Alumni Bulletin of the University of Wisconsin Law School Volume XII NO.2 Winter 1980-81

Return addreu:

:Jhe 9ar,o'J/elaw SchoolUniversity of WisconsinMadison, Wisconsin 53706

Second Class Postage Paid atWaterloo, Wis. 53594

EDITOR'S NOTEOnce again our readers have

identified the mystery photo onthe back cover of the last issue.Circuit Judge James C. Bollrecalled that, while Dane Co.Dis-trict Attorney, he would often donthe judges robes for a trial prac-tice course in the Law School.Thisparticular instance occurred in1965 when John H. Hendricks('67), now practicing in Superior,tried an auto accident case beforeJudge Boll. Correspondents hadmore trouble with the two personsfacing away from the camera. Onereader suggested that one of thesepersons was James Herrick, butthis part of the picture remains amystery.The mystery photo in this issue

was obviously taken in the oldbuilding. I recognize the professorbut cannot name him, althoughthat should be easy for many ofyou. I would be interested in notonly the names of persons in thepicture but also the class and theyear.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Letter from the President ... 3Law School HonorsPractitioners 4Evans Testimonial 5Law School Leads 6Board of Visitors Report 7Lighter Side 9Curriculum Ideas 11

THE GARGOYLEBulletin 01 the Uliversity 01 Wisconsin LawSchool, published quarterly.

Vol. 12 No.2 Winter 1980-81Edward J. Reisner. editor

Publication ollice. Law School, University 01Wisconsin, Madison:Wis. Second class postagepaid at Madison, Wis. and Waterloo, Wis.

Postm8st.r's Not.: Pl•••••• nd form 3579 to"Gargoyl.". University of Wisconsin L.wSchool, Madison, Wisconsin.

Subscription Price: 50¢ per year lor members.$1.00 per year lor non-members.

ON THE COVER: On January 12, 1981 another group of new graduatesstood before the Wisconsin Supreme Court and took the oath of office asattorneys. For each the event signifies the end of law school and thebeginning of a lifelong commitment to the learning necessary for an at-torney to remain current and competent.

Washington Office1025 Vermont Avenue N.w.Washington, D. C. 20005

12021 628-3110

QUARLES s, BRADY780 North Water Street

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 532021414)277-5000

TWX 910-262-3426

Florida Office251 Royal Palm Way

P. O. Box 2377Palm Beach, Florida 33480

(3051 655- 7190

Some years ago I become so incensed at the deteriorationof our Law School that I began voicing my concerns; notquietly. As a result, I was invited to several of theannual Visitations, then elected to the WLAA Board, andnow this year serve as WLAA President.

I found much justification for concern: following the Uni-versi ty merger and concurrent events our Law School hadindeed fallen upon hard times. The repeated rapid turn-over of Deans and the publicly voiced concern of the ABAAccreditation Committee bore ample witness. I found alsothat my concerns as an alumnus and practitioner wereshared by the Law School faculty and administration andthe causes better understood. I learned, for example,that when the faculty and administration sought to cutback the swollen size of the student body to a number thatcould be given quality education with existing staff,facilities and budget, the University replied that thebudget would be cut severely if they did so.

Dale L. Sorden'53

I am happy to report that those dark days have passed. For several years now ourSchool has been climbing steadily towards its former eminence. Many share the creditbut surely most must go to the unbelievably effective efforts of the quiet man: DeanOrrin Helstad.

I am pleased also to report, however, that your WLAA has played a most useful role.WLAA Board members and Visitors, after learning the facts, had useful discussions withUniversity administrators, Regents and legislators. The fruit has been good. WLAAfunds, contributed by you, have filled many small but important gaps in what couln bedone with budgeted funds, particularly in connection with recruiting and keeping qualityfaculty and in keeping quality students.

The resuscitation of our Law School has come far. It must continue. Your contributions,and if possible your personal involvement, really are important and needed. "Forward."

