Volume XVI

University of Wisconsin Law School Forum

Number 2. Fall 1985

Some Welcome News for Things of the SpiritDean Cliff Thompson

The Wisconsin Ban on DDTWilliam G. Moore

Farewell MadisonRobert O'Neil

Community Property Comes to WisconsinWilliam G. Moore

Conflict Problems Under Marital Property ActJohn B. Haydon

International Experience of the UW Law Faculty

Distinguished Service Awards Presented

Notes on Alums

Faculty Note

Editor's Note

Mystery Picture

2

3

8

9

12

1517

18

18

20

20

Cover:Professor James MacDonald

Bulletin of the University of WisconsinLaw School, published quarterly.

Edward J. Reisner, EditorEarl J. Madden, Design

Publication office, Law School, Universityof Wisconsin, Madison, WI.

Postmaster's note: Please send form3579 to "Gargoyle," University of Wis-consin Law School, Madison, WI 53706.

Subscription price: SOli: per year formembers. $1.00 per year for non-members.

ISSN 0148-9623 USPS 768-300

2

Some Welcome Newsfor Things of the Spirit

Dean Cliff F Thompson

he strong likelihood that the legislature will provide15% "catch-up" pay between January 1986 and July1987 is wonderful news. For while I am certain that

money cannot buy the special spirit of the Law School, wehad reached a point where the difference between our sala-ries and the Big Ten Schools raised the spectre that wewould be an easy hunting ground for rival appointmentcommittees.

Our faculty has resisted the financial lures of otherschools for many reasons, including the charms of Madi-son, and the intellectual excitement within the universityand the Law School. But we lost a distinguished colleagueto UCLA this year, and the danger was that it might signalthe start of an unraveling of the mutual threads of interestwhich bind us together.

The 15% catch-up is calculated to bring the UW-Madi-'son from the bottom level up to the middle salaries offeredin the Big Ten and "Other Peers" identified in the Gover-nor's study: Texas; UCLA; Berkeley; North Carolina; andthe University of Washington.

Lest anyone think that 15% is extravagant, I note thatthe overall increase obscures differences of need within theuniversity. To have law faculty salaries reach the averagelevel of peers for the academic year 1984-85, we wouldneed 24.7% to reach the average level of the Big Ten, 32.7%to reach the level of the "Other Peers" or 28.7% increase to

reach the average level of the Big Ten and "Other Peers"combined.

The legislative commitment to begin solving the salaryproblems is reassuring. Our spirit cannot live on the viewof Lake Mendota alone. It is also gratifying to see that ouralums and other friends have responded so generously tothe first endowment campaign in the history of the school.We will be able to achieve a margin of excellence in ourprograms beyond the basic support provided by the state.

We will report on our endowment campaign in a laterissue. If you have not yet contributed, now is the time to deso. With a mind to contribution, alums ask me about theSchool. They are obviously pleased to hear about our facul-ty's commitment to teaching, and about the state, national,and international fame in significant research and publica-tion. But alums also ask about students, as they reflect ontheir own law school careers. So I'll end by noting two stu-dent efforts of this past year which I think are characteristicof the Law Schools' spirit. One, the placing of plants inwhat were formerly ashtrays in our halls, was reported toyou in the last issue. The other was the establishment of atelephone answering service for newly admitted students.The student volunteers handling this service providedanswers to questions about the up-coming law school expe-rience and, more importantly, the service eased doubts andgenerally provided a warm welcome to a great Law School.

The isconsin BanOn DDT:Old Law, New ContentWilliam G. Moore

3

In the Fall of 1968, a petition was filed withthe Wisconsin Department of NaturalResources "requesting a declaratory rulingon whether DDT was an environmental pol-lutant" within the meaning of specified Wis-consin statutes. The administrative hearingat Madison which followed was soon to takeon national, even worldwide, importanceand played a critical role in widespread ban-ning of what had been probably the mostimportant pesticide of its day.

To some, the 1960s and the early 1970sconjure up a picture of little more than anti-war demonstrations, civil disorder, drugabuse and long hair. And true, these ele-ments were a part of those times. But thesame elements were also manifestations ofan inquisitive and questioning mood thatswept pervasively through American societyand was part of a cycle recurrent in ournational history-a time of shaking up thestatus quo which would be followed by aperiod of re-grouping and consolidationunder new patterns.

'Ibday's image of the Sixties is often bit-terly portrayed as a time of quixotic goalswhose fulfillment was largely denied.

But not all of the questioning, nor all ofthe dissent, by any means came to naught;not all of it was denied fulfillment. And notall of it was generated by anti-establishmentyouth.

Bill Moore-who is responsible thesedays for much of the writing which appearsin the GARGOYLE-describes in the storybelow a significant event which took placein those turbulent days of the late Sixties:the hearings at Madison on the question ofbanning use of DDT in Wisconsin.

Many people, some of them from distantplaces, participated in the DDT hearing atMadison. The hearing itself was presidedover by Maurice Van Susteren (J.D. '48),

James MacDonald

then Chief Hearing Examiner for Wiscon-sin's Department of Natural Resources. Anumber of these were associated with theUniversity of Wisconsin at Madison. josephJ. Hickey, Professor of Wildlife Ecology{who supported the ban} and UW Entornol-ogy Professor Ellsworth Fisher (who opposedit) played important roles in the hearingsand they must share a significant part of thecredit (or blame) for the consequences towhich the Madison hearings so importantlycontributed. And a number of Madisonpeople-among them UW Law ProfessorJim MacDonald and his wife, Betty-turnedover their homes for a week or more at atime to be used by the coalition fightingDDT as a temporary command post and siteof nightly sessions devoted to tactics and

strategy.While Joe Hickey and Jim MacDonald

sided with those who sought to ban DDT,Ellsworth Fisher and others associated withthe University supported the continued useof the pesticide.

At the time, and still, sharply differingaccounts may be found of events leading upto the ban. Yet whatever else may beachieved by the story Bill Moore tells below,the point is made clear that the process of"winnowing and sifting" of ideas at the Uni-versity of Wisconsin can be marked by deepand bitter differences within the Universitycommunity itself as the search for the truthis pursued. And, as is the case here, the LawSchool can often be found tied into the fray.

4

In the early Sixties, there appeared in theNew Yorker a series of articles which dis-cussed the impact of pesticides on theenvironment. In 1962,these articles wereunited to comprise Rachel Carson'spolemic volume, Silent Spring.

A collection of theories blended withfact, of "truths, half-truths and no-truths," Ms. Carson's book was at firstshunned by the great bulk of the scien-tific community. In the beginning,indeed, it was difficult to find a respectedscientist who would even step forward tosay Ms. Carson had raised questions forwhich definitive answers were not to behad-and only later were a few scientistswilling to support some of her morefrightening prophetic premises.

But Silent Spring, on the other hand,received considerable attention from layquarters and its importance rested pri-marily on its bringing before an evergrowing contingent of concerned citizensthe question of man's practices in the useof pesticides.

Portions of Silent Spring concern them-selves with the pesticide DDT [Dichloro-diphenyltrichloroethanej. But it was notuntil 1968 that the issue of the compoundand its detrimental effects on the envi-ronment received broad national andinternational attention. Much of the pub-licity was generated by, and came out ofa hearing held in Madison, Wisconsin, inlate 1968and early 1969,a hearing heldto determine whether DDT was an envi-ronmental pollutant as defined in sec-tions 144.01(11)and 144.30(9)of the Wis-consin Statutes.

The outcome of the hearing and theramifications felt well beyond Wiscon-sin's borders constitute the triumph ofconcerned and questioning citizenswhose efforts brought to light, in Ms.Carson's words, the "... false assurances(and the) sugar coating of the impalatablefacts" about the chemical compound thathad been in use for nearly twenty-fiveyears.

The story of DDT is a complex andcontroversial one. When the compoundwas first introduced as a pesticide, it wasproclaimed a wonder-chemical, capableof solving a myriad of man's pest prob-lems. Paul Mueller, a Swiss scientist, wonthe Nobel Prize for his discovery of thechemical's proficient insect-killing prop-erties.

DDT was used extensively by the mili-tary during World War II, and saved"countless lives" through its effectivecontrol of malaria-carrying mosquitoesand other disease-carrying pests. Afterthe War it was put to use domesticallyand became one of the most popular pes-ticides on the market because of its effec-tiveness and low cost. By 1968its usagepeaked at twenty million pounds annually.

But with its effectiveness came fea-tures which posed great danger to theenvironment, its creatures, and, ulti-mately, man (who somehow believeshimself to be independent from thatwhich surrounds and sustains him). Notonly did DDT eliminate pests, but alsouseful and necessary predators. Further-more, insects-whose reproductive rateis far faster than man's-soon becameimmune to the chemical, "necessitating"applications of greater chemical concen-trations. Of great consequence, wasDDT's mobility: it was found all over theworld, thousands of miles from thenearest point of application, even in thepolar regions. Moreover, DDT was per-sistent as a result of its slow rate ofbreakdown in the environment andbecause of its solubility in body fats-lipids, as these are known-DDT waslodging in the fat reserves of everythingfrom moles to man. The effect on uscould only be known with time.

