I hope that many folks reading this post will elect to attend the Milwaukee Bar Association’s annual Memorial Service: it will be held this Friday, May 6, at 10:45 a.m., in the Ceremonial Courtroom (Room 500) of the Milwaukee County Courthouse. It is an event that a number of us have come rarely to miss—largely because we enjoy it, as I explained in a 2009 blog post noting the remembrance by Tom Cannon of his father, Judge Robert C. Cannon, L’41, and in a post last year anticipating Mike Brennan’s remembrance of his own father, James P. Brennan, L’60. The Memorial Service is an opportunity to remember attorneys who died with the past year, after serving the profession and thus the larger society: some names and careers will be familiar to a particular attendee, whereas others will be unknown to him or her—but in this context the latter are not much less meaningful. I see that this year’s Memorial Address will be delivered by Joseph E. Tierney, III, L’66. That is certainly a longstanding name in this region’s legal profession, as discussed previously in posts on this blog, including Gordon Hylton’s description of the legal education of the first Joseph E. Tierney, L’11 (that’s 1911), and my own account of Joe III’s remarks, at a law school event, concerning his late mother and father, Bernice Young Tierney and Joseph E. Tierney, Jr., L’41. I much look forward to Mr. Tierney’s remarks (no doubt remembering among others his late partner, Paul Meissner, who died within the past year) and to the rest of the special session of court, which is the form that the Memorial Service takes.
It was my great pleasure to attend the investiture of Jim Wynn (L’79) as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The ceremony at the federal courthouse in Raleigh, North Carolina, drew an enormous crowd, well into the hundreds, requiring that the large majority of those in attendance view the event in various courtrooms in the building through a video feed.
It was no great surprise that Judge Wynn was nominated and confirmed as a judge of the United States Court of Appeals. He had distinguished himself as an undergraduate at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, as a law student at Marquette (during my days as assistant dean), as an officer in the U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps, as a lawyer in private practice, as a leader of the American Bar Association and the Uniform Law Commission, and as an appellate judge on the North Carolina Court of Appeals and North Carolina Supreme Court. Not a bad record for a fellow who grew up in a small farming community in the Coastal Plains region of North Carolina.
Judge Wynn was characteristically gracious to those of us from Marquette who were present. Dean Joseph Kearney was included among the speakers, and not only were his warm congratulations and greetings from Marquette well received, but his punch lines got especially good laughs. (Example: “But I am presumptuous enough to bring greetings from the past. For I have brought Judge Wynn’s student file with me—I would say that I do this by the power vested in me as dean, but I may be about to violate the FERPA law concerning educational privacy.”)
Seventh Circuit Judge Diane Sykes (L’84) was seated at the front of the courtroom, just in front of the presiding Fourth Circuit bench, every one of whose members was present for Judge Wynn’s investiture—the first time in anyone’s memory that there was a full turnout of the court for such an event. Judge Wynn’s classmates Joseph Yana, John Rothstein, and Dan Dennehy also had prime seats in the ceremonial courtroom, as did I, rubbing shoulders with the Wynn family and with leaders of the North Carolina bench and bar. Marquette trustee Chuck Svoboda, himself a North Carolinian, was also in attendance, as were Reuben Daniels (L’78) and Florence Johnson Raines (L’91).
It is always a pleasure and satisfaction to see a Marquette lawyer achieve impressive professional goals. The pleasure is especially great in the case of Jim Wynn, for the qualities of excellence, faith, leadership, and service etched into the hearth in the Aitken Reading Room are so clearly etched into Jim’s character as well.
I recently jested that I would spend some blog time on fashion. Then, on Thursday, the fates decided to jest with me a tad. My hospital has a large summer program for local high school students. The students will basically be assigned a mentor and spend the summer learning from the mentor and going to job-related training sessions. Very internship-y.
Anywho, I got wrangled into providing the “Dress For Success” session. Stop laughing, Jake. It’s in July so I have a while to figure out what I am going to say. However, one thing keeps coming to mind. One “rule” to provide to a future job seeking male. And a way to stymie a growing pet peeve.
