Hill, Harry V., Oral History for Dane County Bar Association

Interviewer: Sarah White

Date of interview. 4/4/07, 4/27/07

I'll begin with the settings as a history into this, which is that I am with attorney Harry V. Hill and his office on the east side of Madison, and today is April 4th, 2007 and I'm not mistaken, and we're here to follow the inner topics for the Dane County Bar Association History Committee.

Q.          So, you said you we're ready to launch right into when and where you were born?

A.          I was born on September 30, 1922, in Montfort, Wisconsin - a small town in southwestern Wisconsin in Grant County. I had three brothers.

Q.          Where were you in the birth order?

A.          I was second oldest. One brother ultimately became Vice Chancellor of the Chicago City College system. One brother was a newspaper man and became an editor of a newspaper out in the State of Oregon, and my younger brother was a high school basketball coach. We used to get together and argue who had the best job. We finally agreed that the basketball coach had the best job because he enjoyed the pressures more than the rest of us.

Q.          What did your parents do?

A.          My father had an insurance agency in Montfort, Wisconsin. My mother was a homemaker - mothers didn't work much in those days.

Q.          What influenced your decision to attend law school?

A.          Prior to my entry into the U.S. Navy, I had given some thought to attending law school. That's when I was an undergrad at the University of Wisconsin. This was the period from about 1940 to 1943. In 1941 we became involved in World War Il, and the big question was what are you going to do, what branch of service and so forth. I enlisted in the Navy in 1943 and went to Notre Dame under the Navy V12 program. That program was a precursor to becoming an officer. From Notre Dame, a boy’s school,

I went to Wellesley College in Massachusetts, which is an all-girls school.

Q.          That's a little different.

A.          I took the Navy Midshipmen's course at Wellesley, and graduated as an Ensign in the U.S. Navy in April of 1944.

Q.          Now, explain to me how Wellesley happened to have an Ensign training program?

A.          During World War Il, a lot of colleges and universities had training programs for the military. The University of Wisconsin had a Naval Radio School among other programs.

Q.          Yeah, I've heard of that.

A.          We enjoyed our time at Wellesley given the fact that the girls were there during our stay.

 Q.         That's a nice amenity, I imagine.

A.          From there I went to the Naval Air Station in Jacksonville, Florida. I was there about six months, and from there I was transferred to Pearl Harbor Naval Air Station, Hawaii. I spent two years at Pearl Harbor and then resumed my studies at the University of Wisconsin.

Q.          So that would have been what year?

A.          1946. I graduated from Commerce school in 1947. At that time I was not married and there were four of us living in an apartment on Lakeside Street. I had accepted a job with Proctor and Gamble in Cincinnati in their marketing department.  And Sunday night (I was to leave on a Tuesday) the fellows at the apartment had kind of a going away party. After a few beers we all said, "Let's go to law school."

Q.          Let's not break up the old gang. Stay in school.

A.          So we all went down and registered for law school. At that time we were under the GI Bill; I had better economic circumstances in law school than I did after I got out. One guy quit after one or two weeks. The other two quit at the end of the semester, and I was the only one who became a lawyer.

Q.          Well, tell me what your experience was in those first months. Apparently it had some disadvantages because the other guys washed out.

A.          I think that I was the only one that was really interested in becoming a lawyer. In the service, I worked with a couple of lawyers who did very well, so I kind of held it in the back of my mind that it might be an interesting profession.

Q.          So there was never any question of whether it would be the UW or someplace else?

A.          No.

Q.          What was life like for you at law school? The typical day or any professor or any stories?

A.          I remember that every Friday late afternoon, about six or seven fellow law students would meet at 3 Bells Tavern on University Avenue, talking over old times and so forth. We used to play Euchre and Sheepshead at the old law school building that was built, I believe before the turn of the century.

Q.          Okay, yeah. Euchre. That's a classic.

A.          Well, I found out that law school was a lot different than undergrad school, because in undergrad school you could pretty much goof off sometimes during the semester and study real hard for finals. In law school, your primary grade really is right off the final exam. In my first semester I hadn't really paid that much attention because my friends who were not interested in law school were there. So I found out that law school was pretty darn tough, I got through that first semester with not very good grades.  After that I did quite a bit better.

Q.          Had to develop some different skills, I'm sure?  Did you continue living in the apartment with those other fellows?

A.          I did. However, I got married my last year in law school and that last year is when

I got the best grades.

Q.          She had a lot of good influence on you, huh?  Did you work after school or need to bring in any income when you were in law school?

A.          Yes. I stayed in the U.S. Naval Reserve. We were required to take a two-week training course annually. One year, I attended one program in New Jersey and one in San Francisco, which was very nice. During my last year in law school, I was manager of the Co-op Credit Union in Madison. It was a small credit union and I was the only employee. The Board of Directors and the President of the Credit Union felt that we were there to help people and were liberal in approving loans. The typical application for a loan listed total assets of $1 ,500.00 consisting of car, household furniture and bank account of $200.00.

Q.          Really!

A.          Anyway, we approved loans such as that, and it kind of got tough because the State of Wisconsin Credit Union's Auditor said, "We're going to close you unless you improve these loans: you've got too many delinquent loans here".  So finally they decided that they couldn't loan to everybody. But it was good experience.

Q.          Exactly.

A.          I also worked at Chadbourne Hall in the dining room, where I met my wife Those were the jobs I had while in law school.

Q.          You say you got married in the last year then? So it must have been fairly important to you to find a job when you got out of law school?

A.          I went to two or three different interviews at three different cities. It was tight and the pay was not too good.

Q.          Well, I'm sure. How prepared did you feel for looking for work? I mean, did they have internships or anything that helped you get connections?

A.          I had an office practice with an attorney and his firm in 1948. Then in 1949 1 took the Summer Practice Course at UW Law School.

Q.          What was the Law Practice Course? What was that, a classroom?

A.          Yes, it was a class taught by Marlon Voltz. One week would be handling a probate case, another week would be spent on tax returns, handling a real estate transaction, etc., and that helped me a lot in private practice. He brought in practicing lawyers who had experience in various areas of practice.

Q.          Did you feel that you were prepared to practice when you got out of law school?

A.          Well, I thought I was prepared, but the first year of practice you think you know the most. I found out that there are a lot of basic procedural matters that kind of stump you, and you really need to bounce it off some other lawyer. I was in a small town with two other lawyers, I couldn't very well go to them and say, "How would you do this and that?" A couple of lawyers in Lancaster, Wisconsin were very helpful in pointing me in the right direction.

Q.          So you found the mentors by yourself, looking outside the immediate market?

A.          Yes. They were only 12 miles away.

Q.          So where did you get that job then? You said it was where you started?

A.          I had just decided — my dad was pretty well known in Montfort, Wisconsin, and lived all his life in that area, so I decided I would set up in some town in that area. I kind of enjoyed that part of the state, so I set up in Fennimore, Wisconsin two months or so after I graduated from law school. My office was three rooms with heat at $30 a month.  You couldn't beat that, at least at that time.

Q.          Wow. Now I see why you needed the mentors. You could find that takes a certain amount of self-confidence to start out on your own and learning at someone's feet?

A.          Initially it was tough, very tough. I was on the same floor as Dr. Howell, an old country doctor. For every 20 people who came up those steps, about 19 came to the doctor's office and 1 came to my office. But I could always tell when they were headed toward me because there was a certain inner creak in the floor, so I would get my papers together and act like I was really busy.

Q.          Okay. So there wasn't just a burgeoning flow of legal work to be done?

A.          It was tough going first year and it got better every year.

Q.          So what are some other things you remember about your practice in Fennimore?

A.          There's one incident which I thought was kind of interesting. I was just finishing up a probate case for Ole, who was a Norwegian farmer. We were going through the Final Account which is an accounting of the receipts and disbursement in the estate. I went through the account item by item. When we got to the deductions, it went like something like this:

“Funeral costs - "Yeah." (said Ole.)

Debts - "Yeah."

Taxes - "Yeah."

Attorney fees — "Yesus!"

