Return address:

:lite gargogleLaw SchoolUniversity of WisconsinMadisoRt Wisc:onsiR53706

Application for Second ClassPermit pending at Waterloo, Wis. 53594

~JlAUR t5105MAD IS

1) ll!,TH

W 05

Campus Unrest: May 1970This issue of The Gargoyle goes to

press as the Law School rides outthe wave of student unrest that sweptthe nation in May, 1970.

The Law School has remainedopen throughout. A student-calledstrike protested the President's deci-sion to act in Cambodia and thedeath of four students at Kent StateUniversity. For several days the LawBuilding filled occasionally withtear gas, drifting in from the turmoilon campus. The Law Building itselfsustained some minor damage.

For a few days class attendancesagged under the combined effectsof the campus turmoil and the stu-dent strike. Frustration, despair andeven fear reached unprecedentedlevels, creating special needs thathad to be met. Formal arrangementswere made for several days of meet-ings and discussions directed bothat the causes of the unrest and at theproblems generated by it.

On the education front, the Law

Faculty adopted temporary rulesaimed at meeting student needs andpreserving their interest in maintain-ing academic standards required topractice. Law students will be per-mitted to take their semester finalseither as scheduled in spring or dur-ing a special exam period to be setin September, 1970. Course assign-ments for the balance of the semes-ter were made available, allowingthose who wished to find calmerplaces than the campus to study un-til things cooled off.

At this time law class attendancehas risen to normal or almost normallevels. Many law students are alsoinvolved in various projects designedto effect orderly change throughdemocratic procedures: programs tobring information to the public re-garding issues involved in the warand to aid persons desiring to com-municate with their official repre-sentatives.

THE GARGOYLEBulletin of the University of Wisconsinlaw School, published quarterly.VOL. 1, NO.4 SUMMER, 1970

Ruth B. Doyle, editorPublication office, 213 W. Madison St.,Waterloo, Wis. Second class permit pend-ing at Waterloo, Wisconsin.POSTMASTER'S NOTE: Please send form3S79 to "Gargoyle", University of Wis-consin Law School, Madison, Wisconsin.Subscription Price 50¢ per year for mem-bers, $1.00 per year for non-members.

AN INVITATIONAll Alumni who will attend theAmerican Bar Association Con-vention in St. Louis are invited tovisit Dean Kimball's suite at theSheraton-Jefferson Hot e 1, onTuesday and Wednesday, August11 and 12 from 4:30 to 6:30 p.m.

PRIZE WINNERS ANNOUNCED AT SPRING PROGRAM

II

ROGER WIRTHGeorge H. Young AwardDane County Bar Association

WltllAM WHITEDaniel H. Grad" Award

ANGELA B. BARTEllJoseph E. Davies Award

JAMES CLARKEdltor-In-Chief, Wisconsin lawReview, Hagenah Prize

EDWARD PARSONSU.S. law Week Award

JOHN W. ROWEDa/berg Prize

THE GARGOYLE

GREETINGS FROM THEPAST PRESIDENT:

Dear Fellow Alumni:

It has been my pleasure to serveas President of the Board of Direc-tors of the Wisconsin Law AlumniAssociation during the past year.This completes ten years of closeassociation with the law school onthe Board of Visitors and Board ofDirectors.

Originally it was not my inten-tion to become "involved" for tenyears. It is one of those appoint-ments which you expect to enjoyfor a couple of years in a relaxedsort of way and step aside.

Two initial contacts on theseBoards caused some change in di-rection in my thinking. HarlanRogers of Portage had been on theBoard for a number of years. Mr.Rogers is a very inspirational man.His interest and concern for legaleducation, his searching inquiry in-to the affairs of the law school andhis attitudes about practicing law-yers and their training are inclinedto have a lasting impact on thosewith whom he comes into contact.You find yourself caught up inthe whole fascinating association.

George Young, formerly Dean,and now professor in the lawschool is another man who inspiresinterest and concern. George's asso-ciation with the alumni and stu-dents is excellent. George is a closefriend of the alumni and associa-ation with him on these boardsraised an interest in supporting hisobjectives and attempting to orga-nize alumni support.

Many subjects have been consid-ered during these past ten years. Itis my opinion that some of themost important are:

1. Law School visitation program.Several different types of visitationshave been tried over the years.Some years the Board of Visitorsmet with faculty committees. Theprinciple objective has been to testlaw school curriculum and otherpolicies with the ideas of practicinglawyers and judges.

In the past year a two-day con-ference at the law school was held

THE GARGOYLE

Robert L. Curry

and the report of the program willbe printed in this issue. I urgeyour reading and consideration ofparticipation in future years.

2. General Practice Course. Thissummer program of the law schoolis unique. The course was con-ceived and developed by the jointplanning of the law school facultyand the Board of Directors of theAlumni Association. Its success re-quires cooperation of practicinglawyers who must give at least aweek of time to participate. Theresponse of students has been ex-tremely favorable.

In these times of emphasis on ab-sence of communication we believethe foregoing two programs will of-fer the opportunity for effectivecontact where association is essen-tial. The practicing lawyer has anobligation to be concerned with le-gal education. Wisconsin law alum-ni are effectively accepting this ob-ligation by participation in theseprograms.

Of great importance also is thefinancial support of the alumni. In1962, the Benchers Society was or-ganized. This Society is now in itsseventh year. The Benchers are agroup of 100 lawyers who have con-tributed $100 per year toward a$10,000 annual fund to be used forscholarships, student loans andother objects in the interests of thelaw school. There have been onlya few vacancies each year principal-ly due to death or retirement.

In 1969 the Law School Fundwas approved by the Board of Di-rectors. The Board was convincedthat greater alumni financial sup-port was important to the well-be-ing of the law school. There is anurgent need for funds if our lawschool is to be effective. Other lawschool alumni recognized this andhave been actively engaged in fundraising. Michigan and Minnesotaare well ahead of us. Initial re-sponse is encouraging but must beimproved.

I t has been our pleasure to asso-ciate in the last year with our newDean Spencer Kimball. Dean Kim-ball has highly impressed us withhis dedication to the job and hisdrive to accomplish. The Dean is alegal scholar with international rep-utation for eminence in his field.We believe the law school to be ingood hands and urge you to be-come personally acquainted withDean Kimball.

The Gargoyle is the idea ofDean Kimball. We hope you enjoyit and look forward to hearingabout the law school and alumniactivities.

