Integration of the Bar, In re

• Decision Date: 22 December 1958
• Citation: 93 N.W.2d 601,5 Wis.2d 618
• Parties: In re INTEGRATION OF THE BAR.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Page 601

93 N.W.2d 601

5 Wis.2d 618

In re INTEGRATION OF THE BAR.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Dec. 22, 1958.

Robert D. Johns, La Crosse, Charles L. Goldberg, Milwaukee, for State Bar of Wisconsin.

Trayton L. Lathrop, Madison, Brooke Tibbs, Samuel P. Murray, Milwaukee, Jack McManus, Madison, Francis J. Demet, Milwaukee, for the Milwaukee Junior Bar Ass'n.

Ronald A. Padway, Milwaukee, pro se. Original proceeding for the continuation of the integrated Bar. This matter is before the court on its order of December 7, 1956 directing the Board of Governors of the State Bar of Wisconsin to report on the functioning of the State Bar with their recommendations with respect to any amendment of its Rules and By-laws in the light of experience thereunder and the continuation of the State Bar of Wisconsin under said Rules and By-laws, with or without amendment, on a more permanent basis beyond December 30, 1958. Upon the filing of the report of the Board of Governors due notice was given to all members of the State Bar of Wisconsin of a hearing thereon at which any member and any local Bar association could appear and present his or its views relating to the amendments of the Rules and By-laws and the continuation of the integrated State Bar.

The hearing was held on November 21, 1958. The report of the Board of Governors was presented and orally argued by Robert D. Johns and oral arguments or briefs in opposition to the continuance of the integrated Bar or for changes in the Rules and in the By-laws were made or filed by Trayton L. Lathrop, Arnold C. Otto, Milwaukee Junior Bar Association, Meyer Papermaster, Samuel P. Murray, Thomas P. Maroney, Brooks Tibbs, and others.

PER CURIAM.

The issue before this court is whether the integrated State Bar of Wisconsin should be continued and if so what amendments, if any, to the Rules and By-laws should be made. The integrated Bar in this state has existed for almost two years. Its birth in Wisconsin was an experiment which this court had considered on several previous occasions and finally decided ought to be tried for an initial period of two years.

The history of integration is adequately set forth in the previous decisions of this court. In re Integration of Bar Case, 1943, 244 Wis. 8, 11 N.W.2d 604, 12 N.W.2d 699, 151 A.L.R. 586; In re Integration of Bar, 1946, 249 Wis. 523, 25 N.W.2d 500; In re Integration of Bar, 1956, 273 Wis. 281, 77 N.W.2d 602. The present Rules and By-laws of the State Bar of Wisconsin were adopted and promulgated and the Bar integrated by order of this court on December 7, 1956, to be effective for two years commencing January 1, 1957, subject to amendment as provided in the Rules and By-laws or at any time by order of this court. See Integration of the Bar, 1956, 273 Wis. vii. (Order, Opinion, State Bar rules and State Bar By-laws.)

During these two years the Board of Governors made two minor changes in the By-laws--one clarifying the provisions relating to dues for younger members, and the other simplifying the election procedure. Both changes were reported to this court and no petition for review by the members of the State Bar was filed expressing objection to these amendments as provided in Rule 11, Sec. 2.

Under integration the State Bar has increased its services to the lawyers of this state, promoted the high standards of the members of the profession, and increased its contribution to public service and to the administration of law and justice. The State Bar is in a sound financial condition and its membership is greater in number than was reasonably expected. The acceptance of the integrated State Bar by its members and by the public during these two years has been satisfactory. At this point we wish to commend the Board of Governors for the adoption of the legislative procedure and working rules proposed by Alfred E. LaFrance' committee whereby the State Bar can fulfill its responsibility in legislative matters with fairness to all members and for the adoption of the resolution providing that any member may present any matter to the Board of Governors at any time. The objections and fears of the opponents to integration have not materialized. The arguments advanced for not continuing the integrated Bar are the same or similar to the arguments heretofore considered and disposed of by this court. None of them is grounded upon the experience of the last two years with the integrated Bar which has functioned well and successfully. Perhaps this was to be expected. At the time of the integration of the Bar there were 24 other states in which the Bar had been integrated and no supreme court, to our knowledge, which integrated the Bar of its state by rule of court has found the integrated Bar to be unworthy of its existence. As recently as 1955 the Alaska Bar Association was integrated by the Alaska Territorial Legislature. One of its contributions was the preparation of a proposed article on the judiciary for submission to the Constitutional Convention. Many of its proposals are now found in Article IV of the Constitution of Alaska. See A Model Judiciary for the 49th State, Stewart, Journal of the American Judicature Society, August 1958, Vol. 42, No. 2. Annotations on the problems of integration are found in 114 A.L.R. 161 and 151 A.L.R. 617.

We must reiterate, the primary duty of the courts as the judicial branch of our government is the proper and efficient administration of justice. Members of the legal profession by their admission to the Bar become an important part of that process and this relationship is characterized by the statement that members of the Bar are officers of the court. An independent, active and intelligent Bar is necessary to the efficient administration of justice by the courts. The labor of the courts is lightened, the competency of their personnel and the scholarship of their decisions are increased by the ability and the learning of the Bar. The practice of the law in the broad sense, both in and out of the courts, is such a necessary part of and is so inexorably connected with the exercise of the judicial power that this court should continue to exercise its supervisory control of the practice of the law.

The integration of the Bar is no more undemocratic than the requirement of learning and good moral character of all who seek the privilege of practicing law. All members had the same opportunity and have freely chosen a profession subject traditionally to discipline and control by the courts. It is not undemocratic to require those who are privileged to practice law and are entrusted with the duty to secure or protect the property, rights and liberties of others to become bound together in a united effort to increase their own capabilities, to maintain the high standards of the group and to increase the effectiveness of their service to the public. The integrated Bar has been defined as 'the process by which every member of the Bar is given an opportunity to do his share in carrying out the public service of the Bar and obliged to bear his portion of the responsibility.' Most objections have centered around the obligation to bear a portion of the responsibility. In the nature of things every privilege has a correlative obligation.

The integrated Bar does not destroy either the independence of the Bar or of the individual lawyers. The State Bar of Wisconsin was not intended to control and there is no evidence or intimation that it has controlled or attempted to control the thinking of any of its members. When the State Bar of Wisconsin through its Board of...