Dan Gartzke:    Okay. Today is Tuesday, March 28th, 2023. And this is Dan Gartzke. I'm at the offices of Boardman Clark in Madison to interview Claude Covelli as part of the Dane County Bar Association Oral History Project. This interview will be recorded and transcribed and made available for people interested in the evolution and development of the practice in Dane County.

Claude, do I have your permission to record this and have a transcript prepared?

Claude Covelli: Yes.

Dan Gartzke:    Okay. So let's start. As every good witness, give me your full name.

Claude Covelli: Claude J Covelli.

Dan Gartzke:    All right. And where do you live now?

Claude Covelli: I live in Madison.

Dan Gartzke:    You got family?

Claude Covelli: I do.

Dan Gartzke:    And what are they?

Claude Covelli: A wife, JT, and three adult children. Well, one's JT's and two are mine, but they're all mine now. And six grandsons.

Dan Gartzke:    Good. And you're retired?

Claude Covelli: I am. August of 2020, I retired from the practice of law.

Dan Gartzke:    And you'd been at Boardman Clark?

Claude Covelli: Yes. Well, I had one year before that where I was with Alan Cole, a sole practitioner in La Crosse.

Dan Gartzke:    Make sure this is recording actually. It is. Good. And what are your current activities now?

Claude Covelli: Well, I'm doing a little bit of expert testimony in insurance type cases and/or legal malpractice cases. And reading a lot and visiting my extended family, or, well, my immediate family actually. I've got a daughter in San Francisco, and I've got another daughter in Lexington, South Carolina, which is right outside the capitol. So kind of the polar political ends of the United States.

Dan Gartzke:    Let's talk about pre-law school. Where were you born and when?

Claude Covelli: I was born in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on April 20th, 1947.

Dan Gartzke:    Okay. Did you grow up in Kenosha?

Claude Covelli: Well, I grew up through fourth grade on the county line, just on the Kenosha side of the line between Kenosha and Racine counties. And then we moved to the city of Racine when I was entering fifth grade. We lived in Racine through my graduation from high school.

Dan Gartzke:    What did your parents do?

Claude Covelli: Well, when my dad came back from service in the Coast Guard, he started as a telephone lineman, then a Sears service repairman, then as an agent at the Sears Allstate counter, and as the owner of an independent insurance agency before I entered to the 5th grade. My dad died of a heart attack when I was 17. My mother who had been home raising four kids went to work at the agency that bought my dad's business.

Dan Gartzke:    So you had three siblings?

Claude Covelli: I did.

Dan Gartzke:    Okay.

Claude Covelli: I do.

Dan Gartzke:    You do.

Claude Covelli: Be clear on that.

Dan Gartzke:    So you graduated from Racine in what year?

Claude Covelli: '65.

Dan Gartzke: Are there different high schools in Racine?

Claude Covelli: Yes. At that time there were two high schools: Horlick and Park. I went to Horlick.

Dan Gartzke:    Okay. All right. All right, I won't make, well, this is recorded. From there, did you go right to college?

Claude Covelli: Yes, I went to Carroll College, now Carroll University in Waukesha.

Dan Gartzke:    All right. And what'd you get a degree in?

Claude Covelli: In political science and economics.

Dan Gartzke:    And did you have any military service?

Claude Covelli: I did not.

Dan Gartzke:    Did you go right to law school?

Claude Covelli: I did.

Dan Gartzke:    Where'd you go?

Claude Covelli: UW Madison.

Dan Gartzke:    And what caused you to go to law school?

Claude Covelli: Oh, I didn't have a job. I was married. And Vietnam was at its height, so people were hesitant to hire young men because they didn't know how long they'd be around. And I was on the waiting list at Michigan and was accepted at Wisconsin. I decided to stay home and go to Wisconsin.

Dan Gartzke:    So are you telling me you went to law school purely out of a desire to avoid the draft?

Claude Covelli: No. I thought I was going to be drafted. I had a low draft number, had played football and I was in perfect health. All Racine college grads went to Milwaukee for the draft physical. I went with my bag in hand. I had a 36-inch waist and a 21-inch neck. They were drafting Marines, and I thought I was likely to become a Marine. At the end of the physical, they told me that I was too heavy for my height. I said, "What?" Because I was totally unaware of that. I was 30 pounds too heavy for my 5'10” height, but it was muscle. They said I could appeal, but I thought I should complete my legal education first.

Dan Gartzke:    So you went in for that while you were already accepted to law school, you said?

Claude Covelli: Yes.

Dan Gartzke:    Okay. And what year did you get married?

Claude Covelli: I was first married in 1969.

Dan Gartzke:    Okay. All right. And where were you in your schooling at that point?

Claude Covelli: Last semester college, and going into law school.

Dan Gartzke:    Okay. Did you have any other jobs prior to becoming a lawyer?

Claude Covelli: Newspaper routes, worked in the fields on my uncle’s truck farm, and dug ditches. Worked four summers in sewer and water construction during college.

Dan Gartzke:    For municipality?

Claude Covelli: For Svendsen Brothers, a Racine contractor. Started out as a top man and graduated to a bottom man work in the ditch.

Dan Gartzke: I don't understand.

Claude Covelli: You get more money if you're down in the hole, because you can get buried. So I made good money. It was good, earnest work.

Dan Gartzke:    What were you getting paid?

Claude Covelli: I would make about $4,000 a summer back then, which was pretty good. I think I was making like $9 an hour with the danger pay.

Dan Gartzke: Okay.

Claude Covelli: And there was no overtime, it wasn't like road construction. We worked kind of eight to five thing, if it wasn't raining. And yeah, I worked there for four or five years, four or five summers.

Dan Gartzke:    Only during the summer?

Claude Covelli: Yes. Right. When I wasn't in school.

Dan Gartzke:    Is that how you funded your law school?

Claude Covelli: No, I did that when I was going to Carroll.

Dan Gartzke:    Okay.

Claude Covelli: The summer before law school, I sold pots and pans door to door. After my first year, I worked out of the Wisconsin Crime Lab on a project to establish a police training and standards program. Another law student and I interviewed all the police chiefs and sheriffs throughout Wisconsin except for the City and County of Milwaukee.

Dan Gartzke:    Was there any particular goal you were trying to…

Claude Covelli: This was an effort to establish standardized police training and standards. I did that one summer. That summer police chiefs, many from one-man departments, and sheriffs all across the state except for Milwaukee.

Dan Gartzke:    Were there any police practices that surprised you?

Claude Covelli: Oh my goodness. This was during the height of the Vietnam protests. And, of course, some said that they wanted to come to Madison to bust heads and get the students straightened out. But a lot of them, had revolvers rusted into their holsters, so I didn't think they were serious. I did learn that several sheriffs, the elected sheriffs could not read or write back then. That's why we were having trouble getting the FBI reports because they were illiterate.

Dan Gartzke:    Actually illiterate?

Claude Covelli: Yeah.

Dan Gartzke:    Huh.

Claude Covelli: Yeah, it was a surprising number, enough to think: "Oh my goodness."

Dan Gartzke:    How do you suppose they functioned, being illiterate?

Claude Covelli: Well, their wives took care of some things. And yeah, it was, well, it was the late sixties, so we've come a long ways. People don't recognize how much better educated we are.

Dan Gartzke:    Do you think there were any policies implemented as a result of what you've learned and passed on?

Claude Covelli: I really don't know. I'm trying to think -- UW Law Professor Herman Goldstein was a national expert on policing. My good law school friend Gary Hayes was a former police officer who worked really close with Goldstein. I did one summer and drifted away from police issues. I really didn't follow it after. Starting after my second year, I clerked at Boardman until I took an associate job in La Crosse.

Dan Gartzke:    Okay. And what was Boardman called at that time?

Claude Covelli: Boardman, Suhr, Curry, and Field.

Dan Gartzke:    It held that name up until fairly recently, right?

Claude Covelli: Yeah. Well, it got shortened to Boardman Law Firm for a while. And then it, of course, after the merger, it became Boardman Clark. But yes, it was Boardman, Suhr, Curry & Field for a long time.

Dan Gartzke:    Where was the firm located?

Claude Covelli: When I clerked and later started as an associate in 1973, the firm was at the Tenney Building at 110 East Main Street.

Dan Gartzke:    Okay. What floor?

Claude Covelli: I think we were on the sixth or seventh floors and also part of the fourth floor.

Dan Gartzke:    How large firm was it?

Claude Covelli: About 16 attorneys . . .

Dan Gartzke: When you got hired

Claude Covelli: Yeah, when I got hired.

Dan Gartzke: All right. And…

Claude Covelli: Wade Boardman referred to me as the bottom or last man on the letterhead. I suggested that he might instead, when introducing me to clients, refer to me as the firm’s anchorman. In those days, we had a state fee book. Everybody charged – I think it was -- $30 an hour.