More tangible to non-scientists wasthe fact that after DDT had been appliedfor the purpose of eliminating Dutch ElmDisease, birds disappeared and localfauna and flora suffered great losses. Onewoman thus described such a scene: "Myneighbors close their eyes while Robinsdance themselves to death-and [they]keep spraying."

DDT's success at controlling pest spe-cies, however, made it a formidablechemical to contend with, either politi-cally or scientifically. As early as the lateforties scientists had questioned itseffects on the environment-effectswhich chemical companies routinely andflatly denied. Beginning in 1958,Profes-sor Joseph Hickey, a University of Wis-consin wildlife ecologist and ornitholo-gist, conducted internationallyrecognized studies on the Peregrine Fal-con which ultimately correlated withDDT the worldwide population crash ofthat hawk and other species of raptores.

It was later shown that DDT and DDE(Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane), aclosely related compound, caused a cal-cium deficiency which eventually causedthe thinning and breakage of egg shells,making it almost impossible for birds toproduce successive generations. Profes-sor Hickey's testimony was to be of greatimportance in the case against DDT atthe Madison hearing.

Professor Hickey and his students alsodid studies which showed with "carefulcomparative studies of sprayed andunsprayed areas," that Robin mortalitywas "at least 86 to 88 per cent" after theapplication of DDT. On the Madisoncampus of the University of Wisconsinas much as twenty-three pounds to theacre of DDT were used at one time in aneffort to eradicate Dutch Elm Disease.

Betty MacDonald

The Madison Hearing: OriginsIt was the issue of the use of DDT as a

deterrent to Dutch Elm Disease whicheventually brought the debate over thechemical to Madison.

When the Milwaukee Journal reportedthat DDT was to be used to fight the dev-astating tree disease in Milwaukeecounty-parts of which border on LakeMichigan-citizens under the auspices ofthe Citizens Natural Resource Associa-tion (CNRAlsought an injunctionthrough the Wisconsin Department ofNatural Resources (DNRl to halt thecounty's spraying. A meeting took placein October of 1968in what the ChiefHearing Examiner of the DNR, MauriceVan Susteren, called a "roomfull of veryagitated people." The Milwaukee Journalhad reported only a rumor, it turned out,and it was agreed by the county and thetree service involved that DDT would notbe used in attempts to control Dutch ElmDisease. The hearing was declared"moot,"

But the CNRA and the EnvironmentalDefense Fund (EDF),which had come toWisconsin from New York to support andhelp represent the CNRA, were seeking amore substantial victory than the essen-tially hollow one attained in October.

Van Susteren, a bit puzzled by thegroup's "dejection," then informed thepetitioners of provisions of WisconsinStatute 227.06, which "allowed citizensto ask any state agency for a declaratoryruling on the applicability of a lawenforced by that department to any par-ticular situation or set of facts."

On October 28, 1968, the CNRA, again

backed by the EDF, and the Wisconsindivision of the Izaak Walton League ofAmerica, Inc., filed a petition with theDNR "requesting a declaratory ruling onwhether DDT was an environmental pol-lutant within the definitions of section144.01(11)and 144.30(9)of the WisconsinStatutes:' Put differently, a ruling wassought on whether DDT contaminatedstate waters, over which the DNR exer-cised jurisdiction. On December 2, 1968,the hearing began in Madison, with Mr.Van Susteren presiding as Chief HearingExaminer.

The Wisconsin statute permittinginterested citizens to obtain declaratoryrulings on laws enforced by various stateagencies was singular in the realm ofstate law and made Wisconsin the idealsetting for the foes of the pesticide.Opponents of DDT, and indeed environ-mentalists in general, had long been look-ing for a way in which their concernscould be voiced via legal action. The EDFhad scored partial success in forcing astoppage of the use of DDT as a mos-quitocide in the salt marshes of SuffolkCounty, New York.Were the judgment ofthe Madison hearing made in favor of theanti-DDT coalition, the impact would notonly be statewide, but more importantly,draw national attention to DDT's detri-mental physical character, and "providethe basis for further legal action and seri-ously set back the defenders of DDT." Inany event, if managed properly, the hear-ing could become a podium from whichthe evils of DDT could at last be broad-cast to a very wide audience.

But the Statute 227.06 merely statesthat citizens may ask for a declaratoryruling. Whether or not they are grantedone is quite another matter.

In 1968, DDT was applied liberally toWisconsin's woodlands, roadsides,marshes and farmlands to control mos-quitoes, flies and gypsy moth caterpillarsand other pests. The prevailing belief wasthat no other pesticide could be at onceso inexpensive and effective, and that itsapplication was essential to the preserva-tion of those lands and-moreimportantly-the tourist trade which theyattracted. If, it was thought, the use ofDDT was halted, thousands of acreswould be defoliated and overridden withflying insects, thus driving campers,hunters and fishermen to seek greenerpastures elsewhere, where they insteadwould spend the tourist dollars so impor-tant to the Wisconsin's treasury. If DDTwas really threatening the environment,its benefits in the minds of many seemedto far outweigh its costs; if the situationwere truly otherwise, few within therealm of politics cared to know about it.Only when public outcry reached a suffi-cient pitch, did it become an issue politi-

cally safe to handle.Thus Mr. Van Susteren's willingness-

in fact, his determination-to hear outthe evidence took considerable courage.And to him must be credited recognitionthat the Madison hearing was so essentialto the revealing of the real facts aboutDDT-which only now began to receivefull public attention.

The Adversaries and Their EarlyExpectations

The petitioners, the anti-DDT coali-tion which grouped at Madison, fullyrealized from the start the importance ofthe Madison hearing. The potential edu-cative impact on the public was as noted,immense; the opportunity quiteunprecedented. The New York Timescalled the hearing "... the first forum inwhich the nation's scientific communityhas been able to meet the [chemical]manufacturers in a face to face confron-tation that can be carried to adecision ... :' The hearing could "affectthe use of pesticides in every state."

On the other hand, an advisory groupof the National Chemical Association-the Task Force for DDT-had intervenedin the Madison hearing. And the TaskForce apparently did not appreciate thesignificance or importance of the hearinguntil long after it had begun, until newscameras from the networks were present-ing national coverage. They never recov-ered from the consequences of these mis-judgments.

A number of factors contributed to thepoor start made by the Task Force whenthe Madison hearings began.

Madison's Capital Times called thehearing a showdown betweenDavid and Goliath: Goliath big,big moneyed and silk-suited;David "passionate but poorlyfunded ... "

First and foremost, the disdain withwhich the Task Force viewed the foes ofDDT clouded the vision needed both tosize up the enemy and to gauge the turfon which the battle was to be fought. Thedisdain was a holdover from the initialreactions of a number of respected biolo-gists, chemists, agricultural economistsand others to the doubts Ms. Carson hadcast on the value of DDT. In their view,what she had suggested was irresponsibleat best and harmful at worst. The benefi-

5

cial side of DDT, as they saw it, could notbe denied and DDT's critics at mostcould make no more than a circumstan-tial case against it.In this view, the bur-den lay on those who questioned DDT toprove the case against it with careful, sci-entifically solid evidence. And until thatkind of evidence was at hand, the criticswere acting quite reprehensibly in usingno more than circumstantial evidence toundermine public confidence in ademonstrably effective pesticide.

Complicating the task of proving thecase against DDT for the foes of the pes-ticide, was the pattern of breakdown fol-lowed by DDT when it reached the envi-ronment: In identification tests carriedout by scientists, DDT-when it brokedown in the environment-yielded prod-ucts almost impossible to separate fromharmful PCBs which came from othersubstances. DDT advocates could pointto this and claim that the pollutants hadcome from substances other than DDT,that the results of tests purporting to linkDDT to PCBs found in fatty parts of allkinds of animal life were inconclusive,and that the claims of the coalition noth-ing more than "a convenient diagnosis:'But during the hearings testimony of aTask Force witness, the chief chemist ofa subsidiary of the Shell Oil Company,indicated that "with difficulty" thebreak-down products of DDT in the envi-ronment could be distinguished fromPCBs which came from other substances.With that evidence in the record, the coa-lition was "home free" to insist that DDTbe forced to stand trial.

The disdain for the critics which per-vaded the Task Force was reflected in avariety of forms. UW Entomology Profes-sor Ellsworth Fisher sat with Task Forcerepresentatives through much of theMadison hearing and throughoutremained a staunch advocate of DDT. Hisperception of their adversaries wasreflected in a remark he made at thetime: "They're trying to indict us, whilewe're just trying to do our jobs." LouisMcLean, an Illinois agri-business consul-tant who volunteered to represent theTask Force at Madison, referred to envi-ronmentalists as "[those who] are preoc-cupied with the issue of sexual potency."

But while McLean prepared to try todiscredit coalition testimonials by castingdoubt on the personal and professionalcharacter of witnesses, notes The Envi-ronment, The Establishment and TheLaw, a 1971volume dedicated to adetailed discussion of the Madison hear-ing, McLean's adversaries-the coalitionscientists-were busy collecting and forti-fying solid proof against DDT. And as thecoalition's evidence accumulated duringthe hearing, Professor Hickey-sitting inhis office not far from Professor Fisher's

6

Entomology lab-came to realize thatwhat scientists like himself knew wastrue in their own labs was happeningthroughout the biosphere.

