RICHARD W. BARDWELL INTERVIEW

What made you choose to go to the University of Wisconsin?

A: Partly because we lived in Madison and we didn't have a lot of money and I had to pay my own way. University of Wisconsin had a good law school. In fact, at that time, it was ranked as one of the better ones in the country. That was in 1939.

Q: What made you decide to become a lawyer?

   I didn’t know what I was going to do and it was my senior year in college. I took the education courses. My father was supervisor of schools in Madison at that time and I took all the education course——two year courses in one year. And I got a job at Spring and Marshalltown, Iowa. I enjoyed teaching school, but it really wasn't challenging enough intellectually and so the summer of ‘38 1 took a summer of law school in Wisconsin and it came out very well, so I decided then that I would go into law.

Q:  What have you taught?

A:    What did I teach?

Q:   Yes

A:   well I taught history and sociology——those to subjects mainly.

Q:    In high school?

A:  In high school.

Q:       What year did you start university law school?

A: That summer of '38 1 took 8 credits and then I came back full time in 1940 after I taught school in '39 and '40 and 1940 was when I decided I wanted to go to law school. The war was beginning to look ominous and I wanted to try to finish before the law, if I could.

Q:   Did you?

No, I didn't quite. I ended up about 20 credits short and they were giving about 15 that you needed, but Dean Rundell who was a very good friend of mine——a great man--he said I can 't give you a degree, but I can put you in the class of 1942, which he did. So I am one of the few people who put in for '42 and then didn't get my degree until '46. I spent 4 years in the military and it wasn't too tough because, actually I wasn't a flying officer, but I was connected with a bomber outfit in England. Spent years in England and then went over right after D—Day we established a beachhead for 26th near Calay and I finally got out of the service at the end of '45.

Q:   When you were in law school was there a particular professor that was memorable?

 A: Well, they were all memorable. We had a great faculty in those days. Page was one of my favorites. I took almost a whole year of Contracts. Also, Howard Hall, or the late Howard Hall, Trust, and I learned a lot of Trust from him. Dick Campbell was my favorite in Torts. Those are three of the most memorable.

Q:   What was the law school like?

A: It was fine. Of course it was small just before the war, but then after the war it really expanded because all of the other fellahs did not finish and by that time they were starting to receive more and more women, which was fine. So the law school blossomed from ‘46 on. They had the new library and editions to the old one and so on.

Q: When you did get your degree in '46, what was your first professional job.

A:   First professional job was then called Miller, Mack and Fairchild. Now Foley & Lardner, who are taking this deposition.     I got the job mainly because of the recommendations of Dean Rundell. He was highly respected by the Miller, Mack and Fairchild law firm and he recommended me and I got the job. Spent about 2 ½ years with the firm.

Q:   Was that in Milwaukee?

A:   In Milwaukee.

Q:   What type of law did you practice?

A:   Basically did, in those days, the firm wasn't so big——it was about 25 and they had about 12 or 13 partners and we worked with the partners and did research for them the first year and a half or so. It was very concentrated research because they had big clients and you had to do things right.

Q: Do you remember the first case you worked on?

I can't remember. One of the first early cases I had I worked with Fred Salmon who later became one of the senior partners. He was a tax expert and we represented the United State Association and the question of whether they should be taxed or not. I handled that case and we won it and it eventually went to the Supreme Court and their exemption from taxation was affirmed. So, I 've always had fond memories of the Association. That was the Latish Company and others like that. And was the one a big name in Milwaukee.

I worked there about 2 ½ years and I enjoyed it——it was stimulating intellectually, but it didn't look to me like I had a real great future there. I had a chance to come back to Madison because the District Attorney had lost a great big case and he decided to give up his practice and I had a chance to take over his practice. It wasn't a big one, but it was at least a start. So, I carne back to Madison in January, 1949.

   Did you run for District Attorney?

A: I ran in 1950. After a tough campaign, I ran against Tom Anley who was a former congressman. He came in at the last minute and, of course, he was very well known and I was lucky enough to beat him out in 1950. I was District Attorney in 1950 and reelected in ^‘52, ‘54, and '56.

