In my last column, I discussed a key criticism of bar associations: That they sometimes seem to be working counter to the interests of their members. This week’s installment will offer some positive suggestions for bar associations to improve services for their members.
Let me state off the bat that I am not anti-bar association, per se. Not at all. I’ve donated, and donate, a great deal of time to bar-related organizations, on the local, state and national level. Nor is this intended to be a thinly-veiled attack on any one person or program associated with the state or local bars.
Bar associations can do a great deal of good for their members, the courts and the public. But it bothers me – enough that I’m compelled to speak out – when they seek to serve one of those three beneficiaries at the expense of another.
With specific regard to my gripe in the last column, bar associations should require means-testing for legal clinics. Incredible as it is to believe, anyone, regardless of income and assets, can get free legal advice at the new Milwaukee Justice Center and other bar association-sponsored clinics.
There are two effects: First, the time available to assist those in need is diluted, as there is always a lack of resources; and second, lawyers who could use the revenue do not get it because advice is being given away for free, through the auspices of organizations that they may even be required to join.
As I acknowledged in the last column, most “clients” of legal clinics do not have resources to pay for legal advice. But that is not true for all of them. Bar associations that are going to offer free legal services need to differentiate between the two.
Next, bar associations need to keep abreast of breaking legal developments and be proactive. Are cases involving family law issues pending before the Wisconsin Supreme Court? Bar associations should be aware of these cases and consider whether an amicus brief is warranted.
Likewise, bar associations should monitor Wisconsin Court of Appeals opinions as they are issued. There is a period between the decision being filed and becoming final where the court can correct any errors.
Recently, in Stevenson v. Stevenson, 2009 WI App 29, the Court of Appeals changed incorrect language regarding the type of trusts involved at the suggestion of Attorney Patricia Ballman, of Quarles & Brady LLP in Milwaukee. I am proud that on occasion, I have made a similar suggestion to the court, which it heeded.
It is one thing for the bar association to summarize cases after they are published. It is quite another to ensure accuracy before they are published.
Bar associations should also defend the ability of lawyers to make a living. There are non-lawyers who provide legal forms and “information;” there have been non-lawyer mediators who advertise that they “assist” people with resolving their issues. Are they providing legal advice? Are they practicing law without a license? While the State Bar does have a committee in place that has filed petitions before the Supreme Court, isn’t there more that can be done?
One idea is to promote the use of lawyers. A pamphlet just published by the State Bar of Wisconsin Family Law Section, “Choosing a Process for Divorce,” is a fine start. But it needs to be disseminated to non-lawyers. Also, the pamphlet promotes collaborative divorce, which is fine, but it ignores cooperative divorce. The State Bar should be promoting the use of lawyers – not promoting one form of resolution while ignoring others.
Moreover, there are innumerable other areas within the family law umbrella that could use more attention from bar associations, such as:
-
The performance of GALS;
- The failure of the State of Wisconsin to adequately compensate GALs; and,
- The failure of certain counties (e.g., Milwaukee) to provide adequate family court counseling services.
The overall message: bar associations should start by not harming their own members.
![[Print]](http://wislawjournal.com/wp-content/plugins/dmc_sociable_toolbar/print.png)
![[Email]](http://wislawjournal.com/wp-content/plugins/dmc_sociable_toolbar/email_2.png)
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:24 am
These are good ideas. But how to pay for them? I suggest a two-year surcharge on family law practitioners, GALs and family court judges. Family law, unlike criminal law, is a private matter. As such, those involved should sacrifice a little to make the system better.
From what I understand, many family law attorneys want retainers in the $10,000 to $25,000 range ad then charge between $225 and $400/hour. Many GALs make $250/hour. Family court judges only work 10 months a year. Why should the public pay for private disputes? As one commentator recently noted, family law lawyers have priced themselves out of the range of what the public can afford.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:59 pm
This is in response to Attorney Gregg Herman
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:20 am
I agree with Carlton Stansbury. Most of his points are excellent. However, he avoids the key issue – family law practitioners and the system of family law itself are for the rich. Unlike a civil trial, which ends in a judgment and perhaps an appeal, a divorce decree is often only the beginning of years of court battles when children are involved. Few businesses could afford that, divorced parents certainly cannot. Often, the wage earner can afford it and the other spouse cannot. This exacerbates the problem.
Mr. Herman’s ideas on what the bar should do have merit, but are very expensive. While Mr. Herman may not be involved in the State Bar at this time, I hear he has devoted countless hours of voluntary service to the State Bar as a member of its Board of Governors and in others ways. So I think he has every right to complain. Apparently, both Messrs. Herman and Carlton have done much for the bar association. They are both to be highly commended.
The best thing the bar could do is stop the encroachment of government into the lives of the citizenry. The government takes so much in taxes it leaves very little for the private sector to be able to afford $250+/hour lawyers in lawsuits that go on for years. The family law system itself is broken. Instead of creative ideas, all we hear is tax and spend. People without jobs and money cannot afford any lawyers. Family law as a whole should be revisited as the current system is broken beyond repair.
October 23rd, 2009 at 2:29 pm
I did not intend to state or imply in my comment that Mr. Herman is an inactive member of the bar associations. Indeed, he has spent countless hours with many organizations and his contributions are too many to count. In fact, many of his contributions he has made have been”behind the scenes” and with no fanfare. He epitomizes active membership and our profession is better due to his many contributions. My point is that changes can only happen if the members, become involved rather than t just complaining about it. I was not directing my comments to Mr. Herman personally on his level of activism. My apologies for any misunderstanding of my message.
Carlton