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 to wislawyer@wisbar.org.
Treat In-state and Out-of-state Law School Grads
Equally
The "Back to Law School"
article in the June Wisconsin Lawyer was informative and enjoyable. It
was interesting to read about today's law school students and recent
developments in legal education.
However, the article continued a longtime trend I've noticed whenever
the Bar publishes articles about law school students and legal
education: disparagement of and discrimination against out-of-state law
school graduates and the law schools they attend. University of
Wisconsin and Marquette law school graduates are depicted as "we," "us,"
the "in crowd," and members of "our" group, while graduates of
out-of-state law schools are depicted as "they," "them," the
"outsiders," and not members of "our" group. This is not a good
thing.
At one point in the article, a U.W. Law School admissions official is
quoted as saying that some of the best Wisconsin students are stolen by
well-endowed out-of-state law schools, where they receive a less
interesting, diverse, and rigorous education, but that the students
choose those schools so they can graduate debt-free. Really? Is this
statement the result of a scientific, empirical study, or just another
disparagement of out-of-state law schools based on anecdotal
evidence?
I have a degree from U.W. Law School. My education there was
excellent: interesting, diverse, and rigorous. But I also have a degree
from an out-of-state law school, where my education was equally
interesting, diverse, and rigorous. It's only natural for in-state law
school faculty, students, and staff to be proud of their schools. But
dissing out-of-state schools crosses the line and merely continues an
unfortunate stereotype.
In an accompanying sidebar, Wisconsin employers are urged to favor
U.W. and Marquette law school graduates when they hire: hire early, hire
often, but hire U.W. and Marquette graduates. Really? Is this a policy
supported by the Bar? Would the Bar promote the hiring of men over
women, or whites over blacks? Why the discrimination against graduates
of out-of-state law schools?
All Wisconsin lawyers are required to join the State Bar, regardless
of the law schools they attended. In the past year, about one-third of
lawyers beginning practice in Wisconsin were out-of-state graduates.
Does the Bar really want to alienate such a large portion of its
membership by urging, "Don't hire them"? Is there a better way to
promote divisiveness and resentment within the Bar?
It's time to end the discrimination against graduates of out-of-state
law schools. There are some basic steps that should be taken. First, the
discriminatory diploma privilege should be ended. There is no reason why
graduates of ABA-approved law schools located out-of-state who take the
same courses as U.W. and Marquette graduates should be denied diploma
admission.
Second, future Wisconsin Lawyer articles about legal education and
law schools should avoid negative statements about both out-of-state law
schools and their graduates. It's only natural such articles would focus
on the in-state schools. And it's only natural that U.W. and Marquette
students, faculty, and graduates would be true to their schools. But,
please, no more we/they xenophobic attitude toward out-of-state law
schools and their graduates. We're all in this profession together.
Finally, it would be nice if the Bar would print an article focusing
on Wisconsin Bar members who are graduates of out-of-state law schools.
Where do they come from, what schools did they attend, what types of
practice are they engaged in? Such an occasional public interest article
might show that the Bar's out-of-state law school graduates have the
same abilities, goals, emotions, and hopes as graduates of U.W. and
Marquette.
Steve Levine, Madison
levins@psc.state.wi.us
ADR Impedes Citizen Access to Courts
In response to "ADR: Do Trials Still
Matter?" in the May Wisconsin Lawyer, anecdotal evidence
alone is unacceptable to support ADR. Crowded court calendars cause
802.12(2) ADR to be de facto mandatory.
ADR is just arbitration - it is not new. What is new is that many
persons who need legal redress are required to go through ADR without
first having determined that the cost and nature of their claim warrants
it. These persons are involved in unexpected events like torts.
When a judge orders ADR, I wonder: Who will pay for it? How much will
it cost? How many persons should be involved, who should they be, and
where will the arbitration be held? These questions point out problems
with ADR. By the time that I am in court, I have exhausted negotiations
with the other side. I have already been through the reasonable
equivalent of ADR.
We view society as one governed by law, and our citizens as obtaining
the benefit of that law when they access the courts. This is further
ensured by an independent, impartial judiciary paid by the state, with
court initially available at the same cost to all. Despite their
honorable intentions, precisely the same thing cannot be said of
arbitrators.
Supporters offer two primary reasons to back ADR: 1) cost, and 2) the
increasing number of civil disputes. Unless being too litigious is a bad
thing in our society, I submit that the answer is that the cost of
adding more judges is justifiable. I also believe that the costs of ADR
could easily sustain several more judges in Milwaukee County. Better
evidence and actual study of organized data is needed and should have
been examined before this was implemented.
ADR and its impediment of direct access to the courts amount to an
unjustifiable transfer of cost and government duty to our citizens. Even
a cursory analysis of the statistics in the May Wisconsin Lawyer article
shows that the decrease in case load is not significant enough to
justify ADR. If more space were allowed, I also could show from actual
state and county budgets that ADR has not reduced their costs; they have
actually gone up since ADR's implementation.
Lawrence G. Polzin
Shorewood
Wisconsin
Lawyer