If a public defender supervisor assigns a caseload above recognized standards and a staff lawyer declines new cases, can the supervisor discipline that lawyer?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1991. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Opinion E-91-3 asked whether a supervising attorney in the State Public Defender's Office, who increases a staff attorney's workload above caseload standards approved by the State Bar Board of Governors or another nongovernmental body, may ethically sanction a staff lawyer who declines new matters by terminating employment, withholding compensation, or changing the lawyer's responsibilities through transfer. The committee reaffirmed its earlier Formal Opinion E-84-11, noting that although the Wisconsin Supreme Court had repealed and recreated SCR Chapter 20 since 1984, the rule changes did not appear to alter the substance of that opinion.
The committee identified the rules a public defender should consider in responding to a caseload problem: SCR 20:1.1 (competence), SCR 20:1.7(b) (limitations on the lawyer's ability to represent a client), SCR 20:2.1 (independent professional judgment), SCR 20:5.1 (responsibilities of a partner or supervisory lawyer), and SCR 20:5.2 (responsibilities of a subordinate lawyer). On the specific question, the committee said it could not address issues of employment relations. It concluded, however, that exceeding recognized maximum caseload standards, or imposing standards on a lawyer that would not allow the lawyer to conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct, particularly SCR 20:1.1, SCR 20:1.3, and SCR 20:1.7(b), could result in a violation of disciplinary standards if such a caseload was imposed or required by law (SCR 20:8.4(f)). The committee added that a disciplinary agency must evaluate each situation case by case, and that caseload standards promulgated by bar associations or other nongovernmental bodies are factors that should be considered as guides to determining what is reasonable, citing Strickland v. Washington and Nix v. Whiteside.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1991, before Wisconsin's July 1, 2007 adoption of the revised Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys (the state's Ethics 2000 update). Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.
Common questions
Q: Could a public defender supervisor discipline a lawyer who declines cases over the caseload limit?
A: The committee did not resolve that. It concluded that it cannot address employment-relations issues and that a disciplinary agency must evaluate each situation case by case.
Q: When does a heavy caseload become an ethics problem?
A: When it prevents compliance with the Rules. The committee concluded that exceeding recognized maximum caseload standards, or imposing caseloads that would not allow a lawyer to conform to SCR 20:1.1, 20:1.3, and 20:1.7(b), could result in a disciplinary violation if imposed or required by law.
Q: What weight do bar-approved caseload standards carry?
A: They are factors, not bright lines. The committee concluded that caseload standards from bar associations or other nongovernmental bodies should be considered by disciplinary agencies as guides to determining what is reasonable.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interpreted the competence and supervision rules in light of public-defender workload pressures: SCR 20:1.1 / Model Rule 1.1 (competence), SCR 20:1.3 / Model Rule 1.3 (diligence), SCR 20:1.7 / Model Rule 1.7 (conflicts limiting representation), SCR 20:2.1 / Model Rule 2.1 (independent professional judgment), SCR 20:5.1 / Model Rule 5.1 (supervisory lawyers), SCR 20:5.2 / Model Rule 5.2 (subordinate lawyers), and SCR 20:8.4(f) / Model Rule 8.4. It reaffirmed prior Formal Opinion E-84-11.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Wis. SCR 20:1.1 / Model Rule 1.1 (competence)
- Wis. SCR 20:1.3 / Model Rule 1.3 (diligence)
- Wis. SCR 20:1.7 / Model Rule 1.7 (conflicts of interest)
- Wis. SCR 20:2.1 / Model Rule 2.1 (independent professional judgment)
- Wis. SCR 20:5.1 / Model Rule 5.1 (supervisory lawyers)
- Wis. SCR 20:5.2 / Model Rule 5.2 (subordinate lawyers)
- Wis. SCR 20:8.4(f) / Model Rule 8.4 (misconduct)
Cases:
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984), reasonableness of attorney performance
- Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, 165-66 (1986), standards as guides to reasonable conduct
Other opinions cited:
- Wisconsin Formal Op. E-84-11 (reaffirmed)
See also
- WI Ethics Op. E-91-6: Government Lawyer Contact Rule
- WI Ethics Op. E-92-5: Corporation Counsel in Support Cases
Source
- Landing page: https://www.wisbar.org/formembers/ethics/pages/formal-opinions.aspx
- Original PDF: https://www.wisbar.org/formembers/ethics/Ethics%20Opinions/E-91-3.pdf
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1991 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.