D. Jerde — 2026-03-11 00:00:00

March 11, 2026 – “People live in homes, not corporations,” President Donald Trump emphasized in his Jan. 20 executive order “Stopping Wall Street from Competing with Main Street Homebuyers.”

The executive order signals an end to federal support for institutional investment in single-family homes – and possibly an end to legislative inertia.

As the season for home buying and selling ramps up this spring, higher sales prices added to interest rate hikes have transformed a rite of passage into a distant dream. Many blame large-scale purchases by corporate investors for devouring supply.

Other experts dispute that institutional ownership, estimated at 1% to 3% nationwide^[1] but much higher in some cities, affects affordability.

Great Recession Hangover

Homeownership peaked in the early 2000s at 70% while the complementary renting rate reached its lowest rate ever in 2004 at 33%, according to a 2024 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report.^[2]

Jay D. Jerde, Mitchell Hamline 2006, is a legal writer for the State Bar of Wisconsin, Madison. He can be reached by email or by phone at (608) 250-6126.

The report, which surveyed 74 studies, responded to Congress’ worry in 2023 about the effect of investors on the single-family housing market.^[3]

The “2007-2009 financial crisis” resulted in “an estimated 3.8 million households [losing] their homes to foreclosure.”^[4]

New home construction declined sharply beginning in 2006. Seven years later, the U.S. had lost 1.2 million owner-occupied units – including many foreclosed houses converted to rentals.^[5]

With federal government encouragement and loans, institutional investors – usually defined as owning 1,000 or more single-family houses – bought in bulk.^[6]

“By 2015, institutional investors that entered the market during the financial crisis owned an estimated 170,000-300,000 single-family housing units” – 1% to 2% of single-family housing rental stock.^[7]

Houses then comprised nearly 40% of occupied rental units. Six years later, it “had fallen back to 34.6[%].”^[8]

Geography matters. Large investors owned about a fifth of the single-family house rental market in some North Carolina and Florida cities. Atlanta alone had 25% of its homes for rent from institutional investors.^[9]

Wisconsin didn’t draw the big players, but smaller entities affected local markets.

Between 2005 and 2020, Milwaukee’s percentage of owner-occupied homes fell from 80% to 69%.

“Parts of the north and west sides saw declines double that,” Wisconsin Public Radio reported from the Marquette Law School’s Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education.

Economic headwinds sidelined individuals: higher credit scores to qualify for mortgages, “the steady loss of American jobs to outsourcing,” and the COVID-19 pandemic that under historically low interest rates created a hot seller’s market.^[10]

Investor house purchases rose again from 17% of total purchases in 2019 to 28% in 2022.^[11]

Meanwhile, interest rates on a standard 30-year mortgage went from less than 3% in 2021 to about 8% in 2023, and prices increased from a home price index of below 150 in 2012 to 300 in 2022-23.^[12]

‘Life, Liberty, and Property’

American home ownership is personal and emotional, a natural right from the Declaration of Independence’s “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”^[13]

John Locke was more blunt: “life, liberty, and property.”^[14]

In Nashville, Tennessee, where large investors held 11% of the single-family house rental market in 2022, attorney Scott Weiss described the worries of his homeowner and condominium association clients.^[15]

Whether buying existing homes or new homes as fast as they were built, “corporate investors,” Weiss said, will own those homes “forever. They’re always off the residential real estate market, and they’ll always be leased.”^[16]

Investors target properties in associations, Weiss said, because the associations take care of the property – creating risks for his clients.^[17]

Each house or condominium unit a corporation owns adds another vote in the association. A distant investor who owns enough homes or units can control the association. It will have the votes to change the documents governing the neighborhood.

Individual homeowners would have no voice. The corporation will outnumber its individual votes.^[18]

A “corporate investor” bought nearly all of the lots in a 120- to 150-home subdivision, leaving 11 individual homeowners “who basically have no say as to what happens to their homes anymore,” Weiss said.^[19]

Weiss drafts amendments to association governing documents that require a property purchaser to live in the house for one or two years before the owner can lease it.^[20]

A Public Good?

Other studies argue institutional investors have little effect nationally, and where they do, the effect helps housing.