Sincerely,

DALE L. SORDEN

3

At the Board of Visitors Dinneron October 19, 1980, the LawSchool honored 67 practitionersfrom the Madison area who hadtaught in the Law School from1935 to 1975. In his remarks DeanHelstad not only congratulatedthese individuals for their timeand effort, but also pointed outhow practitioners affect the cur-riculum. Honored guests were:A. Roy AndersonRichard W. BardwellGlen H. BellW. Wade BoardmanJohn L. BruemmerFloyd A. BrynelsonFrank J. BucaidaBrian E. ButlerKenneth P. CaseyRichard L. CatesWilliam A. ChattertonJames R. ColeGerald T. ConklinEdwin C. ConradJohn P. Desmond

lAW SCHOOLHONORS

PRACTITIONERS

Jack R. DeWittJames E. DoyleWilliam F. EichMilo G. FlatenPaul C. GartzkeStephen E. GavinEugene O. GehlTheodore F. GunkelDavid J. HansonWalter L. HarveyNathan S. HeffernanDaniel W. HildebrandRichard A. HollernC. Vernon HowardJames D. JeffriesConrad H. JohnsonDonald D. JohnsonPercy L. Julian, Jr.Allan R. KoritzinskyMoria KruegerBeatrice W. LampertRobert R. LehmanPriscilla R. MacDougallNorris E. MaloneyJoseph A. MelliEarl H. Munson, Jr.

Robert B. L. MurphyGerald C. NicholJames A. OlsonRichard L. OlsonKenneth M. OrchardMaurice B. PaschRobert R. PekowskyThomas G. RagatzWilliam A. RosenbaumFrank A. RossFrank A. Ross, Jr.Gordon SinykinRobert William SmithSteven H. SteinglassMyron StevensWarren H. StolperSeward R. StroudRobert D. SundbySverre O. TinglumRay A. TomlinsonJack W. Van MetreDavid G. WalshJames E. WebsterCheryl Rosen WestonMichael W. WilcoxDonald D. Willink

4

Dean Orrin Evans

TESTIMONIAL FORORRIN B. EVANS

('35)On September 17, 1980 the

University of Southern CaliforniaLaw Center honored Professorand Dean Emeritus Orrin B.Evans. Dean Evans graduatedfrom our Law School in 1935 andwas a visiting professor here in1960. His accomplishments arenumerous, and we join with USCin congratulating him. Theremarks below are reprinted fromthe program of the testimonial:

Orrin B. Evans has been at USCsince 1947, and was at the time ofhis retirement on June 30, 1980,the most senior member of the lawfaculty. His long and brilliantcareer at USC included elevenyears' service as Associate Dean(1952-63) and four years as Dean(1963-67).

A special honor was bestowedon Orrin Evans when he wasnamed the prestigious Henry W.Bruce Professor of Law in 1952, atthe time the only named profes-sorship at the Law Center. He re-tained that title for 27 years untilhe was chosen as the George T.Pfleger Professor of Law in 1979.

His contributions to the USCLaw Center have been innumera-ble, constant and enduring. It wasduring his deanship that the eve-ning degree program was discon-tinued. This bold and courageousdecision, although misunderstoodin many sectors, was necessaryboth fiscally and to preserve thehigh quality of education. In-tegrity, more than any othercharacteristic, exemplified hisdecision-making while dean.

Interdisciplinary approaches tolegal studies began during OrrinEvans' tenure as dean and in-cluded the beginning use of socialscience materials now widelyembraced nationally among lawschools.

Perhaps the most lasting con-tribution he made was in directingthe largest fund raising effortever attempted at the Law Centerup to that time. During Orrin

Evans' deanship, the plans wereformulated to raise $3.2 million tobuild a modern building whichwould become a permanent addi-tion to the USC campus. He alsoguided the physical planning ofthis building as chairman of thefaculty building committee.

Orrin Evans has ta ugh thundreds of students such coursesas Personal Property, Real Pro-perty, Equity, Restitution, Gifts,Wills and Trusts, Community Pro-perty and Bankruptcy. The futureof many law students has seen hisguiding hand on the Law Center'sAdmissions Committee. Likewise,students petitioning for specialconsideration during the course oflaw school needed to pass hisscrutiny on the AdministrativeBoard (and sometimes didn't). Intestimony to the esteem in which

he is held by his faculty col-leagues, he often has been electedby them to the three-member Ad-ministration and Finance Com-mittee, the only elected facultycommittee.

