Munson, Earl Oral History 2014
Munson, Earl H, Oral history by Dan Gartzke Locatiion: Boardman, Clark SC
Transcribed by: Ann M. Albert
MR. GARTZKE: This is Dan Gartzke. I'm at the offices of Boardman Clark with Earl Munson in Madison to interview Earl as part of the Dane County Bar Association Oral History Project. This interview will be recorded and transcribed and made available for people interested in the evolution and development of the practice of law in Dane County.
Earl, do I have your permission to record you and have a transcript prepared?
MR. MUNSON: You certainly do.
MR. GARTZKE: Okay. Why don't we start with a general introduction. Give me your full name and where you live and some background.
A I'm Earl H. Munson. I don't use the "junior," but I am. I was a junior, or am. I don't know which.
Q Background more than -- Well, where did you grow up and --
A Oh.
Q Your dad was a lawyer too?
A My dad was a lawyer. He was a lawyer for 50 years in Cambridge. Sold real estate, practiced law, owned a farm and ran that.
Q Solo practitioner?
A Solo practitioner.
Q Do you have siblings?
A I have a sister, one deceased sister and one sister living up in La Crosse.
Q Okay. You graduated from Cambridge?
A I graduated from Cambridge.
Q What year?
A 1953.
Q And then what?
A Ah, then another graduate and I took off for California in a 1936 Ford. Anyway, that was -- we worked our way around California, came back. I went on to the University of Wisconsin.
Q In Madison?
A In Madison.
Q What year did you matriculate?
A I started in 1953 and got my bachelor's degree in 1957 and law degree in 1959.
Q Just a two-year? Was that an accelerated program or --
A Well, at that point in time you could use your, if you had your credits in for a major, you could use the last year for law school, and that's what I did, last year of undergraduate.
Q What was your undergraduate degree in?
A Poli Sci.
Q Okay.
A Started out as an engineer, but I decided I didn't want to be an engineer.
Q Okay. All right. What was law school like at that time? How large of a class did you have?
A Ah, you know, I don't know the answer to that.
Q Okay. Ah --
A We had one female only. I remember that.
Q How large a class?
A How large the class was, you know, I can't tell you that. I don't know.
Q Did you have any minority people of color in the class?
A No.
Q Was it mostly in-state people, or were there people from out of state too?
A There were people from out of state, but not a lot. And there were a lot of vets returning on the GI Bill.
Q From Korea at that point.
A Korea, right.
Q And let's see. Any memorable law school professors or experiences?
A Oh, law school professor. You know, there's Willard Hurst, who's famous down at the Law School. There was a guy known as Black Sam Berman, and Carl Auerbach, all of which were very good. They -- I thought the quality of the professors at the law school was quite high.
Q Did you -- were you on Law Review or anything like that?
A I was on Law Review, yes.
Q Okay.
A And Coif.
Q Sorry?
A And Coif.
Q So you did very well in law school --
A I guess.
Q -- if you were a Coif.
A Yeah.
Q Did you work during law school?
A Ah, only -- one year I was a house fellow at the dorms that I worked. And during my undergraduate year I participated in wrestling, so I was involved with both that and law school in my senior year.
Q Okay. All right. Were you married during law school?
A No.
Q Okay. And so you got out in '59?
A Uh-huh (affirmative).
Q What was your first job?
A United States Navy.
Q Okay.
A It was -- I could have -- would have been drafted, and I decided to go into the Navy. I went into the Navy, went to Officer Candidate School in Newport, Rhode Island as a Seaman Apprentice and, ah, came out of Officer Candidate School as a Lieutenant Senior Grade; went to Navy Justice School and was in JAG.
Q And so how long until you went into JAG? You probably graduated in May or June of '59 and then –
A June of '59, and I was in JAG -- I finished Justice School I think sometime in January or February of 1960.
Q And then what?
A I was stationed or I was sent to San Francisco. Tough duty.
Q Tough duty?
A Tough duty, yeah.
Q Okay.
A In San Francisco. Anyway, there's a naval district, 12th Naval District, in San Francisco, and it convened general court martials. It would receive cases coming off ships docking in in San Francisco as well as throughout the district. So we tried general court martials on Treasure Island in the middle of San Francisco Bay.
Q Were you prosecuting or defending?
A I started out defending. And the general feeling was if you won cases, you become a prosecutor. So I ultimately became a prosecutor.
Q Okay. How long did that go?
A I was in the Navy until February, I guess, of 1963.
Q So what was your level when you left the Navy?
A I was a Lieutenant then. That's -- that's the equivalent of a Captain in the Army. And then I came out, I had to do Reserve duty after that, and I ultimately became aLlieutenant Commander in the Reserve.
Q How long did you stay in the Reserve?
A I can't remember. I think it was about six years.
Q Okay. So -- but you came out full-time in '63, you said?
A Came out full-time in '63.
Q What did you do then?
A Then I came back to -- well, I interviewed around San Francisco and Seattle and Portland, but I decided to come back to Wisconsin, and I went to work in the DA's Office.
Q Dane County?
A Dane County.
Q Who was the DA at the time?
A Bill Byrne.
Q Did he become a judge?
A He did.
Q Okay.
A Now deceased.
Q Okay. And --
A And Mike Torphy ultimately succeeded Bill Byrne when Bill Byrne became a judge.
Q Oh. Mike Torphy was the DA for a while?
A For a while.
Q Okay. All right. So in '63 you went and -- you went to the DA's Office?
A Uh-huh (affirmative).
Q And what kinds of cases were you doing then? Well, firstly, how big was the DA's Office? How many people?
A Oh, not very large. Seven, eight.
Q Lawyers?
A Yes.
Q And what kinds of things were you doing?
A Initially, everything. Bad checks, forgery, robbery, negligent homicide. And ultimately I was assigned a case that almost took a good share of my time called Woodington and Kelly, and I spent a lot of time on that case right up to the end when I left the DA's Office.
Q What was that case?
A Neil Woodington and Bob Kelly were lawyers. They graduated number one and number two respectively from the Wisconsin Law School. They were in an organization called Allied Development Corporation involving real estate. They issued a securities offering for Allied Development, and the allegation was that they were kiting checks, running checks from Fort Atkinson where Bob Kelly lived, and his wife was involved with -- I can't remember the name of the company now. They were -- her family had a lot of money. And in any event, they were running checks from Fort Atkinson to Madison in order to make the balance sheet look good, run the check up, deposit it, ultimately pay it back with another check coming from Fort Atkinson. So they kept -- they kept the cash looking like it was good. They were charged with securities fraud. The preliminary hearing lasted ten days, I believe. And the trial itself lasted three weeks.
Q The preliminary hearing alone lasted ten days?
A Yeah.
Q Were they tried together?
A Yes. Yeah. Both guys were tried. Dick Cates represented Kelly and Jack De Witt represented Neil Woodington.
Q Okay. And Dick had been practicing about ten years at that point?
A At about that point in time, yeah.
Q Okay. Now, I practiced with Dick Cates, and I never heard him talk about that one, so he must have lost.
A He did. When did you practice with Dick?
Q Ah, from about 1984 when I was a law student until I left in '93.
A Oh. Okay.
Q So nine years.
A That was quite a while.
Q Not just with Dick, though, but with other people there as well. Yeah. I was sort of his -- I got to apprentice with him on a big case he had for the first two or three years of that. Didn't even realize how lucky I was. So --
A Well, Woodington went to jail for three years.
