Vol. 78, No. 4, April
2005
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.
Judiciary Should Defend Against Assault on
Legal System
With the assault being made on our legal system by luminaries no less
than
that of the President of the United States, I write to inquire why
officials
within Wisconsin's judicial system remain silent. Critics of our
courts decry
a panoply of ills ranging from out-of- control juries handing out
exorbitant
awards to a mountain of frivolous lawsuits that are used to extort
millions
of dollars from nonculpable defendants. If that is the case, why is
our judiciary not standing up and offering concrete solutions to these
terrible problems? On the other hand, if these accusations are false or
misleading, why is our judiciary not standing up and telling the public
and
legislature
that they are being hornswoggled? I submit that the judiciary's
silence is
generally regarded as an admission of the charges being leveled.
As the guardians of our legal system that has come under excoriating
attack, the judiciary has the obligation to either assist in fixing the
problems that are asserted, or to take to the podium and pick up the pen
and defend the system that has worked so well for so many for so long.
John B. Edmondson, Appleton
Fund Grantee Critical of WisBar Article on WisTAF
Assessment
I write as executive director of Legal Action of Wisconsin. I am not
authorized to submit these comments on behalf of the other core legal
services providers who are WisTAF grantees, and I do not. In its WisBar
Web site article about the WisTAF $50 attorney assessment, the State Bar
makes the following statements:
"Behnke and other speakers raised the objection that by
mandating lawyers to fund WisTAF, the court would take away the
attorneys' freedom of choice for charitable donations and that this
would establish WisTAF as the preferred funder of legal services. This
could harm other legal service entities to the poor that are not funded
by WisTAF, which is an important consideration given that the WisTAF
board's grants committee has recently recommended completely defunding
four programs that formerly received WisTAF grants.
"Representatives of remaining WisTAF grantees were prominent
among speakers in favor of the petition. Representatives of Legal Action
of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Judicare, ABC for Health all spoke in favor of
the mandatory assessment. In fact, more representatives of grantees
spoke than did WisTAF officials. Well over half of the grant amounts
WisTAF has proposed to make in 2005 will go to Legal Action of
Wisconsin, an agency that also receives federal funding from the Legal
Services Corporation (LSC). Another 20 percent of proposed WisTAF grants
this year are earmarked for Wisconsin Judicare, another entity that
receives federal LSC funding."
In addition to being decidedly biased in setting forth only the
testimony against the petition, the State Bar article is implicitly
critical of Legal Action and other core legal services providers. These
core providers are portrayed as WisTAF favorites, whose receipt of
grants from WisTAF harms other legal services providers in the state.
The article does not bother to set out what these providers had to say
to the supreme court in favor of the petition, and in favor of WisTAF as
the recipient of the assessment proceeds. Apparently, the Bar views that
provider testimony as not worth conveying to its members. The article
does take pains to stress that, "[i]n fact, more representatives of
grantees spoke than did WisTAF officials," as though this were
somehow inappropriate. The article completely fails to mention that the
first and principal presenter for WisTAF was a distinguished past
president of the State Bar of Wisconsin, John Skilton, and that he was
speaking on behalf of "WisTAF officials." The article also
fails to mention that a number of WisTAF Board members, who are also
dues-paying State Bar members, were there in support of the petition.
The State Bar analysis is itself curious - does the side with the most
testifiers win? Or is it more important what people actually had to say?
The article emphasizes the amount of WisTAF funding that Legal
Action and Wisconsin Judicare receive, then adds that we also receive
LSC funding, clearly implying that we are too well-funded. Ignoring the
obvious truth that we are not excessively-funded, the article leaves no
room for the possibility that there might be good reasons for the degree
to which WisTAF funds us, such as that Legal Action and Wisconsin
Judicare are responsible for providing legal services in all 72 counties
in Wisconsin and in a broad range of poverty law areas; that we have
sophisticated systems to efficiently serve large numbers of clients;
that annual WisTAF evaluations have concluded that we are experienced
and well-run; and that WisTAF itself was created to make up for a
portion of the LSC funding cuts which occurred in 1982.
The article purports to champion "other legal service entities
to the poor [sic] that are not funded by WisTAF," yet it
in fact opposes the attorney assessment, and thus opposes more funding
for any "legal services entities to the poor." The article
does not understand that, in funding, say, twice as many grantees,
WisTAF would simply be creating twice as many underfunded
"entities" with wasteful duplication of administration, none
of which could provide adequate service. It should be remembered in this
regard that the drop in WisTAF grants between 2004 and 2005 was
$689,000, nearly the amount of the attorney assessment proceeds. It is
not as though there is plenty to go around, and current WisTAF grantees
don't need any more funds.
Finally, in singling out Legal Action and Wisconsin Judicare and ABC
for Health, and by implication the other principal WisTAF grantees - the
Wisconsin Coalition for Advocacy and the Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee
- the State Bar article appears to forget completely that we are State
Bar members, and in doing so it attacks its own. Four of the primary
WisTAF grantees - Legal Action, the Wisconsin Coalition for Advocacy,
the Legal Aid Society, and Wisconsin Judicare - paid nearly $30,000 in
dues to the State Bar in June 2004. This sum represents the dues of 80
State Bar members, many of whom are also active on State Bar committees
- that is, they help do the work of the State Bar. If this article is
the kind of "member service" which we as members can expect,
of what use to us is a compulsory bar association?
John F. Ebbott, executive director
Legal Action of Wisconsin Inc.
Response: The State Bar position in opposition to
the WisTAF petition raised concerns about the effect on other legal
service entities not because Legal Action of Wisconsin or other
"core legal services providers" are favorites, but because
other entities will not have the opportunity to share in the funds
collected by the mandatory assessment. Likewise, lawyers may be less
inclined to make voluntary charitable contributions, which once again
could hurt other legal services providers who depend on voluntary
contributions.
The Bar's position before the supreme court did not address the
funding level of legal services entities or the effectiveness or
efficiency of their work. However, it is fair to say that legal services
entities are certainly not the only mechanism to address the needs of
the indigent. It is only by using a variety of methods, including other
nonprofit organizations, that we will effectively address the issue. The
needs of the indigent will not be addressed with a
"one-size-fits-all" solution.
The "attack" was not directed at any State Bar members,
but rather was advocating the position that the Board of Governors and
an overwhelming majority of our members saw as appropriate; a voluntary
rather than mandatory assessment was the appropriate action.
Michelle A. Behnke, president
State Bar of Wisconsin
Wisconsin Lawyer