Dan Gartzke:    Well, when you say the book, what does that mean?

Claude Covelli: We had a fee schedule.

Dan Gartzke:    Oh.

Claude Covelli: Before it got barred as anti-competitive.

Dan Gartzke:    Yeah. Okay. Everybody at the firm or everybody in the Bar?

Claude Covelli: Well, I never did a survey, but as far as I knew, everybody in the Bar was abiding by the fee schedule. The difference was that more senior attorneys billed most hours they worked, while young associate lawyer’s time was frequently cut and so their effective billing rate was lower.

Dan Gartzke:    Yeah. Now, as a law clerk, because you said you clerked here between your second and third year, is that right?

Claude Covelli: Right.

Dan Gartzke:    What were you doing as a law clerk?

Claude Covelli: Oh, goodness. A lot of research. I remember Wade Boardman asked for a memo on product liability. That was as definite as he was about it.  So I wrote a treatise on it for him. I mostly worked with Henry Field and the trial lawyers. In addition to legal research, I interviewed and obtained statements from witnesses. At that time lawyers did a lot of their own investigation. So I would go out and take statements. We'd just go out cold, looking to interview the witness. I remember Henry sent me to the Hooterville Inn in Blue Mounds, Wisconsin. I was to find these two brothers, Norwegian farmers, who might have been drinking with the plaintiff in a car accident case. They weren't at the bar and grill called the Hooterville Inn, but the bartender said they were probably down the street at another tavern a couple blocks away. That’s where I found them, sitting shoulder to shoulder at the bar in bib overhauls. I introduced myself and my mission to which they said that they didn't do business in bars. About an hour later, after a couple rounds of beers, and casual chitchat, they signed statements and I drove home.

Dan Gartzke:    What kind of a case was that?

Claude Covelli: There was an accident at a big curve in the highway, and the plaintiff had been drinking with the brothers. So their testimony was significant.  And in those days, like I said, I'm taking statements in taverns or at people’s homes. Handwriting out the statements for their signature. I did a lot of interviewing people and getting written statements, taking photographs, and obtaining documents beside doing research memos.

Dan Gartzke:    And that was as a clerk, you're saying?

Claude Covelli: As a clerk, yes.

Dan Gartzke:    Okay. Did that continue as an associate?

Claude Covelli: Yes. The firm had three law clerks during our final year in law school. The firm traditionally only hired one associate a year. The other two clerks were older and were graduating in the top 10% of our class. I was graduating in the top 20%. The firm hired one, and two of us got jobs elsewhere. A year later, both of us were associates at the firm. This gave me the opportunity to work with Alan Cole, C-O-L-E. Alan had clerked at Boardman 7-10 years before I did. The firm suggested I’d be a good hire, and Alan, a sole practitioner in La Crosse, hired me. In June 1972, I joined Alan as his sole associate.

Dan Gartzke:    In La Crosse, you said?

Claude Covelli: In La Crosse. Yeah. Alan’s office was on the 4th floor above JC Penney's downtown on 4th Street. When I arrived, Alan left for a three-week canoe trip in Canada. So it was me and Alan’s legal secretary. Alan had always been a sole practitioner. He learned how to practice for the most part on his own. That was his view point. When he told to me the only thing that's on the docket while he was gone was a probate hearing. And I said, “I've never seen a probate hearing." Alan said: "Well, just watch the one before yours." When I and the client arrived at the courthouse for the hearing, the calendar on the courtroom door showed ours was the only hearing that day. So I left the client in the hallway and went in and I spoke with the judge's clerk. I explained that I just graduated from law school, had never seen a probate hearing, and had no idea what to do. And she said she’d speak with the judge. Later, I discovered that she was the judge’s sister and was the registrar in probate. So the client and went into the courtroom to wait for the judge with me not knowing what was going to happen. Other than stating our names, the judge did pretty much everything and ended the hearing by telling the client what a great job I had done. I learned about humility that day. I'm sure my sport coat needed dry cleaning because I sweated bullets.

Dan Gartzke:    How long was the total hearing?

Claude Covelli: Oh, it seemed quite long, but it was probably less than 30 minutes. It was a fairly rote proceeding.

Dan Gartzke:    Did you have any other court appearances in La Crosse?

Claude Covelli: Oh, yeah. I had some motion hearings and misdemeanor appearances. I also handled the county’s first commitment proceeding following the Lessard decision. I defended a woman who believed that she was married to Christ.

Dan Gartzke:    I don't know what that... The wife of Christ

Claude Covelli: Lessard was an Eastern District of Wisconsin district court case, later affirmed by the US Supreme Court, which gave persons constitutional rights such as the right to remain silent to avoid civil commitment.

Dan Gartzke:    [inaudible 00:18:22]. Yeah. Keep going.

Claude Covelli: When I met with her she seemed totally normal until I got to the subject of who her husband who was. She said Jesus. I said, "Well, you mean that spiritual right." And she said, "No, no. No, its not spiritual, he’s really my husband." And I said, "Oh, okay." I didn't let her talk to any investigators or evaluators. She exercised her right to remain silent and avoided commitment. This meant that she was able to regularly visit me at our office. The wife of Christ visiting me at the office. I still have the newspaper article about the case. I think I had one of the first hearings in the state after the Lessard decision.

Dan Gartzke:    So really, truly a general practice?

Claude Covelli: Yeah. Reviewed abstracts for real estate deals. And I remember I said, "Al, this resort has been sold three times in recent years with title passed on by two of the city’s bigger firms without noting it was in a floodplain." He said, "What?" I said, "What do you want me to do?" He says, "Well, put it down." I said, "Oh, God." So I did not make some friends there.

Dan Gartzke: Did that deal go through or…

Claude Covelli: Oh, yeah. Yeah. It did go through, but [inaudible 00:20:09].

Dan Gartzke:    Well, so much of La Crosse must be in the floodplain, I think.

Claude Covelli: Right. But my opinion did not help. I was already suspect. The going rate for new associates at the time $8,900 a year.

Dan Gartzke:    In La Crosse or Madison?

Claude Covelli: In La Crosse. Alan was paying me $12. Which also made me a bit of an outcast with many who thought I was being paid too much.

Dan Gartzke:    How did they know how much you were getting?

Claude Covelli: La Crosse is a pretty small river town. And there were two major firms and two major medical facilities. And each firm had one of the medical facilities, so there was quite a bit of competition between the two major firms, the Skemp firm and the Johns firm, and then a bunch of sole practitioners and very small firms.

Dan Gartzke:    What was your hourly charge, the billing rate at that point? Do you know?

Claude Covelli: Must have been $30 an hour.

Dan Gartzke:    Oh, so that was statewide, you're saying? I guess you did say the…

Claude Covelli: Yeah. I can't remember when. It was shortly thereafter that the fee schedule was outlawed.

Dan Gartzke: Okay.

Claude Covelli: But I can't remember exactly when.

Dan Gartzke: Okay. Was there any case that you did or handled or issue where you said, "I am never doing that again?”

Claude Covelli: Yes. Criminal stuff.

Dan Gartzke: Okay.

Claude Covelli: In the first month when I came back to Boardman.

Dan Gartzke:    What's the timeframe on that?

Claude Covelli: That'd be June of '73. I came back and basically the trial lawyers had their regular insurance practice. I would get stuff off the beaten path. So I got a broad brush of different types of litigation during my first six years. Federal and state litigation, almost every type of litigation you could think of. So this criminal case involving two company executives, the president and the warehouse manager, of a company that owned and operated a large food warehouse. The charges were a federal misdemeanor involving a couple of dead mice and a couple hundred mouse pellets found in the warehouse. The warehouse was like three to five football fields in size with multiple railroad siding and semi-truck doors. Mice arrived with the food in the railroad cars, and the warehouse couldn't keep a cat. I was assigned to try the case. A jury trial. Washington DC federal prosecutors came in to try the case. It was a strict liability offense. Criminal intent was not required. And I don't think a food warehouse of that

size anywhere in America existed that didn't have some mice and mouse pellets in them. My belief was that the warehouse was at the mercy of the federal inspector. While the first offense was a misdemeanor, conviction of a second offense was a felony. Judge Doyle was the presiding judge. We were in the old federal courthouse. We had picked the jury. They knew I was defending mice and mouse pellets in a food warehouse. The jury room was across the hallway from the courtroom. I was standing in the hallway as the jury crossed from the jury room into the courtroom for opening statements, as they did, a male juror gave me the finger. While young and inexperienced, I figured this was not a good sign. So…

Dan Gartzke:    They haven't even... Had you done voir dire?

Claude Covelli: Oh, sure.