I also remember my first trial which I won primarily because it was before our local Justice of the Peace in Fennimore. Initially I did some collection work and brought cases before him. In most instances, the defendant did not appear, and we took a default judgment. However, the JP got fees on every case. In the case I won, John Peloshek of Boscobel was the opposing attorney. Sometime later, I had a case before the JP in Boscobel. John was on the other side and said, "Harry, you're not going to win this one." He was right. It helped to have the Justice of the Peace on your side.

Q.          Would that have been an elective position, to be Justice of the Peace in a small town like that?

A.          Yes.

Q.          So there was a little bit of the towns are going to stick together?

A.          Most JPs in those towns were not lawyers and didn't have any legal experience. In the bigger cities, the JP was frequently a lawyer but there were very few in the small towns. The Justice of the Peace had jurisdiction up to $200.00.

Q.          How was the economics in the period of time, 1950s, out there? Fairly prosperous?

A.          Probably more prosperous in Grant County than in other apicultural counties of the state. The farming community was doing fairly well, but the economy didn't really gather steam, I don't think, until maybe the late '50s or early '60s, and so it was fairly tight at that time.

Q.          Do you recall any anecdotes concerning your fees? I'm thinking that just starting out on your own; you would not have had much of a clue as to what to charge for what you did.

A.          Well, at that time we had a Minimum Fee Schedule put out by the Bar Association which prescribed the minimum fees for various types of legal services. For example, the minimum fee for drafting a deed was $5, as I recall.

Q.          Sort of a menu?

A.          Yes. The purpose of the schedule was to prevent lawyers from cutting fees.

Q.          I see.

A.          I can still remember the prescribed fee for probating estates which was based on the value of the estate as follows: 5% for the first $10,000 of assets, 3.5 % for the next $30,000; 2.5% for all above $40,000. These fees applied regardless of the time spent on the estate or the difficulty of the estate. The fee schedule was thrown out a number of years ago and now it is mostly based on the time spent and difficulty of the estate.  By time, so this was not really the same time—based system when you think of the law?

A.          That's right. In most probate cases, the attorney who drafted the will was selected as the attorney for probate of the estate. When the minimum fee schedule was in effect, lawyers frequently did not exceed the minimum fee for drafting the will because this might affect their chances of being selected to probate the estate.

Q.          I see. If you did the wills for people, with that the estate business would come to you. That makes sense. Were other types of law based on percentages the way probate was?

A.          There were other types where the fees were based on percentages such as collections and personal injury matters.

Q.          I'm just wondering if that's part of what led you toward probate work. It sounds like this was the best opportunity for you at that time.

A.          Yes, I think that was one of the things that led me to probate but I took about anything that came into the office, from divorces to income taxes to real estate deals, collections, etc. I did some trial work and a couple of drunk driver cases, but pretty much my bread and butter was the probate and real estate.

Q.          And you say you sought help from lawyers in surrounding towns?

A.          One of the lawyers that helped me was Dick Orton from Lancaster. Dick Orton was primarily a trial lawyer and I referred several criminal cases to him and he later became Circuit Judge. He had a very good reputation as a Circuit Judge and was quite a task master. He knew more about the case; he'd studied the case, looked over the briefs and was very well prepared to hear the case. There is one interesting anecdote about Dick Orton. I was sitting in his courtroom (after he became Circuit Judge), and we had a Deputy Sheriff who fancied himself as a learned man: he always had to be right. The District Attorney was questioning the Deputy who had arrested the accused. The question was asked, "Well, what did he do?" The Deputy says, "he expectorated on me" and Orton says, "you mean he spit on you?" "Well, what did you do then" the question was asked. "I incarcerated him." Orton says, "you mean you threw him in jail?"

There is another anecdote about Dick Orton which occurred after I started to practice in Madison. Dick Orton was speaking at a luncheon of the Dane County Bar Association. Several Supreme Court Justices attended the luncheon and had to leave early. As they were leaving, Judge Orton interrupted his talk with this comment, "I see the Supreme Court Justices are leaving to resume their legislative functions.”

Q.          So how long did the Fennimore period of your life last?

A.          Five years. I was doing quite well in the practice but my wife is from Milwaukee, and she never really cared for small towns.

Q.          That would have been quite a change for her back then; fairly isolated?

A.          It was.

A.          I decided that I would look for something in areas like Madison. So after a few inquiries, I applied for a job as Legal Administrative Assistant to the Dane County Judge, George Kroncke. At that time Dane County only had two Circuit Court Judges along with a Traffic Judge and a Small Claims Judge.

Q.          Right. The Small Claims Court would have been up to what figure?

A.          I think that it was $500 at that time. The County Judge handled probate and juvenile cases. The traffic court was separate.

A.          In 1955 when I started in Madison and we had two Circuit Judges. Now we have 18

Q.          So you applied and you got this job?

A.          Yes. I was at that job for two years and I enjoyed the work. It was very good practice for me because I was interested in going back into private practice in Madison, and pretty much specializing in probate work and estate planning, so this was right up my alley.

Q.          But a chance to be a student under someone else in a way?

A.          Yes, and I liked George Kroncke. George was a really good mentor. Normally, all the staff left about 4:30 and George and I and Dave Roberts who was Register in Probate, stayed around, and we talked about law in general and pending cases. At the time, Dave Roberts was about sixty years of age and had been Register in Probate for about 30 years. Dave was not a lawyer, but had a wealth of knowledge about the probate system. His favorite reply to a lawyer who was having problems with an estate was, "When all else fails, read the statute." George was a pretty heavyset guy, probably weighed 215 pounds, and was a party goer, a good time type. There was a group of County Judges in the state who met periodically. I attended several of these meetings and on one occasion we ended up at George's house. The first thing George did was to bring out the martinis. After having a couple of strong ones, I said, "George, if I have another one you're going to have to carry me out."

Q.          Well, you stayed and practiced. No, I think that's kind of important to mention because times have changed so completely about social drinking in the work place and that way of life.

A.          He never drank in the work place.

Q.          How long did you remain in that position?

A.          I spent two years in the Courthouse, and always had a hankering to get back in the private practice.

Q.          In other words, you felt like this was a stop on the way?

A.          Yes, I joined the firm of Harris and Brandt in 1957. Warren Harris had started the firm in 1929, and I took the place of Al Brandt who was killed in an auto accident. I started about two months after he died. The firm had a general practice on the east side of Madison.

Q.          Was it just Mr. Harris?

A.          Just Warren Harris when I joined him.

Q.          So it had been a two-man office?

A.          Yes, prior to the death of Al Brandt.

Q.          And you took over Al's place. Okay. What was happening in real estate in Madison in the '50s? How busy were you?

A.          Well, we were busy in real estate because almost every transaction required the services of a lawyer. If you represented the buyer, you had to examine the abstract and render a title opinion in almost every case. This has changed considerably because lending institutions began to require title insurance, primarily because they sold mortgages to nationwide institutions. As a result of this, very few home transactions now close with a lawyer present.

Q.          That is a real change. Now, help me understand this. Did title companies exist?

A.          Yes, they were called Abstract Companies at that time because they continued the abstract from the public records. The attorney examined the abstract and rendered an opinion to the buyer and the lender. Frequently, the lender required proof from the attorney that he or she had malpractice insurance.

Q.          I see. But it wasn't until the whole secondary market in mortgages that the need for insurance arose.

A.          Having a lawyer at a transaction is pretty much a thing of the past now. But during the first 30-35 years we did a lot of real estate closings.

Q.          And where was the growth in Madison at that time?

A.          Well, I think more on the west side than on the east side, traditionally the west side of town has expanded more than the east side.

Q.          And where were you living at this point?

A.          When I first came to Madison, I lived on the west side. The reason I lived on the west side is I still did work at Fennimore when I was working for Dane County and Fennimore is west of Madison.

Q.          Well, that's a good question, actually. So did you close down your practice or sell?

A.          Actually, when I talked to George Kroncke about that he said, “As long as you are not practicing in the Dane County Court you're free to practice on your own time.” I told him I still had clients in Fennimore and knew a lot of people out there.

Q.          So you kept clients in Fennimore?

A.          I used to go out on Saturdays and prepare tax returns and other legal work, but finally I got too busy in Madison. I had to give up the practice in Fennimore.

