Diploma-Privilege Case Continues

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has handed down an opinion in Wiesmueller v. Kosobucki, No. 08-2527, a class action challenging—under the federal Constitution’s “dormant commerce clause”—the diploma privilege.  The diploma privilege, of course, is the Wisconsin Supreme Court rule that permits law graduates of Marquette University and the University of Wisconsin to be admitted to the practice of law in Wisconsin (without, for example, having to take a bar exam).  The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the case, not because it concluded that the diploma privilege is unconstitutional but because the plaintiffs should have an opportunity to submit evidence on the matter.  The court stated that “Marquette and Madison are law schools of national stature, and we can hardly infer without any evidence that they concentrate on educating their students in the law of the state that these law schools happen to be located in . . . .”  Slip op. at 11.  So it remanded (stressing that “[w]e intimate no view on the ultimate outcome”).  Id. at 15.

The court said much else of note.  This includes that the diploma privilege “has only indirect effects on interstate commerce and regulates evenhandedly” and that “the regulation must be at least minimally reasonable.”  Id. at 8 (internal quotation marks omitted).  On the latter point, the court noted as follows: “We emphasize ‘minimally.’  The judiciary lacks the time and the knowledge to be able to strike a fine balance between the burden that a particular state regulation lays on interstate commerce and the benefit of that regulation to the state’s legitimate interests.”  Id.  (I cannot resist adding that the court allowed that “[t]he two law schools in Wisconsin are very fine law schools, doubtless among the nation’s best . . . .“  Id. at 13-14.)  The problem, according to the court, is that “we find ourselves in an evidentiary vacuum created by the early termination of the case by the grant of a motion to dismiss.”  Id. at 8-9.

While Marquette is not a party to this case (the defendants are the members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court and its Board of Bar Examiners), I expect that on remand (and any subsequent appeal) the diploma privilege will pass constitutional muster.  This is the beginning of my seventh year as dean and thirteenth as a member of the faculty at Marquette; throughout this time Marquette Law School has sought to ensure—because of the diploma privilege—that our students are especially introduced to the law and legal profession of Wisconsin.  Certainly I expect that it is not the case (to quote a “supposition” posed by the Seventh Circuit) “that Wisconsin law is no greater part of the curriculum of the Marquette and Madison law schools than it is of the law schools of Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Virginia, the University of Texas, Notre Dame, the University of Chicago, the University of Oklahoma, and the University of Northern Illinois.”  Id. at 9.  Indeed, I know it not to be the case at Marquette, and I expect that a similar thing is true at the University of Wisconsin.  To be sure, it will take a while to demonstrate all this through the litigation system, but Marquette will provide the Attorney General’s office any support that it requires in marshaling evidence.

Continue ReadingDiploma-Privilege Case Continues

75th Anniversary of the FCC

fccToday marks the 75th anniversary of the Communications Act of 1934. For most of its existence, the Communications Act provided much of the essential regulatory structure for the telecommunications (in Title II of the Act) and broadcast (in Title III) industries. The former provided some of the basis for my own practice back in the 1990s as an associate at a large Chicago law firm, one of whose primary clients was American Telephone & Telegraph Co. (or “AT&T,” as at one point it was formally renamed).

Of considerably broader importance, the Communications Act created the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which has had an extraordinary effect over the decades on the American economy and society. Not so long ago there were calls to abolish the FCC, but they have not achieved success.

This is not to suggest that the FCC is riding high in all respects. 

Continue Reading75th Anniversary of the FCC

Remembering Howard B. Eisenberg

eisenbergToday marks the seventh anniversary of the death of Dean Howard B. Eisenberg, on June 4, 2002. This means that Howard has been gone from the Law School longer than he was here, for he served as dean just a month shy of seven years. Yet, in some metaphysical but important sense, I do not believe him to be gone. His “ideals and [his] spirit,” to return to words that I used in 2002 (and that I borrowed from the opening page of the Marquette Law Review in 1916), continue to suffuse-indeed, guide-much of what Marquette University Law School does, even (or especially) with respect to initiatives that we have started since Howard’s death. To be sure, I appreciate that not all who read this blog knew Howard. Therefore, on behalf of the Law School, I warmly invite you to spend a few moments perusing the memorial issue of the Law Review that we published in 2002. It is a remarkable book, containing essays by more than 50 individuals who knew Howard in different parts of his life: the contributors were classmates, professors, fellow lawyers, judges, clients, university colleagues, relatives, students, and others. The memorial issue also contains several of Howard’s speeches, including “What’s a Nice Jewish Boy Like Me Doing in a Place Like This?”

My favorite words in the issue are not my own or even Howard’s. They come from Professor Walter J. Dickey of the University of Wisconsin Law School. Professor Dickey did not suggest that he had known Howard as well as had some of the other essayists. But, after recounting some common experiences, Professor Dickey captured this essential aspect of the man:

Here is how I would characterize these several interactions with Howard. While he was aware of the “politics” of issues, the core of his concern was with substance. His attention and talent were invariably focused on the substantive issue. He had a keen desire to discover what the right thing was to do and to do it. He was well prepared, and he always followed up with a high-quality execution of whatever idea required implementation. Not much for speeches, not a lot of noble talk. He just did. This was not just his job, this was his duty. He would do it as well, as honorably, and in as straightforward a fashion as he could. If some of the causes he advocated were out of favor in the brittle world of politics, he did not apologize or even explain why he was advancing the cause or position he stood for. His expectation was that others would and should know that what he did was to fulfill the responsibility of the legal profession. His expectations brought out the best in others.

While Howard surely had passion for what he did, it was his business-like, matter-of-fact, direct approach which most impressed me. He channeled his passion, his concern and caring for others, in ways that were likely to be effective for those he sought to help. Howard possessed the qualities of a good lawyer. No cause in which he believed was either too large or too small for his attention. For me, he is a model of the best in the legal profession.

I invite you to reread the quotation-there is much wisdom in it-and, particularly, to note the present tense in Professor Dickey’s final sentence.

Continue ReadingRemembering Howard B. Eisenberg