Apart from the disdain the chemicalcompanies held for their critics, thechemical companies were also unaccus-tomed to hearings at which cross-examination was permitted. Earlier com-plaints against pesticides resulted in, ifanything, congressional meetings wherethe companies' usual procedure was tobring in paid scientists who wouldattest-almost without contention-toDDT's effectiveness and its non-toxicityto non-target animals and plants. In Mad-ison, scorching cross-examination at ahearing "conducted in quasi-judicial fash-ion ... [which was] a blend of scientificforum and criminal court proceeding,"superseded, in VanSusteren's words the"legislative pow-wows" that the industryhad encountered before.

It was a magnificent effort; thesepeople were of inestimable valuein the background. The wholeaction was perfect citizen's move-ment.

Finally, the Task Force could have bet-ter served itself by admitting DDT was apollutant and altering its defense accord-ingly. "After all," notes UW Law Profes-sor James MacDonald-a specialist inenvironmental law who acted as a coun-selor for the anti-DDT coalition duringthe spring of 1969and in other capacitieslater-"too much tea is a pollutant. Any-thing that is entered into the environ-ment in too great a quantity is apollutant-with the exception of distilledwater." But the Task Force was inflexibleand antique in its defense; it essentiallybehaved as if it were determined to try toreissue the panacea status that DDT hadwhen it first appeared as a pesticide. Thisproved an impossible task.

Madison's Capital Times called thehearing a showdown between David andGoliath: Goliath big, big moneyed andsilk-suited; David "passionate but poorlyfunded .... " Professor MacDonald andBetty MacDonald, his wife, whose inter-est in environmental concerns also drewher to support the anti-DDT cause, bothsaw it as a fight between Davids and Goli-ath, the plural because of the diversepolitical and social make-up of the coali-tion which had rallied-in large partspontaneously-to oppose the Task Forceat Madison.

One key member of the Environmen-tal Defense Fund-the organizationwhich largely represented the petitionersat the hearing-jokingly referred to hisgroup as "the fundless environmentaldefenders." With the exception of theChief Counsel, all members of the EDFhad paid positions elsewhere, and volun-teered when their testimony and supportwere needed. Though the coalition man-aged to raise more than $60,000 to sup-port those who testified and workeddirectly at the hearing, this was nothingin comparison to the funds that backedthe opposition. Nearly all of the effortput out by coalition was done by privatecitizens on a voluntary basis.

Yetthe coalition possessed a greatwealth of a kind with which the TaskForce was largely unacquainted: tenacity,concern, and enthusiasm generated by adiverse group desiring change. Linkedwith the sound testimony of "conserva-tive and cautious scientists," the combi-nation was virtually unbeatable.

The initial petitioners, six private citi-zens who belonged to the CNRA, wereovershadowed by the impressive batteryof scientists who assembled to give evi-dence against DDT. But it was the effortsof the CNRApetitioners which startedthe momentum that did not halt until itreached Washington, D.C., a few yearslater. They, with their friends and associ-ates, also housed and fed those who testi-fied for the coalition. Others-again pri-vate citizens along with Universityprofessors and students-also offeredanother crucial brand of aid to testifyingscientists in the form of spur-of-the-moment research, referencing andstenography.

"It was," in Professor Hickey's words,"a magnificent effort; these people wereof inestimable value in the background."The whole action was, states Betty Mac-Donald, a "perfect citizen's movement."

Those in the limelight received theheadlines. The "ring leader" of the peti-tioners was Victor Yannacone, "a bright,brash and indefatigable lawyer from Pat-chogue, New York" who was ChiefCounsel for the EDF.Yannacone alwayshad "one eye on the headlines," recallsProfessor Hickey. The lawyer's uncannyability to elicit fresh and astoundingnews to coincide with the presses ofMadison and national newspapers helpedto win further publicity for himself andthe case against DDT.

Yannacone's brilliance in Madison laynot so much in his capacity as a lawyer,but in his vise-like memory, sharp-tongued oratorical skills and great show-manship. His renowned prepping of coa-lition witnesses wounded many ascientist's pride; his acerbic behaviormade tempers flare and fissures widen

within the petitioner's camp, but com-mon cause kept them together.

Yannacone's counterpart for the TaskForce was at first Louis McLean. McLeanundertook the representation of the TaskForce because he lived not far from Mad-ison, and because both he and the indus-try believed that they'd be home forChristmas. The Capital Times believedthe same. "The hearing," it reported,"will continue for a fortnight or marc."

Unexpected Duration: From Two Weeksto Six Months

One reason the hearing lasted nearlysix months instead of two weeks was thatMcLean's tactics misfired. His concentra-tion on personal attacks-referred toearlier-proved futile, and "the moreMcLean examined, the more the scien-tists talked for the record ... the bettertheir position became."

And boy, did they talk. Charles Wur-ster, for example, who, "in essence out-lined the case presented by the petition-ers," was examined for three days asMcLean attempted to destroy his credi-bility. But "Wurster had," notes JamesMacDonald, "as close to a photographicmemory as anyone I ever knew." Muchof Wurster's evidence, broad and farranging, would probably have been ruledinadmissible had Yannacone tried tointroduce it, but was instead allowedbecause McLean elicited it. McLean, inshort, failed to parry, and in fact indi-rectly aided the "concerted broad-spectrum attack" dished up by the coali-tion; he was later replaced by Willard S.Stafford, a Madison attorney of broadermind and highly regarded trial-courtskills.

"In the long run," expounded the Cap-ital Times, a week into the hearing, "thedecision on this vital issue will be madeby the public."

Shortly after the hearing began, theWisconsin Attorney General's office peti-tioned the Dane County Circuit Court fora writ of mandamus to force the DNR topermit the Attorney General's office tointervene in the hearings. The power toappear as public intervenor wasapproved and Robert McConnell of theAttorney General's office took the posi-tion. With a watch-dog for the publicinstalled, the stakes immediately grewhigher, and the public's collective mindforced to an impending decision on thefuture of DDT. Yannacone, fellow peti-tioners, and the Task Force grasped this.When the hearing resumed in January of1969 after a Christmas recess, the TaskForce returned to Madison with newdetermination and a team whose solepurpose was public relations.

While the Madison hearing intensified

and the country was slowly becomingaware of the "disastrous physical proper-ties of DDT,"an event outside of Madisonpushed public opinion to new levels ofconcern about the pesticide.

Late into the presentation of thedefense, the news broke that the federalFood and Drug Administration hadbanned the sale of 32,000 pounds ofCoho Salmon taken from the waters ofLake Michigan: the fish had been foundto contain as much as fifty parts per mil-lion of the pesticide. On April 17, theMichigan Department of Agriculture'sExecutive Board-which had long been agreat defender of DDT-voted to ban theuse of the pesticide in the state.

This news was sensational and itseffect immediate. Lab experiments nowseemed all the more pertinent. Combinedwith the hard evidence delivered by anarray of scientists at Madison, the newswas condemning DDT.The public had atlast had enough. Before the hearingended, the Wisconsin Legislature, whichhad been in session during much of theproceeding, also voted to ban the chemi-cal. The original goal of the CNRAhadbeen attained.

The Madison Hearing: How It Ended,What It Meant

The Madison evidence showed lucidlythe disastrous traits of DDT. "Its persist-ence, solubility in lipids, broad biologicalactivity and surprising mobility" weretraits which wreaked destruction. "The

fact that DDT was being stored in bodyfat and in the fatty layers of the nervoussystem; that DDT was not remainingrestricted to the pests it was sent out toeradicate but was also affecting beneficialinsects, fish and birds; and that concen-trations of DDT could now be foundthroughout the biosphere ... " supported

"Only in a courtroom;' said Yan-nacone, "can bureaucratic hog-wash be tested in the crucible ofcross-examination: '

the conclusion that DDT adverselyaffected everything other than humans.

If a showing of the effects on the restof the planet was not enough-if thepotential danger to humans had to bespelled out-the testimony of S. GoranLofroth showed that there was universalcontamination of human mother's milkwith DDT residues. And the Madisonevidence was crowned with the appallingrevelation that the Federal agencydesigned to regulate pesticides had leftsafety testing and poison information ofall pesticides to the manufacturers: theagency questioned only discrepancies inthat information and did not attempt toverify the information furnished by theDDT manufacturers.

7

The declaratory ruling was notreleased until May 21, 1970, a full yearafter the adjournment of the hearing. Tomost-and perhaps also to himself-ChiefHearing Examiner Van Susteren's reportwas a letdown: DDT by that time hadbeen banned in Wisconsin and Michigan.The coalition had scored its victory. Andthe future of DDT was imperiled at anational level. But Van Susteren's reportwas a reminder that Madison's hearingwas more than a "legislative pow-wow,"that the public could, and indeed did,reshape and modify that with which itwas dissatisfied.

"Only in a courtroom," said Yanna-cone, "can bureaucratic hogwash betested in the crucible of cross-examination." What was revealed at Mad-ison was the bitter pill, "the unpalatablefacts" about DDT, and about the way inwhich our government regulates pesti-cides. The hearing signified many firsts:the first time environmentalists met pes-ticide manufacturers face to face; one ofthe first times an environmental conten-tion was litigated, albeit in "quasi-judicialfashion;" one of the first times theincompetence of a regulatory agency wasso plainly revealed.