Q.          Yeah, that would have been hard.

Q.          And no young lawyer came along and offered to buy the firm from you?

A.          No. Even after I left the probate court, I still had clients in Fennimore and knew a lot of people there. While I was in Fennimore I joined the Odd Fellows Lodge, the Masonic Lodge and other organizations. That's how you met and gained the confidence of potential clients.

Q.          Okay. So you went from a small-town practice to the big city?

A.          I had a pretty good background or knowledge of the difference between practicing in Fennimore and practicing in Madison. The principal difference, I think, was in Fennimore you pretty much knew everybody and in most cases you knew who his or her lawyer was. In Madison, you don't always have that knowledge.

Q.          We have a few minutes more on this side of the tape. So how did Mr. Harris keep the business coming in? Was he a man who joined the clubs?

A.          Not so much of a joiner, but his father was the first Minister at the Congregational

Church here on Atwood Avenue. He was born and raised on the east side of Madison.

He knew a lot of people and they trusted him.

Q.          And so, general practice?

A.          He had Ethel Harris (his sister-in-law) as his Secretary. She joined him in about 1932, and was with him for many, many years; she also lived on the east side all her life and knew many people.

Q.          Where was his office when you joined it?

A.          It was at 2037 Winnebago Street.

Q.          Well, now, that's interesting to me. You're the first person I've spoken to who had anything to say about the east side of Madison. And, you know, I believe that this was a big business area and in some ways rivaled downtown along Atwood Avenue?

A.          Atwood Avenue when I first came was a very vibrant business street. There were many stores, two or three gas stations, a bank, and savings and loan, etc.

Q.          What sort of office building would there have been on Winnebago?

A.          It was a one-story building with a dentist office on one side and doctor's office on the other side. Warren had the basement office. We moved to the first floor when the doctors moved to the east side clinic.

Q.          Are we covering your notes okay?

A.          I forgot to mention one item with regard to the time I spent in the Probate Court. I got to know many lawyers in Dane County, the type of work they did, and what type of people they were.

Q.          That would be invaluable.

A.          It was pretty important knowing the different lawyers in town and so forth. I had a couple of opportunities to go with other lawyers.

Q.          Now, how long were you with Mr. Harris?

A.          Until he died. He was the founder of this firm.

Q.          About what year?

A.          In 1983.

Q.          Wow. So you were there a long time.

A.          Warren's son, Henry, joined our firm in about 1962. He had been in the Navy ROTC and decided to go back into the regular Navy in about 1967. Tom Glowacki joined the firm in 1976 and Jim Jaeger joined us in 1991. Barbara Hughes in 1998.

Q.          Now she's still with you right?

A.          Yes. We now have eight lawyers in the firm. I'm not a partner in the firm, I am Of Counsel, which means that I don't take part in decisions relating to operations of the firm.

Q.          Well, talk to me about how a law firm governed itself in those days, you know, when it was Mr. Harris, he made the decisions?

A.          Well, it was a lot different than now. I'm not sure we even had a firm contract between Warren and me. We just agreed and that was it.

Q.          He offered you the salary that Mr. Brandt had, probably?

A.          Well, I became a partner right away so I was not on salary. We looked at our financial situation periodically and wrote a check to each of us. We just had to see if there was enough in the pot. Occasionally, we had to put money back if some unexpected expense or emergency came up.

Q.          Yeah, fairly informal.

Q.          Did the partnership structure get more formal over the years, and add more levels of administration?

A.          In the last 25 years, it has changed. It became more structured. As more attorneys came into the firm, the structure has changed considerably. I became Of Counsel in 1999 or 2000, and since that time I haven't participated in any decisions of the firm.

Q.          Yeah, when did you move into this building? It's quite new.

A.          In or 2003 or 2004.

Q.          Yeah. Would it have been the United Way building?

A.          No, we are in the same block on Atwood Avenue, in the Kennedy Place building.

Q.          Yeah, there are professional buildings further down the street there?

A.          Yes.

Q.          And then you moved into this building just in the last year or something?

A.          No, when this building was built. I think it was completed in 2004.

Q.          Did you ever teach law during your career?

A.          I never taught law but I did teach at the Summer Practice Course at the Law School, which was conducted by Stuart Gullickson as I recall. Each week during the session, practicing lawyers came in and taught for a week. I taught in the probate practice course for a one-week session over a couple of years.

Q.          What year would that be?

A.          About the early 1980s.

Q           Did you like teaching? Was that something that appealed to you?

A.          Yes, I enjoyed it. You get a different perspective and it's fun to see students who are really interested in the probate field.

Q.          What do students make of probate? I would think it would be fairly uninteresting.

Not the sexy side of law, you know.

A.          You don't see many TV shows on probate.

Q           But you found some were interesting and that it was pleasing?

A.          Yes. I enjoyed the teaching.

Q.          Talk to me a little bit about the course.

A.          It was a practice course. Procedure in probating an estate, handling a real estate transaction, estate planning, etc.

Q.          So what comes up in probate that it takes skills to handle? I mean what are the odd ball occurrences?

A.          We take a typical estate step by step from the opening of the estate until closing. In summary, this involves inventorying the assets of the decedent, paying debts, and distributing the assets of the estate. During the process, steps are taken to lessen the tax impact.

Q           So the whole aspect of tax law that you need accomplished to do that?

 A.         In some respects, yes. You have to have a background in tax law particularly if you have an estate which is subject to the Wisconsin Estate tax and the Federal Estate tax.

Q.          And then was there any unusual probate case that you were involved in?

A.          One of the stories I was thinking of, is when I was still practicing in Grant County. This was about the first or second probate case that I had. I completed the estate; we had a number of problems and had to do revised income tax returns. There were properties located in two counties, and appraisals of several different properties. So, it finally came to the final hearing in Dodgeville. The Judge in Iowa County at that time was a rather crotchety individual, and I had known that he was a little tough on new attorneys. We got to the final hearing, and all of the heirs were present to get checks for their share. It was a day that was about 85 degrees, and there was no air conditioning at that time, it being in the early 1950s. So I put the Personal Representative on the stand and went through all receipts and disbursements; I had asked from the court an additional fee of $50 or $75 over what then was the minimum fee schedule. And this was done quite frequently -- if you could prove there was additional work or some additional problems that normally weren't encountered. So I requested the additional fees. The judge said, "Mr. Hill we don't pad attorney fees in this county, and I'm not allowing these extra fees." So I had to revise the Final Account and the inheritance tax return and have it approved by the Public Administrator. All of this was done in a small office in the courthouse. The heirs were crowded around me in that tiny room, waiting around for their checks and making remarks about the estate in general. A couple of the heirs expressed their displeasure which did not help any. We finally got it settled about two hours later. That was not one of my more memorable moments.

Q.          Well, I think that's a human thing, though, that we don't like to be misunderstood and you feel that he misrepresented you and hurt your reputation in that county. And all those heirs wanting their money, and needing a check that day.

A.          One of the heirs said "Oh, that Harry Hill, he decided to pad fees." I'll never forget what happened and that was quite a few years ago.

Q.          Did it ever come around again and come in a way that haunted you?

A.          I never had it come up again. Two lessons I learned: don't request additional fees unless you are very sure that the court will allow them, and don't tell the heirs to come to the final hearing. I think that was the worst case.

And I believe the best case I had in Fennimore was a personal injury case. It involved a daughter of a gas station operator in Fennimore. The gas station operator had about six or seven kids and he was always behind financially. I worked for him and he never could pay or was always late. His daughter went to Prairie Du Chien with another couple. She was in the back seat and they got hit head on between Fennimore and Prairie Du Chien. The other driver was a veterinarian who was drunk, so there wasn't much question about liability. This girl was 15 and she had terrible injuries -- very pressing injuries to her chest. She ultimately died of her injuries.

Q.          Girl?

A.          Yes. We started a lawsuit against the other driver and his insurance carrier. I had gone to the doctor in Prairie Du Chien who treated her and asked if the girl had much pain and suffering. He said, "Mr. Hill, I've been in this business 25 years and she suffered as much as any patient I've had." I asked if he would put it in writing. He did and they ultimately settled that case for I think $21,000, which was at that time a lot of money.