Q Oh. Is that all?
A And Bob Kelly was placed on probation.
Q Okay. Who was the trial judge?
A I'm sorry?
Q Who was the trial judge?
A He was -- none of the judges in town would hear the case, either the preliminary hearing or the trial itself, so -- and I'm trying to remember. He came -- he was a good guy. He came from Oshkosh. He was an old-line judge. He came down here to try the case.
Q All right. Who else was in the DA's Office with you?
A Ah, Curt Kirkhuff.
Q Curt Kirkhuff? Okay.
A A guy by the name of Jack Daley, now deceased. And Don McCallum.
Q Okay.
A Bill Byrne. There were a few other people, but that's about it.
Q Okay. Any other memorable cases from your time with the DA's Office?
A From the DA's Office? No. Ah, oh, wait. I tried a negligent homicide case in which a black lady was killed, a negligent homicide and intoxicated user case that had gone to the Supreme Court and on jury instructions came back. We tried that case, and I lost that one. But I always felt that there was -- there was some -- some discrimination in the jury's verdict in that case.
Q Okay.
A Something you wouldn't see today, I don't think.
Q In the original conviction, you thought.
A No. In the -- the black person was the deceased.
Q Oh, oh. I see. I thought that was the defendant.
A The other way around. Oh, okay. All right.
Q Did you ever deal with Darrell McIntyre?
A Yes.
Q I heard he was a famous guy, kind of a colorful guy?
A He was a colorful guy.
Q What were your experiences with him?
A Not much. He -- he would come in and try to convince you not to prosecute and not to enter a charge that was under consideration. But I didn't have any colorful experiences with Mac that I recall.
Q All right. How about Judge Maloney? I heard he was a colorful guy back then.
A Yeah. I had some cases with Judge Maloney.
Q And what were those like?
A Well, I had a John Doe investigation that I ran with him. You know, it involved some question with respect to sexual literature that was being improperly used. And he ran the John Doe.
Q Okay. All right. All right. When did you leave the DA's Office?
A I left the DA's Office in 1965.
Q So you were there for two years?
A Yeah. And I -- I told Bill Byrne that I would -- I'd like to come back and start in the DA's Office, and -- but I wouldn't stay as a permanent employee. By the time I got -- Mike Torphy became DA sometime I think maybe early '65, and I tried that -- the Woodington-Kelly case to verdict, and at that point in time after -- within a couple weeks after that I left.
Q Okay. And where did you go then?
A I went to LaFollette Sinykin.
Q Okay.
A I had interviewed with them actually when I got out of the Navy, and they had offered me a job. But I said, you know, I'm going to stick to the District Attorney's Office and stay there. Then I went back to LaFollette & Sinykin.
Q Why did you choose to go with the District Attorney's Office first?
A I thought it was important to -- to practice in the area, to get to know the law firms, to get to know the judges and the court personnel, particularly court personnel. I learned in the Navy that you have to deal with personnel as much as you can 'cause they run the show. And so I said, you know, I'm going to learn how things go -- are worked here in Dane County and see how it goes. Plus I had been practicing criminal law, so I kind of liked, I enjoyed it.
Q Okay. So when you went to LaFollette Sinykin, did you stay with criminal law?
A Only to the extent that I got appointed by the Attorney General to represent the State on the appeal of the Woodington-Kelly case. That went to the Supreme Court --
Q Okay.
A -- ultimately, a petition for cert. And they – a couple years later I got appointed by the Attorney General to prosecute a case in Racine County that was also a fraud case involving securities law, etc.
A But other than that, that's the only prosecutions I did. And I -- and I also took appointments over in federal court for indigents, so I represented drug dealers, etc. --
Q Okay.
A -- in federal court as an indigent lawyer, lawyer for the indigent.
Q Okay. Who else was at LaFollette & Sinykin at that time, and how big a firm was it?
A Gordon Sinykin, Roy Anderson, Dudley Davis, Shirley Abrahamson, me.
Q That was it?
A Uh-huh (affirmative).
Q All right. How many staff did you have for that?
A You know, I don't remember.
Q Where were they located? What building?
A We were in the Tenney Building.
Q Okay. So just kind of next door to where we are here?
A Right. Tenney Building, fifth floor. And, you know, going into that office, which did not do a lot of trial work, and I was interested in doing trial work, it was dull. But I knew it would be. I mean, I knew enough about the practice of law. I had worked with my dad because you needed six months apprenticeship in law school. So I did my six months apprenticeship between year semesters -- or not between semesters, between the first year and second year and second year and third year -- in his office. So I knew a little how offices worked and lawyers worked.
LaFollette did not do any litigation of any real consequence. And actually, I also interviewed with this law firm too, Boardman. In any event, initially I was used to being in court in the DA's Office all the time. And so working at LaFollette initially, I was going to sleep at my desk.
Q So how long did you stay with them?
A I stayed with them for 35 years.
Q Oh. I didn't know that. Okay. I thought you came here much sooner than that.
A No. LaFollette grew somewhat. We moved over to the -- it used to be called the Power & Light Building, but it's now 222, I think, on West Wash.
Q That was the one that had the bus station in the basement; right?
A No, no. The next one down. The next one down. It's -- they rehabbed that, not rehabbed it; it's a fairly new building. But they fixed it up quite a bit since I was there. We were some of the new tenants there. And then we moved from there to the old Penney's building –
Q Okay.
A -- where their offices are now. But then they became the (unintelligible) Godfrey firm, and I decided that wasn't something I wanted to do.
Q But did they develop a litigation practice, or did you develop a litigation practice there?
A Pretty much whatever litigation I got, I did.
Q So --
A Started out doing some personal injury, but I quickly learned that I'm not a good personal injury lawyer. I get too bound up in the problems of the people who have been injured. There's -- as a plaintiffs' lawyer, I couldn't make any money because I couldn't really enforce, I didn't do very well enforcing contingent fee agreements.
Q You would let your clients receive all the money, you're saying?
A Yeah.
Q So you did plaintiffs' work?
A Yes, yes.
Q Okay. And how did your practice develop then from there?
A How did it develop?
Q I mean, it sounds like you've done quite a few different kinds of things.
A Oh, I have. I have. Ah, we -- we represented banks well before your time when there was branch banking, and there was litigation in front of the Comptroller of Currency -- comptroller or controller, depending on how you pronounce that.
Q Okay.
A And the Comptroller of Currency for the Feds' point of view was encouraging federal banks to branch. Wisconsin had an anti-branching law. So the litigation was on in terms of -- so that lasted for a while until Wisconsin gave up trying to fight branch banking.
Q Okay.
A Um, represented the Capital Times on their defamation cases.
Q Okay. All right. So you were talking about the litigation you did on the branch banking. That was federal litigation then or –
A Federal and state. And often just administrative within the Comptroller of Currency.
Q Okay. All right.
A I represented defamation cases for the Capital Times.
Q Oh. That's right.
A And labor cases. We had one fairly famous labor case for the Cap Times in which the union -- then the Cap Times was unionized, and they wanted to participate in editorial content, which raised a whole First -- free press, free speech issue. The NLRB sent a jury examiner here, and we had a hearing before an NLRB hearing examiner for about almost a week on that issue.
Q How did that turn out?
