6/25/2007 Tom Ragatz Interview of Joe Melli

Dane County Bar History Project

Tom:    Joe, tell us your date and place of birth.

Joe:      I was born January 1, 1924, in Kenosha.

Tom:    And your early education?

Joe:      I went to Roosevelt Elementary School in Kenosha then McKinley Jr. High School and Washington Jr. High School, and then Mary D. Bradford High School. Graduated from Mary D. Bradford High School in 1942 and then went to the University of Wisconsin, graduating in 1946 with a BA degree in labor economics, and in 1950 from the U.W. Law School.

Tom:    So you went right straight through?

Joe:      Except for a little over a year that I spent in the army. Starting at the very end of 1946 immediately after the war ended, I was in service until about the middle of January of 1948 and then retuned and went to law school.

Tom:    And what year did you graduate from law school?

Joe:      1950.

Tom:    Any special activities while you were in law school, honors and those kinds of things?

Joe:      No honors, I was around the upper quarter of my class. I was active in politics and was president of the University Young Democrats.

Tom:    Did you do summer clerking or anything while you were in law school involving the practice of law?

Joe:      I worked for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Union, which then had its international headquarters in Madison, doing legal research for Colonel Garey, the union's general counsel. I also worked as a labor representative for municipal employee unions within driving distance of Madison, organized both state and municipal employees, and in the summer of 1949 was AFSCME's representative in the upper peninsula of Michigan.

Tom:    What did you do upon graduation from law school?

Joe:      I went into law practice in Madison with Allen McAndrews. Allen had started his law practice with Hill, Beckwith & Harrington, and later was with the Schubring, Ryan, Peterson & Sutherland firm. He had just left that firm and opened up his office which was in the Insurance Building.

Tom:    There were a lot of lawyers back then in the Insurance Building.

Joe:      There were, yes. Gaylord Nelson, our former senator, Harry Sauthoff, formerly our representative to Congress, John Lawton, Madison's labor lawyer representing unions, Darrel MacIntyre, Madison's well known criminal lawyer, and Lyall T. Beggs, former International President of the V.F.W. were among the better known.

Tom:    What kind of practice did you have at the outset?

Joe:      It was a very general practice, we did not handle divorce, criminal work or tax returns. We did business law, personal injury, property transactions, defense work for Home Mutual Insurance Company which did a lot of insurance writing in the area; and we also handled plaintiffs’ personal injury cases and some probate. I began doing some employer labor representation, soon after I started.

Tom:    But that was sort of typical of a practice of law in that era, was it not?

Joe:      Very typical.

Tom:    People practiced in a very broad spectrum.

Joe:      There were very few people who were specialists. Joe Werner of Thomas, Orr, Isakson and Werner was a patent and copyright specialist. As I recall there was a lawyer by the name of Carol Sizer who was a tax lawyer, and did not do anything else. Also, a lawyer by the name of Mayo and Carl Marsh did tax law and little or nothing else.

Tom:    Were there any labor law specialists in those days?

Joe:      Yes, there was Jack Roe from the Boardman firm (Roberts, Roe, and Boardman) who was a labor law specialist representing management.

Tom:    Jack Roe.

Joe:      Yes, Jack Roe. He was as much of a management labor law specialist as we had in Madison at that time, but he did a lot of other work as well. Ralph Axley and Bob Sutherland from the Schubring firm actually did some of it, particularly arising out of representation of Rayovac and the Madison Bus Company. Also, John Lawton was the union labor specialist. In addition, he was an outstanding lobbyist for unions, particularly public employee unions.

Tom:    And how did you evolve into a labor practice?

Joe:      I was out of law school maybe a month when a milk tank hauler came in to see McAndrews. He had a problem with the Teamsters Union. McAndrews brought him into my office and introduced me as someone who knew quite a bit about labor law.

Tom:    And that was the start?

Joe:      That was the start. He was a very interesting guy. He was a German immigrant and he explained his problem to me. I said, you know I think if I talked to the Union about this they'll understand and they'll drop their grievance, but he rubbed his chin and said no, I do not think so. And he was right.