Dan Gartzke:    Okay.

Claude Covelli: Oh, sure. No, it was…

Dan Gartzke:    So he already had an opinion of you. Clearly.

Claude Covelli: Well, they already knew that I was there defending somebody who had mouse pellets where food was kept. I couldn't identify the juror because I was standing some distance away. On questioning, no juror confessed to the gesture, so both sides agreed to waive the jury, and to try the case to Judge Doyle. Judge Doyle had a tremendous reputation, but his docket was extremely crowded and slow. My clients wanted to testify. I strongly advised against it. Well, you can't testify. You know there was a lot more mice and mouse pellets than what the inspector found. Since the offense was one of strict liability, additional mice and pellets would be a disaster. And my defense was that there was no criminal act because it was impossible to keep the small number of mice and mouse pellets out of food warehouses. The two mice found were already dead. Government experts from Washington, DC came to identify the two bodies as dead mice. And I offered to stipulate they're mice if the government stipulated they were found dead. So the experts went back to Washington without testifying. And then they brought in guys whose expertise were identifying mouse pellets. We had an expert on morés and habits of mice. He offered testimony on how many mouse days so to speak, the two mice were in the warehouse before being killed based on the number of mouse pellets found. I think it was a couple of days. We offered testimony it was impossible to keep two mice out of the warehouse of that size and kill them in less than two days.

Claude Covelli: So a year and a half went by…

Dan Gartzke: Wait--

Claude Covelli: …from the trial, before we got a decision.

Dan Gartzke:    How long did the trial take?

Claude Covelli: The trial was about three days. We had all these government experts coming in. I thought chain of evidence was an issue. The government had vials full of mouse pellets they kept in an unlocked room. I objected on chain of evidence grounds. Judge Doyle asked whether I thought a mouse got into the room and pooped into the vial in evidence? I said, "No, but there were all these other vials of pellets." My understanding of chain of evidence didn't fly. But anyway, in the end, Judge Doyle found both clients not guilty. The government was so mad, they appealed to the 7th Circuit. So off to Chicago we go. I defended on double jeopardy grounds because Judge Doyle found my clients not guilty. The 7th circuit said yeah, double jeopardy applied. They also gratuitously said that my clients were lucky double jeopardy applied. I thought that was unnecessary. Am Jur or another national form company published the double jeopardy papers I filed, so for a brief moment I was a passing celebrity. I realized that this was not what I wanted to do. My clients had been just livid with me for the year and a half between the end of the trial and the not guilty verdict. They wrote senior partners about how I defaulted in their defense by not putting them on the stand. They wrote how terrible I was. Ultimately, when acquitted, they apologized to me, although they did not write letters to senior partners on the subject. So, I thought no, I don't think I'm cut out for this.

Dan Gartzke:    Oh? You weren't up for defending further mice criminal activity?

Claude Covelli: No. I did learn one interesting point. Federal law allowed one mouse pellet per pint of raw wheat, but none in flour. It struck me as bizarre, and that was one of my arguments. I said, "Well, pellets start out in the raw wheat used to make flour, but none in flour.” Apparently, what you cannot see cannot hurt you. In those days, you did tried stuff for the first time.

Dan Gartzke:    Was that the only criminal trial you ever had?

Claude Covelli: Yes. I tried arson cases, but only civil arson cases where we're fighting over whether insurance covered the fire loss.

Dan Gartzke:    Do you remember your first jury trial?

Claude Covelli: No.

Dan Gartzke:    What's the first one you remember? How about that? What was that? Because you tried a lot of jury cases.

Claude Covelli: Oh yeah, I probably did at least six a year in the beginning, maybe more. I would have two jury trials scheduled for the same week, on the theory that one would go away.

Dan Gartzke:  Did that theory always hold?

Claude Covelli: It always held. It always held. And in Dane County in those days, jurors served for a month or more. So I might have three or four jurors in my second trial that I had on my first trial that month. My first jury trial was probably in Dane County, but I remember some early ones Iowa, Juneau, Richland, Dodge, Grant, Monroe, and Jefferson counties. But that could have been a few years down the road.

Dan Gartzke:    How would that work? You'd pick multiple juries?

Claude Covelli: No, you’d have a jury panel for a month. Therefore jurors could sit on more than one trial that month. We would pick a jury from that panel for trial one. Then the next week or two, we’d select another jury from the panel. Sometimes a few jurors from case one would end up selected for case two. During the second selection, they would say: "Yeah, I was on the jury for your trial last week."

Dan Gartzke:    Did you have repeat jurors, then?

Claude Covelli: Sometimes. I had Chief Justice Abramson on one of my panels which also had three lawyers on it. I only had three strikes, so I couldn't get rid of all the lawyers. All the legal people.

Dan Gartzke:    Is that what you felt you needed to do generally? Get rid of all the lawyers?

Claude Covelli: Yeah. I just felt that you'd get a one-person jury. On my first strike, I struck the Chief Justice. My partner said "Why'd you do that? Why didn't you wait? Maybe the other guy would have struck her." And I said, "What kind of cocktail story would that be, that the other guy struck the Chief Justice?" So I ended up with one lawyer left on the jury. He turned out okay. Now, they do it differently, so I don't think that you can get repeat jurors anymore. Generally, you serve on one jury and then you’re done. At least that was how it was when I tried my last jury cases in 2017. You tend to remember losses. They stick with you. But my first large defense verdict I remember well. I was 33. It was a nasty case. At the time, if the plaintiff was free from fault, and multiple persons or parties were causally negligent, the plaintiff could collect 100% of his or her damages from you if you were as little as 1% at fault. It was a tragic case in which a young engineer was left in a waking coma and his wife was killed outright. The jury awarded $1.6 million in damages. This was like in 1980. I think it was the largest personal injury jury damage award in Dane County at the time. The accident involved an uninsured motorist who passed a semi forcing an oncoming car driven by my client off the roadway onto the shoulder at highway speed. My client lost control on the shoulder or on coming back on the roadway, crossing over behind the semi and striking head-on the plaintiff’s car that had pulled off onto the opposite shoulder. I was trying to get authority to offer a million dollars, but plaintiff’s counsel likely wanted much more. Which was reasonable in light of the damage award.

Dan Gartzke:    And you were putting together an offer with the other co-defendants, I assume?

Claude Covelli: No. The uninsured motorist had nothing. The only other defendant, was the semi driver’s company, and it cut a deal with plaintiff shortly before trial. Unbeknownst to me, their deal was that if my client was not liable, the semi company’s insurer would pay plaintiff three or four hundred thousand dollars. Previously, I and the lawyer for the semi company agreed that if either of us settled out, that we would produce our driver for the other at trial. Instead, they hid their driver who did not testify at trial. When the jury found no fault on my client, the semi company became obligated to pay the three to four hundred thousand. There were some complications in the case and they were trying to wiggle out of paying under their settlement with the plaintiff. I told them I didn't think I could help them particularly in light of how they treated me.

Dan Gartzke:    I assume you remember the name of the lawyer who did that.

Claude Covelli: It totally escapes me now.

Dan Gartzke:    I'm sure. All right.

Claude Covelli: He's probably gone.

Dan Gartzke: Yeah, there's some satisfaction in that. And when was that, about, do you think?

Claude Covelli: That case? Let's see, I was born in ‘47 plus 33, so I think 1980.

Dan Gartzke:    Oh, okay. All right, 1980. Going back to when you started at Boardman, Suhr, Curry and Field, you remember who all was in the firm at that time? I mean, Mr. Boardman was still around.

Claude Covelli: Right, so was Fred Suhr. Bob Curry was at CUNA, but he had an office there, and I got to know him.

Dan Gartzke:    Was he always of counsel here?

Claude Covelli: You know, I can't remember whether he was still a partner then, but he was or became the head guy out at CUNA. John Wagner and Jerry Conklin were out there at CUNA, basically full-time. Tom Ragatz and Tom Sobota were partners. Henry Field, Brad Liddle, Ken McCormick. Paul Hahn was a labor lawyer. There was about 4-5 associate attorneys. The names of all lawyers fit on the glass in the door to the waiting room. Years later, that glass from that door, with my name at the bottom of the list was broken. I’m pretty sure that happened while we were in the bank building after moving out of the East Wilson building. Back in the ‘80s, when somebody left the firm, a secretary took a ruler and drew a line through the lawyer’s name until that stock of stationery was used up. We were very frugal in those days.

Dan Gartzke:    How long did you stay at the bottom of the pile, or as the anchorman?

Claude Covelli: Well, it took a year or two to get my name on the door. The firm didn't re-paint the door every year. An associate who left the firm remained on the door for a year or so before I got on the door. Maybe I was on probation. Within a year or two of getting on the door, we moved the office to 131 West Wilson where we didn’t have our names painted on the door. I think that building is gone now.

