University of Wisconsin Law School Gargoyle Alumni Magazine

I

c: S .-..~ T'<,_ •• 1 ;:,

<>.._i r'

II

University of Wisconsin Law School236 Law Building975 Bascom MallMadison, WI 53706,1399

Nonprofit Org.U.S. Postage

PAIDMadison, WI.

Permit No. 658

VOLUME XXIII NUMBER 1

From the DeanDean Daniel O. Bernstine

The Debased Debate on Civil JusticeProfessor MarcGalanter

Featured Alumni: John P.Frank ('40)Timothy R.Verhoff

From the 49th Annual Spring Program:John Frank ('40) on the "Frivolous Motion" Rule

Carmen Stanfield.Hastie Fellow

Professor Frank J. Remington HonoredProfessor StewartMacaulay

Faculty Notes

Have YouHeard?

Editor's Note

Mystery Picture

SUMMER 1992

2

4

7

9

11

14

17

19

19

Bulletin of the University of Wisconsin Law School,published quarterly.Editor: Edward J. ReisnerDesign: Earl J. Madden, University PublicationsProduction Editor: Linda Alston,University PublicationsLaw SchoolPublications OfficeUniversity of WisconsinMadison, WI 53706-1399

Postermaster's note: Please send form 3579 to"GARGOYLE,"University of Wisconsin Law School,Madison, WI 53706-1399

SSN0148-9623 USPS768-300

Cover photo: No, it's not an effort to fund the newaddition and remodeling project by a wildcat oil well.Planning goes forward with test boring to discoverunderground conditions.

On the other hand, there are the class members whomay not have seen Madison or any of their classmates dur-ing the intervening years. For them a reunion is a time ofgreat contrasts. The building they remember may be goneand, like me, the hair they remember is either gone orgone gray.

Spouses of graduates form a special group - someshared the law school experience, even financed it. Othersbecame spouses years after their husband or wife graduat-ed. For them reunions are probably something they haveto tolerate occasionally.

The Law School encourages reunions because generallythey are positive events and foster the "bonding" between

During the first weekend in May the Law School held its49th Annual Spring Program which featured, among otherthings, class reunions. This year we had special reunionevents for the Classes of 1942, 1952 and 1967. Severalother classes (1957, 1962 and 1982) are holding theirreunions this fall in conjunction with football games.Regardless of when they are held, reunions are interestingevents from a variety of perspectives.

Dean Daniel O. Bernstine

Each year our reunions bring back groups of oldfriends who have kept in touch through the years to relivelaw school memories. For many, the reunion is a trip backin time to when their biggest problems were getting up forclass and finding library time to keep up on their reading.Well, there may have been a little more to it, but theirmemories are almost uniformly positive.

2

the graduate and the School. Increasingly, reunions havealso become fund-raising activities. I emphasize, however,that the decision to include a class gift in a reunion is thechoice of those members who organize the class events.I usually mention class gifts to the reunion committee butwe want our alumni back with or without an organizedclass gift. Perhaps the finest example of a class gift was thatraised by the 50th reunion Class of 1941. Immediately aftertheir reunion members of the Class combined thierresources to make a six-figure gift to the Law School. A sim-ilar effort is being organized by the members of the Class of1967 and a number of other classes have raised significantsums as part of their reunions. The Class of 1972, during its20th reunion, has already announced plans to raise a classgift to be presented at its 25th'

With the growing importance of reunion activites we aremodifying the traditional calendar for such celebrations. Togive everyone an extra, albeit non-deductible, excuse forreturning for a reunion, we are changing to fall semesterreunions during football weekends. Fellow graduate andAthletic Director Pat Richter ('71) is now on the spot tohave the football team not only be entertaining but also towin each of the games at which we have reunion groups.As I mentioned, several classes will hold "football" reunionsthis fall with all reunions to be scheduled for the fall of1993. In recognition of the popularity of fall reunions, in1993 we will not hold a "Spring Program". Its events will,however, take place in an "Annual Program" which willcoincide with the reunion weekend. Since 1993 is also thefabled multiple anniversary year - 125th year of theSchool, 100th year on Bascom Hill, 50th Annual Law SchoolProgram, and 25th anniversary of the General PracticeCourse, we not only expect football wins on the weekendwe celebrate, we expect that the celebration will continuein Pasadena on New Year's Day. How about that, Pat. A

Dean Bernstine meets with alumni during the 1992 SpringProgram

double treat for me would be to have the Badgers play theGolden Bears of the University of California (my undergrad-uate alma mater) in the Rose Bowl. If that happens, Ipromise to cheer for the right team.

One final word about Law School reunions. If it's yourturn, why not come? While problems occasionally crop up- my authority as Dean does not extend to the Wisconsinweather - I don't remember anyone without some positivememory. After a few years even the disasters that occurredin the classroom or library become something to laughabout with friends, old and new.

3

retread of an item that surfaced a decadeago, having no apparent terrestrial origin,that the United States had two-thirds ofthe world's lawyers.

Counting lawyers comparatively is adaunting undertaking, plagued by poordata and a bushel of apples and orangesproblems. However these are resolved, it

is clear that the seventy percentfigure is very far from the mark.An informed guess would besomething less than half of that.Counting conservatively, Ameri-can Lawyers probably make upsomewhere between twenty-fiveand thirty-five percent of all theworld's lawyers, using that termto refer to all those in jobs thatAmerican lawyers do (includingjudges, government lawyers andin-house corporate lawyers).

Is that too many? It is rough-ly the United States proportionof the world's GNP and lessthan our percentage of theworld's expenditures on scientif-ic research and development.America is a highly legalizedsociety that relies on law andcourts to do many things thatother industrial democracies dodifferently. But it is worth recall-ing that one realm in which the

United States has remained the leadingexporter is what we may call the technol-ogy of doing law - constitutionalism,judicial enforcement of rights, the organi-zation of law firms, alternative dispute res-olution, public interest law. For all theiradmitted flaws, American institutions pro-

the United States is home to seventy per-cent of the world's lawyers. Droppedcasually by Vice President Quayle in hisspeech last August and parroted by Presi-dent Bush, Cabinet members, and mediaexperts, this is certainly an alarming fig-ure. It suggests monstrous deviation fromthe rest of the world and portrays lawyers

as a kind of cancerous excrescence onAmerican Society. As someone who hasstudied lawyers comparatively, I won-dered how this percentage was deter-mined. I could find no sign of anythingthat could be called a calculation. Theseventy percent figure seems to be a

MARC GALANTEREvjue-Bascom Professor of Law and Direc-tor, Institute for Legal Studies

Being ahead of the curve is her stock intrade, so it is not surprising that visionaryJeanne Dixon included in her predictionsfor 1992: "Anti-lawyer riots will shake thelegal profession and force drasticchanges in the way attorneys do busi-ness." Why the sense that lawyers aredue for a comeuppance? A jaundicedbut resilient story promoted in manyquarters is that lawyers have fosteredthe legalization of American life,encouraged an oppressive explosionof litigation, and complacently profitedfrom the miseries of a legal systemthat has "spun out of control."

Public discussion of our civil jus-tice system resounds with a litany ofquarter-truths: America is the most liti-gious society in the course of allhuman history; Americans sue at thedrop of a hat; the courts are brimmingover with frivolous lawsuits; resort tocourts is a first rather than a lastresort; runaway juries make capriciousawards to undeserving claimants;immense punitive damage awards areroutine; litigation is undermining ourability to compete economically. Each Prof. Marc Galanterof these is false, but in a complicatedway; so let me take up a few of the morespecific assertions of those who propoundthe jaundiced view.

The Seventy Percent Solution: My firstexample, trivial in itself but revealingabout the quality of the indictment of oursystem of civil justice, is the assertion that

4

tage." Escalating product liability litigationis blamed for discouraging innovation andundermining the competitiveness of Amer-ican business. That product liability litiga-tion is increasing inexorably, driven by thegreed of entrepreneurial lawyers, thewrongheadedness of activist judges, andthe rising litigiousness of ordinary Ameri-cans is a key tenet of the jaundiced view.