Tom:    What labor law background did you have?

Joe:      I majored in labor economics and took labor law and the labor law seminar in law school. Because of that and my work with AFSCME, I had quite a bit of labor background and had hoped to go into labor law representing unions. I interviewed with the Goldberg, Previant firm in Milwaukee. They did not have any openings. I also went to Washington DC and interviewed with Arthur Goldberg and Van Aickel & Kaiser, but they were not hiring at that time. I also talked to the people at the appellate division of the NLRB and a couple of other government agencies. I was very fortunate because I had a letter of introduction from Jim Doyle, who later became Federal District Judge for the Western District of Wisconsin, and a lot of these people knew Jim and thought very highly of him. I probably could have taken a job with the NLRB, but at that point Margo, my wife, had graduated from the law school (in January of 1950). She was one of the draftsmen for the new criminal code that the Legislative Council was working on at that time, and it was a commitment for a couple of years, so it would have been difficult for me to work in Washington while she was here in Madison. So I wound up in Madison.

Tom:    I take it then that you were married before you graduated from law school?

Joe:      We got married in April of 1950 and we went to Washington DC for our honeymoon.

 Tom:   And you both are still going strong. Who were the prominent firms in the early 1950's in Madison?

Joe:      Well, Schubring, Ryan, Peterson and Sutherland; Roberts, Roe and Boardman, they were probably the two largest. Then there was Aberg, Bell, Blake and Conrad; Stroud, Stebbins, Wingert and Young; Spohn, Ross Stevens and Lamb; Thomas, Orr, Isakson and Werner; and Toebas, Hart, Kraege and Jackman.

Tom:    Many of those firms under different names were still active when I started in the early 1960's. Good solid Madison firms, good lawyers. Do you have any memories of events or incidents or anything that embellish on this a little bit.

Joe:      Well another firm I should mention is the Ela Christianson & Ela firm. I worked on a lot of matters with Burgess Ela, I thought a great deal of him. I just thought he was a terrific lawyer, a great gentleman, and I feel very fortunate that our paths crossed quite a bit.

I recall one of the major cases that our firm had in the early 50's. It was the Roeske case versus Home Mutual. It involved some very serious injuries to some Seventh Day Adventists who were heading toward Portage on Highway 51 to go to a meeting. A young man by the name of Eloi Schmidt drove through a stop sign and ran into their car broadside, causing them terrible injuries. Dave Beckwith, Bill McCusker, and Ben Bull represented individual injured parties, all passengers in the struck car. McAndrews represented Home Mutual, the insurer of the driver of the struck vehicle. Ed Conrad represented Farmer's Mutual, the insurer of Schmidt, and Dorothy Walker of Portage represented Schmidt on excess over insurance coverage. They did a great job in trial. The plaintiff’s lawyers were able to persuade the jury that the driver of the car on Highway 51, going at a reasonable rate of speed, was negligent in that he hadn't lowered his speed as he entered the intersection, and as a result, Home Mutual was jointly responsible for damages, with Eloi Schmidt and his insurer. We got all done and we had to figure out how to handle the judgments. There was just a terrific amount of cooperation among the lawyers doing the necessary paperwork to prepare the case so that appeals could be taken from the judgments that were entered. We took the case to the Supreme Court. We weren't able to prevail, lost that by a vote of 5-2 [Tom: That was a direct appeal in those days] That was a direct appeal.

Tom:    And there was a right of appeal there too, wasn't there?

Joe:      Yes.

Tom:    It was not a discretionary appeal.

Joe:      Right, true.

Tom:    Another firm that was probably getting going then was the Rieser, Mathys, Stafford firm?