Dan Gartzke:    Oh, West Wilson?

Claude Covelli: West Wilson. 131 West Wilson.

Dan Gartzke: When did you move over there?

Claude Covelli: Must have still been in the ‘80s. We were there for five years. And then Tom left us.

Dan Gartzke: Tom Ragatz?

Claude Covelli: Tom Ragatz started Foley’s office in Madison. That’s when the firm moved here where it’s been ever since.

Dan Gartzke:    And here is 1 South Pinckney.

Claude Covelli: Right.

Dan Gartzke:    Did the firm immediately have two floors, or...?

Claude Covelli: No.

Dan Gartzke:    But were you in this space, suite 410, from the get-go?

Claude Covelli: Yes, then we were also down on three for a while, before we move to add the 5th floor. So we had a little piece of it on the third floor. But generally we were on four, and then we cut a hole in the ceiling to add the fifth floor. Boy, it's been a long time.

Dan Gartzke:    Currently, I think there's about 60 or so lawyers here. How long has it been at that level?

Claude Covelli: Well, I remember having 30-some partners, low 30s for a decade or two. And we never had the big firm mentality for having a large body of associates. So I think our associates were usually numbered five or six. So I would say we were around 40 lawyers for a number of years after that.

Dan Gartzke:    When did you become a partner?

Claude Covelli: I wrote that down because I didn't think I would remember. I think it was... well, I won't think, I'll look. Okay, I was an associate from '73 to '76. I became a partner in '77. And I remained a partner until 2011, and then I was of counsel from 2012 to 2020 when I retired. I thought I could wrap up my practice in three years but it ended up eight.

Dan Gartzke:    Do you remember what your salary was when you started as an associate?

Claude Covelli: At Boardman?

Dan Gartzke: Yeah.

Claude Covelli: Twelve.

Dan Gartzke:    Okay, so, it was better than in La Crosse.

Claude Covelli: No, I had received twelve in La Crosse.

Dan Gartzke:    You got twelve in La Crosse? Okay. Because that's your overpay. So what triggered you coming from La Crosse down here?

Claude Covelli: I just was not cut out to be a general practice lawyer, belonging to the Jaycees and all that stuff. I wanted to try cases. Alan was going to make me a partner if I stayed. He showed me the books. If I stayed and brought in what I did my first year, I’d have made about $54,000. So I took a hit to come to Boardman. But I wanted to try cases. Alan was a great lawyer. He could do anything. He was a CPA and lawyer. He could do anything. A while after I left, Alan joined the Johns firm, one of the two biggest La Crosse firms. He was their lead business partner. Ultimately, Alan became a railroad engineer.

Dan Gartzke:    Running trains?

Claude Covelli: Exactly. I remember talking to the senior Mr. Johns when it happened. I called him and I said, "Jesus, did I hear it right? Is he like an engineer designing railroads?" He said, "No, he's running the choo-choo." Mr. Johns was a little upset. As I said, Alan was just a superb lawyer. He had a tremendous clientele and practice. But when Alan and I were working together at night that year I was with him, Alan would listen to the railroad calls. His secretary's husband was a brakeman. La Crosse was at an intersection of railroads. It was a love of his life, and by God, one day Alan, his wife and children packed up and moved to Lincoln.

Dan Gartzke:    Nebraska.

Claude Covelli: Yup. Where he learned how to run a locomotive and...

Dan Gartzke:    How old was he when he did that? Was he a lot older than you? Or…

Claude Covelli: No. I would say he was ten years older than I was. He was probably at the height of his career when he left to join the railroad.

Dan Gartzke: Did you stay in touch with him?

Claude Covelli: I did off and on for a while. I kind of lost track of him after he moved to Lincoln. He would call me every once in a while from Lincoln if he had a referral to make or something. He was just a unique man.

Dan Gartzke:    Okay, so from the time you started putting your thought into what you wanted to do for a career, you were certain you wanted to be a trial lawyer.

Claude Covelli: Well, yeah. You know, Henry Field was my mentor, and Brad Liddle, but mostly Henry. When I started at the firm, I had no idea what I wanted to do. I fell into and fit in with the trial guys. And they had sent me out to get statements and stuff. It was kind of investigative, which we kind of did back in those days, on our own. We didn't have investigators. The insurance companies didn't either. We kind of did the investigation. I enjoyed that part of it. Later I enjoyed trying cases because you got a result right away. It's not like drafting a will or a contract where you don't know how it's going to work out for years. But mostly the people, I would say. And mostly Henry.

Dan Gartzke:    Oh, the lawyers?

Claude Covelli: The lawyers. I fit in with them.

Dan Gartzke:    Okay. Collegiality.

Claude Covelli: Right. And you can't be a really uptight person if you're going to be a trial lawyer. No client wants to see their lawyer throwing up in his wastebasket before trial. So you have to be a little looser than others, and more... I don't want to say social, because amazingly most of the trial lawyers are pretty bashful people, but enjoy talking to 12 people. I was probably destined to be a trial lawyer because my two lowest grades in law school were evidence and torts. So I felt that meant I was destined to be a civil trial lawyer.

Dan Gartzke:    You had to prove yourself, you're saying?

Claude Covelli: No, I’m kidding.

Dan Gartzke:    Who were those two professors?

Claude Covelli: I can't remember. The one was... Wisconsin was sort of a national school, and I had torts early, before I realized how law school worked. And I knew a lot of rules from clerking at Boardman, so I probably was more focused on Wisconsin law than the professor. But they were looking at analysis and not necessarily rules. And once I got the hang of that, I studied less and less and my grades kept getting better and better.

Dan Gartzke:    One of our themes was supposed to be evolution and change. And so you started out trying cases in the early ‘70s, and you said your last one was 2017.

Claude Covelli: Three. Did three that year.

Dan Gartzke:    All civil, obviously.

Claude Covelli: Yes.

Dan Gartzke:    How long were those trials, those last three?

Claude Covelli: The one was three days, the other ones were five to seven.

Dan Gartzke:    Okay. And that's a span of 35 years I guess, if my arithmetic is right. We can check this on the transcript.

Claude Covelli: Well, 47 years.

Dan Gartzke:    Obviously the practice changed over that time.

Claude Covelli: Oh! Yes.

Dan Gartzke:    Any thoughts on whether the changes have been good or bad, or just changes?

Claude Covelli: Well, I mean we did lose the circuit judges with substantial expertise in trying jury cases.

Dan Gartzke:    You said that that was when they did the reorganization in…

Claude Covelli: '79, yeah, I think it was. You had Judges Richard Orton, Henry Gergen and James Fiedler. They were not only judges, they were mentors. I mean, when you were starting out. I remember Judge Fiedler, I was trying a case in front of him up there, and I said to a witness, "Well didn't you tell so-and-so something?" He says, "Mr. Covelli, approach." And I go to the bench and he said, "Are you calling this so-and-so person?" And I said, "Well, sure." Because that's a rule.

Dan Gartzke:    Are you calling them? What do you mean?

Claude Covelli: Well, I can't ask a witness, "Did you tell John Jones something?" unless I'm going to call John Jones at trial. And so, he didn't wait for me to totally screw it up. He just called me up there. And he says, "Are you going to call..." whoever this person was. Because that was a predicate for me asking the question. And also, another example is a lawyer got separated from his file, and it was either a trial or a deposition, but I think it was a trial. And he told Henry Field about it. And Henry gave him his file, so the lawyer could prepare. When you’re a young lawyer, everybody wanted to win but experienced lawyers would help with procedural things. I remember another young lawyer who had to take over a trial midway through. And there were like three experienced lawyers involved in the case. And they helped him! You know, not

giving away their case, but just telling procedural things he might not otherwise know. And telling him, "Hey, you're doing good." And there was a certain collegiality that does not exist anymore. More recently, I was trying a case with a young lawyer. It was our first case together. After a couple days, he startled me by saying he hated me. I said: "Jeez, it usually takes people longer than this to hate me.” And I'm thinking, well, why? I'm thinking back to the days when we all went out together while we were waiting for a verdict. Sometimes with the judge. Both sides and the judge, waiting for the verdict. We fought like mad in the case, but we enjoyed and liked each other. But, I'll give you an example. I had an arson insurance case, a civil case. And the lawyer on the other side was from West Virginia. Really good lawyer. We were in Judge Shabaz’s court.

Dan Gartzke:    It was the federal judge in town.

