Return address:

5~e (]ul'goglelaw SchoolUniversity of WisconsinMadison, Wisconsin 53706

Application for Second ClassPermit pending at Waterloo, Wis. 53594

.c»:from the Dean

With this issue, the Gargoyle be-gins its second year of publication.It has been well received. We havefrequently received evidence thatalumni are reading and enjoying it.You have noticed that we have lim-ited its scope to news about the LawSchool-its program, its faculty, itsstudents and its alumni. It is ourplan to use it to provide continuousinformal contact between the Alum-ni and the Law School, to the ben-efit of both. We do not plan to haveit become another professional jour-nal, full of speeches and articles.

To carry out our intentions effec-tively requires that we hear fromyou from time to time. We welcomeyour comments and suggestions. Wehave enjoyed the many accoladeswhich the Gargoyle has received.We would appreciate specific sug-gestions and constructive criticismeven more.

Unlike other graduate programsin the University where enrollmentis stabilized or receding slightly, theLaw School is facing substantialgrowth in 1970-71. Although wehave had only a slight increase inthe number of applications this year,we have had a noteworthy increasein the quality of applications and aspectacular increase in the numberof persons who have accepted ouroffers of admission, threatening uswith a deluge we will be hard-pressed to handle.

We can only speculate as to whythis is true. We have not loweredour standards of admission. It maybe partly that the sudden drying-upof job opportunities for Ph.D's inother fields may have encouragedmore well-qualified people to chooselaw as a career. A second possiblereason is that the draft lottery, nowin its second year, may have permit-ted some young men to make plansfor the future with less uncertainty.

The new tuition rate for non-

Bulletin of the University of Wisconsinlaw School, published quarterly.VOL. 2, NO. 1 AUTUMN, 1970

Ruth B. Doyle, editorPublication office, 213 W. Madison St.,Waterloo, Wis. Second class permit pend-ing at Waterloo, Wisconsin.POSTMASTER'S NOTE: Please send form3579 10 "Gargoyle", University of Wis-consin Law School, Madison, Wisconsin.Subscription Price 50¢ per year for mem-bers, $1.00 per year for non-members.

THE GARGOYLE

In Memoriam-Glen Mundschau 15

Robert Curry, Dean Kimball

TABLE OF CONTENTSLetter from the Dean 2

Whatever Is Happening To LegalEducation? ~_____________________________3

Students Have an Active Year 5

Law School Experiments WithPre-Admission SummerProg ram 6

Women Lawyers on the Increase 6

Curriculum Review-WisconsinStyIe • • 7

Tuerkheimer Joins Faculty 10

Law Review Celebrates 50thAn n iversary • 11

Associate Dean Baldwin to Iran __13

Class Agents Appointed 14

Smongeski Research andScholarship Funds Establishedin Law Sch00 ( 15

Alvord Fellow Named 15

Sincerely,

Spencer L. Kimball

resident students was established lastyear in August, after non-residentstudents had been accepted hereand had rejected alternative oppor-tunities. Almost all of them cameanyway, and somehow scraped upthe $800 increase at the last minute.

With the class entering in Sep-tember, 1970, we have the first truetest of the effect of the increase innon-resident tuition. There is nodoubt but that it has had an impor-tant impact. The percentage ofnon-residents entering has declinedsharply this year over last. Almostall of the increased enrollment ismade up of residents of Wisconsin.While we feel a primary obligationto the State of Wisconsin, we musthave a good contingent of non-res-idents to continue to have standingas a national or even regional lawschool of first quality. Actually, non-resident students more than paytheir way in law, so that an appro-priate mix of resident and non-res-ident students, which gives theschool a character and quality itcannot otherwise have, is no burdenon the State.

As lawyers, of course we are de-lighted that so many well-educatedand well-qualified young peoplehave decided to come to our LawSchool. As Faculty and Law Schooladministrators, we are hard-pressedto provide the kind of law schooleducational experience to whichthey are entitled.

Our budget for fiscal 1970 didnot increase to meet even the in-creases in the costs of our presentprogram resulting from enrollmentincreases. It provides nothing foradded staff, equipment and facil-ities. It will take added effort by allof us to do our jobs during the nextfew years. Fortunately for me, asDean, our Faculty is energetic anddedicated and profoundly interestedin improving the quality of legaleducation, despite the handicaps un-der which we must work. It is aSchool of which I am proud and ofwhich I think you should be proud,too.

***

II THE GARGOYLE

Whatever Is HappeningTo Legal Education?

Richard Effland '40Professor of Lavv

Arizona State University

Virtually every alumnus is con-vinced that his was the greatestclass ever to graduate from the Uni-versity of Wisconsin Law School(indeed, the class of 1940 was thegreatest) and that little could bedone to improve legal education ashe knew it. After all, he is livingproof of both propositions.

Nevertheless, we are all aware ofcertain facts of life: (1) that ourwhole social and legal structure isundergoing change at an increasing-ly rapid rate; (2) that government,like the society it purports to gov-ern, is increasingly complex; (3)that the sheer volume of "law in thebooks" staggers the mind and forcesus into patterns and degrees of spe-cialization; (4) that new legalmethods may have to be structuredto replace methods which society,rightly or wrongly, seems to be re-jecting as ways of accommodatingchange; and (5) that the lawyer asa counselor deals with people whomhe finds more and more difficult tounderstand and assist. All of thesefactors, and others which doubtlessoccur to you, mean that legal edu-cation must undergo continuousevaluation.

Another major factor which willinevitably be reflected in legal edu-cation is the kind of student whoenters law school. First, he is bright-er intellectually (not the same as"wiser") as reflected by the steadilyclimbing LSAT scores. Secondly,for better or worse he is less disci-plined than the student a decadeago, and less willing to undertake,or even undergo, discipline. He re-flects his undergraduate educationand the modern trend to find"right" answers by emotion and ex-perience rather than rational in-quiry. Third, perhaps freed by ouraffluent society from the fear of not

THE GARGOYLE

making a living, perhaps repelled bythe very affluence in which he israised, he has a strong moral com-mitment to bringing about a betterworld. He is more willing to ques-tion the whole system, legal andotherwise. Conditioned by his life-time in which there has been con-tinuous war and in which violencehas robbed us of leaders, he is lessrespectful of "right" as opposed to"might". Such a student is bound toimpact legal education itself. Al-ready in many law schools he hassought and gained a voice in thecurriculum and internal govern-ance. (Lest this development shockyou too much, I recall that DeanLloyd Garrison had our 1940 classorganize a committee to suggest cur-riculum changes; Dick Tinkhamand I served on that committee.)The present students will call forthe best in teachers if the tradition-al values of a legal education are tobe preserved and successfully passedon to these students. Their ques-tioning, their brilliance, their com-mitment to a better society must bechanneled into constructive pro-grams. This is a real challenge tothe teaching profession. Legal edu-cation has begun to respond andwill continue to do so.

So the kind of legal educationyou and I experienced is undergoingchange. This should be healthy; itreflects growth. It may not be thekind of change or in the directionyou and I would prefer. But in ourcriticism we must be constructive aswell as understanding, and also lendour support to the attainment of aconstantly improving law school.The thoughts which follow reflect,of course, my personal experience asa teacher who has always tried tohold in healthy tension the need ofthe students to be stimulated andguided, the need of the public forcompetently trained practitionersand judges, and the longer-rangedream of a just legal order.