But above all, the Madison hearingrepresented a true victory for concernedcitizen's whose workings displayed, saysBetty MacDonald, "the anatomy of a per-fect citizen's movement." It was, notesone authority on the hearing, "with thebacking of various outside scientists andwith volunteer help ... [that] Yannaconekept the crucible hot."

8

Farewell, MadisonRobert M. O'NeilProfessor of Law andPresident, UW System

Though a law professor's life is neverdull, there are times of relative repose andreflection. One who is also a full time uni-versity administrator of course findsfewer respites. Yet even for one who isdoubly occupied, a transition betweenuniversities causes one to reflect uponexperiences and institutions. It is at such atime, having completed my years as aWisconsin law professor (and president),and about to assume the same role at theUniversity of Virginia, that I thought afew reflections might be in order.

The opportunity to teach law at Wis-consin has been a rare and challengingexperience. My first contact with the UWLaw School occurred in the summer of1970, when I came to Madison (my firstvisit here, in fact) at the invitation of Wil-lard Hurst to assess the effects of theteaching assistant strike that spring. Wil-lard arranged for me to talk also withNathan Feinsinger and with Arlen Chris-tensen, both of whom had played signifi-cant roles in resolving the strike. I touredthe Law School building that afternoon,and came away with the distinct impres-sion of subterranean passages and tortu-ous corridors-an impression which prox-imity and greater familiarity have, I maysay, in no way diminished! But the visitalso reinforced my admiration for theschool and those of the faculty I hadalready known or met that day. Little did Irealize that ten years later I would be join-ing that faculty.

No law faculty of which I have been amember-Berkeley, Buffalo, Cincinnatiand Indiana being the others-better com-bines the qualities of collegiality and chal-lenging ideas than does this one. Nowhereelse is there the sense of excitement orferment-in and outside the classrooms,and of course in offices and the facultylounge-that I have found here wheneverI was able to enjoy my membership in

this community of legal scholars. No lawschool fits better into the larger context ofa research university, or makes better useof interdisciplinary ties and links betweenscholars across campus. This is truly anexceptional group of colleagues, distinc-tive quite as much for their variety ofbackground and perspective as for theircollegiality and cordiality.

The students have also been excep-tional. During the past five years I havetaught one course each semester. Throughconstitutional law, commercial law, andadvanced contracts, I have come to knowsome 350-400 of the most promisingyoung lawyers and future lawyers to befound anywhere. In fact, the students arein many ways as collegial as the faculty;they approach problems and issues in andoutside class with a common quest forinsight rather than a passive expectationthat the professor alone knows (or willdiscover) the answer. Time and again Ihave learned from my students as wehave explored fascinating paper topics orpuzzled unresolved questions of constitu-tional or commercial law. I can only hopethey learned as much from me as I didfrom them -and I look forward to hearingfrom many of them as they apply whatwe learned together to the practice, mak-ing, judging, or in at least a few cases Ihope, the teaching of law.

Law school deans tend to be unsungheroes and heroines, but I have a veryspecial feeling about the two deans underwhom I have served here. Orrin Helstadnot only made me welcome in the earlymonths (ably aided by Stuart Gullickson)but along with Charlotte became Karen'sand my co-hosts for an annual gatheringof law faculty and judges which I hopemy successor will continue.

Cliff Thompson is, of course, a specialfriend and one I will miss most keenly onleaving Madison. He and I were debate

partners and college classmates in the'50's and have shared many experiencessince then. Just last spring we recreated atMarquette University a 1954 debatewhich first brought both of us to Wiscon-sin-and though we lost the originaldebate, we felt last spring that we hadfinally joined those we could not beat!Since he and Judith came to Madison,Cliff has been an exemplary dean as wellas a dear friend and colleague. I especiallyregret leaving his faculty now that wehave been reunited.

One other quality that I have muchadmired is the strong support from alumnithat has been shown through the recentcapital campaign. I have been privileged tomeet with a number of law alumni groupsduring the last three years, and have foundthem unfailingly supportive, as well ascurious about the current condition of theLaw School. If the distinction of a profes-sional school is measured in part by thequality and support of its graduates, thereshould be no doubt where Wisconsinranks in this dimension as well.

As I recall these qualities I have so val-ued during my years on the UW Law Fac-ulty, I can only hope the future will beeven brighter and more illustrious. All theingredients are here-a faculty of first-ratescholars and teachers, a challenging andcommitted student body, a supportive andaccomplished alumni, and a congenialuniversity setting. One could not askmore than this, and I would not expect tofind more anywhere else.

Community PropertyComes to WisconsinWilliam G. Moore

9

June Weisberger

On the First ofjanuary 1986, the WisconsinMarital Property Act of 1984 will replacecurrent Chapter 766 of the Wisconsin Stat-utes, "The Rights of Married Women." TheAct is an integrated statutory plan basedupon a community property system. Whenimplemented, it will make Wisconsin the firstcommon law property state in which "a seri-ous attempt to introduce the concept of fullsharing of the economic fruits of marriage"has been made.

Professor June Weisbergel; who joined theLaw School Faculty in 1974, played a largepart in the drafting of the bill which waspassed by the Legislature in the Spring of1984. What began for her, during the 1975-76 school year, as a "spare time project"quickly escalated into an enormous under-taking-forty-six total versions of the billwere drafted before final passage.

So comprehensive is the enacted legisla-tion and the uniform act upon which it isbased, say some scholars, that it "representsan excellent model for other common lawstates, as well as for community propertyjurisdictions looking to improve their ownstatutory schemes." Twelve states are pres-ently considering the Uniform Marital Prop-erty Act as a model for modifications of theirmarital property law statutes.

On the other hand, critics have displayeda spectrum of opposition that ranges fromclaims that the Act will destroy the viablility

of the family unit, to the belief that, with orwithout the recent changes in spousal rela-tionships and marital patterns, marriage can-not be viewed as a partnership of equals.

Whatever the verdict, many believe that"[ilhe community property system [more] accu-rately reflects the modem trend toward viewingmarriage as a partnership and is ... superiorto the common law theory of marital property."

Professor Weisberger's vital role in thedevelopment of the Act and the genesis, his-tory and some of the controversy of the newlegislation in Wisconsin are traced below.

Twenty-two years ago, the Report of theCommittee on Civil and Political Rights tothe President's Commission on the Statusof Women produced a critical analysis ofwhat it perceived to be the inequities ofthe marriage contract and, with it, offeredsome solutions to offset these imbalances.In part, the Commission reported,

Marriage is a partnership to which eachspouse makes a different but equallyimportant contribution. This fact hasbecome increasingly recognized in therealities of American family living.While the laws of other countries haveret1ected this trend, family laws in thiscountry have lagged behind. Accord-ingly, the Committee concludes that dur-ing marriage each spouse should have alegally defined and substantial right inthe earnings of the other spouse and inthe real and personal property acquiredas a result of such earnings, as well as inthe management of such earnings andproperty ....

Since 1963, the character of marriagehas changed considerably. The divorce ratehas risen dramatically, and in many fami-lies both spouses are employed. Family lawhas changed as well, yet many problemsunderscored by the Commission haveremained. Equal contribution by spouses isnot recognized by the vast majority of credi-tors, for example. Often, "a non-wage earn-

ing, non-asset owning spouse will probablybe in a better position, from a legal and eco-nomic point of view, following divorce ...than during an ongoing marriage:' And"[rjeformers have stressed the irony ofexisting public policy in common law prop-erty states which recognizes the principle ofspousal sharing and the concept of mar-riage as an economic partnership onlywhen the marriage is no longer viable," thatis, at divorce.

At a national level a remedy for thiscondition has been suggested through aconversion to a community property sys-tem. In 1979, the National Conference ofCommissioners on Uniform State Lawsformed a drafting committee on a Uni-form Marital Property Act (UMPA). As thefruit of their efforts, the Committee pro-duced a draft intended to serve as a modelby which states could reform the "existingrules [which] are fundamentally inconsis-tent with the modern belief that marriageis a partnership between equal persons... ," and assuage the inequities outlinedby the Committee and recognized by anincreasing number of lawyers and laypeo-pie. Wisconsin's endeavors along theselines, however, began even before thenational proposal was issued.

A Push for Change:Wisconsin's Marital Property ActWisconsin is the first common law prop-erty state to address comprehensive mari-tal property law reform. The state's Mari-tal Property Act is linked to, but is to adegree independent of, the Uniform Mari-tal Property Act adopted by the NationalConference in July 1983. In fact, prior tothe formation of the UMPA drafting Com-mittee, an ad hoc committee broughttogether by the Governor's Commissionon the Status of Women had alreadydrafted the preliminary version of whatwould ultimately become the state's Mari-

10

tal Property Act. Wisconsin later based itsMarital Property Act on UMPA, to whichit had contributed many provisions whilethe Uniform Act was in its infant stages.

