Return address:

~he (}ar~o'Jlelaw SchoolUniversity of WisconsinMadison, Wisconsin 53706

Second Class Postage Paid atWaterloo, Wis. 53594

KIMBALL RESIGNSfROM lAW SCHOOL

Last November, Dean Spencer L.Kimball announced his resignationas Dean, and his intention to re-main on the Faculty, in teachingand research.Now this too has changed. In a

letter to Faculty, staff and friendson May 1, Dean Kimball an-nounced his appointment as Exec-utive Director of the American BarFoundation, with a joint appoint-ment as a member of the Universityof Chicago Law School Faculty. Heassumes his new post on September1, 1972.The American Bar Foundation is

the research arm of the AmericanBar Association, and Dean Kimball,in addition to directing the researchof other legal scholars, will be able tocontinue his own research. He willteach only a limited amount.Dean Kimball joined the Faculty

as Dean in September, 1968. His un-dergraduate degree was earned atthe University of Arizona in 1940.After Navy service in World WarII, he became a Rhodes Scholar,earning a BCL at Oxford in 1949.He served as a Professor and Deanat the University of Utah and from1957-68 as Professor at the Mich-igan Law School. He earned anSJD degree at Wisconsin in 1958,after working in a research programin American legal history, sponsoredby the Rockefeller Foundation anddirected by Willard Hurst.During the four years of his ten-

ure, Dean Kimball has struggled-so far successfully-to maintain andimprove the quality of the LawSchool in the face of enrollmentpressures, which have resulted in a50% increase in the size of theLaw School, without a correspond-ing budgetary increase. Under hisimpetus, alumni have been increas-ingly involved in the affairs of theLaw School. The Alumni Associ-ation's Law School Fund, now firm-ly established, stands out as a majoraccomplishment.He will continue his work on the

legislative revision of the Wiscon-sin Insurance statutes. He is a wide-ly published author in the insurancefield.

II

Glen Campbell

GLEN CAMPBEll NEWPRESIDENT, WLAA

BOARD OF DIRECTORSADOPTS BUDGET

FOR '72 - '73Glen Campbell, class of 1951,

Janesville, was elected President ofthe Wisconsin Law Alumni Asso-ciation at the Board of Directorsmeeting held on April 22, the dayof the Spring Program. He succeedsPatrick Cotter, Class of 1940, Mil-waukee.

The Annual Meeting of the Asso-ciation, attended by approximately120 members, elected as members ofthe Board of Directors, John Shan-non, class of 1954, Stevens Point;John C. Mitby, '71, Green Bay; andCampbell, all for three year terms.Under a change in the Articles, thefollowing were added to the Board:Joseph Melli, class of 1950, Mad-ison, for 3 years; Robert H. Gee,class of 1949, Superior, for 2 years;Thomas E. Anderson, class of 1962,Waukesha, for 1 year.

The Board at its afternoon meet-ing approved a budget for the LawSchool Fund which included a$24,000 allocation to the Legal Ed-ucation Opportunities Program and$17,000 for the regular Law SchoolScholarships program. Both alloca-tions are in addition to earmarkedand endowment funds.

INSTITUTE ONENVIRONMENTAL

LITIGATIONIn connection with the publication

of the book of Professors James B.MacDonald and John Conway onEnvironmental Litigation (ExtensionLaw Department) pub.) an Instituteon Environmental Litigation washeld in Madison on Friday and Sat-urday, May 12 and 13. Participatingon the panels were lawyers andjudges with experience in actionsagainst non-government defendantsas well as against federal and stateagencies. Attending the institute wasa group of 65 lawyers, from all overWisconsin.

The book is designed to answerthe questions of lawyers engaged inthe preparation of environmentalcases. It discusses the traditionalrights of riparians, property owners,injured persons, and the basic rightto the maintenance or reestablish-ment of a liveable environment.

TABLE Of CONTENTSKimball Resigns from law School 2Glen Campbell New President,

WlAA 2

Report to the Alumni 3

Spring Program-SurvivingTradition 4

Bunn Honored 7

Moot Court Final Arguments 10Awards Convocation 11

What are Students Up toThese Days? 11

Alumni Staff the ClinicalProgram 15

THE GARGOYLEBulletin of the University of Wisconsinlaw School, published quarterly.Vol. 3, No.4 Summer, 1972

Ruth B. Doyle, editorPhotos by David Ullrich

Publication office, 213 W. Madison St.,Waterloo, Wis. Second class postage paidat Madison, Wis. and Waterloo, Wis.Postmaster's Note: Please send form 3579to "Gargoyle", University of WisconsinLaw School, Madison, Wisconsin.Subscription Price: 50¢ per year for mem-bers, $1.00 per year for non-members.

THE GARGOYLE

REPORT TO THE ALUMNIfROM THE DEAN

This is the fourth time that Ihave reported to you, and is prob-ably the last time I shall do so asdean. I expect my successor to givehis first report to you next year atthis time.

It would be appropriate for meto report on my achievements dur-ing the past four years, and I woulddo so, if it were sufficiently clearwhat they were. However, it is in-herent in the nature of deaning, atleast in an established and pres-tigious law school of substantial size,that tangible accomplishments ofthe dean alone are few and difficultto describe. His intangible contribu-tions to the development of theschool are better judged by others.

One development I do wish tomention briefly, for I take muchsatisfaction from it. Building on thesound foundation laid by GeorgeYoung, I have made considerableeffort to increase the interest andinvolvement of the alumni of theschool in its activities. This spring,for the third time, we have had avisitors program in which membersof our Alumni Boards of Visitorsand Directors have spent a day anda half looking at the school andevaluating some aspects of its pro-grams. The evaluations can be ex-tremely helpful and we anticipatetrying to increase their utility tous in the school as time goes on. Inaddition, I have spent a good dealof time, as have some of my col-leagues, in trying to put the regularsolicitation of our alumni for finan-cial support of the law school pro-gram on a sound footing. We espe-cially need backing for those activ-ities in which any law school ofstature must engage but which can-not be, or at least are usually not,funded by appropriations from thestate or grants from the federal gov-ernment or large foundations. You

THE GARGOYLE

have been generous in the first threeyears of our annual fund drives,both in contributing money and inhelping with your efforts. The drivewill be continued and the financialsupport of the alumni should in-crease year by year indefinitely intothe future. A recent Gargoyle re-ported on the success of our thirdannual drive. It is the extras yourgenerous financial assistance canprovide that can often make thedifference between a good schooland a great one.