Q: What was it like when you first became District Attorney, did you handle many of the cases yourself?

A: Contrary to what they do now, we didn't have a very big staff. I only had 3 or 4 assistants and so I handled practically all important cases. Including a couple of murder cases and 2 or 3 big condemnation cases. Because that was a time when they were improving the beltline and they had to condemn an awful lot of farmers the land. They wanted a lot of money and I represented———at that time the District Attorney was not only a criminal attorney——we didn’t have a corporation counsel and so I had to handle all the civil matters of importance.

Q:    It sounds like you were quite busy.

A:    It was very busy.

Q: Is there a particular one that sticks out in your mind from those early years as District Attorney.

A: One of the cases I handled was a murder case and I remember it very well because I asked the——at that time, the law was still the same—-on cross examination of the defendant you can ask him if he was convicted of a crime and he has to answer that yes or no and then you can say, how many, how many felonies and he could answer that and that was all you could do. You couldn't go any further. You couldn't ask him about the nature of the crime and so on unless you could show a definite pattern which was very difficult to show. I remember asking this defendant who had killed a man with a hammer had beat him on the head. I said to him, sir, were you ever convicted of a crime before? I said you must answer that truthfully. He replied yes. And I said, well, how many? Right in front of the jury he said, well, only one murder. The jury was out in that case, and I'11 never forget, Hugh Worbner, who was a leading defense counsel at that time, and is still practicing law, he really dropped his jaw when he said only one murder and the jury was out 32 minutes which is an absolute record for a murder case I think in Dane County and maybe in the state. He still kids me about that. I got a break through the defendant, himself.

I had a couple of big condemnation cases. Out Mineral Point Road way, where the beltline comes in there. I remember one of them very well because, unfortunately, a neighbor of mine was a fellow named Malarsh Lines and he was an excellent farmer and he knew more about farming than anybody. And I had this case and he was asking for an awful lot of money because he said his milk cows refused to come back to the barn to be milked because of the noise and all that sort of thing and he was demanding $100, 000 in extra damages. Well, Malarsh Lines explained it to me that that's not the way cows operate. They don't particular like to go out in the morning from the nice warm barn, they love to get back in because they know they are going to get some extra grain. So I used that in cross examination of the owner and, of course, he didn't know that. Then I put my expert on and he explained that there is no problem in getting cows back after they have been out all day. The jury came in well below the damages that had been awarded by the Commissioners. Under those circumstances, that was important because he lost all his costs that way. That was one of the more important cases that I was successful—-that the County had.

Q: Did the District Attorney's office grow while you were the District Attorney?

A: It grew a little bit, but not an awful lot. I was the one that put in the provision that the District Attorney had the right to choose his own assistant who is the deputy and it still is in effect. The town board didn't want to do that because they thought it was undermining civil service. 1 explained to them that you had to have at least one person there who was completely loyal to you and who could act in your stead when you are gone. And that it still the case.

As I recall, we ended up with a staff of 5 and now I think they have 20 or more. And, of course, the county hasn't grown that much it has probably nearly doubled, but the staff has gone up 4 times. That is due, of course, to the fact that there is so much more crime than there used to be.

Q:    When did you first become a judge?

A: In 1956. Judge Reese, who'd been an interesting, somewhat controversial, brilliant judge. He served for about 3 or 4 terms. He was waiting for a bus at the corner where now is Anchor corner and he had a heart attack. They took him to the hospital and he died. This was 5 days before nomination papers were disclosed. If he'd decided to run for 1 more term, then nobody was running against him. So, all of us-— about 10 or 12 jumped into the fray and it ended up that 6 people ran for his job as circuit judge. At that time there were only 2 circuit judges. The other judge was Herman Sachtjen and Al Reese. I got in with some excellent people running against me. Morris Maloney and Ed Wilke who later became circuit judge over in Fineland(?) and Doug Nelson who was the first small claims judge. We all ran——there were 6 of us that ran. I was lucky enough to get into the final. Wilke who was a well—known republican led in the beginning but then the democrats got behind me and I was lucky enough to get elected in 1956.