My fee was about $7,000.00 which was the best fee I got during my stay in Fennimore.

Q.          Well, to a modest person that would be a great deal of money not that it replaces a family member, but it's the satisfaction that the right thing happened.

A.          Well, we talked about best and worst cases. It seems the worst cases are those cases involving disputes between family members which frequently are divorce and probate cases, at least in my practice.

Q.          I'll bet that's true.

A.          Mom dies and has a lot of nice furniture and so forth, and the kids start a fight over who should get this and who should get that. Mom did this, mom sent you to college, and I didn't go to college.

Q.          And I should get the antique?

A.          Right.

Q.          Again a lot of history comes out.

A.          You're not fighting about the case here, you're fighting about something that happened 25 or 30 years ago. At least I found that was happening with some of the more difficult cases.

Q.          That is interesting, especially your perspective as a lawyer. You can't have an opinion on all those other things they're fighting about. You have to get it settled one way or another.

A.          I had one case where two sisters got into a big argument.  They were sitting around the table, one got up, went out and started to cry. I took her into the room alone and said, "What do you think is the value of that?" "Well, it's $200 or $250." And I said, you know, “If you keep on this path you're going to be in the psycho unit in the hospital and it's going to cost you a lot more than $200.” I said I would not go through this for $1,000. Then she realized that maybe she just didn't like her sister - but families sometimes are the hardest people to work with.

Q.          I suppose.

A.          They have disturbances within the family.

Q.          And that's what you'll be working with in a probate situation. Well, how interesting. Now, did you see some changes in a kind of family dynamic over time? Are people more or less interested in the old family stuff in the last ten years of your practice?

A.          When I first started in the probate practice, mom died and the kids would come in. There was a discussion as to the division of personal property. "I'd like to have the bed," "I'd like to have the refrigerator." They divided that up. Now, mom dies and the kids have better things than she had. They have these entertainment centers, etc. They don't care about all the other stuff. In most cases they've got better things than the old folks. That's how it's changed. Unless you get into the antiques, that's what they are looking for now.

Q.          So you needed to have the antiques appraised?

A.          Yes. I can remember the early '50s when television came in, boy, it was, "Get that television set." Now in most cases the tv goes in the junk.

Q.          Maybe that would be a little less fighting. Now, what did you enjoy about being a lawyer, the lifestyle that it is?

A.          I think that the most enjoyable part is when you finish a case, whether it is real estate or probate (I don't do any trial work now). I think the most pleasure you get out of it is when somebody comes and says, "you really did a nice job and we really appreciate it." It just having someone appreciate what you do. I had one fellow who had a difficult case and he gave me a tip of $500.

Q.          That's a lot.

A.          I said, "Sure you want to do this?" "It was worth it."

Q.          That's an appreciation.

A.          I took it in to Warren Harris and we wrote him a nice letter. I think that's a nice feeling.

Q.          Yeah, I think that's pretty universal. By the way, I meant to ask you earlier about your professors in law school.

A.          I'll just talk about that for a minute. I think my favorite professor was Dick Effland. He taught property courses, and the reason I liked him the best, is that he really had a sense of humor and made the cases interesting. The way Effland cited a particular case and explained it was great.

Q.          A bit of an entertainer?

A.          Yes. But he was very smart. I also liked Willard Hurst. He was a real scholar and gentleman, and I enjoyed his classes. Herbie Page was in a class by himself.

Q.          What did Willard Hurst teach, do you recall?

A.          He taught Law and Society. Herbie Page taught contracts, but I didn't have any classes with Herbie, I had a lot of friends who did.

Q.          What lawyers in Madison were helpful to you?

A.          I think this kind of goes back when I was with the probate court. There were two lawyers who I thought really stood out. One was Myron Stevens and the other Burgess Ela. Both were knowledgeable in a lot of areas of the law, but particularly in estate planning and probate. After I got into private practice, I frequently asked their opinion of different matters. Both were courteous and respectful to other lawyers.

Q.          Did you find that there was a wide range of discussion among lawyers - that some lawyers would discuss cases and some would not?

A.          In some situations, there was no discussion, but I found that usually lawyers were very willing to discuss cases and give you a hand. You'd have a case and ask, "How would you handle this?" Sometime ago, we had a group of local attorneys who primarily were interested in estate planning, probate, taxation and real estate. This group met every Thursday noon for lunch and discussed current problems, case law and legislation relating to the above topics. There was no agenda, no membership and frequently no definite solutions. This group was called the "Committee on Confusion." Ken Orchard was the main "spoke" in keeping this luncheon program going. After his death, it fell apart.

Q.          I see. Lawyers helped each other.

A.          Also, Jack DeWitt, he's still practicing. You should get the story of Jack DeWitt.

Q.          Okay. He's on the list.

A.          Jack DeWitt was really helpful to other lawyers; lawyers who had problems, maybe drinking problems or lawyers who were down and out. He was the kind of guy who would take time to help those lawyers.

Q.          Yeah. Right.

A.          And another one was Dick Cates. All these lawyers getting up in age. In fact, Burgess Ela and Myron Stevens are dead. When I was practicing with Warren Harris, I thought that Dick was a real fighter, and he helped me on a couple of cases. I should also mention George Kronckc, the Judge I worked for.

 Q.         He really was sort of a father figure to you it sounds like.

A.          Yes, in a way. He died quite a few years ago. George was a great mentor to me and really nice guy.

Q.          Yeah. I would like to talk to Jack DeWitt. I'll make sure he's on the list. Sounds like he'd be an interesting fellow. So I am trying to picture what sort of social life there might have been for lawyers. Was there a professional association?

A.          We have the Dane County Bar Association. The Bar Association has semimonthly lunches which they've had ever since I joined. We used to have a lawyer's picnic where we played golf and then enjoyed the evening festivities. A couple of anecdotes about that too. Lyall Beggs as Public Administrator for Dane County approved inheritance tax returns. He received a fee for doing this. He always had something humorous to say about you and give you a kind of a bad time.

Q.          But he was sort of a comedian that way?

A.          His greatest claim to fame was as Master of Ceremonies at the Annual Lawyer's Picnic. He had a running feud with Bill Evjue, publisher of the Capital Times. Evjue was always on Lyall Beggs' back because he thought Lyall, as Public Administrator, was skimming off the public. Lyall took shots at Ejvue and other public figures, including lawyers, by "telegams" both incoming and outgoing, roasting these individuals about current happenings involving that individual. He was a great entertainer. Had great timing. An example of this involved Attorney Carroll Metzner who was then State of Wisconsin Legislator in addition to his law practice. Carroll had a long-running feud with the proponents of the Frank Lloyd Wright Convention Center on Lake Monona. Carroll succeeded in getting a bill through the Legislature restricting any structure built on that site to be no higher than 20 or 25 feet. The Center was ultimately completed about 20 or 25 years later. This feud was the subject of several Lyall Beggs' "telegrams.

Q.          Any other anecdotes?

A.          Frequently after the program concluded at the Bar outing, a poker game got started. All attorneys attending the event wrote a letter to the newspaper complaining that there was a "big stakes" poker game and the District Attorney should investigate. The fact of the matter was that one of the lawyers participating in the game put his check for $2,500.00 in the pot. The check went around like a hot potato. Nothing ever came of it to my knowledge, but I guess the question is whether this was a "big stakes" game.

Q.          No one wanted to end up with the check, they'd rather have the cash. So you had the question there.

A.          Another incident when I was a President of the Bar Association involved Tom Ragatz, former President of the Bar Association and long-time practitioner. Sometime prior to the annual picnic, the Bar Association sponsored a talk by Griffin Bell, then acting U.S. Attorney General. At this time, Pope John of Poland had just been elected.

Tom was Master of Ceremonies at this event and told a couple of jokes about the Pope. Bill Buenzli, who was at the time a Circuit Court Judge or retired Judge, wrote a letter to the Wisconsin State Journal complaining of Tom's jokes. At the annual picnic which occurred shortly thereafter, Tom Glowacki, as self-appointed President of the Dane County Polish Bar Association, presented Tom Ragatz with a Polish plaque as a tribute to his unwavering support of Polish traditions.