But there is good reason to think thatthe world of product liability has beenshrinking rather than expanding since themid 1980s. If we put to one side asbestoscases and look at cases involving everyother product, we see that filings in thefederal courts, which are the heartland ofproduct liability litigation, have fallen sub-stantially, from their high point of eighty-two hundred [8268] in 1985 to fifty-twohundred [5236] in 1991 - a decrease ofsome thirty-six percent. The companiesthat make the tens of thousands of otherproducts have experienced a significantdecrease in their exposure to product lia-bility cases. These figures are only for fil-ings in federal courts. There is no reasonto believe that there has been an offsettingincrease in product liability claims in statecourts.

Other research findings - and I referto real research, not to imaginative exer-cises with unsubstantiated numbers -

adopted an unsubstantiated estimatethat the direct costs of the tort systemwere at least eighty billion dollars ayear - far higher than the estimatesof careful and systematic studies ofthese costs. Huber then multipliedthis surmise by three and a half,rounding it up to three hundredbillion as the indirect cost ofthe tort system. The threeand a half multiplier istaken from a mention inan editorial referring to astudy of the reported cost of physi-cians' changes in practice relative toincreases in their 1984 malpracticeinsurance premiums. There is no dis-cussion of the applicability of this mul-tiplier to every other species of liabili-ty at every other time. Mr. Huber,who has recently taken to lecturingus on the dangers of "junk science,"certainly knows whereof he speaks.

So the Vice President's cost esti-mate is not the product of any investi-gation or analysis by his Council, or byForbes, or by Huber, but is a product ofcasual speculation. The Council on Com-petitiveness and the Vice Presidentaddress the entire civil justice system, notjust tort, and present these borrowed fig-ures as the cost of all civil litigation to theUS economy. They never indicate whetherthey have scaled down Huber's tort esti-mate to make room for the costs of themuch more abundant non-tort litigation orwhether they have concluded that non-tort litigation is costless. Indeed, the VicePresident compresses Huber's eighty bil-lion of direct costs and three hundred bil-lion of indirect costs for torts alone into atotal cost of three hundred billion for thewhole legal system - but what is eightybillion among friends?

As in the case of the Seventy PercentSolution, we find an utterly cavalier treat-ment of facts, a use of sources that wouldshame any first year law student, and noattempt whatever to make a seriousassessment of what is going on in theworld.

The Product Liability Monster: Let meturn to a third example. The Administra-tion proposes to rescue the United Statesfrom a civil justice crisis that imposes onus "a self-inflicted competitive disadvan-

vide influential (and sometimes inspiring)models for the governance of businessrelations, the processing of disputes andthe protection of citizens.

What is striking about the Seventy Per-cent figure is not that the estimate was sooverblown, but that those who made ithad reason to know that it was a tall tale;and that neither the Vice President noranyone else who thought it was a relevantfact deemed it important to have aninformed rather than a wild guess.

The Three Hundred Billion Dollar Bub-ble: Another funny number: Vice Presi-dent Quayle and those who beat the anti-lawyer drums tell us that the "legal systemnow ... costs Americans an estimated$300 billion a year." Three hundred bil-lion? Where does that come from? TheWhite House takes it from the Vice Presi-dent, who has it from the Council onCompetitiveness, whose Agenda for CivilJustice Reform borrows it from an articlein Forbes which in tum takes it from lia-bility guru Peter Huber who, it is fair tosay, made it up. From a single sentence ofCEO Robert Malott in a 1986 round tablediscussion of product liability, Huber

5

assertions are made about complex statesof affairs without any sense of account-ability to some body of reliable informa-tion, It seems to be assumed that inaddressing the legal system, fibs andfables are acceptable, The response of thelegal profession has been feeble, in partbecause our acuteness in dealing with evi-dence and inference in specific cases hasnot carried over to discussion of largesocial aggregates, We have acquiesced fortoo long in a style of public discussion oflegal policy that tolerates argument byanecdote and assertion without evidence,We have tolerated a legal academy thatdoes not generate basic knowledge aboutthe working of the legal system and has avery limited capacity to assess the effec-tiveness of legal institutions,

Lawyers have created in the civil jus-tice system a powerful engine of remedyand change, but there is little sense of col-lective responsibility to support theknowledge base needed to modify andwield it for public good, As professionalswe have a joint responsibility to con-tribute to a cumulative and reliable bodyof knowledge about the system, Such aknowledge base will not provide defini-tive answers to questions of policy, forlawyers reflect the conflicting views oftheir clients, so we should not imaginethat we can come up with neutral andpurely technical answers, Civil justiceissues involve value choices - and thatmeans political choices, But an enhancedknowledge base can rescue us from adebate dominated by bogus questions andfictional facts,

Resentment of lawyers is not a fiction,It is deeply rooted in society's fundamen-tal ambivalence about law and it is accen-tuated by the discomforts of the increasinglegalization of society, Our system of civiljustice is beset by many problems, particu-larly problems of securing justice cheaplyand expeditiously for all Americans, Butwe should be mindful of the accomplish-ments as well as the discomforts, Increas-ingly, ordinary people can use this systemto hold to account the managers andauthorities of society, It is this "litigationup" that fuels the sense of outrage of somany well placed critics because it chal-lenges the leeways and immunitiesenjoyed by those in charge.

It

Again, our accounts should reflect notonly the costs but the benefits of enforc-ing such transfers, which afford vindica-tion, induce investments in safety, anddeter undesirable behavior. For instance,the sums transferred by successful patentinfringement litigation not only are notlost, but maintain the credibility of thepatent system which in tum has powerfulincentive effects, To put forward estimatesof gross costs - even ones that are notmake believe - as a guide to policy dis-plays indifference to the vital functionsthat the law performs,

Each of these examples displays adebased style of public debate in which

A significant portion of the wealth thatflows through the litigation system is com-pensation delivered to creditors andwronged parties to which they are entitledunder the going rules, This half (or more)of the supposed cost is a cost to defen-dants, but it is not a cost of the system ora cost to the country, for the wealth is notlost but only transferred to differenthands, That it costs so much to effectuatethese rightful transfers is a scandal - butcontrolling these transaction costs shouldnot be confounded with reducing therights of claimants,

also suggest that the world of product lia-bility is shrinking rather than growing:

Since the mid-1980s, plaintiffs havebeen less successful at trial and defen-dants have secured favorable opinionsfrom the courts in an increasing portion ofcases,

The number of punitive damageawards in non-asbestos product liabilitycases has fallen sharply since the mid-1980s,

A new report by the General Account-ing Office finds that the number of claimsper dollar of product liability premiumsdropped by almost half from 1984 to 1988,

These studies depict a sustained con-traction of product liability exposurerather than the runaway expansion thatalarms adherents of the jaundiced view ofcivil justice, This shrinkage calls into ques-tion the supposed mounting litigiousnessof the American people, It should induceskepticism about the asserted role ofproduct liability litigation in underminingthe competitiveness of American business,So far, serious investigation has found lit-tle evidence of any significant effect ofAmerica's balance of trade,

What do these outcroppings of thejaundiced view - the Seventy PercentSolution, the Three Hundred Billion DollarBubble, and the abominable Product Lia-bility Monster - have in common?

First, in each instance trends that arewidespread throughout the industrializedworld are treated as if they were peculiar-ly American, and moreover manifestedpathological flaws in American society, Inrecent decades, there has been a dramaticworldwide legalization of social life,including an increase in litigation and inthe number of lawyers - even in Japan,which is so often falsely portrayed as aland without litigation and lawyers, Whilethe number of lawyers per capita remainsfar higher in the United States than inother countries, the rate of increase in thenumber of lawyers elsewhere - has out-stripped that in the United States,

Second, the jaundiced view portraysAmerica's institutions of remedy andaccountability and the lawyers that staffthem as burdensome afflictions, They areviewed as costs and thus as deadweightlosses, This is bad bookkeeping on twocounts:

6

TIMOTHY R. VERHOFF

The National Law Journaldescribes 1940 Law Schoolgraduate, John Frank, as the"Legendary appellate and triallawyer in the Southwest."Frank calmly reacts, "The per-fume is harmless if you don'tinhale."

