Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Three candidates vie for State Bar’s top seat

By: dmc-admin//March 2, 2005//

Three candidates vie for State Bar’s top seat

By: dmc-admin//March 2, 2005//

Listen to this article

Candidates"Grab your briefcase and hang on for the ride."

So says Madison’s Steven A. Levine, associate general counsel with the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, who has entered the race for State Bar president-elect.

In recent years, typically two candidates, selected by a nominating committee and approved by the State Bar of Wisconsin Board of Governors, are on the ballot for the office of president-elect. This year, they are Dean R. Dietrich, of Ruder Ware in Wausau and G. Jeffrey George, of Moen Sheehan Meyer Ltd. in La Crosse.

Levine predicts an exciting race, sans letting personalities or personal attacks enter into the campaign. The excitement stems from the issue separating Levine from his opponents, which is emotionally laden for some members of the bar. That issue is the Wisconsin bar’s status as an integrated, or mandatory, association.

The Mandatory Bar

Dean R. Dietrich

Education

B.S., Marquette University, 1974
J.D., Marquette University Law School, 1977

Employment

Kramer, Nelson, Kussmaul and Hawley, 1977-79
Mulcahy & Wherry, 1979-90
Ruder Ware, 1990-present

Affiliations

State Bar of Wisconsin:
Treasurer, 2001-05
Board of Governors, 1990-91, 1994-98, and 2001-present
Finance Committee, member, 1996-98 and 2000-present, co-chair, 2001-03, chair,
2003-present
Strategic Planning Committee, 2001-present
Committee on Professional Ethics, member, 1990-present, chair, 2000-02
Professionalism Committee, member, 1994-98 and 2000-present
Labor and Employment Law Section, board of directors, 1999-2002
Wisconsin Law Foundation fellow
American Bar Association Center for Professional Responsibility
Frequent CLE speaker and Wisconsin Lawyer author

Community Service

Wausau/Marathon County Chamber of Commerce: president, 2001, board of directors, 1994-2002, Legislative Action Committee, member, 1988-present, chair, 1988-98
Community Health Care (Aspirus) Wausau Hospital: board member, 1999-present, board secretary, 2000-02, vice chair, 2002-04, chair, 2004-present
Wausau Early Bird Rotary Club: member, 1994-present, president, 2001-02
Marathon County Youth Hockey Association: board member, 1997-2003, president,
2000-03; USA Hockey certified coach and referee

Personal

Born Sept. 22, 1952, Milwaukee
Married to C. Ann Dietrich, part-time speech therapist and volunteer fundraiser for Catholic Schools in Wausau, three children
Enjoys golf, coaching youth hockey

Levine is no stranger to this issue, having brought a lawsuit on it that went all the way to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the late 1980s. Levine v. Heffernan, et al., 864 F.2d 457 (1988). The bar was voluntary from 1988 until the mandatory bar was reinstated by the state Supreme Court in 1992. Levine thinks it’s time for the high court to reconsider that ruling.

His reasoning? Whether or not a lawyer decides to join a bar association — essentially a professional association akin to the state medical society or other professional trade associations — should be his or her decision and is a form of expression and freedom of association under the First Amendment.

Per the U.S. Supreme Court, he continues, the purposes of an integrated bar are two-fold: to police ethics and to improve the quality of legal services offered by bar members, with CLE and other services. On the first point, the State Bar plays no role in ethics enforcement; the Office of Lawyer Regulation handles that task. On the second point, since lawyers must pay for State Bar CLE in addition to their dues, he does not see how Wisconsin’s bar improves the quality of its members’ services. In sum, the current bar doesn’t do anything "official" to merit its integrated status.

Levine says he is, in no way, "anti-bar," noting that he is currently, and has been, involved in bar activities, and he thinks the bar staff is exceptional. Most lawyers would join, he continues; during the years the bar was voluntary, close to 85 percent of the previous mandatory membership remained in the association. That means there probably wouldn’t be a significant retrenchment of bar services, should it be made voluntary again.

Levine maintains that making the association voluntary would also give it some independence from the Supreme Court, thereby strengthening it. He reasons that under the status quo, with the bar as an "arm of the Supreme Court," occasionally bar leaders might alter their opinions, on the grounds that "We don’t know how the Supreme Court will react to this." When the bar is less of a "servant" to the court, it will be freer to take positions contrary to the court from time to time.

If he is elected, Levine will push for a petition asking the Supreme Court to make bar membership voluntary for a 10-year trial period. He believes the bar would not just survive that decade — it would thrive.

Dietrich isn’t convinced.

He was on the Board of Governors when the bar was voluntary, and has remained active in bar governance, either as a governor, or as a State Bar officer, ever since. He says that institutional memory serves him well on this issue, in addition to his familiarity with the bar’s finances.