Investors buy houses in locations with anticipated demand that they can more efficiently repair, provide larger rentals desired by families with children, make better schools accessible, and increase racial diversity in the suburbs while offering better organized and potentially more responsive maintenance.^[21]

The available capital from institutional investors broke the fall of house prices in neighborhoods hardest hit by foreclosures. Home renovations, including security systems and pressure on municipalities to improve street lighting, made neighborhoods safer.^[22]

Rent-to-own business models offer potential homeownership, and investors sell as well as buy houses.^[23]

Concentrated ownership also offers governments opportunities to improve renter conditions. Rental registries can identify out-of-state owners. Requirements to accept housing choice vouchers and rental security insurance promise to increase accessibility.^[24]

If new homeowners could more easily obtain financing for renovations, they and not institutional investors would more likely purchase houses needing repair.^[25]

These advocates point elsewhere to the problem of affordable housing. “[R]estrictive land-use and zoning regulations, discretionary approvals, and high regulatory costs” make it too hard to build.^[26]

The United States needs between 6 and 7 million more houses to end the shortage.^[27]

Presidential Mobilization

President Trump’s executive order mobilizes the Executive Branch to fashion regulations to prevent “large institutional investors” from buying “single-family homes that could otherwise be purchased by families.”

Department secretaries will devise means that increase individual opportunities to buy federally owned single-family homes and to end support of large institutional investor acquisitions.

The Attorney General and the chair of the Federal Trade Commission “shall review substantial acquisitions” of single-family homes by institutional investors.

The executive order’s loopholes aren’t so evident.

Large institutional investors own a small slice of houses. Local landlords own more.^[28]

“Build-to-rent properties” – houses and subdivisions built purposely for rental – are exempted. Build-to-rent has become the prevalent model for the institutional investor.^[29]

Legislation codifying the executive order would make it durable, but many attempts have failed.

Legislative ‘Groundhog Day’

The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) last August tallied 22 states “with often bipartisan bills” to restrict institutional investors from 2023 to 2025. The AEI list missed two other states included in a 2024 Wall Street Journal article.^[30]

AEI’s list shows six states, including Wisconsin, with legislation pending and New York enacting a law.^[31]

Wisconsin’s 2025 Assembly Bill 213 and 2025 Senate Bill 208 both would prohibit hedge funds from owning a single-family house. They haven’t moved out of committee with the legislative session all but done.

For years, it’s been legislative “Groundhog Day” in Congress. Focused bills attempted to curtail institutional investors. None passed.^[32]

In the past month, Congress may have changed its mind.^[33]

The Housing for the 21st Century Act (H.R. 6644), passed the House on Feb. 9 on a 390-9 vote.

Renamed the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, the Senate is considering a bipartisan amendment entered March 4 to regulate “large institutional investors,” which it defined as owning at least 350 houses.

The bill wouldn’t force sales of existing institutional investor houses, but after enactment prohibits institutional investors from buying single-family houses with penalties of more than $1 million per violation or three times the property’s purchase price.

The amendment contains several exceptions, including houses pending sale, renovate-to-rent, rent-to-own, and build-to-rent.

The bill remains under debate in the Senate, but were the amended version to pass, the House would need to approve the amended version before going to the president.

Endnotes

[1] Laurie Goodman, et al., A Profile of Institutional Investor-Owned Single-Family Rental Properties 3 (Urban Institute, April 2023), https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2023-04/A%20Profile%20of%20Institutional%20Investor%E2%80%93Owned%20Single-Family%20Rental%20Properties_0.pdf (last visited Mar. 5, 2026) (3%); Sissi Li, Tobias Peter & Edward Pinto, Institutional Investors in the US Housing Market 1, 3 (American Enterprise Institute, AEI Housing Center, Aug. 2025), https://aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Reevaluating-the-Role-of-Institutional-Investors-in-U.S.-Housing-Market-final-v2.pdf?x85095 (last visited Mar. 5, 2026) (less than 1%).

[2] Jill Naamane, et al., Rental Housing, 2-3 (U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, May 2024), https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-24-106643.pdf (last visited Mar. 5, 2026).

[3] Id. at 1, 2.