Q.          As if you could legislate a change in that behavior, that's funny. Does sound like great times.

Technology in the work place is something I'd like to ask you about because, of course, you would have seen a lot of change. Did you start out with a typewriter, and not even a secretary back in Fennimore?

A.          When I started in Fennimore I had one typewriter, one adding machine, and carbon paper because there were no copy machines. We did have a mimeograph machine to produce copies but it was not very helpful in the day-to-day operations.

 Q.         So you didn't have much in the way of equipment?

A.          My wife was my first secretary and she took shorthand pretty well, so I dictated to her all the time in Fennimore. That's really all I had, just a manual typewriter.

Q.          And if you needed copies of something?

A.          We had the mimeograph machine, but in most cases we used carbon paper and if there was an error, we erased each copy separately. It was a real headache if you needed multiple copies.

Q.          Right.

A.          Then the electric typewriters came in after I joined Mr. Harris and that was a big improvement. The dictating machine also came in. Later we got the FAX machine and remail.

Q.          Did you personally like to work by dictating?

A.          I still do. I do some with the computer, but my grandkids know I'm not very efficient. But the computer has revolutionized the practice of law.

Q.          That's part of the picture I'm getting when I talk to people like you. Does it change the way you think?

A.          Computerized law. The use of law books for research has pretty much gone out altogether because it's all available on the computer. There's so many things you can do with the computer in connection with the practice of law. I don't try cases but computers are used in a lot in preparation of cases for trial.

Q.          In terms of how you bring in evidence?

A.          Yes and in the presentation of the case.

Q           For you, what piece of technology changed things the most, do you think?

A.          The computer.

Q.          Yeah, okay. Which would have come into your law firm in the 1970's, do you think?

A.          In the late 70's, early 80's, we had the first word processors and FAX machines.  Later, email came in and this really revolutionized communications for lawyers.

Another striking change is that, when I first started practicing in Fennimore, there were no lady lawyers in the whole county. When I came to Madison to practice, there were only three practicing lady lawyers that I recall: Ann May Davis, Noreen Bengston, and Betty Rodenkirch.

Q.          When did that really begin to change, do you think? When did you begin to see more?

A.          The last 15 years. Now I think there's about as many females as male lawyers. They do a good job. I can remember a couple of women who graduated with me from law school. They wouldn't hire any ladies because they said psychologically, they're not suited to practice, so women got a job maybe with the state or county, but that picture has changed completely.

Q.          Yeah.

Q.          Well, I'm wondering how you saw that changing around you. Did you ever witness out and out discrimination against women or where did you stand about the issue?

A.          I did not personally witness any discrimination and my personal view is that women are just as capable as men to practice law. Earlier, some judges, I think, discriminated against women. I don't think they knew that. It was just kind of imagined that they felt that a woman wasn't psychologically fit to practice, or to try cases anyway.

Q.          Well, I like to think these barriers can go down. It's just about the end of this side of this tape and it's 5:00 now.

 Q.         It is April 27th, 2007, and this is Sarah White talking to Mr. Harry Hill. And this is the second tape we've started on this oral history interview about the practice of law in Dane County.  So I was asking Mr. Hill if there were any stories, or anything that came to mind after the last time we talked, and you say there are, so let's start there.

 A.         The most difficult case I had was a divorce case in Fennimore. A couple had seven or eight kids. About three children were on dad's side and four on mother's side. They owned a farm which was pretty heavily mortgaged and they fought from the day they married, at least that's how it seemed.

Q.          So it was blended family? His kids and her kids?

A.          No. They were both the parents, and they just were not meant for each other. Finally, she started the divorce so we had a pretrial conference - they were just arguing all the time. We had the pretrial conference, which is an attempt to settle the case. Settling a case with them was like to settle a case with several outlaws, not that they were outlaws.

Q.          Right, no. But there wasn't going to be any resolution?

A.          The pretrial conference was set up for 2:00 p.m. I represented the wife, he called me and said, "I can't come, my car is kaput. I don't have any car." I said "one of the kids could drive you." "No, they don't want to bring me." I said, "All right, I'll take you and your wife." We got about two miles out of town and they started fighting. So I put the brakes on and said, "You get out!" Finally, I won him over and it was just like having an auction. They bid against each other at the auction sale. We tried the case, and it was just a terrible experience.

Q.          Well, it must have been unpleasant to be around people who are so upset.

A.          Yes. I think that was the worst case.

Q.          Well, getting back to another topic; some of your previous stories made me realize how linked tax accounting and the probate law is. I never thought those two went hand in hand.

A.          They do to a great extent. In most probate cases, the Personal Representative of the estate is required to file federal and state fiduciary income tax returns. If the taxable estate exceeds the then current exemption, the Personal Representative must also file estate tax returns for both state and federal. For many years the State of Wisconsin required an inheritance tax return which was based on how much each individual beneficiary received from the estate. This was required in almost every case because the exemptions were quite low.

Q.          But then each individual had to have a tax return?

A.          No. The beneficiary's separate inheritance tax was deducted from his share of the estate.

Q.          Oh, from what was payable to him?

A.          Yes.

Q.          When did that law change, do you think?

A.          Well, the inheritance tax was completely abolished about 30 years ago.

Q.          It must have been very cumbersome?

A.          It was cumbersome in cases where there were numerous beneficiaries because you had to compute each beneficiary's tax and withhold it from this share of the estate.

Q.          Any other anecdotes you would like to talk about?

A.          One I was thinking of involved Dick Cates, who at that time was Assistant District Attorney, and later became a well-known trial attorney; in fact he was an attorney in connection with the Nixon procedure.

Q.          I just completed interviewing him for this series actually.

A.          Oh, did you?

Q.          Yeah, that's another story. Let's hear your side.

A.          Dick went against Daryl McIntyre, and Daryl McIntyre was a well-known criminal attorney. He was probably the leading criminal defense attorney in the county, and when he was cross-examining a witness he'd say, "Look me in the eye buddy, look me in the eye." The idea being was if he looked down or looked away, he wasn't telling the truth.

Well, Dick Cates, as prosecuting attorney, tried a case against him, and did some research on that particular thing, and the next time Daryl says, "Look me in the eye, sir, look me in the eye.” “I object!" Dick says. His objection was upheld and McIntyre knew he couldn't do that again. It was interesting. 

Q.          So you say you and Mr. Cates knew each other. You found yourself in court together?

A.          No. Dick helped me on a couple of civil cases.

Q.          Because you weren't doing the same kind of law he was?

A.          I did very little trial work and no criminal defense work except for one incident which occurred when I started in Fennimore.  Circuit Judge Arthur Kopp was presiding at a plea hearing. The judge informed the accused that he was entitled to discuss this with an attorney. I was sitting in the courtroom and Judge Kopp said, "I see Mr. Hill. Would you like to talk to him?" He said, “Yes.” So we went in a side room and looked at each other. I said, "Well, did you do it?" He said, "How many criminal cases have you had?" "Well, this is the first one." Turned out to be the last one. And so he said, "I'm going to plead; I'm going to plead anyway." So I wasn't much help to him.

Q.          Sounds like he had been in the criminal system before.

A.          Several times.

A.          And I think there was a fee of probably $15 or something like that. But that ended my career as a criminal defense attorney.

Q.          We talked a little bit about how you came to be in probate, and starting out with the wills and so forth, but did you ever seriously thing about shifting to another area of practice?

A.          Not really, I did some civil trial work, but I found that it didn't work out for me.  I had other clients; when I had to prepare for a trial, I had to put everything aside. I found that I was spending too much time and kind of spinning my wheels.

Q.          Difficult to balance with the rest of your practice?

A.          They don't work in very well together.

Q.          That's interesting to hear. I didn't realize that.

A.          I tried a couple of jury cases, but had to spend a lot of time in preparation.

Q.          So you have to have a certain aggressiveness or competitiveness to make you enjoy the fight in it?

A.          You have to realize that maybe you're not cut out for it.

Q.          I think it would mean spending a lot of time around people who are extremely unhappy, and I think that there's nothing wrong with not choosing that for your life. So this leans a little bit towards one of these questions and observations about law practice, generally, which is; is there a greater or smaller percent of legal specialization today than before?

