3 State Bar candidates weigh in on issues

Listen to this article

Are Wisconsin’s 21,000 lawyers ready for a departure from the state’s integrated bar association? Madison lawyer Steven A. Levine thinks so, and that’s why he threw his hat in the ring for the president-elect race of the State Bar of Wisconsin.

Levine, of the Wisconsin Public Service Commission, has exercised his rights under Article II of State Bar bylaws, which provides that a member may run for an officer position by submitting a petition signed by 100 members. He is challenging Dean R. Dietrich, of Ruder Ware in Wausau, and G. Jeffrey George, of Moen Sheehan Meyer Ltd. in La Crosse — both of whom were part of the bar’s slate of candidates put forth by a nominating committee, also in accordance with Article II.

Levine entered the race primarily because he wishes to make State Bar membership voluntary. He is a long-time foe of the mandatory bar, having challenged it in federal court during the late 1980s. He believes the issue is ripe for re-examination. Meanwhile, Dietrich and George are strong proponents of maintaining a mandatory bar.

The other major issue that places Levine in one camp, and Dietrich and George in another, is the association’s "Branding the Profession" initiative. That effort officially began in 2002, and its goal is to improve the public’s perception of lawyers. The campaign has yielded a tag line for the state’s lawyers as "Expert Advisers. Serving You." It has included purchasing billboards and placing television advertisements to convey that message.

Levine says he has been in the company of both lawyers and nonlawyers when viewing the recent television ads. His companions have commented to him that the ads are "silly," "stupid," and poorly made.

But perhaps more importantly, and hearkening back to the central issue of the campaign, Levine says the campaign is improper because it is not in accord with the purposes of an integrated bar. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that these purposes are to police ethics and to improve the quality of legal services offered by bar members. The branding campaign serves neither purpose, he states. And while the campaign might be a relatively small portion of the bar’s budget, it’s still unnecessary and improper spending, to his way of thinking.

George and Dietrich couldn’t disagree more.

Dietrich says, "There are so many messages and stories to be told about how lawyers are fulfilling their roles as professionals. Yet when people talk about lawyers, it’s usually only by telling jokes. The general view of lawyers is negative, and wrong. So I think it’s entirely appropriate for the bar to try to address that. Is changing the public perception a large mountain to climb? I suspect it is. But the bar is the one entity to do that."

Likewise, George calls the campaign "a good idea, that’s very timely and necessary in our current environment," where he sees too many efforts to "demonize and marginalize lawyers."

"I hope it doesn’t sound corny, but I truly believe that the success of our society, and our economy, has a lot to do with the fact that a bunch of very bright lawyers created a government based on the rule of law, that provides protection not only for individuals’ rights, but also property rights. … And this effort to make us villains is just not right, and could have damaging effects in the long-term. So I think we need to be more assertive about this, frankly. We have been more assertive lately.

"The branding campaign is good. I think we ought to make it more broad-based, with local bars getting more involved, even perhaps putting some of their resources behind it."

The Bar’s Resources

Is there "fat" in the current State Bar budget?

Levine says, if elected and while the bar remains mandatory, he would push for a re-examination of where money is spent when it doesn’t promote ethics enforcement or CLE. That means the branding campaign would be one of his targets for elimination. But overall, the bar is very efficient in its operations, he says.

There probably are ways the bar could cut costs, George says. Still, he is convinced that the bar staff, notably Executive Director George C. Brown and Admin-istration and Finance Director Lynda Tanner, do an excellent job of watching the bar’s finances and looking for ways to be more cost-effective. Dietrich is a central player in that effort as well, he says.

Dietrich won’t argue that point. He and others scrutinize bar budget requests very closely, and undocumented expenditures are always questioned, he says. He personally might not always have agreed with some of the policy decisions underpinning the budget — nor will he weigh in on the utility of one bar program versus another. That’s for Board of Governors to decide, in consultation with bar membership.

As for the most recent dues increase, both Dietrich and George voted in favor it.

Dietrich, as the bar’s treasurer and Finance Committee chair, clearly had a direct hand in creating the budget, dues increase and all, and he stands behind his work and that of other committee members 100 percent. The increase was necessary to maintain the bar’s programs and services, as well as for a few new efforts, such as reinvigorating the bar’s pro bono program and creating a law office management assistance program. Both address key issues within the profession — providing legal services to the poor, and helping lawyers to help their clients and society, as well as to manage change and be successful in their practices — and they merit their reasonable expense.

George says that he initially opposed the dues hike, seeing it as being pushed on the membership without adequate notice. However, once it was put out in the open and ample justification was provided for the increase, he supported it.

He observes that one of the main factors driving the increase was the skyrocketing cost of health insurance for the bar’s staff. As his law firm’s managing partner, he understands that well. Further, several years had passed since the previous increase.

Presidential Initiatives

None of the candidates has ideas for new programs or services, as part of any presidential initiatives he would implement if elected. But all have varying ideas on how the bar might better serve its members.

George identifies the previously mentioned law office management assistance program as a primary example of what the bar ought to be doing. As president he would concentrate on making that program come to fruition and succeed.

George is also concerned about the level of discourse between practicing attorneys and the judiciary. These days, with so many civil matters being settled via alternative dispute resolution, he sees an increasing disconnect between non-criminal law litigators and the bench. As a bar officer, he would explore ways to bridge that gap.

As for Dietrich, he says he has no "pet projects" in mind, should he be elected to lead the association — nor does he think it’s necessary for a bar president to have presidential initiatives to be an effective leader. He would, however, give top priority to making sure the bar’s ongoing strategic planning is completed, used by the organization and successful.

Moving on to Levine, he says if elected, he’ll look for ways to save the bar money, and that would include the increased use of online communication versus paper and the U.S. Postal Service, as well as implementing secure online voting for the association’s elections.

Levine is also very concerned about the state’s Board of Bar Examiners. He is a current member of the bar’s BBE Review Committee, and says that group has received a noteworthy number of complaints from lawyers about the BBE’s inflexible policies —its "draconian and inflexible attitude … with respect to both CLE compliance and bar admission." As president, he would lead the bar’s push to liberalize the BBE’s practices, he says.

	Related Links Wisconsin State Bar

On a related note, the bar should advocate for online CLE reporting with the BBE. Levine notes that about a dozen other states use such a system, with digital signatures or other means to avoid fraud, while saving lawyers money and time and relieving them from unnecessary paperwork.

In addition, Levine says the way to encourage lawyers to give more pro bono service is to push for high court rules that shield pro bono lawyers from malpractice liability.

Finally, SCR 10.08(5) outlines the referendum procedure for State Bar members. It requires 1,000 signatures, with at least 50 signatures from each of the six districts from which the Board of Governors is elected, obtained within 90 days of filing the petition. Levine says the rule is too burdensome, and that one of his goals as a State Bar officer would be to relax these requirements, to spark greater member involvement in the association’s governance.

Ballots go out in approximately one month, to be returned to the bar by April 22.