Claude Covelli: Yeah, and Judge Shabaz had all kinds of unique rules. So the other guy had a young lawyer covering for him in pretrial stages and he's going to try it. When I met right before the trial, I said, "This judge has a lot of different rules." And I laid out the rules, so he wouldn't be blindsided. That, to me, was part of the collegiality. So, the first day, from 8:00 in the morning to 7:00 at night, I put my whole case in. Three experts, the whole case. He had three alibi witnesses coming up from West Virginia, and they had to be there at 8:00, because court starts at 8:00, and if you're not ready, you're done. He didn't know if his witnesses are going to get there on time. That night, he's alone in from West Virginia, so my wife and I had dinner with him. We're talking, and he said, "You know, Judge Shabaz treats both of us like dirt. But when he talks to me, he talks real slow like I got one eye in the middle of my forehead." The next morning, before the jury was present, the judge was reading me out about something, I can't remember what, and then he turned to the West Virginia lawyer, and started talking real slow. While turning my head slightly toward the other lawyer, I formed a circle with my thumb and index finger and put it to my forehead. I knew the lawyer saw it because I could see him tighten his jaw. He certainly did not want to smile or laugh as the judge was scolding him about something. I was pretty sure he'd go to jail before ratting me out. But that collegiality and light moments at trial seldom occur anymore. Jury trials are serious things, but you're a human being. Young lawyers cannot conceive of having collegial light moments at trial, and that’s a shame.

Dan Gartzke:    Do you think that's just being young, or is it a different breed of lawyers now?

Claude Covelli: Well, you don't see... It started with the circuit judges. If you were trying cases in Dane County and the five or six surrounding counties, all the trials were before the same five or six judges. So you were before the same judges on a regular basis and knew you’d be in front of them again in future cases. So, you didn't try any monkey shines, because you're going to see them again and again. The judges were experienced neutral referees. Jules Brown was Judge Orton’s brother-in-law. I tried several jury cases against Jules in Judge Orton’s court.

Dan Gartzke:    He would hear cases by his...?

Claude Covelli: Well, before trial the judge would say, "Claude, you know Jules is my brother-in-law." "Yes, I do." "Well, do you want a different judge?" "No, Judge, I do not want a different judge.” In fact, if anyone would have wanted a different judge it would have been Jules because Judge Orton bent over backwards to not favor Jules. But I don't know anybody that ever asked Judge Orton to get off a case because Jules was on the other side.

Dan Gartzke: Okay. So, it wasn't just the collegiality, it was just a basic decency.

Claude Covelli: Well, and knowing and trusting in the neutrality of the judge. In addition, the number of lawyers trying jury civil cases was a relatively small. Just like the judges, you knew the lawyer on the case was going to on the other side in future cases. In the first, I would say first 15 years of practice, I can't remember ever having a discovery dispute.

Dan Gartzke:    You didn't do that much discovery in the seventies, did you?

Claude Covelli: Well, you know what? I'd say, "I need some information." The plaintiff's lawyer knew he needed to provide it, and would say, "Come over and look at my file." They would even leave their... I wouldn't look at their correspondence, but it'd all be there.

Dan Gartzke:    Yeah.

Claude Covelli: There was nothing to hide, but we didn't try ancillary issues. The judge wouldn't stand for it. The judge would say, "We're not going to try that. Let's just try the case we got here." Right now, we spend so much time on discovery, so many discovery disputes, on so many side issues, like trying to get the expert witnesses' income tax returns to show bias. Yeah, the case that I mentioned with the $1.6 million verdict, went to trial with probably four depositions. The rest were with written statements from the witnesses. I seldom deposed the plaintiff’s treating doctor.

Dan Gartzke: Because why?

Claude Covelli: Because they just fixed whatever I got during the deposition. Generally, I had all I needed in the doctor’s medical records. In the early years, I seldom had an independent medical.

Dan Gartzke: If you found out something in your investigations, which you were doing a lot of, that really hurt your case, would you just bury it? Would you not write it down, would you not...? Or would you say... Record it, take their statement, and if they asked for it, you'd give it to them?

 Claude Covelli: No. Well, first of all, would I bury it? I don't know what you mean by “bury it.” If I talked to somebody and they said something that was unhelpful, I would take the statement and I write it down. I would nail it down. Because it likely could only get worse. So, I would want to have it number one. Number two, I've got to evaluate case and tell my client whether and how much I think a jury would award, or how much they should consider settling for, and so forth. If the witness’s testimony is a critical factor, I want to know exactly what that person's saying, so I can tell the client, and also have it documented. So, yeah. But do I call the other side and say, "Holy shit, you got a really great witness here." No.

Dan Gartzke:    But if they asked you?

Claude Covelli: If the discovery rules require that I produce something, I would produce it. Why would I consider wrecking my career over one case and not produce it? That makes no sense. We rely on the other side answering discovery truthfully, and they rely on us to do the same. I remember when I was a young lawyer, Clyde Cross and I were coming up on trial, earlier we had reached agreement on something, it wasn’t a big deal, but he said something to me about taking a position on it, and I said, "Oh, well, we had agreed on that." I had notes on it, but Clyde didn't ask to see them. He said, “Well, Claude, I don’t remember it, but if you tell me we agreed on it, I'll abide by it." Now, how could you ever do anything dishonest with that guy?

Dan Gartzke:    Yeah.

Claude Covelli: It was just the way it was done. Your word was critical with judges and opposing lawyers, as well as acting fairly. I had a lawyer... At trial the opponent’s client misspoke, saying "yes" against his interest when the correct answer I knew was “no”, not true. After I argued the verdict, the plaintiff’s lawyer, said "Why didn't you argue that the plaintiff’s admission was the truth?”

Dan Gartzke:    Yeah.

Claude Covelli: I said, “Because I knew it wasn't the truth.” He said, "Oh, that's malpractice." He says, "You got to use that." I said, “I didn’t think so because we were in the truth business.”

Dan Gartzke:    Who was telling you that?

Claude Covelli: Another lawyer.

Dan Gartzke:    But he was associated, he was on your side?

Claude Covelli: No, he was on the other side.

Dan Gartzke:    Oh.

Claude Covelli: It was after the fact.

Dan Gartzke:    Oh, okay.

Claude Covelli: The verdict's in, and everything. He says he was stunned that I didn't use it, and say, "Look, they admitted this, blah, blah, blah." I said, "Well, but I knew it wasn't true." What I said was, "You failed to prove it," which was true.

Dan Gartzke:    Yeah.

Claude Covelli: I don't think that... Winning has become a little bit too important, and you know, can't try anything for that involves less than $50,000 now that I can think of. Because the amount of money that's spent to...That's why there's fewer and fewer trials. Because the cost of trying a case is so expensive. That means that the judges have less and less experience trying cases, and the lawyers have less and less experience.

Dan Gartzke:    So, was it better to just go in and try the cases?

Claude Covelli: Well, we did because you could. In a car accident, you'd take the plaintiff's deposition, the defendant's driver's deposition, and sometimes that was it as far as depositions. You got the medical bills and records, and other evidence. Usually I didn't even have to ask for it, they sent it to me because they were making a demand and they sent the supporting information they knew I needed to evaluate the case. I’d get an authorization, and you'd collect the records to make sure nothing was missed, and off you would go. We’d stipulate to what was undisputed and try the rest. You'd try a case in two to three days. Sometimes a partner would say on a Thursday or Friday, "Claude, can you try a case next week?" I'd say, "Do we have our witnesses?" "Yes, we do." "Okay." I'd get ready over the weekend, and try the case that might be starting on Monday.

Dan Gartzke:    But that was defense, right?

Claude Covelli: Most often, but could be for a plaintiff.

Dan Gartzke:    Oh, you did?

Claude Covelli: Oh, sure.

Dan Gartzke:    Did you a lot a plaintiff?

Claude Covelli: Not a lot, but... Well, not a lot number-wise, but dollar-wise, yes. It was much more remunerative. But I usually had about five plaintiff cases going a year.

Dan Gartzke:    Personal injuries, or not?

Claude Covelli: Mostly.

Dan Gartzke:    Yeah.

Claude Covelli: Mostly, yeah.

Dan Gartzke:    How did your partners justify that to you, saying on a Friday, "Could you try a case on Monday?"

Claude Covelli: It wasn't unique to our firm. I know lawyers in other firms where that happened too. Something came up at the last minute. There were a couple depositions, medical records, an expert report or two, with a file summary pretty much laying out the whole case. It was something an experienced lawyer could get up to speed over a weekend.

Dan Gartzke: Okay.

Claude Covelli: I got called by Judge Orton who was sitting on a case in Dane County. The jury had been selected and the partner trying the case became ill right before opening statements. I went over there, and...

Dan Gartzke:    So, the jury had already been picked?

Claude Covelli: Yeah.

Dan Gartzke:    Yeah.

Claude Covelli: I got a little thumbnail from the ill partner, gave the opening statement and tried the case.

Dan Gartzke:    Yeah, okay. But that's an extraordinary circumstance.