Professor Evans' career at theLaw Center is only part of hishistory as a scholar. A native ofWisconsin, he attended theUniversity of Wisconsin, graduat-ing in 1931 with a B.A. degree andin 1935 with the LL.B. (withhonors).

Admitted to practice in 1935 inWisconsin, Professor Evans prac-ticed law in Madison for one year,and then entered Yale Universityto pursue advanced legal studiesas a Sterling Fellow in Law. Hereceived the J.s.n. from Yale in1940. For the following six yearshe served as attorney for the

5

University of Missouri while also aprofessor at its law school.

Service to his community andprofession has been very much apart of Professor Evans' career.From 1961-65, he was the VicePresident of the Los Angeles CivilService Commission. He hasserved the Association of Ameri-can Law Schools as its AssistantSecretary and member of its Ex-ecutive Committee, and has beena member and President of theLaw SchoolAdmission Test Coun-cil. He has served as an Inheri-tance Tax Appraiser, as publictrustee of the Food and Drug Law

Institute, and on the ArbitrationPanel of the American Arbitra-tion Association.

An active fisherman andhunter, Orrin Evan is married tothe former Margaret Searle, andis the father of three children -Margaret, Evan and David. He isthe proud grandfather of two.

Orrin B. Evans has been our col-league, our dean and our law pro-fessor at the USC Law Center for33 years. He has been a legaleducator for 43 years and hastaught at many of the major lawschools across the nation includ-ing the universities of Missouri,

LAW SCHOOL RANKSAMONG LEADERS

Yale, Northwestern, Wisconsinand the University ofCalifornia atBerkeley and Los Angeles. Hismore than 30 publications havebeen published in the Michigan,Minnesota, Missouri andSouthern California Law Reviews.But his career is more than a tallyof years and schools. It is adescription of a man who has dedi-cated his talents to improvinglegal education, and moreover, adescription of a man who morethan any other has shaped thecourse of legal education at theUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLaw Center.

6

There are many ways tomeasure the success of a lawschool in educating its students.Periodically rankings of schoolsappear based on any variety of"statistical" measures. Theserankings often lead to claims thatthis law school or that is one ofthe165 law schools in the "top ten."Nevertheless we were pleased tosee our LawSchoolfavorable men-tioned in two recent articles, arti-cles placing the University ofWisconsin Law School among the"top fifteen" in at least two areas.

The American Bar Foundationrecently examined the law schooltraining of law teachers in theU.S. They discovered that 20 lawschools generate almost 60%of alllaw teachers, with our Law Schoolranking 12th on the list with 63alumni teaching law. The studywent on to disclose that fiveschools (Harvard, Yale, Columbia,Michigan and Chicago) togetherproduce one-third of all lawteachers. The study suggests afear of inbreeding, particularilywithin the faculties of the major"producer" schools themselves.

Only about one-fourth of the UWLaw faculty are our own gradu-ates.

The second study was reportedin the Harvard Business Review(September-October 1980). Aftera 10-year survey of more than11,000 persons recently promotedto vice president or president of amajor American company, thesurvey found that 11%were attor-neys. These lawyers followed per-sons trained in business adminis-tration (33%)and engineers (18%)as the most numerous among topexecutives. Again the UW LawSchoolwas among the leaders. Fif-teen schools together producedalmost 60% of all lawyer-execu-tives, with UW ranking four-teenth. Harvard, Michigan, Col-umbia, Yale and New Yorkranked at the top.

These two reports indicate notonly a healthy respect for our gra-duates, but also the diverse careerpaths available to lawyers. Withonly about 45% of our graduatesentering private practice we arepleased to see that the others aresuccessful in their chosen fields.

Board of Vis itors Meet

(The Board of Visisors of theWisconsin Law Alumni Associ-ation conducted its annual inspec-tion of the Law School and its pro-gram on October 19-20, 1980.Their report is printed here in full.)

BOARD OF VISITORSREPORT

The University of WisconsinLaw School Board of Visitors wascreated in 1957 "for the purpose ofassisting in the development of aclose and helpful relationship bet-ween the Law School and theUniversity of Wisconsin LawSchool Alumni on all matters ofmutual interest, including LawSchool facilities, curriculum,placement, admission and publicrelations of the Schooland the Bar. .. " Since 1970, the Board hasdevoted at least one day each yearto an annual visit of the LawSchool, during which the Boardhas observed classes, reviewedprograms, and met with students,faculty members and administra-tors to discuss issues concerningthe Law School.

