Having graduated from one of the top 50 law schools in the Nation (UW Law), I can state that yes, I did learn a lot of Wisconsin law, more so than my colleagues from California who went to non-accredited law schools and learned merely how to study for the California Bar exam, and more than my colleagues who graduated from Harvard Law and then returned to their home in Wisconsin to practice. It is a false choice to argue that we need to have a Bar Exam so that all compete on an equal playing field or that we encourage the "best and brightest" to practice law in Wisconsin. The best and brightest do practice here regardless of their law school affiliation and whether they took a test because being a lawyer is not a job which is acquired upon graduation from school. It is a profession and learning is required for the duration of a lawyer's career.
Comment By Alice
Tuesday, July 14, 2009 at 4:25 PM
|
Diploma privilege back to trial court
The Seventh Circuit on Thursday reversed the district court’s decision to dismiss a challenge to Wisconsin’s diploma privilege brought by an attorney who graduated from an out-of-state law school.
The court rejected the state’s argument that the study of law at a Wisconsin law school is a reasonable substitute for passing the bar exam.
Given the procedural history of the case -– dismissal on the pleadings -– the court found an “evidentiary vacuum” that prevented it from deciding whether that contention by the state is true.
If Wisconsin law is no greater part of the curriculum of Marquette and Wisconsin than at other national law schools, the court said the diploma privilege would create an arbitrary distinction that burdens interstate commerce.
Judge Richard Posner wrote for the court, “It is enough that an aspiring lawyer’s decision about where to study, and therefore about where to live as a student, can be influenced by the diploma privilege to bring this case within at least the outer bounds of the commerce clause; for the movement of persons across state lines, for whatever purpose, is a form of interstate commerce.”
Posner noted that, during oral arguments, the attorney for the state acknowledged that nothing in the record supported the contention that Wisconsin law occupies a larger place in the curriculum than in out-of-state schools.
“[S]o far as we can judge from the present record, the Wisconsin law schools include no more Wisconsin law in their curriculum than the law schools of Illinois do,” Posner wrote.
Accordingly, the court held the suit was dismissed prematurely, and remanded it for further proceedings, without expressing any view on the ultimate outcome.
Attorney Christopher Weismueller, who initially brought the suit, but substituted other plaintiffs after passing the bar, said he is pleased with the result.
“It’s a good decision. I think it’s right on,” Weismueller said.
However, Weismueller said he may be moving for reconsideration. While the court reversed the grant of the state’s motion to dismiss, it did not address the district court’s denial of his motion for summary judgment.
8 Comments on This Article
| 1 |  |
| 2 | |
I have long wanted this remnant of cronyism and protectionism to be cast aside and I applaud Mr. Wiesmueller for spearheading this suit. Wisconsin is the only state in the union that has a rule such as this - a finding that by itself should give great pause to its supporters.
I agree that passing the bar is an arbitrary measure of a lawyer's abilities and does not predict with any certainty their future competence, however at least it is a measure that can be quantified. By relying upon Wisconsin's two law schools (neither one of which is particularly well ranked - UW 35th and Marquette 87th) to provide Wisconsin with the best lawyers is certainly not going to happen anytime soon - regardless of any specific curriculum that they might offer on Wisconsin law. As a citizen of Wisconsin interested in having the best and brightest lawyers practice in this state, I say let them all compete against one common standard. And for lack of any current alternative, this should be the state bar. Comment By Jim Tuesday, July 14, 2009 at 11:52 AM |
| 3 | |
Whoever posted the fake Wiesmueller post with the Twisted Sister lyrics is just being cruel. The guy is already taking his lumps for filing this lawsuit. There is no point in piling on by making him sound ridiculous.
Comment By James Monday, July 13, 2009 at 7:46 PM |
| 4 | |
I see that Mr. W thinks he can act in any way he feels like and people should respond positively. Is saying he is a pariah unethical? Nope.