[4] Id. at 4; cf. Stephen George, Not for Sale: Why Congress Should Act to Counter the Trend of Massive Corporate Acquisitions of Real Estate, 6 Bus. Entrepreneurship & Tax L. Rev. 97, 105 (2022) (stating, “Between 2007 and 2016, nearly 8 million households lost their homes to foreclosure.”).

[5] Naamane, supra note 2, at 6; see Li, supra note 1, at 10 (explaining “a shortage of starter homes combined with rising home prices and mortgage rates have made homeownership an increasingly difficult hurdle for younger households”).

[6] Naamane, supra note 2, at 8-10; see George, supra note 4, at 106 (pinpointing start of trend from 2011 when “Morgan Stanley issued a report titled ‘A Rentership Society’, and within the next year, investment firms raised over one billion dollars to purchase foreclosed homes and convert them into rental properties”); Ingrid Gould Ellen & Laurie Goodman, Single-Family Rentals 9 (The Hamilton Project, Nov. 2023), https://www.hamiltonproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/20231103_THP_SingleFamilyRentals_Proposal.pdf (last visited Mar. 5, 2026) (“Indeed, the institutional single-family rental market did not exist prior to 2012. In that year, Invitation Homes, originally funded by Blackstone, was the first institutional investor to buy portfolios of distressed single-family homes with the aim to hold and operate them as rentals.”)

[7] Naamane, supra note 2, at 10-11.

[8] Ellen, supra note 6, at 3.

[9] Naamane, supra note 2, at 14, 16 (providing evidence of areas with concentrated investors contrasted with areas hard hit by foreclosures that lack institutional investors); see also Ellen, supra note 6, at 3, 5, 9-10 (showing percentage of single-family rentals in 20 largest metropolitan statistical areas); Goodman, supra note 1, at 7-11 (describing concentration of institutional single-family rental owners); Li, supra note 1, at 4-5, 15-17 (mapping out and graphing percentage of institutional investors by county and noting concentrations in Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston).

[10] George, supra note 4, at 105; Naamane, supra note 2, at 5 (contrasting borrower creditor score at mortgage origination in 2007 at 719 to above 750 between 2012 and 2023).

[11] Ellen, supra note 6, at 10.

[12] Naamane, supra note 2, at 6-7.

[13] George, supra note 4, at 97-98.

[14] Id. at 98.

[15] Alex Dickerson, et al., Shifting Landscapes: 21st Century Property Law, 10 Belmont L. Rev. 421, 421-22, 425 (2023); Naamane, supra note 2, at 16 (providing percentage in 2022).

[16] Dickerson, supra note 15, at 425; cf. Jack Wroldsen, 1031 Offramps: Incentives for Small Investors to Sell Single-Family Rental Homes, 27 N.Y.U. J. Legis. & Pub. Pol’y 773 (2024-25) (arguing that Section 1031 tax-free exchanges permanently lock properties into rentals and proposing alternatives).

[17] Dickerson, supra note 15, at 427.

[18] Id.

[19] Id. at 428.

[20] Id. at 429.

[21] Ellen, supra note 6, at 3, 5, 7, 12-13, 16; Goodman, supra note 1, at 19-20; Li, supra note 1, at 9 (describing institutional investors repairing, and thus upgrading, housing); Naamane, supra note 2, at 21-24.

[22] Ellen, supra note 6, at 8, 14; Li, supra note 1, at 7 (summarizing that “[t]his large-scale acquisition and rehabilitation of properties had helped stabilize distressed housing markets.”); Naamane, supra note 2, at 8-9 (explaining that federal government’s encouragement of institutional investors served to prop up the real estate market).

[23] Ellen, supra note 6, at 9 (rent-to-own); Goodman, supra note 1, at 3 (rent-to-own); Li, supra note 1, at 3 (citing data that “investors do not just buy homes, but they also sell homes at the same time”).

[24] Ellen, supra note 6, at 17-20 (outlining policy proposals).

[25] Id. at 20 (outlining policy proposals).

[26] Li, supra note 1, at 5, 11-12 (describing effect as “a self-inflicted wound, the product of decades of government regulatory failure” and suggesting remedies); cf. Marc J. Dunkelman, Why Nothing Works (2025) 213-37 (offering a liberal analysis showing stifling effects of environmental appeals reaching the same conclusion and suggesting remedies).