Joe:      Yes, that was another major firm, one of the splinters from Olin and Butler. A very good firm. Mathys was an outstanding trial lawyer, Rieser was an outstanding transaction lawyer. I recall a case we had with them in the early 50's, Boutan v, Capital Theater. In that case Boutan had gone into the Capital Theater to see a movie and when he went to sit sat down in the theater seat, there was no seat. He fell to the concrete floor and was badly injured: spondylolisthesis. We sued the Capital Theater. Mathys represented Travelers Insurance Company which was the insurer of Capital Theater. McAndrews tried that case, and prevailed before the jury, but Mathys appealed to the Supreme Court. I wrote the brief and McAndrews argued the case. As we were leaving the Supreme Court, Mathys pulled me aside and asked what we would settle for because he figured that at that point he had lost the case. I felt pretty cocky and I said well "the amount of the judgment plus costs and interest." Back in those days the following month they would announce their decisions so I went to the Supreme Court and I heard Justice Brown announce the decision. His first words were, "The case is reversed and remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint." It was a 4-3 decision. The case has never been overruled directly, but it has by implication. It was a tough case to lose.

Tom:    There were lots of jury trials in those days, weren't there?

Joe:      Yes there were.

Tom:    Who were the judges?

Joe:      Herman Sachtjen and Alvin Riess were the Circuit judges. We had only two of them. Sachtjen's son, Bill, became a judge later.

Tom:    And then after a while we got Wilkie, Bardwell and Maloney.

Joe:      Bardwell was probably the first of the group. Right? Then Wilkie.

Tom:    They were all three sitting when I started practicing law. Now we have what, must be 13 or 14 Circuit Judges.

Joe:      Or is it 15? [Actually 17]

Tom:    Can you think of other significant matters in the 1950's that you can recall in your practice or that were going on in the practice of law at the time?

Joe:      I remember that we had our bar meetings, but I can't recall how they were spaced. I was program chairman one year. Was it once a month? I don't think it was once every two weeks.

Tom:    Where were they held?

Joe:      I believe if I recall correctly at the Lorraine Hotel.

Tom:    It was at the Elks Club, I think, when I started, but it could well have been the Lorraine Hotel.

Joe:      I think so.

Tom:    What was the general size of the practicing bar in the 1950's.

Joe:      Really active practicing lawyers in Madison I would say maybe somewhere around 200. Back in the early 1950's we did not have the integrated bar.

Tom:    Did that change the practice to your observation?

Joe:      The bar became better organized. I think there is more discipline. State Bar presidents have more responsibility and work harder. Once we had the integrated bar, I think lawyers became much more active in bar activities. We became a much more effective organization in part because of the State Bar now really did represent the lawyers throughout the state.

Tom:    How about the Dane County Bar? How active was that other than the luncheon meetings?

Joe:      You know, a lot depended on who the president was. I remember one year we had a president who called only one meeting. On the other hand, there were presidents who did a pretty good job. The probability is that the presidents we've had in our recent history have been much more active than the ones we had back in the 1950's and 1960' s — probably as a result of the integrated bar's impact on bar activities.

Tom:    Who were some of the better presidents that come to mind for the Dane County Bar?

Joe:      Well, Jim Doyle was one of them. Lyle Beggs I think did a great job, [Tom: wonderful storyteller] good storyteller. You are testing my memory, aren't you? Oh, Tom Ragatz, but that was much later. In the early days, Perry Armstrong, Joe Werner, Burgess Ela, Don Heaney, Mike Flaten.

Tom:    In this file material I have a list of past presidents. Well, in that era where there was a lot of general practice, how did your own practice develop and evolve to being pretty much dominant in the labor law area?

Joe:      It all came to be in part as a result of that meeting that I had with the union milk tank hauler. A grievance had been filed for a substantial amount of back pay claiming that the milk tank hauler had failed to pay a wage increase that was required by his contract. His contract provided that 30 days after the milk tank hauler received written notice that the Chicago tank haulers' wage rate was increased, he was to raise his truckers' wages accordingly. He had not received any notice written or oral and had not given the wage increase. The Union was threatening to strike him to compel him to pay that back pay. I called the Teamsters' lawyer, and I said, "The contract has an arbitration provision and this is a matter of contract. Why don't we do what the contract provides for, go to arbitration and let the arbitrator decide." The Teamsters' lawyer's response was, "Joe, we don't believe in the Civil Law, we believe in the Natural Law. The Natural Law, you know, is the law of the muscle." and for a young idealistic guy that I was, that really turned me off. The Teamsters did strike and I had meetings with the Teamsters in Chicago. The local Teamsters told me that it was the Chicago Teamsters that were causing all this furor. I went to Chicago with the local Teamsters' business agent and talked to the Chicago regional director of the Teamsters Union, who said, "Any way you guys can resolve it; that's okay with me. I don't want to get involved in it; there's no need for us to get involved in it." Then we talked to the Chicago local business agents, and they said the same thing. The Madison Teamsters business agent did not have very much to go on. But the Wisconsin Teamster Regional Director told me he would "just as soon see small employers go out of business. The big guys have a lot more to lose, so they're easier to deal with." That comment, in addition to the Teamster's lawyer's comment regarding "the law of the muscle," caused me to feel management really deserved representation.

