Board opposes amendments

Listen to this article

Steven A. Levine

Three proposed amendments to the state constitution met with fierce opposition at the State Bar of Wisconsin Board of Governors meeting on March 9.

Legislation presented by Wisconsin Rep. Sheryl K. Albers (R-Reedsburg) in support of a voluntary bar, restriction of the court’s ability to impose fees for legal defense of the poor and opening all Supreme Court conferences to the public, was viewed by the majority in attendance as a subversive attempt to regulate the practice of law outside the judicial branch.

“I’ve observed a bad habit of the state to try and legislate through constitutional amendments,” said Governor William J. Domina. “The constitution is a document which is supposed to stand for our principles and withstand those political pressures encountered in the day to day process.

“These three documents, I think are contrary to that principle because they do bring issues into the constitution, which do not belong,” He said. “They do alter the effectiveness of the court to regulate the legal profession.”

Domina’s motion for the bar to actively oppose all three initiatives on principle was supported in a vote by 35 State Bar leaders.

Presidential Preference

Only two, including State Bar President Steven A. Levine, opposed the motion. Levine has been an outspoken advocate of all three initiatives and was chided by president-elect Thomas J. Basting Sr. for his alleged involvement in getting the legislation drafted.

Basting recited an e-mail he sent to Levine in which he expressed “disappointment” that Levine chose legislative avenues to promote his ideas, rather than through discussion among the governors or a petition to the Supreme Court.

“[B]y championing these ill-advised proposed constitutional amendments, you have taken a position as State Bar president in direct opposition to the stated policy positions of the State Bar,” said Basting, whose statements were capped by applause from the majority of board members.

Levine denied any involvement in the drafting or submission of the proposed amendments. He was adamant that Albers initiated contact on the issues after reading several articles he had written.

Thomas J. Basting Sr.

“I was surprised with the call from Rep. Alber’s office because I wouldn’t have thought to even propose these, since I didn’t think there was any support in the Legislature,” said Levine, who wrote articles in Wisconsin Lawyer magazine supporting the topics addressed in the amendments.

Albers confirmed her initial contact with Levine was purely for informational purposes and not to solicit support for the amendments.

“I read his articles and thought they had merit so I called to discuss the issues, but he made it clear that his views did not represent those of the bar,” said Albers.

A Question of Support

Albers said she intended to present the amendments on fees for the indigent and a voluntary bar when the Elections and Constitutional Law Committee meets in two weeks. She expected a hearing regarding the open conference amendment to be scheduled this spring.

Though he refuted allegations of any initial involvement, Levine did pledge independent support for the amendments should they be scheduled for a hearing.

“These might be circulating, but they also might never come up,” Levine said of the amendments. “If they did, depending on which one it was, I would appear, but make clear I’m here as an individual representing my own opinions and I’m sure the bar will be there and they have the right to express the bar’s opinion. All I want to do is raise the issues and debate them in public.”

Basting and others wondered whether appearing independently in favor of the proposals would send the wrong message, given the Board’s vote to publicly oppose the amendments.

“It’s very difficult to divorce your capacity as president of an organization like this from your individual opinions,” said Basting referring to Levine’s personal support of the proposals. “The place to state his opinions are here, but once the debate is over, he needs to represent the interests of the bar, not his own.”

Levine claimed he has repeatedly attempted to promote discussion on these issues, specifically whether the state should have a voluntary bar.

“I’ve tried twice to get the Executive Committee to develop a referendum so lawyers can vote on bar membership and it’s been voted down to even be put on the agenda,” said Levine. “I feel bad, but if it’s not going to be addressed, what else can be done?”