Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Asking the question

By: dmc-admin//September 1, 2008//

Asking the question

By: dmc-admin//September 1, 2008//

Listen to this article

ImageThe State Bar committee looking at the issue of voluntary versus mandatory bar wants to know how important the issue is to members.

The 12-member Mandatory Bar Committee’s inaugural meeting on Aug. 26 concluded with a consensus plan to develop a survey to gauge how much interest the membership has in that bar debate.

“I think this is a good intermediate step right now, even if the whole thing goes down in flames,” said President-Elect and committee member Douglas W. Kammer, a primary proponent of a voluntary bar. “A survey as a preliminary step is not the worst thing in the world and I support that.”

While Kammer supported the initial plan to pick State Bar members’ brains on the issue, he also stated several times during the meeting that he hopes there will ultimately be just one question for attorneys to answer.

Should the State Bar of Wisconsin be a voluntary or mandatory organization?

“I think we’ve started down that path,” said State Bar President Diane S. Diel, the committee’s chairwoman.

Informed Decision

Aside from Kammer and Department of Transportation attorney Charles M. Kernatz, who vocally stated their support for a voluntary bar, the majority of committee members in attendance said they had no strong convictions either way.

However, most recommended that the longstanding debate on the issue could not be solved by simply asking members whether they favored one over the other.

“I think we all want an answer to the mandatory, voluntary question, but I think we also want to know where that ranks in people’s hierarchy of important issues,” said committee member Thomas S. Sleik.

Sleik served as State Bar president in 1992-93, shortly after the state Supreme Court voted 6-1 to return the bar to a mandatory organization. In 1988, District Court Judge Barbara B. Crabb ruled that the mandatory membership rule was unconstitutional, but her decision was reversed later that year.

Several committee members noted that a lot has happened in the last 17 years to influence an attorney’s perspective on the issue, including the institution of the $50 Wisconsin Trust Account Foundation (WisTAF) assessment, the creation of the Office of Lawyer Regulation and two recent State Bar elections.

Victories by voluntary bar supporters Kammer and Steven A. Levine could have been a product of member dissatisfaction with what the mandatory bar has to offer, suggested some committee members, rather than a movement to eliminate it.

If that is the case, the committee has a responsibility to retrieve some “actionable” responses from bar membership on why they support a voluntary bar, said committee member Deborah M. Smith.

“I think bar membership is spectacularly uninformed about what the bar does,” said Smith. “If we are going to ask them to check a box, they should know what they are checking it for.”

Kammer said he had no objection to keeping attorneys informed, but he did not want the purpose of the committee to get buried under a pile of papers.

“Let’s assume the majority of bar members want a voluntary bar, but don’t feel very strongly about it, because they have other things that are more important,” said Kammer.

“Then it comes out as lower issue on the survey.”

Committee member and former State Bar President John Walsh said that regardless of the results of the survey, the committee should consider proposing a referendum to the Board of Governors for approval.

The Next Step

Diel said that she will be working with the State Bar executive director and staff to contact a professional group to craft the questions and administer the survey.

At its next meeting, which has yet to be scheduled, committee members are expected to indicate what information they hope to gain from the survey.

The sampling of how members feel about the mandatory, voluntary issue will serve as a baseline for digging deeper into the debate, said Diel.

“We can survey members my whole term, but we want actionable information,” said Diel.

“What is it we need to learn from members? I’m guessing we’ll all have a different spin on that.”

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