|
Vol. 71, No. 12,
December 1998
Letters
Mandatory use of standard court forms benefits all
On behalf of the Center for Public Representation, we are writing in
response to the article at page 5 in the October Wisconsin Lawyer,
"Supreme Court Considers
Mandatory Use of Standard Court Forms." There are several significant
and important benefits to standardized forms that were not outlined in the
article. The public, the legal system, and lawyers all stand to benefit
from mandatory court forms. Specific benefits include:
- Passage of Petition No. 98-01 will be a positive and tangible demonstration
of active efforts to improve judicial efficiency, decrease time, costs
and bureaucracy, and expand access to justice for the underprivileged and
pro se litigants.
- Key court forms will become standardized. Standardized forms will reduce
administration work of court clerks and judges by minimizing errors, omissions,
and time needed to review documents for required information. Similarly,
it will reduce the amount of re-work required by attorneys, litigants,
state agency personnel, and law enforcement officials. Collectively, this
will decrease administrative burdens and costs experienced by the courts,
lawyers, and others.
- Mandatory forms will significantly expand access to the courts for
pro se litigants. This is particularly important given the current dearth
of legal services available for low-income citizens. Any actions increasing
access to justice are an important public benefit for society.
- Mandatory forms will provide lawyers and litigants with a common and
clear "roadmap" to get through the legal process in many areas
of law (for example, probate and divorce). This is particularly important
for young lawyers just starting out and experienced lawyers doing work
in areas of law outside of their routine.
- Mandatory forms lend themselves well to electronic distribution. Electronic
distribution will increase efficiency, minimize waste due to obsolescence,
and reduce costs.
The numerous letters sent to the Wisconsin Supreme Court in support of
this petition significantly overshadow the single letter of opposition.
It is disappointing to see that the State Bar of Wisconsin was a group behind
the lone letter of opposition.
The State Bar argued that "[t]he practice of law is more than making
check marks and filling in blanks on forms." While it is true that
the practice of law is far more than making check marks and filling in blanks,
it is also true that the essence of practicing law is far more than developing
individualized court forms. The essence and art of practicing law involves
doing complex legal analysis and problem solving and that takes place independent
of whether court forms are standardized or customized. The forms are merely
the medium to express the legal analysis. Moreover, it is important to note
that lawyers are free to add attachments to the standardized forms. Thus,
the opportunity for lawyers to customize the documents where necessary and
appropriate will remain unobstructed.
The State Bar also argued that the proposed rule would "deprofessionalize
the practice of law." On the contrary, a far more significant step
toward depro-fessionalization would be to hold out simple administrative
legal activities such as developing court forms as sophisticated practice
of law. Professionalism must be earned, and allowing lawyers to focus more
of their time on legal analysis and problem solving will enhance the professional
image the profession seeks. Disguising simple legal administration activities
as "the practice of law" will only diminish the professional image.
As the above demonstrates, there are many important reasons why mandatory
use of standard court forms is an excellent idea.
Louise G. Trubek, Senior Attorney
Daniel K. Kaiser, Legal Intern
Center for Public Representation,
Madison
Lawyers do make a difference
I am a 1979 graduate of the U.W. Law School, a member of the State Bar
of Wisconsin, and am currently in Moscow, Russia, with the American Bar
Association Central and East European Law Initiative (ABA-CEELI) as a gender
specialist. I wrote the following letter shortly after coming here.
"As I walked up Bascom Hill at the U.W.-Madison and saw the male
law students lounging in front of the law school, I said, "I could
do that if I wanted to." Seven years later in 1975, I decided I wanted
to.
To me, law was the way to do public service that would really matter.
I've been a lawyer now for 19 years and I've endured my share of lawyer
jokes from family, friends, and complete strangers. And I've done my share
of complaining about lawyers and judges, too. In Arizona, after a commissioner
jailed a young mother of three seeking child support from her ex, I had
to file a complaint. While many attorneys told me privately of the commissioner's
repeated judicial horrors, none would go public and advised me not to because
it would be bad for my career. My answer was, "If lawyers won't stand
up against injustice, who will?"
I got my answer on a hot July day in 1998 in a hotel room in Bucharest
when more than 60 lawyers gathered for the annual ABA-CEELI meeting. Since
1990 ABA-CEELI and the pro bono attorneys who volunteer their talents have
been working to help bring the Rule of Law and a just legal system to the
former communist countries. The Romanian Minister of Justice, Stroika, who
has participated in U.S. exchange programs and CEELI training, spoke about
the successes in his country developing an independent judiciary and respect
for democratic process. He said that in his visits to the U.S. he noted
that everywhere he went, all Americans belong to the same cult - the
cult of the Constitution. Not such a bad one to belong to. He quoted from
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. that injustice to anyone is injustice to everyone,
and concluded his speech with the thought that the failure of justice in
Romania is a threat to the peace, prosperity, and justice in the U.S. as
well.
The CEELI liaisons, the best and brightest the American legal profession
has to offer, working in 23 countries for a year or two with no pay, laid
out example after example of courageous work for justice. From judges who
defied Malosevich to a woman attorney who started a street law clinic which
could get her jailed; from attorneys who had to be evacuated when fighting
erupted to attorneys who live with no hot water and no phone; from lawyers
who endure minus 32o F to plus 100o F with inadequate heat and no air conditioning,
I got my answer.
The attorneys are working on starting legal clinics, organizing law libraries,
creating independent bar associations and an independent judiciary, teaching
commercial law concepts, working on legislation, training law enforcement,
and strengthening the public sector to become part of the democratic process.
As a gender specialist, I work on women's issues. While the women are highly
educated, extremely bright, and motivated, because of the history of their
government, certain concepts are completely new to them (for example, citizens
lobbying and working with the media, both of which are very important to
expose the truth about woman-beating, rape, and sexual harassment).
So the answer to "who stands up for justice" is lawyers. Not
all of us and not all the time, but those who work at CEELI exemplify the
highest values of the legal profession. Someone told me as I entered Bucharest
that no two countries that both had a McDonalds ever fought a war with one
another. If two countries that both had a CEELI liaison never war, the world
would indeed be a better place because of lawyers.
Dianne Post
Moscow, Russia
|