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.
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, 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, 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 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 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. 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
In this story
See every round in the Funding Tracker