A Ah, they found that the newspaper could -- did not have to allow a union to participate in editorial content, editorial comment.
Q Your practice has never been limited geographically to Madison or even Wisconsin; right? You go –
A Not in recent -- in recent years, back in the last 20 years, the answer to that is that's correct.
Q Yeah.
A I represented American Family on various corporate matters, corporate litigation, not -- not claims, and got involved in a number of class actions out in Oregon, Colorado, Chicago, and in Wisconsin.
Q Do you notice any over the years, have you seen any regional differences in how law is practiced in, say, Oregon -- Oregon or others?
A Oregon.
Q Yeah, that's right.
A If you talk about Oregon or Washington, the answer, you know, they're pretty -- they're pretty straight people out there. In other states, there are -- Madison is pretty special in terms of the way we practice law. There's probably a little less getting along than we used to, but Madison, you do a lot by just calling the lawyer on the other side and talking rather than – rather than dealing in formalities.
Q And not so in other places?
A Less so in other places.
Q Do you think that's because you were the out-of-towner?
A No. The larger you become, you go to a larger city, a larger Bar, it becomes much more impersonal and it becomes more difficult or more, just -- it just happens that there's less civility amongst the large Bar, larger Bar with people who don't know one another.
Q Now, I mean, because this is an interview for historical purposes, have you seen that change in the Dane County Bar over the years? You've been --
A I think that's fair to say. It is certainly less so than it was in other years way back. But it's still, it's a pretty good place to practice law. It's pretty civil.
Q Do you still find yourself able to call lawyers up and work it out?
A Yes. No question.
Q Okay. All right. Let's see. I think you said you stayed at LaFollette Sinykin for 35 years?
A Yes.
Q So that takes us up to what?
A 2000.
Q 2000. And what changed then?
A That's when LaFollette & Sinykin decided that they would merge with Godfrey & Kahn.
Q Okay. That was --
A That was something -- I had nothing against Godfrey & Kahn. It's just that was not something I wanted to do. I pretty much practiced my own practice and built my own practice, whatever it was. And I didn't want to become a part of a Milwaukee law firm, so I moved over here.
Q So did you look around at different law firms?
A I did a little bit.
Q Okay. Any other you considered? Or is that not something you'd rather say?
A I'd rather not.
Q Okay. Fair enough.
Q All right. But you came here to -- what was it? Boardman Suhr Curry & Field; right?
A Okay.
Q Did you bring anybody else with you?
A My secretary, who'd been with me 35 years.
Q Oh, wow.
A Let me take that back. My assistant, who's been here with me 35 years.
Q Who was your assistant?
A You don't call them secretaries anymore.
Q Well, not after 35 years. It doesn't matter. She knows what she does.
A Right. Gordon, back to Gordon Sinykin --
Q Yeah.
A --the staff loved Gordon Sinykin. He treated them well. When we -- when we sat down at the end of year to talk about how we had done and how we would distribute whatever profits we had, from Gordon's point of view it was always let's -- we have to take care of the staff first. And they knew that. In any event, my only point here is that Gordon would still call them "the girls," despite the fact -- they didn't hold it against him. They knew him. They loved him. But it was "the girls."
Q What was the -- were the working hours early on? I know my dad talked about, you know, it was six days a week and frequently Sundays as well. Was that for you as well?
A Yes.
Q Have you continued to work that kind of a schedule?
A I don't work Saturdays anymore unless I'm getting ready for a trial. But I don't work Saturdays.
Q Okay. All right. You're still working full-time, though; aren't you?
A I am, but that's probably coming to an end. My kind of cases that I handle now, for corporate work, business work, litigation, it -- it tends to go – the cases go on for three, four, sometimes five years, six years. And, ah, I'm not so sure I'm gonna be around, so I can't really hold myself out to a client that I can do that kind of practice.
Q Are you turning down some cases at this point?
A I haven't taken any new cases since almost the summer of 2013.
Q Okay. So the younger lawyers are getting the benefit of that; right? Okay. So it was that kind of a work schedule back then consistently and it has been for most of your life?
A For most of my life it has been, yeah.
Q Okay.
A Yeah. Lawyering is a tough job. Ah, and you're not -- this is a profession that you learn by doing. It's not something you learn in law school. And so it's a matter of when something new comes in -- and I tended to do lots of different things, so I spent a lot of time becoming acclimated to that, doing the research necessary to get up to speed in that particular area.
Q Did you have anybody who served as more of a mentor for you in your practice?
A Oh, I think Gordon was -- I always thought he was a good, sound, honest lawyer. I saw him tear up bills when clients would come in to complain about it, and he was a good guy.
Q And you mentioned how he was loyal to the staff?
A Loyal to the staff. Loyal to the younger lawyers. He'd say, "Earl, you and I have got to make sure that the younger lawyers are getting paid before we get paid."
Q Yeah. When did he die?
A 1995.
Q Did he practice up until the end?
A Almost, but not quite. A couple years. He still came into the office.
Q Okay. So you knew him then for a good 30 years, you practiced with him?
A Yeah.
Q Did you ever have any differences of opinion with him? And how did you resolve those?
A Yeah, sure, but talked 'em through no problem.
Q Were you the -- you were never a named partner there, though.
A There was a time when we called the firm LaFollette, Sinykin, Anderson & Munson.
Q Okay.
A That -- I can't remember when it was, but I -- I began to lobby just to change the name to LaFollette and Sinykin. And that's where things were going in terms of law firms' names, not naming everyone. Excuse me. I've got something in my throat. There seemed to be -- well, there was, used to be an ethical rule that you could not continue to carry names forever and ever. That's way back.
Q Yeah.
A So that kind of tradition carried for a long time. But now and even back in the nineties when it was time to just have a two-name law firm.
Q Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So how many partners did you have at that point? How large was the firm?
A At what point?
Q Say in the nineties when you were going to the two names. That was one of the bigger firms in town at that point, I'm sure.
A Not really.
Q No?
A Boardman was large. Brynelson was fairly large.
Q Yeah. De Witt firm?
A Uh-huh (affirmative). The De Witt firm, they'd grown quite a bit at that point in time.
Q What else? Lawton & Cates was always sort of around 20 or so, I think, 20. Was your firm bigger than that?
A When I left in 2000, we probably had about 20 partners.
Q Okay. And how many associates?
A And two, three associates, something like that. My numbers may be wrong.
Q Yeah. So a lot of partners? Only two or three associates, you said?
A Uh-huh (affirmative). Traditionally we were heavy on partners.
Q Okay.
A Traditionally we always elevated people to partnership rather than --
Q I think that's kind of unusual; isn't it?
A Well, it is today. Now you go six, seven years as an associate.
Q What was the partnership track like for a firm, again, for that firm as you joined it? And only if you're comfortable talking about it. A lot of these people are still around, and if you consider that a trade secret, that's fair.
A No. Back in the LaFollette days?
Q Yeah, yeah.
A Um, to be honest with you, I don't remember what the partnership track was. When I came, by the time I came, I had been trying cases in the Navy and in the District Attorney's Office, so I -- I think I became a partner within two years.
Q But there was about six people at that point, you say?
A Yeah.
Q Okay. So it wasn't a set sort of a format that you would go through with that whereas now, at least in your firm here, I'm sure it's very structured as to how it's structured and the expectations are clear and it's laid out.
A And you try to keep your expectations somewhat on a par with other law firms --
Q Yeah.