Robert L. Curry

"'~I--"(I'-'()-'O~I)~) o__ (I""()""(I'-'(I""{I.q

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Campus Unrest, May 1970 2

Prize Winners 2

Greetings from the PastPresident 3

Gargoyle Visits Three NewYo r k A Ium n i 4

Effland Honored 5

Visitors at the law School 6

In Memorium-Rosamond E. Rice 11

Third Annual GeneralPractice Course Organized 12

Dalberg Prize Winners Honored __13

Brown, Currie Honored 14

SBA Honors Hurst 14

WlAA Board of Directors, Boardof Visitors Meet 15

1970 law Class Pledges$150,000 Endowment Gift 15

III

Gargoyle Visits ThreeNew York Alumni

A recent week in New York per-mitted the Gargoyle to visit withthree prominent alumni, fromthree different Law School gener-ations, with widely varying careers,all deeply involved in making lifeinteresting in Fun City.

Mr. George Cleary (Class of 1914)was interviewed in the office hehas occupied since the formation ofhis firm, Cleary, Gottlieb, Steenand Hamilton, in 1945. One of theleading tax lawyers in New YorkCity, Mr. Cleary was from 1926 to1945 a partner in the firm ofRoot, Clark, Buckner and Ballan-tine.

Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen and Ham-ilton, which started 25 years agowith seven partners (four of whomhad been partners at Root, Clark)and nine associates, now has 120lawyers, located in offices in Wash-ington, Paris and Brussels as well asin New York. The firm has whathe describes as a General Practice,although it has been deeply in-volved in international business andfinance, and Mr. Cleary himselfhas been a tax lawyer all his pro-fessional life. He reports that thefirm has no criminal practice, ex-cept representation of an occasion-al client charged with violations ofthe Anti-trust laws.

Mr. Cleary was born and raisedin Platteville, where his father prac-ticed law and served as assessor ofincomes and Postmaster. After twoyears at Platteville Normal School,he came to Madison and earned aBA degree in Commerce in 1911,entering Law School in the fall ofthat year. A member of Phi BetaKappa and Coif, he was first in hisclass and gave the Commencementoration. He was house steward forPhi Alpha Delta.

He returned to Platteville follow-ing his graduation to practice withhis father, and to assist him as as-sessor of incomes. Wisconsin's in-come tax law had been adopted be-fore the federal law. When hisfather was appointed Postmaster inPlatteville, Mr. Cleary served brieflyas assessor of incomes in Grant

IV

George Cleary

County and then came to Madisonwhere he was in charge of Wiscon-sin corporate income tax returns.

In the fall of 1916, he began histeaching career in the Law Schoolof the University of Montana, at asalary of $2200 a year. When theLaw School didn't open in Septem-ber, 1918, his teaching career ended.He set out by train for Washington,arriving with his wife and babydaughter during the height of theflu epidemic. Within a few days, hewas hired as a tax expert by theBureau of Internal Revenue of theTreasury Department.

In 1920, he became assistant toMr. Ballantine of Root, Clark,Buckner and Ballantine, and wasmade a partner in the firm in 1926.

Mr. Cleary, a widower, now livesin a Park Avenue apartment, aftermany years of residence in West-chester County. His only son livesin Venezuela. Mr. Cleary returns toWisconsin occasionally to visit abrother who lives in Madison andother relatives and friends in Platte-ville.

Looking far back on his lawschool experience, Mr. Cleary pointsout that it was so long ago that"Herbie Page hadn't even arrivedwhen I was in Law School."

Charles Lyee

Chairman of the Board and ChiefExecutive Officer of ConsolidatedEdison, Mr. Charles Luce (Class of1941) is located on the 16th floorof the Consolidated Edison building,a little uptown from his distantcousin and fellow Platteville native,Mr. Cleary. His is one of the mostdifficult executive positions in allof New York City, since much ofthe entire city's comfort, discomfort,satisfactions and dissatisfactions aredependent on the success or fail-ures of its giant utility company.

Mr. Luce became Chairman ofConsolidated Edison in 1967. Hepracticed law in Walla Walla, Wash-ington, for fifteen years, before serv-ing as administrator of the Bonne-ville Power Administration in Port-land, Oregon, from 1961 to 1966.In 1966 and 1967, he served as Un-dersecretary of the Interior underSecretary Udall.

After graduation from the LawSchool, Mr. Luce was a Sterling Fel-low at the Yale Law School. Heserved as Law Clerk to Justice Hu-go L. Black in 1943-44. Also inWashington, he worked for theBoard of Economic Warfare duringWorld War n.

THE GARGOYLE

At the end of his tenure as Un-dersecretary, Mr. Luce had intend-ed to return to private practice,either in Walla Walla or Seattle.Three trustees of Consolidated Ed-ison made an appointment to seehim one day, and unexpectedly of-fered him the position as Chairmanof the Board. After two weeks ofconsideration, he accepted, andmoved his family to Bronxville.

Reorganization of the giant util-ity has been the chief responsibilityof the new Chairman. Much of histime is spent, he says, in answeringcomplaints and trying to improvethe "image" of Consolidated Edison-not an easy task, but one Mr.Luce finds "challenging."

The executive's day begins evenbefore he arrives at his office at7 :45 a.m, He reads in the car, bothcoming and going between Bronx-ville and New York. Leaving hisoffice at 7: 30 p.m. he works almostevery evening at home. Mr. Lucekeeps an apartment in the city anduses it when official duties requirehis presence in the evening.

Mr. Luce looks back somewhatnostalgically on his years in theLaw School, and retains his admi-ration for Dean Garrison, who has,after his years as Dean gone on tobe one of the most distinguishedmembers of the bar of the City ofNew York.

Mr. Luce would not like to seethe Law School curriculum "dilut-ed" by the addition of too manyso-called "practical" courses. Hedoes, he says, see that some effortsto show that the courses taken dorelate to real practice and to eachother might be advantageous. Per-haps an institute conducted by ex-ecutives could give students a viewof how corporations really operate,and might be of value to the exec-utives themselves.

Although the Luce family spendsits vacations in the Northwest,they do keep close ties in Wiscon-sin. Three of their four childrenhave attended Wisconsin State Uni-versity-Platteville, and the oldestwill return to the Law School thisfall after two years in military ser-vice.

