Wisconsin State Bar Changes Diversity Program Language Amid Suit

As the State Bar of Wisconsin defends its diversity clerkship program in court, it has amended the program’s definition of diversity to remove mention of race.

A portion of the original lawsuit the bar is facing has been dropped due to the language changes, the Bar announced Thursday.

Wisconsin attorney Daniel Suhr, represented by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL), alleges the bar’s program is unconstitutional in a December 2023 lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Eastern Wisconsin. Suhr argues his First Amendment rights are being violated because his mandatory dues to be a practicing attorney are being used against his wishes to fund the program.

“The settlement clarifies the definition of ‘diversity’ but makes no changes to the program,” State Bar Executive Director Larry J. Martin said in a statement. “The Diversity Clerkship Program, which has been creating opportunities for Wisconsin-based law students for three decades, will continue to exist and to operate in its current form.”

Under the settlement, the new definition states: “Diversity means including people with differing characteristics, beliefs, experiences, interests, and viewpoints. Diversity promotes an environment in which all individuals are treated with dignity and respect, regardless of their differences and without regard to stereotypes, and helps to ensure a better understanding and consideration of the needs and viewpoints of others with whom we interact.”

The settlement does not address Suhr’s claims that his free speech and First Amendment rights were violated because the Bar uses members’ mandatory fees for expenditures he deemed “non-germane,” which the conservative organization will continue to litigate.

“While we are pleased with this victory, we know the fight is far from over. In fact, this is only the beginning of a movement, and our lawsuit will provide a roadmap for future victories in all 50 states,” WILL litigator Skylar Croy said in a statement.

The case is Suhr v. Dietrich et al, E.D. Wis., No. 2:23-cv-01697.