# Wisconsin Weighs Letting Non-Lawyers Appear in Court

> A petition before the Wisconsin Supreme Court would let supervised non-lawyer legal advocates advise and appear in small civil cases. Comments are due Dec. 31.

By The Circle Desk | Legal Ops | Published 2026-11-11
Source: https://legaltechcircle.com/insights/wisconsin-legal-advocates-nonlawyer-rule/

The State Bar of Wisconsin asked its members on November 9 to weigh in
on a proposal that would let trained non-lawyers give legal advice,
negotiate and appear in court in some civil matters, as long as a
licensed Wisconsin attorney supervises them. The proposal, Rule
Petition 26-04, is pending before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and
written comments are due December 31. For firms, legal aid groups and
corporate legal departments in the state, it is a live question about
who may deliver legal services and who carries the liability when they
do. This piece reports what the petition says and what named
supporters and critics have said, and takes no side.

## What the Petition Would Allow

According to an [October 15 letter from a Supreme Court
commissioner](https://www.wicourts.gov/supreme/docs/2604_interestedpersons.pdf),
the petition was filed on September 8 by the Wisconsin Access to
Justice Commission and the law firm Quarles & Brady. It asks the court
to create a new Supreme Court Rule chapter 51 authorizing "legal
advocates." The court discussed it at a closed administrative
conference and voted to take written comments and schedule a public
hearing on a date still to be set. The petitioners may respond to
comments by January 14, 2027, and the court may adopt the rule, modify
it, reject it, refer it elsewhere or ask for more information.

The [full text, reprinted by the State
Bar](https://www.wisbar.org/NewsPublications/WisconsinLawyer/Pages/Article.aspx?Volume=99&Issue=10&ArticleID=31854),
sets a low entry bar paired with supervision. An applicant needs an
associate's degree, or a high school diploma plus at least five years
of relevant lived, educational, legal or other experience as
determined by the certifying entity. Applicants also need good moral
character, ethics training and a background check.

The certifying entity, a firm or law firm under the state's conduct
rules, would sign a written supervisory agreement, assume professional
responsibility for the advocate's work, run conflict checks, hold all
client funds and carry professional liability insurance. Advocates
could appear before courts and agencies, negotiate, give supervised
advice and prepare documents, which a supervising attorney would sign
where the law requires.

The petition lists what advocates could not handle: criminal matters,
civil trials where the rules of evidence apply other than uncontested
final hearings, divorces with marital property above $100,000, civil
matters above the small claims limit except residential evictions,
several child welfare, mental health and guardianship proceedings, and
anything before the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals. A standing
committee of up to seven members would keep a public roster, and the
court could revoke any certification at any time.

## Who Supports It and Who Has Questions

The petition grew out of the court's Attorney Recruitment and
Retention Committee report, which asked the Access to Justice
Commission to study a limited license practitioner program. The [Pro
Bono Institute](https://www.probonoinst.org/2026/11/02/law-firm-and-access-to-justice-commission-advance-new-legal-advocate-model-in-wisconsin/)
reports that Legal Action of Wisconsin and Judicare Legal Aid turn
away 75% and 64% of eligible applicants, and cites ABA figures of 2.57
lawyers per 1,000 Wisconsin residents against a national average of
3.81.

James E. Goldschmidt, a Quarles & Brady partner who helped draft the
petition and sits on the State Bar's Board of Governors, made the case
in a [Wisconsin Lawyer
column](https://www.wisbar.org/NewsPublications/WisconsinLawyer/Pages/Article.aspx?Volume=99&Issue=10&ArticleID=31855)
published the same day.

> "We are proposing low barriers to entry in exchange for robust attorney supervision requirements and easy revocation of certified status," Goldschmidt wrote.

Other governors pushed back when the board first discussed the
petition on September 18, according to [the State Bar's account of
that meeting](https://www.wisbar.org/NewsPublications/Pages/General-Article.aspx?ArticleID=31788).
Governor Colleen Taylor questioned the training framework.

> "I'm kind of confused how you can say there's a strong framework for training, supervision, and accountability when nowhere in the rule can I find actual standards for what someone has to do to become a legal advocate," Taylor said.

Governor Mary Schanning asked whether firms might hire advocates
instead of new lawyers because they cost less, and Governor Annabelle
Vang questioned whether a $100,000 marital property cap really
measures complexity in family cases. Goldschmidt said firms would
still want to bill for attorney work and that section input could
improve the rule. The board took no action at that meeting.

## What It Means for Firms and Legal Aid

Nothing changes until the court acts. If the rule is adopted as
written, the obligations fall mainly on the organizations that choose
to certify advocates. They would need written supervisory agreements,
a certificate of representation filed in each court or agency matter,
conflict checks, trust account control, insurance coverage and ongoing
training. The standing committee could weigh the ratio of supervising
attorneys to advocates when deciding whether supervision is adequate.

The State Bar account says Wisconsin is not alone. James Sandman, a
former Legal Services Corporation president, told the board that the
District of Columbia and 15 states have adopted or have legislation
pending for similar roles and that 19 states are actively considering
them. The article says Minnesota's Legal Paraprofessionals Program,
adopted in 2021, resembles the Wisconsin proposal. Goldschmidt's
column argues Minnesota's experience shows that heavy curricular and
administrative conditions exclude most of the people such programs aim
to reach.

## Common Questions

**Has Wisconsin approved non-lawyer legal advocates?**

No. The petition is pending. The court has asked for written comments
and plans a public hearing on a date not yet set.

**Could a legal advocate practice alone?**

No. Under the proposed text, every advocate needs a written
supervisory agreement with a certifying entity and a supervising
Wisconsin attorney.

**Would communications with an advocate be privileged?**

The proposed rule says they would be privileged and confidential to
the same extent as communications with a licensed attorney.

## What to Watch

Watch the State Bar Board of Governors, which plans to discuss member
feedback at its December 4 meeting before deciding whether to file
comments, then the December 31 comment deadline, the petitioners'
January 14 response and the court's hearing notice.


*QUINN ASHBY*Staff Writer, Legal Tech Circle

e. quinn@lionfiregroup.co
w. www.lionfiregroup.co

---
Legal Tech Circle (https://legaltechcircle.com/). News and analysis, not legal advice.