A -- so that you don't have -- you don't have a glaring difference from law firm to law firm.
Q Yeah, yeah. Do you -- I don't know. Again, we're looking sort of at historical purposes, you looking back and seeing the way things were and the way things are. Do you want to comment on the differences between those? Do you have any preferences between them?
A Well, there's lots of differences. When I first started, there was a minimum fee schedule.
Q Which is illegal now; right?
A Which is illegal now, yeah. But there was a book put out by the State Bar. I wish I'd have saved mine. That didn't last long. When I was on the Board of Governors, '76, '78, the issue came up about advertising. And there was an ethical rule against advertising by lawyers. The U.S. Supreme Court had stepped in on that, and there was a big issue in front of the Board of Governors whether they should allow advertising or not allow advertising for lawyers. Trayton Lathrop was a big advocate at that point in time for advertising.
Q Oh, Trayton Lathrop was in favor of advertising?
A Yes.
Q Somehow that strikes me as -- I wouldn't have expected that, but I never knew the man, so -- other differences?
A We still used onionskin when I started practicing law.
Q That's the extra copy that it would make, self-carboning or something?
A Carbon paper.
Q Okay.
A Typing on a typewriter, making all those copies. And we made less copies then.
Q Yeah.
A Then you moved to what you'd call mag card. There was a machine that was the predecessor of where we are now. Copy machines, it was a thermo fax machine that was wet to make copies. Xerox, of course, came on the scene and made the changes in the copying.
Q How would you handle, for example, document production before the advent of copy machines and things like that?
A You gotta remember discovery and document production was not like it is today.
Q I know.
A You don't produce all that stuff. It's adverse examinations, not depositions. And you'd talk to witnesses.
Q But how would you then, if it's the other side's witness or the employee or something that you couldn't get to, how would you get the information?
A You would try to take an adverse deposition and sometimes have to go to court to get it.
Q Why would you have to go to court to get it?
A 'Cause it wasn't a matter of right to take their deposition.
Q It wasn't? You had to show that you needed it?
A Yes. And the discovery of documents is not like it is today.
Q So what was it like?
A You know, did I have cases in which there were a substantial number of documents like today. Today I've been involved in cases where we've produced close to a million documents for production. That would never happen then. The court wouldn't allow it. They'd make the other side designate what they wanted. We'd have to try to get it, find it. Copying, there wasn't -- it wasn't the preservation of copies the way there is now.
Q Uh-huh (affirmative).
A Carroll Metzner used to come to court, we tried several cases in a day if it would be scheduled that way, but he'd open his file when he got into court trying a motor vehicle wreck case, and he'd open the file and try it from the file.
Q So what would he have in there? Did you try cases against Carroll Metzner?
A I did not try -- I didn't do anything like that.
Q Yeah, yeah.
A Actually, I did. I did some, and I decided I didn't like it.
Q Yeah. Defense work or --
A No. Plaintiffs' work. Plaintiff work.
Q And --
A I represented one gal who was hit in a school for teaching people how to ride horseback, and the horse stumbled and fell and she went with it, and she was severely injured in her fall. She was of the same age then as my daughter and, you know, I decided that's -- I'm not gonna handle personal injury cases. Somehow I just -- it was just more than I wanted to handle.
Q Yeah, yeah. Okay. You said not a deposition, but an adverse examination. Is that what you called them then?
A Uh-huh (affirmative), yes.
Q And you would have to ask the court for permission?
A Generally, the other side would give you an adverse examination for people who were obviously parties to the action.
Q Yeah.
A Beyond that, you might have to go to court to get it.
Q Okay. And it was sometimes denied?
A Sometimes denied.
Q Okay. What kind of a showing would you have to make?
A This person knows information that would be relevant to the trial of this case, not that they may have information.
Q So was it -- well, how about, like, the disclosure of witnesses? Commonly now every scheduling order says you have to list your witnesses that you're going to rely on. Did you have those then?
A We had those, yes.
Q Okay. All right. Could you then -- would you have time to -- anybody named could be deposed or examined?
A That would be discussed. You might go out and interview them. And you could do that, even if they were the other side's witnesses, if they were third-party witnesses.
Q Okay. All right. Would you find sometimes they wouldn't talk to you?
A Sure.
Q And then could you get an adverse examination order?
A If you could establish to the court that you had sufficient grounds.
Q Okay. And I know I'm jumping around here, Earl, a lot, but I'm sort of covering this range up until into the eighties when I start to understand it.
A You were -- where was I going with that now?
Q Oh, well. Never mind. Oh, I know what I was asking. Were you doing mostly state work or federal work at that time? And were there differences between them?
A I was doing mostly state work. I did some federal work. I intentionally went to federal court to volunteer for criminal representation in order to get into federal court.
Q Okay.
A And I got involved in one case up in the Apostle Islands when the Government was out condemning all of those islands up there for the lakeshore. And I represented one guy who owned part of an island. We went to trial against the Government with respect to --
Q Try that in Superior?
A No. I tried that here. Jim Doyle handled them here. He handled all of them. I think there were 10, 12 cases that went to trial on condemnation in federal court.
Q But I thought wasn't there a federal court up in Superior as well? And in Eau Claire I thought there was a federal court?
A There's a federal court -- well, there's a federal bankruptcy judge in Eau Claire. And you can go up there to federal court and try -- and I think some of the district judges now do go to Eau Claire. I don't know that they go to Superior.
Q Is there a federal court in Superior?
A I don't know.
Q Maybe I have that wrong. Okay. Judge Stone was a famous federal judge; wasn't he?
A He was.
Q Okay. So you appeared in front of him?
A Very rarely, but once in a while.
Q Okay. All right. You mentioned Judge Doyle. What were the other federal judges that you remember?
A Well, Shabaz.
Q Okay.
A Actually, I was on the panel that recommended names to senators. The lawyers represented were Ragatz and Dean and a guy from Janesville. Because of the way that that selection process went, we -- we dissented to the recommendation to recommend John Shabaz, which all, in turn, hit the newspapers. You know, ah, I never thought Judge Shabaz held that against me in any way.
Q Really?
A I tried quite a few cases in front of him. He treated everybody the same, bad.
Q So I heard.
A But I also think he referred the client (unintelligible).
Q All right. Okay. Would that have been Brennan or Steil out of Janesville? That was a big firm down there.
A It was Brennan, yeah. Brennan.
Q Okay.
A Joe Brennan.
Q Did you have any favorite lawyers in town in the Dane County practice that you liked to work with? I'm not gonna ask you about least favorite 'cause I don't know who's still around, but people that you –
A I generally get along with lawyers pretty well. There were some lawyers in the history that I said, “Don't call me, let's deal in writing.” I can count those maybe on about two fingers.
Q Okay. All right. But nobody that particularly you'd enjoy trying a case against or --
A Well, you mentioned Dick Cates. I mean, Dick Cates was a wonderful guy.
Q Yeah, sure. Did you have any other cases with Dick?
A I never had any other cases with Dick.
Q Okay. How about Carroll Metzner? Any other cases with him?
A No other cases with Carroll either.
Q Who else? Anybody else at Lawton & Cates you had, Olson or Gardner or --
A I did have a case involving -- he's not with the firm anymore. There was Dick and then John Carlson.
Q There was Kent Carnell. Kent is still there.