On October 20, 1980, we, thepresent members of the Board ofVisitors, visited the Law School.This is our report.

Classroom Observation. On themorning of the visit, individualvisitors attended nearly two dozenclasses, taught by 20 differentteachers. Some of these classeswere conducted in the lecture hallsetting which, along with theSocratic method, has until recentyears dominated American legaleducation. Some classes, however,were taught in smaller discussionsections. While most classes weretaught by full-time faculty mem-bers, a few were conducted bypracticing attorneys.

Our classroom observation anddiscussion with students con-vinces us that the teaching abilityof the faculty remains high.Especially impressive is the stu-dent-teacher rapport in the smallsections. In prior reports werecommend that, within budge-tary constraints, the number ofsmall section classes be increased.This again is our recommenda-tion.

Evening Classes. Under part-time attendance law enacted bythe Legislature last year, the LawSchoolmust offer students the op-tion of attending school part-time.The law also requires that suffi-cient classes be scheduled in theevening so a student could meetgraduation requirements by at-tending classes only in the eve-ning. The Law Schoolbegan to im-plement the law this school yearby offering two first year classesin the evening.

Fewer than 25 students havesigned up for the part-time option,and, of these, fewer than 10 at-tend classes only in the evening.Unfortunately, the small numberof evenings-only students has nec-essitated assigning full-time stu-dents to evening classes to fill outthese classes. This has resulted insome complaints from the in-voluntarily assigned full-time stu-dents. The scheduling difficultieswill probably increase in comingyears, when, to meet the courserequirements of the evenings-onlystudents, the Law School will berequired to offer a fuller array ofevening classes.

This school year the evenings-only students are in their firstyear. However, in coming years, as

these students achieve advancedstanding, the Law School will berequired to offer second-year andthird-year courses in the eveningto meet these students' course re-quirements. First-year courseswill have to be offered in the eve-ning to serve evenings-only stu-dents in future classes. This willresult in more and more full timestudents being assigned to fill outthe evening classes. It is likelythat full time students - who nor-mally expect to attend daytimeclasses and to have their lateafternoons available for work orfamily responsibilities - will en-counter difficulties resulting fromunanticipated assignment to eve-ning classes. For some these maybe serious problems, and the Ad-ministration should be sensitive tothese problems and attempt in-dividual rescheduling of classes.

The evening classes have cre-ated a whole new series of prob-lems for both the Law School Ad-ministration and for the full timestudent body.We therefore recom-mend that a study of the antici-pated impact of the expansion ofevening classes should be madeand that the findings of the studyshould be reported to the Univer-sity Administration and the Legis-lature.

7

Faculty Leave Policy. The LawSchool's liberal leave policy forfaculty members is also a sourceof student concern. For severalyears students have complainedthat leave-taking by faculty mem-bers has made it difficult to antici-pate who will be teaching a givencourse in a given semester. Theliberal leave policy is viewed bythe faculty as an attractive fringebenefit. Moreover, for the LawSchool to live within its budget, itis necessary that a significantnumber of faculty members be onleave each year. Therefore, webelieve that, for the Law School tocontinue to maintain a faculty ofnational repute at the present sal-ary levels, the present leave policyshould continue. However, tomake it easier for students to plantheir future class schedules,faculty members should be en-couraged to make their leave-tak-ing plans known as early as possi-ble. The Dean has agreed that hewill then announce these leave-taking plans to the student body.

Student Placement. This schoolyear more employers will inter-view students at the Law Schoolthan in any previous year, and thestudents' job prospects appear tobe brighter than in the recentpast. Despite this, Assistant DeanReisner, who is in charge of place-ment, reported to us that studentsthis year are unusually apprehen-sive about their ability to sign upfor interviews. Apparently as aresult of this apprehension, longlines of students form outside ofthe Placement Office before theinterview sign-up sheets arescheduled to be posted. Sometimesthese lines start forming twohours before the posting of sign-up sheets during the noon hour.

