Vol. 76, No. 7, July
2003
Letters
Letters to the editor: The
Wisconsin Lawyer publishes as many letters in each issue as space
permits. Please limit letters to 500 words; letters may be edited for
length and clarity. Letters should address the issues, and not be a
personal attack on others. Letters endorsing political candidates cannot
be accepted. Please mail letters to "Letters to the
Editor," Wisconsin Lawyer, P.O. Box 7158, Madison, WI 53707-7158, fax
them to (608) 257-4343, or email them to wislawyer@wisbar.org.
No backlog in Court of Appeals
We thank Colleen Ball and the Wisconsin Lawyer for a
thoughtful look at the history of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals in the
May issue. We wish to set the record straight, however, on one major and
two minor items.
The article states, "Trial lawyers complain that it takes too long to
get an appellate decision." That may be the impression, but it does not
reflect reality. We are wholly up-to-date, and are now reading the
briefs as they come in. We have no backlog. Additionally, we are now
writing and issuing our authored and per curiam decisions in the cases
whose briefs we received last month [April]. We "turn around" almost all
these decisions (from submission of the briefs to issuance of the final
decision) within approximately 30 to 45 days.
Two final, albeit minor, points. Ms. Ball's article states, "Prior to
1978, Wisconsin had only one appellate court - the supreme court."
That's not true. For example, the circuit courts had appellate
jurisdiction over the county courts, and, in Milwaukee, the civil
courts. Moreover, contrary to the article's implication, West's Key
Number system was not an "innovation" 25 years ago; it has been used by
West since 1897.
Again, we thank Ms. Ball for her helpful article, and we thank the
Wisconsin Lawyer for helping us convey to the bench and bar
that, notwithstanding rumors to the contrary, we decide appeals
promptly.
Ted E. Wedemeyer Jr., Presiding Judge, District I
Ralph Adam Fine, Judge, District I
Charles B. Schudson, Judge, District I
Patricia S. Curley, Judge, District I
Amicus debate is fundamental
I wholeheartedly agree with David Simon's sentiment, in the May
issue, proposing that the State Bar not become entangled in hotly
contested political issues. Unfortunately, Pat Ballman's justification
for the effort falls well short. She cites SCR 10.02(2), suggesting that
the Bar's efforts to promote affirmative action should be construed as
"support[ing] legal admission programs at the preadmission level." She
also relies on the plainly correct fact that the Bar is not limited to
pursuing noncontroversial issues.
But one wonders (which is to say, one does not wonder)
whether the organized bar would support any proposal considered
"controversial" with which the leadership does not agree. For example, I
would not presume to file a brief on Ms. Ballman's behalf arguing that
abortion is unconstitutional, nor that the Second Amendment protects a
citizen's right to bear arms, notwithstanding his or her lack of
involvement with a state militia. These, like affirmative action, are
largely political issues. As such, they are heartfelt and go to the core
of our political natures. We have seen in the cases of mandatory union
and university dues that those who disagree with the party line often
become even more incensed by virtue of their unwilling, yet mandatory,
support of a controversial political issue. These are not models to be
copied.
In the case of something as controversial as the University of
Michigan's affirmative action program, many of those opposing it (who
are legion) believe that the program is not merely flawed, but racist.
This is not a debate over legal disciplinary actions or state ethics
rules; rather, it is a debate over education, merit, and race. In short,
it is a fundamental debate - a political debate - over groups versus
individuals and skin color versus the content of a student's character
and aptitude. Those opposing involvement do not presume to foist their
views on the legal community. All we ask is that your views, which can
only be characterized as political views, are not mandatorily subscribed
to by the dues-paying and recalcitrant members of the State Bar. By
signing our dues checks every year, we do not grant agency to speak for
us on such political and personal topics.
Thus, if Ms. Ballman wants to file a Supreme Court brief on her own,
so be it. I would not even object if she referred to herself as "past
president" of the State Bar of Wisconsin. But please, don't file a
bigoted brief on my behalf, and don't write it with the support of my
dues. This is not Brown, nor Plessy, nor Dred
Scott. It's a fundamental matter of disagreement, and I, for one,
would like to remain a member of the Bar in good conscience and not just
because I have to be a member. So would, I gather, a majority of
Wisconsin lawyers.
Steve Dries
Green Bay
The State Bar leadership, after debate and consideration of member
feedback, did exactly what Mr. Dries suggests. It decided that joining
as an Amicus in the University of Michigan Law School affirmative action
case was too divisive for the Bar. Mr. Dries also worries that Bar
leadership might try to get the Bar involved in a controversial issue
such as abortion or the right to bear arms. Since it is hard to imagine
how such an issue could be said to be connected to one of the Bar's
purposes as set forth in SCR 10.02(2), I cannot envision the Board of
Governors taking such a position.
Patricia K. Ballman
Past-president, State Bar
of Wisconsin
Wisconsin Lawyer