The current trends in legal educa-tion, which give it its present lookand which, in my opinion, are hereto stay are: (1) increasing emphasison clinical experience of widelyvarying types, (2) departure fromthe traditional casebook and so-

called Langdell case system analysisin the classroom, (3) experimentsin trying to teach the fundamentalskills of the lawyer (in contrast toteaching subject matter as such),and (4) continued reshuffling andconsolidation of subject matter in aneffort to fit essentials into threeyears (the traditional time mold isstill with us, at least for the timebeing) .

As to clinical experience this is ahappy combination of the time-oldcry of the Bar that training of stu-dents should be more practical, thedemands of the students that lawschool be more relevant, and the in-sight of some educators that a deep-er social consciousness can bearoused (not taught so much as ex-perienced) from contact with thepoor and the law-breakers and theoppressed-groups of society whohave fallen outside the normal pri-vate practice of law in the past butwill increasingly receive legal repre-sentation through efforts of privatefirms operating neighborhood lawoffices, or on a smaller scale by in-dividual lawyers devoting part oftheir time to noncompensated work(as many lawyers have always donewithout deliberately looking forsuch work), or through governmentfinanced programs, such as legal aidoffices or Judicare.

The so-called casebooks of mod-ern times bear less and less resem-blance to the original casebook con-cept. I remember looking at Gray'sCases on Property once, some sixvolumes as I recall, setting forthall the property cases, English andAmerican. What a staggering taskfor the student to synthesize those!But the proliferation of cases andthe pressure to condense coursecredits for traditional areas likeProperty in order to make way forthe "new" subjects makes it phys-ically impossible to develop a con-cept by a series of cases, except inthe first year courses where a delib-erate effort must be made to teachthe judicial process and develop-ment of the common law by casegrowth. But in second year coursesthis has given way to "display" cas-

III

FO RM ER AD D RESS • _

NAM E._ _...................••.•...•...•.••..• _•.••.•••..•.••...••.•••.•..••••..•••••••••••••••••••

NEW ADDRESS ..••••••••••..•••• _.••••••••••••••••..•••••••. _••_•••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••no. street

.............................................................................................................•.city state zip

With the shift in emphasis, sometraditional courses will be com-pressed and even eliminated (un-doubtedly to rise again under adifferent, more "relevant" label)."Landlord- Tenant" has not been of-fered as a separate course for manyyears in most schools, but it is en-joying a revival as part of PovertyLaw. Mortgages dropped out, butReal Estate Development contains aheavy dose of financing methods. Sodo not be disheartened if you can-not find Equity listed in the Bulle-tin. Be assured the fundamentals arethere under some new and excitingtitle!

Where do we go from here? Iwish I could foresee a major shift inlegal education, but I fear it is along way off even if I am correct.

title. But Environmental Law callsfor an appreciation of the problemscreated by technology as well as thetheory of ecology. For example, in afield like air pollution, the law stu-dent has to understand the tech-nical problem and the scientificsolutions available, as well as theeconomic costs, before he can thinkabout a legal order to achieve theright choices. As computers play amagnified role in commerce and in-dustry, not only will law schools ex-plore the legal ramifications, theywill also explore use of computersto solve legal problems. Some lawschools are already beginning to dothis.

WHERE ARE YOU NOW?Help keep our mailing list up to date.

legal education is the cheapest pro-fessional education ever devised.

In the past we have concentratedon teaching subject-matter and onlysecondarily taught skills. The skillof negotiation, for example, is nottaught in Contracts. Indeed we havedone a poor job of even teachingdrafting in such courses. The art ofcounseling, which calls for elemen-tary knowledge of psychology andpsychiatry, has been left to acquisi-tion in practice by trial and error,unless one has the great luck to servein a firm where a master teaches itby example and friendly advice tothe young lawyer. The course inLegislation has dealt primarily withlegal issues in formulating and in-terpreting statutes. The law schoolshave left to the political scientiststhe business of teaching lobbyingand the making of governmentalpolicy. All of this is now undergoingchange. One of our seminar groupsat Arizona State University under-took a study of a currently proposedbill, decided how it ought to be im-proved, and then successfully mar-shalled the pressure groups neces-sary to get the bill enacted with theamendment (over organized opposi-tion, incidentally). Those studentsnow believe the system works, or atleast can work. In many schools ne-gotiation is taught by the games ap-proach. And the cry that lawyersneed to be aware of the other sci-ences, social and physical, is finallybeing answered. Seminars in Lawand Psychiatry evidence this by their

Legal Education, cont'd,

In the classroom after the firstyear there is little need to recite oncases and have the professor cross-examine the student to test hisknowledge of the facts, the reason-ing, the fallacies, the pros and cons.This skill should have been mastered(and usually is) in the first year.The shift is to presentation and dis-cussion of new problems designed toprobe the student's depth of under-standing of the assigned materials.In some courses written assignmentsbased on problems can be fruitful;Professor Foster has been doing thisin Conflicts and I have used it to alimited extent. The second year stu-dent and even more so the thirdyear student has to be challenged totake the initiative in his own educa-tion. In seminars he should be en-gaged in research of some original-ity and in writing. In most seminarsI have seen, this is not done well,but the failure is often attributableto the faculty as much as to the stu-dents. Partly it has been because thestudent sees no relevance in the as-signed topics; we need to work outa method to give the student "live"issues to work on. And the presenttime lag between submission of pa-pers and their grading only serves toinculcate habits of procrastinationwhich the legal system can ill afford.Of course, the problem here is lackof faculty time; we need a smallerstudent-faculty ratio than budgetspresently support. The fact is that

es, either a leading case or one witha challenging fact situation or amodern case summarizing presentlaw, supplemented by text and prob-lems amplifying the doctrine of theprincipal case. Text more often thannot presents material from otherdisciplines-psychology, economics,sociology-as well as legal materials.The Xerox machine has revolution-ized course materials in another re-spect; the latest (and therefore inareas like constitutional law thcmost determinative) case can bemade available for study; the teach-er can innovate by introducing hisown problems and text into the as-signed reading.

IV THE GARGOYLE

Legal Education, cont'd.

Personally I would propose a reduc-tion to two years for the generalpreparation for admission to theBar; this would be supplementedby a mandatory continuing legaleducation program for the first fiveyears after admission for all mem-bers of the Bar, and an additionalyear or two of full-time study forthe student wishing to get an ad-vanced degree in a specialty. Theformer would be equivalent to thepresent third year but would bemore meaningful in light of the ex-perience of the student practitionerand could therefore be at a higherlevel and more advanced pace. Thereduction of the regular degree workto two years would cut the cost ofthe initial legal education by a third,and the young practitioner wouldbe better able to finance the con-tinuing 5 year program over thelonger period. This proposal is, Ifear, unrealistic. Perhaps a modifiedform will be in more intensive post-graduate legal education, either bythe law schools or the organizedBar, hopefully by a combination ofthese.

Only one thing remains constant:the Wisconsin Law School will be afine school where young men andwomen will receive a top legal edu-cation, whatever comes. Wisconsinhas always been a leader and, withalumni support, will continue itslong tradition of greatness.