[27] George, supra note 4, at 110 (citing a National Low Income Housing Coalition study of affordable housing); Li, supra note 1, at 5 (estimating a “severe housing shortage” of 6 million houses).

[28] Ellen, supra note 6, at 8, 9 (finding 76% “of single-family rentals are owned by individual investors,” and in the top 20 markets, institutional investors own only 12.4% of all single-family rentals); Li, supra note 1, at 2 (finding “small and medium-sized investors accounted for over 90% of all investor home purchases” and while investors purchased 25% of houses in the first quarter of 2024, institutional investors purchased only 1%).

[29] Ellen, supra note 6, at 9; Li, supra note 1, at 10 (quantifying build-to-rent houses at 140,000 new homes between 2015 and 2024 and another 110,000 units under development in summer 2025); Naamane, supra note 2, at 13 (stating that industry says build-to-rent fills the need for housing contrasted with the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s position that the houses could have been built for owner-occupants).

[30] Li, supra note 1, at 1, 13-14; Will Parker, Wall Street Has Spent Billions Buying Homes. A Crackdown Is Looming, Wall St. J., Apr. 30, 2024, available at https://www.realtor.com/news/trends/wall-street-has-spent-billions-buying-homes-a-crackdown-is-looming/?msockid=246f26c1a2d46f9f0df9337ba3b56e70 (last visited Mar. 5, 2026).

[31] Li, supra note 1, at 13-14.

[32] See, e.g., Stop Wall Street Landlords Act (H.R. 7138) (in committee), previously introduced as H.R. 10028 (118th Congress) and H.R. 9246 (117th Congress) (prohibiting single-family home deductions for mortgage interest and depreciation for large investors who have assets exceeding $100 million); End Hedge Fund Control of American Homes Act (S. 3402) (in committee), previously introduced as H.R. 6608 (118th Congress) and as S. 5151 (117th Congress) (discouraging purchases through excise taxes); Affordable Housing and Homeownership Protection Act of 2026 (S. 3754) (in committee), introduced in last Congress as S. 3673 (excise taxes); Stop Predatory Investing Act (S. 969) (in committee), introduced in the last Congress as H.R. 9937 and S. 2224 (regulating any owner of 50 or more single-family residential rental properties); Houses Over Middle-Class Exploitation Schemes Act (HOMES Act) (H.R. 4352) (in committee) (regulating any owner of 50 or more single-family residential rental properties).

[33] See Rebecca Picciotto, Proposed Ban on Investors in the Housing Market Hits a Wall in Congress, Wall St. J., Feb. 9, 2026, available at https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/proposed-ban-on-investors-in-the-housing-market-hits-a-wall-in-congress/ar-AA1W06W6?ocid=BingNewsSerp (last visited Mar. 5, 2026) (reporting congressional disinterest in the issue of investor-owned houses).

April Elections: Who Will Represent You on the State Bar Board of Governors?

2026-03-11 00:00:00

March 11, 2026 – In April, State Bar of Wisconsin members will vote for representatives on the State Bar’s Board of Governors, the organization's policymaking body.

Governors serve two-year terms. Your vote for these candidates will make a difference in the future of your practice and your profession.

Vote in April: Look for Your Email Ballot

All State Bar elections (including for State Bar divisions and sections) will be held via an electronic ballot in 2026, starting April 9, 2026.

Vote for State Bar Leaders: More Information

In addition to a president-elect, State Bar members in April will elect other officers, including a secretary, a judicial council representative, and 20 members of the State Bar’s 53-member Board of Governors.

Find out more about the candidates:

The election closes at noon Central time April 24, 2026.

Please note: If you have placed any holds on emails from the State Bar, you may not receive an electronic ballot. Contact Customer Service at (800) 444-9404 to verify that your account is set up to receive your email ballot.

State Bar members with no email address on file will receive paper ballots. Paper ballots will be mailed April 8, 2026.

Candidates for Board of Governors

The following names were submitted by nomination petition for election to the Board of Governors. The Board of Governors is the State Bar's policymaking body. Governors serve two-year terms.