Students and faculty membersview these long, early-forminglines as a major problem. Studentsoften have to cut late morningclasses to assure themselves anearly place in line. Moreover, stu-dents who want to interview witha specific employer often feelcrowded out by students who in-discriminately sign-up for everypossible interview. Finally, thenoise caused by the lines of stu-dents outside the Placement Of-fice is disrupting to nearbyclassrooms.

8

Because of these and otherproblems, some other law schoolshave abandoned the first-come,first-served sign-up system infavor of a lottery system or a bidsystem. Both of these lattersystems would reduce long lines,but each has disadvantages. A lot-tery system, under which studentswould be selected for interviewson a random selection basis, wouldnot adequately serve the needs ofstudents who are only interestedin interviewing with a few butwell-chosen employers. These stu-dents would be better served by abid system, but such a systemcould be administratively un-wieldy. Under a bid system, allstudents would be given an equalnumber of "interview bid points"at the start of the school year. Stu-dents then could use these pointsto bid for the opportunity to inter-view with the employers of theirchoice, with the high bidders

being allowed to interview.Despite the disadvantages in-herent in the lottery and bidsystems, we recommend that theybe studied further and that a newinterview sign-up system bedevised for implementation in the1981-82 school year.

Curriculum and Programs. Thestudents to whom we spoke weregenerally pleased with Law Schoolprograms. If they had criticisms, itwas not with existing course offer-ings or programs. Instead, theircriticisms - really suggestions -focused on the need for more pro-grams and activities to supple-ment existing programs and tofoster a sense of community in theLaw School. Specific suggestionsincluded the organization offorums for outside speakers onlaw-related subjects, the holdingof longer orientation programs fornew law students, and the holdingof a graduation ceremony for law

students apart from the all-University graduation.

We believe that such activitiesare worthwhile for the LawSchool. However, we make norecommendation as to any specificprogram because we feel that in-dividual programs should beworked out by the Dean and theStudent Bar.

Conclusion. There appears to usto be a higher degree of satisfac-tion with the Law School amongstudents and faculty membersthis year than in the recent past.Moreover, although prospects forthe future well-being of the LawSchool appear good, we believethat the problems caused by thepart-time attendance program re-

quired by the Legislature meritserious attention by the Adminis-tration and all concerned alumni.

Respectfully submitted,

BOARD OF VISITORSHoward A. Pollack, ChairmanWilliam Rosenbaum, Vice Chair-manEdward J. Reisner, SecretaryThomas E. AndersonLloyd A. BarbeeKirby O. BouthiletRoger D. EinersonRoy B. EvansJustice Nathan S. HeffernanDeborah S. KleinmanRobert B. L. MurphySusan Wiesner-Hawley

ON THE LIGHTERSIDE

Speaking at the recent Board ofVisitors Dinner, Associate DeanStuart G. Gullickson told two sto-ries that are included here withapologies to all who are, were orwould be a dean. Said DeanGullickson:

"Isn't the law wonderful! Anassistant professor can take asingle point of law and turn it intoa whole lecture. An associate pro-fessor can take that same pointand construct an entire coursefrom it. A full professor is able totake the self-same point and buildan entire career from it. And thenthere is the dean - he is the onewho has forgotten what the pointwas!

"When I practiced law in Mer-

rill," Dean Gullickson went on, "Ihad some doctor friends who an-nually traveled to North Dakotafor bird hunting. On one of thesetrips they chanced to rent the bestbird dog any of them had everseen, a dog named 'Professor'. Thenext year they returned andasked the outfitter for 'Professor'.'Oh, you can't have him this year,'the outfitter answered. 'But we'rewilling to pay double,' cried thedoctors. "It's not the money, he'sjust no good anymore. Anotherparty took him out and, after hehad done his usually outstandingjob, they thought they would

, honor him by calling him Dean.. Now all he will do is sit on his tail

and bark.' "

9

UNIVERSITY OF WIS. ARCHIVES

law Class of 1894 Reunion at the Madison Club

Although the 25th reunion of the Class of 1894 was held long beforethe first Annual Law School Spring Program, such reunions have beenpart of the Program tradition from its beginnings. This year's events willbe held on May 1-2, and will include reunions for the Classes of 1931,1936, 1941, 1946,1951, 1956, 1961, 1966, 1971, and 1976. Details areforthcoming, but mark your calendars now for the 38th Annual SpringProgram.