In some respects the most note-worthy, and in any case the mosttraumatic, event of this last yearwas the periodic reinspection of theschool by a team representing theAssociation of American LawSchools and the American Bar As-sociation's Section on Legal Educa-tion. The last previous inspectionwas back in 1959. The team was anable one, consisting of Dean Wil-liam B. Lockhart of Minnesota asChairman, Professor Leon Liddel,Librarian of the University of Chi-cago Law School, Judge George N.Leighton of Chicago, and ProfessorRita Simon of the University of Illi-nois.

The team first studied a volumi-nous body of written material aboutthe school, consisting of answers toa lengthy questionnaire, with enor-mous quantities of supporting doc-umentation, and then spent threedays visiting us. Toward the end oftheir stay, Dean Lockhart and I,joined in one case by Professor Lid-del, spent several hours in two dif-ferent interviews with the universityadministrators with whom I deal asdean. Many serious criticisms werethere expressed of the school, in un-equivocal terms. But there wasmuch praise, too. With minor ex-ceptions, the criticism was not di-rected to failure to meet minimalstandards, but rather to our failureto fulfill in full measure the promiseof greatness there is in this place.None of the problems unearthed bythe committee were unfamiliar tous. Indeed, many of them wereelaborated in my report to you last

year, which was supplied to theteam as one of the exhibits in myreport to them. After the visit, anextensive written report was madeto the American Bar Associationand the Association of AmericanLaw Schools, which in turn sub-mitted it to. the President of theUniversity and the Dean of the LawSchool. The report is not a publicdocument for general distributionbut is for the private use of the in-stitution. It is not confidential inany strict sense, however, and it isappropriate for me to communicatesuch parts of it to you as seem par-ticularly valuable to our alumni. Ipropose to tell you today what theteam reported about your school,in part quoting their exact lan-guage.

When I say the report was crit-ical it may sound as if we have amarginal operation. Of course, thatis not the case. The team stated,early in its report, that:

The Law School has had a dis-tinguished history .... Under theleadership of Lloyd Garrison,1932-42, it became and has sinceremained one of the country'sstrongest law schools, distin-guished particularly for its earlyleadership and can tin u e dresearch and teaching, concernedwith the interaction of law withsociety. Strong, pioneering schol-ars and teachers led the school toits position of distinction despitethe antiquated building in whichit was housed ...

The team had an equally compli-mentary evaluation of the institu-tion of which we are a part:

The University of Wisconsin is. . one of the truly distinguished

state universities in the country.

Such recognition of the statureof this law school and this univer-sity was a prelude to criticism inthe form of a statement of the prob-lems the school faces, and the inad-equacy of the support it receives,to which I now move.

continued on page 13

III

SPRING PROGRAMSURVIVING TRADITION

ARGUMENTS

REUNIONS

AWARDS

DINNER DANCE

April 22, 1972, was the day of theLaw School's 29th Spring Program.Annually since 1943, alumni, stu-dents and friends of the Law Schoolhave gathered for one day in thespring.

The format is traditional. Eachyear it has included final argumentsof the intramural Moot Court com-petition, judged by Supreme Courtjustices, the awards of scholastichonors to students, a reunion lun-cheon for alumni, the annual meet-ing of the Wisconsin Law AlumniAssociation, a meeting of theWLAA Board of Directors, and thegala spring dinner dance for alumniand students.

Each year) at the Alumni reunionluncheon) the Wisconsin LawAlumni Association presents awardsto a distinguished Faculty memberand a distinguished Alumnus of theLaw School. The 19i2 recipients ofthese awards are Prof. Nathan P.Feinsinger, a member of the Facultyfor more than 40 years) and thelate Judge Arthur W. Kopp) a.member of the Class of 1900.

The presentation to Professor Fein-singer was made by Professor WillardHurst. That to Judge Kopp, iohich.was accepted by his son Roy W.Kop p, President of the newlymerged Board of Regents) wasmade by his long-time associate) M,A. MacKichan) Platteville.

Professor Hurst's remarks) andProfessor Feinsinger's response:

The faculty member whom wehonor today, Professor Nathan P.Feinsinger, has a distinguished ca-reer recorded in Who)s Who. Hisactivities have been varied beyondeven that record, however. By hisown account he is the first man tograduate from the University ofMichigan with Phi Beta Kapparank, earned in a major in old Ro-man band instruments. He has beena member of the sheriff's posse ofAspen, Colorado. July 16 is by

proclamation set aside in the Islandof Hawaii as Nathan P. FeinsingerDay, when the pineapple juice flowsfreely.

An institution like the Universityof Wisconsin Law School builds onpersonal loyalties. Following hisgraduation from the law school ofthe University of Michigan, NateFeinsinger spent a year of graduatelaw study at Columbia. Then, in1929, he came to this faculty, wherehe has been since-a full professorafter 1935-though he has taughtas a visitor at Chicago, Michigan,and Stanford. Over those years hehas given as generously of himselfas anyone I can remember in thelaw school, with a door always opento students and to colleagues seek-ing counsel as well as learning.

The law school needs to bring toits students many things, not theleast some sense of the responsibilityof handling power and the practicalsubtleties that enter into makinghuman relations work. Samuel Wil-liston praises a distinguished Bostonlawyer as a man "who caused thingsto come about." Nate Feinsinger hasbeen a man who knew how to causethings to come about.