John Frank was born andraised in Appleton, Wis., withthe law in his blood. Frank,whose father was a well-known attorney in the FoxRiver Valley, decided to attendthe UW-Madison. By 1940 hehad earned a bachelor'sdegree, a master of artsdegree and a law degree, andtoday completes almost a cen-tury of lawyers in his family."I must confess that no otherpossibility but a law degree ever occurredto me," he said.

Frank graduated from the Law' Schooland spent the following year as a clerk forU.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black."It was the most rewarding experience ofmy lifetime," Frank recalled. "We becamevery close friends."

Frank's clerkship drew to a finish, andWorld War II was close at hand, but Frankwas plagued by asthma. So, he secured ajob in 1943 as the assistant to the Secre-tary of the Interior Harold Ickes and thenin 1944 became the Assistant to the U.SAttorney General Francis Biddle.

JOHN P. FRANK ('40)

"I was physically limited. So, I soughtto aid the government in any possibleway. In that phase of my life, I planned tobe a law professor, but many law schoolswere shut down. Serving in the govern-ment was the right thing to do, and therewas no other alternative," he said.

After working for the federal govern-ment, he returned to school, and in 1946Frank received his doctorate degree in lawfrom Yale University. Soon after, he wasinvited by the Indiana University LawSchool to join the faculty, where he taughtuntil 1949. From there, Frank went on tojoin the faculty of the Yale Law School.But money was tight. To make ends meet

7

during his teaching years,Frank spent several summerspracticing with the Washing-ton D.C. firms of Covington &Burling and Arnold & Porter."I needed the bucks," he said.

With his teachingcareer on the move, Frankbegan to take up writing on aserious level. Between 1949and 1952 he had four bookspublished, including the biog-raphy Mr.justice Black. Frankadmits that he was one of themost prolific scholars at theYale Law School at that time."I got out a lot of stuff: a casebook, a biography, articlesand so on. So, I was intenselybusy in the winter season.And in summer, I was practic-ing in the day and writing atnight. I also had an annual

series on the work of the Supreme Courtfor the Chicago Law Review. Those had tobe written at odd moments in the summerbecause I had such a tight schedule."

But Frank's teaching career was cutshort. Once again, his asthma intervened,In 1954 he left the Yale University LawSchool and moved to Phoenix, where hewent to work for the law firm of Lewis &Roca. "1 stopped teaching because of myrespiratory problems. Justice Black saidthat I ought to go to Arizona. So I did."Since starting practice with Lewis & Roca,Frank has continued to write, and he hasalso done a little teaching as a visiting lec-turer of law at the University of Washing-

ton, the University of Arizona, and Ari-zona State University.

Although he is usually remembered asthe lead winning counsel before the U.S.Supreme Court in the Miranda case, Frankis most proud of the work he did as anassistant to Thurgood Marshall. Frankjoined forces with Marshall, attempting toput an end to the segregation of lawschools in Texas, after he did the histori-cal work for an earlier desegregation case:Sweatt v. Painter. "That was something Iwas glad to have done, helping to endsegregation in the United States. I regardthat, from a social standpoint, as the majoradventure of my life."

Nowadays, Frank is senior partner inthe law firm Lewis & Roca, which claimssuch clients as Xerox, UPS, MCI, and thecities of Phoenix, Scottsdale and Tucson.And he has continued to write. Currently,he has over 11 books to his credit, includ-ing his most recent Clement Haynsworth,The Senate and The Supreme Court andLincoln as Lawyer originally printed in1961 but re-released last year.

"One other activity I especially enjoyedwas serving on the U.S. Supreme Court'sSpecial Advisory committee for Civil Pro-cedure from 1960-1970. That was during

the Warren years. I have kept an activeinterest in procedural matters ever since,and I'm very heavily engaged today inprocedural matters across America,"Frank said.

In addition, Frank has served on theArizona Salary Commission, the MeritSelection Committee for the U.S. 9th Cir-cuit, the Executive Committee AdvisoryCommittee on Appellate Justice and theArizona Commission on Appellate CourtAppointments.

Currently, he is the leading bar activistseeking major alterations in Rule 11 in theRules of Civil Procedure. He also led thecharge against U.S. Senate attempts to splitthe 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Andhe chairs a national committee, trying tokeep diversity jurisdiction in the courts."I'm involved in all of the proceduralchanges contemplated for the federal sys-tem for this year," he said.

Frank attributes much of his desire toinvolve himself to former Law School Pro-fessor Willard Hurst. "He believed that asa practicing attorney, one must involvethemselves in public interest activities tothe maximum extent. Professor Hurst gavehis life to the University of Wisconsin. I

follow that as an example of what some-body ought to do," Frank stated.

Frank, who was a student and conse-quently lifelong friend of Hurst's, says heowes many of his professional skills andambitions to him. "I am very grateful tothe University of Wisconsin Law Schoolfor having equipped me for an enjoyableprofessional experience, but I am espe-cially indebted to Professor Hurst for giv-ing me the tools that I've been using eversince," he said. In fact, Frank claims thathe would not be the same lawyer he istoday, had he never met Willard Hurst.

At age 73, Frank continues to work asa full time litigator, and he has no inten-tions of retiring. "I enjoy it," he said. "Theplain truth is that I found the law a joy inevery single aspect. With any luck, I'lldrop dead at my desk some day. That ismy plan for the future."

Although he and his wife Lorraine livein Arizona, John Frank has always keptWisconsin close to his heart. Frank stilltries to get back to visit his sister andother friends. Does he miss Wisconsin?"Sure," he lamented. "It is the best placein the world. If I could breathe there, itwould have everything."

----~0~----

From the 49th Annual Spring Program:

(' ) h(,. 1 1

",

1.~1

CARMEN STANFIELD,Hastie Fellow

Rule 11, the "Frivolous Motion" Rule isintended to stop the filing of frivoloussuits and to impose sanctions for rule vio-lations. In the area of civil rights litigation,Rule 11 has become a powerful tool forthe hourly rate lawyer and the contingentfee lawyer who end up battling over sanc-tions, leaving the merits of the case unad-dressed. Consequently, the fees of thelawyers climb with the hourly rate, but theissues being raised in the case go unat-tended. An underlying intellectual prob-lem surfaces in defining the term"frivolous". One judge'S "frivolous" case isanother judge's serious case. Judges aredivided 50/50 as to whether a complaintis frivolous. This produces an extremedegree of subjectivity and a great burdenon the lawyer.

The issue comes down to whether alawyers's brief is sanctioned as wholedocument or whether a particular narrowpoint is sanctioned for not being ade-quately fact-based or researched.

The leading 9th Circuit authority forsanctioning the brief as a whole is GoldenEagle. Under Golden Eagle, the courtdoes not analyze each subsection. If abrief has a reasonable legal pretext, Rule11 is satisfied.

In direct opposition is the StandingCommittee on Civil Procedure which pro-poses to overrule Golden Eagle and sanc-tion every claim, defense, request,demand, objection, argument within alawyer's brief that does not have eviden-

tiary support to deter repetitions of suchconduct.

This proposed rule does have a safeharbor provision which is a conditionprecedent to sanctioning. The lawyerbeing sanctioned must be given 21 daysnotice to permit him or her to correct theproblem and have an opportunity torespond.

There are several bar positions withrespect to the operation of Rule 11. TheAmerican Bar Association (ABA) Commit-tee wants a mandatory hearing before alawyer can be sanctioned. They reject a

behind-chambers counseling. They seek abroader appellate review for lawyers sanc-tioned. The ABA believes that Rule 11should be restricted to cover the brief orcase as a whole upholding the GoldenEagle rationale.

The ABA Committee condemns Rule11 and the Standing Committee's proposalbecause it creates serious problems forplaintiffs in important environmentalliti-gation and causes a decline in profession-al courtesy which has skyrocketed. Atevery level of a case, we have legal ani-mals looking to devour their opponents aswell as the time of the court. The safe har-bor provisions intended to be benignactually creates a minefield. Instead ofpursuing the big picture, lawyers at everylevel are looking for infractions.

The Trial Lawyers Association sees theproposals to Rule 11 as a disaster areastriking at the juggler. Over 3000 pieces ofa total of 11,000 pieces are filed over Rule11. There are no rules for due process anddespite its high purpose, Rule 11 hasmade things far worse.