Q: What made you decide to run? Had you wanted to be a judge for a long time?

A: I had. As the District Attorney I worked closely with both Judge Reese and Judge Sachtjen and it intrigued me. To me that was the epitome of being a lawyer was to be a judge as long as you weren't in a big law firm and real successful. 1 had a chance to be, but I wasn't anymore because I’d left Foley & Lardner.

Q:   What was it like, your first day on the bench?   Do you remember?

A: Well, yes I do remember because I had a fairly complicated Public Service Commission appeal. In those days, the circuits that the Dane County handed down all appeals from state agencies. And this is an appeal from the public service commission. It was a complicated case and I was against one of the best old time lawyers in Madison. He was with the firm of——l can ^t t think of it right now. It was one of the biggest firms, and this was one of the senior partners. I think one of the last cases he argued. So I was——wanted to try and do a good job on it. I wrote an opinion and I decided to affirm the commission against the law firm who was kind of upset. It went on to the Supreme Court and the decision I was affirmed for——that was my first case and it went all the way to the Supreme Court.

My tenure on the bench was 31 years. Because of the fact that we have all these appeals we all the commissions and we also handled all cases whenever the state was a party regardless of where the venue lay. The venue was Dane County even though it was somebody up north that was suing the state. As a result, we got a lot of appeals.

I remember Judge Curry, a good friend of mine, Chief Justice Curry, he told me that I had a pretty good record there, so when I retired I went back and read all of them and I had something like 45 or 50 appeals to the Supreme Court and they pointed out to me that I had one of the best records of any of the circuits in the state. That's a period and I regret it because the court reorganization did some good, but it didn't do very much good for the circuit judges because what it did do was, it made everybody a circuit judge and obviously we reduced their importance. When I was circuit judge there were only about 35 in the state and I ended up being chairman of the state board of circuit judges. That was quite an important job at that time. Now every county judge became a circuit judge and we have something like 150 of them. There were other advantages. I guess the theory was everybody should have the right to try their case before a high judge. Now I think there is 17 and they are all circuit judges. When I went on the bench there were only 2 circuit judges, there was a small claims judge, there was a county judge, George Monte? . A very importation position, because of him. All probate and small claims judge, county judge and 2 circuit judges 0

Q:    When did that change take place?

A: I think that the big reorganization took place about 1978 . Since then Dane County had case loaded, as a result of that, the legislature for being a county. It still, I think are very busy, but ah, its taken away some of their work load because the state cases are Those, of course, only dairy cases in which you had because you had to do a lot of research and had to write a reasonably decent opinion. Now a circuit Judge one day may be almost well he doesn't sit through traffic, but he does everything else.

Q:   When you first became a judge, was that in the old courthouse?

A: That's right. I was elected in 1956 and ray first 2 years was spent in the old courthouse which I kind of enjoyed. In 58 they opened the new courthouse——l was in there right up to the time I retired in 1972.

Q: What was the most bizarre case you ever had? The most unusual case you had come before

A: I suppose, I don't know, I suppose the Kathy Salona case. That was a case in which Kathy Salona really was a front for a brothel. We followed around the case with itself and he hired these girls and he was pretty mean and pretty nasty. He used to beat them all up all the time. The reason the case was important to us was the people of went to the place and there was a list of names and the question was whether those names should be released. I didn't see any purpose in it because we didn't need that for probative evidence. We had plenty of other evidence on the matter. So I refused it, because I said it would be an unfair slurring of the names of prominent people who made a mistake. I think I made the right decision, because it wouldn't have served any purpose except it would have ruined some reputations possibly and mostly it would have been gossip and innuendo and so on. Well, that case was important and we won the case and he went to prison and the interesting thing is that he kept writing me from prison. I guess he thought I treated him fairly. 1 think he is dead now, but he used to write to me. He spent about 14 years in prison for his treatment. He really did harm some of the girls greatly.