THE GARGOYLE

w. Perry Neff

W. Perry Neff (Class of 1954),senior administrative officer in theFiduciary Division of the ChemicalBank New York Trust, is describedin his bank's publication as "a manof action in many fields . . . anavid sailor, an executive in the Am-ateur Athletic Union, a devotedfamily man and an expert PublicRelations man, as well as a topbanker."

The Fiduciary Division, which isMr. Neff's responsibility, consists ofthree departments. 1) The PersonalTrust Department, which includestrusts, estates, and agency accounts,has 700 employees and assets of $16billion; 2) The Pension Departmentconsisting of pensions and profit-sharing plans for corporations, has100 employees; 3) The CorporateTrustee Administration Department,which acts as trustee for the bondindentures for corporations, em-ploys 200-300 people.

Mr. Neff joined the New YorkTrust Company in 1957, after fouryears of private practice in Mad-ison, and was head of an Estate Ad-ministrative Group at the time ofthe merger of New York Trust Co.with the Chemical Corn ExchangeBank. He became head of the Fidu-ciary Division in 1967.

The Chemical Bank New YorkTrust is the 6th largest bank in theUnited States. It has about 12,000

employees, and operates 142 bank-ing branches in Manhattan. Thebank is deeply involved in the lifeof the city, using much of its per-sonnel and resources in projects de-signed to benefit the economic lifeof the city. At present, 50% of allpeople hired by the bank are blackor Puerto Rican. Officers of thebank act as consultants to many dif-ferent agencies. Low cost mortgagemoney for urban redevelopment ismade available. Employees of thebank are available to new firms inthe ghetto areas to teach businesspractices and accounting principles.

Our visit with Mr. Neff was ter-minated by a bomb scare-s-one ofmany received in the Park AvenueOffice building-which necessitatedthe evacuation of the building.This is another sign, said Mr. Neff,that "New York is in trouble."

Mr. Neff, with his wife and fourchildren, lives in Oyster Bay, onehour and 40 minutes from his of-fice by bus, train, subway and foot.The tiring effects of such constanttravel are mitigated, he says, by thefact that he never comes into NewYork on weekends, and takes sixweeks vacation every year.

He would not want his life to bedifferent.

Effland HonoredProf. Richard Effland, (Class of

1940), Arizona State University LawSchool, was honored by the ArizonaState Alumni Association with itsdistinguished teacher award at theFounders Day Dinner in Tempeon March 12.

Nominated by the Student BarAssociation, Mr. Effland was citedfor his sound legal scholarship, hisprovocative teaching and his witand warmth in the classroom.

Mr. Effland joined the Faculty atArizona State in 1967 after manyyears as a Faculty member at theUniversity of Wisconsin LawSchool. An honors graduate of theLaw School, he was elected to Coif.He is a member of the Joint Com-mittee of the American Bar Associ-ation and the Conference of Com-missioners on Uniform State Laws,on the Uniform Probate Code proj-ect. He serves as reporter for theproject.

v

WHERE ARE YOU NOW?Help keep our mailing list up to date.

NAME._ ........................................................••...........•.......••..•...•.....•.••.•.

FO RM ERA DD RESS _

NEW ADDRESS ....•..••.•....•....•.•...•...•...•••••••..•.•.....•.....•.•.•.•..••••.•••••.••.••.••.no. street

zipstatecity

Dean S. L. KimballUniversity of WisconsinLaw School

RE: University of WisconsinLaw School

Gentlemen:The Board of Visitors of the

University of Wisconsin Law Schoolvisited the Law School March 13and 14, 1970. All present and for-mer members of the Board and themembers of the Board of Directorsof the Wisconsin Law Alumni Asso-ciation were invited to attend. Thefollowing participated in the pro-gram:

Justices of the Supreme Court B.Beilfuss, N. Heffernan and C.Hansen, Madison; Circuit Judge R.Orton, Lancaster; I. B. Charne andP. W. Cotter, Milwaukee; L. D.Gage, Jr., Janesville; F. Hamilton,Dodgeville; E. Larkin, Eau Claire;M. A. McKichan, Platteville; H. B.

April 21, 1910Chancellor H. Edwin YoungUniversity of WisconsinMadison, Wisconsin

Report of Boardof Visitors

The Board of Visitors of the Wis-consin Law School conducted a visitto the Law School on Friday andSaturday, March 13 and 14, 1970.Included in the visit were attend-ance at classes, a general meetingand small group meetings with ad-ministrators and Faculty committeechairmen to discuss the LEO pro-gram, Admissions and Size of theLaw School, and Methods of In-struction. The visitors had lunchon Friday with a group of studentsand dinner on Friday with Facultymembers.

Saturday morning was devoted toan open meeting, well attended byboth students and Faculty for ageneral discussion of legal educa-tion. A luncheon meeting of theVisitors, for preparation of the re-port, concluded the visit.

VISITORS ATTHE LAW SCHOOL

VI THE GARGOYLE

Rogers, Portage; J. C. Tonjes, Fonddu Lac; J. P. Wilcox, Wautoma.

This is the first time any of ushas participated in a formal visita-tion to the Law School and we ex-press our appreciation to the Deanfor instituting this kind of a pro-gram, and to the faculty and stu-dents for making it a very worth-while event.

The Board of Visitors was great-ly impressed by the sincerity anddedication of the faculty in connec-tion with its teaching role. Wewere equally impressed with thesincerity and concern of the stu-dents for developing constructiveimprovements to cope with theproblems facing the Law School.We commend the faculty and stu-dents for their open-mindednessand willingness to discuss theseproblems and work together fortheir solutions.

METHODS OF INSTRUCTION1.1 Curriculum and faculty selec-

tion. Although many of us came tothe meeting with some misgivingsregarding the scope and emphasisof the present curriculum, all of uscame away from the meeting im-pressed with the fact that the fac-ulty was laying proper emphasis up-on teaching subject matter whichmeets the needs of the Bar and thestudent body. There was not univer-sal agreement among the Visitorswith regard to whether morecourses should. be required for grad-uation from the Law School. Geh-erally the Visitors were happy tosee that in spite of a lessening ofrestrictions with regard to require-ments for graduation, the greatbulk of student hours are stillspent in those subjects which havebeen traditional courses in the LawSchool. It would be fair to say thatthe Board of Visitors would haveserious doubts about the advisabil-ity of further diminishing the num-ber and variety of required coursesin the Law School.

