Letters
Reciprocal Acceptance of CLE Credits Among States
I really enjoyed the February President's Perspective, "Waking
from Success." I think President Saichek is right on target
concerning needed improvements in the delivery of CLE. I noted with
interest his reference to reciprocal acceptance of CLE credits among
states.
The Oregon Bar is in the final stages of implementing what it calls
the "Boise Protocol." The supreme courts of Oregon, Idaho and Utah have
approved rule changes to permit lawyers admitted in multiple states to
comply with the mandatory CLE requirements in each state in which they
are admitted by complying with the rules in the state in which they
maintain their principal offices. The Washington State Bar Association
has just submitted a similar rule change to the Washington Supreme Court
for approval.
It will take some time to work out the administrative details of this
new protocol, but I believe we are on our way to simplifying mandatory
CLE compliance for the many bar members who are admitted in two or more
of the participating states.
George A. Riemer
General Counsel
Oregon State Bar
Lake Oswego, OR
Cut State Bar Budget
I read with interest President Saichek's February article, "Waking
from Success." I also received a letter from the State Bar that
bears his signature. It points out a new 800 number is now
available.
Might I suggest that the service offered in that letter of Feb. 14,
1997, is exactly the type of thing that is constantly enlarging the
staff of the State Bar.
My observation is that the State Bar is basically an organization of
interest to a minority of the lawyers in Wisconsin. Much of its services
are not needed and not wanted by the majority of the lawyers and yet we
are forced to support the institution with all of its
inefficiencies.
Perhaps a budget cut of 25 percent by the Board of Governors would be
appropriate. President Saichek could then instruct the executive
director to figure out what services are to be eliminated to accommodate
the reduction in revenues.
There is not much difference when it comes to finance between the
State Bar and the federal government. The bureaucracy simply feeds on
itself and becomes larger.
Walter F. Tesch
Milwaukee
Cap on Noneconomic Damages
In her letter [February
1997] objecting to President David Saichek's comments about "junk
legislative findings" and the cap on noneconomic damages imposed by the
Legislature, Mary Colleen Wilson fails to take account of all the facts
available.
While identifying a real problem of the current health care system -
the shortage of physicians, particularly obstetricians, in some rural
areas of the state - Ms. Wilson implies legislative enactment of a cap
would alleviate the problem. The evidence does not support that
conclusion.
When Wisconsin's Rural Health Development Commission addressed the
physician shortage in its last report, it never once mentioned the cost
of medical malpractice insurance as a cause of the shortage. Dr. David
Kindig of the U.W. Medical School has published several highly regarded
studies on physician location. Medical malpractice insurance was only
one of several factors affecting physicians' decisions to locate in
rural areas. States like Indiana and California, which have had caps for
many years, continue to have shortages of physicians in rural areas.
Finally, while the cost of medical malpractice insurance for
obstetricians, cited in Ms. Wilson's letter as $57,000, is high in
comparison to attorneys' malpractice premiums and indeed high in
comparison to the vast majority of physicians (a family physician pays
approximately $10,000 for unlimited coverage), it seems unlikely the cap
would impact most obstetricians' behavior. Obstetricians "saved" $1,362
off their insurance costs after the cap passed. Does anyone really
believe OBs will flock to rural areas as a result of these savings?
Nancy M. Rottier
Research Director
Wisconsin Academy of Trial Lawyers
Wisconsin Lawyer