Districts 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, and 16 will elect governors in 2026. District 2 (Milwaukee) will elect four; District 6 (Waukesha) will elect two; District 9 (Dane) will elect five; and all other districts will elect one governor.

All State Bar elections (including for State Bar divisions and sections) will be held via electronic ballot in 2026, starting April 9, 2026. The election closes at noon Central Time on April 24, 2026.

Persons elected will take office July 1, 2026.

District Map | Officer Candidates

DISTRICT 2 (four seats)

Erin Ella Block - Milwaukee
Vincent J. Bobot - Milwaukee
Benjamin E. Reyes - Milwaukee
Mary L. Schanning - Milwaukee
Colleen A. Taylor - Milwaukee

DISTRICT 4 (one seat)

Vacant

DISTRICT 6 (two seats)

Shannon A. Allen - Brookfield
Jesse B. Blocher - Waukesha

DISTRICT 8 (one seat)

Anjali Patel - Hudson

DISTRICT 9 (five seats)

Gail C. Groy - Madison
Alison E. Helland - Madison
Ryan Poe-Gavlinski - Madison
Eliza M. Reyes - Madison
Vacant

DISTRICT 10 (one seat)

Luis A. Q. Garza - Keshena

DISTRICT 12 (one seat)

Ryan O’Hara - Janesville

DISTRICT 14 (one seat)

Mark A. Bartels - Green Bay
Scott L. Stebbins - Green Bay

DISTRICT 16 (one seat)

Alan L. Hougum - Wausau
Amanda J. Ley - Wausau
Lawrence J. Wiesneske - Rhinelander

Legal Research: Tax Resources on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act

2026-03-11 00:00:00

March 11, 2026 – Tax season would not be complete without access to the latest tax resources. This year, that includes the full text and related analysis of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), its key provisions and changes to tax law.

The changes include making temporary deductions from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) permanent, lowering tax rate brackets, changes to the child tax credit, providing tax relief on tips, auto loan interest, and a Social Security bonus.

Using AI for Tax Law Research

If you have access to one of the popular AI platforms like Claude, ChatGPT, OpenAI, or Gemini, or the closed platforms available on Lexis+ and Westlaw Precision, you can upload the text of the Act and ask questions or develop a tax strategy regarding a section of the law.

Genevieve Zook is the reference & instructional services librarian at the U.W. Law Library. She is currently chair of the Public Relations Committee and past president of the Law Librarians Association of Wisconsin, a chapter of the American Association of Law Libraries.

A copy of the Act, its related documents, or analysis, are available through government agencies, Congress, legal publishers, and accounting organizations, which offer copies of primary law, regulations, reports, tax calculators, and analysis of the 2025 Act.

Many of the OBBBA-related documents and tax resources listed here are freely available online. However, for in-depth analysis of tax law, drafting tools and legal forms as well as closed system AI assistance programs, you may have to subscribe to a service.

When possible, I list subscription-based material that is available to the community at a law library terminal. If you visit the University of Wisconsin Law Library or the Wisconsin State Law Library, you will have access to a reference librarian as well. See the hours of operation of these libraries posted on their homepage for more information.

Free Tax Sites and Resources

Government Sites

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) - One, Big Beautiful Bill Provisions;
Congress.gov link to the text of the public law and related documents: H.R. 1, P.L. 119-21;
Ways & Means House Committee Report, One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Associations and Organizations

National associations impacted by the legislation provide resources. For example, the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Hospital Association list key provisions to their membership and provide a fact sheet of the Act’s impact on Medicaid recipients on their websites.

Implications of the OBBBA for the States

For a report on state impact on the OBBBA, see Multistate’s report.

If you are interested in the bill’s impact at the local level, the National Association of Counties (NACO) provides resources and a full analysis of the bill for their members.

Tax Foundation Research Publications – The Tax Foundation provides tax resources for free including an FAQ on the new law. The Tax Foundation also provides a calculator for the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Subscription-based Legal Databases

State Bar of Wisconsin members get access to Fastcase as a member benefit. You'll have broad access to cases, statutes and laws, congressional and administrative materials, executive orders, and more.

Bloomberg Law has a robust general tax collection, including the BNA tax portfolios. The database covers key provisions of the Act and offers a watch, One Big Beautiful Bill Act Watch. The watch has webinars, latest news items on the OBBBA and a road map of the law.

