President's Perspective
Assessing And Responding To Member Needs
By Susan R.
Steingass
It's hard to believe that it has been 10 years since the Federal
District Court ruled that the mandatory bar was unconstitutional. Many
newer lawyers may not even know that from 1988 to 1991, membership in
the State Bar was voluntary. It was not until 1991 that the 7th Circuit
Court of Appeals reversed the ruling and the Wisconsin Supreme Court
granted our petition to again become a mandatory bar. This happened only
after extensive debate on the local bar and member level, and finally by
the elected Board of Governors of the State Bar.
Some say that these four years of
disintegration were the Bar's darkest hours. Others, myself included,
view this as a very positive time, in many ways, for the Bar. Why?
Because during those years we had to and did convince our members that
they wanted to belong, that their Bar provided valuable and relevant
services for them, and that they could and should get involved.
In 1988, faced with a voluntary Bar that had to win over its members,
then again in 1991, faced with the return of the mandatory Bar, we
surveyed our members to try to learn what they wanted from us and how
they saw us. Based on the information gained in the 1988 survey, we made
changes that convinced our members the Bar was relevant to their lives.
In fact, over the four years of the voluntary Bar, those efforts were so
successful that by 1991 fully 86 percent of the resident eligible
lawyers had joined the Bar of their own free will. The 1991 membership
survey provided us a roadmap for developing programs to meet member
needs as we moved from voluntary to mandatory membership status.
We need to revisit the Bar's attitude during those years. We again
need to know what you, our members, think of us, what you want from us,
and how we can deliver what you want. Though we have a mandatory Bar, we
need to act like a voluntary Bar. We need to ensure that the Bar is
always opened to new volunteers, new energy, new blood.
When I campaigned for president-elect, I visited with as many local
and specialty bars as I could. Many people there told me that they did
not see the relevance of the State Bar to their professional and
community lives – that they were often too busy to even get to
their local bar meetings, let alone to get involved in the State Bar. In
either event, they often saw the State Bar as a closed club for Madison
and Milwaukee insiders. I have tried to learn from and act upon that
dialogue.
During the committee appointment process I actively sought input from
the Bar's staff as to who might be interested in an appointment in a
particular area. Staff contacted those interested and reported back.
Without exception, those people were placed on committees. I also
followed up on requests to get involved and placed volunteers on
committees, many for the first time. Finally, I personally visited a
number of groups to solicit volunteers for committee appointments. That
effort resulted in the involvement of people who might not otherwise
have been inclined. I know we have a long way to go, but we made a small
start.
In June 1998 we also surveyed 2,786 randomly selected members. This
survey had two aims: to find out how you see the Bar and to assess how
we can change to be more responsive to your needs. The results of the
1998 membership survey have been digested and an action timetable
established. Most importantly, members say they want to combat the
perception of the Bar as an insider's club. You want technology support
and training. You want to combat feelings of detachment, to involve and
retain new members, and to get management support and practice tools.
You want CLE, conventions, and dues at as low a cost as feasible.
(Please see "1998
Member Survey: Gauging Members' Needs" in the October Wisconsin
Lawyer.)
We also want to know how we can be better involved with local and
specialty bars. So this spring we sent an assessment to local and
specialty bars. Rather than tell you what we had available, we asked
what you wanted from the Bar. You told us you wanted access to
substantive information by enhanced CLE book and seminar offers,
computer and technology training and information, strategic planning
assistance, public promotion of the profession's image, and local bar
grant public service project assistance.
We are in the process of trying to deliver what you asked for in the
1998 membership survey, the 1998 local and specialty bar needs
assessment, the 1998 Wisconsin Lawyer readership survey, and
the 1997 law firm technology survey. Bar staff are on the road to
providing these services in person, and I have an extensive travel
schedule along with staff so that we can hear from you and provide the
services you believe will enhance your professional lives.
We also have launched an interview project. Staff are interviewing a
core group of those involved in the Bar. The aim is to find out why
people get involved, what motivates them, and what impediments they
perceive. The respondents are a very diverse group, and from this
project we hope to learn and, more importantly, to evolve strategies to
improve outreach to those we have not reached before.
I understand why some members regard the State Bar as a closed club
of insiders, why they might not get involved. I once thought that
myself. Though I had been involved with CLE programs and books over the
years, Bar governance seemed unapproachable. How wrong I was! When I was
nominated to stand for president-elect, I saw that the impediments had
been in myself and in my attitude. It is these misconceptions that we
need to dispel by letting people know that their involvement is greatly
desired.
Outreach to local bars, improvement of member relations, and
increased involvement will not be a one-time initiative during my
presidency. My predecessor Steve Sorenson began this initiative with his
member-oriented regional conferences. My successor Leonard Loeb, with
the enthusiastic involvement of Bar staff, wants these efforts to
continue. Leonard, for instance, is chairing the nominating committee
charged with proposing a slate of candidates to stand for election to
statewide office. On that committee is Past President Tom Sleik; Monisia
Taylor, a recent law school graduate and a young lawyer; Susan Knepel, a
government lawyer; and David Zubke, a nonresident lawyer – a
diverse group indeed. For the first time, Leonard and his committee have
written to Bar members asking them to propose good candidates for all
statewide offices.
These efforts are as inexpensive as they are critical. The stakes are
high. We showed before that the overwhelming majority of lawyers want to
belong to the State Bar, whether they have to or not. They want to
belong because it serves them well, it meets their needs, and it touches
their professional lives. Let's not ever take each other for granted.
Let's do this together.
Wisconsin
Lawyer