The state bar has run an on-line article about our rule petition to change SCR 1.9 so that Wisconsin attorneys can exercise our basic free speech rights with regard to public information about our former clients' cases. You can find our petition and supporting documents here. You can find the state bar's article here. And reproduced below is my comment to the article:
This [state bar] article demonstrates that Rule 1.9 is so unclear, even the state bar ethics committee can't tell us what it means. In addition to the discussion of all of the possibilities of what it might mean, Tim Pierce even gets part of it wrong. For example, the article states (quoting Tim Pierce from the earlier oral arguments on the rule petition) that informed consent does not have to be in writing. Well, wait until you are in front of the OLR for a violation. Here's what the Wisconsin comment to Rule 1.9 reads: "The Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule differs from the Model Rule in requiring informed consent to be confirmed in a writing signed by the client."