It was an important relationship charac-terized by symbiosis; while the WisconsinAct benefited greatly from the force of thenational reform plan when it faced lawmakers, the national committee was aidedby the efforts of Professor June Weisbergerand those with whom she worked to for-mulate a bill. A fertile exchange of ideasand information was expedited by PeterDykman, who both served on the UMPAdrafting committee and works as a supervi-sory attorney in the Legislative ReferenceBureau, the agency which drafted Wiscon-sin's version of the Act.

The origins of the Wisconsin MaritalProperty Act can be traced back to 1974,to the failure of the State Equal RightsAmendment. Proponents, frustrated intheir efforts to pass the constitutionalamendment, re-routed their plans andworked for the passage of an omnibus billwhich would make the Wisconsin statutessex-neutral, and which addressed the spe-cific issues they believed were in need ofreform. The omnibus bill passed, butmissing from its provisions was any revi-sion of marital property laws. The reform-ers took up marital property law reformseparately shortly thereafter.

Thus in the mid 1970s, the Governor'sCommission on the Status of Women initi-ated a "broad push to define the legal rightsof women." Marital property rights wereamong these. The momentum needed toget a bill through the intricate machinery ofthe legislature was underway.

From Groundwork to Enactment:The "Popover Paper Days"and Subsequent PassageIn 1975, an ad hoc committee made up oflegislators, practicing lawyers, citizensgroups and law professors was formedunder the auspices of the Governor'sCommission on the Status of Women to"study alternative legal rules governingspousal property rights and make recom-mendations for change." Research wasprovided through law students whoworked under the supervision of Profes-sor Weisberger. Her role later grew toinclude, along with other members of thecommittee, the duties of exploring theimplications of a bill, determining whatdirection it should take, and formulatingspecific provisions. Professor Weisbergerthen drafted instructions from the conclu-sions drawn up by the Committee.

The early meetings of the ad hoc com-mittee were held in the Popover Room inthe Memorial Union at the University ofWisconsin. There, papers were presentedsuggesting general policies for drafting

instructions. The meetings acted as asounding board where alternatives wereexplored and tentative provisions weremodified or excised. These "PopoverPapers" streamlined the drafting process.Comprehensive drafting instructions werehanded to the Legislative ReferenceBureau of the Wisconsin Legislature in1978. The first bill was introduced inDecember of 1979.

Its progress from then on was "due tothe dedicated efforts of RepresentativesMary Lou Munts, James Rutkowski andBarbara Ulichny as well as Senators Wil-liam Bablitch and James Flynn." Additionalsupport came in the Fall of 1983, when thebill was re-drafted to incorporate most ofthe provisions of the Uniform Act's provi-sions. From the time of its inception to itsfinal form, the bill saw some forty-six ver-sions. In March of 1984, the Wisconsin Leg-islature passed "1983 A.B 200, the MaritalProperty Reform Bill:' Governor Earlsigned the Act on April 4, 1984. On January1, 1986 it takes effect. Wisconsin is the firststate to adopt a version of the UniformMarital Property Act.

For legislation proposing such funda-mental change in existing law, 1983 A.B200 encountered remarkably little opposi-tion in the Senate. Votes there went over-whelmingly in favor of it, 27 for, 5opposed; in the Assembly the bill metwith greater resistance, 59 for, 43opposed. Still, Representative Mary LouMunts claims she was "elated that itpassed in just three sessions."

Professor Weisberger attributes thebill's success to three factors: firstly, to thegrass roots movement which precededand accompanied legislative debate andbroke the ground for reform; secondly, tosupport the bill received from prominentlegislators; and lastly, to the earlier Wis-consin legislative efforts which were keyto the passage of UMPA-based legislation.

Others involved in supporting the billagree with Professor Weisberger's analy-sis, but hasten to add that her "untiringefforts" were essential to the launching ofthe legislation.

The Wisconsin Act: Provisions in BriefIt is not the aim of this article to offer adetailed and scholarly explanation of pro-visions of the Martial Property Act; that isthe place of law reviews and journals.What is provided is a brief description ofsome of the key changes included in thelegislation and the philosophical bases forthose changes.

A. Fundamental Premises

The Wisconsin Act is based on the "funda-mental policy determination that it is desir-able to replace common law definitions ofmarital rights and responsibilities and

implement property rules with a definitionof marriage as a partnership betweenequals and property rules consistent withthat definition." Its "root concept" is thatproperty attained during marriage by theefforts of spouses is to be shared.

B. Classification of Property

The Act "creates a new system of prop-erty rights applicable to property ownedby spouses during a marriage."

Property falls into one of two catego-ries: Individual or Marital. The latter hasthe broadest definition. Property acquiredduring marriage and after the Act's effec-tive date by efforts of Wisconsin marriedcouples is marital property. Each spousehas an existing, one-half undivided inter-est in it. This classification includes allwages earned by either spouse and incomederived from the second category, individ-ual property. All property is presumed tobe marital property unless classified other-wise by a preponderance of evidence.

Individual property is defined as thatwhich is owned by a spouse at the time ofa marriage and includes property which isacquired during marriage and after thedetermination date by gift or by testamen-tary disposition or under intestacy.

The Act has only tangential impact ondivorce proceedings. Its provisions seek toestablish above all the "present sharedproperty rights of spouses during mar-riage." The Act simply escorts couples "tothe door of the divorce court:' and "addsone more factor to the current list of factorsto be considered by a court when dividingthe spouses' property at divorce .... "

In order to minimize any constitutionalproblems, the Act will have no immediateimpact on the characterization of propertyheld by couples who were married beforethe Act's effective date. Such property will"continue to have whatever characteris-tics it had before the Act became applica-ble to its owners" until divorce or death.

C. Management of Property

The Act offers a plan under which maritalproperty may be managed and controlledby either one or both spouses.

Spouses may title marital property inany form allowed by law. Management istitle based; if title to property is held byone spouse alone that spouse has, underthe Act, the exclusive right to manage andcontrol the given property, "subject to thegeneral duty that he or she will do so ingood faith." Title, it should be stressed,does not rebut the presumption that allspousal property is marital property.

Either spouse may manage maritalproperty titled in the alternative; bothmust manage that which is held in theconjunctive.

D. Marital Property Agreements

A key provision in the Act allows spouses toreclassify their property by a Marital Prop-erty Agreement, which provides coupleswith the opportunity to tailor an agreementto their individual needs and requirements.If no contractual variance is made, the Actapplies as stated in the statutes.

The adjustable nature allows a coupleto "opt-in, opt-out, or do both in part[and] permits a couple to move its maritaleconomics from status to contract."

There remain, however, inalterablerights provided by the Act. A MaritalProperty Agreement can in no way mod-ify the good faith management responsi-bilities of spouses to one another, alter theprovisions protecting third party creditorsor bona fide purchasers, or the support ofchildren. All other provisions are open tocontractual variance unless contrary topublic policy.

E. Interspousal Remedies

Under the Act, marriage is viewed as a jointventure and a quasi-business association inwhich both partners have certain, definedrights. The right to legal action by onespouse against the other is one of these.

In situations where a given maritalproperty asset is titled in the name of onespouse only, the Act specifically indicatesthe existence of management rights forthe titled spouse. In addition, it providesmeaningful remedies to the spouse whosename does not appear of record. Morespecifically, a spouse may have a claimagainst the other for "breach of duty ofgood faith resulting in damage to theclaimant spouse's undivided one halfinterest in marital property." If maritalproperty is used to satisfy a debt otherthan a marital obligation, the non-obli-gated spouse may ask for a court to orderthat he or she be reimbursed with maritalproperty, redesignated as individual prop-erty, equal in value to that taken to repaythe debt. Also, except for certain businessproperty, a non-titled spouse may have hisor her name added to a document of title.

F Taxes

The Act provides for a state joint incometax system. The effective date of the Actwas planned to coincide with the start ofa new tax year for married couples.

G. Death of a Spouse; Probate

At the death of a spouse living in Wis-consin, all property owned by thatspouse that was acquired during mar-riage and before the determination datethat would have been marital propertyunder the Act is treated as marital prop-erty. The provision aims to protect thesurviving spouse because property of the

deceased which would have been maritalproperty is divided in half before thewishes set forth in the deceased's willare taken into account.

H. The Trailer Bill

In June of 1984, the Legislative Councilestablished a Special Committee on Mar-tial Property Implementation. Its task wasto formulate a technical amendments ortrailer bill to assist in a smooth transitionto the new marital property system. Pro-fessor vveisberger was appointed to serveas one of three public members. She alsoserved as the Chairperson of the SpecialCommittee's Technical Review Subcom-mittee. As a result of the Special Commit-tee's deliberations and the LegislativeCouncil's recommendations, a trailer billwas introduced into the Wisconsin Legis-lature in the Spring of 1985. The trailerbill was passed by the Senate. At this writ-ing, it awaits Assembly action.

The Reaction of CriticsOpponents of UMPA and Wisconsin's

version thereof have been characterizedby an unwillingness to change the existingsystem. The cost and complexity of suchmodifications, they argue, are too great.

Some have what Professor Weisbergerrefers to as "philosophical differences"with the provisions of the Acts, and do notacknowledge that marriage consists oftwo co-equal contributors.

