Wisconsin Law Journal – WI Legal News & Resources Wisconsin Legal News & Resources

There are frequent reminders for lawyers in Continuing Legal Education (CLE) programs and articles on the importance of civility among adversaries. Civility, like all good lessons, should flow from the top down, as children learn from their parents. In law, that means civility starts with the judges and court commissioners.

For a number of years, I’ve put together a family law cases update program for the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, the State Bar Family Law Section and the state family court judges. 

On Jan. 19, the Wisconsin Assembly gave a final approval to a proposed constitutional amendment that would, they claim, make it more difficult for violent criminals to get out of jail on bail. The proposal will go before voters where it will undoubtedly be ratified in the April 4 election.

One of my favorite columns is to review family law cases and legislation from the prior year. It gives me yet another opportunity to express my thoughts on the good and the bad that occurred. Fortunately for me as a columnist, there was enough bad to make this column (hopefully) somewhat entertaining as “good” tends to be boring.

One of the ugly parts of our legal system is the politics of electing judges. With an election for a Supreme Court justice in 2023, the ugliness has gotten an early start.

On Nov. 6, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Brackeen v. Haaland, a case which presented numerous constitutional and legislative issues regarding the Indian Child Welfare Act or ICWA. 

Few recent trials have attracted as much attention in the non-legal world than the Brooks trial in Waukesha. 

While a child of 16 years with a car is going to make his or her own decision about placement, do we really want to give a 7 year old that authority?

In 1975, The United States Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to waive counsel and self-represent in a criminal case. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975).  While the trial court has a responsibility to discourage self-representation, it cannot prohibit it. The result can be (and usually is) the circus occurring in the Waukesha trial of the Christmas parade driver Darrell Brooks.

Ten years ago, the average number of cases to report on, between Wisconsin Supreme Court and Court of Appeals (published and citeable unpublished cases) was 15-20 per year. So far this year, there have been zero Supreme Court cases, one published Court of Appeals case and four citeable unpublished Court of Appeals cases.

After 38 years as a family law attorney with Loeb & Herman LLC, I have joined JAMS as a neutral in its Wisconsin office.

The term “judicial activism” is commonly thrown around to disparage judges. It generally is used to accuse courts of being too aggressive or too liberal.  A recent court of appeals decision contains an element which raises an interesting question.

It would be pointless to write a column on the United States legal system and ignore the two significant cases which the court decided this week. One case, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen significantly expanded gun rights by striking down a New York law which restricted the right of New Yorkers to carry handguns in public.

Last month’s column took a look back at the developments in family law for 2021. So, it seems appropriate to dedicate this month’s column to a look ahead to 2022.

My late partner, Leonard Loeb, used to say that every lawyer has at least one case which they think is the cause of most of their headaches and lost sleep. The lawyer thinks “as soon as that case is completed, my life will be so much easier.” But, naturally, as soon as that case does wrap up, there is another one with the same effect on the lawyer.

One of the expected consequences of the COVID epidemic was disputes between parents regarding parenting children.

Nothing in our legal system is more important than judges. Cases proceed (or don’t proceed) and resolve largely on the basis of the individual proclivities of the person wearing the robe. A good judge can make a complex, difficult case into a resolvable one and a bad judge can do the opposite. The judge sets the tone for civility and ...

Some things sound better on paper than they turn out to be in real life.

Last month, I took a look at the Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions in family law in the past year.

Typically, I end a year of columns with a review of the previous year.

Several months ago, my friend, Dr. Ken Waldron, a (semi) retired psychologist from Madison, and I were discussing the importance to children of their divorcing parents peacefully settling their disputes when Ken noted the lack of empirical data on settlement negotiations.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court now has an opportunity to clarify an area of family law which very much needs clarifying.

One of the most common questions clients ask me is: “When do the children get to make the decision as to placement?”

On June 16, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin issued its opinion in Miller v. Carroll, 2020 WI 56, a case involving a judge’s decision to accept a Facebook friend request from a mother in a custody and placement dispute.

My mother used to say that it takes a very ill wind to blow no good.

In the movie “A Marriage Story,” a female lawyer (played by Laura Dern, who won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress) is incredibly compassionate toward her client, saying she will move forward with the divorce, “as gently as possible.”

It has been eight years since the Wisconsin Supreme Court accepted a review of a family-law case, other than regarding grandparent visitation.

Although I’m normally not one to bemoan the “good old days” gone by, there are instances in which I do. And given the unprecedented and unusual circumstances surrounding the COVID-19 outbreak as it affects the legal system, one such instance comes to mind.

Recently, a default divorce hearing fell through because the judge in the case had the temerity to ask a party whether she thought the proposed settlement was fair.

Although I consider myself a movie buff, I typically dislike movies about lawyers and the legal system. For example, although Paul Newman (a great actor) was nominated for the Academy Award for playing a lawyer in “The Verdict”, I found the movie irritating (at best). Apparently, the rules against ex parte contact with the court were unknown to the script writers.