The Board of Visitors sensedfrom the student body a desire forgreater opportunity for "clinical" ex-perience.

The Board of Visitors appreci-ates that this is a very expensivetype of teaching and that it mustbe studied to ascertain its real

THE GARGOYLE

value as distinguished from its pop-ularity with students. However, webelieve that this type of instructionshould be encouraged even whilethe evaluation is being made. TheBoard of Visitors wish to commendthe faculty for undertaking to ex-pand the curriculum so as to pro-duce greater opportunities for clin-ical experience.

The Board of Visitors believesthat the Bench and the Bar will co-operate with the Law School inworking out programs to give lawstudents practical legal experience,and we urge the Law School totake advantage of resources in thelegal community in this regard.

Shortly before the Board of Visi-tors convened on March 13, a re-print of an article by Dean Bodenof the Marquette Law School hadbeen widely distributed amongmembers of the State Bar. The ar-ticle, Is Legal Education DesertingThe Bar?, 37 Insurance CounselJournal 1 (J anuary 1970), centeredcriticism on the law schools of thecountry for promoting "a new kindof legal education even more re-moved from the realities of lawpractice than the classical brand(involved in the case method)."

In our visitation, we made a spe-cial point of looking into the LawSchool with Dean Boden's concernsin mind. His article had focusedon two points:

( 1)Curricular offerings, which hesaw as shifting sharply away"from the purpose of train-ing for technical competencetoward the policy-makingarea;" and

(2) Faculty selection, which hefelt was replacing an earliergeneration of law teacherswith increasing numbers whohave "entered law teachingdirectly from graduate lawschools and without any ex-perience in or exposure tothe practice of law."

Our findings on both points asthey touch the Law School of theUniversity of Wisconsin follow.

Something more than 50 coursesand seminars were being offered bythe Law School in the 1970 springsemester. Some 660 law studentswere enrolled for 8,985 credithours, an average of 13-14 semester

hours per law student. Singling outwhat might be regarded as non-traditional law courses (and includ-ing on the list Jurisprudence, LegalServices Seminar, the Clinical Pro-gram and the Seminar on PolicingProblems), the list attracted a to-tal of 541 student enrollment hours,or less than 7 per cent of all stu-dent class hours. If Jurisprudenceand the courses listed parenthetical-ly with it are considered within therange of traditional courses, thefraction of law student hours de-voted to non-traditional coursesdrops to below 4 per cent.

We differ individually in respectto some details of the curriculumbut we are uniformly of the opin-ion that at the Wisconsin LawSchool the purpose of the facultyand administration in experiment-ing with curriculum changes is forthe better training of profession-als qualified for the practice oflaw, and that the graduating classesconsist of very high quality lawstudents.

On the faculty selection front, alook back over the dozen personsadded to the Law Faculty since 1965reveals that:

Seven of the 12 had a dec-ade or more of private orgovernmental practice be-fore coming to teach at Wis-consm;Only 3 of the remaining(one of them, Dean Kimballhimself), went at once intoteaching upon graduationfrom law school.

When the thought is added thatthe list of recent faculty additionsincludes a former Chief Justice ofWisconsin (Professor George Cur-rie), a former General Counsel ofthe U.S. Disarmament Agency andformer law partner in the Washing-ton firm of Arnold, Fortas and Por-ter (Professor George Bunn), Profes-sor Stuart Gullickson (with 17 prioryears, largely in trial practice, atWausau), and the highest rankingpermanent staff lawyer for the U.S.Departmen t of Labor (ProfessorJames Jones), it is difficult to faultthe faculty selection process at Wis-consin for indifference to practicalexperience. Nor is practice betweenlaw school and law teaching indis-pensable to the development of fac-

VII

VIII

ulty people who are lawyers' law-yers, as the careers of men like Pro-fessors Beuscher, Campbell, Feinsin-ger, Foster, Spencer Kimball, andRemington attest.

1.2 Marking system. The Boardof Visitors considered the variousproposals with regard to revisionof the marking system. The Boardof Visitors was opposed to the in-stitution of an unlimited pass-failsystem. However, the Board recog-nized the advisability of consideringsome alternatives to the presentgrading system, such as a limitedpass-fail system or the Harvard sys-tem. If t-he present system is con-tinued, the Board feels that consid-eration might be given to modify-ing the use to which grades areput; for example, the Board agreesthat the use of the grading systemto rank people numerically in agiven class is misleading. We alsoquestion the propriety of includingfirst semester grades in consider-ing qualification for Law Reviewor other honors.

1.3 Length of study. The Boardof Visitors did not feel that thelength of law school formal studyshould be shortened from the threeyears to two years. As indicatedabove, the Board of Visitors wouldnot object to a change in the kindof instruction being given duringsome of the third year. However, itwas felt that the responsibility forthe training of lawyers could notbe shifted from the third year oflaw school to some type of an ap-prentice program without muchmore study and consideration thanhas been given to the matter uptill now.

1.4 Size of classes. The membersof the Board of Visitors were priv-ileged to visit the small classes inwhich problem solving techniqueswere employed in lieu of strict ad·herence to the case method. Wefelt that this teaching device wasvaluable and seemed to be very pro-ductive. The Board of Visitors un-derstands the economic problem in-volved in attempting to reduce theteacher-pupil ratio. However, itsupports the premise that smallerclasses and closer teacher-pupil re-lationships are valuable and there-fore it will support the Law Schoolfaculty in its endeavor to promote

THE GARGOYLE

such programs.From the brief exposure we had

it would appear that such classeswould be valuable in both the firstyear and third year of the LawSchool curriculum. The Board ofVisitors was unable to determinewhether it would be more impor-tant in the first year than in thethird year or vice-versa.

1.5 Non-law classes. The Board ofVisitors endorses Law School facultycontrol over non-law school courseswhich may he taken for LawSchool credit. We believe that theLaw School faculty should con-tinue to determine the circum-stances under which law schoolcredit will be given for non-lawschool courses.