No sooner had the strike started than the outside temperature fell to 20 below zero. My client wouldn't have been very happy about operating his trucks during that cold spell. His employees were anxious to get back to work, so the Union made an unconditional offer to return to work and gave up their strike. The employer did not have to pay any back pay and there was nothing for the Union to proceed with at that point other than to just continue representing the employees of that employer.

Tom:    Sounds like a pretty good victory though?

Joe:      It's amazing how the news of that went through the industry. And, I did represent many of the milk tank truckers for years after that - even to the point of obtaining a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmation of an NLRB cease and desist order against the Chicago Teamsters from entering into a contract with the Chicago Dairies which would eliminate Wisconsin milk tank haulers from hauling milk to the Chicago dairies. That case was important for the Wisconsin milk tank haulers as well as the Chicago dairies, who participated in the three-week NLRB trial. One of them, Bowman Dairy, was ably represented by now Justice John Paul Stevens.

Tom:    So that helped you develop your management-side law practice.

Joe:      As an interesting side note regarding that strike, I called Rob Flemming who later became Chancellor here at the UW and then President of the University of Michigan. I'd gotten to know him at the labor law seminar I had taken, and I told him that I had this problem with the Teamsters, and I asked him what kind of advice he would give me. He said you can't fight the Teamsters, you can't beat the Teamsters so you better work out something. That was the reputation the Teamsters had.

Tom:    So you cashed in on your success and started building your management side law practice.

Joe:      Shortly after the milk tank haulers strike, I represented the local lumber and fuel dealers. They broke away from an association which included the redi-mix operators. The redi-mix operators had much more pricing power than the lumber dealers and the lumber and fuel dealers provided year-round employment. The lumber and fuel dealers felt there was no good reason their wage structure should be as high as the redi-mix rates. The Teamsters did not want this lumber group to be able to negotiate a lower wage rate than the redi-mix employees were getting. They had their regional director from Milwaukee, Frank Ranney, come into our negotiations. He was doing a pretty good job of threatening the lumber and fuel dealers and called a strike. But I pointed out that the Teamsters had not gone through the proper NLRA strike notice provisions, so the strike was illegal. To protect the drivers' jobs, the Teamsters made an unconditional offer to return to work. We resolved the contract pretty much on the lumber and fuel dealers' terms.

Tom:    At this point were you still practicing with McAndrews, or had you started your own firm?

Joe:      I was still practicing with McAndrews.

Tom:    But you built a firm as time went on?

Joe:      Well, we had Dick Cates come in with us, and he was with us for maybe three years. My guess is he came with us in about 1953, and he was probably with us until about 1955-56. We then hired Bill Chipman who was with us for about two years. Then we hired Arnie Allen who was with us less than a year before I decided to go into my own practice. In 1958 1 opened my own practice and that was also located in the Insurance Building.

Tom:    Melli Shiels?

Joe:      It was just Melli. My first associate was Don Huggett and a year later he went over with McAndrews.

Tom:    Yes, he was there when I started.

Joe:      I shared offices with Don Meloy and we hired a law clerk in common who later became a circuit judge, Gerry Nichol. He was in law school at the time and when he finished law school he came in with me on a full-time basis as an associate. By that time I had gotten my own offices.

Tom:    We're now in the 1960's then?