10

LA38TH ANNUAL

SCHOOL SPRING PROGRAM1..2 MAY 1981

Prof. William Clune

(The following article is adaptedfrom a background paper writtenby Prof William Clune for a recentfaculty retreat. The paper resultedfrom interviews with most facultymembers soliciting their commentsabout curriculum concerns as wellas ideas for reform or restructur-ing. Some of the suggestions have abroad base of support and are atleast potentially feasible. Others,clearly identified, were born inProf Clune s mind and are givenhere for the first time. The facultyretreat is one step towards comple-tion of a Self-Study, required forreaccreditation by the AmericanBar Aseociation.)

CURRICULUM IDEAS

Writing Skills Courses The mostwidespread sentiment on thefaculty was the need to improvethe writing skills of our students,including the sense of craft inwriting. Many people felt that toomany of our students aredrastically deficient in writingskills and that teaching is capableof making significant improve-ments. This was not a criticism ofthe legal writing course or even acomment on the first year cur-riculum. On the contrary, legalwriting is conceived by most of usto convey bibliographical, analyti-cal and elementary writing skills.The lack of more advanced writ-ing skills was seen as a failure ofthe second and third year cur-riculum. That is to say, most peo-ple with this point of view saw theneed for an advanced writing ex-perience in the second and thirdyears. The task should be of majorproportions, including concep-tualization, research, outlining,and drafting. The experiencecould not be meaningful withoutdetailed feedback to the student ateach stage of the writing process,and the feedback, it was felt,would have to come from faculty.

Some law schools, such asArizona, provide this experiencein a course called a "super semi-nar." In such courses, facultymembers take a relatively smallgroup of students - say ten or 15- and work with them through acomplete writing project.

Typically, the product would be aresearch paper in an area of thefaculty member's interest; but ex-periences other than researchseminars could readily fill the un-derlying skills objective. LawReview and certain clinical ex-periences involving major writingprojects come to mind. The es-sence of the writing skills ex-perience is faculty feedback ateach incremental stage of produc-ing the paper. Thus, commentsand discussion should take placeat perhaps each of two outliningstages and each of two drafts. Theextra work for faculty membersmight or might not require an ad-justment of teaching credit. Ifmore credit were given, an alreadydifficult resource question, dis-cussed below, would become moredifficult. Extra teaching creditwas not given at Arizona, and itmay be that such writing semi-nars do not require many classmeetings. (This is, they could

operate more like 10 or 15 smalldirected research projects than atraditional seminar.) Facultymembers who have taught suchseminars report that they arepedagogically successful and anexceptionally good way to get toknow second and third year stu-dents and insure that they areworking hard.

It seems to me that there is anenormous amount going for thisproposal. The second and thirdyear curriculum was identified bythe faculty as in need of seriousattention, and this was identifiedas the most serious area of need.Unfortunately, there is an enor-mous, perhaps impossible, budgetconstraint. The putative writingseminar is like other "new wave"skills courses in demanding an ex-traordinary amount of facultyresources. If we were to requireone such experience of every lawstudent sometime during the sec-ond and third year, we would need

11

to serve about 250 students a year(I am guessing that about 50 stu-dents per year already have ex-periences which could be readilyadapted to the new format). Inround numbers, that means offer-ing about 20 writing seminars peryears. As always, the problem iswhich of our alternative currentofferings to cut back. The firstyear small section program is verypopular, and I do not see supportfor abandoning it. This seems abad time to recommend cuttingback on core survey courses,which may have been cheatedsomewhat in recent years as it is.Ordinary seminars are an obviouscandidate for retooling as writingseminars, but I do not think weoffer nearly enough of these to fillthe bill. Perhaps it is logical to askwhether our current skills budget- and here I refer to clinical andsimulation courses - reflects thesense of priorities which thefaculty holds. Are writing skills soimportant that they should havefirst priority in our very expensiveskills budget to the exclusion, ifnecessary, of other meritoriousbut less important functions?Such questions are difficult andcontroversial, but they are ex-

12

tremely typical of curriculumquestions generally. It is easy tosit in one's office and think ofwonderful educational innova-tions. Giving up some other worth-while activities which have strongconstituencies is quite anothermatter. A proposal which seemsself-evidently meritorious in theabstract may seem highly prob-lematic in light of its realisticcosts.