Students Have AnActive Year

Throughout a year of apparentstudent unrest and dissatisfaction,the Student Bar Association main-tained a schedule of traditional stu-dent activities, which included theinstallation of a color television setin the student lounge in September,the Law Ball in April, and a hostof other, more serious undertakings.

Supported by the proceeds of the

THE GARGOYLE

Book Mart (8% on a gross of$100,000), and by the modest profitsof the daily coffee sales in thelounge, SBA committees organizedand provided funds for the Fresh-man Orientation Program, the Le-gal Education Opportunities Pro-gram, the Practice Exam for firstyear students, and the Course-Teacher Evaluation after the firstsemester.

As in the last two years, the LegalEducation Opportunities Program,has received a substantial amountof the attention and budget of theSBA. About half of all SBA revenuewas contributed to the LEO pro-gram. SBA committees conductedrecruiting trips to colleges with pre-dominantly black enrollments. Oth-er SBA members conducted solicita-tions for funds, from a variety ofsources.

Social activities sponsored or sup-ported by SBA included three beerparties in the lounge, and theSenior Committee's Homecomingprogram.

The Student Bar Associationserved as spokesman for the studentbody on the major controversies ofthe year, and took the lead in pre-paring the law student response tothe Cambodian invasion.

In addition, committees of law

students provided leadership andperformed services during the peri-ods of turmoil on the campus or inthe broader community. For exam-ple, law students helped to organizea rumor center during the campusdisorders in May.

On Law Day (May 1), a com-mittee of the Student Bar Associa-tion presented a live radio programdealing with student dissent. Stu-dent Bar committees planned andpresented programs in several areasof the state, dealing with the Reporton Civil Disorders (Kerner Com-mission) and the Cambodian crisis.

An SBA committee presented areport on the disparity in pay be-tween research assistants in theLaw School and in other graduatedepartments. Weekly tutoring ses-sions for first year students was an-other service offered by SBA mem-bers during 1969-70.

Due in large part to SBA efforts,1969-70 saw students serving as ac-tive members of several law schoolcommittees. On both Admissionsand Scholarships, student membersparticipate in the establishment ofpolicies, but not in the selection ofparticular applicants for admissionand for scholarships. Students fromthe LEO program are selected bythe Student Bar Association Coun-cil to be members of the LEO Com-mittee.

v

law School ExperimentsWith Pre-AdmissionSummer Program

Sixty-eight students were enrolledin a special pre-admission programfor 8 weeks during the summer of1970. Established as an experi-ment, the program enrolled studentswhose credentials, while fairly good,did not quite meet the admissionstandards that had to be applied forthe class entering in September,1970 because of the overwhelmingdemand for admission to the School.

The plan for a summer pre-ad-mission program came as a resultof a study of the admissions proce-dure which was used in 1969-70.The Admissions Committee notedthat in 1969, 605 applicants hadbeen accepted for admission; 305first year students actually enrolled.More applicants were rejected thanwere accepted; about 40% of res-ident applicants were rejected, andabout 60% of the non-residents.

It became clear, as the applica-tions were studied, that the predict-ed first year averages of the top 200rejected and the lowest 200 acceptedwere only moderately different. Thepredicted first year average is de-terminated by a formula which in-cludes grade point averages andLaw School Admission test scores.

Students selected for the summerprogram all came reasonably closeto acceptability by standards appliedin 1970-71. A significant percentageof them are certainly capable of suc-cess in the Law School, though therecords do not make it possible topredict which will have the motiva-tion and discipline needed to suc-ceed in law.

The special program consisted ofregular courses in Civil Procedure(taught jointly by Profs. Raushen-bush and Foster) and Torts (taughtby Prof. Campbell). Credit was notgiven for courses taken, but the stu-dents accepted into the Law Schoolafter the Program do not need torepeat those courses. They will,however, be required to earn an ad-

VI

Richard v. Campbell

ditional 90 credits for graduation.Classes for each course were helddaily during the 8 week period. Civ-il Procedure met 5 days a week andTorts 6 days.

The regular summer resident andnon-resident tuition was charged toall participants. Residents paid$205; the three non-residents paid$805. No financial aid was available,although students accepted into theentering class were assured that ad-ditional loans would be made, ifneeded, to compensate for the lossof summer earnings.

Examinations in the two courseswere given on August 11 and Au-gust 13. On August 22, 31 studentswere notified of their admission tothe Law School.

Walter B. Raushenbush

G. W. Foster

Women lawyersOn the IncreaseOne of the most noteworthy

changes in Law School enrollmentsall over the country is the rapid in-crease in the number of women stu-dents. The Wisconsin Law Schoolis no exception.Over fifty women were enrolled

full-time in the Law School at thebeginning of the academic year1969-70. Forty-seven of these fin-ished the year. Of these, 9 graduat-ed in June, 1970. In June, therewere 23 female students in the firstyear class and 15 in the secondyear. Of the 47 enrolled, 15 ofthem were on the Dean's Honor list,having earned averages of 85 or bet-ter, at the end of the first semester.The Wisconsin Law Review in1970-71, has a woman executive,Mrs. Angela Bartell. Three womenare currently members of the staff,and more women are eligible to joinin September, 1970, on the basis oftheir academic performance.Sixteen of them are married,

some to other law students.There will be at least 40 women

in the class entering in September,1970, which will make a total en-rollment of at least 78 female stu-dents. Of twenty scholarships of-fered to members of the enteringclass, 3 of the recipients will bewomen. One of the two Detlingscholars, chosen from the outstand-ing graduates of the University ofWisconsin in 1969-70, is a woman.Many other women, both enteringand continuing students, are receiv-ing financial aid.

THE GARGOYLe

CURRICULUM REVIEW-WISCONSIN STYLE

EDWARD L. KIMBALLProfessor of Law

ChaJrman, Curriculum Committee

During the past two years theUniversity of Wisconsin Law Schoolhas been engaged in special effortsto review its curriculum and teach-ing program. The school has longhad a standing committee on thecurriculum, reflecting a commit-ment to continual modernization ofthe subject matter and techniquesof teaching law, but in 1968 it wasthought that a major effort shouldbe made to reconsider the direc-tion, methods, and substance of le-gal education at Wisconsin. Atabout the same time a number ofother major law schools, reflectingthe same disquiet about the state oflegal education, began to institutestudies of the teaching function.The Association of American LawSchools also created a special com-mittee to consider questions of thissort. Professor William Klein, whoin 1968-69 was chairman of ourCurriculum Committee, is a mem-ber of the AALS committee.

The impetus for curricular reviewhas come not only from the faculty.Students, too, have urged that lawschools have lagged behind thetimes and left graduates inadequate-ly prepared to deal with acute prob-lems of the nation, including racerelations, crime, poverty, urban de-cay, population pressure, environ-mental deterioration, and war. Rec-ognition that these are in significantmeasure appropriate concerns forthe law and lawyers, and the possi-bility of new kinds of law practicerelated to these problems have cap-tured the interest of a large numberof today's law students.