A Who was just above Kent?
Q I would have guessed Carlson. There was Steve Schooler for a while. He's not there. John Cates is not there. Um, somebody say who isn't there. Graylow? You didn't do labor law, though. Ehlke?
A Well, no. I didn't have any cases with Ehlke.
Q Arellano?
A No.
Q How long ago was that?
A Well, this was --
Q Aumock? You didn't have anything with Aumock. He just did family law. Bowers?
A Bowers.
Q John Bowers? What did you have against John Bowers?
A I represented a professor at the University of Wisconsin that had a charge made against him within the confines of the University, and John was appointed to represent the University of Wisconsin. So we represented -- we had a trial in front of three arbitrators, one of which was a federal judge in the Eastern District. And that was a hotly contested -- contested case with John. But we got along all right.
Q How about -- I'll go through some of the firms. The Bell Metzner firm, like Steve Caulum?
A No. But Ward Richter in that case.
Q Ward Richter? Okay. Roger Gierhart?
A Roger and I went to law school together.
Q Oh.
A We didn't really get involved in cases.
Q John Markson?
A John and I -- I don't think John and I had a case.
Q How about Frank Coyne? Did you have anything?
A I had a case with Frank Coyne.
Q Okay.
A John Winner.
Q Okay. Ah, John Axelrod. Um, who else? Jack De Witt? Did you ever have a case?
A Yeah. Oh, Jack De Witt was involved in that case.
Q Oh. That's right. You said that. McManus? Did you have any cases with him?
A I had some cases with Jack.
Q 'Cause he did some criminal defense.
A He did.
Q Okay. All right.
A Let's see. Who was -- I should have brushed up on my old names.
Q I could have brought the book in.
A Jenswold. John Jenswold.
Q Oh. Okay.
A I used to know John. He and I became friends. He got me into what's called Torske Klubben, which is the Norwegian fish-eating club.
Q Oh. Are you Norwegian?
A Oh, yeah. All the way.
Q Okay. And what's involved in the fish-eating club?
A Meeting once a month at the Madison Club and eating some fish and drinking some Aquavit and hearing people tell Ole and Lena jokes. There's usually a presentation of some sort.
Q This still goes on?
A Still goes on.
Q Oh. Okay. That's good. So 2000 you joined what was then Boardman. Oh, did you have any cases against Henry Field? He did a lot of trial work.
A He did. I did. Yeah, I had case.
Q Was he the one who tried to get you to come here originally, or was it someone else?
A No. It was Dick Olson that tried to get me originally way back in the sixties.
Q So when you came here in 2000, this place was already quite big.
A It was. There were 30 lawyers or more here.
Q Okay. All right. And did the nature of your practice change?
A No, no. I brought my practice with me.
Q Okay. And --
A And the culture of this firm was quite similar to the culture of the LaFollette firm. In fact, Gordon was a member of this firm before World War II.
Q Okay.
A And he actually -- he and LaFollette were both members of the firm before World War II.
Q Okay.
A They then went into World War II and were stationed together in the Pacific. Gordon was on the ship when the treaty was signed in Japan.
Q Oh. He was on the Missouri.
A And anyway, they -- while they were in the Pacific, they discussed, decided that when they got back they would form their own law firm. So Gordon came back, I think it was 1947 and set up the LaFollette & Sinykin law firm. LaFollette came and joined him.
Q Okay. All right.
A Shortly thereafter it came LaFollette Sinykin Doyle with Jim Doyle.
Q Jim Doyle, the elder?
A Elder.
Q When did he go onto the bench?
A He went on the bench the year I joined the firm.
Q '65?
A '65.
Q Okay. I didn't realize he was on there that long. Okay.
A Well, let's see. I can't remember when he died.
Q I graduated in 1986, and I remember he did the swearing in for the Western District at that point. He had already lost a lot of his battle with cancer or whatever it was. But I don't think he did much after that. But I never had an active federal practice, so I wouldn't have known really anyway.
Q Okay. So now you've merged with Lathrop, what was Lathrop & Clark --
A Uh-huh (affirmative).
Q -- to get even bigger. Let's see. Have you hired any particular people that you've brought in that you've mentored or things like that that you've done over the years?
A Oh, I think I've probably mentored quite a few people, but -- (Pause) I don't quite know how to answer that. I mean, I've worked with a lot of young -- a lot of young lawyers.
Q Less formal. I mean, now we talk about mentoring as though it's a right of passage almost. It's just something you did back then; right?
A Sure. Sure. I worked with Tim Muldowney over in the Burkholdt (???) firm. I worked with Dave McFarlane who's now over in Ward Richter's office. Ah, I've worked with Sarah Zylstra here quite closely since I've come here, and lots of others. Larry Bensky.
Q When you try your cases, do you frequently have a second chair with you, or third?
A At times, yes. But not always.
Q Do you like having a second chair, or do you prefer to do it on your own?
A I generally prefer to do it on my own.
Q Really? Why is that? Just the way you are?
A Because, um, there's a theme in a lawsuit. Every lawsuit has a theme. And you have a theme that you want to carry through all the way through, from one witness to the next witness to the next witness on down the line. I am usually more comfortable, or at least I was, probably less so now because I'm -- since I've come here I think I've always had somebody second-chair me. But when I tried that case three weeks for the District Attorney's Office, it was just me. And I knew where everything was and I could handle it all.
Q Do you have a preference in a jury trial or a court trial? Or does that depend on the kind of case or anything?
A No. It depends on the kind of case. But generally I would prefer a jury trial.
Q To me, one of the most fun parts of it is always the voir dire, communicating with the jurors. You get to talk with them. I mean, do you like that part too, or --
A Yes. But it is -- it is something you learn or begin to appreciate as time goes on. You don't -- the first time it's pretty scary.
Q All of it's pretty scary the first time.
A Well, even the, yeah, the second and third time is pretty scary. It depends on the jury in terms of whether there's somebody up there that wants to talk and you can talk to them and try to get them to open up. But, you know, in federal court, that doesn't happen anymore.
Q You don't? Does the judge do the voir dire?
A The judge does the voir dire.
Q I know Judge Johnston in LaFayette County is a big proponent of that. Have you seen any changes over the years in how you perceive jurors or how jurors perceive cases and how they approach their jobs, do you think?
A Ah, I don't think so.
Q Do you ever poll a jury in any way or try to talk to them?
A I have done that a little bit, but not much.
Q Yeah. And I tend to think they have the right to not be talked to, to be left alone. i had one stop me in a grocery store parking lot, but he stopped me.
A Yeah.
Q So the few times I've done it, it's interesting.
A It's interesting to hear what they have to say.
Q Yeah. So you don't?
A I usually don't do that.
Q But as to how they interact with you or how they pay attention or seem interested in the case, you haven't seen any changes over the years?
A I don't think so, no. Some of the cases that I handle are -- don't have a lot of sex appeal in terms of getting their attention. But that's part of trying a case to the jury to make sure it's interesting to them from some point of view, some legal justice point of view.
Q What was the longest jury trial you've handled?
A I think three weeks is about the longest I've had. And there was one in Kansas City, it may have gone into the fourth week.
Q Okay. All right. You mentioned serving on the Board of Governors. Any other state Bar or local Bar? You were Dane County Bar president at one point, I think in the eighties; right?
A I did bring a CV if that's what you want.