Q: Do you have some particular type of case that was very difficult to decide?

A: There were a lot of cases that were difficult. I think one of the more important cases that I had which was difficult was Badger Beauty was crossing University Ave. just after they had made it a one—way street instead of two—ways and she crossed against traffic and was hit by a bus and severely damaged. Of course she didn't realize it was a one—way and she really walked right into the bus. I had an awful hard time deciding that case because the jury found that she was equally negligent with the bus driver. At that time, if you were 50% negligent, you were out of luck. Now, even though you would be able to recover up to if you aren't more than 50% negligent. With that case, I affirmed the——one of my best friends was there, Jack DeWitt, he was one of the leading lawyers in town, was on the other side and I felt terribly bad about it, but I felt, under the circumstances, I had no alternative but to affirm the jury verdict at 50/50 and no recovery. We had an awful time with it. They sent it back for re—jury of the court itself. Finally, they reversed my finding and ordered a new trial. At which time they adopted the rule of 50/50%. I think Justice Hal ? was the Chief Justice at the time, and he always thought that that should have been the rule.

That case, I felt that——the late Willard Stafford had represented the city and the insurance company and he won the case and then lost it in the Supreme Court. I felt legally that that was a problem. From a moral standpoint, I thought the girl was in bad shape. She lost her leg. A beautiful girl lost as a result of that accident. It was a momentary lapse on her part. She had forgot that University Avenue was a one—way street 0

Q:   Were you ever reversed where you thought the court was wrong?

A:   Oh, a couple of times. I wouldn't want to point that out now.

Q:   You don't talk about those, huh.

A:   Nope. I used to——l remember when I was at Miller, Mack and Fairchild and Gilbert Hardgrove was a senior  He handled all our appeals with the Supreme County. He 'd argued more cases in the U.S. Supreme Court than any other lawyer in the State of Wisconsin. He once told me that he had a record of losing only 4 cases in the Supreme Court out of the 25 or 30 argued. I asked how did you feel about that? He said I felt those were the 4 cases I was absolutely right on in the law. I remembered that. I don't feel too bad, but I do feel once in a while our court did err.

I did one that's a local case and I still feel that they erred in. That has to do with the city of Fitchburg, ing petition to become a city. Well at that time there were certain standards that you had to reach. You had to have standards that you had to reach. You had to have sort of a—— not a downtown, but you had to have some kind of central basis. You had to have other attributes of a city. Fitchburg had none, all they had was land, terrific land. As a result I - as a matter of fact, your firm handled the other side of that, and they got a reversal in the Supreme Court. I denied the permission to have them become a city and I was reversed on a 4 to 3 decision and they reheard the case. I remember Chief Justice Heffernan wrote the opinion of the dissent on the case. He really criticized his brethren. He sided with me and thought that we had ignored the law——that you had to have some attribute of a city to become one . On the rehearing, I don't know whether it was because he was going to be the next Chief Justice, or what, he obtained from hearing the rehearing and excused himself and as a result the 1 vote shift changes and Fitchburg became a city and as you know is a city and doing very well, at least as a residential community. I don't know about the city factor of it. I still think I was right in that case.

Q: You 've handled some very controversial cases in your day, haven't you?

A:   Oh yes, quite a few.