Students are also concerned thatthey have a voice in law school de-cisions about the kind of educationthey receive. There is respect forfaculty judgment, but no passive ac-ceptance of its accuracy or unassail-ability. There is a feeling that thefaculty is too steeped in traditional

THE GARGOYLE

lawyers' roles to appreciate thedepth of desire of many studentsto dedicate their careers to dealingwith other things than what theyterm "money law." Whatever theaccuracy of this view of the faculty,the faculty was willing to create thestudent voice requested by addingto the enlarged faculty CurriculumCommittee three stu den t s whocould participate fully in discussionsand in formulating proposals for ac-tion by the whole faculty. Studentmembers of the Committee were al-so invited to be present at facultymeetings discussing Committee pro-posals and to participate actively inthe presentation of those proposals.

During the two years the Curric-ulum Committee has felt under con-flicting pressures. It has sought torespond at the same time to a feel-ing in many faculty that we shouldgive extended, basic reconsiderationto the whole of legal education andto a feeling of many students thattime is too short. for the kind oflong-term review that ought ideallybe made. The committee's comprom-ise has been to launch into discus-sions of far-reaching questions aboutobjectives and means which itknows cannot be brought to anyquick resolution, while being will-ing to interrupt these discussions todeal with suggestions for short-rangechange. It accepts the possibilitythat some of the short-range reformsmay turn out to have been profitlesstinkering in the event we shouldeventually decide to strike out inwholly different directions. But ithas been unwilling to take the posi-tion that all changes must wait un-til the day when we have rethoughtthe philosophy of legal education.

A brief description of some of themore specific matters the Commit-tee has considered and of some ofthe actions it has recommended tothe faculty will illustrate the natureof the short-range changes beingmade or considered.

COURSE OFFERINGSThere has been little suggestion

that we ought to drop any courseswe are presently teaching, except asa means of conserving resources tobe expended in other ways. The

range of subjects useful to lawyershas been expanding, not merelyshifting. The traditional coursescontinue to constitute the staple of-ferings, though constantly being re-vised internally. Even when addi-tional courses are made available,the large majority of students con-tinue to take very nearly the sameold courses. Even students who areeager to broaden their horizons real.ize that the long-established publicand private law courses are likely tobe valuable to them in the future.And even new subject matter areasare often, upon closer examination,merely special applications of exist-ing bodies of law. For example, acourse offered last year dealing withthe legal relations and rights of stu-dents and school administrators tookadvantage of a timely topic to ex-plore questions of constitutional andadministrative law which have wideapplication.

The major innovation in courseofferings is the Clinical Program,begun last year under the supervi-sion of a special committee. Underthis program as many as 25 studentsreceive credit hours toward gradua-tion for supervised law work of vari-ous kinds. Some students work inthe Dane County Legal ServicesCenter, helping with civil and crim-inal legal aid cases; others work ingovernmental agencies, such as theDivision of Corrections, dealingwith law problems. This goes on un-der the direction of Professor AllenRedlich, who gives personal super-vision to some students and coordi-nates the supervision given otherstudents. Though the clinical pro-gram can be considered a matter ofteaching method rather than ofsubject matter, it does represent ex-pansion to miscellaneous real lawproblems of the kind of individual-ized study that has previously beenassociated particularly with sem-mars.

REQUIREMENTS FORGRADUATION

The Law School continues to re-quire 90 credit hours for graduation,but it no longer prescribes any spe-cific courses after the first year. Thisis a return to the situation of someyears ago, when only the first year

VII

Curriculum, cont'd.

was required. The faculty has takenthe view that a law degree is thestarting point for too many differentkinds of careers to justify any rigidspecification of courses. The firstyear continues to be required forseveral reasons: uniformity in expo-sure of students to fundamentalskills, vocabulary, and concepts isthought important. There is econ-omy of effort in having studentswho are at roughly the same stageof development grouped together.When all students have received acommon, firm grounding, thereseems less reason to demand anykind of uniformity in their training.The awarding of the J.D. nowmeans, therefore, that a student hasbeen exposed to the traditional firstyear curriculum, has studied law forthree years, and has done creditablework. In form the student is allowedto specialize in his field of interestas narrowly as he pleases; in factthere is little such specialization.First, most students do not have ahighly specialized interest, and thosewho do still desire to be broadlytrained. Second, any who might betempted to some sort of distortedprogram are restrained by the sim-ple fact that there are not enoughcourses offered in anyone field toallow narrow specialization. Third,nearly all students wish to be ad-mitted to the Bar. It is important toremember that the awarding of aJ.D.--an essentially academic cre-dential-is not the same as admis-sion to the Bar. While allowinggraduation on the conditions statedabove, the Law School does not cer-tify graduates for admission to theBar on motion unless they have tak-en all the courses which were previ-ously required for graduation. Forexample, a student can obtain a J.D.without having had a course in Evi-dence, but he cannot be certified foradmission on motion in Wisconsinunless he has had Evidence. And,of course, if he intends to write thebar examination of any state hemust be prepared to respond toquestions of evidence.

Some less sweeping changes havebeen made in graduation require-ments, also. Legal Bibliography con-tinues to be required, but is now a

VIII

shortened, no-credit course. Satisfac-tory passing of the course has beenmade a prerequisite to taking otherfirst semester examinations. LegalWriting, in the first year, has beenmade a two credit course, givingcredit more nearly commensuratewith the effort demanded by the Le-gal Writing assignments.

Of the 90 credits required forgraduation, as many as six maynow be taken in graduate coursesoutside the Law School, providedthose courses are related in somesubstantial way to law study and thestudent gets a grade of A or B. Thisis an option which has been open tostudents for some time upon specialapplication; the change is to makethe option routinely available. Grad-uate courses in labor-managementrelations or economics are examplesof non-law courses students mayproperly include as a minor part oftheir law training.

Legal Process has been a sorespot with students for years. Thefaculty is agreed that the objectivesof the course are fundamental; thestudents are agreed that the presentcourse is not a satisfactory means toachieve the objectives. The crit-icisms, even if misguided, representat least a serious problem of com-munication. Those teachers respon-sible for the course are presentlyworking out alternatives to thecourse materials which have beenused for some years.

Edward I.. Kimball

TEACHING FORMATThe case method of teaching-s-a

marvelous invention - has beenabused by overwork and misapplica-tion. A number of teachers at 'Vis-consin are developing new ways topresent law materials. For example,several have adopted a problem-solving approach to their courses.(They have done this independentof the Curriculum Committee, butwith its encouragement.) Legal Bib-liography teaching is now largelyautomated. The faculty approvedan experiment with a "tutorial" or"super seminar," in which a smallgroup of students participated in aseminar which extended over twosemesters and which involved 5credits rather than the traditionaltwo credits for a seminar.

The clinical program, mentionedpreviously, is another innovation inteaching. Students have long beenhelping handle Legal Aid problemson a wholly volunteer basis. TheLaw School has, with financial helpfrom a foundation grant to supportsome of the extra faculty input re-quired, undertaken to make such su-pervised practice-type work a reg-ular part of its course offerings. It isearly, after only one year's experi-ence, to pass any final judgments onthe program, but it illustrates ourcontinuing search for better ways ofteaching law.

