Guerin, Shriner vie for president-elect

Listen to this article

“We need to keep pounding the message to lawyers about the ‘Jimmy Stewart mentality.’ Lawyers need to step back sometimes and recognize how they have changed people’s lives, and how truly rare they are.” D. Michael Guerin Gimbel, Reilly, Guerin & Brown

Those who enjoy mud-slinging will have to look to other contests, because that’s just not the style of the candidates for president-elect of the State Bar of Wisconsin — Milwaukee lawyers D. Michael Guerin and Thomas L. Shriner Jr. The two are engaged in a race marked by collegiality and lacking stark differences between the candidates.

Shriner, a partner with Foley & Lardner, says his opponent is “an honorable, forthright, friendly person of great integrity.”

Guerin, a partner with Gimbel, Reilly, Guerin & Brown, likewise says, “Tom’s a quality person who has done a lot of important public service.” He adds with a laugh that the major difference between them is that Shriner is taller.

Proposed Presidential Initiatives

It wasn’t a given in Guerin’s family that the children would graduate from college, much less pursue advanced degrees. So he is “fiercely proud” to be a lawyer, and he wishes more lawyers would share his pride in the profession. Therefore, as the leader of the state’s approximately 21,000 attorneys, Guerin says he’d do whatever he can to remind lawyers of the significance of their role in society.

“We need to keep pounding the message to lawyers about the ‘Jimmy Stewart mentality.’ Lawyers need to step back sometimes and recognize how they have changed people’s lives, and how truly rare they are,” he says.

This might take the shape of beefing up the bar’s lawyer assistance program, he says, perhaps via outside grant funding. Guerin hearkens back to his presidency of the Milwaukee Bar Association in 2000-01, when he endeavored to recruit more volunteers for the MBA’s lawyer assistance program. Previously, it bore somewhat of a stigma as a haven only for those in recovery, he says. But by broadening the involvement, the MBA’s members began to see the program also as a resource for those who are simply overwhelmed by the stresses of their practices.

Guerin says he learned how to staff committees effectively as MBA president. When recruiting volunteers, he was never turned down. He’d like to try to do the same with the State Bar. “Lawyers are almost always willing to do things, provided they are properly directed and they feel their services are valuable,” he states.

For his part, Shriner observes that the State Bar does many things well, and is one of the most highly regarded bar associations in the nation. Yet there’s always room for improvement.

“I think it’s time, or past time, to be thinking in a really hard way about what we want this organization to be,” he says. “We’ve sort of accepted that the bar is what the Supreme Court has told us it is, and yet, some of the premises underlying the structure that we have, have changed considerably over the years. And I really think it’s time that the members give very serious thought to what we want the bar to be, and to not accept any of what’s there currently as necessary or a given.”

The bar attracts many volunteers who do excellent work, and who undoubtedly receive satisfaction from their service. But there’s also a quiet, yet sizeable portion of Wisconsin’s mandatory bar that sees bar membership as nothing more than a tax on the profession.

Shriner comments, “We’re charging dues — fairly high ones — to everyone, and what is it that many members are getting out of it? Many people clearly don’t want to be involved in the bar. What are they getting for their money, and shouldn’t we make an organized effort to find out?”

One of Shriner’s main goals, should he be elected to take the bar’s top leadership spot in 2005, would be to lead a discussion that includes everyone, both those who get involved in the bar, and those who do not — be it through a task force, a “constitutional convention” of sorts, or some other means that he has yet to determine.

Shriner, like Guerin, suspects that many members might wish to place a
higher priority on lawyer assistance programs, or possibly more practice management assistance. It would behoove the bar to find out if this is so.

He additionally suspects the membership might want to place lawyers’ needs first. “While the interests of the public are important, we really need to focus on lawyers’ interests, because the system works better when people advance their own institution’s interests. We ought to be thinking about what we can do to advance the interests of the profession, and to serve people who have a tough job to do,” he opines.

Job Qualifications

Shriner identifies a number of past and current involvements that make him qualified to be president-elect. He is a past-president of the Seventh Circuit Bar Association; he served on the State Bar Board of Governors from 1996-2000; and he chaired the bar’s initial Multidisciplinary Practice Commission.

Shriner’s other qualifications include his past service as a long-time member and president of the Shorewood Police Commission, when the village hired two new police chiefs. Additionally he spent several years as a member and chair of the Board of Trustees of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, when the recent sex abuse scandals involving the church came to light, and during the changeover of the archbishop. These were rocky times for both the municipality and the church, Shriner observed, stating he did whatever he could to help them though the difficulties.

“I’ve had experience, both in bar settings and in civic and charitable organizations, in leading groups of people of different views who are sort of united in trying to push a cause. And I think I have a bit of knack for getting people to pull together without imposing my own views,” he says.

“I really think it’s time that the members give very serious thought to what we want the bar to be, and to not accept any of what’s there currently as necessary or a given.” Thomas L. Shriner Jr., Foley & Lardner

As for Guerin, he points to his similarly long list of bar and community service activities. Prior to his presidency of the MBA, Guerin was very active on the State Bar’s Post Graduate Legal Education Committee, where he and others orchestrated countless successful CLEs. The group also coordinated the publication of several popular State Bar treatises.

