Integration of the Bar, In re

• Decision Date: 22 June 1956
• Citation: 77 N.W.2d 602,273 Wis. 281
• Parties: In the Matter of the INTEGRATION OF THE BAR
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Page 602

77 N.W.2d 602

273 Wis. 281

In the Matter of the INTEGRATION OF THE BAR

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

June 22, 1956.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 11, 1956.

Alfred E. La France, Racine, Glenn R. Douglas, Spooner, Jacob F. Federer, Sheboygan, C.E. Fugina, Arcadia, George S. Geffs, Janesville, Aldred L. Godfrey, Elkhorn, Ray B.Graves, Quincy H. Hale, LaCrosse, E. Harold Hallows, Milwaukee, Lawrence E. Hart, Madison, Leo C. Hartman, Juneau, Gerald P. Hayes, Milwaukee, Carroll R. Heft, Racine, Robert D. Johns, La Crosse, Robert J. Joling, Kenosha, Warren P. Knowles, New Richmond, A.W. Kopp, Platteville, William F. Krueger, Wausau, John A. Lawton, Madison, Harold F. Lichtsinn, Milwaukee, John P. McGalloway, Fond du Lac, Otto A. Oestreich, Janesville, Theron P. Pray, Ashland, Bailey E. Ramsdell, Eau Claire, Robert M. Rieser, Madison, Carl B. Rix, Milwaukee, Harlan B. Rogers, Portage, Edmund B. Shea, Milwaukee, John S. Sprowls, Superior, Herbert L. Terwilliger, Wausau, Oscar T. Toebaas, Madison, T.L. Tolan, Jr., Milwaukee, Frederick N. Trowbridge, Green Bay, and Francis J. Wilcox, for State Bar Ass'n, for integration.

William B. Rubin, J.G. Hardgrove, Milwaukee, William H. Spohn, Madison, James D. Porter, James N. Johnson, Norman H. Quale, Donald E. Porter, Milwaukee, James F. Cleary, Irving W. Zirbel, Raymond T. Zillmer, Milwaukee, Henry C. Oakey, Osceola, David S. August, Milwaukee, Ronald F. North, Chippewa Falls, Orville W. Fehlhaber, Wausau, Milwaukee Junior Bar Ass'n, Rusk County Bar Ass'n, and Dougherty, Ryan & Campbell, Janesville, in opposition.

On oral argument May 18, 1956:

Alfred E. La France, Racine, Francis J. Wilcox, Eau Claire, T.L. Tolan, Jr., Carl B. Rix and Harold F. Lichtsinn, Milwaukee, for integration.

William B. Rubin, Milwaukee, William H. Spohn, Madison, David S. August, David E. Beckwith, Milwaukee, Noreen G. Bengston, William J.P. Aberg, Madison, Glen R. Campbell, Janesville, Christ Alexopoulos, James N. Johnson, Milwaukee, and T.L. Lathrop, Madison, in opposition.

PER CURIAM.

This is the third time that this matter has received the attention of this court. See Integration of Bar Case, 244 Wis. 8, 11 N.W.2d 604, 12 N.W.2d 699, 151 A.L.R. 586, and In re Integration of Bar, 249 Wis. 523, 25 N.W.2d 500. In those decisions legal and constitutional questions involving the enactment of ch. 315, Laws of 1943, now section 256.31, Stats., were considered and answered. It was held that said statutory provision is not binding upon the court but was an expression of public policy by the legislature. It was held that this court, by reason of its inherent powers, may require the bar to act as a unit to promote high standards of practice and the economical and speedy enforcement of legal rights.

In the first decision it was held that the bar should not be integrated while so many attorneys were engaged in the war effort. In the second decision it was intimated that the objectives sought to be obtained by integration could be attained by an adequately supported voluntary association, and the court advocated complete and whole-hearted support of the voluntary association by the individual members of the bar. Many individual members of the bar did respond to that suggestion, but it is now reported that too many lawyers have refrained or refused to join, that membership in the voluntary association has become static, and that a substantial minority of the lawyers in the state are not associated with the State Bar Association.

Able attorneys presented arguments both for and against the granting of the petition. Apparently the same arguments have been made in other states. In re Integration of Nebraska State Bar Ass'n, 133 Neb. 283, 275 N.W. 265, 114 A.L.R. 151; Integration of Bar Case, 244 Wis. 8, 11 N.W.2d 604, 12 N.W.2d 699, 151 A.L.R. 586, and Petition of Florida State Bar Association, Fla., 40 So.2d 902. It is unnecessary to repeat the arguments here.

Twenty-four states now have integrated bars. Some have been integrated in response to legislation such as we have in this state and some under the inherent power of the high courts of the various states.

Two incidents have occurred during the proceedings here that are of importance. When the petition was presented to us the question of giving notice to as many lawyers as possible arose....