Joe:      Yes, in 1958 1 started my own practice. Huggett left in 1959, then Nichol came in as a clerk, and within a year he was an associate. From that point on we developed. I hired Jack McCrory out of law school and I also had gone into a partnership with Bob Sundby, who had been counsel for the League of Municipalities, but that lasted for maybe only six months. It didn't work out and he went to the Immel, Herro Buelmer and DeWitt firm (now the DeWitt firm). Then Tony Brewster came to town. He had been working with RCA and I hired him. Shortly thereafter Bob Smith became disenchanted with the Rieser Stafford firm and he came over and it was Melli and Smith. It may have been a couple of years before Shiels came in. Shiels had been a partner of the senior Fred Risser, then later became president of United Bank & Trust. He left the bank, but remained on its Board for many years. He joined our firm and it became Melli, Smith and Shiels. Jack Walker and Jim Pease joined the firm in 1966, and Jim Ruhly came in 1968.

Tom:    Over the years I know your firm has had some significant cases including the teacher's case, Hortonville. Tell us a little bit about that.

Joe:      The case came about in 1974 and was handled by my partners Jack Walker and Jim Ruhly. The Hortonville teachers were making some pretty serious demands in their negotiations. There was impasse in negotiations and the law then provided for Fact Finding. An independent fact finder was appointed by the WERC to conduct a proceeding from which he would recommend a settlement to the parties. We did not have arbitration of the teacher-board disputes. The fact finder found the school board's offer was reasonable. The teachers were unwilling to accept the board's offer and then went on strike. Teacher strikes were unlawful. The parties had gone through the process that was available for resolving disputes and the board felt that to give in to the teachers union's demands would permit the teachers to unilaterally call the shots as to what the wages, hours, and conditions of employment would be. The Board notified teachers they would be terminated if they continued the strike, but the teachers did not return. The Board then conducted hearings and terminated them. Dick Cates, who represented the teachers union, then started a lawsuit in circuit court claiming their terminations were illegal. The circuit judge was Allan Deehr. He ruled that the terminations were lawful. Then the teachers appealed to the State Supreme Court—a direct appeal. The Supreme Court decided that the terminations were unlawful because the Board as an employer had a conflict of interest, and that a body other than the elected established School Board would have to decide what to do about the teacher strike, including a decision whether those teachers should be terminated. The Board filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States. The case was argued by Jack Walker, and the Supreme Court determined in a 6-3 decision that the firing was lawful.

Tom:    Tremendous case.

Joe:      Yes, and of course it made waves.

Tom:    Probably brought some more business though, too.

Joe:      Well, it also brought me to the attention of the union leadership who started to call me a "union buster." In 1984 Isthmus, the Madison weekly newspaper, did a feature article on me. My kids were very proud that the newspaper had featured their dad! They all went down and bought Isthmus tee-shirts which they gleefully wore.

That article brought me one of the greatest compliments of my career. Isthmus interviewed a lot of people for the article which, by the way, was quite favorable—unintentionally, I am sure! One of the people they interviewed was Margo's colleague, Jim Jones, the legendary labor law professor. Jim stopped by Margo's office after the interview to tell her about it. She reported to me that Jim said the newspaper reporter wanted him to agree that Joe Melli was a strike breaker. "What do you mean strike breaker? If you mean Joe Melli beat them fair and square in court because they had engaged in illegal practices, you're right" said Jim. "I told them Joe Melli is a good lawyer."

Tom:    What were some of the more significant labor disputes you handled?

Joe:      The U.A.W. strike against Thorstad Chevrolet in 1972 was particularly interesting because it was the first time I dealt with Ray Majerus, then the Wisconsin Regional Director, and later Secretary-Treasurer of the U.A.W. He was big physically and very bright and a strong advocate. He looked very much like his son, Rick Majerus, the former Marquette and Utah basketball coach. At a critical point in the negotiations the mediator took the two of us into a separate room—away from our respective committees. Majerus stood up, picked up a four-foot wooden pointer, and proceeded to tell me what the U.A.W. was going to do to Thorstad if Thorstad didn't agree to the U.A.W. demands. In the process he kept leaning over and bending the pointer for emphasis—almost breaking it. We didn't settle, and Thorstad continued in business. Within six months after the strike started the Thorstad employees decertified the U.A.W.