A.          Well, there is a great deal more specialization today. It almost is a necessity, because the practice of law has become more complicated, and you don't want to try to invent the wheel. For example, if I have a problem with a patent or copyright, I never touch it. There are many other types of legal problems which demand specialization and there are many attorneys including single practitioners who specialize. There are groups of specialists in the larger law firms and this trend has become more and more prevalent.

Q.          And you sort of tell me one of the pros of that is it that people can develop an understanding of the little slights of the law?

A.          They're doing the same thing pretty much the same thing all the time.

Q.          Are there negatives to it? Cons to balance the pros?

A.          Well, I guess the negative, at least from the standpoint of the attorney, might be that you are doing the same thing all the time.

Q.          Do you think people can shift from one specialty to another?

A.          In some cases, but is somewhat like a doctor changing from being a heart doctor to a radiologist.

Q.          Yeah. Well, there is a good parallel to the medical profession. Kind of the same specializations occur there?

A.          Did we discuss what I call significant changes in substantive law?

Q.          What substantive law changes have been most significant? We have not talked about this section, and I'd like to hear about it.

A.          I think there have been a lot of substantive changes within the law, by different types, in different categories. For example, "No Fault Divorce." When I started, you had to prove your case. So in the usual case, the spouse filed a complaint alleging that the defendant was guilty of cruel and inhuman treatment. Well, that can cover a number of different things and in many cases, both parties wanted the divorce. But they had to prove that there were grounds for the divorce.

Q.          So people who would have separated amicably had to go through this charade of accusation of cruel and inhuman treatment?

A.          Many times, they had no particular problem with each other but the marriage had fallen apart. In many cases trumped up charges were made and the plaintiff had to testify to that charge. But then No Fault Divorce came along and you just had to allege that the marriage was irretrievably broken.

Q.          And probably for the better. I mean, it's good not to have to go through this unpleasantness.

A.          There are some groups and people who aren't in favor of it because it' s too easy to get a divorce.

But there's a lot of problems in trying to prove the fault. I no longer do any divorces, but there were cases where you had problems on both sides. He was stepping out and he was beating me, or she was an unfit mother. Sometimes it got into a dog fight, which wasn't good.

Q.          Another type of practice that brings you into unhappy people's lives. When do you think that changed, the early '80s?

A.          It must have been 25 years ago or so, I think.

Q.          That's an interesting example. Okay, more substantive law.

A.          Another is in the real estate field, particularly in the purchase and sale of real estate. It used to be, many years ago, "Let the buyer beware." In other words, if that roof was leaking or the basement was leaking, the owner was not required to disclose unless the offer specifically required it. That's something the buyer had to live with if they bought that house. Well, it gradually switched over to more protection for the buyer. This was a kind of a gradual swing, but there's a requirement now that you have to disclose any defects with regard, for example, to the roof, or if you've had any problems with regard to the heating system. You have to now disclose if there are any major defects. You also have, as a buyer, the standard offer which provides for the right to an inspection, and if that inspection reveals deficiencies of a major nature, you have a right to get out of the contract or require the Seller to fix the defect.

Q.          Right. That's much different.

A.          But that's another protection for the buyer. I think, maybe, that the pendulum has swung a bit too far the other way.

Q.          What do you think brought that change; I mean, was there general abuse of sellers by buyers?

A.          Not really. In most cases the problem arose after the sale when a big rain came and the buyer's basement had a lot of water. The only remedy the buyer had was to sue the seller on grounds that seller knew this basement leaked and didn't disclose.

Q.          Now, this will reveal my ignorance, but how does this would be state level legislation we're talking about? And so how did that change go through?

A.          The Legislature passed a law requiring the seller to disclose any major defects.

Q.          So by these lawsuits and accusations coming to the attention to the Legislature, they passed a law against this and a law against that?

A.          Some buyers where being taken advantage of.

Q.          Well, it makes you see why developers have a somewhat bad reputation. There were some abuses there.

A.          In most cases, the Legislation does not affect the developers.

Q.          What other changes?

A.          I think one of the big changes, as far as our practice is concerned, is the fairly new Marital Property Act which took effect in 1986. It is a complex law but it basically provides that whatever the couple acquires during the marriage belongs to them equally. This has had an effect on our estate planning techniques, especially where there is a second marriage and children on both sides.

Q.          Right.

A.          It has an effect on estate planning from an income tax standpoint, because the property is owned as marital property. Upon the death of one, the survivor gets a new cost basis in the property. That's only one aspect of the Marital Property Act.

Q.          I think it's been very helpful to women in terms of their economic status after divorce, which tends to plummet.

A.          It has affected women probably in more cases -- in many cases it improves the women's status. But sometimes it's the other way around.

Q.          Was that controversial when it came in?

A.          Well, there's a lot of problems because the law is complex and has many exceptions. What is marital property and when does it become marital property? Having your name on the title does not automatically make it your individual property. An example: the wife owns the home at the time of marriage and the husband builds an addition with his own funds. The increased value of the house is marital property. All wages and other income are martial property. In many cases the parties enter into a marital property agreement to opt out of the marital property and keep their property separate, or in the alternative, they might opt in and classify their property as marital.

Q.          I see. He might own the assets from before the marriage, and they're continuing to make income.

A.          The income is still marital property regardless of who earns it.

Q.          In terms of your practice, what other changes?

A.          Elder Law. This is another type of law, and there are now attorneys who specialize in problems of the elderly. In many cases, these problems arise because mom and dad retired on a fixed income. Mom has to go into the nursing home, the nursing home bills are six or seven thousand dollars a month, pretty soon their assets dwindle. So there are things that you can do, steps that you can take, to protect the assets. And how you do this is a field in itself.

Q.          Related to a state law, but really quite different.

A.          Yes, Elder Law specialists are becoming more common. We have four of them in our firm.

Q.          I wasn't aware of Elder Law.

A.          The law keeps changing, and that's one of the problems when you're trying to take some legal action. What you understood a year ago may have changed; a lot of changes in Elder Law have taken place, and you have to keep up with them.

Q.          That is interesting. And I imagine that will become more of that specialty because there's going to be so many older people in the system.

A.          There are so many people that are retiring at 62, and they've got maybe a good long ways to go.

Q.          Yeah. You got a good life expectancy and you've got to start preparing. So this brings the financial planning aspect into what you're doing, doesn't it?

A.          Absolutely.

Q.          So now you're doing what tax accountants and financial planners do, in addition to doing what lawyers do?

A.          Well, a lot of times there's a collaboration. And I think this has increased where you will have maybe a group of specialists, an accountant, an estate planner, an attorney, all collaborating to work out a plan for the client. There's much more of this collaboration now than when I started out.

Q.          Well, you've got to see that person's needs from every angle. Now, is there a lot of elderly housing around here?

A.          There are a number of senior housing projects here on the east side of Madison, most of which are sponsored by churches or other non-profit organization which provide housing, and in some cases assisted living and nursing home care.

Q.          There is more and more elderly housing. I'm thinking that this location and the area may really bring a lot of work your way.

A.          There is an organization on the east side called Ecumenical Housing, Inc. It was formed by five or six churches. They buy the land and build apartments for rent to the elderly. It is a non-profit organization so they pay no real estate taxes.

Q.          It's interesting to know how the churches are involved in that, and know the facts of the law here. What other changes have you seen?

A.          Class Action Lawsuits are another type of legal practice which has become more prominent in recent years. Essentially the class action attorney represents the "Class" which is a large group of people who allege they have been damaged by actions taken by the defendant, which is usually a big corporation.

Q.          So this is like when I see an ad about Mesothelioma (cancer caused by asbestos) or whatever, that would be a class action lawsuit?

A.          The law firm handling the class action lawsuit usually has to round up the Class by using TV and newspaper ads and in some cases telephone calls. For example, "Did you sell XYZ stock through the ABC brokerage firm from May 1, 2001 to September 30, 2006? If so, contact Attorney J. R. Black."