Reorganization of the BusinessCurriculum Probably the nextmost significant area for possiblechange is the business cur-riculum. Specific changes herewould have to be proposed by thefaculty members in the businessarea, but the general principlescan be discussed usefully by thewhole faculty. There were two ma-jor areas of concern. On the onehand, it was felt that by com-parison to common law and publiclaw courses, we do a com-paratively weak job in guarantee-ing that our students possess aminimum degree of competence inbusiness law. On the other hand,the business curriculum itselfseems in need of restructuringand reordering; and the time is

ripe to do it. We have a fairly largegroup of young faculty membersteaching the business courseswith lots of interesting ideas forchange. Let me address each ofthese areas of concern.

An argument can be made thatwe need to require some basicbusiness law course, if necessaryby de-requiring some other course.It would seem to me and othersthat federal income taxation isone of the most important coursesin the law school, in terms of prac-tical application, in terms of legaltheory, and in terms of impor-tance for public policy. In addition,that course can serve well as anintroduction to business law. Itdeals with a wide spectrum of eco-nomic transactions and organiza-tional forms, viewing them fromthe point of view of law, economicreality, and public policy. As im-portant as these other courses are,it is difficult for me to see why thesecond constitutional law courseor the second criminal law courseor trusts and estates can be con-sidered more important to theeducation of the law student thanfederal income taxation.

As for the reorganization of thebusiness law curriculum, the basic

idea was what the existing busi-ness organization courses aresomewhat thin and archaic. In lawpractice, business law tends to fallinto three categories: (1) Prob-lems of the small firm or en-terprise, that is, the techniques ofbringing together capital, labor,and expertise in smallentrepeneurial ventures, whetherthrough agencies, partnerships,contracts, incorporation, jointventure, or whatever. The re-quired techniques are advancedand "interdisciplinary" (in a lawcurriculum sense). Tax considera-tions, for example, loom impor-tantly at every stop. (2) Problemsof the large corporation such assecurities regulation, proxy fights,anti-trust, and the like. (3) Prob-lems of consumer protection, suchas debtor creditor and commerciallaw.

The proposal for change is toredirect the efforts of the businesslaw faculty along the lines sug-gested by this functional divisionof law practice. Basic corporationslaw in its present form would notbe taught, but the same courselabel could be used for a more ad-vanced course in corporate fi-nance. (Thus covering the largecorporation.) Business organiza-

tions in its present form would notbe taught. In its place, would be anadvanced course on business plan-ning, dealing with the world ofsmall ventures (including, by theway, farming). The consumer pro-tection area did not seem in needof major change, but we do have apotentially serious staffingdifficulty in that area.

Restructuring of Trusts and Es-tates The time seems absolutelyright for a restructuring of ourtrusts and estates offering. A pro-posal which has been widely dis-cussed runs along these lines: Aone credit course would be madeavailable on important publicpolicy issues of the trusts and es-tates area. In spite of its reputa-tion as a dull course, trusts and es-tates does have a surprising num-ber of these issues (e.g., maritalproperty and the distribution ofwealth). The practitioner aspectsof trusts and estates could behandled in a separate two creditcourse, and it would be possible tooffer this course from eitherfaculty members or lecturers. Thetwo credits should deal with es-sentials of will and trust drafting,tax considerations and probateadministration. The existing prac-