Q:   Tell me some others 

A: Well, one of the cases that I - I did make some law as a result of the fact that I handled so many state appeals. I became an expert on Workers Compensation. We had a situation where a man who worked for the county for years—-he was in public utility——and was badly burned and as a result, he lost his manhood, you might say. To make a long story short, it prayed on his mind and he committed suicide. Two or 3 years after the accident and after he'd received an award for the injuries——the question then was whether enough——you could recover workers compensation because suicide, normally you couldn’t recover with workers comp. Unless you could show there was a clear connection. There was testimony about one doctor that he was true to this because of the fact that he could no longer become a father and so on. I reversed the commission and granted recovery for his death which was related to his injuries. The Supreme Court, with a great deal of difficulty, affirmed me and then they clarified the law on it. Where suicide is a direct result of the accident, you can recover it. That was real important holding, in my opinion. And, there wasn't much authority nationwide on it. 1 feel that I sort of paved the way for some new law.I 'm not a great women's libber. I 've been criticized for it a little bit, and I think unfairly. But I do want to point out that since my coming on the scene in Madison, women have taken a tremendous step forward . I can point that out. We have two on the Supreme Court of the United States now, excuse me, only one, I guess. But we have two on our court. We have several circuit judges. At least three that I can think of. The number of women lawyers——when I started practicing in the 50's there were, I think only about two women lawyers practicing. Mary Ann Davids is one. She was one of the first women to actually practice actively in Madison. Now there are countless. I don't know how many, and the president of the state bar is a woman and at least two to three presidents of our county bar that are women. In the law business, they 've taken almost an equal place with the men. I think that is fine. It is a great change in the last 40 years.

Q: How have you seen the practice of law change since you ^t ve been practicing other than the numbers of women?

A: The two biggest changes in the practice law are the much greater influence of women, both on the bench, but also on the bar as trial lawyers. Secondly, I think it is the emergence, in Dane County, of larger law firms. When I——50 years ago there were only three or four firms that had more than four lawyers. Now, my good friend, Jack DeWitt, I think they have something like 20 lawyers in their firm. I don't know how many you have, but you have a lot.

Q:   There are 50 in this office.

It is amazing when you consider the fact that when I went to practice, there were only 23 or 24 lawyers in the main firm of Miller, Mack and Fairchild in Milwaukee. Now, if you don 't have 10 or 12 lawyers, you are not much of a law firm as far as prominence is concerned. That's a big change.

Q:   Do you think it is a good or a bad change?

A: Well, I '11 leave that up to you. I think its all good. You have more specialists that way. You are able, with a larger firm, you are able to have one or two lawyers become absolute specialists in certain fields. Whether it is bond issues or environmental law. That is a brand new field in law and its a big one. I had some important environmental cases and at that time there weren't very many environmental lawyers in Madison. I 'm talking about 10 — 15 years ago. Now we have 2 or 3 firms that specialize in environmental law. Not too much in taxation. I always wondered about that. There are some good tax lawyers in Dane County. But there are not too many firms that really specialize in taxation which is certainly a field by itself, in my opinion.

Q: Tell me about when——I realize there weren't that many judges when you first took the bench, but tell me about the collegiality among the judges.

A: Well, it was much greater then because there were so few. Almost every decision of importance we discussed——the circuit judges, at first there were only two. Judge Sachtjen and I and then they created a new branch and Judge Wilke came on. He and I would discuss cases and try to help each other out. That isn't done anymore that I know of. At least I know it wasn't done very much the last few years I was on the bench. Whether that's good or bad, I don't know. It's a change. When you have 17 or 18 judges, you aren't as close to them. My office in the new courthouse is right next to Judge Wilke and going right down the line there was Judge Maloney. And we used to discuss our cases almost on a daily basis. It helped to exchange thoughts. A lot of times it was very helpful. 1 don't think they do that so much anymore. Maybe they do and I don't know it.

Q: What advice would you give to someone that's assuming the bench now? I realize it is different, but. . .

A: Well, I think one of the important things is——and I was very lucky——because I had so darn much work to do and I also was juvenile judge for two or three years as an additional duty. You need some help. I started the idea of having law clerks. My law clerks have done really well. I am very proud of them. Some of them are leading lawyers in Dane County.

Q:   For instance, who was your law clerk?

A:   Who?

Q:   Yea, who?

A: Well, I had a lot of them. I gave them full rein and let them——asked them to sit in on their case and help me write the opinion. I think they learned a lot and as a result they were able to get pretty good jobs. One example is Bob Kasieta. He is now one of the leading trial lawyers with the Metzner firm. He was one of my best clerks. He came from Marquette and my opinion of Marquette as a law school went up after I hired him 0 Because, as I say, he was one of the best. I had several others that have done real well and got pretty good jobs.