It was not long after that that in 1974 1 again met up with Majerus. I was retained by Oshkosh Truck Corporation to take over its representation during a U.A.W. strike which was about a month old. Oshkosh had a longstanding relationship with the U.A.W. and had entered into a tentative agreement with the U.A.W. But, the U.A.W. membership voted it down. The Company learned of the rejection when it saw the pickets with printed strike signs in front of the entrances to the Company. Oshkosh had a major contract making crash trucks for the Air Force. It was required to meet a production schedule and delivery requirements. The U.A.W. banked on the threat by the U.A.W. that Oshkosh would lose its Air Force contract if it did not accept the Union's offer. The prudent solution for Oshkosh Truck was to commence hiring replacements during the strike. For legal and practical reasons, Oshkosh made it known in their ads that hirees would not take the jobs of the strikers permanently=the strikers were free to return to work during and after the strike. New employees were hired and some strikers abandoned the strike. Production increased to the point it satisfied the Air Force. Once the threat of loss of the Air Force contract had no meaning, the negotiation environment changed and the parties reached an agreement some five months after the strike started. A large number of strikers returned and many of the replacements were retained.

Our representation of Lycon in its disputes with the Teamsters Unions has involved two long strikes and a host of litigation. One of the critical issues for many years has been Lycon's insistence that it should not be a party to the terribly under-funded Central States Teamsters Pension Fund. Lycon had its own very solvent profit-sharing plan for its nonunion employees which it wanted to replace the Teamsters Plan. This was an issue in 1989 when both the Dane County and Sauk County Teamsters union went on strike against Lycon. The NLRB found the Teamsters guilty of serious strike misconduct in violation of a previous broad injunction against Teamster Local 695 obtained by the NLRB from the Seventh Circuit as a result of charges brought by one of our clients. The Court of Appeals levied a substantial fine against the Teamsters Local and prescribed special requirements for their future strike activity. The result of the strike was that the Madison and Sauk County Teamsters Local was decertified, and with it went Lycon's participation in the Teamster Pension Plan.

Tom:    How do you view the practice of law in Dane County has changed from the 1950's and early 1960's to the latter part of the century?

Joe:      The economics of the Bar have changed considerably. I remember when I started practice McAndrews told me that I should charge $4 an hour for my time. Those milk tank truck drivers who were working for this client of mine were making a lot more than I was. But I followed Mac's advice and I tried to book $25 a day in fees. The senior Bar was charging $10/hour and I think that only a few exceeded that by a little bit. I do not think that there was anybody in Madison who was charging more than $ 15 an hour at that point. Legal rates have escalated since then. I think it's unfortunate the way the economics has gone—particularly for low- and middle-income clients. Law has gotten much more involved, we get involved in more transactions, we have very serious litigation which involves many more dollars and often deals with far more serious consequences. I think the pressure on lawyers is far greater than it used to be, and firms have gotten much larger. The larger they get, the more likely they feel they have to impose billing discipline. They have become very bottom-line conscious. I think that the law practice today may be more commercially inclined than professionally inclined.

Tom:    Do you think that the growth of law practice was spurred by the increased regulation of commerce and the more rules and regulations and codes and things that are imposed on society in general but on business in particular, that basically generate more need for lawyers?

Joe:      Yes. Legal activity in the employment law area has mushroomed as a result of federal and legislation protecting employees from discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex (including sex harassment), age, and disability. Employee benefit law is also a burgeoning field. Where labor law practices previously dealt primarily with issues dealing with employee rights regarding the right to participate in or refuse to participate in concerted activity, NLRB elections, negotiations, grievance handling, arbitration, and NLRB litigation, much of it is overtaken by the broad expansion of employment law which has become the primary area of labor and employment law activity.

