Letters

The Wisconsin Lawyer welcomes letters to the editor on any law-related subject, whether 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 by clicking here.

Slow down, you move too fast

Do we have to be lawyers 24 hours per day? Some of us apparently think so, as indicated by the article "Wisconsin's Road Warriors Battle Inefficiency" in the November Wisconsin Lawyer.

Cell phones, voice mail, modems, laptops. Access it, integrate it, fax it and email it. Work in the office, work in the car, work at home. Do it now, do it right away, do not wait. We are, after all, lawyers.

Am I inefficient because I choose to listen to the radio rather than to talk on a cell phone when I am in my car? Am I inefficient because when I am at home, I choose to spend time with my family rather than with the latest home office technology? If you think I am, slow down, you move too fast. We lawyers are not so important that the world cannot get along without us for more than a few hours each day.

Steven R. Schmitz
Waukesha

Don't attack institution just because you disagree

As a lawyer who serves in the Wisconsin State Senate and who has for years endeavored to work with the State Bar of Wisconsin on pending legislation, I was disappointed to read the comments of State Bar President David Saichek in the December 1996 Wisconsin Lawyer.

I have always believed that the State Bar has a tough job in the Legislature because of the diversity of the Bar's membership. It is certainly possible to please one segment of the Bar in passing a law while, at the same time, making another segment angry. There has been a long tradition in the Legislature of Democrats and Republicans recognizing the differences within the Bar on pending bills and attempting to pass legislation that is good for all the people of Wisconsin.

Coming from that tradition, the comments of David Saichek regarding "junk" legislation are disconcerting and troublesome. It is obvious that he doesn't like caps on damages. Very few bills we pass are universally approved by all lawyers. But just because he disagrees doesn't mean he should attack the institution of the Legislature. More troubling, he should not be calling on the courts (in his capacity as president of our State Bar) to overturn legislation even if it is not unconstitutional.

David Saichek asserts that the medical malpractice caps and other tort reforms enacted by the Legislature were enacted "without rational basis." This statement is just plain false. As chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I personally presided over the Senate's hearings on these bills and heard all of the voluminous testimony, both pro and con. Anyone with concerns is more than welcome to come to my office and personally review the volumes of testimony that clearly demonstrate a rational basis for these bills.

It is a sad day for all lawyers when the president of our own association demeans and attacks the Legislature's work product as "junk." Just as the practice of law needs additional respect, so does the difficult but thorough process of legislative lawmaking.

Sen. Joanne B. Huelsman

Waukesha

Real access to health care is the issue

David Saichek's comments in his December "President's Perspective" merit a response. Contrary to his assertion that the Legislature used "junk" findings when it acknowledged the need for a cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractices cases, the Legislature considered the all-too-real plight of Wisconsin citizens who do not have access to health care, especially obstetric/gynecological services, in this state. When the Legislature enacted tort reform, 16 Wisconsin locales lacked access to any sort of pregnancy care because doctors could not afford the insurance premiums, typically about $57,000 a year for Wisconsin obstetricians. Certainly, if attorneys in this state were required to pay $57,000 each year for their liability insurance, Mr. Saichek would declare a crisis.

Wisconsin's tort reform law, 1995 Wis. Act 10, is modeled on the California Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act. The California reforms, including a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages, have withstood constitutional challenge (see Fein v. Permanente Medical Group, 695 P.2d 665 (1985), Roa v. Lodi Medical Group Inc., 211 Cal. Rptr. 77 (1985), and American Bank & Trust Co. v. Community Hospital of Los Gatos - Saratoga Inc., 683 P.2d 670 (1984)), and proponents of Act 10 remain confident that the reforms contained therein will withstand challenge.