Guerin additionally was among those who spearheaded the MBA’s Federal Bench-Bar Committee, a group that quickly spun out into the Eastern District of Wisconsin Bar Association. He now sits on its board of directors, in addition to service on three other charitable and/or law-related boards. He’s also an adjunct at Marquette University, teaching evidence and ethics.

“Teaching keeps me in touch with what’s going on and what the future will be like, and that keeps me optimistic,” he says.

A fairly recent addition to his resume is Guerin’s service as a District 2 representative on the State Bar Board of Governors.

On Political Advocacy

Guerin joined the board last summer, after the State Bar leadership had ultimately determined that it was not going to join as amicus in Grutter v. Bollinger, a controversial U.S. Supreme Court case about the use of race as a factor in law school admissions.

The experience should remind the bar that, as a mandatory organization, it should not take a position on highly-charged issues, agree Guerin and Shriner.

Defining “political” can be tricky, they concede. But when it’s clear that a position has already, or will, generate substantial disagreement among bar members, the bar should remain neutral. Moreover, the Keller (v. State Bar of California) dues rebate, a return of a portion of dues money that was used to fund political activities to any members who request it because they don’t agree with the bar’s advocacy, probably isn’t satisfactory to them.

The two also agree that it is wholly legitimate for the bar to offer opportunities to lawyers within particular practice areas to work together to advance their views of law reform. But when a section or division of the bar takes a political stand, the general public, for the most part, does not make the distinction between a section’s position, versus that of the whole bar.

As for their own politics, it’s no secret that Shriner is Republican
and conservative, while Guerin characterizes himself as a liberal Democrat or a Populist. But both agree that a bar leader’s personal political views should never enter into his or her decision-making. It hasn’t in their past bar service, and it wouldn’t in the future, they pledge.

Justice Funding

No one knows for sure what will be on the bar president’s plate 15 months from now. But looking at the current economy, it’s a good bet that state lawmakers will continue to try to cut funding of the courts and the criminal justice system. Additionally, funding for legal services will likely remain an issue, since earnings from Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts, or IOLTA, are down due to the low interest rates of recent years.

“The Public Defender system is running on empty, but so are the district attorneys’ offices. And this is an area that the bar has to spend some time exploring, because it really strikes at basic justice issues,” Guerin says. “Legislators might look at cutting services, such as trash pick-up or when the Department of Motor Vehicles is open.

But if they start to treat justice issues the same way, they’re tearing at the very fiber of what makes this state a safe and fair place to live. And if the bar doesn’t speak out on this, who will?”

The attraction of IOLTA funds, adds Shriner, is that they are perceived as “free money,” or interest earnings that would otherwise simply go to banks. But no one, or no organization, should rely solely on free money for their long-term existence. Legal services have traditionally been funded in large part by private charitable organizations, such as the Legal Aid Society and the Equal Justice Coalition — groups to which Shriner regularly contributes.

Still, because the bar is integrated, he would oppose any type of mandatory member assessment for legal services. Ditto for Guerin.

The Bar Budget

Shriner says that re-examining priorities is especially important in these challenging economic times, when the bar’s budget is tighter than ever. In his view, it’s impossible to divorce policy-making from setting a budget — a comment that is always heard when the Board of Governors approves the budget every spring.

So is there fat in bar’s budget?

“I’m sure there is. There’s probably fat in every organization — it depends on how you define ‘reform,’ or ‘pork,’” Shriner says.

He notes that during his final term on the board, when the last dues increase was being debated and ultimately passed, he voted against it. Not because he is fiscally conservative — “But it seemed to me that even then, there was no willingness to go back to first principles, and think through why we’re doing what we’re doing and the way we’re doing it.”

For his part, Guerin says he is comfortable that the bar staff is running as tight a ship as they possibly can, and he sees no fat in the budget.

Both additionally remind that as candidates for president-elect, they can’t promise to eliminate any particular bar expenditure, or that they would cut the budget by a certain percentage. The budget is a group effort, beginning with the bar’s Finance Committee and ending with Board of Governors’ approval.

Personal

	Links State Bar of Wisconsin

Guerin originates from La Crosse. He was a police officer for the City of Milwaukee and a special agent for the Wisconsin Department of Justice when he earned his bachelor’s and law degrees from Marquette University. Although he always thought he’d be a prosecutor, as a law student, he clerked with Milwaukee lawyer Franklyn Gimbel’s firm. Gimbel was very effective at convincing him to try private practice instead, so Guerin stayed on after completing his J.D. Thirty years later, he’s now a senior partner with the 13-lawyer firm. He’s first and foremost a litigator, practicing in personal injury and other civil matters, as well as criminal defense.

Shriner was born and raised in La Fayette, Ind., and he attended Indiana
University for both his undergraduate and law degrees. He clerked for Foley while a law student, and after his earning his J.D., he clerked for Judge John S. Hastings of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals for a year. He then returned to Foley as an associate.

He’s been a part of the firm’s Litigation Department for 31 years now.

Both have been married for over 30 years. Guerin’s wife, Carol, works for Midwest Airlines in Milwaukee, and he quips that she must keep that job as part of the marriage contract because they both immensely enjoy the flight privileges. They have three grown children. Any free time Guerin has that is not spent with family or traveling is spent on his Harley, weather permitting.

As for Shriner, his wife, Donna, is a classical singer and voice teacher. They live in Shorewood. They have four sons, and much of Shriner’s free time is spent on family activities or trips. He also reads constantly — be it history, biographies or a little “trashy fiction,” he confesses.