Another large collection of tax material is available in Lexis+. Lexis has primary law, analysis, treatises, tax journals, drafting tools and their AI platform, Protégé. The database provides a chapter-by-chapter analysis of the OBBBA.

Proquest Legislative Insight has a collections of federal legislative histories for public laws. Here you will find full text of the law, related bills and amendments, committee reports, hearings, and reports on the P.L. 119-21. Proquest features a search by citation menu where you can enter the public law number to quickly pull up all documents related to the Act.

Proquest Regulatory Insight, the sister to Legislative Insights, provides agency rules and regulations on public laws, including the latest rules covering the OBBBA. If you do not subscribe to the Proquest databases, you can access these databases at the University of Wisconsin Law Library terminals on the fifth floor of the law library.

Thomson Reuters (Westlaw) offers two products: Thomson Reuter’s Checkpoint Edge and Westlaw Precision. Checkpoint Edge, a Thomson Reuters tax database, has primary and secondary tax resources, including the RIA tax treatise, the Federal Tax Coordinator 2d. For the text of the Act or a summary of provisions see, Checkpoint One Big Beautiful Bill Act and One Big Beautiful Bill Act Enacted Into Law: Initial Observations on Business and International Tax Provisions. Checkpoint Edge is available at the University of Wisconsin Law Library terminals or by subscription.

Westlaw Overview of the OBBBA. From the treatise, McGaffey Legal Forms with Tax Analysis, provides analysis of business provisions of the Act. You will need a subscription to Westlaw Precision to review this resource. Westlaw Precision AI services is called CoCounsel. You can also use their classic tools, and Keycite the law to retrieve all documents related to the OBBBA. See P.L. 119-21 keycite & related documents on Westlaw.

If you don’t have access to Westlaw Precision, the Thomson Reuter’s tax blog posts are freely available, including:

Wolters Kluwer’s VitalLaw – Another legal tax database that provides primary and secondary resources on the OBBBA is Wolters Kluwer's Vitallaw database. VitalLaw is available by subscription and is another legal database that can be accessed from the UW Law Library terminals. The law library does not subscribe to the full suite of tax material, VitalLaw’s Omnitax but does subscribe to the online version of the Standard Federal Tax Reports, a classic tax treatise that specializes in tax. It collects current federal and state case law, statutes and regulations as well as providing tax analysis. The material on the OBBBA can be viewed at, One Big Beautiful Bill Act Resource Center. Wolters Kluwer also has Tax briefings: One Big Beautiful Bill Act by CCH AnswerConnect Editorial.

State Bar of Wisconsin Resources

The State Bar of Wisconsin PINNACLE® offers an extensive collection of books and CLE on tax law, in addition to access to Fastcase for members. The best place to search is on WisBar's Marketplace, and choose the practice area "Tax Law" as a category of search.

Tax Journals and Newsletter Services

TaxNotes by Tax Analysts. This service provides news, alerts, and trends in tax law. The material offered is for subscribers only, but the service does provide a text of the Act. To locate, search under the sidebar, Legislative Timeline, on the right-hand side of the page. See TaxNotes - One Big Beautiful Bill Act Single Resource for News, Analysis, Guidance, and Legislative Background.

General Tax Resources and State Resources

HeinOnline Resources

Law Journal Library – If you have a Wisconsin State Law Library card you can search law review articles on the HeinOnline database and obtain full-text law journal articles. The University of Wisconsin Law Library also provides access to HeinOnline at the law library terminals on the fifth floor.

For tax law researchers: If you are interested in the reform history of tax law, HeinOnline has a collection called Taxation & Economic Reform in America Parts I & II. The collection includes the history of major tax legislation, legislative history of tax conventions, CRS reports, reform law legislative histories, and more. This collection is available on HeinOnline at UW Library Terminals. It does not include the OBBBA, but does provide the history of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, P.L. 115-97 as well as other major tax laws.

General State Resources

For federal and state tax law resources, the Wisconsin State Law Library Tax Law Guide is a great starting point; and Carol Hassler’s 2022 InsideTrack article, “Legal Research 101: Finding Tax Law Resources” provides resources as well.