1.6 Methods of instruction, sum-mary. The Board of Visitors con-cludes that the Law School is, de-spite very real difficulties, actingeffectively within the limits thathamper solution to some basic in-structional problems. From obser-vations of the classes we visited andfrom discussions with a number oflaw students we were impressedthat the School is producing grad-uates with well developed skills ofanalysis and reasoning indispensablefor useful and effective practice ofthe law. We were impressed, too,by the breadth and depth of theirperception of many of the prob-lems we discussed with them orheard them talk about; they werenot simply arid technicians. Thiskind of product can come onlyfrom a school that has a facultypossessing substantial competenceand teaching skill. There are prob-lems, serious ones, apparent inwhat has become the mass produc-tion character of legal education.Students complain, the faculty com-plains, about massive class size andthe comparative absence of closestudent-faculty relationships in theeducational process. To the creditof both students and faculty, seri-ous efforts are going into rearrange-ments that enable, hopefully, everystudent to have at least a few ofhis 90 credit hours working insmall groups and closely with a fac-ulty member. But existing limita-tions on funds permit this only bymaking large classes still larger tofree time for creation of smaller

THE GARGOYLE

teaching units. The Visitors are sat-isfied, however, that mere re-arrangement cannot supply the en-tire answer and that, for the stu-dent body of almost 700, substan-tially more faculty is needed.

ADMISSION AND SIZEOF LAW SCHOOL

2.1 For lack of time the Boardhad little opportunity to inquire in-to the many problems which existin respect to admission policy andsize of the Law School. We requestthat the Dean re-schedule theseitems for our next meeting. Never-theless, pending further study, wewant to include in this report somecomments on the admission prob-lem.

We are impressed with the statis-tics which show that over the pastten years there has been a remark-able increase in the qualificationsof students applying for admission(i.e. increase in grade point averageand LSAT scores) which illustratesthe high national standing of theLaw School.

The Board is concerned withthe fact that some of the smallercommunities in the state are havingdifficulty in attracting students forpractice in their areas and thatmany good students leave the stateand do not return to practice inWisconsin.

We also recognize the problemsinvolved in limiting the number ofnon-resident students.

A resident who began LawSchool at the University of Wiscon-sin in Fall, 1969, entered with aclass drawn from 25 states and theDistrict of Columbia. Without leav-ing Wisconsin the resident was ableto attend a national law schoolwith a nationwide reputation forquality. After graduation, the na-tional standing of the Law Schoolwill have value to him through-out his life. All this the residentgets at a cost far less than hewould spend at any other nationallaw school.

Understandably then, there areheavy pressures on the admissionsprocess at the Law School. Two outof every five residents who appliedfor admission in Fall, 1969, wereturned down (as were three out ofevery five non-residents). Moreover,

150 or more of the residents turnedaway last year had credentials sug-gesting they had at least a fifty percent chance to produce a passingaverage at the Law School.

Because substantial numbers ofresidents are being turned downfor admission, some members of theBoard felt that considerationshould be given to further reduc-tion of non-resident enrollment. Fora number of reasons, however,there is a question whether furtherreduction of non-resident enroll-ment is the solution to the prob-lem. Only 80 (28%) of the 285 lawfreshmen in Fall, 1969, were non-residents.

We recognize that substantial re-duction in non-resident enrollmentthreatens the national character ofthe Law School and with it thequality and national reputation theSchool enjoys. Non-resident enroll-ment among Law School freshmenhas fallen steadily over the pastfive years, from 33 per cent in 1965to 28 per cent in 1969. No otherlaw school of Wisconsin's standinghas so small a non-resident compo-nent, and at the present 28 percent level. the School may be closeto losing its national base.

The Law School, however, hascome up with an interesting pro-posal for relieving the problem ofWisconsin applicants denied accep-tance under prevailing admissionsstandards. An experimental pre-ad-mission program is being offeredfor Summer, 1970, to applicants in-eligible under conventional stan-dards but with credentials suggest-ing a substantial chance of successif admitted to the Law School. Theexperimental program would belimited this year to 60 participants,as many as 30 of whom could ex-pect to win admission for the com-ing fall by their performance dur-ing the 8-week summer program.The 8-week program would involvetwo first-year law courses, not tak-en for credit or grades, but simplyto determine the question of admis-sion to the Wisconsin Law School.

As this is written, the LawSchool is prepared to offer the ex-perimental pre-admission programin Summer, 1970. The programposes problems for an otherwise re-jected applicant since he must fore-

IX

go 8 weeks of summer employmentin addition to laying out the costof participating in the program.Yet if he gains acceptance at Wis-consin through the program he cancut the overall cost of his legal ed-ucation to a point well below any-thing he can achieve elsewhere and,in addition, get an education at agood bit better law school than heis likely to land in otherwise.

LEGAL EDUCATIONOPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM3.1 The L.E.O. program was or-

ganized to recruit and assist stu-dents of disadvantaged racial andethnic groups and encourage theirentry into the legal profession. It isadministered by three faculty mem-bers, Professors Macaulay, Bilderand Church, and three students,Miss Hines, Mr. Parsons and Mr.Friends.

At the briefing meeting of Vis-itors on Friday, March 13, 1970 at9: 00 a.m., Professor Macaulay out-lined the Law School's Legal Ed-ucation Opportunities Program andpresented some of the problemswhich it faced.

The cost, on a total aid basis, is$2,123 per Student or approximately$20,000 for the current enrollment.The funds have been providedfrom general W.L.AA. scholarshipfunds ($15,000), a special scholar-ship fund in honor of CharlesBunn, and faculty, student and Stu-dent Bar Association gifts ($9,000).

There are nine L.E.O. programstudents (two of whom are fundedthrough a combination of ABACLEO program and loans) enrolledin the first year class for the cur-rent academic year. Three are inthe second year class and one inthe third year.

Mr. Macaulay observed thatsomewhat typically of all students,the first year is extremely difficultfor L.E.O. students. Some of them,while possessing qualifications foracceptance in the program, havedeficiencies in pre-law educationaland general experience backgroundswhich require special attention andadditional scholastic help. This as-sistance is not always easy to pro-vide because of limited funds andalso an understandable resistance toadmitting a need for special treat-

x

ment. Of the nine first year stu-dents it is probable that at least50% will complete the first yearwith passing averages. In conclud-ing his remarks Mr. Macaulay citeda number of needs to be filled ifthe program is to continue to oper-ate successfully:

An assured source of funds.An active and successful recruit-

ing program.A means of assisting some of the

black students to reach the lev-el of other students.

In the afternoon on Friday around table discussion was held atwhich representatives from faculty,students and Visitors were present.The problem areas of the L.E.O.program were thoroughly discussed.