"The bar does a lot of things, many of which go untold, to assist society, and to educate legislators and the public. It also assists lawyers to be good advisors and sound professionals," Dietrich says. "I th
ink those programs and services are important, and I don’t know if the bar could continue to provide them at the same level if it were voluntary. I believe, as I did 8-10 years ago or more, that an integrated bar meets far more of the overall purposes of our association, that society and the profession need, than a voluntary bar."

Meanwhile, George says he is a member of the bar associations in Iowa and Minnesota, as well as Wisconsin, and that that has given him the opportunity to compare and contrast. Both Iowa and Minnesota have voluntary state bar associations, and he has concluded that a mandatory bar is the better option.

"I tend to agree with the last Wisconsin Supreme Court opinion [In the Matter of the State Bar of Wisconsin, 169 Wis.2d 21 (1992)], which essentially said that everyone who calls himself a lawyer should have an obligation to maintain the programs and services that the bar provides, both for the benefit of the public and the legal system. I don’t think that’s an unfair imposition. And I do think that if everyone in the association, even those in government service, would take a fair look at it, they’d realize that they can and do benefit from the services the bar provides."

G. Jeffrey George

Education

B.A. Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., 1969
J. D., University of Iowa College of Law, with distinction, 1974

Employment

U.S. Army, 1969-71, U.S. Army Reserve, 1976-82
Steele Klos & Flynn-Chartered, 1974-88
Moen Sheehan Meyer, Ltd., 1988-present

Affiliations

La Crosse County Bar Association, 1974-present, president, 1992
State Bar of Wisconsin: Board of Governors, 2001-present, Executive Committee,
2004-present
Chairman, District V Committee, Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility,
1993-2000
Wisconsin Law Foundation fellow
Wisconsin Academy of Trial Lawyers
American Trial Lawyers Association

Community Activities

Birth Right, board member, 1996-99
Member of Board of Trustees, Washburn Fund, La Crosse Public Library, 2001-present
Board member and current president of the Continental Dance Club;
Coach of the La Crosse Central Mock Trial Team

Personal

Born Feb. 17, 1947, Iowa City
Married to Elaine Brueckner, director of volunteer services, Franciscan Skemp Medical Center
Three adult daughters, one granddaughter
Enjoys reading and book club memberships, ballroom dance and golf

There’s no denying that some bar members feel that the Supreme Court does not always adequately consider the bar’s positions when making important decisions, says George. But a voluntary bar would not ameliorate that concern, he opines.

Legal Services Funding

All three candidates were unhappy with the state Supreme Court’s Jan. 12 decision to assess every lawyer $50 for WisTAF, the Wisconsin Trust Account Foundation, to fund civil legal services for low-income persons. WisTAF petitioned the high court for the assessment, to make up for the shortfall in its funding due to the lower interest rates of recent years.

Levine says the bar’s position at the time of the public hearing —that it would put a blank on the annual dues assessment for a $50 WisTAF assessment and then let lawyers decide whether or not to opt out — was very reasonable. He appeared in opposition to the WisTAF petition at the hearing on his own accord. He now says, in the wake of the ruling, that the bar should vigorously oppose the assessment when the court reconsiders the issue in three years.

"Pro Bono is a very personal, private decision to be made by each Wisconsin lawyer as a matter of ethics and conscience — not a matter of government coercion," he says. "I think it’s very clear that the law in Wisconsin, for the last 150 years or so, has been that pro bono is voluntary, and I don’t think the court has any authority to do this. Of course, the court always falls back on, ‘We have the inherent authority,’ which I think is a dangerous concept."

For their part, both Dietrich and George supported the bar’s initial position to make the assessment voluntary. After the court’s decision, the Board of Governors voted to review the legal bases of the court’s ruling. Both men voted in favor of that resolution.

George says, "I just don’t think it’s appropriate to try to fulfill a societal obligation by imposing fees on lawyers alone. … At the bar level, some of the opposition is because lawyers are by nature, very independent people who don’t like to be told they have to do anything. There’s a certain emotional component. But I also think, philosophically, the majority of lawyers feels that this is not their problem alone to solve. The imposition of this fee makes it all too easy for the Legislature to say, ‘They’ve taken care of that.’"

Dietrich echoes those sentiments. He reminds that a State Bar study committee will be looking at the issue, and will, hopefully, come up with a more equitable solution, to address the problem on a broader scale.

Both George and Dietrich stress that the governors’ vote to review the ruling shouldn’t be viewed as a challenge to the high court, but rather, as a way to ensure there is no conflict between a mandatory assessment and a mandatory bar.

Qualifications for the Job

Levine says that clearly, the major difference between him and his opponents is their positions on the mandatory bar.

