Letters

Treat In-state and Out-of-state Law School Grads Equally

The "Back to Law School" article in the June Wisconsin Lawyer was informative and enjoyable. It was interesting to read about today's law school students and recent developments in legal education.

However, the article continued a longtime trend I've noticed whenever the Bar publishes articles about law school students and legal education: disparagement of and discrimination against out-of-state law school graduates and the law schools they attend. University of Wisconsin and Marquette law school graduates are depicted as "we," "us," the "in crowd," and members of "our" group, while graduates of out-of-state law schools are depicted as "they," "them," the "outsiders," and not members of "our" group. This is not a good thing.

At one point in the article, a U.W. Law School admissions official is quoted as saying that some of the best Wisconsin students are stolen by well-endowed out-of-state law schools, where they receive a less interesting, diverse, and rigorous education, but that the students choose those schools so they can graduate debt-free. Really? Is this statement the result of a scientific, empirical study, or just another disparagement of out-of-state law schools based on anecdotal evidence?

I have a degree from U.W. Law School. My education there was excellent: interesting, diverse, and rigorous. But I also have a degree from an out-of-state law school, where my education was equally interesting, diverse, and rigorous. It's only natural for in-state law school faculty, students, and staff to be proud of their schools. But dissing out-of-state schools crosses the line and merely continues an unfortunate stereotype.

In an accompanying sidebar, Wisconsin employers are urged to favor U.W. and Marquette law school graduates when they hire: hire early, hire often, but hire U.W. and Marquette graduates. Really? Is this a policy supported by the Bar? Would the Bar promote the hiring of men over women, or whites over blacks? Why the discrimination against graduates of out-of-state law schools?

All Wisconsin lawyers are required to join the State Bar, regardless of the law schools they attended. In the past year, about one-third of lawyers beginning practice in Wisconsin were out-of-state graduates. Does the Bar really want to alienate such a large portion of its membership by urging, "Don't hire them"? Is there a better way to promote divisiveness and resentment within the Bar?

It's time to end the discrimination against graduates of out-of-state law schools. There are some basic steps that should be taken. First, the discriminatory diploma privilege should be ended. There is no reason why graduates of ABA-approved law schools located out-of-state who take the same courses as U.W. and Marquette graduates should be denied diploma admission.

Second, future Wisconsin Lawyer articles about legal education and law schools should avoid negative statements about both out-of-state law schools and their graduates. It's only natural such articles would focus on the in-state schools. And it's only natural that U.W. and Marquette students, faculty, and graduates would be true to their schools. But, please, no more we/they xenophobic attitude toward out-of-state law schools and their graduates. We're all in this profession together.

Finally, it would be nice if the Bar would print an article focusing on Wisconsin Bar members who are graduates of out-of-state law schools. Where do they come from, what schools did they attend, what types of practice are they engaged in? Such an occasional public interest article might show that the Bar's out-of-state law school graduates have the same abilities, goals, emotions, and hopes as graduates of U.W. and Marquette.

Steve Levine, Madison
levins@psc.state.wi.us

ADR Impedes Citizen Access to Courts

In response to "ADR: Do Trials Still Matter?" in the May Wisconsin Lawyer, anecdotal evidence alone is unacceptable to support ADR. Crowded court calendars cause 802.12(2) ADR to be de facto mandatory.

ADR is just arbitration - it is not new. What is new is that many persons who need legal redress are required to go through ADR without first having determined that the cost and nature of their claim warrants it. These persons are involved in unexpected events like torts.

When a judge orders ADR, I wonder: Who will pay for it? How much will it cost? How many persons should be involved, who should they be, and where will the arbitration be held? These questions point out problems with ADR. By the time that I am in court, I have exhausted negotiations with the other side. I have already been through the reasonable equivalent of ADR.

We view society as one governed by law, and our citizens as obtaining the benefit of that law when they access the courts. This is further ensured by an independent, impartial judiciary paid by the state, with court initially available at the same cost to all. Despite their honorable intentions, precisely the same thing cannot be said of arbitrators.

Supporters offer two primary reasons to back ADR: 1) cost, and 2) the increasing number of civil disputes. Unless being too litigious is a bad thing in our society, I submit that the answer is that the cost of adding more judges is justifiable. I also believe that the costs of ADR could easily sustain several more judges in Milwaukee County. Better evidence and actual study of organized data is needed and should have been examined before this was implemented.

ADR and its impediment of direct access to the courts amount to an unjustifiable transfer of cost and government duty to our citizens. Even a cursory analysis of the statistics in the May Wisconsin Lawyer article shows that the decrease in case load is not significant enough to justify ADR. If more space were allowed, I also could show from actual state and county budgets that ADR has not reduced their costs; they have actually gone up since ADR's implementation.

Lawrence G. Polzin
Shorewood