tice-oriented content of Trustsand Estates (a) would be altered.The lengthy treatment of suchthings as will contests, restitution-ary remedies, and the legality ofwill substitutes could bedrastically shortened or elimi-nated in favor of more pressingpractical concerns. Trusts and Es-tatestb) would be demoted to an"infrequently offered" course.Certain Changes in the FirstYear Curriculum, Includinglimitation of Required Coursesto That Year Although it waswidely felt that the first year isgenerally a success, and,therefore, that we should not fallinto the trap of endlessly revisingthe first year curriculum, certainchanges are worthy of considera-tion. Also, changing the FirstYear might help solve some of ourproblems (like the need for Ad-vanced Writing courses). There'sa strong argument for beginningthe constitutional law sequence inthe first year, because the argu-ment for requiring constitutionallaw at all rests heavily upon thefact that it is a general prere-quisite to a variety of othercourses. Another point whichseems valid about the first year isthat we are heavy on common lawcourses and the activity of courts.Should we not introduce legis-lative and administrative pro-cesses in a general way in the firstyear? (This is one of the strongarguments for criminal justice ad-ministration, although that is arather special look at administra-tive law.)

It is possible to construct ban-daid solutions to this and otherspecific problems. I'might suggest,however, the development of asingle two semester course on"Liabilities and Sanctions" toreplace first year courses in Con-tracts, Torts, Property and Subs-tantive Criminal Law. The nine-teen or more credits presentlydevoted to these courts could bereduced to - say - ten and sub-stantive contents from each courseincorporated into a single 5-creditper semester sequence. Almost allfirst year teachers I talked to saidthat they primarily teach legalmethod and legal process in thebasic first year course, that for

13

these purposes the substantivecontent is relatively unimportant,and that important substance, inthe sense of survey material, couldbe moved to advanced courses.The idea of this course is not asnovel as it sounds. It is aprogressive concept, reflecting agood bit of serious thought; it isbeing used or developed at otherlaw schools, and several peoplehere have a goodgrasp ofwhy it ispossible to combine the above-mentioned first year courses.

Required Third Semester If wekeep our present distribution ofrequired courses, I suspect that,absent resource constraints, therewould be considerable support fora required third semester. While itis difficult to come up with a verysatisfactory specific proposal, I amsure something could be agreedupon. However, it seems clear thatthe required third semester is inirreconcilable conflict with thefirst year small section program.(Both would be offered in the fallsemester.) Too many of Our firstyear teachers also teach the re-quired second and third yearcourses that would be the logicalcandidates for a required thirdsemester. I see no prospect thatthe required third semester isvalued more highly than the firstyear small section program.

14

Opening Up the Rules for Nonlaw Courses and Joint DegreesGiven the interdisciplinary ap-proach of our faculty, it is quiteremarkable that our rules aboutinterdisciplinary credit are sorestrictive. It seems to me that weshould consider changes both inthe automatic credits allowed fornon-law school work and in theavailability of joint degrees. Rule3.08 might be amended to allow8-12 credits rather than 6 ofrelatively automatic non-lawwork. Further, those of us in-terested in interdisciplinary workmight get together to design avariety of one semester and evenfull year non-law options. I have inmind here a kind of coursepackage which would be fullydefensible as basic education forthe modern sophisticated lawyer.Consider such courses asmicroeconomics, statistical inter-ference, public finance, sociologyof the police, business organiza-tions, or even special interests likehospital administration. In orderto justify a large number of cred-its, the content of such non-lawpackages presumably would haveto be of high quality, difficulty andrelevance to law practice. At thesame time, it is probably impossi-ble to design a single packagewhich would suit the needs ofdiverse student objectives.Therefore, if we go this route, itmay make sense to design avariety of packages, or put the

more extensive non -law optionunder the direction and approvalof a particular hard-nosed admin-istrator or faculty member.

In addition to automatic non-law credit and specially designednon-law packages, I believe thatwe should be more flexible andtolerant toward joint degreeefforts. The problem currently isthat, other than public policy andindustrial relations degrees, ajoint law/non-law degree atWisconsin means separate admis-sion and filling all the separate re-quirements of the law school andanother department. I think it ispossible to design a set ofumbrellarules along the lines of the onesadopted for the JDlPublic Policydegree which would permit quickconstruction of a variety of jointdegree programs. The most criti-cal part of a joint degree planningeffort is the designation of whichcourses in the law school and theother department deserve jointcredit. I do not see why facultymembers in the law school andnon-law departments should notbe trusted to construct lists ofsuch courses within the creditlimits established by the umbrellarules. In any case, each programcould comebefore the faculty. Theproblem is that now we have noroutine planning vehicle for theconstruction of joint degree pro-grams.