Mr. Feinsinger and Mr. Hurst

IV

Here the law school record be-comes woven into a public record.From 1937-1939 on appointment ofthe governor of Wisconsin he wasSpecial Counsel-in effect, Gener-al Counsel-of Wisconsin's first La-bor Relations Board. It was a pi-oneering service, both in the laborrelations field itself-then justemerging-and in difficult prob-lems of federal-state relations in this

'new area of public regulation.

He had his full baptism of fire onthe national labor relations scene inWorld War II, when from 1942 to1945 he served the National WarLabor Board, first as Associate Gen-eral Counsel, and then as Directorof National Labor Disputes and asa public member. He returned toWashington in another wan crisis,when in the adjustments to theKorean War he was from 1951 to1952 Chairman of the Wage Stabil-ization Board.

THE GARGOYLE

His key roles, however, were inthe longer, more sustained problemsof peacetime labor relations. Heserved as special representative ofthe Secretary of Labor in labor dis-putes from 1946 to 1949. He waschairman of public fact findingboards in steel, meat packing, andairline labor disputes in 1946 and1948-hot spots, all of them. Hismost continuous service to the laborrelations field was as contract um-pire under the General Motors-United Automobile Workers con-tract from 1954 to 1968-a mostunusually long record comparedwith the customary tenure of con-tract umpires. In that period hebuilt such a workable body of prec-edent that the annual docket ofgrievances filed before him fell fromone of several hundred cases at theoutset to an average of about 12pel' year.

Back at the law school it was ap-propriate to this record of experi-ence that he should set up and di-rect a Center for Teaching and Re-search in Disputes Settlement. TheCenter's concept is that lessonslearned in the specific area of laborrelations should be capable of sometransference to other problem fields.

There are two things to be said,over-all, about this record of min-gled law school and public service.One is institutional: few men havedone more to bring into being a newfield of legal order than has NateFeinsinger in the area of labor re-lations. In the past 40 years the de-velopment of labor relations lawand practice has provided a mod-em analogy to the rise of Equity.Nate Feinsinger has an honorableplace in that record, comparable tothe law-making record of the cre-ative English Chancellors. The an-alogy holds the more, because-aswith the development of Equity-there were major questions of theseparation of powers to be resolvedin the interplay of law and collec-tive bargaining-problems of theproper balance between govern-ment intervention and private deal-ing, problems of the proper balancewithin the firm between manage-ment prerogative and union claims.

THE GARGOYLE

The other general comment onthe record is personal. Nate Fein-singer, one qualified to speak hastold me, kept the peace almost sin-gle-handed in the contentioustrucking industry during WorldWar II, with all that that outcomemeant to the war effort and thecountry's economy. He kept thepeace there, and thereafter incountless other situations, basicallybecause of the man he is. He is amaster judge of human nature, withextraordinary antennae to pick upother people's reactions. He hashigh capacity to grasp general goalsalways with a hardheaded sense ofthe particular facts of the situationat hand; his operations have al-ways shown the insight of Holmes'sappreciation that "general proposi-tions do not decide concrete cases."Perhaps above all he has been abletime and again to exorcise fearamong parties to disputes-bringingcontestants to a sensible workingknowledge of each other, out oftheir confidence in his combinationof humor, acuteness, and integrity.

To keep the peace with principleand commonsense is a top accom-plishment for men of law. As fel-lows in that profession we can alltake the more pride in the compa-ny of Nate Feinsinger.

Professor Feinsinger's response:

I could have listened to Willardspeak all day.

First of all, I am happy to notethat the Alumni have changed theirpast practice and are now bestow-ing the Distinguished Alumni-Fac-ulty Award on professors midwayinstead of at the end of their ca-reers.

I can think of many personsmore deserving of this award than Iam. The list would include, for ex-ample, Dick Campbell, for his pi-oneering work in the field of auto-mobile accidents; Bill Foster, who

bore the brunt of the attack on theLaw Faculty during the recent un-pleasantness on the campus; theFaculty as a whole for its readinessto consider the students' grievancesbut insisting that any reforms beconsidered in an atmosphere of rea-soned persuasion rather than force;Mrs. Nellie Davidson and her staff,who really run the Law School butgraciously permit the Faculty to be-lieve they work for us; and last, butnot least, to Dean Kimball for hissuccessful efforts to cement LawSchool relations with the bench andbar and for his good sense in quit-ting while he was ahead.

With full recognition of theseand other priorities, I am mostgrateful for this award. Thankyou.

M. A. McKichan's remarks inhonor of Judge Kopp follow:

I am pleased and happy to havethe honor of announcing, on behalfof the U.W. Law School, that Ar-thur W. Kopp, deceased, formerlyof Platteville, Wisconsin, has beenawarded the 1972 University ofWisconsin Law School Distin-guished Alumnus Award by thecombined vote of the Law SchoolBoard of Visitors and the LawSchool Board of Directors with thecooperation of the Benchers Society.

This ceremony is particularlymeaningful to me as Judge Koppwas like a second father to me andI was associated in the practice oflaw with him, or in the Circuit inwhich he was a Judge, from 1935until his death.

Judge Kopp was born at BigPatch, Wisconsin, on February 28,1875. He died at Platteville, Wis-consin, at the age of 92, on June 2,1967.

He was married to Emily K. Hut-ton in 1902-she died in 1955 whileshe and Judge Kopp were on anocean liner bound for the MiddleEast.

His immediate family, who sur-

M. A. McKichan, Miss Emily Kopp, Roy Kopp

Judge Kopp

vrve him, are his son, and my lawpartner since 1935, W. Roy Kopp,Platteville, Wisconsin, Marion, whomarried Earle Greenwood and livesat Houston, Texas, and Miss EmilyKopp, Platteville, Wisconsin. Mar-ion could not be here today, but Iam most happy that Emily is here.

Judge Kopp is honored today be-cause of his outstanding contribu-tions to the profession of law and tothe Law School as a practitioner,

as a judge, in government service,and in his continuing interest in theLaw School and its students, staff,and welfare.