Claude Covelli: Right. But when you're doing six, eight a year...

Dan Gartzke:    Yeah.

Claude Covelli: And it was a car case.

Dan Gartzke:    Yeah.

Claude Covelli: You know the medicine, you know the rules, and...

Dan Gartzke:    Going back to... We started down this because I was saying what have been the changes, and really you've identified, the biggest change is the frequency of going to trial.

Claude Covelli: The frequency has gone down and down and down. Now, if you get a trial, it's a big deal, and everybody treats it like it's the end of the world. Judge Torphy once said to me during trial, I forget who was on the other side, we were getting a little heated, and he said, "You know, there's millions of people in China that don't care how this case comes out." I thought, "Oh, okay." Judge Torphy was always laid back. So, yeah. In addition to the decreased frequency, discovery became expensive and numerous side issues became fair game all driving up the cost of trials.

Dan Gartzke:    Did you have any other favorite judges? You've mentioned Orton, you've mentioned...

Claude Covelli: Henry Gergen.

Dan Gartzke:    Henry Gergen in Juneau County,

Claude Covelli: Judge Fiedler. Jim Fiedler. Yeah.

Dan Gartzke:    Yeah. Then Torphy in Dane. Anybody else?

Claude Covelli: Well...

Dan Gartzke:    I'm not going to ask for least favorite judge.

Claude Covelli: Judge [NAME] and then Judge [NAME].

Dan Gartzke:    Yeah, [NAME].

Claude Covelli: Yeah.

Dan Gartzke:    Did you have a statewide practice?

Claude Covelli: Oh, yeah. I think I missed maybe four or so counties in state court over the years.

Dan Gartzke:    72 counties in Wisconsin.

Claude Covelli: Right. I think I had like 68 or something. I don't know. Maybe it was six counties, but I tried one or more in most.

Dan Gartzke:    Yeah. Did you like that? Going into...

Claude Covelli: Yeah, I enjoyed it. I enjoyed the different places. Really, the juries were pretty much the same. As far as the result, and you know, you get near the Twin Cities, the counties near the Twin Cities, they're a little different. Milwaukee had some peculiarities. But generally speaking, I didn't see a great deal of difference between a jury in Waukesha County and Dane County.

Dan Gartzke: You didn't feel that they were looking at you differently as a Madison lawyer coming up, or coming down, or where ever?

Claude Covelli: No, no. I remember we were in Alabama in bankruptcy court. I was with the client, and local lawyers hanging out in the courtroom on other cases were there, and they said, "You the Wisconsin boys?" I told the client, "We better get local council." Local council meant not just getting an Alabama lawyer, it meant getting a lawyer from that county.

Dan Gartzke:    Yeah.

Claude Covelli: Next county is not local. I didn't see Wisconsin was like that. I didn't think it was like that at all.

Dan Gartzke:    Okay. All right. Well, you're still a Wisconsin boy.

Claude Covelli: Right.

Dan Gartzke:    Somebody coming up from Alabama, do you think they should have had local council?

Claude Covelli: I don't know, because I never was somebody coming up from... I really, I don't know.

Dan Gartzke: Yeah. You went to Alabama. Did you go to other states as well?

Claude Covelli: No. I just remember that when we were going down there to buy a plant that was in bankruptcy, and...

Dan Gartzke:    So, you handled transactional stuff?

Claude Covelli: Yeah. Well, it was transactional, but it was part of the bankruptcy. So, I can't remember if it was a confirmation of a sale, or what. They were threatening to burn it down. So, I said, "Well, we better get insurance." But no, I pretty much... I had enough on my plate just understanding Wisconsin law.

Dan Gartzke:    But you also did a federal as well as a state practice, right?

Claude Covelli: Right.

Dan Gartzke:    Yeah.

Claude Covelli: Yeah.

Dan Gartzke:    What was the split? Or did that vary? I suppose that would vary over the time.

Claude Covelli: It depended on the subject matter, but most of the... Just the tort-type things were state court, and [inaudible 01:08:32] fair dealership, was federal court a lot. Insurance, bad faith, for some of the clients was federal court because we had diversity jurisdiction. I would say 80% state court, or maybe more.

Dan Gartzke:    All right. All right. Would you say the same changes have taken over in federal court for state court? In other words, the fewer trials?

Claude Covelli: Well, in federal court, getting summary judgment is much easier than in state court, because the judges will take the time to go through, parse everything, and are more willing to enter summary judgment than state court where they'll just say, "No, there's an issue a fact here." So, most of my cases in federal court were resolved on summary judgment.

Dan Gartzke:    They were more willing to grant defense summary judgment, or no, not necessary?

Claude Covelli: Well, just summary judgment.

Dan Gartzke:    Okay.

Claude Covelli: Just saying. Okay, either you can punt, and say, "There's an issue of fact, it's got to go to trial”, which is what generally happened in state court. Or you could bite the bullet and make a decision, one way or the other. Federal judges are just much more likely to bite the bullet, so to speak. The seventh circuit is much more likely to affirm a summary judgment, than the state court.

Dan Gartzke:    Okay. All right. Before the court reorganization, were all the jury trials in circuit court, and none in county court?

Claude Covelli: You could ask for a jury and county court, which I did every once in a while, in the beginning, just to have more jury trials. It really ticked off the judge because the county courts were more volume, and having a jury trial disrupted their schedule. But, yeah most of the county court cases were tried to the court.

Dan Gartzke:    12-person jury?

Claude Covelli: Well, no, to the court without a jury.

Dan Gartzke:    Oh, I'm sorry, to the court, you said that.

Claude Covelli: Most without a jury, and I know the one I did in Jefferson, I asked for a 12-person jury. Oh, man. The judge was mad at me.

Dan Gartzke:    But they were always different judges, right? There was county judges, and then circuit court judges.

Claude Covelli: Right. If it was a bigger matter, it was in circuit court.

Dan Gartzke:    Then circuit court judges, at that point were riding circuit, literally.

Claude Covelli: Well, yeah, some were just one county, like Dane County, they didn't have multiple counties, but some would have two or three counties that they would handle the cases in.

Dan Gartzke: Okay. All right. Any memorable Dane County judges, otherwise? Well, again, any favorites? God, I wish we were recording.

Claude Covelli: Yeah.

Dan Gartzke:    Your smile. Your smile should be on the record.

Claude Covelli: Yeah, Judge Satchjen was very patient, a good judge solid judge. Judge Maloney was fiery.

Dan Gartzke:    I remember hearing that.

Claude Covelli: Yes. Judge Bardwell, I remember him sometimes saying, "I may be wrong, but I'm sure." I thought that an interesting comment. I tried some of my biggest cases in front of Judge Bardwell.

Dan Gartzke:    Biggest in terms of dollar value? In terms of length?

Claude Covelli: Amounts in issue.

Dan Gartzke:    Yeah.

Claude Covelli: I did a lot of appellate work. I think I had 80 or so in the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.

Dan Gartzke:    From cases you had handled, or...

Claude Covelli: Right.

Dan Gartzke:    ... people would come to you?

Claude Covelli: No, mostly cases of my own cases. Then maybe seven to nine to the Supreme Court, including arguing one at the US Supreme Court.

Dan Gartzke:    You did?

Claude Covelli: Yes. Yeah.

Dan Gartzke:    One, or...?

Claude Covelli: Just one.

Dan Gartzke:    Yeah.

Claude Covelli: It was a special occasion, and it was a case that I was destined to lose. There were 50 amicus briefs against us, and two in our favor. Congress was in the process of changing the law to eliminate any lasting potential victory, even if we did win. I think that was in '83 or '84. 1984.

Dan Gartzke: Okay. Did you eventually develop a reputation, or specialty in Bar... What do you call it?

Claude Covelli: OLR?

Dan Gartzke:    OLR complaints. [inaudible 01:14:41] Yeah. I don't know if that gets too sensitive, in terms of other things.

Claude Covelli: No, most of them are public record. Yeah. One of my favorite cases was representing [NAME]. He used a technique that the prosecutors regularly used to gather evidence, and the OLR took the position that defense lawyers couldn't do that. He wanted evidence on a computer. So, he had somebody go and say, "Okay, we'll give you a free computer with this neat program on it to try out, and so forth, but you got to give us your old computer, and then if you don't want to keep the new one, then we'll give you your old computer back." [NAME] believed the computer had critical evidence and prosecutors were allowed to use guile or misdirection to collect evidence to prosecute crimes. The question was, "Well, gee, shouldn't you be able to try to get an innocent person off with the same technique?" OLR would've just walked away with a slap on the wrist if [NAME] just admitted what he did was a violation. [NAME] wouldn’t. He told me: "Well, what if I get in this situation again?" So, we went ahead to hearing and prevailed. The holding was not only that [NAME] was permitted to do what he did, but it was the right thing for him to do. I have so much respect to [NAME]. He’s an excellent lawyer. Further, he took a chance of being disciplined he did not have to take as a matter of principle. He struck his neck out for a matter of principle. I really enjoyed him letting me be part of that. Some OLR matters were messy and involved potential suspension or disbarment, and others not so much. OLR had a hard job. There's a little bit of politics involved. If they're winning all their cases, the Supreme Court sometimes felt they were not charging aggressively enough. They're good people over at OLR. They are. I worked with them a lot. Charging decisions can be tough decisions.