Ties = Accent pieces. Dudes, they are not, NOT meant to blend into your shirt like some silken chameleon. ACCENT. Continue reading “Please Stop”
The eight-year-old who wasn’t there: That was one of the most important people involved in last week’s impressive two-day conference at Eckstein Hall on dealing with clergy sex abuse scandals.
The Archbishop of Dublin, Ireland, the Most Reverend Diarmuid Martin, brought the eight-year-old into the conference.
Of course, no children were literally present. But Archbishop Martin, who has attracted substantial international attention for his strong stands in the aftermath of large-scale scandals in Dublin, recounted how he had a bit of time before a program at a school he was visiting. The principal asked if there was anything he wanted to see. He said he wanted to visit a class of eight-year-olds.
The reason, he said, was that he wanted to look at their faces and underscore in his own mind their images. When people deal with issues related to the scandals, they tend to see the victims as the adults they are when what happened to them comes to light, the archbishop said. He said, “It is important to see the face of eight-year-old.”
When dealing with the issue of sex abuse, it is the images of the victims, both as children and adults, that should come to mind first, not the images of clergy members or the situation of the church overall, Martin said.
That was one of the key messages of the conference, “Harm, Hope, and Healing: International Dialogue on the Clergy Sex Scandal.” The sessions, the Law School’s annual Restorative Justice Initiative conference for this year, brought together experts from around the world and attracted wide attention, particularly in the Catholic press.
I’m not sure if this meets the precise definition of a “law gone wrong,” but in my home state of Virginia it is illegal “to hunt or kill any wild bird or wild animal, including any nuisance species, with a gun, firearm or other weapon on Sunday, which is hereby declared a rest day for all species of wild bird and wild animal life.”
Although I was born into a family of church-going hunters, I was always more sympathetic to the church part than to the hunting part. Consequently, I have no problem whatsoever with Sunday, or any other day for that matter, being declared a day of rest for wild animals (or at least a day on which they cannot be killed).
What I find peculiar (and wrong) is the statute’s one exception: day of rest notwithstanding, raccoons can be hunted and killed in Virginia on Sundays, so long as the hunting is done between midnight and 2:00 a.m. (I am not making this up. If you doubt this, check out Va. Code § 29.1-521(A)(1).)
Because of their semi-domesticated qualities, especially when young, raccoons have always been my favorite wild animals. But even without this affection, I would like to think that I would find it unfair, and maybe even unconstitutional in some sublime sense, that one species of woodland animal would be deprived of 1/12 of its statutory day of rest.
Can such a classification purport to have a rational basis? After Romer v. Evans and United States v. Virginia, I think not.
Nathan Fishbach, shareholder at Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek, received the Eastern District of Wisconsin Bar Association’s Judge Myron L. Gordon Lifetime Achievement Award today. That itself might be worth recording in these annals (cf. Prof. Jessica Slavin’s blog post from two years ago concerning awards by the EDWBA to Michael O’Hear and Tom Shriner). For Nathan has been a member of our Advisory Board and otherwise a great friend of the Law School.
But permit me to note that the Law School was allowed to share in the honor in an important (and lasting) sense. For Nathan’s firm, Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek, announced today that it will use the occasion of Nathan’s award to honor him by creating the Nathan Fishbach Student Development Fund at Marquette Law School. My role in this is small (being on the receiving end of a gift or saying “thank you, yes” is easy), but I wish to elaborate on this matter a bit.
Nathan is a highly skilled attorney, with extensive litigation experience on behalf of—and thus demands on his time from—the federal government, commercial interests, and private individuals. Yet even in the press of business, he has struck me with his interest and investment in the future of the profession. An important example of this was his work a decade ago in the founding of the Eastern District of the Wisconsin Bar Association.
Along these same lines, his interest in Marquette Law School has been especially outstanding. A graduate of Villanova Law School, Nathan has been a great champion of our students, speaking to classes, mentoring them individually, and taking the interest—and time—to work with them on their career development.
The Fishbach Fund, created at the Law School by Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek, will support our bringing in speakers, from Wisconsin and across the country (indeed, the world), whose experiences and counsel will help future law students gain a greater sense of the profession into which they are entering. It will also provide for programs, workshops, or other opportunities designed to promote a greater integration between Marquette law students and the profession. That we have been historically good at such integration means that this sort of gift should help us reach for greatness.
