Being Licensed to Practice Law Means Something

I read with disheartened interest the comments of our State Bar executive director and the retired engineer who was, unfortunately, allowed to give input into a membership matter. (See “A New Maginot Line?” Your State Bar column, May 2015, and “Suppressing Competition with UPL Laws Does Not Work,” Inbox letter, July/August 2015.)

The vision of the executive director of the State Bar and this committee member concerning the practice of law contrasts sharply with my vision. Their vision has us all in our pajamas, sipping coffee in our kitchens, laptops in hand, providing legal services over the Internet. My vision is meeting face to face with clients; going to court with them and resolving their legal conflicts with exquisite attention to detail. My vision is to extend and expand professionalism and promote the highest standards for the practice of law in this state.

There was a time when the State Bar shared this vision.

Our executive director wants us to compete with nonlawyers and unlicensed lawyers by “bundling” services on the Internet. We should give up on any hope of requiring those who practice law to be licensed; insured; governed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation; meet trust accounting rules; adhere to the Rules of Professional Conduct; and be mandatory members of the State Bar.

If our executive director truly believes that we should accept unlicensed individuals practicing law in our state, should he not also be calling for dramatic changes to the requirements imposed on licensed attorneys? For instance, in the Internet-bundling-services future envisioned by these two individuals, I, as an attorney in Wisconsin, should be free to choose whether or not I join the State Bar of Wisconsin. I should be able to pick and choose the services and benefits of the State Bar of Wisconsin that I should support with my membership fees. Should I not also be able to choose whether I should be regulated by the OLR? Should I not be able to choose whether or not I follow trust accounting rules?

My point is that being licensed to practice law means something. We are honored to be able to provide legal services. In doing so, we follow many, many rules. In exchange, we, generally, receive a good income and can give our time and efforts to our communities. In short, practicing law with a license creates a fabric of a community that is beneficial to all.

Internet bundlers of legal services and nonlawyers practicing law are not members of our community. They do not support our charities. They do not give their time for the public good. They do not aspire to the advancement of our profession. They do not further the goal of maintaining the highest professional and ethical conduct among those who appear before our judges, juries, administrative law judges, and others.

Your vision is not mine. The citizens of Wisconsin deserve and expect that a provider of legal services has gone to law school, is licensed to practice law, is able to go with them to the courthouse and represent them vigorously, professionally, and ethically.

A state bar organization that does not aggressively pursue the right of its members to exclusively practice law within Wisconsin simply has no reason to exist.

Atty. Dwight D. Darrow
Darrow & Dietrich S.C., Sheboygan

Response: About 10 years ago at a national meeting of state and local bar presidents, the presenter asked a simple question: “How many of you can afford your own rates?” A handful, no more than 10 lawyers out of the approximately 250-300 in the room, raised their hands.

Fast forward to last July. In a similarly sized room of similar people, the CEO of LegalZoom, explaining their success, stated quite directly, “Lawyers have abandoned the middle class.” No one objected or sought to counter his statement.

A respected, experienced lawyer who holds a CPA license but practices as a lawyer once told me that he compared what he could do as a lawyer and not a CPA and the reverse. As a lawyer he can represent a client in court; as a CPA he can give a qualified opinion. The rest is just business.

While I applaud the author’s vision, and in an ideal world, share it wholeheartedly, the world is changing faster than can be imagined by many. The craft of practicing law is now reserved for the few who can afford it. And in our Home Depot, do-it-yourself world, even some of those who can afford it will try to do it themselves.

The commoditization of many of the actions regarding the practice of law is well underway, if not by LegalZoom, then by a raft of other providers. In fact, while in recent years LegalZoom has been sued for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, more recently, LegalZoom has become the aggressor and is now suing UPL enforcers over restraint of trade.

Washington state has limited license legal technicians. Other states, including Minnesota, are looking seriously at the model. I say again, innovation and competitive knowledge are the keys to future success.

As to the retired engineer, his sadly paranoid last paragraph says it all.

George C. Brown
Executive director, State Bar of Wisconsin

Here’s What You May Have Missed

Not connecting with us online? This month we highlight readers’ comments posted to online articles. Let’s hear what you have to say. Post comments to WisBar News, InsideTrack, and Wisconsin Lawyer articles or respond to Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter posts. Or simply email the editors at wislawmag@wisbar.org.

The Problem with OWI/DUI Involving Drugs? There is No Baseline

Author Joe Forward in “What is the Law on Driving Under the Influence of Marijuana in Wisconsin?” (Sept. 16, 2015, InsideTrack) notes that marijuana legalization is a hot topic. Recreational use is now legal in four states and Washington, D.C., and 23 states allow it for medicinal purposes. However, marijuana use is still illegal in Wisconsin, and penalties apply for driving high.

Wisconsin has a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to driving with trace amounts of marijuana metabolites in the blood. No impairment is required. This zero-tolerance law allows individuals to be convicted with very small but detectable amounts. The article explores other states’ laws on drugged driving and the history and current state of Wisconsin’s zero-tolerance law and provides views from OWI/DUI lawyers. A reader weighed in.

InsideTrack: This article outlines the problem regarding OWI/DUI involving drugs. The science is fairly settled regarding impairment or intoxication at specific levels of alcohol, which is currently .08 nationwide regarding most drivers, with lesser amounts prohibiting other drivers, such as those operating a vehicle requiring a CDL. However, with drugs such as marijuana, there is no established baseline as to what constitutes unsafe impairment. Thus, states such as Wisconsin, and the state in which I reside and practice, Oklahoma, have elected not to attempt to draw any fine-line distinctions. I have no issue with that – except – in the case of the accidental ingestion, given as an example in the article.

Atty. Tim Kittle
Keesling Law Group PLLC, Tulsa, Okla.