Q.          Does this work a little like personal injury in that you're working on contingency?

A.          Yes, pretty much contingent. I'm not a class action lawsuit attorney, but sometimes it has had an adverse effect on the corporation, because they have had to defend these class action lawsuits and it costs them millions of dollars. In some cases, it's forced them to declare bankruptcy. Now, I have clients who have participated in class action lawsuits. They've had to provide bundles of documentation and two years later they get a notice that their share of the settlement is $36.40.

Q.          So at the end of the day, is it worth it?

A.          Well, in other cases, the individual plaintiff or member of the class comes out fine.

Q.          Well, is this part of what is driving the cautiousness around the insurance industry: for example, some corporation will no longer hold that 10-kilometer race, because of the insurance ramifications?

A.          It's a problem that the big corporations have to worry about all the time. For some people these lawsuits work out fine because no one wants to take on General Motors on his own.

Q.          I would agree with you.

A.          I had a couple more here. Taxation. I don't even want to think about the changes that have been made in taxation. There have been numerous changes at both the federal and state levels. This has made it very difficult for the ordinary taxpayer to prepare his or her own return.

Q.          And for most people they take a shot at that once a year when they see their accountant, and if law keeps changing they have to adjust with that? So the issue there is that the law keeps changing so fast?

A.          Some of the changes border on the ridiculous.  A good example is the changes which have been made in the Federal Estate Tax. The estate tax is levied on the net value of the property which passes as a result of your death. The exemption for the period 2006 to 2008 is $2 million dollars.

In 2009, the exemption is increased to $3.5 million. In 2010 it becomes a complete exemption. In 2011 it goes back to $1 million dollars

Q.          Any further major changes?

A.          The other change which affected my practice the most was the enactment of the law providing for the Informal Administration in connection with the probate of an estate. Prior to the date of this act, the procedure was under the direct control of the court. The result of is that the procedure is greatly simplified. The judge doesn't enter the picture unless there is a disputed issue, such as a will contest, objection to a claim, etc. Ln those cases the matters must be transferred to formal administration. The Personal Representative of the estate is not required to hire an attorney in informal proceedings. The County Register In Probate supervises this procedure. No Final Account is required.

Q.          Any other changes that have affected your practice?

A.          One other change I would mention is the practice relative to Wills. Not too long ago there were very strict regulations. The Will had to be signed in the presence of two witnesses both of whom had to sign in the presence of each other. Wills had been thrown out if for example, the witnesses did not do this. This is no longer required if it is signed on the same day or shortly thereafter.

Q.          Now, what are the pros and cons to that?

A.          I can't think of any cons. In many cases, the major portion of the decedent's assets pas directly to named beneficiaries. Examples of this are RA accounts, Annuities, and Life insurance. The rules for designating a beneficiary on these accounts are not as strict as for execution of a will.

Q.          Kind of an imbalance of requirements?

A.          Yes, the same principal is essentially true with regard to changing a bank account from the testator's name to a joint account or a "payable on death" account. Mom and daughter go to the bank and mom tells the banker, "I want to put my checking account in joint so my daughter can pay the funeral and other bills." The bank doesn't tell mom that the account becomes the daughter's property when mom dies.

Q.          Do you see people using Wills as a document to distribute the stuff of their life? Or do you see that they also include some of their philosophy or use it as a statement of their legacy and intentions and non-tangible things?

A.          Do you mean by that, a statement in the Will, "I give the sum of $5,000.00 to the University of Wisconsin to be used to provide assistance to students with disabilities?"

Q.          Yeah, things like that.

A.          Sometimes you have a problem with trying to even things up. Dad has a son and daughter, and he says, "I'm giving a bigger interest to my son because he didn't get a chance to go to college, and I spent more money on my daughter." So I have somewhat of a problem, in trying to explain why one is getting more than the other, maybe the daughter comes in afterward and says, "Well, I only went to college two years." In other words, it isn't as simple as the Will tries to make it.

Q.          So maybe it isn't as simple as you try to make it. You'd like to think that family would talk about it before the making of the Will?

A.          Sometimes you run across problems when you start reading the Will after mom dies. The daughter, who took care of her for two years, gets the same share as a sibling who lives in California and visits mom once a year.

Q.          Yes. Often something that would not be accounted for.

A.          Or people have not brought their Wills up to date.

Q.          Well, let's get off the topic of Wills, but not before I ask, do many people not keep their Wills up to date? Should people be more cautious about them?

A.          You bet. Especially if there's been a change in circumstances, and a lot of things can change. We've had people that have Wills 35 years and never have changed them. You write him a letter and say, "Well, John, you've never changed this, you better come in and revise this as there have been some changes in the law that effect your estate plan.” Then he still doesn't come in.

Q.          This is going to lead me around to the question of marketing and legal services, and how that's changed. Because I'm thinking here like, okay, do you, as an attorney who does Wills, find yourself trying to make people do the right thing? And like you say, "John, it's been 35 years since we've reviewed that, you really must come in." Did you take a really proactive approach on that?

A.          I haven't really been proactive on that. But we try to at least tell them that there have been some changes in the law which may affect their estate plan, and he or she should come in and discuss it. In some respects, it gets around to the point of advertising.

Q.          Let's go there next.

A.          I think I may have discussed this before.

Q.          Well, just a little bit more discussion about the situation.

A.          When I first started practicing there were strict rules for professions such as doctors, lawyers, dentists, etc., regarding advertising.

Q.          It's one of the most visible ways the law practice has changed on the outside. Now, tell me more about what the restrictions used to be.

A.          You couldn't really advertise. You could just put a little notice in the weekly paper like a business card indicating your name, address and phone number.

Q.          Now, that would be hard for a law student today to get their mind around. Well, what's ethically wrong about that; how was that perceived?

A.          The position of the Bar Association was that advertising was unethical - lawyers were to get their clients by word-of-mouth and reputation, not advertising.

Q.          When did the law loosen on advertising?

A.          I'd say about 20, 25 years ago.

Q.          But it was in a period in which everything changed?

A.          Lawyers started to advertise on TV, newspapers, and even billboards on the highway.

Q.          I had an accident a few years ago, and sure enough, there they were, the attorneys who wanted the case. My mail box filled right up. What sort of advertising does your firm do today?

A.          We do have an ad in the yellow pages and in a couple of magazines. I'm not a partner in the firm anymore, so I don't have much say nor do I follow it very closely.

Q.          Did this firm change its practices about marketing when those laws changed? A Somewhat. And, of course, part of marketing is pricing. And I'd like to ask you a little bit about a time when there was a price sheet, which basically came down from the state bar.

A.          That was the Minimum Fee Schedule which we discussed before.

Q.          Oh yes, we talked about that.

A.          The Minimum Fee Schedule was great if you had an estate where there wasn't much work. You had to take the minimum fee; otherwise, you were cutting fees. Shortly after I left the probate court, an attorney in a law farm filed a final account indicating fees below the minimum schedule. Judge Carl Flum, who was then County Judge, refused to approve the account and the attorney had to go back to his client and get additional fees.

Q.          This brings us to tracking of the billable hours. Now tell me, over the course of your career, how has accounting for what you do each day changed?

A.          Initially, in connection with probate work I wasn't concerned with time spent because I pretty well knew what my fees were going to be. It wasn't based on the time I spent, it was based on percentage. Now, of course, it's based on reasonableness of the fee, and that has to be backed up by the time you spent on the particular case. You pretty much have to keep time records on everything.

Q.          Was there a change over what people had to do to start logging their time? That would be tough?

A.          It's pretty much standard, I think, in all firms, that you keep time records. The fee statement itemizes the time spent and the work done.

Q.          Well, that strikes me as a difficult thing - to go from not having to necessarily keep that discipline, which is a pretty tedious thing to do, to where it's understood that you must keep these records.

A.          It really was not very tedious, because in the past, we still kept time records on a lot of things. But it definitely became a necessity in estate work. Now, I think most clients have become used to an itemized billing telling them what you have done and the hours spent. I have had some objections from clients for billing for telephone calls, but on some days you find that you have spent an hour on the phone.

Q.          Do you think that clients have changed? For instance, are they more knowledgeable about law now that they can see it on TV?

A.          I think so. And it's been glamorized on TV.

Q.          How do you feel about that?

A.          Well, you very seldom see an ordinary legal case. It's almost always a Nicole Smith or O. J. Simpson type of case.