Without elaboration, some high-lights of his long law career-1900-1967-should be mentioned.

All of the time he was going toschool prior to entering the LawSchool, he has told me, he had theever present dream of becoming alawyer and going to the Universityof Wisconsin to get his degree.

He was a school teacher aftergraduating from the PlattevilleNormal School in 1895; he wasprincipal of schools in Muscoda forthree years and then entered theLaw School. He graduated from theLaw School in 1900. At that time,all professors except two or three,including the Dean, were prom-inent attorneys in Madison; his fa-vorite teachers included Burr VV.Jones, John M. Olin, and RobertM. Bashford. Judge Kopp regardedJohn M. Olin as one of the greatesttrial lawyers that ever lived in Wis-consin. In connection with hisschool activities, he was very proudof his election to the Order of Coif.

He was Grant County DistrictAttorney for two terms-1905 to1909. Under the caucus system, inhis first contest for District At-torney, his opponent was John J.Blaine, later to become Governorand United States Senator.

From 1909 to 1913 he was amember of the U.S. House of Rep-resentatives, representing the ThirdDistrict in the 61st Congress. Thiswas during the administration ofWilliam Howard Taft. He declinedto run for re-election.

He served in his second term inthe then important Committee onNaval Affairs, and he had many in-teresting trips as a result-includingriding the first passenger train to goto Key West, Florida.

During his practice he enjoyedmembership in and was active inthe affairs of the American, Wis-consin and Grant County Bar Asso-ciations. He served as President ofthe Wisconsin Bar Association in1929-1930.

He earned a reputation as oneof the nation's leading authoritieson gas fumes in lead and zinc min-ing, and for a period of some 20years he enjoyed a career of tryingthis type of case from coast to coast.

At the time of Judge Kopp's re-tirement from active practice, andwhen he became a judge, he wasknown as one of the leading triallawyers in Wisconsin, and repre-sented as local counsel many insur-ance companies.

He was a member and chairmanor presiding officer for many yearsof the Committee of the SupremeCourt and State Bar Association onRules of Practice and Procedure,which work continued when thiscommittee was replaced by the Ju-dicial Council. His contributions tothese agencies were valuable in pro-moting the administration of justicein Wisconsin.

VI THE GARGOYLE

BUNN HONOREDDINNER DANCE

He was elected Judge of the FifthJudicial Circuit of Wisconsin in1942. He remained on the bench for12 years, until his retirement in1955.

It was said, in connection withhis retirement, that for 12 years Jus-tice in the Fifth Circuit wore silverrimmed glasses, bow ties, and a be-nign expression. The last commentcould not be made, however, with-out recognizing that Judge Kopp'sgrandfather came here from Prus-sia, and the drill master techniquewas present in his court. He ran avery tight ship, and insisted thatproceedings continue without anyform of delay.

After he stepped down from thebench, he continued to help asneeded and handled several assign-ments as a substitute judge.

As a jurist, his decisions andcourt conduct earned him attentionas one of the state's top circuitjudges.

He continued to practice in as-sociation with our firm from his re-tirement from the bench until hisdeath. He came to the office everyday.

The Spring Dinner Dance, in ad-dition to providing the main socialevent on the Law School calendar,affords law students an opportunityto present their own citations forservices to the student body, andtheir Teacher of the Year award.This year the Teacher of the Yearwas chosen by a poll of the entirestudent body.

Honored by the Student BarCouncil for their services to thestudent body were: Earl Schmidt,Ray Thoenig, Dan Blalock, HoraceHarris, J ean Chafet and BruceKerr.

Professor George Bunn was chos-en Teacher of the Year. PresidentStephen Brown made the presenta-tion with the following remarks:

The man honored tonight hasearned the respect and appreciationof his students for his use of stimu-lating and innovative teachingmethods. He has utilized the prac-tical problem-solving method in histeaching in areas of rapidly chang-ing law. Despite the ever increasing

size of classes he continues to usethe problem-solving method anddevotes an extraordinary amount oftime to class preparation and stu-dent evaluation. He is always avail-able to students and communicateshis ideas effectively to them.

Having received his law degree atColumbia he worked briefly for theAtomic Energy Commission beforebecoming an associate with theWashington law firm of Arnold,Fortas and Porter. He became apartner with the firm and after 10years was appointed General Coun-sel of the V.S. Arms Control & Dis-armament Agency. During thattime he served in the V.S.delegation to the Geneva Disarm-ament Congress, with the rank ofAmbassador.

He came to Wisconsin in 19n9and has been professor of law since1970.

It is with deep appreciation andgratitude that we the students pre-sent this award to Professor GeorgeBunn.

Judge Kopp's life contained abrimming measure of personalachievement; and for all of his ac-tive life, he was a most gracious,fun-loving man, who was respectedand loved by all who knew him.

To memorialize Judge Kopp's se-lection, there will be a bronzeplaque at the Law School, bearinghis name and a brief summary ofhis relations with the school and hisprofessional achievements. A bio-graphical statement will also bepublished in the Law Review, andfiled in the School Library.

I am therefore most pleased topresent at this time to W. RoyKopp a certificate of this awardhereby made to Judge Kopp andhis family.

THE GARGOYLE

Mr. lunn

VII

Members of the Class of 1932

DINNER

VIII THE GARGOYLE

Members of the Class of 1941

A CE

THE GARGOYLE IX

MOOT COURTFINAL ARGUMENTS

Each year a constitutional ques-tion currently on appeal in theUnited States Supreme Court pro-vides the subject of the final MootCourt arguments, which are a tra-ditional part of the Spring Pro-gram. Participants are the sixchampions chosen from the Appel-late Advocacy course taught by Pro-fessor Samuel Mermin.