Need for funds. Some source ofpermanent financing is essential.Present sources (particularly W.L.-AA scholarship funds, faculty andstudent gifts and the Charles Bunnfund) were discussed. Possiblefederal and state sources werediscussed. Representatives of theStudent Bar Association outlined aproposed appeal to the State Barfor contributions to the program.Justice Beilfuss volunteered to ex-plore the possibility of submittingthe program for funding throughthe Federal Omnibus Crime Con-trol and Safe Streets Act of 1968.

AU present, particularly Visitormembers, pledged their efforts todevelop sources of funds.

A law school enrollment that re-flected general population charac-teristics would be 13-14% nonwhite.The nonwhite percentage at theLaw School is currently less than3%. A representative of the SBApresented cost projections for ex-panding the L.E.O. program overa five year period to support 64students annually ( 10% of totalLaw School enrollment by 1973-1974.

[Detailed projections were presentedin exhibits distributed to the visitorsindicating the costs for LEO pro-grams of various sizes.All projectionsshowed costs vastly greater thanknown available funds.]

Recruiting. Problems involved inrecruiting disadvantaged studentsfor the program were discussed.Most of the black students felt, andthe L.E.O. Committee agrees, thatthey would be more effective re-cruiters than white students or fac-ulty and that at the present timeat least the range of recruitmentshould be unlimited. There are notsufficient eligible black and otherdisadvantaged students in Wiscon-sin to limit efforts to them. Nor, atthis point in time, with the need toproduce eligible applicants, can

THE GARGOYLE

much time be devoted to highschool level students though thatsource ought to be developed forthe future. An active recruitingprogram is being planned. At thepresent time there are 35 applicantsfor the fall, 1970, term and more areanticipated.

Entrance requirements. The ap-plication of the Law School's en-trance requirements were reveiewed,particularly with reference to dis-advantaged students. In generalthe black student does not wantnor feel the need for special con-sideration except perhaps the rec-ognition that the L.S.A.T. scoredoes not reflect an accurate stan-dard of comparative achievementlevels of whites and blacks, becauseit is designed for white students.The. black. student does not wantthe requirements for entrance orfor graduation lowered for his bene-fit. However, he wants his qual-ifications for entrance and for grad-uation judged upon fair and com-parable bases. Special considerationshould be given to the standardsfor admission on a fair basis ofevaluation of legal aptitude. Per-haps the L.S.A.T. score should beweighed less heavily or should notbe considered at all. Perhaps moresubjective standards are necessaryto correctly judge qualifications ofthe individual applicant.

Maintaining levels of scholarships.The development of programs toassist students with low academicaverages to achieve and maintainsatisfactory scholarship levels werediscussed. A number of methods fordeveloping mutual assistance pro-grams without compromising self-respect were suggested. It was feltthat black and white studentsshould strive for a more casual, nat-ural, and less apprehensive ~ela~i~n-ship which would result m jointstud~ groups and exchange of in-formation and ideas. However, thestudents felt that the problem wasless one of racial barrier than oneof academic achievement. In otherwords, the informal self-help groupswere composed of students withrelatively comparable grade levelswith little opportunity for the low-er grade level students to mix withthose at the higher levels. There

THE GARGOYLE

appeared to be a general receptivityon the part of the L.E.O. studentsto some program for tutoring orother scholastic help.

3.2 Conclusions.(1) The L.E.O. program is a very

worthy program which should becontinued and expanded.

(2) W.L.A.A. should assist theLaw School and the joint faculty-student committee in securingfunds to expand the program.

(3) While it is recognized that atthe present time recruiting prob-ably has to be extended beyond thestate, greater efforts should bemade to interest Wisconsin studentsto attend Law School.

(4) The Admissions Committeeshould study and inaugurate fairermethods of determining eligibilityfor entrance of black and other dis-advantaged students, taking intoconsideration the inherent limita-tions of our present aids for eval-uation.

(5) L.E.o. students should be lesssensitive to seeking and acceptingassistance in their studies, and otherstudents and faculty should be moreimaginative In developing progra~nsto help the L.E.O. students, partie-ularly in their first year.

BUDGET4.1 More consideration ought to

be given to whether the LawSchool receives its fair share of theUniversity budget and the extent to

which budget limitations present aserious threat to the future of theSchool.

BOARD OF VISITORSUNIVERSITY OF WISCON-

SIN LAW SCHOOLBruce F. Beilfuss-Chairman

lfru #fI~mnriamROSAMOND E. RICE

Rosamond Eliot Rice, wife ofEmeritus Professor William GorhamRice, Jr. died in Madison on Wed-nesday, April 8, 1970. She was 74years old.

A native of Cambridge, Massa-chusetts, Mrs. Rice was the grand-daughter of Charles Eliot, longtimePresident of Harvard University.She was a graduate of RadcliffeCollege and a resident of Madisonsince 1923, when Prof. Rice joinedthe Faculty of the Law School.

Mrs. Rice had long been prom-inent in a number of organizations,including the League of WomenVoters and the Democratic Party ofWisconsin.

In addition to her husband, sheis survived by three children: An-drew Rice, Washington, D.C.; Tim-othy Rice, Syracuse, New York; andMrs. Christian Rendeiro, New Ha-ven, Connecticut, as well as by sev-eral grandchildren. Her six broth-ers and sisters also survive.

XI

Third Annual GeneralPractice Course Organized

Thirty-nine practicing Wisconsinlawyers will serve as the Faculty inthe third General Practice coursescheduled for the period of June 15to August 21. Each teaching lawyerserves as one of a team of four.Each team conducts a segment ofthe course, dealing with a partic-ular aspect of the practice of law.

"The key to this type of teach-ing," says Prof. Stuart Gullickson,Director of the course, "is the wil-lingness of experienced trial lawyersto give their time for the benefitof the new man coming into theprofession. We need the experi-enced lawyer in order to be able toteach by way of demonstration,and we need enough of themto allow students to learn bydoing under close supervision ofteaching lawyers. Our budget is notlarge enough to hire the faculty toenable us to have the four-one stu-dent-teacher ratio we have in thiscourse-and there aren't enoughprofessors who know trial tech-niques even if we could afford tohire them. Fortunately, Wisconsintrial lawyers will give of themselvesand their time to enable us to pre-sent this course. Our students ap-preciate it, our Dean appreciates it,and I appreciate it."

