Walther reviews year as Missouri Bar vice president

Skip Walther

Skip Walther is a principal in the firm of Walther, Antel, Stamper & Fischer in Columbia. He was admitted to The Missouri Bar in 1979 and spent two and one half years in the Boone County Prosecuting Attorney’s office before entering private practice. He has been on the Bar’s board of governors since 1999 and was elected vice president last September. The group of 28,000 attorneys and judges traditionally promotes the vice president to acting president and then president of the organization, so Walther is expected to have the top job in 2010.

Perhaps the most significant effort by the Bar this year was to fight against what it calls “an attack on the state judiciary” – proposals in the General Assembly backed by Gov. Matt Blunt to change the way judges are chosen in Missouri. Currently, the Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan governs the selection of judges on the state Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. Walther has argued that the process would become politicized if Missouri gave voters or legislators more power to select judges or changed the makeup of the commission that nominates appellate judges. One joint resolution proposed amending the Constitution to remove state court jurisdiction in tax and spending issues, but it failed to pass during the General Assembly session that ended in May.

CBT: What were the key reasons for the failure of House Joint Resolution 41, and is this just a skirmish in what may be a long fight over judicial review?

Walther: HJR 41 is a jurisdiction stripping bill. Currently, our state Constitution guarantees our citizens full access to our courts. HJR 41, as originally proposed by Rep. Jane Cunningham would close our courthouse doors to many of our citizens. Representative Cunningham, a Republican from Chesterfield, has championed this proposal for the past few years and seems intent on continuing her effort.

This year, HJR 41 passed through the House when Bryan Pratt refused to recognize any of the opponents who were seeking to debate the matter on the floor. The legislation was sent to the Senate and assigned to the Committee on Pensions, Veteran’s Affairs and General Laws. The Chair of that committee is Jason Crowell, an attorney, and he offered a Senate Committee substitute that rendered the legislation essentially toothless. Because other bills were seen as more important, HJR 41 was not taken up on the Senate floor by the time the session ended.

Many saw HJR 41 as a ploy to intimidate the judges who have or will decide the school funding formula litigation. Others saw the bill as a possible way to energize a block of voters to get out and vote in the November election. Whatever the intentions were of those who sponsored this ill-conceived legislation, our state is better off without HJR 41. Fortunately, many legislators on both sides of the aisle recognized the deficiencies in this legislation, and the lack of significant support in the Republican caucus made passage very difficult.

CBT: What have been a few of the highlights during your term as vice president of the Bar? You said last year that your leadership in the Bar might lead to benefits for Columbia and its attorneys – any movement in that direction?

Walther: Without doubt, the greatest successes so far this year have come in the legislative arena. A number of bills were introduced in both chambers that sought significant changes in the Missouri Plan, the historic concept first introduced in Missouri that seeks to remove politics from the judicial selection process. None of these bills survived. Many legal and business groups cooperated in opposing these bills, and thousands of hours were devoted to educate the General Assembly about the Missouri Plan and why it should not be changed. Missourians are rightfully proud that our state was the first state to adopt a non-partisan judicial selection process and very interested in making sure that politics does not control the selection of our appellate court judges.

For the first time in the history of the Missouri Bar, our Bar president is African American. Charlie Harris, a defense litigation specialist from Kansas City, has toured the state speaking to businesses, classrooms and civic organizations about the importance of a good civics education for all of our citizens and about the importance of diversity and inclusiveness. Charlie is always warmly received. Of course, as the president, Charlie is charged with furthering his agenda by making committee appointments and other important decisions, but he has graciously accepted many of my recommendations to consider local attorneys. Columbia will host the 2010 Annual Meeting of the Missouri Bar.

CBT: What has the Bar done recently to help Missouri attorneys do their jobs?

Walther: Our Bar introduced Fastcase to its members this year. Fastcase is an alternative to Westlaw and any attorney who practices in this state has free access to it. We charged a Bar committee with the responsibility of choosing a provider and negotiating a price, and the committee achieved a stunning result that will benefit all Missouri lawyers for years to come. Steve Scott, a Columbia attorney, was a member of the committee whose efforts were indispensable and critical to the successful outcome.

The Missouri Bar continues to find new ways to use the Internet as a tool for Missouri lawyers. Almost all of our publications are now online. One of the newer publications we offer is a weekly newsletter called ESQ. This newsletter is sent out each Friday to every licensed Missouri lawyer with an email address. It summarizes the newest court decisions, and it contains a wealth of legal news and links to other important legal websites.

CBT: What in your opinion are the most important legal issues facing small business owners in Columbia?

Walther: The most important legal issue is the one that the business owner either fails to recognize as a legal issue or is the one that the business owner chooses to address without benefit of legal advice. Small business owners too often believe that paying for legal advice is unnecessary. What is absolutely true, however, is that good, solid, competent legal advice pays for itself. Legal issues affecting business are often complicated and require analysis from an attorney. Whether it is deciding which business organization to use, how to hold title to real estate, how to structure agreements between co-owners or with customers, or determining the tax implications of various business decisions, any attempt to address these issues without an attorney’s advice is risky, to say the least