Letters

The Wisconsin Lawyer welcomes letters to the editor on any law-related subject, whether or not that subject has been a topic of a Wisconsin Lawyer article. The magazine publishes as many letters in each issue as space permits. Please limit letters to 500 words; letters may need to be edited for length and clarity.

Letters responding to previously published letters and to others' views 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) 257-5502, or email them.

Judicial Campaigns: Judges Should Protect Rights of All

Exactly when did the ideal judicial candidate stop being "firm but fair" and instead become "tough on crime"?

I was frankly dismayed by recent campaign commercials like John Siefert's, which warned that the last thing we need is a judge who stands up for criminals, or like Sharren Rose's, which proudly promised that she would protect the rights of victims and not criminals.

These campaigns imply that a person who respects the constitutional rights of the accused has no business being a judge. At best, this is cynical pandering to the public's fear of crime. At worst, it is a dangerous departure from a justice system premised upon an unbiased judiciary and a presumption of innocence.

I've always thought judges were supposed to protect the rights of all persons who come before them. If a judicial candidate's primary concern is the conviction and punishment of criminal defendants, perhaps he or she should be running for district attorney instead.

I've also thought that attorneys were supposed to educate the public about important legal principles, rather than to fan the flames of public outrage over perceived flaws in the justice system. I hope that's not expecting too much from my brothers and sisters of the bar.

Sean N. Duffey
Milwaukee

Kudos to Public Interest Law Feature

Kudos to the May Wisconsin Lawyer and Dianne Molvig for the excellent and timely article on the new public interest lawyers. Cutbacks in legal service funding often lead to a dismal picture of the possibilities for a public interest career. This article highlights the continued enthusiasm and imagination of lawyers and law students in our state committed to helping underrepresented people and causes. The lawyers' work mirrors the variety of thriving sites for practice that I see nationally: nonprofit organizations, social service agencies, and private firms. The one omission is the extremely valuable and lively pro bono work by many Wisconsin attorneys.

I am also pleased that you noted the importance of law school support for public interest lawyers. Public interest fellowships, career counseling and mentoring, and pro bono opportunities as well as loan forgiveness programs should be integral elements of law school education.

Louise G. Trubek
Center for Public Representation
U.W. Law School

Multidisciplinary Practices: Rules Allow Attorneys to Issue Title Insurance

Dianne Molvig's article regarding multidisciplinary practices in the April issue was very interesting and useful. As managing attorney for the Wisconsin operations of a bar-related title insurance company, I would like to clarify one point made in the article.

Ms. Molvig notes correctly that, under the Code of Professional Responsibility, codified in the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules, lawyers "can hold ownership in ancillary businesses - that is, outside law-related operations." Ms. Molvig continues, "The rules prohibit Wisconsin attorneys, however, from bringing any of these services inside their law firms." To the extent that the rules would prohibit operating a separate business entity from within a law practice, this assertion would appear to be correct. The State Bar of Wisconsin Professional Ethics Committee warned against such a practice in Section 3 of Formal Opinion E-85-5 (Law and Title Insurance Practice).

Readers should be advised, however, that there is no Supreme Court Rule prohibiting attorneys from issuing title insurance as direct attorney agents. In fact, Formal Opinion E-85-5, Section 1, states that "an attorney may engage simultaneously in the practice of law and in title insurance writing and should observe the restrictions of the Code of Professional Responsibility when engaging in either profession." This statement comports with Supreme Court Rule 20:1.7(b), which would permit an attorney to represent a party to a real estate transaction and also act as title insurance agent, provided the respective interests of the client and the title insurer are generally in harmony. (See SCR 20:1.7, "Comment: Loyalty to a Client," and "Other Conflict Situations.")

My compliments on an otherwise excellent article.

James E. Powers
Attorneys' Title Guaranty Fund Inc.
Madison

Multidisciplinary Practices: A Correction

Congratulations on writing one of the clearest examinations of the multidisciplinary practices issue I have seen!

I should point out, however, that the article incorrectly identifies me as a member of the ABA Commission on MDP. In fact, I testified at the commission's public hearing in November, and I have submitted a couple of documents to the commission since then, but I am not a member.

Prof. L. Harold Levinson
Vanderbilt University Law School
Nashville, Tenn.