The following will serve as the1970 faculty:

PREPARING THE DEFENSEOF A CRIMINAL CASE-June 15-19Mr. David J. CannonUnited States AttorneyMilwaukeeMr. William M. CoffeyCoffey & LernerMilwaukeeMr. David J. HaseGrootemaat, Cook & FrankeMilwaukeeMr. Percy L. Julian, Jr.Madison

PROBATING ESTATESJune 22-26 (first of two weeks)Mr. Patrick KinneyMcIntyre, Kinney & UrbanLancasterMr. Jerome J. KlosSteele, Smyth, Klos & FlynnLa Crosse

XII

Mr. Howard F. ThedingaMenomonieMr. Edward J. WilliNew Glarus

PROBATING ESTATES-June 29-July 3 (second of two weeks)Mr. E. Clarke ArnoldCallahan, Arnold & BieberColumbusMr. Frank E. Bachhuber, Sr.Bachhuber Law OfficesWausau.Mr. Robert H. GeePowell, Gee & PowellSuperiorMr. Alden LosbyLosby & LosbyEau Claire

DEBTOR-CREDITORPROCEEDINGS-July 6-10Mr. Edward GrutzrrerGrutzner & JaeckleBeloitMr. Thomas M. JacobsonMilwaukeeMr. Paul MoskowitzMilwaukeeMr. Gerald C. NicholNichol & WyngaardMadison

ORGANIZINGCORPORATIONS-July 13-17Mr. Bernard S. KubaleFoley & LardnerMilwaukeeMr. Thomas G. GodfreyGodfrey, Godfrey & NeshekElkhornMr. William SauerLa CrosseMr. William E. DyeLaFrance, Thompson, Greenquist

Evans & DyeRacine

REAL EST ATE TRANS-ACTIONS-July 20-24(first of two weeks)Mr. Leon FeingoldJanesvilleMr. Maurice PaschMadisonMr. Ward DunphyKluwin, Dunphy, Hankin & HayesMilwaukeeMr. Edward F. ZappenHosek, Zappen, Meissner &

OestreicherMarshfield

REAL ESTATE TRANS-ACTIONS-July 27.31(second of two weeks)Mr. Vernon HowardStroud, Stroud, Stroud& Howard

MadisonMr. Robert C. LovejoyNowlan, Mouat, Lovejoy,

McGuire & WoodJanesvilleMr. Ray A. TomlinsonArthur, Tomlinson & GillmanMadison

DIVORCE-August 3-7Mr. John B. DanforthFamily Court CommissionerJeffersonMr. George K, SteilCampbell, Brennan, Steil & RyanJanesvilleMr. Ernest P. StrubStrub, Woodworth & O'ConnellBeaver DamMr. Andrew J. ZafisZafis & RummelOconomowoc

LAW OFFICE MANAGEMENT -August 10-12Mr. Irvin B. CharneCharne, Glassner, Tehan,

Clancy & TaitelmanMilwaukee.Mr. Clyde J. SchloemerSchloemer, Schlaefer, Gordon

& AldersonMilwaukeeMr. Dale L. SordenQuarles, Herriott, Clemons,

Teschner & NoelkeMilwaukeeMr. James E. WebsterRoss, Stevens, Pick & SpohnMadison

PREPARING A CIVIL CASEFOR TRIAL-August 17-21Mr. James A. DrillDoar, Drill & NormanNew RichmondMr. Robert L. HabushHabush, Gillick, Habush,

Davis & MurphyMilwaukeeMr. Glenn L. SharrattFulton, Menn & NehsAppletonMr. Harold WitkinHughes, Anderson, Davis, Witkin,& Fredrickson

Superior

THE GARGOYLE

William McClusker (1945), Dean Kimball, Ward Redor (1930)

Allan Adams (Class of 1935), Harlan Rogers (CI.ass of 19(9)

CLASS REUNIONS, 1970

Frank J. RemingtonNeil A. WoodingtonGlen R. CampbellWilliam J. WillisWalter B. RaushenbushJohn R. CollinsRalph E. SennGilbert 1. HarrickDavid S. RuderRichard 1. OlsonErnest T. KaufmanSamuel J. RechtArlen C. ChristensonGilbert W. ChurchAllan J. JosephWilliam 1. ChurchTimothy C. FrautschiJames E. FrettyDavid J. HaseJames E. KrierSan W. OrrMrs. Nancy Carol DreherJohn E. JonesMrs. Jean C. Love (Mrs.David)Walter DeitchJohn W. ROwe

196119621963

194919501951195219531954195519561957195819591960

19671968

19691970

196419651966

of those in private practice, outsideWisconsin. He will be associatedwith Isham, Lincoln & Beale, Chi.cago, Ill.

The names of the Dalberg prizewinners follow:1931 Mrs. Bernice Lotwin Bern-

stein1932 Miles Lambert (deceased)1933 Gordon Sinykin1934 Ernest R. Feidler1935 Raymond 1. Geraldson1936 Owen D. Nee1937 Albert F. Newmann1938 William T. Little1939 Paul P. Lipton1940 Richard W. Effland

Ernst H. Schopler1941 Harriet Frances Zetterberg

(Mrs. Dan Margolies)1942 Marvin E. Klitsner1943 Catherine B. Cleary1944 Earl G. Sachse1945 William E. Chritton1946 Eugene N. Hanson1947 Thomas B. Fifield1948 Joseph R. Barnett

DALBERGPRIZEWINNERS HONORED

John W. Rowe 1970 Winner

A large plaque listing all thewinners of the Salmon W. Dalbergprize, awarded each year since 1931to the outstanding member of thegraduating class will soon be placedin the lobby of the Law School.The plaque was unveiled by JohnW. Rowe, the 1970 Dahlberg prizewinner, at the Law Ball on April25.

The prize was made possible bythe gift to the Regents from Mrs.Julia Dalberg Bower and Miss Frie-da Dalberg in memory of theirbrother. Mr. Salmon Dalberg re-ceived his BA and ML (Master ofLetters) from the University ofWisconsin in 1883. Although hepracticed law in Wisconsin, there isno evidence that he attended theLaw School.

There are 45 recipients of theDalberg prize because two awardswere made in 1940, 1960, 1963,1966 and 1968.

A recent survey of the Dalbergprize winners reveals that 23 ofthem are in private practice, (18 inWisconsin); five are in business (3in Wisconsin); 8 are law teachers,(4 are at the Wisconsin LawSchool), and another left the LawSchool in 1967 after many years asa Faculty member.

