Going Public
By David A. Saichek
At the conclusion of a friendly but lengthy deposition of an
orthopedic
surgeon, I got up from my chair slowly, feeling stiffness and
mild discomfort in my knees. I mentioned it to the deponent, asking why
that happens. He smiled and responded gently, "You're getting
older."
Driving back to the office I realized that I had just asked a
physician for free medical advice. Why, aside from saving time and
trouble, would I ask him that question? Simply because he was the
nearest person who most likely would know the answer.
Does that happen to you? All the time! Lawyers either know or are
expected to know the answer. That is the source of respect for lawyers
and likewise a source of resentment. In both their business and personal
lives, our friends and neighbors want our specialized knowledge and
advice but often resent the idea that they need it and must pay for
it.
We always thought that respect would come our way for being honorable
and competent. We derive satisfaction from a job well done and an
appreciative comment from our client. But as a profession we are
maligned and ridiculed.
A substantial number of people who run business enterprises feel it
is in their best interests to belittle lawyers while attempting to
diminish the rights of consumers. They skillfully employ the talents of
lawyers to protect and advise them in matters of contract, intellectual
property, labor relations, international law, mergers, taxation and a
host of other specialized tools for the successful operation of a
business. They do not hesitate to use federal and state courts to fight
for their business-related "rights." But they absolutely despise being
held accountable to shareholders and consumers for sharp
practices, fraud, shoddy manufacturing, unsafe workplaces, unsafe
products and near-criminal negligence resulting from a combination of
sloth and greed. I have read CEO reports to shareholders blaming large
losses on "frivolous"lawsuits and greedy lawyers, asbestos cases merely
being one example. Of course, the very last group they would blame is
management.
If educated public officials do not understand
the discrete roles of our three branches of government, how can we help
our citizens to appreciate the benefits of an independent judiciary?
|
Another reason for our professional disrepute is a primary
misunderstanding of the judicial branch of government and the legal
process. This basic misinformation about the judicial branch as opposed
to the "justice system" plagues our profession at every level of
education and sophistication.
At our Midwinter Convention in Milwaukee we were "greeted" by Mayor
John Norquist with an emotional appeal to keep criminals locked up so
that streets would be safe for law-abiding citizens. He spoke very much
as if he believed that lawyers are responsible for letting dangerous
felons out of jail. I happen to know that Mayor Norquist is highly
educated in both political science and history. Yet he appeared not to
remember that lawyers as prosecutors plus judges and jurors are the very
people who placed the dangerous criminal behind bars. Included,
of course, are the criminal defense lawyers without whom the accused
person could not possibly be convicted because of a little known
provision in the Bill of Rights called the Sixth Amendment.
Letting criminals out of jail before they have served their entire
sentence is a matter controlled by the legislative branch which sets
eligibility for parole and the executive branch which operates the
corrections and parole systems. Practicing lawyers do not even come
close to controlling either of those branches. If educated public
officials do not understand the discrete roles of our three branches of
government, how can we help our citizens to appreciate the benefits of
an independent judiciary?
Nobody can blame a large-city mayor for feeling frustrated when the
public is not kept safe from dangerous felons. But the tendency to blame
judges and lawyers can only be traced to lack of understanding, civics
education and dialogue.
We must learn to be "teachers" to our clients, friends, legislators
and other public officials.
The forthcoming State Bar Report of the Commission on the Judiciary
as a Co-Equal Branch of Government, co-chaired by Justice Jon P. Wilcox
and myself, will help to educate by explaining the role of the judiciary
and by recommending methods for more and better collaboration between
the courts and the communities they serve.
Our Cable and Broadcast Outreach Committee, chaired by Hon. Bill Dyke
of Iowa County, has already produced 15 LawTalk shows that are aired several
times per week on Milwaukee cable television and will be available soon
on more than 50 cable stations. Within a few months we can have more
than 30 shows airing on both cable and broadcast stations statewide.
This is a means by which judges and lawyers can "tell their own story"
without depending upon out-of-context bits and pieces arbitrarily aired
by the news media. Many thanks to executive producers Nathan Fishbach
and Maria Lazar for a superb beginning to this project on a shoestring
budget.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court is now proactive in reaching out for
public education and understanding. The "Court with Class" program
enables students to see the supreme court during oral arguments and then
discuss the legal process with one or more justices.
The supreme court's "Volunteers in the Courts" project will not only
help local courts but also will enable volunteers to understand how
justice inches forward one case at a time. Judicial "ride-along"
programs allow judges to spend time with legislative and executive
branch colleagues demonstrating the daily efforts of hardworking judges
and lawyers.
Trial and appellate judges should be encouraged to appear at local
meetings to explain the judicial branch of government and to speak out
on proposed legislation that would place additional burdens on the
judiciary.
Finally, although "all politics is local" it is a fact that
communications are now global. National organizations are far better
equipped than state and local bars to bring the message of the judicial
branch to the public. It is not easy on the budget of a small law firm,
but we maintain memberships in the American Bar Association, American
Judicature Society and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America.
Those organizations have made giant strides in learning how to
communicate to the nation the benefits of a strong and independent
judiciary. I particularly recommend the ABA (now more affordable with
several classifications of membership) for its programs on State Justice
Initiatives, Professional Responsibility, advanced CLE techniques, bar
services, plus committees on Strategic Communications, Center for Pro
Bono, Commission on Domestic Violence, and many other outreach
efforts.
Our State Delegate, elected by Wisconsin ABA members, is State Bar
past president Dan Hildebrand of Madison who has been doing an excellent
job coordinating the work of our State Bar delegates. Other ABA
delegates are past president Pamela Barker, Board of Governors chair
Robert Goepel, past chair John Macy, past president Truman McNulty, Thad
Jelinske, delegate-at-large Leonard Loeb, Taxation Section delegate Jere
McGaffey, Real Property, Probate & Trust Law Section delegate
Jackson M. Bruce Jr., Family Law Section delegate Richard J. Podell, and
Milwaukee Bar Association delegate past president Hon. Patrick Sheedy.
Please contact Dan Hildebrand or any of our ABA delegates for membership
information.
Yes, we should practice law with civility, honor and competence. But
we must also do our share of teaching. Let us recognize that in this age
of information, whether we like it or not, the message becomes
the reality.
Wisconsin Lawyer