This year the case dealt with ob-scenity in a drive-in movie. Thequestions were: 1) When the screenis visible from the highway, shouldthe constitutional standards for de-termining 'obscenity' be more strict-ly applied? 2) For the seizure of anallegedly obscene film, is the ordi-nary ex parte search warrant pro-cedure permissible, or does the Con-stitution require an adversary hear-ing prior to seizure?

The Petitioners' case was arguedby Raymond Thoenig, RobertHeidt and David Lasker. Respon-dents were represented by CharlesHanson, Bruce Meredith and DavidHancock.

The Court, which was composedof Justices Horace Wilkie and Con-nor Hansen and Federal DistrictJudge James Doyle, held for theRespondents.

The two teams, winners of the in-tramural competition, shared theprize which is contributed annuallyby the Milwaukee Bar Foundation.Charles Hanson was awarded theMathys Memorial prize for the bestsingle argument.

Raymond Thoenig, Robert Heidt, David Lasker

Bruce Meredith, Charles Hanson, David Hancock

Awards Recepti@n

THE GARGOYLE

AWARDS CONVOCATIONThe Convocation at which awards for student achievement were made washeld on April 22 at 4: 30 p.m., and followed by a reception, at which the LawStudents' Wives were hostesses, for the recipients, their families and friends.

Following are the awards presented:

WHAT ARE STUDENTSUP TO THESE DAYS?

A letter to the Alumni from SteveBrown, President, Student BarAssociation

Dear alumni and friends,

This blurb is an attempt at bridg-ing that elusive, professional "gen-eration gap." Impetuous youthshould have constant communica-tion with those who have traveledthe proverbial paths before them."He that walketh with wise menshall be wise." (Proverbs 13:20)

In the past, student-alumni rela-tions have been slighted. New doorsof communication must be opened.To this end, I will try to explainwhat law school student govern-ment is today, the problems stu-dents face while in school, and thecontinued importance of alumni con-tact and concern for what happensin our school.

Changes have been made in thestructure of student government.The SBA Council is now composedof a popularly elected President,two vice-presidents (Academic andCommunity), and seven represen-tatives from each law school class.

Today student government is onthe march. The lethargy of recentyears has been replaced by an ac-tive participation in law school af-fairs. The SBA is fully involved inthe selection of our next Dean. Stu-dents are participating in the hiringprocess for new faculty members.We share seats with faculty on mostlaw school committees. In addition,various student groups are newlyformed, among them being theBlack American Law Student As-sociation and the Women Law Stu-dent's Association.

The SBA is financed by revenuesflowing from our student operatedand nationally recognized Book-Mart. (We get many inquiries fromother law schools concerning ourBook-Mart set-up, policies and ac-counting procedures.) SBA's yearlyoperational budget varies from$10,000 to $12,000. For the pastyear, as of March 1st, we had atotal net worth of $27,000 (with

1. Richard Pitzner2. Kenneth Millard3. Dennis Wojahn

.._ _ Bruce Loring

Runner-up TeamRaymond H. ThoenigRobert H. HeidtDavid E. Lasker

1st Prize TeamCharles E. HansonBruce F. MeredithDavid G. Hancock

George J. Laikin Award . _ James A. FeddersenFor outstanding Comment in the Law Review John M. Schweitzerin special fields: Stock Compensation Plans

Wisconsin Trustees Association PrizesEstate Planning Contest _ .

Wisconsin Title AssociationJacob Beuscher Award

Wisconsin Law Alumni Association PrizesFirst ranking student after 45 credits __.. _ _ Delores BierSecond ranking student after 45 credits . .. _ Daniel Goelzer

u.s. Law Week Award .. Richard BeaIFor the most satisfactory progress during 3rd year.

University of Wisconsin Foundation Award . _.. William MannTo student most improved from first to third semester.

Mathys Memorial Award for Appellate Advocacy Charles E. HansonMilwaukee Bar Foundation Moot Court Prizes

International Academy of Trial Lawyers Award Gregory A. PetersonFor excellence in trial and appellate advocacy

West Publishing Co. Book Award Richard PrimuthFor scholarly contribution to the Law School

William Herbert Page Award .. .Jay L. HimesFor outstanding contribution to the Law ReviewFor Comment: Of Shadow and Substance: Freedom of

Speech, Expression and Action

Joseph Davies Prize. . _ Delores BierTo outstanding member of the second year class

Daniel Grady Prize. . - - - -Jay L. HimesTo the graduating student with highest standing

Salmon DaIberg Prize _ _ .]ay L. HimesTo outstanding members of the graduating class Jean G. Zorn

Presentation of the Order of Coif, 1972 ...By Prof. John C. Stedman

Steven R. Allen Robert II. Heidt John F. McLeanRichard C. Ehlke Jay L. Himes Martin M. MilgrimJames A. Feddersen Thomas S. Hornig Richard W. PitznerAlan H. Frank Robert P. Hurth, Jr. Richard A. PrirnuthGeorge E. Garvey Eric E. Jakel John M. SchweitzerLucy C. Gleasman John E. Knight Ralph S. SwobodaAnn G. Greenberg Diane E. Loeb Thomas R. WildmanJudith L. Greenberg James F. Lorimer David H. Wilson, Jr.Paul D. Grossman Jean G. Zorn

THE GARGOYLE XI

gross income exceeding $110,000).Who says these "kids" can't handletheir own affairs! As you can see,we are not an amateur organiza-tion.

SBA programs speak for the suc-cess or failure of student govern-ment. We are busy in the area ofservice activities. We operate amorning coffee and donut projectin the student lounge, and partiallysubsidize a nickel-a-copy xerox ma-chine for student use; We also havea Speaker's Committee bringingoutside notables into the school.(William Kunstler and Indianap-olis Mayor Richard Lugar, amongothers, joined us this year.) We alsocontributed $1500 to a WSA-SBAjoint symposium entitled "Justice InAmerica?" held from April 24thto 26th. Among the participants.were Police Chief Eigleburger ofDayton, Richard X. Clark of theAttica prison revolt, U.S. AttorneyJohn Olson, Jerome Skolnick, andLaw Professor Robert Shapiro.

