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