Q Sure. We'll make that an exhibit. Earl, you have done all this stuff and you give me a one-page CV, no references.
A No references.
Q I don't think you need any. Okay. Anything on here you want to talk about?
A Fellow with the American College of Trial Lawyers.
Q That's something.
A Yeah.
Q Was that something you applied for? Were you nominated?
A No, no. You don't apply for that. You don't know when it's happening. And that's considered a fairly prestigious organization.
Q Yeah. When did you go onto that?
A That was in I think 1992, something like that.
Q Did you just open an envelope and there it was?
A I think I got a call from Gene Gehl, who was then the head of, I guess, the Committee for the American College for Wisconsin. I got a call from him.
Q Okay. And you list on your various committees of the State Bar that you've done the Board of Governors Executive Committee. It says First Organizing Chairman. What's that? Was that of the Executive Committee?
A No. Of the Minority Clerkship Committee.
Q Oh. Okay. What was the Minority Clerkship Program?
A They -- the purpose of the Minority Clerkship Program is to get minorities in law school to work for law firms to learn how to practice law, get them acclimated to practice law and to get the entre into essentially white law firms in Madison and Wisconsin.
Q You've done a fair amount on the ethics area, the Professional Ethics Committee, and you were on the Supreme Court Ethics 2000 Committee. Was that when there was the change from what we called BAPR to OLR now?
A No. That was subsequent to that change. But the American Bar Association established an Ethics 2000 Committee and set up a whole new set-up of rules. Then the question becomes should Wisconsin adopt it or not. And that's what that was about, if you adopt the ABA. And essentially, we did.
Q Yeah.
A But there were some changes. And those changes were recommended to the Supreme Court.
Q Did you like that kind of work?
A Yeah, it was -- yeah, that was interesting. Do I -- there are some people who get involved in ethical issues fairly heavily. I haven't gone around giving speeches on ethics or any of that sort of thing.
Q You served on one of these ethics committees investigating attorneys?
A District 9 Investigating Committee.
Q How long did you do that?
A You know, I don't remember.
Q It seems, I mean, you've done a lot of things over the years, generally one project or so at a time?
A Yes. Or prosecuting a case.
Q Oh. You have prosecuted for the ethics. Okay. All right. Before we started to record, I reminded you of the famous Progressive case that you had.
A Uh-huh (affirmative).
Q Talk briefly about that.
A Well, I don't remember if you were at the Dane County Bar --
Q I was. Talk a little bit about that. This was about ten years or more ago that I remember you talking about it.
A Yeah. The Progressive case involved the Progressive magazine here in Madison. Gordon had represented the Progressive magazine for years, helped set it up, create it, or create the governing body. And they came on to this guy who had traveled the country for not quite a year going to all of the testing areas for atomic bombs, hydrogen bomb, and did some research, but not a lot of heavy research, and wrote this article how to make an H-bomb.
The editors wrote -- ultimately decided that they should advise the Federal Government that they were being asked to publish this article, and they sent a copy to the Government. I came back from skiing one spring from spring vacation, and Gordon said, "We got a big case." And the Government had said to the Progressive magazine, "Give us all your copies and do not publish or else we'll commence litigation."
They, of course, press people, said, no, we're not going to do that. And so they started litigation. Jim Doyle was the district judge. He had a long connection with the editor of the Progressive, or the ex-editor, actually.
Q And that was Kerwin Crow?
A Well, that's Irwin Knoll was then the editor. But the previous editor with whom Jim Doyle had a close relationship -- I can't remember his name. I'll try to get that to you if I can -- but he was a long-time member of the press. So Judge Doyle recused himself. Frank Tuerkheimer was the U.S. Attorney. They -- and it got shipped down to Milwaukee. The Government insisted that we all have a clearance, top-secret clearance, so we had to be investigated. Me, Gordon, our secretaries had to be cleared. And they put a safe in my office where the -- where the article was kept. So I had custody of the article. And they started suit in federal court to enjoin us from publishing the article. And that was a big deal. It took off from the New York Times versus Sullivan case in which the U.S. Supreme Court said you can't do that, even though they went in and sold the documents.
There were all kinds of FBI agents throughout town, U.S. Attorney and Department of Justice people all over town, all over Madison. And so the case proceeded. We had time in which to get experts. We had an expert from California, from the proving ground in California -- I can't remember the name of that one either; he was a physicist who disagreed with the Government's bringing the lawsuit -- and several other people testifying. And mostly it was a case fought with affidavits as compared to depositions. There are lots of reasons for that, but the Government didn't want to give -- allow depositions of their people and, for various reasons, we didn't want to have depositions either.
Went to a hearing in front of Judge War[Warren?] in Milwaukee and he granted a preliminary injunction. The American Civil Liberties Union strongly believed that that preliminary injunction should be appealed immediately. And we didn't do that because we believed that we ultimately would prove right, that the information was out there, all you had to do was go get it. And whether we could prove that or whether somebody else -- and we knew all kinds of other entities were out doing the same thing, that is, they were out searching for the answer to how to make an H-bomb.
So the case finally came up to the 7th Circuit on an expedited basis, but not -- not the kind of expedition that you saw in New York Times versus Sullivan.
Q Yeah.
A We argued the case in the 7th Circuit, and two days later another similar type magazine published how to make an H-bomb, and the Government dropped the case, puffed away, left town. That was it. So I had to go through the article and continue to redact. I suspect over at Godfrey & Kahn there are still some documents kept over there under top-secret clearance, but I don't know. They may have just destroyed them.
Q That would have been about 1978 maybe?
A '79.
Q '79. Okay.
A The story I told at the Dane County Bar meeting was that the -- we were in what was then called the new WP&L Building.
Q Okay.
A 222 West Wash. It was right across the street from the YMCA, this old dilapidated building, by that time abandoned. And my office looked straight across the street at those old rooms up there.
Q That's where the Tommy Thompson Building is now?
A Yeah, right. And I would come to work, I'd work nights. I worked a lot of nights on that case. And I remember three, maybe four, three occasions I left at two o'clock in the morning, drove home, no more than walked in the door and the telephone would ring, and, “This is ADT Security. Mr. Munson, you left the safe open." Bang. I'd go back down there. So they knew when I left the office. They knew when I got home because they were wired to know that the safe was open. That was fair. But they knew where I was at different times every moment.
Q Yeah. You were closely surveilled. Did you ever think of looking up your file?
A Looking up my file?
Q Yeah. They must have had a file on you.
A Yeah, I'm sure they did. I never did look at it. But I had a top-secret clearance in the Navy as well, so it was pretty easy for them to give me a clearance.
Q Yeah, yeah, yeah. Let's see, what other kinds of things. Were you a member of any other county Bars or just the Dane County Bar Association?
A Dane County Bar.
Q Any other specialty Bar associations you were -- well, like, there's a Federal District Bar Association.
A Western District.
Q Western District, yeah. Any other state Bar associations?
A No. But I'm a member of the Court in the District of Oregon and the District of Colorado, Northern District of Illinois. I had one case down in Arkansas, but I'm not a member of the Bar.
Q Okay. You mentioned taking some federal pro bono appointments in criminal law cases. Do you still do that?
A No, I haven't done that recently.
Q Do you do any other pro bono representation at this point?
A Oh. Do I do it now?
Q Yeah.
A Um, you know, I think I finished up my last pro bono about a year ago.