The impersonality inherent inlarge classes is always regrettable,but particularly so in the first year,when some students have major dif-ficulty adjusting to the demandsand ways of a new discipline. Wethought this might be combatted tosome degree if we could manage togive each first year student onesmall class. During the past yearmost first year courses, which wouldotherwise be divided into three sec-tions of about 90 students each,were divided into four sections. Twosections had only 20 students apiece,while the remaining two sectionswere increased to about 120. It washoped that the detriment in increas-ing the size of already large classeswould be more than offset by givingeach student a chance to be in onereally small group. Student and fac-ulty response has been favorable,

THE GARGOYLE

Curriculum, cont'd.

despite the increased workloadwhich teaching extra sections orgrading extra examinations thrustsupon the faculty. The ability togive more individualized instruc-tion, to get better acquainted person-ally, and to assign short writing as-signments during the course of thesemester were all advantages whichhave led us to try the experimentagain this coming year.

To evidence our special concernfor new students the Committee rec-ommended that the Dean name afaculty member First Year Coordi-nator, to be a particular point ofcontact for beginning students with

THE GARGOYLE

problems not better handled by theDean's office, and to keep an eye onthe first year program as a whole.

Another innovation under seriousdiscussion is institution of readingcourses in some subjects, designedfor the student who wishes to ac-quaint himself with basic literaturein a field and can demonstrate mas-tery of it by examination, withouteither teacher or student having tomeet with the usual frequency in theclassroom. Still another innovationbeing considered is "team teaching,"with several faculty members jointlyresponsible for teaching to a groupof beginning students the content ofthe whole first year curriculum.This would give them tlie freedom

to experiment with various arrange-ments of coursework, while assuringthat the students had the same basiccoverage as other students.

EVALUATIONDuring the past year perhaps a

disproportionate amount of theCommittee's time has been taken upwith student-initiated proposals forchange in the method of gradingand reporting student performance.Many faculty members considerthese questions of relatively low im-portance among the issues facingthe school, but the depth of studentconcern, expressed by student mem-bers of the Curriculum Committeeand by a referendum, is such as tomake the question important, what-ever its intrinsic significance mightbe.

Two minor changes were made:examinations are now identifiedonly by number rather than name,formalizing what had been the prac-tice of many faculty. And numericalrank in class is no longer assigned.Grades are available and a graphdepicting the distribution of gradeswithin the class is available, so thata student can indicate to a prospec-tive employer how he stands in rela-tion to others in his class, but thepossibly-misleading statistic of nu-merical rank in class is no longercreated.

After discussion and study anddebate lasting much longer than anybut the most realistic among us hadforeseen, the faculty passed at thevery end of the school year a mo-tion which, for the experimentalperiod of one year, allows each sec-ond or third year student to take asmany as 10 credit hours on a pass/fail basis. The ten hours includesthose courses (such as Trial Court,Law Review, and seminars) whichhave been on a pass/fail (i.e., sat-isfactory / unsatisfactory) basis allalong.

In separate but related action thefaculty decided that next year's en-tering class would not be told theirprecise numerical grades on first se-mester examinations and that thenumerical grade would not appear

IX

Curriculum, cont'd,

on their transcripts, but would beused only as a basis for determiningwhether the student had shown suf-ficient ability to continue into thesecond year of study and eventuallyto grad ua te.

The discussions about grading re-vealed the complexity of the prob-lem and laid bare how many uncer-tainties there are about what gradesdo and should be expected to do.Those who favor retaining the nu-merical grading system used forgenerations at Wisconsin believe (1)that the numerical grades are in factreasonably good assessments of thedegree to which skills and informa-tion which lawyers need have beenmastered by the student, (2) thatthe reward and threat which gradesrepresent do significantly motivatemost students to do their best, (3)that it is proper in a tax-supportedprofessional school to use grades tomotivate student effort beyond themotivation that self-interest (in thesense of preparation for a career)otherwise would provide, and (4 )that the value of grades outweighsthe costs which this grading systemmay have in fostering anxiety, de-structive competitiveness, and awork-only-for-grades attitude.

Those who urge some kind ofpass / fail system which (as this onedoes) retains numerical grades formost of the courses feel (1) that ba-sic competency for graduation canbe ~dequate1y determined by merelynoting that a student "passed," with-~mt further specification, (2) thatinforming the student how well hehas done can be better handled bya brief written evaluation than by anumber grade, (3) that evaluationfor the benefit of emplovers is suffi-ciently performed by the grades incourses still graded in the traditionalway, (4) and that the freeing of stu-dents-even in only a part of theircourses - from the pressures ofworking for a grade is a healthy de-velopment. The feeling is that if thework-for-grades syndrome can bebroken down, students will findtheir incentive in a desire to pre-pare for their chosen profession andin the satisfaction of mastery. Ex-

x

cessive anxiety (particularly in thefirst semester), unhealthy competi-tiveness, psychological barriers be-tween the graders and the graded,and creation of artificial motivationsare seen as undesirable concomitantsof the present grading system. In ad-dition, grades tend to force an equalattention to all courses, even when astudent with crystalized career objec-tives may find some much moreuseful than others. Permitting himto take the less useful courses on apass/fail basis requires him still todemonstrate at least minimum com-petency in the field, while allowinzhim to concentrate more of his en-ergies upon courses which he feelswill be most valuable to him in thelong run. The man who wishes to bea corporation lawyer may want tohave some acquaintance with thespecial problems of civil liberties,and vice versa, but he may wish todevote major attention to his fieldof special interest.

The faculty was substantially di-vided upon the merits of pass/fail,but a majority was prepared to em-bark upon a limited term, limitedscope experiment. The CurriculumCommittee will attempt during thenext year to learn whether in factthe ability of students to take somecourses in which they need only es-tablish their basic competence (afterthe manner of a bar examination)has more benefits than detriments.

Frank Iuerkhelmer

Tuerkheirner Joins FacultyJoining the Law Faculty in Sep-

tember, 1970, is Frank J. Tuerk-heimer, who has recently resigned asAssistant to the Deputy Mayor ofNew York City. Mr. Tuerkheimer'will teach Torts and Evidence.

An honors graduate of ColumbiaCollege in 1960, Mr. Tuerkheimerearned his law degree at New YorkUniversity School of Law in 1963.He served as Note Editor of theNYU Law Review, and was a Root-Tilden Scholar.

From 1965 until 1969, he wasAssistant to United States AttornevRobert Morgenthau for the south-ern district of New York. Duringthis period, he was supervisor of allsecurities fraud cases, and super-vised investigations into possible vio-lations of federal law in a widerange of cases. He conducted in-numerable Grand Jury presenta-tions, and acted as prosecutor inthirty-four criminal cases, which in-cluded securities frauds, violationsof the Neutrality Act, and the firstprosecutions under the Civil RightsAct, involving alleged unconstitu-tional deprivations of property.

As Assistant United States Attor-ney, he conducted the preparationand argument of ten appeals beforethe Second Circuit Court of Ap-peals.

After his graduation from LawSchool, Mr. Tuerkheimer servedone year as Law Clerk to U.S. Dis-trict Judge Edward Weinfeld forthe southern district of New York.In 1964-1965, as an African-AsianPublic Service Program Fellow ofthe Maxwell School of SyracuseUniversity, he served as Legal Assis-tant to the Attorney General ofSwaziland. His responsibilities inaddition to those of prosecutor: in-cluded the drafting of regulations,and the codification of Swazi law~nd customs. The latter responsibilityinvolved numerous conferences withtribal elders, in order to codify theoral traditions of the Swazi people.

