GOP legislative leaders in recent months have signed new contracts retaining lawyers in a lawsuit seeking to overturn Wisconsin’s congressional map, plus one seeking to strike down laws a group of young plaintiffs believe worsen climate change.
A third contract WisPolitics obtained through a standing open records request continues to retain Madison firm Eimer Stahl for “all current and future matters in which you wish to use our services.” The contract calls for paying attorneys the “discounted” rate of $650 an hour for their work.
Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein, D-Middleton, and Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer, D-Racine, charged Republicans with wasting more than $26 million in taxpayer dollars on lawyers since 2017.
They said with a 40-hour work week, taxpayers would pay $26,000 per week for lawyers at Eimer Stahl, calling it “a slap in the face to every hardworking Wisconsinite and indefensibly wastes taxpayer money.”
>> WisPolitics is now on the State Affairs network. Get custom keyword notifications, bill tracking and all WisPolitics content. Get the app or access via desktop.
“It is an unacceptable waste of public dollars. One particularly egregious instance was the $2.3 million bill Speaker Vos stuck taxpayers with to fund Michael Gableman’s unethical and deeply partisan attempt to undermine the results of the 2020 election,” they said.
WisPolitics has regularly tracked the bills for private legal counsel GOP lawmakers have racked up since Dem AG Josh Kaul was elected in 2018. That tab hit $19.3 million by early summer 2024. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported in July the Legislature has spent more than $26 million on private attorneys since 2017.
The new contracts include:
One signed in April to continue retaining Eimer Stahl for current and future matters. The hourly rate of $650 doesn’t include costs such as photocopying, messenger and delivery service, research, travel and other expenses. The firm is representing the Legislature in the case related to climate change concerns, as well as Gaylor v. City of Madison, a case challenging tax exemptions for properties owned by religious entities, according to Assembly Speaker Robin Vos’ office. A spokesperson for the Rochester Republican said the Legislature will also file an amicus brief in Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission, also related to tax exemptions for religious entities.
The U.S. Supreme Court in June unanimously overturned a state Supreme Court ruling denying the faith-based group an exemption from the state’s unemployment system. That case has been sent back to the state court for further review.
One signed in August with Eimer Stahl to represent GOP lawmakers in a suit 15 people aged 8 to 17 filed in Dane County challenging laws that bar the Public Service Commission from considering climate and air pollution when deciding whether to sign off on new fossil fuel-fired power plants and another that prevents the agency from requiring utilities to increase the amount of electricity they generate from renewable sources. The Legislature is a defendant in that suit. The contract calls for a rate of $650 an hour, not including other fees.
The Legislature isn’t a party to either challenge that’s been filed in Dane County seeking to overturn the state’s congressional maps. Those suits are seeking the state Supreme Court to appoint a three-judge panel to hear the challenges, and the justices are currently weighing arguments on whether to proceed.
The contract lawmakers signed a month ago retains Cramer Multhauf in Waukesha to advise lawmakers on possible intervention in one of the suits filed by Dem voters that argues the congressional maps are partisan gerrymanders.
That deal calls for an hourly fee for attorney Matt Fernholz of $350 an hour, with others from his firm billing $175 to $395.
Meanwhile, the GOP members of the state’s congressional delegation and several Republican voters have joined together to seek intervention in the suit.
A spokesperson for Vos told WisPolitics the Legislature is intervening as well because the U.S. Constitution vests the task of congressional redistricting with the Legislature and the request seeking new maps “would abrogate this authority of the Legislature and run afoul of the federal Elections Clause.”