A number of lawyers have pointed tothe legal headaches their profession willface once the Act is implemented. JohnHaydon ('59), a Milwaukee based coun-selor with the law firm of Whyte andHirschboeck, spoke at the Law School'sSpring Program Seminar on The Wiscon-sin Marital Property Act. Once a strongopponent of the Act, he has now begun towork to smooth its implementation,largely through work on the trailer bill.The reaction he feels lawyers will have tothe Act is one of "disbelief, frustrationand discomfort as they re-think the tradi-tional ways of representing spouses." As"conflicts become more and more the rulethan the exception:' lawyers will beforced to re-examine the traditional ethi-cal basis of representing a couple, thespouses of which may now have separatelegal needs and interests. Above all, law-yers must learn, he stressed, that"informed consent is necessary to be freeof ethical problems" of the profession andthat separate representation of spousesmay, in many cases, be a necessity.

But since the Wisconsin Act followedyears of studying the shortcomings of thecommon law property rules and theadvantages of many of the existing rulesin the eight American community prop-

11

erty states, many of the faults associatedwith the traditional property systems havebeen overcome.

Foresighted provisions have, for exam-ple, eliminated the dilemma wj-~ichariseswhen spouses maintain two residences,one within, the other without the state-aproblem which many community prop· .erty states still have not correct~d. In WIS-consin, spouses are "free to designate thelaw of the jurisdiction of their choicewhich shall govern their property rights."It is, one scholar said of an early versionof the bill, and mirrored in the propo-nents' assessments of today's muchchanged Act, "[a] carefully thought out,well drafted and comprehensive statutoryscheme which addresses itself to theunderlying causes of the present difficul-ties [and] discards the non-system of themarried women property act and insteadsubstitutes a true system of communityproperty better than any of the eight mod-els now in existence ... ." " [It is] an excel-lent model for other common law states."

The FutureThe immediate impact of the WisconsinMarital Property Act will be the removalof the "irony of existing public policy" ina state which recognizes the principle ofco-equal spousal partnership, but only atdivorce. How long it will be before theAct begins to reshape the edifice createdby former policies and statutes is impos-sible to say.

Professor Weisberger believes animmediate practical change brought aboutby the Act will be the extension of impor-tant economic rights to lesser-wage andnon-wage earning spouses-the extensionof credit, for one.

Subtle changes will be manifested overlonger periods of time, she maintains.Ultimately, the Act will "give to home-makers and lesser wage earners a truesense of contribution, a new feeling ofself-worth and encourage them to partici-pate more in decision making."

How this new feeling will affect thedivorce rate, the structure of everydayfamily living, marital violence, probateand the cost of death or divorce, is yet tobe seen. Whether or not one family canbe represented by single counsel alsoremains a question in some minds. Part ofthe answer will be found in how awarethe public is of the new legislation andhow comprehensible it finds it.

The majority seems to concur, in anycase, that UMPA and the Wisconsin Actwill provide for a more equitable maritalstatus for both spouses. At a time whenthe fundamental institution of our liveshas proven so fragile, the Acts offer anew promise toward a sounder frame-work for marriage.

International Experienceof the UW Law Faculty

15

The University of Wisconsin Law Schoolboasts a diversified, urbane faculty whose con-cerns voyage well beyond the confines of theUniversity proper. Many of our faculty mem-bers have traveled and spent time outside ofthe United States promoting learning and edu-cation in other lands, and offering their exper-tise to the governments offoreign nations.

The University's law professors have vis-ited, taught and lectured in over forty coun-tries: nine African lands; eight Europeancountries; the Soviet Union; Australia; muchof Central and South America, and countriesin Southeast Asia, the Caribbean, and theMiddle East.

Some have occupied such prestigious posi-tions as advisors to Supreme Courts andMinisters of Finance, consultants to thearchitects of new judicial systems, Deans offoreign universities and envoys in US govern-ment missions to foreign lands; others havebeen professors in residence, guest lecturersand conferees.Gordon Baldwin specialized in Interna-tional Affairs at Cornell University LawSchool. He has had a broad range of expe-riences in international matters: Between1966 and 1977 he was awarded two Ful-bright Professorships to teach and studyin Cairo and in Teheran. He lectured inCyprus and in the summer of 1984 was avisiting professor at Chuo University inTokyo, Japan. Mr. Baldwin has also servedthe US Government on numerous occa-sions. From 1975-1976 he was a counseloron International Law for the Departmentof State. He acted as a delegate to the UNConference on Charter Revision in 1976,and during several months of 1977 waspart of a US mission to Bolivia to investi-gate prison conditions; in that same coun-try he assisted a US Government missionon narcotics investigations.

Awarded a Fulbright to study in Cam-bridge, England, Richard Bilder also

worked as an attorney for the Office ofLegal Services at the Department of State,where he participated in a number ofinternational negotiations and confer-ences. He returned to England for asemester in 1972 as a visiting fellow at theInstitute for the Study of InternationalOrganization, at the University of Sussex.

William Church was a lecturer atHaile Sellasie I University in Ethiopiafrom 1963 to 1965 and at the University ofZambia Law School from 1972 to 1974. Inthe interim, from 1971 to 1972, he servedas an advisor to the Supreme Court ofAfghanistan. In past summers he hasjoined forces with Professors Davis, Irish,Kidwell and Zile to teach foreign studentsinterested in the workings of UnitedStates law. This summer, along with Pro-fessors Irish and Zile, he traveled to WestGermany to teach a short course in Amer-ican law at the Justus-Liebig Universitaetat Giessen.

From 1971to 1972 WaIter Dickey wasan Overseas fellow and honorary lecturerwith the Inernational Legal Center at theUniversity of Ghana, and a research fel-low to the Ghanian Ministry of Justice.

Bill Foster was an AdministrativeAssistant to the then Secretary of State,Dean Acheson, in 1950-1951. For the1963-1964 academic year he lectured onAmerican Institutions as a Visiting Distin-guished Professor at the University of Aix-en-Provence in southern France and fromJanuary through May 1964 also gave simi-lar lectures-sunder the sponsorship of theAmerican Cultural Centre at Paris-e-tc stu-dents enrolled at the Sorbonne. InNovember 1970, he accompanied theHonorable Wade McCree, Jr.~then on theUS Court of Appeals for the Sixth Cir-cult-s-to Venice, Italy, where for a weekthey participated as the US representa-tives to the World Conference of Chief

Judges. As an Advisor to the Chief Justiceof Afghanistan in 1976, Bill worked withAfghan lawyers, training them to preparedigests and headnotes for use in reportingthe opinions of the Supreme Court ofAfghanistan. Indeed, he stayed longenough to see in print Volume I of AfghanJudicial Reports lin Persian). To the best ofhis knowledge, no Volume II appearedthereafter-s-owing in part at least to monu-mental troubles in that troubled land.Finally, he has from time to time lecturedon civil rights in the United States at bothOxford and Cambridge in Britain.

Marc Galanter does double duty as aProfessor of South Asian Studies here atUW From 1957 to 1958, he was a Ful-bright scholar in India, in 1972, a consul-tant to the International Legal Center onpromoting social research on Indian Law.From 1981 to 1984 Marc was a consultantto the Ford Foundation in New Delhi onlegal services and human rights programs.He has lectured in the United Kingdom,Denmark, Holland, Italy, Germany theSoviet Union, Sri Lanka and India.

With a travel grant from the Ford Foun-dation, Herman Goldstein studied polic-ing methods and policies in Denmark, theNetherlands and England. More recently,he has served as a consultant to London'sMetropolitan Police, Scotland Yard.

Stuart Gullickson participated inAustralia's first National Conference onLegal Education in Sydney, Australia in1976, and in 1980 acted as a consultant tothe College of Law at Sydney on practicallegal training matters.

A member of the teaching staff at theAmerican Studies Seminar in Kyoto Japanin the Summer of 1966, Willard Hurstalso taught American History and Institu-tions at Cambridge University, Englandfrom 1967-1968.

16

Last Fall's issue of the Gargoyle testifiedto the vast international experience ofCharles Irish, who, among many posi-tions, served as a legal advisor to the Zam-bian Minstry of Finance and instructed at atthe University of Zambia Law School. Hehas also lectured on international fiscalissues and on the taxation of naturalresources in the Sudan, the Philippines, theUnited Kingdom, Canada, Indonesia,Malaysia, Japan, Tonga, Trinidad andTobago, Tanzania, Sierra Leone, the FederalRepublic of Germany, Taiwan and Kenya.He has served as a consultant on interna-tional tax issues to various United Nationsagencies, US AID, the Organisation of East-ern Caribbean States, and the governmentsof the Barbados, Ghana and Nepal.

Warren Lehman was a resident at theRockefeller Foundation center in Bellagio,Italy where he worked on a section of hisjurisprudential study entitled "How WeMake Decisions," a piece on the phenome-nology of moral and legal decision making.

The Director of the Chile Law Programof the International Legal Center in San-tiago from August of 1970 to January of1972, Stewart Macaulay aided Chileanprofessors in the reform of legal educationand in research on the impact of laws.During the Summer of 1979, he was a vis-itor at the Centre for Socio-Legal Studiesat Oxford University. In October of 1984,Stewart went to the Netherlands and par-ticipated in a conference on lawyer-clientinteraction in Gronigen. In May of thisyear he presented a paper on lawyeradvertising to the European Workshop onConsumer Law in Brussels. In June, hewas the educational Activity Leader for alawyers' group tour to the Soviet Union.