Steven A. Levine

Education

J.D., Georgetown University Law School, 1973
Master of Laws, University of Wisconsin, 1984

Employment

Wisconsin Supreme Court, law clerk to Justice Robert Hansen, 1973-74
U.S. Army, 1974-75
Wisconsin Supreme Court, Reporter of Decisions, 1975
Wisconsin Public Service Commission, Assistant General Counsel,1975-present

Affiliations

State Bar Board of Governors, 1980-84
State Bar Board of Bar Examiners Review Committee, 2003-present
Member of State Bar’s Administrative, Appellate and Energy Law Sections
State Bar ad hoc Committee on Administration of Justice and the Judiciary, chair,
1976-77
American Bar Association
Dane County Bar Association
Frequent CLE speaker and published author

Community Service

Appointed to Gov. Doyle’s Uniform Dwelling Code Council, 2004-present
Personal
Born Aug. 29, 1948, Green Bay

In a typical bar election, only 30 percent of those eligible to vote, do so, he says. He’d like to give the remaining 70 percent a reason to vote, and a strong voice for change.

But Dietrich and George do not agree that the average Wisconsin lawyer is fed up with the mandatory bar. They identify no major issue dividing the two of them.

George says that in his last four years on the Board of Governors, he can’t remember a time when he and Dietrich were on opposite sides of any issue of major significance. Moreover, the two have made several joint appearances at local bar meetings, which have featured highly collegial exchanges.

Thus backgrounds are the main distinction between them.

Dietrich, a management-side employment attorney who represents both public- and private-sector clients, points to his lengthy record of bar service and his intimate knowledge of bar policies and procedures as his primary qualifications for the job. In particular, his many years on the bar’s Finance Committee, as well as his two terms as State Bar treasurer, have given him a valuable insight as to how the organization functions. That, coupled with his expertise in professional responsibility; he is a frequent speaker and Wisconsin Lawyer author on attorney ethics, as well as a long-term member of the bar’s Professional Ethics Committee.

He says this bar service has given him an understanding of all the positive things the bar does for its membership and society — "But I’ve also seen the frustrations that Wisconsin lawyers feel when they are faced with so much change in their practices and the profession. I want to join the efforts of past-presidents to make Wisconsin lawyers feel better about themselves, help them in their law practices, and help them contribute to the legal system and society."

George says that while he can’t match Dietrich’s length of State Bar service, he does have his own record that makes him qualified. As previously noted, he has served on the Board of Governors for the past four years, and on the bar’s Executive Committee for the last year. He is also a past-president of the La Crosse County Bar Association, and has been very active with that group throughout his 31 years in private practice as a civil litigator. George represents both plaintiffs and insurers in personal injury matters, and defendants in business disputes, in addition to practicing family law and alternative dispute resolution.

He observes, "I think my practice in mediation and arbitration has shown to me that I have a knack for bringing people to a resolution of issues that can serve both sides of a controversy."

In addition, George manages his 13-lawyer firm and says that law-firm management experience has given him a fair amount of insight about the business of practicing law.

That’s in conjunction with lengthy service to the former Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility, as a district committee chair. While Dietrich might have the edge on him on the minutiae of ethics rules, he says he has the unique experience of applying ethics rules to attorneys’ everyday practice.

Finally, George is a Vietnam War veteran who says that experience had a strong impact on the person he is today. "I learned a lot about how to think and act on my own initiative, and to understand that just because someone is in a position of authority does not necessarily mean that they: a) know what they’re doing; or b) are implementing a sensible policy. I also learned the old GI adage, for when somebody was asking you to do something that seems contrary to common sense: ‘What are you going to do — send me to Vietnam?’ That adage has served me from time to time ever since. There are times when you have to speak up, when you think something isn’t right or doesn’t make sense."

Related Links

Wisconsin State Bar

Levine is quick to laud his opponents’ qualifications for the job of president-elect. But, in the same vein, he has his own record of achievements. He began his legal career as a law clerk to Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Robert Hansen; he holds both a J.D. and a master of laws degree; and he is proud to have been in public service for the past 30 years. Moreover, with regard to State Bar service, he was elected to two terms on the Board of Governors in the 1980s, and has served on three bar committees, including his current participation in the bar’s Board of Bar Examiners Review Committee.

He also possesses a strong sense of ethics. As a public servant, he has been scrupulous to campaign only on his personal time.

But he says his strongest qualification is his willingness to pursue good ideas, however unorthodox they might be. "What’s wild and radical today becomes generally accepted tomorrow," he observes.

That’s not just talk, he says. One of his "wild ideas" from the past was to petition the state Supreme Court to begin holding open administrative conferences. He began that effort in the early 1980s and it took approximately 15 years to see it become a reality. By all accounts now, the open conferences have been a success.

The state’s 21,000 lawyers will have their opportunity to cast their votes in April. The bar sends out ballots no later than April 8, to be returned by April 22.

Next week: The candidates weigh in on the bar’s branding campaign and the State Bar budget.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests