1

August 2004Volume 13, Number 2

Newsletter of the

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

BAR ASSOCIATION

© 2004 Western District of Wisconsin Bar Association

Joseph D. Kearney Provides Thought-ProvokingKeynote Address at Annual Meeting

Joseph D. Kearney, Dean of the Marquette Univer-sity Law School, provided the keynote address at theWDBA’s annual luncheon. In addition to serving asDean, Kearney stated that he serves on the Board ofDirectors of the Eastern District of Wisconsin BarAssociation, which is modeled on the WDBA.Kearney thanked the WDBA membership for thegroup’s leadership.

Kearney noted that his speech, entitled “SomeObservations on the Wisconsin Court System,” hadnothing to do with the federal courts, but inquired(with a smile), “Is it not the prerogative of the tenuredacademic to speak on whatever he or she wishes?”Kearney indicated that while he has not made the studynecessary to give some large-scale assessment of theWisconsin courts, he stated that he does “have fairlyextensive experience with the Wisconsin SupremeCourt,” and that he does “have a reflection that [hewishes] to share.”

Before doing so, however, Kearney commentedthat he has a “somewhat unusual relationship with theCourt: in some instances, [he is] its agent, as when bythe Court’s appointment [he] serve[s] on its Board ofBar Examiners, this year as vice-chair.” In otherinstances, Kearney stated, he is an advocate before theCourt, although like his predecessor, Dean HowardEisenberg, he does “this in [his] capacity as a memberof the Wisconsin bar (and through [his] p.o. box) andnot through any affiliation with Marquette LawSchool.” And in other instances still, Kearney re-marked, in his academic capacity, he is an independentobserver and commentator concerning the Court. It isin the third of these roles as an academic that he“reflect[s] on matters of public policy.”

By way ofbackground,Kearney brieflydiscussed therestructuring in thelate 1970’s of theWisconsin appel-late system. “Theintent in creatingthe Court ofAppeals and inessentially elimi-nating mandatoryreview in theWisconsin Supreme Court was not merely to lightenthe workload of the Supreme Court. It was also (oreven primarily) to preserve the ability of the SupremeCourt to concentrate its energies on important casesposing substantial legal questions with implications forother cases or situations. In short, and to use phrasesheard at the time, while the Wisconsin Court ofAppeals was to be an error-correcting court, theWisconsin Supreme Court was to be a law-developingcourt.” Kearney then went on to evaluate how theWisconsin Supreme Court has done.

To make that assessment, Kearney discussed twofactors that are relevant in answering this question: (1)“the Court’s inputs—the cases that it takes, in particu-lar as measured against the cases it declines to take”;and (2) the “Court’s outputs—its decisions.” Kearneynoted that the former “is exceedingly difficult tomeasure.” Kearney discussed that in 2001, he began

(See Kearney on page 4)

2

Executive CommitteeJames R. Troupis, President

(608) 257-3501 jrtroupis@mbf.comMichael J. Modl, V.P./President Elect

(608) 283-6702 modl@axley.comJennifer Sloan Lattis, Secretary

(608) 267-3519 lattisjs@doj.state.wi.usGregory T. Everts, Treasurer

(608) 283-2460 gte@quarles.comTodd Smith, Past President

(608) 257-3911 tsmith@gklaw.com

Committee ChairsJames Troupis, Alternative Dispute Resolution

(608) 257-3501 jrtroupis@mbf.comTodd Smith, Co-Chair Communications

(608) 257-3911 tsmith@gklaw.comLeslie Herje, Co-Chair Communications(608) 264-5158 leslie.herje@usdoj.gov

David Harth, Pro Bono / Pro Se(608) 663-7470 dharth@hewm.com

Mark Tilkens, Membership(608) 258-4267 mtilkens@foleylaw.com

Mark Neuser, Courthouse Facilities (608) 266-9338 mark.neuser@courts.state.wi.us

Ted Long, Rules, Practice & Procedure(608) 257-1507 tjl@lathropclark.com

Andrew Clarkowski, Website (608) 283-6705 aclarkowski@axley.com

Board of GovernorsRuss Golla 2002-05

Kevin Palmersheim 2002-05J.B. Van Hollen 2002-05

Margery Mebane Tibbetts 2003-06Sarah Zylstra 2003-06

Vacant 2003-2006Robert E. Shumaker 2004-2007

Lynn Stathas 2004-07Vacant 2004-07

Theresa Owens Permanent

Past Presidents on Board of GovernorsCatherine M. Rottier (Ex Officio) 2000-05

Paul Barnett (Ex Officio) 2001-06Thomas Bertz (Ex Officio) 2002-07Leslie Herje (Ex Officio) 2003-08Todd Smith (Ex Officio) 2004-09

Western District of WisconsinBar Association 2004-05

The 2004-05 Officers of the WDBA are, from left toright: Todd Smith, Past-President; Jim Troupis, Presi-dent; Mike Modl, Vice-President/President Elect;Jennifer Sloan Lattis, Secretary; and Greg Everts (not-pictured), Treasurer.

WDBA President Jim Troupis presents an award toTodd Smith in recognition of his service as AssociationPresident for 2003-04

Western District

Bar Association

Begins New Year

with New Officers

and Board

3

President's Commentary

ByJames R. Troupis

PresidentWestern District of Wisconsin Bar Association

Lawyers have made the difference time and timeagain. This fundamental goal – to make a difference –is accomplished with each client, with each case, andwith the causes we choose to champion. Perhaps wewould be wise to consider that high calling as the four-year cycle of national campaigns turns yet again.

I recall rather vividly the first time I was actuallyasked my opinion on a matter of public policy. It wasmy second year of law school and the then-rookieCongressman Tom Corcoran of Illinois asked if Iwould participate on an advisory committee withothers from around the district. My new found statusas an ‘almost lawyer’ stood as my most importantqualification for selection to the committee. As sooften happens, that chance request led to innumerablechanges in my professional life, including a career-long participation in legislative redistricting – theultimate combination of law and politics – beginningwith a representation of a fellow member of thatadvisory group. (See, Schrage v. State Board ofElections, 88 Ill. 2d 87, 430 N.E.2d 483 (1981)(Gerrymandering by Illinois legislature overturned)).

But, of course, the difference a lawyer makes inthe life of a given client does not often rise to nationalprominence. Rather, our obligation to fully andeffectively represent someone is measured in thededication spent each day for each client. The sum ofthose acts is a better standard against which to measureour profession and ourselves. The respect each of us isaccorded is the result not only of our individual effort,but of the effort all of us make each day. The longhours, aggressive advocacy and seemingly constantanxiety are rewarded by a belief that we do make adifference.

In reflecting on the role of attorneys in our coun-try, John Adams once commented:

Now to what higher object . . . can any mortalaspire than to . . . assist the feeble and friendless,to discountenance the haughty and lawless, toprocure redress to wrongs . . . to assert andmaintain liberty and virtue, to discourage andabolish and tyranny and vice?

What today seems a controversial battle, may betomorrow’s accepted standard, and at the forefront inmaking that possible are lawyers willing to championthe cause. It is an unfortunate byproduct of society’spredilection for the simple and popular answer thatcauses a lawyer’s role to be both misunderstood andvilified. Yet we persist, knowing that there is more atstake than a single case or simple cause.

In this coming election campaign, lawyers will beasked time and time again their opinions, and therewill, of course, be no lack of lawyer bashing. Yet, noamount of ‘lawyer jokes’ belies the reality that yourneighbors, friends and others will ask your opinionbecause they rightly expect each of us will be con-cerned and knowledgeable. The precious respect givenour profession is, in no small measure, a tribute to theday-to-day difference each attorney has made for thosewho have placed their trust in that counsel.

In this election year it is important to reflect on thestature we have been given. Whether in a courtroomor in a campaign, the role each of us chooses can makea difference to “maintain liberty.” There is no excusefor sitting on the sidelines. Attorneys make a differ-ence.

4

“to undertake a study reviewing each of the onethousand or so petitions for review that were filed inthe Wisconsin Supreme Court in a particular year.”Kearney explained that “[t]he idea was to compare thecases that the Court accepted with those that it de-clined to hear. Just to review the petitions was quite aneffort, and the vast bulk of the undertaking wasconducted by one of [his] students, Maureen Lokrantz. . . .” Kearney indicated that they received “tremen-dous cooperation from the Wisconsin Supreme CourtClerk’s office.” Although Kearney did not formalize orpublish the results of the study, he stated that hislasting impression was that the Wisconsin SupremeCourt “generally does a creditable job in selectingcases.”

Kearney then remarked that the Wisconsin Su-preme Court’s outputs are more accessible. Getting tothe point, Kearney offered some constructive criticismon the Court’s opinions. Kearney commented,“[h]aving read scores—indeed, hundreds—of Wiscon-sin Supreme Court opinions, particularly from thequarter-century since court reorganization, I have beenstruck and at times dismayed by what seems to me tobe the Court’s increasing tendency to suggest that it islimiting its decision to the allegedly ‘unique facts’ inthe case being decided. On the one hand, I am notquite certain what to make of these pronouncements. Itseems to me that appellate courts almost necessarilyannounce (at least implicitly) principles of law whenthey decide cases. Thus, it remains available to liti-gants in future cases to argue that a Supreme Courtdecision that purported to speak only to the ‘uniquefacts’ before the court in that case nonetheless, bylogic or other principles of reasoning, is relevant to thenew case. On the other hand, it should not come tothis, and not only because of the costs that it imposeson future litigants. [¶] Simply put, it is inconsistentwith its role as a law-developing court for the Wiscon-sin Supreme Court frequently to announce that itsdecisions are limited to the unique facts of the cases inwhich they are made.”

Kearney doubted that limiting decisions to their“unique facts” can be “announced consistently withbasic principles of law, and the suggestion that adecision is limited to the unique facts of the casesuggests that in that particular case the Courtis interested in reaching a particular result but does notwish to embrace the implications of its decision for

other, analogous cases.” He noted that “repeatedstatements to the effect that some or another judicialdecision is (to borrow a phrase from Justice Roberts ina slightly different context) a ‘ticket good for this dayand train only’ suggest an unwise use of the scarceresources of a law-developing court.” As an aside,Kearney noted that the “phrase ‘unique facts’ appearsin the Supreme Court’s decisions substantially morefrequently since 1977 than in all the 130-some yearsprevious thereto.”

Not resting on that observation alone, Kearneystated that he conducted some reasonably substantialand broader research in the case law, and it supportshis “suggestion that the Wisconsin Supreme Court toooften—and increasingly often in recent years—seeksto limit the effect of the opinion that it is announcing(or of some precedent) by suggesting that the decisionis (or was) based on something unusual about the case.Of course, the criticism is especially strong withrespect to cases where the Court states that there issomething unique about the case before it but does notamplify adequately upon just what distinguishes thecase from other fact situations that to many of uswould appear to be analogous.”

Noting that the “facts of every case are unique,”Kearney stated that the way a law-developing courtundertakes its duty is by selecting a “case that seemsto present issues that should be resolved and thendeciding that case.” Kearney went on to explain that“[w]hen the next case comes along that differs in somerespect, it is the advocate’s role to persuade the courtthat the difference is (or should be seen as) material. Itis possible that the real problem underlying the phe-nomenon of announcing that some cases are limited totheir unusual circumstances is a mistaken view that theCourt should generally legislate (i.e., by decidinggenerally and ‘laying down’ the law). This is notwithin the comparative advantage of courts. It isparticularly difficult for a court which presides over acommon-law body of law.”

In admitting that it is difficult to determine the rootcause of departing from the Court’s general approach,Kearney raised the possibility that it may be that “suchlimitations are prices that other Justices increasinglyexact in exchange for joining an author’s opinion.” Inall events, as a consumer of the Court’s opinions inboth of his teaching and practicing capacities, Kearneyasked that his observations “be considered for what-ever persuasive force” they may have. Given these twopositions, Kearney emphasized that he did not want to“create some misimpression that [he was] simplyinterested in making observations about others.Although that is surely a core function of the legal

Kearney KeynoteContinued from page 1

5

academy, Marquette Law School is itself interested incriticism.” Indeed, Kearney stated, “We ask ratherconstantly questions such as, ‘What do we do not sowell, and how could we do it better?’ We ask it notonly of ourselves but of the bench and the practicingbar.”

In closing, Kearney stated, “Just as I feel free tomake my observations, you should feel entitled,perhaps even obligated, whether you are a MarquetteLaw School alumnus or not, to pass along constructivesuggestions or criticisms to me. I will welcomethem—I answer my own phone and e-mail.”

Notes from the WDBA

Annual Judges’ Panel

Discussion

The WDBA was fortunate, once again, to have allof its judges participate in a question and answersession with the WDBA membership. While notexhaustive, below are some highlights garnered fromthe interactive discussion.

Both district court judges were asked whether theyhad any “pet peeves” arising from litigants’ mistakesthat they had noticed during the past year. JudgeCrabb listed several issues:

(1) Parties regularly fail to plead facts showingjurisdiction, such as the citizenship of all parties. Onecommon mistake is to fail to state the citizenship ofeach member of a limited liability company.

(2) In briefs and proposed findings of fact, JudgeCrabb noticed a lack of sufficient background materialor content necessary to “set the scene” so that theJudge understands the factual context. She noted as an

example that litigants often fail to state the specificparties to a contract.

(3) A minor error she notices is when partiesinclude venue as a factual finding; it is a legal conclu-sion.

(4) A significant issue in briefing arises whenresponses to proposed factual findings fail to opposethe finding, or “miss the point” raised in the finding.Judge Crabb stressed that parties should make sure toaddress each fact raised, or it will be deemed admitted.

Judge Shabaz noted that his primary “pet peeve”was parties who include too much background infor-mation and fail to address the issues promptly. JudgeShabaz noted that he, unlike Judge Crabb, prefers lessin the way of facts. He believes it is necessary toinclude facts only to provide context.

Both district court judges were asked to commenton their perception of trials during the past year, and ifthey have observed good or bad practices by attorneysat trial. Judge Crabb observed that there appeared tobe a pattern in employment law cases; namely, that thedefendant’s attorney’s demeanor is often perceived bythe jury as representative of the way the defendantemployer treats its employees. If the attorney is rudeor overbearing, the jury will believe the employertreats its employees the same way; conversely, if theattorney is polite and patient, the jury will be morelikely to believe that the employer treated the em-ployee fairly.

Judge Shabaz stated that he believed the actions ofthe attorneys at trial ultimately had little effect, be-cause witness credibility is ultimately the dispositivefactor in most or all trials.

Magistrate Judge Crocker, Chief District Judge Crabband Bankruptcy Court Judge Martin participate in theannual WDBA Judges’ Panel.

Judge Shabaz responds to a question from a WDBAmember as WDBA President Jim Troupis moderatesthe Judges’ Panel session.

6

In a unanimous decision, the United States Su-preme Court has held that patients receiving care frommanaged care companies cannot sue those companiesfor refusing to provide treatment recommended by aphysician but not covered under the terms of thepatient’s employee health care plan. In Aetna HealthInc. v. Davila, No. 02-1845, the Court held that thelaws of Texas and nine other states purporting toprovide such a remedy were pre-empted by the Em-ployee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974(“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. Instead, whileERISA permits suits to recover wrongfully-deniedbenefits, its comprehensive remedial scheme pre-empts suits for any other damages attributable to theHMO’s conduct, such as tort damages typically soughtin medical malpractice claims.

The Aetna decision, authored by Associate JusticeClarence Thomas, considered the consolidated cases oftwo plaintiffs from Texas. Each case presented aconflict between the treatment recommendation of amedical professional and the determination by theHMO that the recommended treatment was notcovered under the terms of the plaintiff’s health careplan. Ruby Calad had a hysterectomy and otherabdominal surgery and her surgeon recommended thatshe stay several days in the hospital to recover. How-ever, Calad’s health care plan only covered a one-daystay, and the HMO’s discharge nurse refused toauthorize the longer stay. Calad later developedcomplications at home and had to return for furthertreatment. The other plaintiff, Juan Davaila, wasprescribed Vioxx, an expensive prescription medica-tion, for his severe arthritis. However, his health careplan only authorized Vioxx for patients who had firsttried other, less-expensive medications without suc-cess. After attempting treatment with the less-expen-sive medication, Davaila developed severe internalgastrointestinal bleeding, a well-known side effect ofthat medication. The plaintiffs sued their HMOs instate court under the Texas Health Care Liability Act,asserting that the HMOs’ actions violated the “duty toexercise ordinary care when making health caretreatment decisions.”

Aetna Health Inc. v. DavilaThe U.S. Supreme Court Holds that ERISA Pre-Empts

State Law Claims Alleging HMO Malpractice

Todd G. Smith, LaFollette, Godfrey & Kahn

In reaching its decision, the Court stated thatCongress intended ERISA to provide uniform federalregulation of employee health benefit plans. Towardthat end, Congress included broad preemptive lan-guage within ERISA’s civil enforcement scheme,evidencing an intent to ensure that disputes over theterms of employee benefit plans remained exclusivelya federal concern. Citing its past decisions, the courtnoted that these purposes “would be completelyundermined” if participants and beneficiaries such asthe plaintiffs “were free to obtain remedies under statelaw that Congress rejected in ERISA.”

After examining the facts of each case, the courtconcluded that the plaintiffs’ claims arose fromdisputes over “denials of coverage promised under theterms of ERISA-regulated employee benefit plans.”Accordingly, the court held that these disputes weresubject to ERISA’s broad preemptive provisionslimiting the remedies available. The Court rejected theplaintiffs’ contentions that the duty of “ordinary care”imposed under state law provides an “independent”duty separate and apart from the duties imposed underERISA. Instead, the court concluded that the decisionwhether a particular treatment is covered, and there-fore should be provided to a patient, “derives entirelyfrom the particular rights and obligations establishedby the benefit plans.”

The court’s decision draws a distinction betweenthe cause of the plaintiffs’ injuries, rejecting theplaintiffs’ claims that their injuries were caused bynegligent treatment decisions by providers, the tradi-tional basis of medical malpractice claims. Instead,Justice Thomas stated that the plaintiffs’ injuries werecaused by the terms of their employers’ health plans,which limited the scope of treatment they wouldprovide. So long as the managed care company“correctly concluded that, under the terms of therelevant plan, a particular treatment was not covered,”the HMO could have no liability.

7

David J. Harth is not only the keeper of the list forthe WDBA Volunteer Counsel Program, he is alsowilling to put his name at the top. Harth, Chair of theassociation’s Pro Bono and Pro Se Committee, wasrecognized at the annual meeting of the WDBA forvolunteering his time to take a prison inmate caseconcerning conditions at the Supermax prison inBoscobel.

In fact, Harth has been involved in one § 1983 caseor another almost nonstop for the last 15 years. At firstblush, it may seem odd for a commercial litigator whoconcentrates his practice in patent litigation to beinvolved in prisoner cases. However, David has notallowed expectations to dictate his personal or profes-sional interests, as is evident from the fact that heturned a film history major at the University of Wis-consin into a successful legal career. Harth is currentlya partner in the Madison office of Heller, Ehrman,White & McAuliffe.

Harth acknowledges that his clients are not alwaysthe most likeable characters, but it only took one lookat the confinement conditions in Wisconsin maximumsecurity prisons to spark his interest in taking on thistype of pro bono work.

After graduation from UW law school, Harthclerked for Judge John Reynolds in the Eastern Districtof Wisconsin. After working with the Judge on severalprison inmate cases, he finally had the opportunity toview the isolation wing at the old Waupun GreenHouse prison. “It was a medieval dungeon,” commentsHarth. Harth does not see how someone can visit thesemaximum security prisons and not be affected by theconditions faced there. Even with modern technology,the conditions still amount to little more than “space-age confinement pods.” “The inmates are confined foryears on end with virtually no human contact andwithout recourse of the legal system.”

Harth has taken a variety of other pro bono casesover the years in addition to his paying legal work. Hecurrently has a death penalty case pending in the stateof Georgia. David is also a volunteer lawyer with theAmerican Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin, and wasappointed in 1999 to represent parents and studentschallenging the censorship and removal of books ongay themes from the Barron High School library.Harth was successful in obtaining an injunction in thatcase.

David obviously feelsstrongly enough about probono services to volunteerhis own time and tocoordinate the pro bonoefforts of the WesternDistrict Bar Association.“Pro bono is the price weshould pay for a mo-nopoly on the courts,”says Harth. As far as hischoice to represent prisoninmates, David com-ments, “it is hard to thinkof a class of individualswith a more dire need of services, and who are withoutthe ability to pay for them.”

Although his pro bono work is not directly con-nected with his regular practice, the cases he volun-teers for often end up going to trial. Harth notes thatthe litigation skills one needs to try cases does notchange much based on the type of case. The pro bonowork keeps his skills sharp, even if that is not the mostimportant reason for taking on the work.

David has recognized one other major benefit fromgetting involved so extensively in his pro bono efforts.As a young partner at Foley & Lardner about 15 yearsago, he took on an excessive force case in which hisclient was maced and beaten in his jail cell. Becausethe case would ultimately be tried to a jury, Harthdrafted Julie Genovese, one of the newest Foleyassociates at the time, to assist him.

Harth and Genovese were successful in the jurytrial, but unfortunately for the litigators the verdict wasthrown out by Judge Shabaz and the Judge’s decisionwas affirmed on appeal.

This was the first and only case that Harth andGenovese litigated together, but that did not end theircollaboration. They recently celebrated their 13thwedding anniversary in Madison, along with their fourchildren.