In 1975, James MacDonald lecturedin Japan, Malaysia and the Philippines onUnited States environmental law. Threeyears later, he lived in Japan for ninemonths while doing research on Japaneselaws and institutions regulating the alloca-tion of water for the Japan Society for thePromotion of Science. He will return toJapan next June for an additional sevenmonths of research and investigation onJapanese water allocation.

A Fulbright Lecturer in Japan during1968 and 1969, Samuel Merrnin wasagain in Japan during 1975 and 1976,where he was a visiting professor atDoshisha University in Kyoto, a SeniorCooperative Research Fellow with theJapan Society for the Promotion of Sci-ence and a USIA lecturer on Public Lawand Jurisprudence in Japan, Korea, Tai-wan, Thailand and the Philippines. Mostrecently, Mr. Mermin was a visiting pro-fessor from 1982 to 1983 at Chuo Univer-sity and the Institute of Comparative Lawof Japan, and he lectured at various otherJapanese Universities.

Gary Milhollin is a member of the USState Department Advisory Committee onInternational Investment, Technology andDevelopment. He has recently completeda study on nuclear trade relationsbetween the United States and India, andhe is currently planning a book on theoptions for the control of US origin pluto-nium held by foreign countries.

Anita Morse was a Peace Corp Volun-teer in Thailand. There she served as ateacher of English as a second Language inBangkok. She also taught at ThammasatUniversity, at the undergraduate Law Pro-gram, and at a Middle School in Dhonburi.

Ted Schneyer studied legal constraintson Swedish public enterprise at the Uni-versity of Stockholm on a FulbrightGrant. In 1980 in Tel Aviv, he and fellowUW Law Professor Ted Finman collabo-rated on a lecture entitled "The Role ofBar Association Ethics Opinions in Regu-lating Lawyer Conduct." The lecture wasgiven at the International Congress on theEthics and Responsibilities of the LegalProfession.

Born in San Jose, Costa Rica, JosephThome moved to the United States as aboy. He has concentrated much of hisstudy of law on Latin American legalinstitutions and legal problems of eco-nomic and social change in LatinAmerica. In this pursuit he spent fouryears in Chile and two in Columbia. Healso has served as a coordinator of collab-orative research and training programbetween the Land Tenure Center of theUniversity of Wisconsin and the Centerfor Agrarian Reform Research of the Min-istry of Agriculture, Nicaragua and actedas consultant to the Ecuadorian AgrarianReform Institute, and to the NationalAgrarian Institute of Honduras. In theSummer of 1982 he consulted with theInter-American Legal Services Organiza-tion for the purpose of evaluating itsprojects for supporting legal services forthe poor in Latin America. In 1978 and1979 he was awarded a research fellow onwater law in Spain, and in the Summer of1985 was a consultant to Florida Interna-tional University on a project on theadministration of justice in Costa Rica,Panama and Honduras.

Dean Cliff Thompson and his familylived in three African nations from 1961 to1973. In Sudan he lectured in Law at theUniversity of Khartoum and directed theSudan Law Project on research and lawreform. He was a Senior Lecturer in Lawat the University of Zambia Law School,of which he is a co-founder, and a profes-sor and Dean at Haile Sellasie I Universityin Ethiopia. Closer to home, he helpedfound and was associate director of theAfrican Law Center at the Columbia Uni-versity School of Law. In 1980 he tutoredPrince Bin Sultan Saud, who is currently

Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the UnitedStates. He has served as legal educationconsultant to several African Universities,and in 1983 was a Distinguished FulbrightProfessor in Sudan and Ethiopia.

From 1962-1964, David Trubekserved the Agency for InternationalDevelopment as an attorney and advisor.He was legal advisor and chief of theOffice of Housing and Urban Develop-ment in the USAID mission to Brazil from1964-1966. In 1980 he spent a semester atthe Commission of the European Com-munities in Brussels. Most recently, in1982, he was a visiting scholar in resi-dence at the European University Insti-tute in Florence, Italy. He has lectured inBrazil, Belgium, the Netherlands, Franceand Germany.

From September of 1964 to August of1965, Frank 'Iuerkhetmer worked as anAssistant to the Attorney General of Swa-ziland under a Ford Foundation grantadministered by the Maxwell School ofSyracuse University. During that time, hehad the duties of Crown Counsel, whichentailed appearing in court on behalf ofHer Majesty in civil and criminal cases,drafting legislation and offering counsel togovernmental agencies; he also began acodification of Swazi law and custom atthe request of the government.

From 1967 to 1969, William Whitfordwas a Fulbright Lecturer at the Universityof Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Honoredagain with a Fulbright in 1975, he spent ayear researching and lecturing at the Uni-versity of Nairobi.

Zigurds Zile originally hails from Lat-via. From 1949-1950 he worked as anadministrative assistant with the Interna-tional Refugee Organization in West Ger-many. He moved to the United states in1950. Since that time he has worked witha cooperative project in legal education inPeru (1968-19731; in 1977 he received aFulbright-Hays Grant to do research atthe University of Helsinki. In 1982 hereturned to Helsinki as a visiting profes-sor. He is one of the organizers of, andteachers in the summer program inUnited States Law and Legal Institutionsfor foreign lawyers, offered annually onthe Madison campus. In the spring of1985, Mr. Zile taught a short course onProduct Safety and Liability Law at Jus-tus-Liebig-Universitaet in Giessen, WestGermany. Most of his publications con-cern Soviet Law.

The great wealth of international experi-ence displayed here adds an importantdimension to the UW Law program.Together with those faculty members whohave chosen to concentrate on issues ofdomestic law, these travelers constitute ascholarly and concerned faculty which pro-vides the student body with the experience,challenge and insight so essential to a goodlaw program.

istin ished ServiceAwards Presented

17

Francis J. Wilcox Patrick W. Cotter

Association. Pat is also the only person toserve two terms as President of the LawAlumni Association.

Both recipients have distinguished notonly themselves by their lives andcareers, but have also earned additionalcredit to their Law School.

Previous DistinguishedService Award Recipients1967 1972Theodore W. Brazeau Arthur W. KoppOliver S. Rundell Nathan P. FeinsingerJohn D. Wickhem

At its Spring Program, the Wisconsin LawAlumni Association presented its 35th and36th Distinguished Service Awards toFrancis J. Wilcox ('32) and Patrick W. Cot-ter ('401. The award, presented since 1967,recognizes t t ••• an outstanding contribu-tion to the profession ... as a practitioner,teacher, judge or in government."

In his presentation, Robert B. L.Murphy ('32) noted that Frank Wilcoxexcelled in Law School, as a member ofthe Law Review and Coif, while still man-aging to graduate in only two years. Thiswas an early example, Bob believes, of thethree driving principles of Frank's charac-ter and career: exacting self-discipline,determination to excel and a clear senseof obligation to community, professionand person. Among his many previoushonors and offices are service as Presidentof the State Bar of Wisconsin (1963-64),Chairman of the American Cancer Soci-ety, and various church activities culmi-nating in appointment to the Order of theKnights of St. Gregory, the highest honorafforded a Catholic layman.

Harry F. Franke, ('49) made the presen-tation to Patrick Cotter. Pat's civic andprofessional service made a list too long torecite in full, but included membership onthe "Goals for Milwaukee 2000" commit-tee, chairman of United Way of Milwau-kee, and President of the Milwaukee Bar

1968F. Ryan Duffy, Sr.

1969William Herbert PageHarland B. Rogers

1970Ray A. BrownGeorge R. Currie

1971Ralph M. HoytJacob H. Beuscher

1973Charles BunnW. Wade Boardman

1974Lloyd K. GarrisonDorothy Walker

1975Lester S. ClemonsAbner Brodie

1976Glen R. CampbellWilliam G. Rice

1977Warren H. ReshRichard V. Campbell

1978J. Willard HurstJ. Ward Rector

1979John E. ConwayRobert B. 1. Murphy

1980Catherine B. ClearyRay T. McCann

1981Gordon E. SinykinThomas E. Fairchild

1982Bruce F. BeilfussGeorge H. Young

1983Warren P. Knowles

1984Richard W. Orton

18

otes on AlumsJohn C. Wickhem ('49) and Louis D.Gage ('47) have formed Wickhem andGage, S. C., for general and trial practicein Janesville.

Howard]. Otis ('48) reports that he willbe retiring from the active Colorado judi-ciary to enter Senior Judge status, and headds that in the near future he hopes tovisit Wisconsin.

Nancy Murry Barkla ('55) River Falls,Wisconsin, is now a full time staff attor-ney with the Wisconsin Judicare, Inc..working as an attorney and advocate in atwelve county area of western Wisconsin.In addition, she was recently elected aVice-President of the Saint Croix ValleyBar Association.

John R. Race ('60) was called from hisprivate practice in Elkhorn, Wisconsin inAugust of 1984 by Governor Earl to suc-ceed the retiring Judge John Byrnes asWalworth County Circuit Judge forBranch III. In April of this year he waselected to a full six year term.

William M. Shernoff ('62) was recentlycredited by the New York Times as afounder of the new legal specialty of suinginsurers who refuse to pay claims. Bill isdeemed a leader in the "burgeoning legalfield known as 'insurance bad faith' litiga-tion." His most celebrated victory con-cerned the MGM Grand Hotel case, inwhich a $76 million settlement wasreached in the Hotel's suit against a con-sortium of insurance companies.

Robert B. Moberly ('66) a professor atthe University of Florida College of Law,delivered the third annual Dunbar Lec-ture at the University of West VirginiaCollege of Law. His lecture was entitled"New Directions in Worker Participationand Collective Bargaining."

Hanford O'Hara ('69) has become a part-ner in the Washington, D. C. firm of Mac-

Donald, McInerny, Guandolo, Jordan andCrampton.

Seward M. Cooper ('78) has, since 1983,been a managing partner at the ThbmanLaw Firm in Monrovia, Liberia. In 1984,he was also a lecturer on business law atthe University of Liberia.

Judy Johnson ('80) has been selected aBush Leadership Fellow and MerchantScholar for 1985-86, and will be in resi-dence at the John F. Kennedy School ofGovernment at Harvard University pursu-ing advanced studies at the Law School,Business School and School of Govern-ment. She received her CPA and CMA in1984, and is a member of the Universityof Minnesota tax faculty. She practiceslaw and accounting in Minneapolis.

Terrance C. Meade ('81) is a member ofthe firm of Gust, Rosenfeld, Divelbessand Henderson in Phoenix, Arizona.While practicing law there, he alsoproduces the firm's Legal Notes, a newslet-ter designed to keep clients abreast ofnewly emerging legal issues and concerns.

Faculty NoteW. Lawrence Church received a Univer-sity of Wisconsin-Madison DistinguishedTeaching Award for 1985. On April 18 atthe University Center, Larry was pre-sented with a $2,500 cash award for "dis-tinctive contributions to advancing thecause of good teaching at the University"by UW-Madison Chancellor Irving Shain.

19

1973 Thomas R. HeftyBlue Cross/Blue Shield United401 W. Michigan Ave.Milwaukee, WI 53201(414) 226-6295

1951 Vel R. PhillipsPhillips, Gambrell &JonesSuite 1306606 W. Wisconsin Ave.Milwaukee, WI 53203(414) 244-0888

1968 Colin D. PietzKelley, Weber, Pietz & Slater, S C.530 Jackson St.Wausau, WI 54401(715) 845-9211

1950 William RosenbaumStafford, Rosenbaum, Rieser & HansenP.O. Box 1784Madison, WI 53701(6081 256-0226

1978 Mark E. SostarichGodfrey & Kahn780 N. Water St.Milwaukee, WI 53202(414) 273-3500

1977 Sandra K. SternWeber & WeberSuite 915111 E. Wisconsin Ave.Milwaukee, WI 53202(414) 271-5169

1973 Susan A. Wiesner-HawleyMadison Metropolitan School District545 W. Dayton St.Madison, WI 537031608) 266-6062

1948

1976

Board of Visitors

Chief Justice Nathan S. Heffernan231 East State CapitolMadison, WI 53702(608)266-1886

John A. KaiserRiley, Ward & KaiserP.O. Box 358Eau Claire, WI 54702(715) 835-6178

1978 Pierce A. McNallyFBS Merchant Banking Group1300 1st Bank Place WestMinneapolis, MN 55402(612) 343-1590

1978 Patricia M. ThimmigWheeler, Van Sickle, Anderson, Norman &Harvey25 W. Main St.Madison, WI 53703(608)255-7277

1985-851949 Chairman

Judge John W. ReynoldsUS District CourtEastern District517 E. Wisconsin Ave.Milwaukee, WI 53202(414) 291-3188

1952 Vice-chairmanDavid Y. CollinsCollins & HendersonP.O. Box 777Beloit, WI 535111608) 365-6614

1973 Kirby O. Bouthilet1168 Eliza St.Green Bay, WI 5430114141435-2117

1959 Thomas J. DroughtCook & Franke, S C.Suite 401660 E. Mason St.Milwaukee, WI 532021414)271-5900

1937 Stanley C. Fruits5113 Regent St.Madison, WI 53705(6081238-6553

Wisconsin wAlumni Association1985-86Board of Directors1969 President

Conrad G. GoodkindQuarles & Brady780 N. Water St.Milwaukee, WI 53202(414) 277-5000

1973 President-electHoward A. PollackCharne, Glassner, Tehan, Clancy andTaitelman, Sc.211 W. Wisconsin Av.Milwaukee, WI 53202(414) 273-2000

1973 Past-presidentMark S. BonadyHessler & Bonady7670 N. Port Washington Rd.Milwaukee, WI 53217(414) 352-5600

1972 Steven R. AllenWhyte & Hirschboech, Sc.2100 Marine PlazaMilwaukee, WI 53202-4894(414)271-8210

1968 Jeffrey B. BartellQuarles & BradyP.O. Box 2113Madison, WI 53701(608)251-5000

1979 Christopher BuggThe Milwaukee Co.One S. Pinckney St.(608)255-4512

1978 David L. Charne211 W. 80th StreetNew York, NY 100241212)873-7571

1949 Glenn R. CoatesThompson & CoatesP.O. Box 516Racine, WI 53401(414)632-7541

1969 Edward R. Garvey3421 Circle CloseMadison, WI 53705(6081238-0544

1967 Joel A. HaberBerman, Fagel, Haber, Maragos & Abrams14th Floor140 S. Dearborn St.Chicago, IL 60603(3121346-7500

20

Editor's ote

The recent story on Lavinia Goodellbrought a flurry of letters. A number ofyou wrote offering further information onLavinia, the first woman admitted to prac-tice law by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.Nancy Wheeler ('77), Nancy Barkla('55). Nancy Kopp ('84) and JackieMacaulay ('83) all sent extensive histori-cal information. Miss Goodell had anillustrious career even before her admis-sion to the bar as an editor and a teacher.Unfortunately, just one year after finallybeing admitted in June 1879, Miss Goodelldied at the age of 41. At the time of herdeath she was a member of what cer-tainly was Wisconsin's first all-womanlaw firm, Goodell & King, in Janesville,Wisconsin. Angela Josephine Kingattended the University of Chicago LawSchool in 1871,studied privately in Janes-ville and was admitted to practice in Rockcounty Circuit Court in 1879. Shortly afterbecoming partners, the two women suc-cessfully appealed a criminal case to theWisconsin Supreme Court. Angie Kingcontinued to practice in Janesville untilher death in 1913.

Volume 16, number 1contained thefirst color photo in the fifteen year historyof the GARGOYLE.For more than 40years the Curry mural has dominated thelibrary's Old Reading Room. Last summera newspaper photographer who spent a

day here said that the mural and the gar-goyle itself (the stone one, not the maga-zine) were the only two memorableimages he could find! This photo wastaken for us by Gary Schultz of the UWPhoto Media Center. Gary has taken mostof the pictures we have used these last 15years, but this is his last-Gary hasretired, probably to wander the countrywith two or three cameras hanging fromhis neck.

Recently Dean Thompson called for"Herbie Page" stories. A recent letterfrom Jim Drill ('61)offered a few recol-lections of other venerable professors.

Lenny Dubin ('62) and Jim took LegalProcess from Prof. Sam Mermin. Thecourse materials included writings by CarlLlewellyn.

During the final exam, Dubin askedProf. Mermin, "What type of answerwould you like?"

"Answer it as Llewellyn would," Mer-min replied.

As he walked away, Drill reports thatDubin was muttering, "Who the hell isLlewellyn?"

Jim also took Bills and Notes and wassurprised to find Nate Feinsinger teachingit. Jim says Nate performed very wellalthough he may not have had any moreprior knowledge of the subject than didhis students. The following semester they

met again in Labor Law.On the first day of class, Feinsinger

announced, "Some of you were with mein Bills and Notes last semester. We had agood time and I enjoyed learning withyou. But this course is Labor Law, andyou should understand that no one in theworld knows more about labor law thanI do!"

Finally the "mystery picture" in Vol-ume 15, Number 4 is a mystery no longer.Henry Buslee ('52). Joe Shutkin ('52)and Richard Murphy ('52) each provideda solution. Joe is in the middle of thegroup flanked on the right by George Ses-tack ('52) and Ellen Ziemann ('52). DeanOliver Rundell is handing a diploma toSestack and Wisconsin Supreme CourtChief Justice Oscar Fritz is shaking Ms.Ziemann's hand. The picture was taken inthe Court chambers on or about February2, 1952 at the sweating-in ceremony. JoeShutkin recalls that his first "case" camebefore this ceremony. Joe received hisfirst law degree from George WashingtonUniversity, and an LL.M. from UW-Madi-son. He successfully argued that thediploma privilege required only "a lawdegree" from a Wisconsin Law School.Successful yes, but was it also unauthor-ized practice?

Mystery PictureRecognize anyone? Recognize yourself? Are you willing toadmit it?

In recent years one of the highlights of homecominghas been a short skit by law students that interrupts Fridayclasses before the big game. In the interest of anonymity,we won't name those featured here, but will tell you thatthis photo dates from the late 1970's, sufficiently in the pastfor the statute to have run on this group.