Dan Gartzke:    Do you know why they changed it from what was...? Do you know why they changed it from what was BAPPR to the OLR Bureau?

Claude Covelli: I don't.

Dan Gartzke:    Okay.

Claude Covelli: I don't. I might have at one point known, but as I sit here today I no longer know.

Dan Gartzke:    Yeah. So if you were here and a young Claude Covelli came in and said, what do you think? Should I go into trial practice now? What would you tell them? Or a Claudette Covelli, let's not be sexist.

Claude Covelli: Well, most women are too smart to become trial lawyers.

Dan Gartzke:    Oh, you practiced with some smart women trial lawyers.

Claude Covelli: I have. I know. I know. But I don't know. Because when you start out you try more cases because they're smaller. As you get to progressively larger cases, you try fewer just because they're more time-consuming. I think sometimes it's a burden to be too smart. I think it's much better to think like the average juror. One summer I sold pots and pans door to door, Wearever pots and pans. I would stop young ladies on the street, and say, “I'll give you a gift if I can come over to your house to pitch my pots and pans.” They'd probably arrest you if you did it now.

Dan Gartzke:    I think they would. I think they have. They would. They should too.

Claude Covelli: I worked with some of the best salesmen ever. And what I learned was I would start by asking, “Why do you think you might want to buy these pots and pans?” Whatever they said was my close, whether it was stupid or not, I didn't care. Whatever they said was how I would close the sale.

Dan Gartzke:    Oh, I see.

Claude Covelli: Okay.

Dan Gartzke:    Yeah.

Claude Covelli: So I can't really ask 12 jurors what arguments they would find most convincing. Now lawyers do, that's why they'll sometimes do a study group and run it up.

Dan Gartzke:    Focus group. Yeah.

Claude Covelli: Do three different approaches and see which one sells the best and then see what language they used and then use that language at trial. I might have a baby cerebral palsy case with a terribly disabled child and a claim of future care expenses of five, six, seven million to care for them to age 50 or something, and my defense is convincing the jury that that child will die very soon. Rather than a focus group, I thought about, well, what would my mother say? Would she say thank goodness that that child's suffering and the child’s parents suffering is going to end soon? You would try to mold your case to the way jurors’ existing beliefs. Young lawyers sometimes think they're going to change the way jurors think. A 40-, 50-, or 60-year-old person, they're going to change the way that person thinks in three-day presentation and get them to see it their way. I'm a believer that, “No, I've got to structure my case to fit their thinking because then I'm halfway home.” All I'm doing is asking them to reaffirm what they're already thinking. Now, sometimes that's impossible because you've got a really sad case. But I mean, in every case that's where I would start. I also would say, “Okay, I represent this insurance company and here is the plaintiff sitting in a wheelchair or who is obviously injured. You don't know anything else about this case yet, any of you leaning in favor of the injured party and against the insurance company?” And nobody raises a hand. So I raise my hand. I say, :Well, I'm leaning that way.” And then the hands started coming. And I’d say, “It’s okay, to feel that way. But can you put that aside? You will be taking an oath to be a judge. To put aside sympathy and decide the case on the facts. To let your verdict speak the truth whatever the truth may be.” Juries regularly did that. I don't know if juries do that anymore.

Dan Gartzke:    Really?

Claude Covelli: Well, facts don't seem to matter much anymore. In fact, you throw facts at people and it seems to make them hold on harder to their preconceived subjective beliefs. At least outside the courtroom. And I don't know it's impact inside the courtroom. I've recently heard about the verdicts being outrageously high.

Dan Gartzke:    Really?

Claude Covelli: And that was never true in Wisconsin. Every once in a while you'd get one that spiked up, but they were pretty consistent and reasonable in Wisconsin.

Dan Gartzke:    You sound like you had a lot of faith in the jury system.

Claude Covelli: Had to.

Dan Gartzke:    Well, no, you didn't. You could have been cynical.

Claude Covelli: Well, no. Because you had to believe that the jury was going to do the right thing.

Dan Gartzke:    Yeah.

Claude Covelli: I mean, otherwise I can't imagine doing that job.

Dan Gartzke:    Did you ever work with a jury consultant?

Claude Covelli: No.

Dan Gartzke:    Were you ever tempted to?

Claude Covelli: No.

Dan Gartzke:    Okay.

Claude Covelli: And I know a lot of people that do and I certainly do not think there's anything wrong with that, but trials, a lot of things that happen in trial, a lot of the most decisive things that happen in trial are not planned. They just happen.

Dan Gartzke:    Can you think of an example?

Claude Covelli: Oh, that case with the big verdict, the $1.6 that we weren't liable for.

Dan Gartzke:    Yeah.

Claude Covelli: The lady that was driving the car that went off, my client, was forced off the road and whatnot, was from Puerto Rico. And she was testifying and I was talking to her about the sequence of the accident, and we got near the end of the sequence. And then my question was the stellar question, “And then what happened?”, expecting fully for her to say one thing and she said, "Well, I was kind of passing in and out and I looked and my daughter's head was open and I pulled her onto my lap and passed out.”

Dan Gartzke:    Oh my God.

Claude Covelli: And I said, “You're a witness”, and I sat down. Totally unexpected. Okay. Or I had a guy that rear ended a guy who was pulling into a hospital parking lot. And it was a winter day and the plaintiff's lawyer asks to him, "Well, don't you admit that if you'd just been acting a little more safely the accident wouldn't have happened"? And he was like 28. He says, "Well, how safe can you be?” And the other lawyer accused me of pre-planning that answer. And I freely admitted I had, which I hadn't because you can't do that. Or sometimes a witness will say something funny. Helpful funny. Something that makes the witness human, something the jury can relate to. I would be accused of preplanning it. But nobody I know is that good. That stuff just happens.

Dan Gartzke:    Humor in a courtroom can be a really dangerous thing, can't it?

Claude Covelli: My wife, my jury consultant has always said my sense of humor was always my strongest asset. As long as you make fun of yourself, you know?

Dan Gartzke:    You think that works?

Claude Covelli: Oh.

Dan Gartzke:    Self-deprecating?

Claude Covelli: Oh yeah. That was probably one of my strengths, is the humor, using humor.

Dan Gartzke:    Did you have any standard jokes on yourself?

Claude Covelli: No. No. I had weight, baldness. I had a lot to work with.

Dan Gartzke:    That’s why you've lost weight since you retired?

Claude Covelli: Yeah.

Dan Gartzke:    Is because it's no longer helpful?

Claude Covelli: I had a case where the opposing lawyer was a woman who in voir dire asked whether any juror would be inclined to rule against her client because her client had a woman for a lawyer. So I watched the jurors’ response, and when I got to my turn, I said, "Well, how do people feel about fat bald guys?" They laughed. Apparently they were okay with fat bald guys. It didn't make the other lawyer happy for sure, but, you know.

Dan Gartzke:    Well they kind of opened the door on that.

Claude Covelli: Well, I know, but how do you attack that without being…

Dan Gartzke:    Attacking a fat bald guy.

Claude Covelli: Yeah. You just attack yourself.

Dan Gartzke: Yeah. Yeah.

Claude Covelli: And it helped that I was a fat bald guy. I mean, if I was a slim, handsome guy, I couldn't have used that. Jurors are people. The right kind of humor can bring a little reality, normality to the courtroom. A lawyer objected during my examination of a witness about a safety harness because I showed my belt and I said, "Now this safety harness, it's not like a belt like this." And he objected because my belt was not marked in evidence. So I whipped off my belt to have it marked in evidence and said something about hoping may pants didn't fall down. The judge said, "Let's not turn this into a circus." It was marked Exhibit 54 and the judge said, “Was that the length or the exhibit number?” And I just said, “Judge.”

Dan Gartzke:    Judges sometimes have had a good sense of humor.

Claude Covelli: Yeah. But I think if both lawyers are real dour and sour the judge is not going to do that, but if it's good natured and it isn't hurting, isn't impugning anybody but yourself, sometimes they get into the spirit of that. And again, it makes the jury relax. It lets them know, hey, we're still in the normal world now. I mean, we take these people and put them in a windowless room for a week with lawyers for Christ’s sake and then tell them to use their everyday knowledge of the way the world works. It's a hard job and a moment of relief and chuckling goes a long way as long as you're primarily poking fun at yourself.