The majority of leaders in bars acrossthe country say that the existing Rule 11 isunsatisfactory. They would restrict sanc-tions to the whole brief or case underGolden Eagle. Any sanctions are paid tothe clerk of court so the attorneys fees donot become a fee shifting device. Sanc-tions would be limited to precisely statedunsubstantiated conclusions of law andfact that show actual injury and aggravat-ing circumstances.

Unfortunately, Rule 11 causes toomuch litigation. It has put an undue bur-

9

motion to go to the court and not to theopposing counsel. The recipient of themotion must only respond. The Courtdoes not have to respond. In discussingSafe Harbor provisions, there seems to becontinuing conflict between the client andattorney where the client wants the attor-ney to file a Rule 11 charge and the attor-ney has to decide whether damage to per-sonal reputation will ultimately result.Where the client is a substantial personwho can verify the facts as correct andtrue, can the client compel the attorney topursue the Rule 11 action against theattorney's advice? Ultimately, if we are tohave a Rule 11, I agree with Mr. Frankthat we must limit the liability of thelawyer."

Mr. Skilton ('69) commented on Rule11 from the practitioner's point of view.He had just completed a term as Chair ofthe Western District Advisory Group,whose purpose was to evaluate costs anddelays in litigation.

According to Mr. Skilton, "there is noquestion that our district, the western dis-trict, has a civility problem. Rule 11 is partof the problem. I applaud Mr. Frank who,along with the lawyer in the trenches -the mouse - sees the system beingattacked by Rule II."

"The Quayle commission advocates, infour of its recommendations, retention ofRule 11 and even strengthening it.Strengthening sanctions creates as manyproblems as it solves. Those of us whohave had such motions filed against usview them as attacks not only on the mer-its of our cases, but also on our integrity.""The usual reaction is to strike back. Weare in a litigious society and the battlesbetween lawyers are getting worse. Themore litigious and complex the complaint,the tougher it is to factually prove theissues; and the legal theories tend to beon the edge. Such a case is fought hardon both sides. Rule 11 becomes a conve-nient device to attack the lawyer. Rule 11is used too frequently."

"Rule 11 should either be modified toanalyze the document as a whole, or out-right eliminated. It produces nothing morethan increased costs, delay and hostility. Ithas become an 'uncivil' rule with anunclear purpose of deterring conduct ver-sus shifting fees."

HE!\CrOES TO

Professor Clauss commented, "Fromthe plaintiff's perspective, Rule 11 haschilled responsible civil rights and probono actions. It should be amended toexplain why it is warranted. Is it seekingto explain or interpret existing law? Rule56, on the other hand, serves as a quickresolution of a case. Here the defense orplaintiff's attorney challenges the legalfoundation of the other person's argu-

ment. The challenge isrestricted to a factualinquiry. If an argumentis warranted by law,Rule 11 is not needed. Ifa legal wrong isinvolved supported bythe law, Rule 11 is notwarranted. I would takeaway the Court powerto impose Rule 11 sanc-tions sua sponte, andlimit Rule 11 to requirea motion by the party. Iwould also put in disin-centives to make amotion by requiring themoney as a result of the

dominantly judge-led. On the one handthe bars are made up of lawyers and theRule 11 committees are made up ofjudges. A bleak confrontation between thebench and bar necessarily ensues.

As a result, judges have taken over amanagerial leadership as far as the draft-ing and implementing of Rule 11. Courtoverloads have resulted in a rather author-itarian and dictatorial leadership. Lawyersare literally squeezed out of the picturemaking nominal court appearances atbest. The bar needs to be in the businessof deciding if these Rule 11 determina-tions are important. Where civil rules aremade in committees, the Rule EnablingAct should require lawyers to be there.

Attorney Frank closed by stating thatRule 11, illustrates two things - a ruleand system gone awry. Ultimately, we willhave to revise the Rules Enabling Act sothat the lawyer is brought back into therulemaking process.

den on the court system and the parties. Ithas become a growth industry with anunacceptable burden where out of223,000 cases filed in 1989,6,500 are Rule11 cases. To show just how far we havegone in the wrong direction, Shepherdsnow publishes a sanctions newsletter. Aseventh circuit study shows that the rela-tions among lawyers are getting worse.Litigation, by its very nature, is unpleas-ant. Lawyers are supposed to disagreewithout being disagreeable. Rule 11 cre-ates issues of personal recrimination cou-pled with personal and financial threats.At this point, things have gone too far.Rule 11 has not accomplished its goalwhich is to deter ill conduct. Rather, Rule11 has fostered ill conduct.

The safe harbor provision makes badmatters worse. Each time a lawyerrequests the opposing lawyer to correcthis or her pleadings prior to filing a Rule11 claim, an endless exercise of aimlessretrospectivity results. Clients also have astake in many instances in having a Rule11 claim filed to shift the costs to theother side. Lawyers have the problem ofcommitting malpractice where the lawyerdoes not make a Rule 11 claim based onthe client demand.

Rule 11 also points up a class differ-ence. Judges like Rule 11. Lawyers, uponwhom Rule 11 is exercised, do not likeRule 11. In a world of cats and mice, it isfar better to be a cat. Where one tracksthe composition of the committeesresponsible for drafting and implementingRule 11, one finds that a once lawyer-dominated committee has become pre-

John Skilton ('69), John Frank ('40), Associate Dean GeraldThain, and Professor Carin Clauss

Frank J. Remington:

STEWART MACAULAYMalcom Pitman Sharp Hilldale Professorand Foley & Lardner Bascom Professor ofLaw

I was surprised when I heard that FrankRemington was going to retire. I told himthat he was so valuable that the LawSchool should make him start over. Hereplied that if he did, he wouldn't gettenure under our current standards. Ilaughed because if Frank couldn't make itno one would. I thought about this briefexchange when I read that the Presidentof the Universityof Wisconsin was advo-cating post-tenure review of faculty. I pic-tured convening a committee and seekingoutside appraisals of Frank's work. Onone hand, we would waste the time ofthose asked to judge his work because thecase would be so clearly in his favor. Onthe other hand, perhaps we could forcethose who enjoy attacking our faculty torecognize the people who make this uni-versity one of the state's and the nation'sgreat resources. Perhaps a tenure reviewof professors such as Frank Remingtonmight serve to stem the fabrication ofscandals.

A tenure review looks at scholarship,teaching and service. There are at leastthree major ideas that Frank's research inthe criminal law made salient to all legalscholars. (Undoubtedly, a criminal lawspecialist could point to other ideas, but Ican only report what has come through tothose of us engaged in such matters ascontracts and law and the social sciences.)First, the reality of the criminal law in

action is discretion. We talk about a gov-ernment of laws and not of persons. How-ever, viewed from the front seat of asquad car, the police are free, within wideboundaries, to act or refuse to act. Prose-cutors, too, must make choices only indi-rectly influenced by legal rules.

Second, the police are a generalizedadministrative agency. We call on thepolice to solve problems when we needimmediate action and no other body hasbeen given the job. Seeing them only aspeople engaged in imposing the criminallaw misses the point. The criminal law isonly one of the many tools the policemust use to do the jobs that society hasgiven them.

Third, the criminal justice system is,indeed, a system. We must see it whole tounderstand any part of it. In the early1950s, I took criminal law and learned the

elements of various crimes, with a dash ofpolicy analysis sprinkled on top. Frankdoesn't deny that the rules are important;indeed he has drafted statutes that refinethe rules. In Frank's picture, however,rules are only part of a total process.Police officers must decide whether totake action and what action. Prosecutorsdecide whether to prosecute. Prosecutorsand defense lawyers decide whether toplea bargain or go to trial. If there is aconviction, judges decide what sentenceto impose. They base these decisions oninformation provided by corrections staffwho, with more or less accuracy andinsight, tell the judge what the criminal islike. Sentences are served many ways.And we try to impose controls on peopleeven after they are released from prison.Furthermore, what happens at one part ofthe system affects what happens else-where. Changes at anyone part of thesystem often only prompt adjustments atanother, as many reformers have discov-ered to their dismay.

