President's Perspective

Assessing And Responding To Member Needs

By Susan R. Steingass

It's hard to believe that it has been 10 years since the Federal District Court ruled that the mandatory bar was unconstitutional. Many newer lawyers may not even know that from 1988 to 1991, membership in the State Bar was voluntary. It was not until 1991 that the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ruling and the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted our petition to again become a mandatory bar. This happened only after extensive debate on the local bar and member level, and finally by the elected Board of Governors of the State Bar.

Some say that these four years of disintegration were the Bar's darkest hours. Others, myself included, view this as a very positive time, in many ways, for the Bar. Why? Because during those years we had to and did convince our members that they wanted to belong, that their Bar provided valuable and relevant services for them, and that they could and should get involved.

In 1988, faced with a voluntary Bar that had to win over its members, then again in 1991, faced with the return of the mandatory Bar, we surveyed our members to try to learn what they wanted from us and how they saw us. Based on the information gained in the 1988 survey, we made changes that convinced our members the Bar was relevant to their lives. In fact, over the four years of the voluntary Bar, those efforts were so successful that by 1991 fully 86 percent of the resident eligible lawyers had joined the Bar of their own free will. The 1991 membership survey provided us a roadmap for developing programs to meet member needs as we moved from voluntary to mandatory membership status.

We need to revisit the Bar's attitude during those years. We again need to know what you, our members, think of us, what you want from us, and how we can deliver what you want. Though we have a mandatory Bar, we need to act like a voluntary Bar. We need to ensure that the Bar is always opened to new volunteers, new energy, new blood.

When I campaigned for president-elect, I visited with as many local and specialty bars as I could. Many people there told me that they did not see the relevance of the State Bar to their professional and community lives – that they were often too busy to even get to their local bar meetings, let alone to get involved in the State Bar. In either event, they often saw the State Bar as a closed club for Madison and Milwaukee insiders. I have tried to learn from and act upon that dialogue.

During the committee appointment process I actively sought input from the Bar's staff as to who might be interested in an appointment in a particular area. Staff contacted those interested and reported back. Without exception, those people were placed on committees. I also followed up on requests to get involved and placed volunteers on committees, many for the first time. Finally, I personally visited a number of groups to solicit volunteers for committee appointments. That effort resulted in the involvement of people who might not otherwise have been inclined. I know we have a long way to go, but we made a small start.

In June 1998 we also surveyed 2,786 randomly selected members. This survey had two aims: to find out how you see the Bar and to assess how we can change to be more responsive to your needs. The results of the 1998 membership survey have been digested and an action timetable established. Most importantly, members say they want to combat the perception of the Bar as an insider's club. You want technology support and training. You want to combat feelings of detachment, to involve and retain new members, and to get management support and practice tools. You want CLE, conventions, and dues at as low a cost as feasible. (Please see "1998 Member Survey: Gauging Members' Needs" in the October Wisconsin Lawyer.)

We also want to know how we can be better involved with local and specialty bars. So this spring we sent an assessment to local and specialty bars. Rather than tell you what we had available, we asked what you wanted from the Bar. You told us you wanted access to substantive information by enhanced CLE book and seminar offers, computer and technology training and information, strategic planning assistance, public promotion of the profession's image, and local bar grant public service project assistance.

We are in the process of trying to deliver what you asked for in the 1998 membership survey, the 1998 local and specialty bar needs assessment, the 1998 Wisconsin Lawyer readership survey, and the 1997 law firm technology survey. Bar staff are on the road to providing these services in person, and I have an extensive travel schedule along with staff so that we can hear from you and provide the services you believe will enhance your professional lives.

We also have launched an interview project. Staff are interviewing a core group of those involved in the Bar. The aim is to find out why people get involved, what motivates them, and what impediments they perceive. The respondents are a very diverse group, and from this project we hope to learn and, more importantly, to evolve strategies to improve outreach to those we have not reached before.

I understand why some members regard the State Bar as a closed club of insiders, why they might not get involved. I once thought that myself. Though I had been involved with CLE programs and books over the years, Bar governance seemed unapproachable. How wrong I was! When I was nominated to stand for president-elect, I saw that the impediments had been in myself and in my attitude. It is these misconceptions that we need to dispel by letting people know that their involvement is greatly desired.

Outreach to local bars, improvement of member relations, and increased involvement will not be a one-time initiative during my presidency. My predecessor Steve Sorenson began this initiative with his member-oriented regional conferences. My successor Leonard Loeb, with the enthusiastic involvement of Bar staff, wants these efforts to continue. Leonard, for instance, is chairing the nominating committee charged with proposing a slate of candidates to stand for election to statewide office. On that committee is Past President Tom Sleik; Monisia Taylor, a recent law school graduate and a young lawyer; Susan Knepel, a government lawyer; and David Zubke, a nonresident lawyer – a diverse group indeed. For the first time, Leonard and his committee have written to Bar members asking them to propose good candidates for all statewide offices.

These efforts are as inexpensive as they are critical. The stakes are high. We showed before that the overwhelming majority of lawyers want to belong to the State Bar, whether they have to or not. They want to belong because it serves them well, it meets their needs, and it touches their professional lives. Let's not ever take each other for granted. Let's do this together.

Wisconsin Lawyer