David cannot guarantee similar results for allvolunteers, but he encourages pro bono work nonethe-less. If you are interested in adding your name to the listof WDBA volunteer lawyers, call David Harth at (608)663-7470 or send an e-mail to dharth@hewm.com.

Profiles in Pro Bono

Pro Bono Chair, David Harth, Leads by ExampleBy Kevin J. Palmersheim

David Harth, Chair of theWDBA Pro Bono-Pro Se

Committee

8

Western District of

Wisconsin State of

the Court Report

During the WDBA annual meeting on May 27,2004, Clerk of Court Theresa Owens presented the“State of the Court Report” to the WDBA Board ofGovernors, Committee Chairs, and membership. Thefollowing topics were highlighted:

Federal Defender OfficeThe United States District Court for the Western

District of Wisconsin announced that a federal publicdefender’s office will open in Madison this fall. Theoffice will be a branch of Federal Defender Services ofWisconsin, Inc., a charitable, non-profit Wisconsincorporation established in 1999. Federal DefenderServices of Wisconsin, Inc., has been operating since2000 in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. DeanStrang, Executive Director, is managing the establish-ment of the Madison office.

This year, the CLE Program covered a variety ofdevelopments in Federal Practice. In addition tothanking Dean Joseph D. Kearney for providing thekeynote address, the WDBA wishes to thank thefollowing speakers for providing interesting andinformative presentations to its membership: J.Donald Best, Michael, Best & Friedrich; EugeniaCarter, LaFollette, Godfrey & Kahn; Stephen E. Ehlke,U.S. Attorney’s Office; Theodore J. Long, Lathrop &Clark; Roy L. Prange, Jr., Quarles & Brady; Lester A.Pines, Cullen Weston, Pines & Bach; Rita Rumbelow,U.S. Attorney’s Office; and John S. Skilton, Heller,Ehrman, White & McAuliffe.

A copy of the CLE materials may be found on theWDBA’s website at www.wisbar.org/bars/west/sem/.The CLE Program has been approved for 3.0 credits inWisconsin, and 2.5 credits in Minnesota.

Annual Meeting

Offers Wide Range

of CLE Presentations

Probation Office RelocationThe probation and pretrial office will be relocating

to leased office space in close proximity to the court-house. Kent Hanson, Chief Probation Officer, isworking with General Services Administration staff tolocate space and coordinate the move. A date has notyet been scheduled for the move.

Automated Financial SystemIn February, staff from the district court, bank-

ruptcy court, and probation and pretrial office beganimplementing a new disbursing module for theirfinancial accounting systems. The module, calledFAS4T - Financial Accounting System for Tomorrow,will interface with the existing accounting system.Implementation is scheduled for August.

Electronic FilingThe court continues to encourage attorneys to

electronically file their documents. District courtautomation staff has worked with bankruptcy automa-tion staff to streamline the filing of documents elec-tronically between the two offices.

StatisticsFilings, both civil and criminal, are increasing.

For the twelve-month period from May 2003 throughApril 2004, 791 civil cases have been filed and 184criminal cases (213 defendants) have been filed.These figures compare to 722 civil cases and 152criminal cases (193 defendants) from May 2002 toApril 2003, and 729 civil cases and 108 criminal cases(138 defendants) from May 2001 to April 2002.Average civil case filings for the past 12 months is 66.That number of filings would place the court’s civilfilings for the fiscal year at 794 by the end of Septem-ber.

The number of jury trials is also rising. SinceOctober 2003 the District Court for the WesternDistrict of Wisconsin has held 20 jury trials. Thisfigure already equals the total number of jury trialsheld from October 2002 to September 2003.

See table on next page for detail.

9

Insert Table

U.S.DISTRICTJUDICIAL CASELOAD

PROFILE

enlarge and place asvertical

10

WDBAMISSION STATEMENT

It is the mission of the Western District of Wisconsin Bar Association to promote the just, speedy,

respectful and efficient determination of every action filed in the District Court: by acting as an effective

liaison among the District Court, federal practitioners, litigants and the public; by encouraging, fostering

and supporting educational opportunities that improve the practice of law in this District; and by serving

the needs of the District Court, federal practitioners, litigants and the public.

Western District Bar AssociationPost Office Box 44578Madison, WI 53744-4578

Address Service Requested

Pre-SortedStandard

U.S. PostageP A I D

Permit #1Madison, WI