Mandatory State Bar membership debate heats up

Listen to this article

State Bar of Wisconsin President-Elect Douglas W. Kammer ran for office with the singular goal of a voluntary bar. But now he is questioning the motives of current President Diane S. Diel, who is actively seeking to end the debate during her term.

Kammer said he did not anticipate his predecessor would proactively tackle the topic to the point where it may be irrelevant by the time he takes office next July.

Diel recently appointed a 12-person Bar Membership Committee, which will meet on Aug. 26, to study the issue, solicit feedback from bar members and issue a report to the Board of Governors by Jan. 31, 2009.

In an e-mail to Diel on Aug. 13, Kammer alleges that she and the bar leadership “is attempting to preempt his effort to reform the bar and make the issue moot one year from now.”

“I won’t play,” said Kammer, who is a member of the committee.

But Diel says she is not pursuing the issue to usurp Kammer’s intentions. Rather, she hopes the 22,000 members of the State Bar can voice their opinion and the organization can move forward, one way or another.

“Let’s put it to rest and find out what members want and present the information in a professional and appropriate way and move on,” said Diel in an interview.

Course of Action

Also in his correspondence with Diel, Kammer said he was asked to resign after the election with the assurance that the mandatory membership issue would be addressed prior to his presidency.

Diel declined to directly comment on whether she asked Kammer to resign other than to say, “He’s entitled to his own thoughts.”

She did concede that she reconsidered her initial plan to have Kammer co-chair the Bar Membership Committee.

“At end of the day when I was appointing the committee, I was looking for confirmation of his willingness to participate and his hesitation caused me to rethink whether or not that was a good plan,” said Diel.

In a draft of the committee’s objectives, Diel targeted the Feb. 27 Board of Governors meeting for action on the issue.

“You didn’t tell me you intended to bypass the membership, rehash the issue, and then bury it with action by the BOG [before I assume office] who are, as you know, cheerleaders for the status quo,” stated Kammer in the e-mail.

But Diel admitted that the discussion of a mandatory bar could continue well into her successor’s tenure as president.

“I would assume those who wanted the Bar to be voluntary would approve those dates, rather than resent them,” said Diel, who is chair of the committee.

Finger on the Pulse

According to her proposal, to be discussed in committee, Diel plans to hold a series of public forums around the state to get feedback from members of the bar.

The format of the public forums would include brief comments from committee members, local bar association representatives an “appropriate BOG member.”

While she did not venture a guess as to which side the majority of constituents will support, Diel said a referendum on the issue is a possibility, if endorsed by the committee and Board of Governors.

“I have not ruled out a referendum if it is determined to be the logical outcome of the process,” said Diel.

Kammer suggested that any discussion should start with a referendum. Steven A. Levine, a former State Bar president, also lobbied for a voluntary bar during his tenure.

“I agree with Doug Kammer that a referendum of the membership is important, and that the bar doesn’t want one because it is afraid of the result,” said Levine, who twice failed to place a bar membership referendum on the Board of Governors agenda.

Beyond his call for a referendum, Kammer said he has not worked out the logistical aspects of how he plans to move the integrated bar to a voluntary one.

Of course, if Diel’s plan results in a motion to shift the State Bar to a voluntary organization, Kammer said he would undertake the transition during his term.

“If President Diel leads us to a voluntary bar, she will leave me with the greatest challenge of the last 50 years,” said Kammer in an interview. “And if President Diel achieves the status quo on this issue and if I can’t resurrect it, then my job will be to do what the other presidents have done. I leave it up to you to describe what that is.”

But both Diel and Levine expressed doubt that even with endorsement from the Bar, the Supreme Court would not support the abolition of the mandatory bar.

“I’m not convinced the Supreme Court grants a motion for a voluntary bar if that is the outcome of our discussion, but one way to be sure they won’t is if there is not a process,” said Diel.