These three points are simple, evenobvious. Important ideas usually are sim-ple. They were not obvious when Frankbegan his career. Indeed, we could pointto many scholars and political actors todaywho fail to give these ideas their due inthinking about law.

Tenure requires teaching as well asscholarship. The key point here is thatFrank brought the insights of his scholar-ship to students in a variety of ways. Hecoauthored teaching materials thatbrought his insights into the classroom.His students had to see the criminal law in

11

Professor Stewart Macaulay, Professor Frank Remington, JackDeWitt ('42) and Emeritus Professor Maurice Leon ('48)

action. We can only guess how many Wis-consin graduates have taken Frank'scourses, seminars and directed research.All were pushed to see criminal law incontext.

Moreover, Frank championed what wenow call clinical education before it hadthis name. Frank's clinical approachinvolved more than putting a student in alaw office and confronting her with theproblems of real clients. She saw real peo-ple who were police officers, prisoners,social workers, jailers, prison guards andall of the rest of those involved in the totalcriminal justice system. (To my knowl-edge, he didn't place anyone inside orga-nized crime, but such a move might havebeen consistent with his position.)

Frank recognized that even younglawyers who would never handle a crimi-nal case might benefit from seeing abroad picture of the criminal justice sys-tem. We who teach at this law schoolknow that, to a large measure, we aregoverned by our former students. Somehold elective office while others are backstage doing the committee work, draftingand negotiating with lobbyists and con-cerned constituents. We will be governedbetter if our graduates can escape fromsimplistic ideological pictures of how thelaw works.

Finally, tenure requires service to thepublic at large, the Law School, and theUniversity. I've mentioned that Frankplayed key roles in several major reforms

of the criminal law. This was more publicservice than most professors accomplishin a career. Frank also offered at leasteight of our deans excellent advice andserved on countless law school commit-tees. For example, he was the chair of ourfaculty appointments committee a fewyears ago. The Law School needed moreteachers, but the university was unable toprovide the needed funds. Frank knew ofthe University's affirmative action con-cerns. He thought that we might make acase for a new position if we could findan outstanding scholar who was a mem-ber of a minority group. His committeebegan to compile a list of such outstand-ing people.

When our new Chancellor arrived, shediscovered, to her dismay, racial divisionsat Madison. She established the MadisonPlan to further racial diversity. She tolddepartments that those who came firstwith the best candidates would get themoney. Other departments then began tolook for candidates. Frank's committeeand our Dean, however, were readyimmediately with a list of outstandingminority group scholars. We gained fournew positions, and we filled them withtop people. Many others played key rolesof course, but Frank's good judgment andenergy were important factors in bringinga group of talented people to us whomwe could not otherwise have hired.

He also has been a counselor to uni-versity presidents, chancellors, deans and

athletic directors.Frank counseleddoing it right, notfollowing theteachings ofMachiavelli. Whenthey were smartenough to listen tohim, life at thisuniversityimproved.

Then, as weall know, Frank isa sports fan. Manyof us use such aninterest as relax-ation. Frank, how-ever, took thisinterest and turnedtoward solving

Professor Frank Remington ('49)

problems. We know about his work onthe University's Athletic Board, the facultybody that controls the Big 10 Conference,and the NCAA. He is concerned about thetreatment of student athletes by universi-ties. American educational institutionsreap the profits from the talent and hardwork of young people. In exchange, theypromise them an education. Far too oftenfamous institutions engage in misrepresen-tation or breach their promises to thosethey exploit. Frank has never ceasedreminding administrators and coaches thatthey must give content to the first part ofthe term "student-athlete."

Moreover, he was one of the first torecognize that the universities must helpthose students going on to professionalsports. They need help if they are to gainfair treatment from agents and the variousprofessional sports clubs. Here he joinedhis skills as a legal educator and his inter-ests in athletics. He has worked to estab-lish programs to teach student-athletesabout agents. He has worked to trainlawyers and others to be competent andethical agents. Frank would be the first tosay that he has not brought about a revo-lution, but we have taken the first steps.

What should we conclude about FrankRemington and post-tenure review? Theanswer is so obvious that the question issilly. I confess that at times I get discour-aged when I think about the battle tokeep our Law School great. I sometimesrespond by being flip and cynical. I'vedefined "The Wisconsin Idea" as "it ain't

12

good but its cheap!" I've called our LawSchool the world's greatest law school interms of return on investment. But then Iwondered whether in those terms, it couldbe anything else if it did no more thankeep the doors open. I've even comparedour Law School to a Boeing 747 whichhas its wings and tail attached by paperclips and rubber bands.

However, I know that this is a great

When Professor Remingtonwho

their 40th reunton

Edward L. Levine, '52, of New Yorkremembers taking his first proceduralcourse with Professor Remington in thelarge lecture room of the old law buildingwhich has since been torn down. "Even inhis first year, he was wonderful. We allhad him for first-year law courses alongwith Herbie Page, Charlie Bunn, and NateFeinsinger."

Charles B. Lipsen, '52, from Washing-ton, D.C., with deep admiration andrespect, stated that: "Professor Remingtonwas the best professor I ever had. He wasmy favorite; and Jack DeWitt was second.Professor Remington is the reason that Iam a lawyer today. He was the most excit-ing professor I had. He breathed life intothe law. Because of him, I became a crimi-nallawyer. He taught me criminal law.

law school, judged by any standard. Thisuniversity also is a major reason why Wis-consin is a special and wonderful place.Whatever is holding the wings and tail on,the plane flies! How can this be true whenwe are always struggling to do so muchwith so little? The answer is simple. Won-derful people create knowledge, teachstudents and help solve problems. Theyregularly act above and beyond the call of

teaching here inclass 1

oom comments

Robert E. Storck, '52, of Mayville,Wisconsin, remembers Professor Reming-ton as a nice person, wonderful teacherand excellent friend. "When I was lookingfor a job, I talked to him about going toMayville to take a job. He thought it was agood idea. I've been there 40 years."

Leonard Loeb, '52, of Milwaukee,Wisconsin, stated, "I had Professor Rem-ington for Criminal Law. He was a verybright and intense teacher. He never toldone joke, not one war story. He knew hisstuff; and he never digressed. I neveronce saw him smile. He was a toughgrader, too. I felt lucky to pass. At thattime, it was no trick to get in; but it was abig trick to get out of law school.

Indirectly, Professor Remington wasresponsible for getting me a direct com-

duty. If anyone challenged me to offer aconcrete example, I could not do betterthan point to Frank Remington.

If, however, we take Frank as our stan-dard for post-tenure review, there are twoproblems. We, first, risk setting the stan-dard so high that we would discouragethe rest of us. Second, how would we jus-tify spending the time to prove the obvi-ous in cases such as Frank's?

mission into the Air Force, which was noteasy in those days. Because I really want-ed to practice criminal law, he made thecourse intensely exciting."

BiU WiUis, '52, of Foley & Lardner inMilwaukee, points to Professor Remingtonas "our last link to the faculty. He taughtour freshman personal property course. Itwas his very first class, so he ended upstudying along with us every night. Look-ing back, I think he was too scared to befunny in class. On the other hand, he wasgreat with criminal law. He ultimatelyproved to be one of our finest professors.With his retirement, the Class of '52 hasno other faculty member at the law schoolthat has taught us."

Dean Dan Bernstine presented a lecture,"And Justice for All," on February 27, atthe University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee.The lecture, sponsored by the Union Pro-gramming Department and the Sociocul-tural Programming Department, UWM,was part of the celebration of AfricanAmerican History and Liberation Month.

Professor Richard Bilder visited theUniversity of Georgia Law School thisspring semester as the Woodruff Professorof International Law.

Nina Carnic, Clinical Assistant Profes-sor, is Chair of the Health Law Section ofthe State Bar of Wisconsin. She presidedat the section program at the Bar meetingsin January, discussing reforms in healthcare and corporate health care issues.