Q.          Do they come in with some misconceptions?

A.          A lot of misconceptions, I think. A lot of viewers equate the legal profession with what they see on TV.

Q.          There's always been a certain sort of popular interest in it. To Kill A Mocking Bird, and Anatomy Of A Murder, and some of the most enduringly popular movies are the legal cases.

A.          Yes. There have been some movies and TV programs which have done an excellent job.

Q.          Talk to me about continuing legal education, and how that has changed.

A.          When I started, there were very few programs on continuing legal education. There was no requirement to take these courses -- they were all voluntary. Now, in order to maintain your license, you must take 15 hours of continuing education courses annually, and they must be approved by the Bar.

Q.          I think that most people would want to expand their knowledge and feel like they're not growing stale.

A.          And it keeps you alert for new case law and new legislation.

Q.          I suppose that must have become more specialized along with the law in general?

A.          Yes. Now there are a lot of organizations that conduct and sponsor approved seminars in all fields.

Q.          So it would be lawyers as faculty in these trainings?

A.          Yes. Primarily practicing lawyers who specialize in the particular field that is the subject of the seminar.

Q.          Has the quality of the training and the teachers improved, do you think?

A.          I think so.

Q.          I suppose that if you are in a specialized field, that that's the kind of thing to do.

A.          A lot of times this has helped, because if you are doing seminars, that keeps you involved in that particular specialty. And a lot of times other lawyers consult you, and refer clients to you in the field you are specializing in.

Q.          Now, I want to move to something, and I was reviewing our notes from our last conversation, and you mentioned that you had been President of the Bar in 1978. Is it in the Dane County Bar you were referring to?

A.          Yes.

Q.          Now that's reaching backwards. We were talking sort of in the context of other things that the Bar did, but you got me thinking of serving as an officer in the organization. Is that something that you enjoyed?

A.          I enjoyed it because I got to be involved in the Bar Association activities.

Q.          How did you happen to do that? Were you asked to run?

A.          They had a nominating committee, and they asked me if I would be interested in running and I said, “yes.” When I look back on it, I think it was a rewarding year for me. At that time I attended a convention in Chicago of local Bar Association officials. We each talked about our Bar Association. I got to meet other officials of other Bar Associations. And I found that the Dane County Bar had about the highest percentage of lawyers belonging to the Bar. Others couldn't believe our association fees how do you operate with such low fees? Well, we've got a lot of members.

Q.          That's interesting. Did you have any kind of official relationship with the Bar?

A.          Not at this time. Over the years I have served on various committees of the Bar Association. I served on the Committee for Resolution of Fee Disputes. If the lawyer and his client have a dispute over fees, the matter can be submitted to the Committee for Binding Arbitration.

Earlier I served on the Board of Professional Responsibility Committee which dealt with attorneys who have been cited for violation of the Code of Ethics adopted by the State Bar. We held hearings and made recommendations as to what action should be taken by the Supreme Court.

Q.          It would broaden your appreciation of the legal profession, I would think, to hear these things and see how they resolve.

A.          And whether the activity the lawyer engaged in violated the Code of Ethics.

Q.          So it's where you would maintain the standards of your profession, true? The fee disputes through the conduct?

A.          In keeping with the Bar and the standards they have, we had to determine whether that lawyer was adhering to those standards. It was sometimes kind of difficult.

Q.          Particularly, I mean, you know, this is not a huge community. Were these the people that you would know, and perhaps consider some of them colleagues or friends?

A.          In some cases, you had to withdraw because you may have had a relationship with the attorney, or you had preconceived feelings about it. You couldn't look at it with preconceived ideas in mind.

Q.          I'd like to close with questions about advice for new lawyers, what attributes, such as legal knowledge, common sense, etc., are particularly desired. Because I think one outcome of these interviews will be some sort of guide to the profession for newcomers. Here is my last couple of questions. What are your thoughts on attributes a lawyer should possess, or advice to new lawyers, what skills or attributes to develop?

A.          One of the main thing clients are looking for is getting an honest opinion from an attorney. Is the case or problem worth pursuing? What are the pitfalls? I have taken cases which in retrospect I should have refused. I think honesty and “upfrontness” are very important in dealing with the client. Fees should be discussed at the initial conference and a written agreement be entered into. It is important to keep the client advised as the matter proceeds.

Q.          So that speaks to the need for legal knowledge and for common sense on the part of the lawyer. But now I'm thinking there are also less tangible skills, like the ability to read people, social skills.

A.          A lot of common sense is a real good thing.

Q.          And that's difficult to teach in law school.

A.          I can remember a client when I first started to practice law. I had been told, “Well, write a position memorandum." So I wrote up about two or three pages.  And the client said, "Harry, what the heck is this stuff?" I got a little too carried away on trying to evaluate his case. You just have to use common sense to put your ideas out there.  I think that some people take the position that a lawyer should not charge a fee for reviewing the law, he should already know what the law is. Well, that isn't the case most of the time.

Q.          Especially with the way it changes so rapidly.

A.          Yes. And you have to say, "Well, I've got to research this a bit. I've got to determine the best way to proceed." Most clients are satisfied with that; some aren't because they want an immediate answer. And a lot of people like only the answers they want to hear. I think it goes back to telling that client right up front what your view is, and give him reasons for that view, and they don't always coincide with the client's view. And they might say, “Well, it's the principle of the thing, who cares about the law?" That doesn't go very far with me.

Q.          Not much common sense in that, sometimes?

A.          No.

Q.          Advice for new lawyers? It's such a different field from what you got into.

A.          Well, I think the principal advice I would give is to a new lawyer is, "Don't try to take a difficult case on the grounds, 'well, I can learn, I can figure this out’.” I think that he or she should be very careful in determining what cases they want, and whether he or she is, at that time, capable of taking on the case. If so, then they certainly should get help from another attorney, or bring another attorney into the picture.

Q.          But avoid overreaching what you're actually prepared for? That's interesting.

A.          As I look back, I think there are cases I never should have taken. If a client doesn't have a case if he doesn't have a good case, and you take the case, that tends to make him think, "Well I must have a case because the lawyer is taking it on." Then if the case is lost or it turns out that there is no case, you have to tell the client.

Q.          Very difficult.

A.          He's not very happy when you send your bill out.

Q.          I can see how it would be a challenge to keep a client happy through the entire process. They're upset about something when you meet them the first time. And unless you have a really good experience and are able to resolve it quickly, managing your client's expectations in reality, it's probably a very big job. What can prepare a lawyer to handle his client's expectations?

A.          Tell him up-front what the case's weaknesses are, and keep him advised.

Q.          That's interesting. Well, maybe that's a good place to close this, unless you have more. I get the impression you've enjoyed your career very much.

A.          Yes. I have to say one more thing. This has to do with time; you have to always be concerned about time. Are you doing something in a timely manner? The law says you've got to do something within three months or what we call the Statute of Limitations. If you don't do anything, if you don't start a matter within a specific window of time, you are out, period.

I had one particular case, and when I was starting. A man came in limping into the office. I said, "What happened?" "Well, I slipped and fell. I want to know if I can have any recourse. The city didn't properly flag the place to identify it and put out warning signs.” So I said, "I'll check it out." Well, then he didn't come up to the office until about 30 days later and he says, "Harry, what did you ever find out about that?" Well, at that time if you had a case against a municipality, you had to give them notice within 30 days. I looked at the calendar, and it was the 31st day after the accident! And so I had to tell him that he was out in this case because we didn't give the notice. The client consulted Harry Carthew, a long-time trial attorney. He called me and said, "How come you screwed up this thing?" And I said, "Gee, if he had come to the office, I might have written it down." Harry Carthew said, "Well, you've got to be careful of those notice dates." Then he said, "Don't worry about it, you don't have a case anyway."

Q.          He was giving you your lesson?

A.          Yes. But that was failure to act within the prescribed time. It's very important.

Q.          What I'm hearing there is this is not a field for people who aren't detail-oriented.

A.          That's right. You've got a certain time period in which to object to something, or give notice, and you have to take action by the deadline.

Q.          Well, I think that's a good place to close this, and thank you for your time and your memories.