Perhaps Mr. Saichek's underlying concern is the fact that some plaintiffs' attorneys are losing money because of tort reform. A recent investigation by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Dec. 29, 1996) concluded that the plaintiffs' bar has lost interest in representing persons who may have been injured by a health-care provider because they can no longer count on the inflated awards of yesterday. With refreshing candor, some plaintiffs' lawyers readily admit that they cannot make enough money to merit taking on cases that do not have the potential to yield large awards. Mr. Saichek should have been as forthright in his comments as the attorneys who spoke to the Journal Sentinel, and admit that his opposition to the cap and other reforms contained in Act 10 is not really based upon issues of constitutionality or a fundamental right of access to the judicial process, but on the ability of the trial bar to make a buck.

Mary Colleen Wilson

Madison

Remedial statistics 101

I found David Saichek's remarks about "junk legislative findings" highly offensive. Of the three branches of government, the one least schooled in applied mathematics and statistical inference is, beyond any doubt whatsoever, the judiciary. This is really a shame, as we are hard at the door of the 21st century and still have a judiciary that is plodding along in the 18th.

I suggest that Mr. Saichek review my critique of Martin v. Richards, 531 N.W.2d 70 (Wis. 1995), and then enroll himself in a few remedial statistics classes. In the meantime, I will work on an addition to "The Irrationality Pit" featuring his December column.

Chuck Anesi

Hudson

Witness to a testator's signature -- it's a good thing

Although I have been an overseas member of the State Bar for the past nine years, I still receive and read the Wisconsin Lawyer. Thus, I was delighted to find out about new section 853.16 of the Wisconsin Statutes through William Slate's fine article in the October issue. The sample clauses were very well done and should prove most useful.

I have several questions. In Figure 3, Memorandum Disposing of Tangible Personal Property, Mr. Slate provides for a witness to the testator's signature although none seems to be required under section 853.16. Frankly, I feel he is entirely right, as otherwise things are wide open for forgeries. I believe that section 853.16 should require at least one witness.

In any event, this seems to be another new statutory enactment emanating from Wisconsin. Is this true or do similar provisions appear in other states' statutes? If this verbiage does appear elsewhere, I would be interested in any citations. As far as I know, nothing like this appears among any European statutes.

Joseph J. Shutkin

Jerusalem, Israel

Kudos to Wisconsin Lawyer on timely topics

Congratulations on the December 1996 issue, a good example of the magazine's recent success. With the Packers' success, your cover piece on Ken Bowman could not be more timely, and David Simon's article on English law was very interesting.

The Wisconsin Lawyer is attracting readership with engaging articles and holding their attention for the technical information they should get from a bar publication. Keep up the good work.

Michael B. Brennan

South Bend, Ind.

The Trial Lawyer's College provides
valuable experience

I encourage Wisconsin plaintiffs and criminal defense lawyers to apply to the Trial Lawyer's College. The college is an intense month-long program that teaches how to represent people in a meaningful and successful manner. It is held in August at Gerry Spence's ranch in the the high deserts and mountains of Wyoming. I am not writing on behalf of the college or because it is in need of applicants. The college will receive hundreds of applications and will accept only four dozen students. I am writing because I attended the college, and it was the most rewarding experience of my legal career. I want as many other Wisconsin lawyers as possible to have the same experience.

The college is staffed by gifted lawyers who work one-on-one with students. Gerry Spence also spends the entire month working with students. The faculty donate their time to the college and rotate through weekly. Some of the lawyers who will be teaching at the ranch are Roy Black, Hon. G. Joseph Cardine, Judy Clarke, Morris Dees, Milton Grimes, "Racehorse" Haynes, Nancy Hollander, Garvin Isaacs, Jim Jeans, Rikki Klieman, Albert Krieger, Hon. Miles Lord, Paul Luvera, Terry MacCarthy, Stephen Rench, Hon. Robert R. Rose, Jim Shellow, John Tierney and Bill Trine.

Look for more information about the college in the most recent edition of the Champion or Trial magazines. Or, please call me at (608) 263-1699 or contact the Trial Lawyer's College directly at (307) 739-1870. Applications are due March 15, so don't delay.

Bernie Cantorna
Madison