Professor R. Alta Charo has complet-ed her work for the congressional Officeof Technology's study on populationscreening for cystic fibrosis trait. The com-pleted report will be published this sum-mer. Charo has authored three pieceswhich appeared in May and June: a spe-cial country report for The Lancet, aBritish medical journal, on patterns offorced contraception in the U.S.; a bookreview for the "Women's Review ofBooks" of Klein, Raymond & Dumble's'feminist' attack on the French abortionpill (RU 486: Myths, Morals, and Miscon-ceptions) and of Etienne Baulieu's historyof the drugs's development entitled TheAbortion Pill; and a review for the Interna-tional Digest of Health Legislation ofAthena Liu's Artificial Reproduction andthe Law.

This summer, Charo plans to: teach ashort course on American bioethics atGiessen University; present a plenary ses-sion at the Chinese Academy of Sciencesconference in Beijing on the effects ofU.S. domestic policy on internation fund-ing for family planning; give a presenta-tion in Toronto on the future of abortionrights in the post-Roe era for the ThirdInternational Meeting of the AmericanSociety of Law and Medicine and the

Commonwealth Medical Association; pre-sent a paper on the impact of geneticscreening on family autonomy for an invi-tational meeting of the American Associa-tion for the Advancement of Science; andpresent a paper on the relationship indeveloping countries between family plan-ning policy and reproductive technologypolicy, at an international law, medicineand philosophy meeting in Helsinki.

Professor Walter Dickey taught at theUniversity of Birmingham, England, forthe spring semester, and toured Britishand Continental prisons and spent timewith parole agents in London to get aninsider look at the British correctionalsystem.

Professor Ted Finman was appointedto the District 9 Professional ResponsibilityCommittee of the Wisconsin SupremeCourt Board of Attorneys ProfessionalResponsibility. This committee investigatesgrievances filed against attorneys andreports its conclusion and recommenda-tions to the Board. In March, Finman testi-fied before the UW Board of Regents insupport of the redraft of UWS 17.06, theproposed rule on racial, religious, andother such epithets. The Regents voted insupport of the redraft.

On February 1, Professor MarcGalanter gave a speech on the Adminis-tration's proposed Civil Justice Reforms tothe National Conference of Bar Presidentsin Dallas. This speech was subsequentlypublished in Legal Times and other barpublications. He was also a panelist in apresidential forum on the candidates andthe civil justice system at the ABA meetingin Dallas. In March, Galanter went to Indiato deliver three lectures in honor of thecentenary of Dr. B. R. Amsbedkar, thegreat leader of the untouchables and chiefdraftsman of the Indian Constitution.

At the AALSannual meeting in January,Professor Linda Greene spoke at the Sec-tion on Employment Discrimination Lawand the combined program of the Sectionon Civil Procedure and the Section on

Women in Legal Education. She chairedthe SALTannual teaching awards dinnerwhich honored Professors Mary Joe Frugand Thomas Emerson.

Professor Greene was elected Chair ofthe AALSSection on Minority Groups. Sheappearred in February on a UW HavensCenter sponsored panel: "Engaging theIssues - Affirmative Action," and spokeat the DePaul Law School Conference onAffirmative Action, the National Associa-tion of College and University AttorneysSymposium on Intercollegiate Athletics,and at the University of Illinois LawSchool Conference on Race Conscious-ness.

Greene participated in a Roundtableon Affirmative Action at the Law SchoolAdmissions Council Annual Meeting. Shehas published a review essay entitled"Breaking Form," 44 Stanford Law Review301-317 (992), and an article entitled"Civil Rights at the Millennium ...", 24 Con-necticut Law Review 499-515 (992).

This summer Greene will teach at theUniversity of North Carolina Law School,and for the academic year, 1992-93, shewill be the William]. Maier Chair of Lawat West Virginia University College of Law.

Professor Chuck Irish is Chair of theState Bar's International Practice Section,and attended the Section's CLE programon the North America Free Trade Agree-ment in Mexico City, March 3-6. In Aprilhe presented a paper on the next roundof tax reform in the US to a group ofscholars from Russia.

Professor James E.Jones,Jr., was apanelist at the Federal Mediation and Con-ciliation Service Arbitrators Symposiumheld at Chicago-Kent College of Law inFebruary, on the subject "FeministJurisprudence and the Workplace." InApril, Jones spoke at the AALSWorkshopon Labor and Employment Law, in Wash-ington, D.C., at the section on "Employ-ment Discrimination: Where Are WeNow?" His topic was "The Shift fromFederal to State to Local."

14

Professor Blair Kauffman taught athree-credit course in the summer Inters-ession in Law Library Administration forstudents in Law Librarianship, School ofLibrary Administration.

Kauffman served as commentator ofthe Workshop for Deans and LibraryDirectors at the AALSmeetings in SanAntonio in January. He completed histerm on the board of the AALSsection onLaw Libraries. He was on a panel on"Recent Trends in CD- ROM Technologyof Interest to the Legal Community" at theWisconsin State Bar winter meeting in Mil-waukee. In February he participated onthe ABA site visit for the reaccreditation ofCooley Law School in Lansing Michigan.

Professor John Kidwell has receivedthe Emil H. Steiger Award as one of theUniversity's 1992 Distinguished TeachingAward Recipients.

The Legal Assistance to InstitutionalizedPersons Program reports that AttorneyKate Kruse Livermore was a recent gueston Tom Clark's talk show on \\;"HAradio.She spoke about life at Columbia Correc-tional Institution and what Jeffrey Dahmercould expect there. Livermore and law stu-dent Nina Emerson's article, "Drug andAlcohol Treatment in Wisconsin Prisons,"was published in the February volume ofthe Wisconsin Lawyer. LAIPAttorneyMeredith Ross and law student LeoSmith presented oral argument in the Sev-enth Circuit Court of Appeals in April inthe case Velarde v. United States. The caseinvolves perjury by a government witnessin a drug possession trial.

Professor Lynn Lopucki spent thewinter in San Francisco where he was ascholar in residence in the twelve-memberbankruptcy department of Heller, Ehrman,White & McAuliffe. In March, he moderat-ed a panel on Legal Fees and Fee Audit-ing at the Federal Judicial Center's Work-shop for Bankruptcy Judges in Santa Fe.

Professor Margo Melli attended ameeting of the Executive Council of theInternational Society of Family Law inLondon. In January, she participated in aUS State Department Study Group onIntercountry Adoption, reviewing draftarticles for a Hague Convention on inter-country adoptions. She also went to Den-ver for the meeting of the Board of Direc-tors of the American Humane Association,

the oldest national organization devotedto child abuse and neglect.

Professor Walter Raushenbushattended the meeting of the Real PropertyQuestion-Drafting Committee for theMulti-State Bar Examination in Austin, TX,in March, and the meeting of the Financeand Legal Affairs Committee of the LawSchool Admissions Council in early Aprilin Washington, D.C. He also attended themeeting of the Board of Trustees of theLSACin Philadelphia in early May, and theAnnual Meeting of LSACin Palm Springs,California in late May.

In the 1992-93 academic yearRaushenbush will be a visiting professorat the University of San Diego School ofLaw, but will also teach an experimentalvideo Real Estate Transactions course atUW Law School for the fall semester.

Krista Ralston, Legal Defense ProjectDirector, is pleased to announce thatAttorney Shelley Gaylord has joined theprogram as a full-time supervising attor-ney. She replaces E.J. Hunt, who is nowin private practice in Milwaukee.

Legal Writing Tutor Mary BarnardRay played a part in the production of anew book, The Shadow of Death: TheHolocaust in Lithuania, by Harry Gordon.After World War II, Mr. Gordon wrote ofhis experiences in his native Yiddish, butit wasn't until 1978 that he decided towrite his memoirs for his children. Rayworked with him in this process as Gor-don told her his story from his notes,which then became the manuscript for hisbook. For Ray it was an intense and mov-ing experience and one she is honored tohave shared with Gordon.

Assistant Dean Edward Reisner hasbeen reappointed to terms on the StateBar of Wisconsin's Mentor Council and toits Bridge-the-Gap Committee.

Professor Vicki Schultz spent thespring semester as a Visiting Professor atYale Law School.

Hastie Fellow Carmen Stanfieldattended the National Minority Environ-mental Career Conference in Atlanta,March 21-24.