Dan Gartzke:    Yeah. Did you ever... Man, a lot of questions? Did you ever think your client was going to get up there and lie? And how did you deal with it? About something significant. I mean, about their weight, I don't care about, but something significant.

Claude Covelli: I really don't think so. I had some doubts sometimes that they were accurate, but if I thought they were intentionally lying I would tell them I can't ask them that question. I would have to let them go narrative if they were going to tell that lie.

Dan Gartzke:    Did you do that?

Claude Covelli: Never came up. Never came up. I started by saying, “Look you've got to tell the truth. Lying doesn’t work. You've got to tell the truth. That's what we're here about.” And that's an interesting line that's coming up now with some of these lawyers in the Fox News case and other cases where the lawyers are supposedly suborning perjury – saying they don’t remember something they do remember. And that's, there's always shades of how you say things. For example, I would ask, “How long were you stopped at the stop sign before pulling out?” And they might say, “Two minutes.” Let's imagine you’re at the stop sign and look at two minutes. At about at 30 seconds they'd say, “Oh, it wasn't even 30 seconds.” All right. Now is that improper? I don't think so.

Dan Gartzke:    Is this your witness or somebody else’s?

Claude Covelli: It might be my client or an independent witness.

Dan Gartzke:    I think that would be endearing to a juror, to a jury.

Claude Covelli: If they knew that you did that?

Dan Gartzke:    If they said two minutes and then you had them time it and they said,”Oh God, that wasn't two minutes, that was 30 seconds.”

Claude Covelli: Well, yeah. And sometimes you do, but it's better if they don't say it in the first place.

Dan Gartzke:    Yeah.

Claude Covelli: Yeah. If they don’t know how many seconds, it’s more accurate to use descriptions like “brief”, “momentary” “just long enough to look both ways.” Because a trick is to get the witness to say X minutes, or X seconds because then you can do math on it. But if they just say it was a brief or short time, there is less to cross with. So you emphasize the truth and sticking to what the witness actually knows. If the truth is something bad, just admit it. Because the bigger deal you make of it, the bigger it gets. Don't fight it so that you have to admit it three questions down the line. Admit it right away. Just say, oh yeah. Yes, that's true. And again, we're supposed to be in the truth business. And sometimes I think people get into more worried about winning than the truth. And that's where you can get into trouble.

Dan Gartzke:    You've come to that several times in this conversation, that it seems more about winning than truth.

Claude Covelli: It's getting that way. So the doctors that would testify as experts for the defense, well, they wanted to see the doctor’s tax returns to see how much they make testifying, and they want to do this and they want to do that. And they're just trying to drive these people out so that they don't want to testify. I just don't believe in that. But it works. They say to the doctor you say the same thing in every case. And I say, "Well, of course he does, the medicine doesn't change case to case.” I mean, that's his opinion. The jury has to trust me before they’ll trust the witnesses I present.

Dan Gartzke: Yeah.

Claude Covelli: Yeah. I don't know. The good experiences, like with the lawyer from West Virginia that my wife and I had dinner with during the midst of a trial, he really knew how to present his case to a jury. We fought hard in court, but respected and liked each other. He was worried whether his alibi witnesses would get to court on time, and having experienced similar concerns in other cases, I empathized with him. We didn’t know how the case would come out, but we're having dinner and enjoying each other’s company.

Dan Gartzke:    So did his witnesses get there?

Claude Covelli: Oh yeah. Oh yeah.

Dan Gartzke:    And what do you think you would've done if they hadn't?

Claude Covelli: I would've just sat there because the judge, he might wait 15 minutes or more, but more than that the evidence would close. You come up to bat and you got to go. He ran a tough court. But yeah, all three of them got there. And that's why I had two law students drive from West Virginia to the fire scene to show that he could get there without conflicting with his alibi.

Dan Gartzke:    Where was the fire scene?

Claude Covelli: It was on the Wisconsin River.

Dan Gartzke:    Oh my. From West Virginia to the Wisconsin River?

Claude Covelli: Yeah. So I had these two law students drive it without breaking the speed limit straight through, there and back, just to show how fast the trip could be made.

Dan Gartzke:    Huh.

Claude Covelli: Because he had the alibi. And the jury, the guy was really nice and he made a good impression. He was an army vet and so forth and so on. His lawyer presented him well. And the jury did not find that he burned his house down, but they found that he lied in pursuing his claim for the fire.

Dan Gartzke:    He didn't burn it down intentionally.

Claude Covelli: They didn't find him guilty of arson, but they'd said that he lied about the cause of the fire. So they didn't want to label him an arsonist, but they didn't want him to recover either.

Dan Gartzke:    That question was on the verdict?

Claude Covelli: Yeah. There were two questions. And I had to put enough evidence in of other ways he could have lied besides just lying about burning it down so it wouldn't be a defective verdict. But the other lawyer was very good. He made it so close. Yeah.

Dan Gartzke:    You said you did a lot of arsonist cases or arson cases?

Claude Covelli: There was a spate of them, yes. I would say maybe 10.

Dan Gartzke:    Over what timeframe? Five years?

Claude Covelli: Oh, those probably happened, nah, that probably happened in a 15, 20-year period. And some in real poor neighborhoods, some were real wealthy Germantown type areas involving $500,000 homes. Over time, arsonists are not as good as they used to be.

Dan Gartzke:    What does that mean?

Claude Covelli: I mean, it's a skill. It's a skill.

Dan Gartzke:    Catch the bad cups.

Claude Covelli: Well just opening a window or not opening a window. Fires need oxygen. And I had one lady, she cleaned out that place and moved all her stuff in a U-haul to a storage facility and when the guy went to burn the house and it was empty, he had nothing to start the with fire. The fire went out because there was nothing to burn. And she made him go back again. And he almost killed himself the second time because he used gasoline. And then he committed suicide because he didn't want to go back to prison. I mean, that one, I could have written a novel based on it. The woman who hired him was a woman of color and our judge was also a man of color. And during one of the hearings, she said, well…

Dan Gartzke:    She the person or the judge?

Claude Covelli: No, the woman that hired the arsonist.

Dan Gartzke:    Okay.

Claude Covelli: …said something about, it's like she was in Mississippi and she was being railroaded. And the judge, I'll never forget, the judge said, "Are you blind ma'am?" The seventh circuit court of appeals decision affirmed dismissal of her claim began the opinion by stating that she torched her house and then…

Dan Gartzke:    They didn't have to read to the end of that one.

Claude Covelli: No. But yeah. Yeah, you see some amazing things.

Dan Gartzke:    Yeah, you do. Yeah.

Claude Covelli: Particularly in those cases. And they're dangerous ones for the insurance company because if you miss on it, juries get mad.

Dan Gartzke:    If you miss on it?

Claude Covelli: If you don't prove that it was arson.

Dan Gartzke:    Oh, okay. Were you usually in a defense or a plaintiff's posture there?

Claude Covelli: Well usually they're suing for bad faith and for the breach of contract for not paying the policy.

Dan Gartzke:    So the insurance company

Claude Covelli: But basically, I, the insurance company, had the burden of proving that it was arson.

Dan Gartzke:    Yeah.

Claude Covelli: So generally, even though they might be the plaintiff, the order of proof was generally that I went first because the insurance company had the burden of proving arson. So the insurance company had the burden of getting a yes answer to the arson and/or false statement verdict questions. And why the plaintiff was calling his West Virginia alibi witnesses after I rested the insurance company’s case.

Dan Gartzke:    Oh, okay. I got it. Your law students who'd driven from...

Claude Covelli: Right.

Dan Gartzke:    Yeah. Yeah.

Claude Covelli: My two law students who drove it and timed the trial and the experts opining that the fire was intentionally set and not accidental, and witnesses establishing the owner’s motive, opportunity and ability to set the fire.

Dan Gartzke: It must have been an interesting road trip because they had to drive down there and then back, right?

Claude Covelli: Right. Right.

Dan Gartzke:    Not a bad job to have.

Claude Covelli: Right.

Dan Gartzke:    For a law student.

Claude Covelli: I mean, it gave them an interesting insight into how the thing worked. Yeah.

Dan Gartzke:    Yeah. Okay. Well we're…

Claude Covelli: Oh geez.

Dan Gartzke: I'll end this now, but maybe we'll come back because maybe if you think of something else. Otherwise, it's what, five to, ten to three. I'll shut it down.

Claude Covelli: And I didn't even put you to sleep.

Dan Gartzke:    No, this is good. Thank you. Hey, I'm going to end it now