In community service our Stu-dent Information and EducationCommittee sends volunteer speakersthroughout the state to address highschool and civic groups (upon re-quest and at no charge). This pro-gram was initiated in the fall of1968 in response to the false rumorsfollowing the urban explosions dur-ing that summer. Over forty lawstudents participated in this year'sprogram, researching and speakingon these topics: Urban Problemsand the Kerner Report; WelfareRights; Legal Rights of Minors;Environmental Issues; Legal Rightsof Women; Consumer Law; andCriminal and Juvenile Justice Ad-ministration (including prison re-form). Our reception at over onehundred participating schools hasbeen overwhelming.

The SBA also conducts the Ori-entation Program for incoming stu-dents. Format this year will includeworkshop sessions, a student orga-nization handbook, and a picnic.The Homecoming and Spring Din-ner Dance weekends remain on oursponsorship calendar.

While it may sound as if we haveeverything under control, there areareas for great improvement. (AsQueen Christina once remarked, "It

xu

is necessary to surpass one's self al-ways; this occupation ought to lastas long as life.") Indeed, studentshave their share of difficulties. Weneed and desire practical legal ex-perience. However, our excellentPlacement Office cannot possiblyfill all the student requests for legalemployment-especially for the sum-mer months. (I might add here:What more efficient way is thereto save office expenses than by hir-ing student law clerks? Many handsand minds make light work!)

Other problems are equally ob-structive of the best possible legaleducation which our school can(and should) offer. Three areas inparticular come to mind: 1.) li-brary facilities; 2.) minority enroll-ment; and 3.) class size.

As Dean Kimball shared withmany of you in his annual report atthe Alumni Luncheon on April22nd, our library facilities are woe-fully inadequate for a school oursize. I can only re-emphasize theDean's comments. Students feel thepinch. There are not enough copiesof the basic reference works, Ourresearch materials (books, theses,loose-leaf services, etc.) could begreatly expanded. We are in acrunch for study space. Our librarydoesn't even approach the ALSAminimum library study-space re-quirements.

Minority student enrollment, un-der the Legal Education Opportu-nities Program (LEO), was high-lighted during the Spring Program.This worthy project is in a seriousfinancial crisis. The Program des-perately needs additional funding.We must support our present LEOscholars and push for increased fu-ture minority student enrollment.Today there are 26 men and wom-en enrolled under LEO-less than3% of our total law school popula-tion. The presence of students fromall life experience perceptions en-riches the quality and relevance oflegal education. Our school will suf-fer a serious setback if LEO isforced to cut back its financial sup-port of needy students.

Class size is a product of the tre-mendous demand for legal educa-tion. Pressure for open admissions ishard to resist. Our school is packed

with nearly 900 students. A new lawschool is needed in this state, but,for the present time we must makethe best use of our existing facilities.Budget restrictions impose harshburdens on allocation flexibility.Our Dean is working in a strait-jacket unless the school can pro-cure additional funding for new lawteachers and increased salary lev-els for current faculty. Our schooldoes not fare well in the highlycompetitive job market for goodquality teachers. Even though wehave done an outstanding job inattracting highly competent first-year teachers, their bodies have onlyfilled vacant chairs. They have notadded to the total faculty strength.Meanwhile, the student/faculty ra-tio trend remains the same-it is in-creasing at an alarming rate.

The Dean is taking positive stepsto alleviate these and other prob-lems. But this does not remove thestartling fact that the difficulties re-main. We cannot minimize our pre-dicament. By pitching in togetherwe can work wonders. An extra dol-lar during the alumni fund-raisingdrive, an extra job placement for astudent during the summer, con-tinued words of moral support andactive concern-these are the littlethings that go a long, long way onthe road to greater excellence.

Alumni support for the lawschool is gratefully acknowledgedby students, faculty and administra-tion alike. Those of us in the stu-dent body hope to follow in yourgenerous footsteps. Through yourcontinued and increasing supportour school is enabled to make itsprograms and facilities more attrac-tive to undergraduate students, lawfaculty and potential employersthroughout the nation. At the sametime, the quality of graduatingstudents will remain at, and climbfrom its already superb standard.

If there are questions or crit-icisms of student government pol-icies or practices, please drop us aline, c/o Student Bar Association.We welcome and encourage com-munication. Thank you.

Stephen D. BrownSBA President

THE GARGOYLE

con'td from page 3

Among the many difficulties wehave, three stand out: the inad-equacy of the library collection, thelow level of faculty salaries and thebad faculty-student ratio. Each ofthese is worth treatment in somedetail.

Last year I provided you withcharts to give some insight into theunmet needs of our library. The in-spection team provided additionalfigures. Our library was never oneof our prize features, but it used tobe fairly adequate, relative to otherschools. The library's rank, consider-ing size only, among law school li-braries, has declined in the follow-ing fashion:

Year19421950196019661970

Rank18th22nd23rd24th29th

$50,000 for books from a non-recur-ring source. This was called a catch-up fund, but it only provided us forthis year 'a total amount slightly inexcess of what the team thought weneeded on a continuing basis. Whilewe have been able to do some"catching up" with it, that is onlybecause our previous level of sup-port was so low that any additionalamount is, in a sense, a catch-upfund. I prefer to regard it, however,as the first year of a new level ofcontinuous support for the law li-brary, for we have managed to get$100,000 into the 1972-73 budgetfor books, subject of course to Re-gent approval of the budget. Thus,we have made substantial progresssince my report last year toward asolution of this pressing problem.