   I'm not sure that we finished my question of what advice you would give to new judges?

A: My advice is try to——if you have a chance——and they are trying to get the circuit judge to have at least one law clerk, get a good one. Be selective and kind of coach them, but rely on them. That would be one thing, because two minds are always better than one. If you get a smart, young graduate lawyer to help you, there is no question in my mind that it is important. I guess, don't get——if you can avoid it, don't get personally involved in your feelings about a case.

Q:   How do you avoid that?

A: I don’t know. It is hard to do. We are all human and everybody has their prejudice and their views and there is just no question that you are affected by that. To that extent, you are not being completely neutral as a judge and that is where you fall into a trap, sometimes. Many judges, not only here, but throughout the country have fallen in the trap and have decided cases based on what they think rather than of course, that is one of the good things about a jury system . At least 12 people have to make the decision on facts. That relieves the judge of that onerous task of deciding whether a person is lying or not. That is up to the jury to decide. In that extent, I certainly approve of the jury system. I think being a judge today is——you get so many different types of cases that it can be difficult, but you shouldn't turn away from difficulty or try to avoid them just because they are difficult. It is just that sort of thing that makes a good judge in any case.

I remember one of my good friends in Milwaukee, who was a very fine Catholic. He got a case involving——it was against the catholic church in Milwaukee. He took the case even though it must have been hard for him to decided to do this. He had to decide that particular issue against the church. That is really courageous to take a case like that. But, you can answer the obvious answer without prejudice because his feelings were always there with the church, but the law was against the church and that is the way he decided.

Q: Advice you have liked to have given the lawyers when you were judge? Advice you'd like to have given the lawyers who appeared before you when you were the judge, but unfortunately they probably didn't ask you.

A: It is very important, a lawyers demeanor and I 'm thinking now. It is amazing how a jury will size up a lawyer and often decide the case based on the impression they have of the lawyers. It is important for a lawyer to keep that in mind and not to irritate the jury.

Carroll Metzner tells a wonderful story. I think you 've heard it. He's tried so many cases before me and he always tells the story about the lawyer that got up and he was very loud and long—winded and so on. Finally, he said to the lawyer, now he said, I'm just going to talk to you for a minute, just one more time. A woman in the jury said thank God.

So that gives you an idea that he wasn't impressing that jury with his windiness. I would tell an attorney that it is alright to be firm and to show a little emotion, but don 't over do it. Don't harangue a jury. The most effective——they are intelligent. We have an intelligent community. Don 't talk down to the jury. Try to think if they might be thinking anything and aid them in coming to a conclusion. It is amazing how effective some lawyers are with juries and how ineffective some lawyers are.

We do have a lot of jury trials in Dane County, there's no question about that. One reason why I think there are so many new judges in the last 20 years. I want to commend the Dane County Bar Is this put on by the Dane County Bar Association?

Q:   That's right.

A: I want to commend them, I mean I’ve retained my membership in the Dane County Bar ever since I retired because I want to keep up with them a little bit, I think they are doing a fine job. The Dane County Bar well there is no question about it, I think it is one of the best bar associations, not only in Wisconsin, but in the Midwest.

Q: You 've been a member of the Dane County Bar for years?

A:   I've been a member of the Dane County Bar as I recall, since about 1951. That is 43 years.

Q:   We're talking about writing the history of the Dane County Bar. Can you remember some significant events in the Dane County Bar, itself as opposed to the bar?

A:   Not right at the moment, but there have been and I 've followed them.

I know that they were very——or I understand from the records that they were very helpful when soldiers came back from World War 11. Helping to get places for them and volunteering.

You told me what advice you'd give to a judge, what advice would you give to a new lawyer beginning?