Associate Dean Gerald Thain hasbeen named chair of a special State Bar ofWisconsin committee that will review allpublications of the State Bar and theireffect on the organization's budget. He is

15

also on the program committee of theBusiness Law Section of the Sate Bar,helping to plan the section program forthe summer meeting in LaCrosse in June.

Thain spoke to the Organization ofProfessional Employees of the USDA on"Professionalism in Public Employment,"March 25, in Madison. In June headdressed the Business Law Section of theState Bar of Wisconsin at the annual con-vention, on the topic of UCC Article 4A,Chapter 410 Wis. Stats., Funds Transfer.

Thain reports that his media appear-ances have not resulted in any new careerpaths for him. He appeared on the localABC television affiliate (channel 27) news,March 29, discussing the present legal sta-tus of lawyer advertising and was theguest on the April 15 broadcast of Madi-son radio station WTSO's "Nightline" inter-view and call-in program.

During April, Thain also appearedbefore the Finance Committee of the StateBar of Wisconsin on behalf of the Com-munications Committee of the Bar with aproposed new policy to control the costsof Bar publications. Thain was one of thepresenters at the Business Law Sectionmeeting at the LaCrosse meeting, partici-pating in a panel on the revisions of theUniform Commercial Code.

Professor Joe Thome, on invitationfrom the ABA Commission on College andUniversity Nonprofessional Legal Studies,participated in its 8th annual higher edu-cation conference, "Beyond Our Borders:Global Themes in Legal Studies," in RyeBrook, NY, Apr. 23-25. He participated ina panel on "Lawyering and Access to Jus-tice Around the World" referring to theLatin American experience.

In May, Thome was in South Africa toconsult and lecture on legal and constitu-tionalland reform issues, and work withthe ANC and other opposition groups. Helectured at various universities and non-government organizations; the Center forApplied Studies at the University of Wit-watersrant, Johannesburg; the Center forSocio-Legal Studies and the LegalResearch Center, Durban; and the Centrefor Rural Legal Studies, Stellenbesch. Thetrip was part of a Land Tenure Center pro-gram in South Africa, with Thome's fund-ing through an Academic Specialist Grantfrom USIA.

Clinical Professor Louise Trubekreports that the Center for Public Repre-sentation has received a grant from theMadison Community Foundation to helpsupport the new Community Legal Out-reach Clinic, under Clinical SupervisorSusan Brehm. The clinic will work onhousing, consumer and general intake onissues involving the South Madison com-munity. The grant is to be conducted inconjunction with the South NeighborhoodCenter and the Tenant Resource Center.

Professor Alan Weisbard spoke onthe topics of brain death and advancedirectives for health care to an Internation-al Conference on Jewish Medical Ethics inSan Francisco, February 14-17. He was aninvited participant in a workshop onHuman Genetics and Genome Analysis atCold Spring Harbor Laboratory in NewYork, sponsored by the US Department ofEnergy, Feb. 23--26. Last October he didthe "Conference Summary" for the invita-tional national conference on "Access toTreatment with Human Growth Hormone:Medical, Ethical and Social Issues." InMarch he appeared on Tom Clark's publicradio program discussing the topic of

physician-assisted suicide and the impend-ing prosecution of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, ofthe "suicide-machine" fame.

Weisbard is also chairing the LecturesCommittee of the UW-Madison's newCenter for Jewish Studies and participatedin a panel on "The Ambiguous Veto: Cana Critically III Patient Cancel Her OwnAdvance Directive?" at UW-Madison Hos-pital on March 19. He chaired several ses-sions on organ transplantation at the ParkRidge Center in Chicago, April 25-27, andspoke at a regional Hadassah event on'Jews and the Law," in May.

Professor Patricia Williams has beenawarded a H.I. Romnes Faculty Fellow-ship covering a five-year period from July1, 1992 to June 30, 1997. The fellowshiprecognizes proven potential and providesan opportunity for critical judgment by theFellow on the best strategies for develop-ment of an outstanding research program.

Williams' book, The Alchemy of Raceand Rights, has received two recentawards: the Gould prize, awarded atTouro Law School in March, and theAnnual Book Prize, given by the AmericanAssociation of Black Political Scientists. In

March, Williams was also the keynotespeaker at a conference at the Universityof California-Berkely on "American Cul-ture," and she delivered the Edith Houselecture at the University of Georgia.

Professor Bill Whitford gave hispaper, co-authored with Professor LynnLopucki, on "Corporate Governance inthe Bankruptcy Reorganization of Large,Publicly Held Firms," at the Legal TheoryWorkshop, Columbia Law School, Febru-ary 17.

LAIP supervising attorneys John Prayand Kate Kruse Livermore are litigatingState v. Grayson, which has been accept-ed for review by the Wisconsin SupremeCourt. The case concerns construction ofWisconsin's nonsupport statute. AttorneyMeg Gaines is teaching a class on crimi-nallaw at Edgewood College in the springsemester. In December, Michele Lavigneappeared on the local PBS televisionshow, "Weekend." She was part of a paneldiscussing capital punishment, the WilliamKennedy Smith trial, and Wisconsin's rep-utation as a "welfare magnet."

a Family Court Law Guardian and for rep-resenting indigent defendents. Boergerpractices with the Hauppauge, NY, firm ofPerini & Hoerger.Danie1R. Doucette (74) has been

elected a vice president of the 18,000member Defense Research Insti-tute, the nation's largest associa-tion of insurance defense triallawyers. Doucette is president andCEO of Milwaukee Insurance Co.

Dale ]. Fraaza (77) has beennamed Partner-in-Charge of theTax Division of Arthur Andersen &Co. in Orange County, California.Fraaza also reports the birth oftwin sons.Juliet Kosstritsky ('80), cur-

rently a professor at Case WesternReserve University School of Law,will be a visiting professor atNorthwestern University School ofLaw this fall. She will teach con-tracts and co-teach a seminar incontract theory.Shelley J. Gaylord ('80) has

joined the UW Law School's LegalDefense Project, a clinical progrm,as a Clinical Supervising Attorney.Gene R. Rankin ('80) has been

elected to a three year term asDirector of the Environmental LawSection of the State Bar of Wiscon-sin. He has also been appointed

vice chair of the ABA Real Property Sec-tion Committee on Modernization of LandRecords.Kenneth E. McNeil ('81), a partner in

the Houston firm of Susman Godfrey,reports that his finn was recently featuredin Of Counsel, a national legal news mag-azine. The article focused on how his firmmanages in leaner times.Marjorie H. Schuett ('81) has joined

the Madison firm of Lathrop & Clark. Sheis practicing family law.John A. Sikora ('82) has become a

partner in the Milwaukee finn of Weiss,Berzowski, Brady & Donahue.

The Chairman of the Commission isRobert W. Kastenrneier ('52) and one ofthe members is UW Law Professor FrankM. Tuerkheimer. The Commission wasestablished by Congress to study andreport on issues relating to the tenure anddiscipline of Federal judges, includingimpeachment.W. Robert Lotz ('74), practicing law in

Covington, KY, has been elected Presidentof the Kentucky Association of CriminalDefense Lawyers.Maureen S. Hoerger (74) has been

honored by the Suffolk County Bar ProBono Foundation for her contributions as

dent of the Seventh Circuit Bar Associa-tion, is a partner in the Litigation PracticeGroup.MichaelJ. Remington ('73) has been

named Director of the National Commis-sion on Judicial Discipline and Removal.

Haroldjordan ('77) speaks at the Benchers Dinner duringthe 49th Annual Spring Program.