Four Dalberg winners are in gov-ernment service, one for the Stateof Wisconsin and two with the Fed-eral government. The fourth is atpresent completing a year as LawClerk to a state supreme court jus-tice.

One winner is listed as "retired,"one is in the legal publishing busi-ness and one serves as Secretaryand General Counsel of the Nation-al Gallery of Art in Washington.

One recipient is deceased, andanother has not been heard from.

Five recipients are women, in-cluding the first, Mrs. Bernice Lot-win Bernstein, Class of 1931.

Mr. Rowe, the 1970 winner, isoriginally from Dodgeville, Wiscon-sin. A member of Coif and Noteand Comment Editor of the Wis-consin Law Review, Mr. Rowe islisted in the summary above as one

THE GARGOYLE XIII

Brown, Currie HonoredThe highlight of the Alumni As-

sociation luncheon on Saturday,April 25, was the presentation ofthe Distinguished Alumni-Facultyawards to Emeritus Professor RayAndrews Brown and ProfessorGeorge S. Currie. The plaques wereawarded by Wisconsin SupremeCourt justices Connor Hansen andBruce Beilfuss. Mrs. Brown accept-ed on behalf of her husband whowas unable to be present.

Born in New Hampshire, Profes-sor Brown was a member of theLaw School Faculty from 1923 to1961. He will celebrate his eightiethbirthday this year. He is a na-tionally known expert in Admin-istrative Law. He taught also Con-stitutional Law, Real and PersonalProperty Law and Taxation. He isthe author of widely used textbooks and case books in PersonalProperty, Real Property, Taxationand Administrative Law.

He was a devoted teacher.

"All of his former students," saidJustice Hansen in making theaward, "recall that he demandedmuch of us. His evaluation of ourwork was strict and fair. We are allbetter lawyers for our early associ-ations with Ray Brown."

Professor Currie retires in June,1970. He joined the Faculty in 1968after seventeen years service on theSupreme Court of Wisconsin. Hewas Chief Justice from 1964 to1968.

Prof. Currie graduated from theWisconsin Law School in 1925, amember of Coif and Editor in Chiefof the Wisconsin Law Review. Hepracticed law in Sheboygan fortwenty-six years, during which herepresented many important cor-porate clients.

As Professor of Law, he hastaught Corporations, Evidence, andTrial and Appellate Practice. Hehas also conducted seminars in Wis-consin Judicial Practice and Consti-tutional Developments.

Prof. George CurrieJustice Bruce Beilfuss

Mrs. Ray Brown, Justice Connor Hansen

WILLARD HURST

SBA HONORS HURSTProfessor Willard Hurst is the

1970 recipient of the annual Distin-guished Teacher Award of the Stu-dent Bar Association. A graduate ofWilliams College and Harvard LawSchool, Professor Hurst served asLaw Clerk to Supreme Court JusticeLouis D. Brandeis before joining theFaculty in 1937 to teach Legal His-tory and Legislation. He is a widelyhonored scholar as well as a distin-guished teacher.

XIV

SUPPORT THE LAW SCHOOL FUNDTHE GARGOYLE

WLAA iBOARDOFDIRECTORS, BOARD OFVISITORS MEET

Cotter Chosen to Head Alumni

Patrick Cotter, (Class of 1940)partner in the Milwaukee firm ofBrady, Tyrell, Cotter and Cutler,was chosen President of the Wiscon-sin Law Alumni Association at theAnnual Meeting on Saturday, April25, 1970. Long active in Law SchoolAlumni affairs, Mr. Cotter hasserved as Vice-president during thepast year. He succeeds Robert L.Curry, Madison (Class of 1953).Glen R. Campbell (Class of 1952),of Campbell, Brennan, Steil andRyan, Janesville, will serve as Vice-president; Professor W a It e r B.Raushenbush (Class of 1953) willreplace Professor John Hetheringtonas Secretary-Treasurer.Elected as Directors of the Asso-

ciation for 3 year terms were: JudgeThomas Barland, (Class of 1956),Eau Claire, Edward Garvey (Classof 1969), Minneapolis, and Cotter.

* * *Chosen to be Chairman of the

Board of Visitors of the WisconsinLaw Alumni Association was John C.Tonjes (Class of 1933), member ofthe firm of Tonjes and Mortenson,Fond du Lac. Justice Nathan S. Hef-fernan (Class of 1948), Thomas D.

THE GARGOYLE

President Cotter,Chairman Tonjes

Zilavy (Class of 1961), Ross, Stev-ens, Pick and Spohn, Madison, andTonjes were appointed to newterms on the Board of Visitors.The two Boards met jointly and

separately. Approval was given toa new budget for the Associationand reports on the past year's activ-ities were made.It was agreed that henceforth the

President of the Student Bar Asso-ciation, or his representative, willparticipate in all meetings of the

Board of Directors.Of special importance was the ap-

proval given by the two Boards tothe proposed deferment plan forgiving by graduating classes, begin-ning with the Class of 1970.Associate Dean Foster explained

the plan, and approval was grantedafter extensive discussion.

1970 LAW CLASSPLEDGES $150,000ENDOWMENT GIFTNew Gift PlanBased on $5000Life PoliciesThe 1970 graduates of the Law

School have pledged support for aClass Endowment Fund promis-ing to exceed $150,000. A quarter ofthe 1970 Class has announced inten-tions of participating in the newlyestablished Deferred EndowmentFund.The Fund is based on $5000 poli-

cies on the lives of each participant,with policies owned by the Wiscon-sin Law Alumni Association. Forthe first ten years following gradua-tion, participants may designate abeneficiary of their choice, afterwhich time the policies become ir-revocably payable to the AlumniAssociation.For the first five years after grad-

uation participants will pay $25 an-nually, with the Alumni Associationcontributing the balance of the an-nual premium. Contributions riseafterwards to the level of $100 an-nually by the tenth year followinggraduation and continue thereafterat that level. For small additionalpayments participants may arrangeto acquire as much as $40,000 in in-surance for their own use withoutneed for further proof of insurabil-ity, for waiver of premiums in eventof disability, and for accidentaldeath benefits which they may as-sign to beneficiaries of their choice.That graduating law students,

knowing first hand the Law School'sneed for financial support, havebacked the new program to this ex-tent shows both the critical natureof the School's needs and the will-ingness of these new members ofthe legal profession to help meetthem.

xv