Diploma privilege rule won’t change, Wisconsin Supreme Court
unanimously decides
The court ended debate on the
diploma privilege issue today by unanimously deciding to retain the rule
unchanged. Thus, Wisconsin remains the only state with a diploma
privilege.
By Joe Forward, Legal
Writer, State Bar of Wisconsin
![Diploma privilege rule won't change, Wisconsin Supreme Court unanimously decides](/SiteCollectionImages/art/HeadlineNews/court_large.jpg)
Oct. 4, 2010 – The diploma privilege rule that allows most
graduates of Wisconsin law schools to become licensed in the state
without taking a bar examination will not be changed, the Wisconsin
Supreme Court decided today at its administrative conference.
On a motion by Justice David Prosser, the court voted unanimously to
deny petition
09-09 filed by former State Bar of Wisconsin President Steven Levine
and 70 other attorneys that would have extended the diploma privilege to
graduates of all 197 ABA-approved law schools or repeal it entirely.
Instead, Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 40.03 will not change,
meaning most graduates of both Marquette Law School and the University
of Wisconsin Law School won’t need a bar exam to become licensed
in Wisconsin, while graduates of all other law schools will.
Graduates of Wisconsin law schools only
In deciding not to extend the diploma privilege to graduates of law
schools outside the state, Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson expressed
her confidence in the quality of both Wisconsin schools but said the
quality and grading systems of other law schools across the country are
different.
“I just don’t want to see the churning out of students
that can automatically get into a particular bar,” Abrahamson told
her colleagues.
Justice Michael Gableman said that Wisconsin law schools are
providing a lot of “time, effort, and quality instruction in the
topics of Wisconsin-centered and Wisconsin-focused law, sufficient to
provide a rational basis and a very good justification for the diploma
privilege.”
The diploma privilege has “served the two law schools and the
graduates of those law schools well for a long time, and I heard nothing
that would justify us in changing things at this point,” Justice
N. Patrick Crooks added.
Justice Ann Walsh Bradley mentioned the close relationship between
the court and both “high quality” law schools in Wisconsin
in terms of teaching content and the ability of the court to “be
on the ground and see what’s going on” at the schools.
No bar exam for all
Abrahamson and the other justices also rejected the proposal that all
students should be forced to take a bar examination, even ones
graduating from Wisconsin law schools.
“I am not convinced that the bar exam has a relationship to
being a good practitioner,” Abrahamson said. “I am not sure
that getting a law degree, and how well you do in law school, are
necessarily related to practice.”
Abrahamson was confident that Wisconsin law schools teach law
students how to “think, how to research and how to find the
law” but questioned whether all law schools around the country do
the same given different levels of quality and different grading
systems.
At the same time, Abrahamson questioned whether the Wisconsin bar
exam is the best way to give lawyers opportunities across borders.
“We will have to keep looking at this whole issue of what kind
of bar exam is best for both protecting our citizens against incompetent
lawyers and also allowing competent lawyers from across the country to
practice in the state with appropriate regulation,” Abrahamson
said.
Abrahamson urged the Board of Bar Examiners to look at a Uniform
Bar Examination that will allow lawyers to move more easily across
state borders.
“I would make things simpler so lawyers can move across
boundaries,” she said. “I would urge the BBE to look at a
unified bar exam. I think it would simplify all of this for the people
who want to practice, including the present lawyers who want to go to
other states.”
The court’s ruling ends debate, for now, on whether the diploma
privilege unfairly discriminates against out-of-state law school
graduates, as argued by the petitioners. But Abrahamson said she hoped
Levine “brings back this petition periodically” to keep the
court on its toes.
The State Bar of Wisconsin’s Board of Governors voted to oppose
the motion at its Sept. 24-25 board
meeting, and State Bar President James Boll spoke on behalf of the
board Oct. 1 at the supreme court’s public
hearing on Levine’s petition.
Marquette Law School Dean Joseph Kearney and Kenneth Davis, outgoing
Dean at U.W. Law School, also appeared in opposition to the motion, as
did BBE Director Jacquelynn Rothstein.
Related stories:
Court
set to act on diploma privilege petition on Oct. 4 – Oct. 1,
2010
Supreme
court schedules diploma privilege debate for Sept. 30 – July
21, 2010 (InsideTrack)
Settlement
retains diploma privilege – March 25, 2010
Crabb
decertifies class challenging diploma privilege – Dec. 3,
2009
Crabb
considers decertifying class challenging Wisconsin’s
‘diploma privilege’ – Nov. 5, 2009
(InsideTrack)
Petition
filed with Wisconsin Supreme Court
aims to extend ‘diploma privilege’ to
out-of-state law school grads – Sept. 29, 2009
(InsideTrack)
Plaintiffs’
brief filed in challenge to Wisconsin’s ‘diploma
privilege’ – Sept. 16, 2009 (InsideTrack)
Challenge
to 'diploma privilege' reinstated by U.S. Court of Appeals –
July 9, 2009 (InsideTrack)