A second major problem pointedto by the inspection team was theinadequate level of faculty salaries.The report said:

If one looks at Minnesota, DeanLockhart's own school, in a statesimilar to Wisconsin, we find amedian $6000 higher and an aver-age $5000 higher. For experiencedfaculty the disparity is even greater.Medians at the other schools arefrom $5000 to $11,000, higher; Min-nesota's is $7000 higher. When onecompares the top ten salaries, Wis-consin again comes out badly. Thecomparison with Minnesota is es-pecially striking because of our sim-ilarity. The highest Wisconsin salaryis $5400 under the top Minnesotasalary and would rank only sixthat Minnesota. The second Wiscon-sin salary would be under the topten at Minnesota. Though compar-isons of individual people are verysubjective, I think it both safe andappropriate to say that our ten topsalaried people include some verydistinguished citizens; they wouldhold their own very well in compe-tition with the top ten in nearlyany law school. But their salariesare many thousands of dollars low-er. In summary,' the inspection teamsaid:

The rate of deterioration hasstepped up markedly since the mid-sixties and without relief we wouldsoon have plummeted to the bot-tom. You may remember from lastyear that our budget for book pur-chases remained at $44,000 duringthe late 1960s, while book priceswere advancing at about 10% ayear. For this year, our book budgetwas $60,000, which enabled us atleast to catch up with the costs ofthe inflation of several years. Butin 1971, the minimum book budgetfor even the most marginal schoolswas set by the Executive Commit-tee of the Association of AmericanLaw Schools at $50,000 (up from$40,000). Thus the increase keptus only slightly above the bare min-imum. The inspection team recom-mended a budget of at least$100,000 for books, with appropri-ate increases to keep pace with in-flation and with at least an addi-tional $50,000 for catch-up pur-poses. During the course of this fis-cal year, it became possible for thecampus administration to give us

THE GARGOYLE

A second very acute problem atWisconsin is the inadequate levelof its law faculty salaries. Notonly are the salaries at Wisconsininadequate for faculty membersof the distinction found there, butthey are dangerously uncompet-itive when consideration is givento the law schools with whichWisconsin must compete for fac-ulty.

The committee then went on tomake specific comparisons of Wis-consin salaries with those in aboutfifteen other schools with whichWisconsin must compete for facultymembers. Whether one looks at themedians, the averages, the mediansof faculty with over 15 years com-bined practice and teaching expe-rience, or at the top ten salaries inthe school, Wisconsin comes outsubstantially below all of the schoolswith which it should be reasonablycompetitive. The team stated thatthe median and average salariesrange from $3000 to $10,000 peryear lower than for its competitors.

In short, Wisconsin salary lev-els have fallen badly behind lawschools with which it must com-pete for first class faculty mem-bers. Its salaries are $3000 to$6000 too low to be competitive.At the very least its budget shouldbe increased by $120,000 ($4000increase for 30 positions) in or-der to :make Wisconsin salarieseven marginally competitive, andsubstantially more if Wisconsin isto take its place where it belongs,among the best law schools inthe nation.

One reason for our disadvantagein relation to other law schools isthat law faculty salaries have atWisconsin been greatly influencedand limited, especially at the toplevels, by salaries in other depart-ments of the University. This is notgenerally the case in other universi-ties with distinguished law schools.

XIII

Law schools must compete forteachers with both government andwith private practice, not solelywith other universities. The exis-tence of these markets is one of thefacts of life that all university ad-ministrators should, and most do,recognize. We have no chance ofattracting first rate people of ex-perience if our competing marketshave a substantial price edge overus. For example, we have an offerout now to an experienced govern-ment lawyer. We are hopeful hewill accept it, but afraid he will not,for one of the deterrents is aboutan $8000 disparity in basic salary.Even with full time summer teach-ing or research, he would be $4000or more short of his federal govern-ment salary. A man has to want toteach very badly to make that sacri-fice. If he were in private practicethe same length of time out of lawschool, we wouldn't be able to touchhim in salary.

The team said, further:

There was a time when Wis-consin appeared not vulnerableto raids from other law schools,even though at the time its sal-aries were somewhat lower. Thecohesiveness of the faculty, theexample of the top scholars whostayed at Wisconsin despite manyattractive offers elsewhere, the at-mosphere of experimentation andinquiry, the advanced state of in-terdisciplinary research" the avail-ability of research grants, the at-tractiveness of Madison, anddoubtless other factors all com-bined to keep the faculty at Mad-ison. Most of those intangibleconsiderations are still present,but the gross inadequacy of theLaw School salaries at Madisonseems finally to have become sogreat that Wisconsin is finding itcannot retain some of its mostpromising faculty.

The team went on to point toour recent serious faculty losses.This school cannot long remain firstclass if its coming stars are regular-ly picked off by more affluent

XIV

schools before their roots are toodeep for them to be moved, whilewe replace them with promising butnew teachers. Our salary structuremakes it only rarely possible for usto raid other schools, so the inter-school flow of teachers is for usmostly in one direction and in re-cent years has become disturbing.

The two problems I have dis-cussed so far are only minimally re-lated to size-s-our library needswould be a little less if we weresmaller because fewer duplicateswould be necessary. But the thirdmajor problem is a direct functionof size. It is a product of our re-cent growth. In the school year be-ginning in 1968, we had 587 stu-dents; in 1969, 654; in 1970, 771;and this year, 896. The increase wasover 50% in three years. By severelimitation of our admissions for1972, we hope to be able to preventany further increase for next year.The faculty size has increased onlyslightly if at all; faculty are diffi-cult to count because so many ofour faculty are not on the state pay-roll at any given time, but are onleave or on research grants, notpaid for by the state budget. Inthose three years, a fairly satisfac-tory 19 to 1 student-faculty ratiohas drastically declined to over 28to 1. The results have been cat-astrophic. Even at 19 to 1, lawschool is a mass-production enter-prise; at 28 or 29 to 1, it almost getsout of control altogether. First yearsections approach a hundred,though we give each student onecourse in his first year in a group of20. The large sections are far toolarge for real involvement of eachstudent. In advanced classes, wehave many enormous sections: 194,173, 172, 162, 154, 147, 133, 132,125, 118, 116. Students become mere-ly spectators, and law is not a veryexciting spectator sport. Only deeppersonal involvement can make itan interesting game.

