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

Wisconsin Lawyer