Thank you to Nathan for being an engaged exemplar over the years, and to the attorneys of Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek for their selecting Marquette Law School as the place to perpetuate Nathan’s honor.
As followers of the blog know, one of the high points of our trip to Israel was dinner with Justice Aharon Barak and his wife Judge Elika Barak. We were also joined by their daughter, Tamar, who is a mediator. Interestingly from the dispute resolution perspective, Justice Barak was the judge who brought mediation to Israel through the Supreme Court, permitting cases to be referred to mediation. In this post, student Olga Kordonskaya reflects on the evening:
The Baraks were open and willing to discuss various topics, including dispute resolution and their professions. Justice Barak spoke about criticisms made of him and discussed them in various contexts to help us understand what role he saw for himself in the judiciary. Justice Barak, who brought mediation to Israel, shared his opinions on mediation and its role in Israel and as a vehicle of dispute resolution. Judge Barak, with a different perspective as a labor judge, discussed the role of mediation in the labor courts, as well as her experience as a judge there and the challenges that the labor courts face.
Thanks to our March guest blogger, 3L Kevin Terry. Our April guest is Mathew Pauley ’06.
Congratulations to the students who advanced to the Final Round of the Jenkins Honors Moot Court Competition:
Susan Barranco and Kyle Mayo
Matthew Hall and Nicholas Zepnick
All the teams did a spectacular job in the Semifinal Round tonight. The Final Round will be held this Wednesday, April 6 at 6:00 p.m. in the Appellate Courtroom at the Law School. A reception will follow. Please rsvp online on the Law School’s website.
In Supreme Court cases, the majority and dissent sometimes talk right past one another, framing the question for decision so differently that they almost seem to be writing about different cases. See, e.g., the dueling opinions earlier this week in Connick v. Thompson (No. 09-571). Thompson was convicted of attempted armed robbery and murder, and then sentenced to death. A month before his execution, a bloodstained swatch of cloth came to light that proved Thompson was not the perpetrator in the robbery prosecution. The murder charge was eventually retried, and Thompson was acquitted. In all, he served 18 years in prison based on his wrongful convictions. Moreover, it turns out that an assistant district attorney who was part of the team that prosecuted Thompson deliberately withheld the swatch. The District Attorney’s office now concedes that Thompson’s constitutional rights were violated under Brady v. Maryland. The question now is whether the DA’s office should be civilly liable to Thompson for this violation.
Prior cases interpreting 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (the federal civil rights law Thompson invoked in his lawsuit) reject vicarious liability for the government when a government employee violates consitutional rights; in order to recover, as matters unfolded, Thompson was obliged to show that the District Attorney had been deliberately indifferent to a need to train his subordinates regarding their Brady responsibilities. Prior cases also establish that a “failure to train” claim must ordinarily be based on multiple violations of constitutional rights; a single violation, such as that suffered by Thompson, would require extraordinary circumstances to justify relief.
So much everyone agreed on. Continue reading “Connick v. Thompson: Both Answers Are Right — What Was the Question Again?”
Crime can continue to go down in Milwaukee and spending on criminal justice can be controlled successfully, but only if steps are taken to give local judges, prosecutors, police and others involved in criminal justice tools, incentives and support in doing so, Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm said in a speech Friday at Marquette University Law School.
In what he described as a major policy statement, Chisholm called for modifying the state’s truth-in-sentencing law and maintaining support of programs that assess the risks and needs of people charged with crimes so that fewer end up in prison and more end up on paths that lead away from re-offending.
“Both sides of the political spectrum must acknowledge that talking tough on crime has reached its limits,” Chisholm said. “Being smart on crime is the solution.”
Chisholm said such “smarter” efforts are paying off in Milwaukee, but are in danger of being undermined by major cuts in federal anti-crime programs and in state aid to criminal justice work. Continue reading “Chisholm: Revise Truth-in-Sentencing, Support “Smart” Use of Alternatives to Hold Down Costs and Fight Crime”