The team concluded that:

The only really feasible solu-tion in the face of the high de-

mand for legal education is forWisconsin in some manner tofund approximately 13 more fac-ulty positions, raising its teachingfaculty who are in residence andactually teaching to 45, whichwould give it an adequate but farfrom ideal 20 to 1 ratio with 900students. To avoid a dispropor-tionately young and inexperi-enced faculty, particularly inview of the five beginning teach-ers appointed this year, an aver-age salary of $20,000 is neededfor such expansion.

This does not exhaust the prob-lems of the school. Most of theothers are also related to size. Theyinclude additional administrativehelp for the dean, support staff forthe faculty, added professional andclerical staff to make the library theeffective service instrument itshould be in a law school as vig-orous and productive as this one.

The inspection team's criticism ofthe school has a substantial pricetag. I would be more reluctant topress the case for better financialsupport for the law school were itnot for my conviction that all lawschools have been short-changed inrelation to the rest of our highereducation system for a long time,and that it is especially true atWisconsin. If Wisconsin wants aquality law school, it must paysomewhat more for it. The price tagis very small in relation to mostother things. The highest qualitylegal education in the country costspeanuts when compared with thepoorest quality education in med-icine, for example. A law school isthe least expensive prestige unit auniversity can have. To put roughnumbers on our needs, we need anadditional $500,000 in the budgetat our current size, or half that atthe 1968 size, to meet our basicneeds and to become reasonablycompetitive with com par a b I eschools. That would not make usaffluent but would make a con-tinued quality education moreviable.

THE GARGOYLE

Last year I spoke to you aboutsome of these same problems, andthen told you I would be asking theChancellor to appoint a specialcommittee to view the problems oflegal education in the state as theyappear from the vantage point ofthis school. The Chancellor ap-pointed such a committee, includ-ing our Alumni President, a mem-ber of the Supreme Court, threeadministrators, two faculty and twostudents. That committee is aboutto report to the Chancellor, whowill in turn report to the President'soffice for transmission to the Boardof Regents. The conclusion we havereached is that the best solution forthe problems of legal education liesin the creation of a second statelaw school. I do not wish at thistime to present you with the argu-ments leading to that conclusion,nor with other details of the Chan-cellor's Committee's report, but thegeneral direction of the committee'sthinking has become fairly widelyknown, and for that reason I men-tion it here. The report will bemade formally within a few weeks.Just how serious the problems ofthe Madison law school will be inthe next few years depends in largepart on whether the pressures of sizeare relieved by creation of anotherschool. Even if we retreated to our1968 size, however, we have prob-lems enough to keep my successorbusy for his first five years. I wishhim luck!

Spencer L. KimballDean

RESPOND TO YOUR

CLASS AGENT'S

GREETING-

SUPPORT THELAW SCHOOL FUND

THE GARGOYLE

ALUMNI STAffTHE CLINICAL PROGRAMAlumni, along with students and

faculty of the Law School, areworking in a Clinical Programwhich is aimed at making legal ed-ucation more relevant.

Fifty-five third year students haveparticipated in this past semester'sprogram, working with practicingattorneys in state agencies, countyand federal judges, and legal serviceprograms. Most of the attorneysand judges who supervise the stu-dents are alumni of Wisconsin.

The students get involved in al-most all phases of legal activity intheir placements and have the op-portunity to relate their work totheir regular academic studies. Upto four credits a semester can beearned in the program.

Several members of the facul-ty helped with the program aswell, providing counsel and assis-tance. One faculty member is as-signed to work with the studentsin a particular placement. Theymeet periodically with students todiscuss their activity and any prob-lems which may arise.

Prof. George Bunn directs theprogram for the Law School. Hegave some examples of what studentsdo in the program:

"Students are being exposed toand participating in a wide varietyof legal work. They get involved inall sides of issues and cases.

"In one case recently decided bya Dane County judge a clinicalprogram student helped the pros-ecuting attorney from the DistrictAttorney's office prepare the caseagainst the accused. Another stu-dent in the program helped thepublic defender from Dane CountyLegal Services defend the accusedwhile a third student did legal re-search for the judge who decidedthe case and provided assistance tohim during the trial.

"In other areas, a clinical pro-gram student helped WisconsinJudicare prepare the lawsuit nowpending before Federal Judge JohnW. Reynolds which challenges theWisconsin property tax statutes

which affect the amounts receivedby each school district for public ed-ucation," Bunn said.

"The allegation in the suit is thatthe statutes produced unequalamounts of money per student.Rich districts under the present taxstructure have more money per stu-dent than poorer districts.

"Another student in the ClinicalProgram is analyzing the many Wis-consin statutes which may be af-fected by the recently-enacted statestatute giving 18 year olds the rightsand responsibilities of adults."

The program was started in 1969under a grant from the Council onLegal Education for ProfessionalResponsibility and came because ofthe belief of faculty that experimen-tation was needed in providing clin-ical experience during law school.For decades students have expressedsome dissatisfaction with academiclegal work. The faculty debate sur-rounding the program continues toquestion whether the program hassufficient academic value to justifydoing it on a large scale. The stu-dents involved believe their experi-ence to be exciting and worthwhile.

Many members of the faculty be-lieve that student criticism of sec-ond, and especially, third year legaleducation has merit and that clin-ical experience is valuable. TheClinical Program is not being of-fered as the only answer to the per-ceived problems, but as a techniqueto be used along with others. If itis ultimately concluded that it is asound approach it will help makelegal education more relevant bothto student needs and current legalpractice.

Plans are being made to continuethe program and expand it. Prof.James E. Jones is setting up aplacement which will provide stu-dent help to the state's Departmentof Labor, Industry, and Human Re-lations in its work with equalemployment problems.

Prof. Jones has obtained federalfunds to assist the state in strength-ening its efforts to provide equalemployment for blacks, women, In-dians, and chicanos.

xv