Wisconsin Lawyer
Vol. 79, No. 4, April
2006
Letters
Letters to the
editor: The Wisconsin Lawyer publishes as many letters in each
issue as space permits. Please limit letters to 500 words; letters may
be edited for length and clarity. Letters should address the issues, and
not be a personal attack on others. Letters endorsing political
candidates cannot be accepted. Please mail letters to " Letters to the
Editor," Wisconsin Lawyer, P.O. Box 7158, Madison, WI 53707-7158, fax
them to (608) 257-4343, or
email them.
Unpaid Legal Services are "Pro
Bono"
While it is not at all surprising that Wisconsin lawyers have
contributed well in excess of $11 million in free legal services to the
poor (see the State Bar's February 2006 Inside the Bar
newsletter), I think many of us would also like recognition that we, in
private practice, provide free legal services every year on a de facto
basis to people who simply do not pay our bills. In some instances,
these may be people who also would qualify under the definition of low
income. In other instances, people simply do not pay.
In any event, all of the above are receiving access to the Wisconsin
courts through our unpaid services. We do not get to take tax deductions
or receive any benefit from this. How can this not also be considered a
form of pro bono services?
I submit that a survey including this category would probably triple
your $11 million figure on an annual basis. Granted, it may be
involuntary, but it certainly is pro bono.
James R. Sakar
Milwaukee
Response: Many Wisconsin lawyers do make a pro bono
contribution by continuing to provide legal services to clients even
after they know that the client can no longer afford to pay the bill or
by using a sliding scale at the outset based on the client's income.
Professional services provided at a reduced fee are a type of pro bono
work explicitly recognized in Rule 6.1. The State Bar's 2005 Pro Bono
Survey asked multiple questions about reduced fee pro bono work for low
income clients and the organizations that serve them. The survey also
gave members the following definition of "reduced fee":
"'Reduced fee' pro bono work means (for this survey): (1)
provision of legal services to a person of limited means when a lawyer
is appointed by a court to represent such a client for a reduced fee set
by the court, rule, or statute; and (2) legal services rendered to a
person of limited means when, although the matter may have begun as a
paying matter, the lawyer expects and receives no further compensation
and voluntarily continues to represent the client."
Bills written off for a wealthy client as "good will" or
because a difficult client won't pay are different stories and should,
in this lawyer's opinion, never be considered pro bono.
The full 2005 Pro Bono Survey Report can be viewed at www.wisbar.org/2005probonosurvey.
Jeff Brown
State Bar Pro Bono Coordinator
Jackamonis Led the Way on Court Reorganization
The recent passing of former Assembly Speaker Ed Jackamonis brings to
mind his important contribution to modernizing Wisconsin's court system.
Although he was not an attorney, Jackamonis shepherded the 1978 court
reorganization through the Wisconsin Legislature.
When the voters passed the 1977 referendum creating the new
constitutional provisions regarding the court system, Jackamonis, as
chair of the Wisconsin Legislative Council, immediately created a
Special Committee on Court Reorganization to draft the implementation
legislation. He was influential in selecting the committee's members,
and served on it himself. The committee, chaired by then State Sen. Jim
Flynn, drafted legislation that passed, making substantial changes in
the administration and organization of the court system.
Jackamonis was a proponent of a single-level trial court system,
believing such a system would operate more efficiently and effectively.
The merger of the county courts with the circuit courts was very
controversial, drawing opposition from the more senior circuit judges
and from some of the rural county court branch one judges (branch one
only handled probate and juvenile cases; branch two handled the more
numerous traffic, misdemeanor, small claims, and family law cases in
counties with two county court branches). Some lawyers also were opposed
because in certain rural counties the county judge automatically sent
jury trials to the circuit court. A handful of county judges never tried
jury cases.
The committee, by an 8-7 vote, recommended the single-level trial
court system after reaching a compromise to allow a single court of
appeals judge to hear traffic, misdemeanor, small claims, and juvenile
cases. Some on the committee did not want "minor" cases to be
heard by the court of appeals. Without Jackamonis's decisive
intervention, the dual-level court system would have continued.
In order for the trial court system to have the flexibility it
needed, the committee recommended that chief judges be appointed rather
than elected, a proposal many judges opposed. The committee recommended
removing the special statutory jurisdiction of branch one judges and
gave the appointed chief judges the power to set up a system for case
allocation in all their counties in each administrative district. It
also gave them power to assign judges to branches where they were
needed. The proposal gave chief judges the extra tools to enforce
intra-judicial district cooperation by giving them the power to appoint
the court commissioners and registrars in probate in all counties in
their district.
Jackamonis's impact also was felt in other areas. He created a
subcommittee that reconstituted the judicial discipline process,
providing for a panel of appeals court judges to hear the case and find
the facts in judicial misconduct cases brought by the Judicial
Commission.
Speaker Jackamonis's public role was most recognized in the
organization of the court of appeals. He represented the city of
Waukesha in the State Assembly and used his influence to ensure that one
of the four court of appeals districts was sited in Waukesha. The
committee insisted on regional appellate districts rather than a court
of appeals at large in the state, believing that litigants and lawyers
would be convenienced by not having to travel to Madison to obtain a
final decision in a dispute. Rather than remaining in the Speaker's
chair, Jackamonis led the floor fight as party leader to pass the
legislation. Other than some minor amendments, the final bill that was
passed and signed into law was the product of his Court Reorganization
Committee.
As court reform approaches its 30th anniversary, it is right to
recognize Ed Jackamonis's leading role in modernizing our court
system.
Frederick P. Kessler
State Representative, 12th Assembly District
Wisconsin Lawyer