A: He has a responsibility to his client. He should never try to deceive him, or if your client has a bad case, he should tell them. It is hard to do, but there is no point in leading along the primrose path when you 11 probably end up basically the expenses . So I think weighing the worth of the client's case is a very important job of a lawyer——one of the most important decisions he has to make. On the other hand, everybody is entitled to a lawyer, so sometimes you have to take cases that are losers, but you do the best you can. Be realistic, be practical and be honest. Those are the things I would advise a young lawyers just starting out. Don't just think about the contingent fee that you might or might not get.

I think that is a big problem with the contingent fee. 1 think it has its place, but it has its abuse as well. I have not hesitated, under certain circumstances, when I 'm holding a pretrial conference to literally ask the lawyer to be realistic and lower his sights as to what he might get out of it if I felt that that would lead to the settlement.

Q:   You felt it was one of your responsibilities to encourage settlement?

A: Oh yes, yes. I got very good to great success. I always listen to both sides and try not to show any partiality, but then end up until both sides, clients and lousy lawyers, my evaluation of what the case is and they can take it or leave it. I ^t m not trying to force it. Maurice Maloney used to harmer a little bit too much. He 'd even call the insurance company. One case, he called the president of the insurance company because they wouldn't come up with a decent offer. Called him right in his office. I never went that far. But I often would tell, in no uncertain terms, the offer is clearly inadequate, that it is inadequate. Be realistic. As a result, I find it is amazing when people know that they have a definite cut—out date, the case has been pre—tried honestly, fairly and the trial judge has given his opinion of what it is worth, he knows the jury is going to decide it, he isn 't. I've been able to settle an awful lot of cases. I'd say about 80% of them.

It is amazing that both sides would like to settle the cases if they think they can come out reasonably fairly . My thoughts in that matter have been re—equified throughout the country. Almost going to compulsory arbitration.

Q: Do you think a more active role then of the judiciary would help address the criticisms that have been leveled that it simply takes too long?

A:   Pardon?

Q: Do you think a more active role on the part of the judiciary would address the concerns?

A: I think so, absolutely and I think its being done. I just noticed that the Supreme Court is adopting a rule in effect in certain cases, leads to compulsory arbitration. Or you end up paying a lot of the costs if you lose and refuse to arbitrate.

Q: Are you still serving as a reserve judge? You did after you retired, right?

A: Well, yea, what I did was kind of an interesting situation. l ^t d been handling small claims cases, because last year, in Dane County alone, we had over 7 , 000 cases. Obviously, in order to get through those you have to be expeditious . I was 'd work about four or five days a month and I ^t d handle as many as 25 or 30 cases in one afternoon. I didn 't try all of them, obviously you couldn 't, but you could get rid of them either by finding there were no factual issues that hadn't been agreed to and then deciding it or just telling the people that they are just throwing good money after bad by not agreeing to a reasonable settlement. I became pretty expert at deciding so—called small claims cases . I haven 't been doing it as much lately and I'm kind of happy about that. I 've done a little bit of——l worked with the state—wide organization that seeks to settle cases located in Waukesha. I've done some work for them. I miss the bench a little bit.

When I first retired, I went down to Green County because l ^t d gone down there a lot and I actually sat there for about two or three weeks handling cases because they were a little behind. That is about the only regular judge work I 've done on an extended basis . I 've had a chance to go to Milwaukee, but Milwaukee is kind of a last—didn^/t want to—-I may still do that.

Q:   What do you miss about the bench? You said you miss it.

A:   Well, I guess you miss the intellectual stimulus of trying to decide cases if they are cases of law. Handling a jury. 1 always enjoyed that. I liked my juries.

Q:   You had fairly good juries in Dane County, right?

A:   Oh, very, yes 0 There were two cases where I thought the jury went really askew.

Q:   Occasionally it happens?

A: Occasionally it happens. For one reason or another they make a mistake 0

Q: Like what would cause them to make a mistake?

A: There might be one witness who was clearly not telling the truth. That happens. Sometimes they make a mistake in assessing damages. That is the hardest thing to do is to assess damages, in my opinion, it is pretty hard. They ve gotten a little out of line on some of these damage awards. They haven 't placed any cap on it because the lawyers are against that because most of those cases are contingent cases. So if they put a cap on a case, it cuts down on the fees that the lawyer is going to get out of if. It is just human to be against that. Sometimes, that can be wrong.

