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.

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.