A state Supreme Court decision makes it nearly impossible for victims of sexual abuse by clergy to successfully sue the Catholic Church or other religious organizations, several leading attorneys say.
As charges of sex abuse by priests rock the church in other states, lawyers in Wisconsin say the decision protecting religious organizations is so strong that only a new state Supreme Court ruling or new legislation could once again allow accusers to sue.
"The legal climate in Wisconsin right now is the most hostile to the protection of the rights of victims of sexual abuse by clergy in the USA," said St. Paul, Minn., attorney Jeff Anderson, considered a leading attorney in clergy abuse cases in the country.
Matthew Flynn, the attorney for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, agreed that clergy abuse lawsuits have nearly disappeared since the pivotal Supreme Court ruling in 1995. But the church has become active in identifying perpetrators and helping victims, he said.
"The fall-off in (lawsuits) is largely attributable to the fact that there aren't nearly the number of current cases as there were in the '60s and '70s," Flynn said.
The sex abuse scandal engulfing the Archdiocese of Boston - where one former priest is accused of molesting more than 100 people over 30 years - raises the possibility that more victims will come forward and try to take the church to court.
It's an expensive problem: In 1996, a jury ordered the Diocese of Dallas to pay $119.6 million to sexual abuse victims, though the church was later able to negotiate a reduction to $31 million.
Lawyers say the Archdiocese of Boston has agreed to pay up to $30 million to settle the cases involving the pedophile former priest John J. Geoghan.
As a result of the furor in Boston and elsewhere, the Archdiocese of Milwaukee said last week it would re-examine the way it handles abuse claims.
Anderson and other attorneys said they have been contacted in recent days by people in Wisconsin who said they were sexually abused by clergy. But the attorneys are advising them that only a unique case and a novel legal strategy would stand a chance of prevailing.
"I have to tell them that in Wisconsin, there's just nothing you can do about it," said Milwaukee attorney Robert Elliott.
Of course, abuse victims can seek criminal charges if the allegations come to light within the statute of limitations. Victims can be as old as 31 and still seek criminal charges for abuse that occurred during childhood, depending on when the crimes occurred, said Milwaukee County Assistant District Attorney Paul Tiffin.
Victims can sue individual clergymen, but that isn't where the money is, and lawyers who work on a percentage of the settlement aren't likely to take cases where the payoff is minimal.
The legal landscape has changed dramatically since Elliott worked nearly full time on clergy sexual abuse cases, beginning around 1993.
Over a period of about two years, Elliott said, he was contacted by 200 to 300 accusers and went on to represent 150 of them. He settled about 80 of those cases and collected a total of $3 million to $4 million in confidential settlements, he said. None of the cases went to trial.
Then Pritzlaff v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee was decided by the state Supreme Court on June 27, 1995.
Judith M. Pritzlaff, formerly of Whitefish Bay, had sued the archdiocese for $3 million in 1992, saying she had just discovered in therapy that an affair she had with a priest starting in 1959 had wrecked her marriage and caused other personal problems.
The Supreme Court killed the suit in a 4-2 ruling, saying that allowing it to proceed 27 years after the relationship ended "would be contrary to the public policy of the state."
Compared with seeking criminal charges, there is less time after being abused for young victims to file civil lawsuits. A molestation victim, for example, generally cannot sue a clergyman after reaching the age of 21, Elliott said.
The Pritzlaff decision had a more sweeping effect. The high court ruled it would never decide whether the Catholic Church or any other religious denomination had improperly hired, supervised or trained its professional workers. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the court said, prohibited any such review.
"I have no doubt that we'd still be doing those cases today. I still think we'd be finding victims in the archdiocese" if it weren't for the Pritzlaff decision, Elliott said.
Brookfield attorney Robert "Rock" Pledl said he had specialized in clergy sexual misconduct cases from 1984 to 1992, working for 20 to 30 clients and winning settlements worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. But since the Pritzlaff decision, victims can report alleged abuse only to the archdiocese and hope that church leaders take appropriate action and provide victims adequate counseling and treatment, he said.
"For people whose lives are completely ruined by being sexually abused by a clergy person, it isn't going to be enough," Pledl said.
Anderson, whose Web site says he has collected more than $1 million in settlements and verdicts from more than 20 clergy abuse cases, said no state is stronger than Wisconsin in protecting religious organizations. In most states, the First Amendment has not been interpreted to protect churches from being held liable for sexual misconduct by clergy. The Florida Supreme Court issued another such ruling Thursday, he said.
In Wisconsin, only legislation or a unique case that forces a new decision in the courts can change matters, Anderson said.
"When you have a shield against liability, there's no way victims can expose the wrongdoing legally and either get redress or prevent it from happening to others," he said.
John Huebscher, executive director of the Wisconsin Catholic Conference, said that since the surge in abuse cases in the early '90s, Catholic churches across the state have become more vigilant about monitoring priests and more sensitive in helping victims. "We learned from mistakes," he said.
However, Huebscher conceded that he didn't know whether fewer sexual abuse cases have surfaced because there is less abuse or because victims have become so discouraged about going to court.
"I just don't think that's a knowable answer, frankly," he said.