Professor Tuerkheimer and hiswife Barbara are the parents of onechild.

THE GARGOYLE

Back Row: Carl Ross, Managing Editor, James Clark, Editor-in-Chief.Front Row: Earl Hazeltine, Managing Editol", Angela Bartell, Articles Editor,

Walter D.ickey, Articles Editor.

Established in 1920, the Wiscon-sin Law Review began as a quarter-ly published through the joint ef-forts of Faculty and students. Pro-fessor "Herbie" Page was its firsteditor, and the first faculty Board of

teaching experience, the ability ofstudent editors of law reviews to se-lect or reject professors' manuscriptsis an awesome power over their live-lihood. Indeed the power they wieldmay be greater now than when Pro-fessor Rodell made his critical com-ments in 1937. This power will con-tinue, and perhaps grow, as long asthe student operated law reviewsdominate the publication of legalscholarship.

Membership on Law Review con-tinues, also, to provide great advan-tages to the students who are chos-en, although as the criteria formembership change in some lawschools, the advantages may be less-ened. Some schools apparently be-lieve the selection based on firstyear grades alone should no longerbe the sale qualification. Some lawschools such as Harvard have pro-vided at least an optional pass-failsystem in the first year, which elim-inates grades as the basis of selectionfor law review.

Law Review Celebrates50th Anniversary

The Wisconsin Law Review's 50thanniversary issue will be publishedin December, 1970.

* * *The law reviews of the United

States form a unique network in thepublishing field, since they are theleading publishers of legal researchand analysis. " ... the law review,"wrote Chief Justice Earl Warren inthe 50th anniversary issue of theMarquette Law Review in June,1967, "has now long since achieveda unique position in our jurispru-dence. It has served not only to lim-it the law as it is (or is thought tobe) but to probe, plumb, query, crit-icize, provoke and explore-in anon-going effort to make the law anever-more effective tool for regulat-ing conduct and resolving differ-ences."

Not all would agree with theChief Justice's view of the power ofthe Law Reviews over the law it-self. But few would dispute DeanRobert Boden's appraisal (in thesame issue of the Marquette LawReview) that the law review's great-est value, is "not in the service it canrender to the Bench and Bar but in

the training ground it provides foryoung men preparing for careers inthe legal profession. In this sense,the nation's law reviews probablystand alone among the co-curricularteaching devices in institutions ofhigher learning in this country."

Some would agree with the ap-praisal of Yale's Professor Fred Ro-dell, who bluntly wrote a "goodbyeto Law Reviews" in 1937. "Theleading articles, and the book re-views too, are for the most partwritten by professors and would-beprofessors of law whose chief inter-est is in getting something publishedso they can wave it in the faces oftheir deans when they ask for araise, because the accepted way ofgetting ahead in law teaching is tobreak constantly into print in a dig-nified way. The students who writefor law reviews are egged on by thecomforting thought that they will hepretty sure to get jobs when theygraduate in return for their slavery,and the super-students who do theeditorials and dirty work are eggedon even harder by the knowledgethat they will get even better jobs."

In an era when tenure and pro-motions in academic positions de-pend upon scholarly research andpublication as well as on successful

* * *

THE GARGOYLE XI

Any voting member is eligible tobe a candidate for an editorial posi-tion. On the day of elections, eachis allowed to say whether or not hewishes to be considered a candidatefor each office. Each candidate fora position gives a short speech, andanswers the questions of his fellowmembers, before the voting occurs.Voting members in their third yearwho are not elected to editorial po-sitions serve usually in an advisorycapacity and do little writing orediting.

As has been said, the Law Reviewchanges slowly. Change is difficult.Not only does the 1970 Law Reviewresemble all Wisconsin Law Reviewsfor years past; it resembles closelyall law reviews currently published.Their contents are similar. Thereappears to be a "National Law Re-view Writing Style" in 1970-71, asthere was in 1937, when ProfessorFred Rodell wrote in the VirginiaLaw Review, "... it seems to be acardinal principle of law reviewwriting and editing that nothing

candidate's second year. Again, al-most all candidates who conscien-tiously complete the Note and thefirst draft of the Comment arc ac-cepted for voting membership. Inany year, there are 35 to 40 votingmembers of the Review) about 20of them second year students.

All voting members participate inthe selection of the Editorial Board,which includes the Editor-in-Chief,IVfanaging Editors, Articles Editors,Notes and Comments Editors and aResearch Editor.

***

During 1970-71 the Review is at-tempting, for the first time, tobroaden its membership by includ-ing some students with weighted av-erages between 82 and 85. Thesewill be invited, if they wish to beconsidered as possible candidatesfor Law Review, to submit, duringthe first week of school, a short pa-per on a special problem or case.On the basis of this sample of an-alytical writing, some will be select-ed to become candidates, and willcompete for membership by com-pleting the Note and the first draftof the Comment, just as other can-didates do.

had in his second year; he neversaw a leading article before it ap-peared in print, nor did he haveany responsibility whatsoever forthe publication of the Review.

Although it has grown in 50 yearsfrom 509 pages in Volume 1 (1920)to over 1000 pages today, the 8p-pearance of the Wisconsin Law Re-view has changed only a little. Thecontent of its leading articles, whichare now received from authors allover the country, h8S changed to re-flect the changing times and thecurrent interests of lawyers. Tortlaw questions no longer are the gristin a modern law review.

But, on the whole, the WisconsinLaw Review) and, indeed, its fellowlaw reviews, have remained a con-tinuous institution, relatively un-changed, in a world which, at times,at least, has seemed to be turningupside down.

.* * *

In addition to the publishablenote, each candidate during thefirst half of the fourth semester, isrequired to make substantial progresstoward the completion of a Com-ment, which deals with a broaderlegal issue in a more detailed andincisive way than does the Note.

On the basis of these two assign-ments, membership in the Law Re-view is awarded by April 1 of the

Since 1935, the Wisconsin LawReview has been entirely a studentpublication, although each Board ofEditors has a Faculty Advisor. Par-ticularly in the selection of leadingarticles, other faculty members areinformally consulted from time totime.

Membership on the Law Reviewhas traditionally been limited to lawstudents who, after 2 semesters, haveweighted averages of 85 or better.All such students are invited to be-come candidates, and almost all ofthem accept. During the third se-mester, each candidate is requiredto complete a publishable note.These notes, which are unsigned,usually deal with cases of currentand compelling interest. The Notessection, under the supervision of theNotes editor, makes up a substantialportion of each issue of the Law Re-VleW.

leon F. FoleyFirst Editor-in-Chief

Wisconsin Law Review

Editors was composed of Frank J.Boesel, E. A. Gilmore, H. S. Rich-ards, Howard L. Smith, Oliver S.Rundell, J. B. Sanborn and John D.Wickhem. The first student Editor-in-Chief was Leon F. Foley, now ofMilwaukee. His editorial assistantswere Kenneth Grubb, Francis Hig-son, H. W. Robinson, MalcolmWhyte, Roy F. Burmeister, HermanR. Salen, Rudolph M. Schlabach,E. C. Soderberg, Stafford Trottman,Kenneth S. White, and D. V. W.Beckwith. Lead articles in early lawreviews were usually the work of thefaculty members of the Board ofEditors, with the students provid-ing a section called Notes-RecentDecisions.