Subscribe to the Wisconsin Department of Revenue Bulletin, published quarterly, to stay current on changes to state tax law and litigation. The January issue is out now.

Many of the websites listed in this article are from an article by Susan B. Anders, “One Big Beautiful Bill Act Resources,” CPA Journal, September/October 2025, p. 76. I did not include every resource she listed.

Need Help? Ask a Law Librarian

Got questions about researching public records? Don’t hesitate to reach out to a friendly law librarian – we’re experts at navigating the ins and outs of legal research and are happy to help! You can find law librarians ready to assist you at these Wisconsin libraries:

Wisconsin State Law Library
(608) 267-9696
wsll.ref@wicourts.gov
Ask a Librarian online form
University of Wisconsin Law Library
(608) 262-3394
askuwlaw@law.wisc.edu
Chat Service (available only during reference hours)
Ray & Kay Eckstein Law Library - Marquette University Law School
(414) 288-3837 (during reference hours or leave a voicemail message)
Ask the Reference Desk online form

Legal Blogging with LexBlog CEO Kevin O'Keefe

2026-03-11 00:00:00

March 11, 2026 – Explore the evolution and impact of legal blogging with Kevin O'Keefe, CEO of LexBlog Inc., as he shares insights on how lawyers can leverage blogs for reputation, niche authority, and adapting to AI advancements. The LexBlog Library "indexes and archives legal commentary published across the web, providing the structure and metadata required to power the AI-driven web."

O'Keefe, who started his legal career as a trial lawyer in La Crosse, discusses his path into the legal tech world, the democratization of legal publishing through blogs, and how lawyers can leverage legal blogs in an Internet age now dominated by AI. Joe Forward and Peter Kraemer, of the State Bar of Wisconsin, lead the discussion with O'Keefe, a pioneer of legal blogging in the U.S.

Listen to more episodes of the Bottom Up podcast at wisbar.org/podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.

Chapters

00:00 Introduction to Blogging and Legal Insights

02:15 The Evolution of LexBlog and Its Impact

04:32 Understanding the LexBlog Platform

06:58 The Importance of Independent Blogging

09:11 Niche Blogging and Its Benefits

11:38 Strategies for Successful Blogging

14:02 Overcoming Blogging Challenges

16:33 Getting Started with Blogging

19:50 Kevin O'Keefe's Journey from Lawyer to Tech Entrepreneur

25:51 The Journey of Entrepreneurship

27:17 The Impact of AI on Legal Practice

29:14 Building Relationships Through Blogging

32:37 The Role of LexBlog in Legal Blogging

35:20 The Birth of WisLawNOW

38:58 The Future of Legal Blogging and AI

Rural Practice Development Program Offers Stipends – Apply by April 30

2026-03-11 00:00:00

March 11, 2026 – Attorneys: Are you considering a rural practice? Rural employers: Are you hiring?

The Rural Practice Development Program seeks to address the critical gap in legal services in Wisconsin’s rural areas.

About the Program

The Rural Practice Development Program is designed to bridge the gap in legal services in rural communities across Wisconsin.

The program is fully funded by the Wisconsin Law Foundation Kathryn Rasmussen Bullon Fund to Enhance Legal Representation.

The goal of this program is to foster long-term attorney retention in rural Wisconsin and improve access to essential legal services. By supporting attorneys who are invested both professionally and personally in these communities, the State Bar aims to create sustainable legal practices that can make a lasting impact.

"This program is for so many types of attorneys and law students, not just civil attorneys from urban Wisconsin," said Paige Juel, a member of the program’s advisory group. She practices with Judicare Legal Aid in Wausau.

"If you are an attorney or law student, in state or out, and interested in serving the public in some way, you should consider applying. The application process will even offer help finding an employer if you don't already have something in mind."

Attorneys: Here’s How We Help You Start a Rural Practice

Attorneys must either have recently relocated to or be willing to relocate to a county designated as eligible under the program. If accepted, the attorney agrees to practice in that county for a two-year (24-month) period. Attorneys must work full-time for a qualified employer or establish a full-time private practice in an eligible county.

Attorneys have six months from the notice of acceptance to move and begin employment.