Q:   You said that you had wanted to become a judge quite a while before you decided to run. Has being a judge lived up to your expectations? Was it everything you ^t d hoped?

A:   I think so, yes. I'd have to say that. I haven't any regrets. One of the things that is no longer true, but was true then——because we handled so many cases involving state agencies, you got to know the leading lawyers throughout the state. That I enjoyed very much. Some of the finest lawyers.

I had one famous case. Probably one of the most famous cases I had was a so—called full crew law case. Where a state law required every train, even just an engine, to have a fireman, a brakeman and an engineer. That was a full crew. Well, that caused unnecessary burdens on the railroad and finally they adjusted the constitutionality of that case and was held before me.

It was the longest case. It lasted 27 days and it was a court trial. Some fine lawyers of the state were involved. Ralph Voight? a well known lawyer in Milwaukee represented some railroads. Justice Rollin Day, who used to be my assistant, he represented the Fireman's Union. It went 27 days and I wrote about a 70 page opinion finding that the law was unconstitutional.

There was no reasonable basis for having these extra jobs, for example. There was a real fire box in the crash and the fireman was hired to look out to the rear. To make a long story short, I held the law as pretty much unconstitutional and affirmed and reversed in part. The result of my decision caused the legislature——l think, and this was told to me by Byron Obspey who represents the railroad-—to change the law and do away with the full crew law. I think that is one of the reasons that railroads have come back to Wisconsin and I think it is important.

Certainly with our grain and our that they can do

the job better than trucks, in some respects. Doing away with the full crew really puts the railroads back on the basis of where they can be viable.

Q: You 've been involved in quite a few very significant decisions, haven't you?

A:   I think so.

Q: Dane County and the State, in many ways. It must give you a feeling of satisfaction.

    Well it does. Certainly when you think you made the right decision and then it is upheld or it brings about a change in the law which is favorable to justice, in my opinion. had some important cases like that.

Q:   Milwaukee?

A: It was on a on the southside of Milwaukee . 26th and Beecher. People who know Milwaukee would know just where that is. The interesting part of it was it was a duplex and the people that had the duplex needed rooms in Madison for their son who was married and was going to go to school there and had a child and we traded apartments. They took over our apartment on Langdon Street, I think it was 208 Langdon and we got their place in Milwaukee on the southside, the upstairs of this duplex. The only problem was, our apartment on Langdon wasn't fancy, but at least it was modern and this one that we got in Milwaukee didn't have——had a coal stove. I had to bring the coal up to heat the upstairs and my wife didn't think much of that. It was pretty rough. The only good thing about it was the rent was only $24.00 a month for an upstairs apartment. We had one child at that time. We stayed there

for about——here I was working for the best law firm in the state, living in an upstairs for $24. 00 a month. That is probably one of the reasons why I didn't move up rapidly in Miller, Mack and Fairchild because I couldn't very well invite people into that place. We stayed there for about a year and a half and then we moved out on the northwest side to one of the new apartments that they were building out there. The last few months we stayed there. That was different.

One of the reasons that I went to work for Miller, Mack and Fairchild was that in Madison, the starting salary for lawyers, after the war, was about $25, $15—$75 a month. Well, Miller, Mack, I started out there at $460 a month and I got raised to $550 after I 'd been there three months which was enough to live on. Now, you know what the salaries are.

Q:   More than $500 a month.

A:   Yes.

Q:   You sound pretty happy with the path your career did take. Had you stayed at Miller, Mack, you may not have been a judge.

A:   That is probably true. I remember one of the big cases I had involved Miller, Mack & Fairchild on the other side and I decided against it. I am not fond of it, I think I was affirmed on the appeal. I got some kidding out of that. The senior partners that I worked for.

Q:   It has been a pleasure talking to you this morning.

A: It has been nice for you to have come and I appreciate what you are doing. I think it is very interesting.

Q:   Thank you.