Catherine M. Rottler ('86) and Lawrie J.Kobza ('85) have become partners andElizabeth A. Heiner ('91) has become anassociate at the Madison finn of Board-man, Suhr, Curry & Field.Irvin B. Charne ('49) has joined the

Milwaukee firm of Hall, First & Pat-terson, S.c. Mr. Charne practices inlitigation, bankruptcy and businesscounseling.Jack F. Olson ('65) has left liti-

gation practice after 26 years andnow practices mediation full time.He is affiliated with Bates EdwardsGroup, a San Francisco based alter-native dispute resolution firm intheir Portland, OR, office.Terry W. Rose ('67) has been

elected to a fourth term on theKenosha County Board of Supervi-sors. Rose is a trial attorney withRose & Rose, in Kenosha, WI. Healso serves as chair of the Adminis-tration Committee of the KenoshaCo. Board of Supervisors.Hanford O'Hara ('69) is now

an Administrative Law Judge for theSocial Security Administration inJacksonville, FL.John C. Loring ('71) has been

elected Chairman of the Board ofDirectors for Astrex, Inc. Asterex isa value added distributor of con-nectors and other electronic com-ponents. Loring is also Vice-chairman ofthe Board of GalVest, a Houston basedpetroleum finn, a director of WeatherfordIntrenational, a Houston based well ser-vicing firm and a director of Geauga Sav-ings Bank in Ohio.David R. Weiss (73) has been elected

a Fellow of the Maine Bar Foundation.Weiss has practiced law for 12 years andis with the Bath, Maine, firm of Stinson,Lupton & Weiss.Howard A. Pollack ('73), a past presi-

dent of the Wisconsin Law Alumni Associ-ation, has joined the Milwaukee finn ofGodfrey & Kahn. Pollack, also past presi-

17

Brian Pierson ('83) has received theACLD-Wisconsin Civil Libertarian of theYear Award for 1991 for his representationof the Lac du Flambeau Chippewa Indiansin a successful federal lawsuit to enjoininterference with treaty fishing. Pierson isa member of the Milwaukee firm of Hall,First & Patterson where he practices immi-gration, business law and litigation.

Susan P. Strommer ('84) has becomea partner in the Washington, DC, office ofPowell Goldstein Frazer & Murphy. Shepractices in the areas of international tradeand litigation with special emphasis onunfair trade practice disputes.

Mark L. Goodman ('85) has beenelected as a municipal judge for the city ofSparta, WI. He succeeds his father, Don-ald 1. Goodman ('53) who had held thatposition since 1977. The younger Good-

man also continues to practice with thefirm of Osborne & Goodman.

Michelle E. Beeman ('88), previouslya law clerk for Judge Jack Davies on theMinnesota Court of Appeals, is now a Spe-cial Assistant Attorney General in theHuman Services Division of the MinnesotaOffice of the Attorney General.

Thomas R. Hall ('88) has joined theDetroit based firm of Kitch, Saurbier,Drutchas, Wagner & Kenney. Hall willwork in the Medical Malpractice Group, inthe Lansing office.

Anne S. Gallagher ('88), accountdirector with the Chicago-based marketingconsulting firm Financial Shares Corpora-tion, has been elected to the Board ofDirectors of the National Law Firm Mar-keting Association. With 1,000 members,NALFMAis one of the world's largest pro-

18

fessional services marketing organizations.Lynn M. Stathas ('88) has become a

shareholder in the Madison firm of Ross &Stevens. She focuses her practice on com-mercial litigarion and employment law.

Jane Buchanan Beckering ('90) hasjoined Buchanan & Bos in Grand Rapids,MI. She specializes in the areas of productliability, personal injury, medical malprac-tice and commercial law.

IN MEMORIAM

Stanley C. Fruits ('37), a former memberof the Law School's Board of Visitors andlong-time Counsel for the WisconsinDepartment of Revenue, died on March18, 1992.

I

Recently Dean Bernstine, DevelopmentDirector Chris Richards and I attendedalumni receptions in Minneapolis andWashington, DC. You may wonder whywe go to the expense of these events,and, if you have never traveled on busi-ness, you may even harbor thoughts ofglamorous times in glamorous places. Wedo these events to build institutional loyal-ty and, yes, to build good will that maytranslate into increased voluntary supportfor the School. As for the glamor, read ondear reader.

Chris and I left Madison on Sunday,May 10, Mother's Day, much to the cha-grin of our respective spouses and fami-lies. Upon arriving in Minneapolis wewere promptly ripped-off by the cab driv-er who graciously consented to take usfrom the airport to the hotel. We discov-ered that the hotel was not where wehoped it would be, i.e. near where wewould have to conduct business, andwould in fact require more cab rides withnow suspicious drivers. The next morning,on the way to my first appointment, Imade a rare use of a money machine toreplace the funds lost to the first cabbie.Two hours later, while pondering how topay for lunch, I discovered that I had leftmy credit card in the cash machine.

Meanwhile, after having the hoteldeliver materials to a meeting room whereI would have lunch with a number ofrecruiting administrators, I waited in vainfor their arrival until 12:10 pm. Uponchecking with the concierge I learned thatthere had been a last minute switch ofrooms and everyone had been informedbut me. Arriving ten minutes late I had avery cordial meeting but learned that themarket was indeed tight and while every-one was pleased to meet me, no, theywould not be interviewing on-campusthis fall.

I must admit that our alumni receptionin Minneapolis went well, although a fair-ly high number of alums with reservationsfailed to show up. Those who were therewere interested in the School and have

not been corrupted by life in the"big city."

After a few hours sleep we were upearly for our flight to Washington. The cabride to the hotel was uneventful, at leastuntil we discovered that we had beendelivered to the wrong hotel. Two blockslater we arrived at the right hotel only tolearn that our reservations clearly indicat-ed that we were one day early. Meetingswith employers in DC were again informa-tive but did not promise immediate relieffor students in school and seeking jobs.

Again, the reception in Washington,held in conjunction with the AmericanLaw Instititue meetings was a highlight.Almost 100 alums from around the coun-try gathered in a beautiful room in theMayflower Hotel. I really enjoy talkingwith people at these meetings, makingnew friends and finding old ones onceagain.

A quiet night ended early, however, asconstruction workers next door to myhotel room began working at 6:30 am.Working may not be the correct character-ization - one person appeared to be test-ing the new steel framework of the build-ing by hitting it repeatedly with a largehammer. A few more business meetingsfollowed before it was time to pack up forthe return to Madison. The return flightwas uneventful until weapproached Madison fromthe east. Having madenumerous takeoffs andlandings here, all from thenorth or south, it seemedunusual to glide in lowover the East Towne shop-ping center. It seemedeven more unusual to passlow over traffic on Hwy. 51and then touch down onthe short east-west runwaythat usually handles PiperCubs and helicopters, But,like they say, any landingyou walk away from ....

By 8:30 pm, Wednes- Mystery Picture

day, I returned home anxious to see mywife and children, only to find an emptyhouse. As it turned out, they were all atmy daughter's last violin concert, a mixedblessing for me. So ended another glam-orous business trip,

Still wondering who that LA Dodgerwas in the Winter 1991/92 mystery pic-ture? No, the recent weak job market hasnot pushed any recent graduates into pro-fessional baseball, but Stephen W. Porter('66), a baseball aficionado, did attend a"fantasy camp" and received this baseballcard as a memento, Steve was part of agroup who sought an expansion franchisefor Flordia but was not successful. Hisfriend and client, Calvin Andringa ('66),says that Steve has an "active mind [that] isseldom far from his love of baseball. Stevepractices in Washington, DC.

The mystery picture for Spring 1992was from the Coif induction in 1977. Fromleft to right it pictured: Nick Loniello, Kir-bie Knutson, Joanne Kinoy and Kim Grim-mer.

For this issue I have chosen a picturewithout clues. Obviously it was taken inthe Courtroom of the "new" building so itmust be post-1963. From the sideburns, itlooks like late 1960s or early 1970s. Whoare these people and what might theyhave been doing?

19

HOMECOMINGSATURDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1992

10:00 A.M. TO 11:30 A.M.ROOM 239, LAW SCHOOL

Many of our graduates have requested an informational session to help family members make wisechoices about pre-law studies, law school admissions, financing a legal education and

employment options with a law degree.

We will gather a group of Law School professors and professional staff to answer these and anyother questions on October 17. If you have a prospective law student in your family, we hope that

you and that student can join us.

Name of Alumnus/Alumna _

Street _

City, State & Zip _

Name of Prospective Student _

Street _

City, State & Zip _

Relationship of Prospect to Alumnus/ Alumna _

Anticipated Date of Matriculation in Law School _

__ IlWe will attend the Admissions Information Program

__ number attending

__ I cannot attend. Please send application/admission materials to Prospective Student

Please Return by October 10, 1992 to: UW Law School-WLAA975 Bascom MallMadison, WI 53706