The Tao of Steve

Listen to this article

The BOG probably felt that I tried to do too much in the way of change, while those who voted for me may have felt that I didn’t do enough. But it was only the beginning.” Steven A. Levine President, State Bar of Wisconsin

As the classic song says, “what a difference a day makes.”

But even 365 days did not generate the difference Steven A. Levine was looking for as president of the State Bar of Wisconsin.

The platforms he used to become the bar’s 51st president, like eliminating Wisconsin’s 137-year old diploma privilege and implementing a voluntary bar, were the issues which were met with fierce opposition by members of the Board of Governors during his term.

“I was frustrated by the slow pace of change, but that’s to be expected, and I was realistic about what I could accomplish, given that most members of the BOG disagreed with my positions,” said Levine. “A one-year bar presidency is only enough time to begin change in these areas.”

As he transitions into the role of past-president Levine reflects on his successes, failures and persistency.

Quick Change

Levine lamented that his progressive proposals were routinely defeated in open discussion, but he also came to the realization that his power as president was limited.

“Probably the most challenging aspect of the role for me was dealing with the fact that the bar presidency is intended to be a rather powerless, ceremonial role rather than a strong issue-oriented role,” said Levine.

He cited his efforts to get a referendum on a voluntary bar developed. According to Levine, the effort dead-ended in the Exe-cutive Committee, a result which he called “a sad lesson in democracy.”

“Just getting elected was a success in showing that a large number of bar members would vote for a candidate who favors a voluntary bar,” said Levine. “Apparently the powers that be are afraid to find out how the membership feels on this issue.”

Margaret Wrenn Hickey was Executive Committee chair during Levine’s term as president. Hickey recalled the request to add the matter to a Board of Governors agenda, but the committee voted it down.

“The Executive Committee declined to do so without further information and study on the effect of going to a voluntary bar both financially and otherwise,” stated Hickey, who added that Levine could have made a motion to amend the agenda at the actual Board of Governors meeting to add any issue to a meeting agenda. “Such a motion would have to carry by a simple majority, but I do not believe he ever did so.”

Incoming president and member of the Executive Committee, Thomas J. Basting, commended Levine for his ambitious nature, but also noted that any controversial topics were discussed and dealt with in a democratic fashion.

“The president, as described in the by-laws, is essentially the CEO of the organization and can’t do much without board approval,” said Basting. “Ideas come in, are floated around and for better or worse, voted up or down. Steve did his best to move forward on issues he felt were important, but in several cases board members democratically just said no.”

While his championing of contentious concepts produced little immediate change, in some cases, potentially prosperous discussion was generated. Under the circumstances, Levine seemed satisfied to agree to disagree on some issues.

One of which was whether Wisconsin should eliminate its direct admission of Marquette University and the University of Wisconsin Law School graduates into the state bar upon graduation. Every other state requires passage of a bar exam to practice law.

During his term, a committee was appointed to study the diploma privilege/bar exam discrimination and though the majority of board members appear opposed to the abolition, at least the possibility was discussed.

“The committee’s work and any change in this area will take time, but just taking the first step here is important,” said Levine.

Not all of changes supported by Levine lacked support. The Board of Governors and subsequently the Supreme Court approved the addition of two more nonresident lawyer’s seats on the board as well as a Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Comity Rule which promotes interstate practice.

Prior to and during his presidency, Levine pushed for changes in the Board of Bar Examiner’s (BBE) treatment of attorneys with regards to bar admission and CLE. He praised Director John Kosobucki and Director Charles H. Constantine as “a breath of fresh air” for their cooperative efforts with the bar.

In keeping with his goals to increase participation in the bar, Levine proposed expansion of the bar’s Minority Clerkship Program to include law students with disabilities. Levine expected the discussion to develop this fall after a report on the legal status of the program is distributed.

“It was received favorably by the Executive Committee and it will be interesting to see the BOG’s discussion concerning the constitutionality of the clerkship program,” said Levine.

Meeting Expectations

Despite the frequent friction with the board, Levine said the position met all of his expectations and served as a learning experience.

He especially relished his monthly columns in which he frankly stated his opinions on issues like the diploma privilege and opening
up the Supreme Court. Admittedly, Levine used print resources to publicize his ideas with the primary goal of generating support and a secondary goal of raising awareness.

“I ran for the position because of the issues that were important to me which I wanted to raise and give members a way to express themselves on,” said Levine. “So, in a way, I used the role for a purpose it wasn’t intended to fill.”

Levine suggested the last two elections for bar president-elect were more name recognition affairs rather than issue oriented contests. Basting will succeed Levine on July 1, and Diane S. Diel will assume the role of president-elect.

Still, Levine likes the direction the bar is headed if it can attract members with innovative ideas. He hopes it will increase efforts to network with law school students.

“Getting new lawyers interested in the bar as soon as possible in their careers is the key,” said Levine. “Another key bar question or decision for the next few years will be defining the bar’s role vis-à-vis the Supreme Court, the Legislature, and the public — whether the bar will become a more active or passive player.”

Levine has always been a man of action and for good or bad, he plans to continue playing the part which originally got him elected.

“The BOG probably felt that I tried to do too much in the way of change, while those who voted for me may have felt that I didn’t do enough,” said Levine. “But it was only the beginning. I’ll continue to work on those issues which are important to me this year and beyond.”