Earlier this week we argued to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in support of our petition to reform ethics rule 1.9. We’re trying to change the rule so that attorneys can enjoy basic free speech rights with regard to public information, e.g., published appellate court opinions, about their closed cases. You can find the arguments at this link — but you have to press “Part 2” on the right hand side of the web page in order to get to us. Rob Henak and Ellen Henak also spoke in support of the petition. On the other side, a representative from our state bar opposed our petition, which was disappointing. The state bar can get away with suppressing its members’ speech because it is compulsory, i.e., we lawyers have no choice but to join. As I’ve argued before, however, the bar should rethink its position, as it might not always have that guaranteed stream of compulsory bar dues to fund its bureaucracy. In Arizona, for example, the Irreverent Lawyer’s “house bill 2221” to make their bar voluntary just passed by a vote of 31-29.