The Law Review records are un-clear about procedures used in thepublication of early Reviews. It ap-pears that, in addition to writing allthe leading articles, the facul ty edi-torial board selected the student ed-itors, and, in fact, did all the edit-ing themselves. An Editor-in-Chieffrom that earlier time reports thathe was simply notified, at the end ofhis first year, that he had been se-lected for Law Review) but that thebasis of his selection was not dis-closed to him. He was selected asEditor-in-Chief in the same way atthe end of his second year. As Ed-itor-in-Chief, he wrote notes as he

XII THE GARGOYLE

may be said forcefully and nothingmay be said amusingly ... in the in-terest of something called dignity."

Mr. James Clark, 1970-71 Editor-in-Chief, reports that editors traincandidates in the "Law ReviewStyle," which seeks to make pointscarefully, briefly and to remove anyextraneous, non-legal ideas, state-ments, or words in the interest ofmaking its articles succinct and, atthe same time, complete and accu-rate. Law Review editors all overthe country use the United StatesGovernment Printing Office StyleManual and the Uniform System ofCitation, a manual, now in its elev-enth edition, prepared by the Har-vard, Columbia and the Universityof Pennsylvania Law Reviews andthe Yale Law Journal. Standardizedstyle permits regular readers of lawreviews to use them for quick andeasy reference.

Another reason for the nation-wide similarity in the 200 plus LawReviews is the fact that almost allof them are printed by two or threeprinting companies. Under thesecircumstances, standardization is inthe interests of economy and effi-ciency.

The constant turnover in editorialpersonnel, instead of promotingchange and development, may actu-ally prevent it. Each Board of Ed-itors publishes 4 issues of the Re-view. There is little if any time dur-ing the brief tenure of any editorialboard for careful consideration ofthe effects and implications of anyalternative editorial plans. Suchchanges as do occur are often simplyprocedural.

The Wisconsin Law Review hasfor several years published in its Lawand Society and Commentary sec-tions many articles authored by non-lawyer social scientists and legalscholars that are not written in tra-ditional Law Review style. Thesearticles may, on occasion, discussnovel matters of interest only to asegment of the profession. Althoughoften criticized by some members ofthe practicing bar, there is evidencethat these sections do have a na-tionwide readership.

The 1970-71 editors are aware ofdissatisfaction on the part of cer-

THE GARGOYLE

tain .members of the legal professionwith the seemingly abstract andesoteric nature of many articles inthe Review. Recognizing that insome instances this criticism hasbeen valid, an attempt is being madeto achieve a better balance in thetype of material published, and toinsure that all articles, even whenthey are theoretical, still possess asubstantial degree of practical andoperational significance.

Recently, Editor-in-Chief JamesClark and Research Editor JamesGerlach addressed a questionnaireto members of the Wisconsin Barrequesting suggestions for subjects ofinterest and benefit to practicinglawyers. They hope that, when theresponse to the questionnaire is com-plete, they will be able to improvethe quality and significance of thosearticles which will be particularlyrelevant to the practicing attorney.

Gordon B. Baldwin

Marygold Melli

Associate DeanBaldwin to Iran

An appointment to a lectureshipin comparative law sponsored bythe Fulbright-Hayes Program willtake Associate Dean Gordon B.Baldwin to the Faculty of Law,University of Tehran, Iran for theacademic year 1970-71. He willserve as consultant in legal educa-tion in addition to performingteaching and research services.

In his capacity as a consultant, hehopes to encourage legal research ofa type developed at Wisconsin.Heretofore legal scholarship has em-phasized studies of doctrine as de-veloped in the European codes fil-tered through Islamic law. Iran isone of the world's most rapidly de-veloping countries, and the legalinstitutions appropriate to a simpleeconomy are no longer appropriate.For example, Dean Baldwin states,Islamic law provides that all heirsshare equally in the estate of thedeceased. This prevents continuityin business and in agricultural oper-ations. Nor is there any developedtort law in Iran. Injuries are re-dressed, if at all, in courts only ifcrimes and specific violations ofstatutes have been established. DeanBaldwin hopes to participate in theestablishment of a scholarly lawjournal.

Iran is one of the few countriesin the world with an acute shortageof lawyers. Most of the faculty havebeen trained in French, Swiss, orBelgian law schools, but a growingnumber have received their trainingin the United States.

Professor Marygold S. Melli willreplace him as Associate Dean. Mrs.Melli, an honor graduate in theClass of 1950, has been a memberof the faculty since 1961. She for-merly served as Executive Secretaryof the Wisconsin Judicial Counciland as a member of the State Boardof Public Welfare. She has taughtin the field of domestic relations,sales, criminal procedure, and legalprocess.

XIII

Class Agents AppointedRobert Curry (Class of 1953),

Class Agent Vice-Chairman of theNational Committee of the LawSchool Fund has announced thatthe alumni listed below have agreedto serve as Class Agents. ClassAgents will conduct the appeal forfunds among their classmates wholive outside the areas in which fundraising efforts are concentrated.They will supplement the work oflocal solicitors where there are or-ganized local campaigns.

Class Agents are:

1921 Dorothy Walker108~ N. Cook St.Portage, Wis.

1922 Ray T. McCannGold & McCann152 W. Wisconsin Ave.Milwaukee, Wis.

1924 Harold H. Persons146 Kensington Dr.Madison, Wis.

1925 Sheldon VanceVance & Vance322 E. Sherman Ave.Ft. Atkinson, Wis.

1926 Myron StevensRoss, Stevens, Pick & Spohn1 So. Pinckney St.Madison, Wis.

1927 Paul Moskowitz312 E. Wisconisn Ave.Milwaukee, Wis.

1929 William KruegerKrueger & Thums408 3rd St.Wausau, wls.

1930 Alfred GoldbergPadway, Goldberg & Previant211 W. Wisconsin Ave.Milwaukee, Wis.

1932 Geroge Kroncke, Jr.First National Bank1 So. Pinckney St.Madison, Wis.

1933 Floyd McBurneyMcBurney & McBurney111 So. Fairchild St.Madison, Wis.

1935 Allan W. AdamsHansen, Eggers, Berres &

Kelley416 College Ave.Beloit, Wis.

XIV

1936 Joseph WernerOrr, Isaksen, Werner, Lathrop& Hart

122 W. Washington Ave.Madison, Wis.

1937 Walter BjorkDairyland Insurance Co.625 N. Sego Rd.Madison, Wis.

1938 Herbert TerwilligerGenrich, Terwilliger, Wakeen,

Piehler & Conway403 Fourth St.Wausau, ""Vis.

1939 Willard StaffordStafford, Rosenbaum, Rieser& Hansen

204 S. Hamilton St.Madison, Wis.

1940 Richard P. TinkhamTinkham, Smith, Bliss & Pat-

terson630 4th St.Wausau, Wis.

1941 Lawrence J. FitzpatrickJ. J. Fitzpatrick Lumber Co.,

Inc.5001 University Ave.Madison, Wis.