There is a tremendous growth of legislative enactment in most other areas as well as a result of the growth of business activity and the increasing complexity of our society which has spawned a tremendous growth of interest groups which are very active promoting legislation for their own benefit.

Tom:    Society generally has gotten more complex.

Joe:      Right, and you have patent disputes today that involve millions and millions of dollars, maybe hundreds of millions of dollars.

Tom:    Now there are whole patent firms and lots of patent litigation.

Joe:      As I understand it right now, our federal courts here are burdened with patent litigation.

Tom:    Very technical and complex.

Joe:      And that was helped to some extent by a recent Supreme Court case.

Tom:    What other changes, Joe, do you see in the practice of law? You've been at it over the past 50 years, and the good or bad?

Joe:      Early on in the 50's there were very few trials in the summertime. They did not have air conditioning in the courthouse. Once they got air conditioning in the courthouse they could and did try lawsuits in the summertime. Lawyers were more relaxed in the summer with more time on their hands. They could do things with their wives and families. Today it just is not that way. Lawyers are busy throughout the year. Of course, they are able to take some time with their families, but not as casual and not as much as in the 50's and going into the 60's. I think law practice is much more demanding on lawyers than it was. We see this in the problems that some lawyers develop as a result of the pressures they have.

Tom:    You commented on the economics of lawyers when you started out. Have active lawyers' levels of earnings changed drastically?

Joe:      Oh just amazing, standards of living, their relative financial and economic position within our social structure. To think that there are even a few law firms that tell us that their average partner makes $1.5 million a year. That's astounding.

Tom:    Not in Madison (laughing). Well, that is an interesting walk-through of 50 years here. I appreciate you talking with me. Can you think of any other memorable events we could mention for purposes of this record that occur to you, memorable events regarding the Bar or practice of law? You mentioned a couple good ones already.

Joe:      One of the things, I do not know whether it's memorable, but interesting. Our Chief Justice Rosenberry who was Chief Justice when I became a lawyer had been Chief Justice for a substantial period of time. Must have been over 20 years. Do you recall?

Tom:    He was already gone when I started. But I know the name very well.

Joe:      He retired in his 80's and now our present Chief Justice has been Chief Justice for about 15 years and she has let people know she'll run for office again.

Tom:    Well, there was a time when judges had to retire at age 70. Having clerked for George Currie and his defeat when he had to run when he was about 67.

Joe:      Now that brings about a memorable experience, doesn't it? They had the Braves case and the Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that the Brewers had not violated the anti-trust law when they left Milwaukee. That enabled them to move from Milwaukee to Atlanta and as a result of that Justice Currie, who was an outstanding judge, lost the next election.

Tom:    That was a terrible tragedy.

Joe:      We really lost a great legal mind on the Court.

Tom:    One of the best minds I think we ever had.

Joe:      In both our Roeske and Boutan cases, he wrote the dissenting opinion. I thought very highly of him, of course!

Tom:    I had the greatest respect for him. Who else was notable, well known and well-respected judges in your memory?

Joe:      Tom Fairchild was an outstanding judge. My wife clerked for his dad, Edward T. Fairchild. Wonderful man, very charming and very able. I consider him an excellent judge. Tim Brown is another fine judge. Nat Heffernan did an excellent job as Chief. He had a very good mind.

Tom:    What about Federal judges?

Joe:      In my book they didn't come any better than Jim Doyle, he really drew from lawyers the best that they had. I think he was a remarkable man.

Tom:    Circuit judges?

Joe: I did like Herman Sachtjen. I thought he was a very reasonable and dependable judge and I enjoyed cases before him. Because I got into the labor field, I did not try cases in front of the other circuit judges to any great extent. But, I did before Ed Wilkie. I thought he was terrific and to some extent Bardwell and Maloney. As far as more recent judges I just have not had experience before them so I just cannot give you a reasonable response.

Tom:    Well, you have given me a lot of good stuff, Joe. Any other historical insights or reflections you want to make before we close this off?

Joe:      Nothing that I can really think of that I think is worthwhile.

Tom:    I'm going to have this transcript typed for you to edit. Thank you very much, I've enjoyed this greatly.