November 1999 

 The Highest Common Denominators

by Wood R. Foster Jr.

With every passing year, it seems, I notice greater and greater differences between and among lawyers in terms of their specialties and their expertise. The things I once felt comfortable doing in my practice now often feel remote, even foreign. Sometimes it seems that the "general practice of law" will soon be a memory.

Increasingly, lawyers are able to seek and find the professional collegiality and networking they need at CLE meetings, substantive law section meetings, and meetings of specialty bar associations. This in turn contributes to the fragmentation of the profession that I have mentioned in previous columns.

More than ever, we need to step back occasionally to review and remind ourselves of the many things that bind us together as professionals. When we do that, we quickly realize that there are a surprising number of institutions and practices affecting us all which, if not subjected to careful stewardship, will deteriorate and thereby diminish each of us.

Once you start to think about them, the examples are numerous. Here are some that come to mind:

For the profession to prosper, we must maintain vigil and oversight to make sure the profession attracts the right people and educates them properly. To do so we must:

• Find ways to attract highly qualified candidates to the profession;
• Take steps to assure that all legal education offered in the state is of the highest possible quality;
• Do our best to assure that the annual crop of new lawyers reflects the diversity of our society;
• Maintain appropriate standards of admission;
• Improve opportunities for young lawyers to find mentors.

This is a broad category, but I submit that every one of us, regardless of specialty, has a lifelong interest in each of the following:

• Assuring strong and effective promulgation and enforcement of disciplinary standards;
• Assuring the availability, quality and affordability of continuing legal education;
• Protecting clients by maintaining and properly administering a client security fund, by assuring the availability of affordable malpractice insurance, and by periodically revisiting the troublesome question of whether malpractice insurance should be mandatory;
• Assuring adequate standards of certification for those who wish to be certified;
• Assisting one another with issues of dependency and depression;
• Improving civility and "quality of life" among lawyers.

Though many of us are not litigators, each of us is an officer of the court. Courts provide the ultimate foundation for everything we do, whether or not our labors take place in the courthouse. We all have an equal interest in:

• A judicial selection system that assures the highest quality judges;
• Judicial compensation that will attract highly qualified candidates;
• Protecting judicial independence;
• Building public trust and confidence in the courts;
• Sensible and efficient rules of procedure and administration;
• Preserving access to the courts for those who cannot afford representation;
• Easing court congestion and dealing with the increasingly difficult issue of pro se litigants;
• An effective system of judicial discipline.
• Eliminating bias and even the perception of bias in the courtroom.

Most lawyers recognize and support the public service component of our profession, though we react in varying ways and degrees. But rare indeed is the lawyer who would deny that we have a common interest in preserving this important dimension of our status as professionals. Common interests in this area include:

• Community education about law and lawyers;
• Assuring adequate access to lawyers and the courts;
• An efficient referral system;
• Establishment of institutions to assure legal services of all kinds to those who cannot afford to pay;
• Encouraging compliance with the aspirational level of pro bono service;
• Providing all possible assistance in identifying areas in which lawyers can provide pro bono services.

Evolution of the rule of law never stops. Just within the last two or three decades, a vast array of laws and regulations have appeared that found no counterparts in earlier decades. Lawyers as a group have a mutual interest in:

• Monitoring existing and proposed legislation;
• Proposing laws to meet the changing needs of the society in which we live and practice;
• Modernizing legal processes of all kinds, particularly in light of rapidly changing technology;
• Protecting the profession from external threats and legislative encroachment.

I have undoubtedly overlooked many things that should be on the list. But even this quickly formulated list is easily recognized as a blueprint and permanent agenda for the Minnesota State Bar Association. The concerns I have listed affect every one of us. The differences among our respective practices seem to pale when viewed in this light. The very concept of "professionalism" can probably best be defined in terms of the level of attention demanded by and given to these common concerns. Is it too much to suggest that it requires more than just your dues to maintain the kind of strong central bar association that can deal appropriately with all these common interests?

Wood R. Foster Jr. is president of the Minnesota State Bar Association. A partner in the firm of Siegel, Brill, Greupner, Duffy & Foster, PA, he concentrates his practice in commercial litigation and class action. He is a graduate of Amherst College (1965) and of the University of Michigan Law School (1968).