1942 Jack R. DeWittHerro, McAndrews & Porter110 E. Main St.Madison, Wis.

1943 Catherine ClearyFirst Wis. Trust Co.735 N. Water St.Milwaukee, Wis.

1944 Frank Coyne1 W. Main St.Madison, Wis.

1947 Louis Gage, Jr.Berg & Gage58;;2 So. Main St.Janesville, Wis.

]948 Warren StolperMurphy, Huiskamp, Stolper,

Brewster & Desmond2 E. Gilman St.Madison, Wis.

1949 Harry Franke, Jr.Grootemat, Cook & Franke660 E. Mason St.Milwaukee, Wis.

1950 Joseph MelliMelli, Smith & Shields119 Monona Ave.Madison, Wis.

1951 Glen CampbellCampbell, Brennan, Steil &

Ryan1 East MilwaukeeJanesville, Wis.

]952 William J. WillisFoley & Lardner735 N. Water St.Milwaukee, Wis.

1953 Paul F. MeissnerShea, Hoyt, Greene, Randall

& Meissner735 N. Water St.Milwaukee, Wis.

1954 John C. FritschlerFritschler, Ross, Pellino &

Protzmann222 S. Hamilton St.Madison, Wis.

1955 Robert H. ConsignyWickhem, Consigny & Sedor1 So. Main St.Janesville, Wis.

1956 David L. MacGregorBrady, Tyrrell, Cotter & Cutler735 N. Water St.Milwaukee, Wis.

1957 Bruce GillmanArthur, Tomlinson & Gillman330 E. Wilson St.Madison, Wis.

1958 Richard OlsonRoberts, Boardman, Suhr &

Curry110 E. Main St.Madison, Wis.

1959 Earl Munson, Jr.LaFollette, Sinykin, Anderson,

Davis & Abrahamson110 E. Main St., Room 516Madison, Wis.

1960 Andre SaltounBaker, McKenzie & HightowerPrudential PlazaChicago, Illinois

1961 Thomas ZilavyRoss, Stevens, Pick & SpohnP.O. Box 1286, 1 So. Pinckney

St.Madison, Wis.andThomas RagatzRoberts, Boardman, Suhr &

Curry110 E. Main St. Room 813Madison, Wis.

1962 Robert FriebertShellow, Shellow & Coffey660 E. Mason St., Room 404Milwaukee, Wis.

1963 James O. HuberFoley & Lardner735 N. Water St.Milwaukee, Wis.

Continued, page 15.

THE GARGOYLE

Smongeski Research andScholarship FundsEstablished in Law School

Through the University of Wis-consin Foundation, the Law Schoolhas recently been granted the in-come from the bequest of Mr. An-ton Smongeski of Stevens Point,who died at the age of 90 on Sep-tember 24, 1968.

A 1908 graduate of the LawSchool, Mr. Smongeski practicedlaw in' Stevens Point until his re-tirement in 1943. Mr. Smongeskiwas born in Two Rivers, the son ofPolish immigrants. After his grad-uation from high school in 1897, heworked as a crab fisherman until1904, when he enrolled in the LawSchool. During his lifetime, Mr.Smongeski often expressed his de-sire to assist the Law School, whichhe credited with much of the re-sponsibility for his success.

Part of the income from his sub-stantial bequest will provide annualSmongeski scholarships, for whichrecipients will be selected on the ba-sis of need and academic achieve-ment, with preference being givento residents of Portage and Mani-towoc Counties.

Discretionary funding of LawSchool Faculty research and studywhich can "provide new insightsthat can be applied to contemporaryand future needs of the communityand in addition into teaching com-petence and instructional mater-ials", will also be supported, accord-ing to the approved proposal.

"Our experience over the pasttwo decades," the proposal states,"demonstrates that a free researchyear, or even a semester, may allowdeep inquiry into problems that areonly dimly perceived at the begin-ning. From such free periods, yearsof productive achievement can begenera ted."

The University of WisconsinFoundation will manage the invest-ment of the Smongeski bequest. ASmongeski B e que s t Committee,composed of the Dean and twofaculty members, (presently Profs.Hurst and Remington) will selectprojects to be supported from fac-ulty proposals. The principal expen-ditures will be for the salaries of

THE GARGOYLE

Anton Smongeski

faculty members on leave for oneor two semesters, with small addi-tional amounts for secretarial rassis-tance.

The first Smongeski scholarshipwinners, entering Law School inSeptember, 1970, are Richard For-tune, Stevens Point, and RichardReinke, Clintonville, a 1967 grad-uate of Wisconsin State University-Stevens Point. James Czajkowski ofMilwaukee, a second year student,is also a recipient of a 1970-71Smongeski award.

The first Smongeski ResearchGrant will be awarded during the1970-71 academic year.

Alvord Fellow NamedJohn Bruce, a graduate of the

Columbia Law School and a return-ing Peace Corps volunteer fromEthiopia, has been selected as theAlvord Graduate Fellow for theacademic year, 1970-71. His re-search will be in the area of lawand land reform in developing na-tions.

Established in 1952, the AlvordFellowship has assisted many prom-ising law graduates to do graduatework in law. Mr. Ellsworth Alvord,who established the Foundation, at-tended the Wisconsin Law Schoolfor two years, prior to entering ser-vice in World War I. He earned hisundergraduate degree at the Uni-versity of Wisconsin, and wasawarded an LL.B. in 1921 at Col-umbia Law School. He was seniorpartner in the Washington, D.C.law firm of Alvord and Alvordfrom 1930 until his death in 1964.

IN MEMORIAMGlen Mundschau

Recent law graduates will be sad-dened to learn of the accidentaldeath of Glen (Skip) Mundschauat his home in Cleveland Heights,Ohio, on May 10, 1970.

Mr. Mundschau, an honor grad-uate of the Law School, class of1968, had been associated since hisgraduation with the firm of Jones,Day, Cockley and Reavis, Cleve-land. He was a member of the Barof Ohio.

During his Law School career,Mr. Mundschau was Note Editor ofthe Wisconsin Law Review, and aparticipant in the internship pro-gram in the administration of crim-inal justice. He was a member ofPhi Delta Phi, and the Order ofCoif.

Surviving Mr. Mundschau arehis wife, Gail, and two youngdaughters.

Classmates and friends of Mr.Mundschau, who may be interestedin contributing to a memorial, areinvited to contact Franklin Jesse, 2East Gilman Street, Madison, Wis-consm.

Class Agents, cont'd from page 14.1964 Frederick C. Christians

Murphy, Huiskamp, Stolper,Brewster & Desmond

2 East Gilman St.Madison, Wis.

1965 Gordon L. Ware, Jr.Ruder & Staples503 3rd St.Wausau, Wis.

1966 Allan TorhorstQuality Carriers Inc.P.O. Box 339Burlington, Wis.

1967 Henry A. BrachtlPolletti, Freidin, Prashker,

Feldman & Gartner77 Third Ave.New York, N.Y.

1968 Franklin C. Jesse, Jr.Murphy, Huiskamp, Stolper,

Brewster & Desmond2 East Gilman St.Madison, Wis.

1969 Edward GarveyLindquist & Vennum1010 Midland Bank Bldg.Minneapolis, Minn.

xv