Q And what was that?
A That was a gal that -- it was a gal that I had represented, I think, from about 1995, something like that, all the way through.
Q Yeah.
A She was disabled, ah, living on approximately $9,000 a year, or a month -- a year, excuse me. Her husband didn't pay his -- her ex-husband didn't pay his payments to her according to the divorce. She was literally (inaudible). So I represented her through all kinds of litigation, including one of the cases went to the Supreme Court.
Q Really?
A Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Q Yeah. Yeah.
A And she's got some money.
Q Okay. Good. Good. I don't know. I have a general question. What would you see as the most significant changes over the years? Any number of areas that I've got here. Yeah, I mean, there's so many.
A Technology. You mentioned the amount of papers that come through, the way cases are handled.
The amount of paperwork is -- the amount of discovery is really causing concern within the federal judiciary in particular. They're trying to change discovery to try to dampen it down a little bit.
Q The battle cry there is always that it's discovery or trial by surprise.
A Yeah. Those of us who have tried criminal cases were kind of used to that.
Q Do you like that better?
A You know, it is certainly more interesting and exciting. But the problem with the discovery today is because of the electronic storage of records and e-mails and computers that people don't walk down the hall to talk to people. They e-mail them.
Q Yeah.
A They don't call them up and take notes. They e-mail, whatever. So that there's a generation of -- a whole new generation of documents, potential documents that are electronic that are potentially discoverable, yes.
Q Yes. And we're taught you have to turn over every stone and be prepared and be thorough.
A We are indeed, yeah.
Q You were no less thorough back then in the sixties; right?
A No, no. Tried not to be. Tried to be as thorough as possible.
Q Sure.
A But -- but if -- I told you we had some cases where we turned over literally a million documents electronic. That's a major -- that's a major task because before you turn them over, we have to look at them first –
Q Yes. True.
A -- to make sure that what's going is, number one, relevant, does not involve something else, and two, does not involve attorney/client relationship, on down the line. So that the amount of legal time spent reviewing documents, producing documents, etc., is just enormous.
Q Yeah. So that's a major change?
A Uh-huh (affirmative).
Q So even though you're trying your cases without a second chair, you must have a lot of support people going through those documents for you.
A Yes.
Q Right?
A Sure. Today you have to have somebody who can run the ELMO or whatever you want to call it to project up on the screen.
Q Oh, oh, that kind of thing, yeah.
A When I tried that Woodington and Kelly case back in 1965, we went to the University of Wisconsin and were able to use -- to have them produce photos that we could then put on a machine and project up on the screen.
Q Yeah.
A That was probably one of the first cases that ever got tried using that sort of a process.
Q Well, that must have been a fairly document-heavy case if it was check kiting. You're dealing with a lot of checks going back and forth and showing that they were not really legitimate. Um, but still, nowhere near what you're dealing with now.
A Nowhere near. There still is a rule that allows you to summarize voluminous documents, so I did make use of that.
Q Okay. How about client relationships? Do you see any -- you've got a lot of different kinds of clients. You mentioned this woman that was living on $9,000 a year that you represented. You represent American Family, which is certainly a major insurance company. Do you see a difference in how clients come to expect from a lawyer, what clients expect from a lawyer?
A I think clients probably are more, I don't want to use the word "tainted," but they're more -- they think they're more educated about the law than other – than clients in the old days, that is, they've seen TV shows about lawyers, litigation. They read all kinds of news articles about lawyers and litigation. And they have an expectation that may not be as realistic as --
Q But the clients you're dealing with are going to be the higher-level business executives mostly; right? Or am I assuming too much here?
A In recent years that's -- yes, in the last 20, 25 years, that's true.
Q Okay. Recent years, 25 years. I've only been practicing 30, so -- But is that something that you've seen that has changed, I mean, that they expect more or they feel they know more? And how does that affect how they come to the lawyer/client relationship?
A I can't -- I can't say that sophisticated clients and house counsel that they are much different now than they were. You know, most of them are pretty sophisticated and take a fairly realistic attitude about litigation and the cost of the litigation. So --
Q Do you find -- I'm sorry.
A The average citizen --
Q Yeah.
A -- watching television shows may have a different view.
Q Do you have stable clients -- that's the wrong word, but people who bring their legal problems to you, or is it more just particular problems?
A More particular problems.
Q So you really rely on -- you don't do any advertising for people like that. It's just strictly word of mouth?
A Correct.
Q Okay. All right. You know, one thing everybody always wants to know is, well, what were your salaries back when you were in the DA's Office and when you started with LaFollette & Sinykin. Do you remember any of that?
A Sure. In the Navy it was $4,000.
Q A year?
A Uh-huh (affirmative).
Q Okay.
A I got --
Q Housing allowance too?
A -- housing allowance. I enjoyed the Navy. I liked the Navy. I thought general court martials were, frankly, quite fair. Even after I got to the DA's Office, in comparison to juries, I thought general court martials were quite fair. There was a special court martial and summary judgment. But at the general court martial level I thought it was quite fair. It was a good system of justice. In any event, I came back to the DA's Office, I think it was $6,000, something like that. And when I went to work for LaFollette, it was about $9,000 a year.
Q Do you remember what your secretary was paid at LaFollette?
A I have no idea.
Q Okay. All right. And obviously, that's increased over the years?
A Somewhat.
Q Yeah, yeah. What about the pressures for overhead? Have you seen those change over the years, I mean, the economics of a law firm? I've been in places where just everybody was just working just to make overhead, and I don't know if that's an individual firm kind of a thing or if it's something that's increased over the years.
A I think that all law firms face significant overhead. You can't be down in Madison, Wisconsin on the Square and not be paying substantial amounts for rental. You gotta be fair to your secretaries to be competitive, your assistants, and be competitive with the other firms, so –
Q But it's always been that way. That hasn't changed over the years.
A It's always been that way. As I just told you, as I told you earlier, Gordon would always say we've got to take care of the staff.
Q Yeah.
A And they come first.
Q I don't know. Any highlights or things? I mean, if you could go -- what would you go back and do again? Ah, I'm not interested in regrets. I'm interested in what was the most fun that you had, the best thing that you got to do.
A Well, I enjoy practicing law.
Q You still do.
A I still do, yeah.
Q How old are you?
A Seventy-nine.
Q Okay. And --
A And I probably spent too many hours practicing law. But, again, I did and do enjoy it. The one thing I put a note down is that I think the Dane County Bar ought to do a little bit of history about the Dane County Legal Aid Society, the Dane County Legal Services Center and the efforts of the Dane County Bar back in the old days to provide assistance to indigent people.
Q What do you mean by that?
A Do you remember the Dane County Legal Services Center at all?
Q No, I don't.
A Your dad was on the Board with -- he and I were both on the Board.
Q That wasn't the thing that worked with baby; was it? Or was that something else?
A No. That was something else.
Q Okay.
A When I went to law school, there was a Dane County Legal Aid Society, and there was a gal who worked taking intake and distributing out cases. She was paid by the Dane County Bar Association.
Q Really?
A She had an office down in the Law School.
Q Yeah?
A And law students would volunteer for cases, would get assigned to a lawyer and go work with the lawyer on that case as part of giving his time free and the law student working with him.
Q And when was that?
A I got out in '59, so it was '57, '58, '59.
Q Okay.