These attorneys receive a total value of $15,606 in cash and State Bar programs:

a $5,000 stipend awarded at the beginning and another $5,000 upon successful completion of the two-year term;
a subscription to PINNACLE® Books Unbound for individuals (valued at $1,479 annually);
the PINNACLE® Ultimate Pass™ Gold (valued at $1,199 annually) to cover your CLE; and
if applicable, membership in the Lawyer Referral Service (LRS) panel (valued at $225) for the two-year duration of the program.

Anyone interested in applying should visit the program page on Wisbar.org and complete the application before April 30, 2026.

"If you’re on the fence, consider this. Rural practice has the potential to be extremely rewarding, as you have the opportunity to provide legal services to those who may otherwise have limited representation options," said Renee Read, a member of the program’s advisory group who practices in Neenah. "Rural communities regard their attorneys not just as professionals, but as leaders who collectively propel residents forward."

Rural Employers: Are You Hiring? We Can Help

Employers play a critical role in helping attorneys integrate into the community and establish sustainable, impactful practices.

We are compiling a list of rural employers – those who provide legal services in rural areas – who are interested in hiring an attorney. This listing may be used as a resource for those attorneys accepted into the program to find employment. However, participants can find employment outside of the State Bar list or open their own practice.

These employers:

are law firms, nonprofit organizations, or government entities;
maintain a physical location of employment in a defined rural community (see this map); and
anticipate a minimum of two years of full-time employment.

The applicants will be given a list of interested employers. This is not an offer of employment nor a job posting, but rather an opportunity to express interest in adding an attorney through the program.

Interested employers should review the program details and express your interest.

Young Lawyers: Join Us for Young Lawyers Conference on March 20

2026-03-11 00:00:00

Young Lawyers Division board members at the 2024 Young Lawyers Conference.

March 11, 2026 – Young lawyers: Here is your opportunity to gain CLE, boost your practice, and make connections among your peers.

Young Lawyers Conference

Date: 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Friday, March 20, 2026

Location:

Glacier Canyon Conference Center, Wilderness Resort
45 Hillman Rd
Wisconsin Dells, WI 53965

Cost: Free for YLD members and students; Nondivision members, $229

The State Bar of Wisconsin Young Lawyers Conference (YLC) is Friday, March 20, 2026, in Wisconsin Dells.

The conference, sponsored by the State Bar of Wisconsin Young Lawyers Division (YLD), offers free CLE for all YLD members – lawyers within their first five years of practice or under the age of 36. The YLD is committed to providing leadership training and networking opportunities to members.

The YLC is a once-a-year opportunity for young lawyers to get outside of the office and connect with lawyers across practice areas and across the state.

This conference, says YLD president Samantha Baker, is a place where young lawyers can connect with their peers. “We don’t always have that opportunity.”

Sessions include:

Ethical Foundations of Pro Bono Work
The First Amendment and Employment Law
How Legal Careers Shift and Evolve
Immigrants in Criminal Court and Immigration Court
Admitting Documentary Evidence
Networking Luncheon

And the award presentations for the Young Lawyers Division’s Outstanding Mentor and Outstanding Young Lawyer.

Why Attend the Young Lawyers Conference?

It’s free – and tailored for young lawyers. The conference offers no-cost, CLE programming specifically designed for attorneys new to practice or building their careers.
You’ll be among peers at the same stage. The event brings together lawyers in similar positions, creating a shared experience and sense of community.
The atmosphere is laid-back and supportive. It’s professional but low-pressure, making it easier to be yourself.
People genuinely want to help. Attorneys are generous with their time and expertise – and those connections can last well beyond the event.
It’s a small investment with real payoff. Attendees can expect to meet at least one new connection and leave feeling energized about their career.

If you could fast-track your growth as a lawyer – better skills, stronger connections, a clearer path forward – would you take it? Getting involved in the Young Lawyers Division (YLD) can help you move forward in your practice and feel less alone doing it, says Samantha Huddleston Baker, a shareholder with AxePoint Law in Milwaukee and president of the Young Lawyers Division board. She shares insights on how YLD involvement can be a practical advantage for young and newer attorneys and why she’s excited for the Young Lawyers Conference.