Mr. W is part of the new plague, attorneys who think they can act out in any way they want. They can and shall be treated accordingly. No ethical rule prohibits anyone from telling him to go take a hike. In the end, he's just a crybaby looking for attention. Comment By Jack Monday, July 13, 2009 at 10:46 AM |
| 5 | |
I read this article with interest. in the Milwaukee Jornal-Sentinel this morn; for a number of reasons:
I am an IN lawyer (1973) I am an OH lawyer (1973) I am a WI lawyer (1999) The Journal-Sentinel aritcle states WI will admint a person w/o exam if they have practiced in some state for 5 out of the last 7 years. That is not true! Even though I had practiced law in OH for over 25 yrs, WI would not admit me without first taking/passing its bar exam. Why? Because OH will not admit WI lawyers without first taking/passing the OH bar exam. WHAT A CROC! I can see little merit to the argument that a person who graduates from law school and passes a bar exam, (as I did in both IN & OH) is less qualified to practice law than a person who merely gets a WI law degree. This is politics, plain and simple. This scheme allows for the creation of an agency and patronage jobs that are not otherwise needed; The WI BBE. Why is a Board of B ar Examiners needed when WI law grads do not have to take a bar exam? Comment By Dave Yaros Monday, July 13, 2009 at 10:40 AM |
| 6 | |
Sigh. The current situation is asinine for many reasons-- it's unclear how much "Wisconsin law" is taught at UW and Marquette; if there is a difference, why not offer a one or two month "Wisconsin law" class to graduates of other law schools, rather than the expense and hassle of a bar exam; if it's just about knowing "Wisconsin law" there would be no reason for the Wisconsin bar exam to include the MBE; the difference in bar application costs is ridiculous and discriminatory on its face; many taking the bar exam got into Wisconsin and Marquette but chose to go to other schools (for reasons ranging from prestige to avoiding debt), etc. Really, we all know this is blatant homerism, only now it's used as a means to justify the "brain drain" fair tale that worrywarts keep tossing about.
But if you read the opinion, Posner and Wood would essentially be okay with it if there were some evidence that the coursework at MU and Wisconsin is different. They'll have an evidentiary hearing or submit affidavits from professors and deans on the curriculum, Judge Crabb will rule that there's enough of a difference in what is taught at the Wisconsin schools, and that will end the lawsuit. Sadly. Because if this is the fiction they're going with, they should, at the very least, drop the MBE requirement. It's just hugely hypocritical. Comment By Mowry Friday, July 10, 2009 at 3:46 PM |
| 7 | |
Jack, perhaps you could have benefited from the ethics portion of the bar exam. Did you even take a bar exam?
As for being long remembered, I hope so. What have you done lately that will be long remembered? As to the bar exam, in particular the MBE, I'll say this on behalf of the 200+ who pass through the plaintiff class every year: "We're not gonna take it. No, we ain't gonna take. We're not gonna take it anymore...There is no way we're losing...We're right. We're free. We'll fight. You'll see." Comment By Christopher Wiesmueller Friday, July 10, 2009 at 11:09 AM |
| 8 | |
Here is a question, which of the three judges who write this opinion could pass the multi-state bar exam? Answer, none. Posner's statement on what kind of law is taught in Wisconsin law school compared to those in Illinois is asinine and based on nothing more that his hatred of Wisconsin.
As for Weismuller, just like Judge John Siefert, he is a jerk for bringing this lawsuit. what he is doing will long be remembered by the legal community. Comment By Jack Friday, July 10, 2009 at 8:18 AM |
 |
Commenters, let's maintain a civil discussion here. Please observe the following guidelines: |
 |
- Do not use profanity or euphemisms for profanity.
- Do not personally attack or bait other commenters.
- Express your own views; don't just argue for argument's sake.
- Sarcasm doesn't work on the Web. Either avoid it or clearly label it so you aren't misinterpreted.
- Don't make the same point repetitively.
- No spam. Link to a commercial site only if it's relevant to the discussion.
- Putting your name on your comments increases their value and credibility. However, if you must conceal your identity, please choose one pseudonym and stick to it. No "sock puppets".