A But the Dane County Bar was paying for that deal. Then I came back to the DA's Office (CHECK????) and somewhere along the line the Dane County Legal Services Center was created. It was a corporation to provide not only representation for civil cases, but also for criminal cases. Chuck Jones was the first administrator.
Q That wasn't the judge, Charles Jones?
A P. Charles Jones.
Q Okay.
A They had a -- they had an old rickety office on Pinckney Street over where Johnny Delmonico's, that restaurant, is over there. Dirty carpeting, not a good set-up at all. But Chuck Jones had a group of guys working and gals working for the Dane County Legal Services Center -- it was funded, in part, by Dane County and funded, in part, by the Dane County Bar Association -- to provide representation for folks who couldn't afford lawyers and to provide representation for indigent criminal defendants.
Every year there was a fight with the Dane County Board about how much money they would contribute to it, and the Dane County Bar Association also had big meetings about how much money should go in. Well, Chuck had a group working for him that just, they had the real culture, the real esprit de corps. If you found some of those people, they would continue to talk about the virtues of that organization and how well it was run and how well it formed.
Q Did you take some cases?
A I took some, but I was on the Board, as was your father. And then Johnson's -- Lyndon Johnson's Great Society and the National Legal Services Corporation formed, and they elected to put an office in Madison. We objected to that because if they'd just give the Dane County Legal Services the money, it would main -- continue to keep the Dane County Bar participating in pro bono work through the Dane County Legal Services, etc.
But that isn't how it worked out. They set up their own office, and that was the end of Dane County Legal Services. It went down the tubes at that point. But as I view it, during the time I've been a lawyer, there was a fairly high participation of Dane County lawyers in pro bono work, criminal or (inaudible) up until then. Then it began to decline, I thought, amongst lawyers. But I think it's on the rise now. I think that the younger members of the Bar are actively participating in pro bono services.
Q What I know -- I do mostly family law at this point -- there's the Family Law Clinic, and it's very well supported. You know, I volunteer. There's usually three lawyers a week, and there's enough lawyers that I'm not called to do it more than two times, maybe three times a year. And some of the very well respected family law attorneys volunteer there. I think that's a good example.
A That's a great example.
Q That's not the same as taking a case, by any means. But it's a good start to, you know, giving people the help on those.
A That's interesting. I wasn't familiar with that.
Q Can you think of anybody else who was active in that who may still be around I could talk to?
A Yeah, I can. But I'll have to give you the names.
Q Okay. That's interesting.
A I think that's a nice story of the Dane County Bar Association.
Q Yeah, yeah. Maybe we'll put it in a newsletter as an historical piece.
A Have somebody that was on the staff with Chuck.
Q Is he still around?
A No. He's deceased.
Q Okay. Yeah, if you think of some of the other people, that would be good. Okay. I don't know. Anything you want to say to future lawyers who might be getting at it? You've really -- you've really enjoyed this practicing. Too bad we didn't videotape you 'cause it just comes through, your whole demeanor on this.
A Yeah, I think the law is a good profession. You have to treat it as a profession and not as -- it is obviously a business too, but it is a profession first.
Q Was that your dad's approach too?
A Sure.
Q Do you have any kids who went into law? Do you have any kids that went into law?
A No, no. I have one daughter. She designs computer programs for Microsoft.
Q Okay. Any other family members that went into law or --
A No.
Q Did you ever talk to your dad as to why he went into law?
A My dad was an old-line progressive. He ran for office, ran for the Senate, ran for Attorney General.
Q State Senate or Washington, D.C.?
A No, no, no, no. State Senate.
Q Okay.
A And after World War II, the Progressive Party began to disintegrate, and the issue was whether you were going to be a Democrat or a Republican. He had been active in the Progressive Party. And he elected not to get active in either party. In fact, I recall Boris Hoffs-Wilkie (CHECK????) coming down and talking to my dad about becoming involved in the Democratic Party, and he said, "No, I'm gonna stay out of politics." But why he became a lawyer, I really don't know.
Q How long did he practice?
A About fifty years.
Q And it sounds like he had much more of a small-town practice?
A Very much so.
Q More of a general practice?
A General practice.
Q Did he handle some criminal cases and things too?
A Maybe once in a while as an offshoot from representing somebody else in the community.
Q And he was solo, you said?
A He was solo.
Q Do you remember anything about his law practice, his offices or anything like that?
A Yeah. I worked in 'em for two summers.
Q That's right. You said that, yeah.
A Yeah. Even more different than what we're talking about.
Q Oh, yeah. Did he have an assistant or a --
A He had a secretary who was with him for about 40 years.
Q Did he ever have any partners?
A No.
Q He was a small-town lawyer?
A A small-town lawyer in Cambridge.
Q But that's not something that appealed to you. Did he ever ask you to join him?
A Oh, I think he would have liked that. But -- and I didn't know what I was going to do when I got out of law school. I knew I had to go into the military.
Q Yeah.
A And when I got into the Navy and started trying cases, frankly, at law school point, being able to try cases was probably the last thing I had in mind. But I enjoyed it, and I thought I became pretty good at it.
Q Yeah.
A So I -- it was not -- going back to Cambridge then was not an option.
Q Okay.
A Although when I went to LaFollette, I told them that I'd like to make sure that I could help my dad out whenever he needs help. And I did. I went back and helped him with cases.
Q So when did he -- you said he went 50 years. From when until when?
A Well, he died -- he started in 1932, and he died in 1985.
Q Okay.
A He probably was off practicing, not practicing anymore a couple years before that.
Q It must have been -- 1932 was a hell of a year to start practicing law.
A I think.
Q An election year and the Depression.
A He was brought up on a farm, and the farm burned down, so he had to quit law school and go back and work on the farm.
Q In Cambridge?
A He was in London.
Q London?
A Do you know where London is?
Q No.
A It's north of Cambridge.
Q Oh. Is it Dane County?
A Yeah, it's in Dane County. And actually, it's on a railroad track in north Cambridge. And there was one time when the railroad was gonna come through and it was gonna make London a big deal. But my grandfather had his farm, and anyway, the farm burned down and he had to go back. So he never graduated from law school. He took the bar exam, studied for the Bar and took the bar exam 'cause he couldn't afford to go back to law school.
Q So you could just take the Bar? Had he gone to -- well, that was before you had to go to undergraduate even; right?
A Oh, no. He -- I don't know the answer to that.
Q Oh. Okay.
A But he graduated undergraduate and then went to law school.
Q Okay.
A And had to leave early.
Q Okay. And your grandfather, had he gone to college or anything too?
A No. He was a farmer. My grandfather on my father's side was born here in the United States, but all my other grandparents came over from Norway.
Q Okay. All right.
A Including my grandmother.
Q Well, good. You've given me more than an hour and a half here. I'll thank you. Anything -- did you want to add anything?
A I just took some notes down here.
Q Yeah, whatever you want to say.
A I don't want to say anything unless --
Q Oh. As an aside, the stuff you listed on your resume was -- is law-related. Any other civic stuff that you particularly enjoyed?
A Oh, right now I'm on the board of the Planning Commission for Shorewood Hills and that sort of thing. But mainly I've been involved in the legal profession.
Q Okay. Well, I guess that's good. Thanks for taking the time, and I'll just say that we've got 4:40 or so. And what we'll do is we'll do the transcript of this and send it to you to proof if you want to check spellings of names and fill things in. All right?