Stafford Rosenbaum LLP

Roots in Madison since 1879

This Wisconsin law firm keeps offices in Madison and Milwaukee, and its history runs deep. It traces its origins to Madison in 1879. The firm describes a record of more than 140 years, which sets its start in the state's early decades.

A history that long is worth pausing on. Few firms in any state can point to that kind of continuity. In my opinion, staying power across generations of clients says something about how the practice has held together.

The firm keeps a presence in two of Wisconsin's larger legal markets. Madison is the state capital and a center for government and public-sector work. Milwaukee is the state's most populous city and a hub for business. Having a base in both places lines up with the kind of work the firm describes.

A broad general practice

The firm works across a wide set of legal fields. Its listed practice areas include business law, litigation, employment and labor law, real estate, trusts and estates, family law, construction law, and bankruptcy and creditors' rights.

The list runs further than that. It also covers alternative dispute resolution, antitrust and trade regulation, appellate law, insurance law, intellectual property, and environment and land use law. Dealership and franchise law, foundations and nonprofits, and government relations appear as well.

What the range suggests

That breadth points to a general practice rather than a single niche. A client with a business dispute and a separate estate question could, in principle, find both handled at one firm. As a reviewer, I read the range as a sign the practice is built for clients with mixed legal needs.

Breadth cuts both ways, and it is fair to say so. A firm that lists many areas is not automatically deep in each one. The practice list tells you what the firm offers. It does not, on its own, tell you how many lawyers work in a given field. That is a question worth raising directly with the firm.

A large public-sector client base

One part of the firm's practice stands out in its own materials. It states that it serves as general counsel or special counsel for more than 100 Wisconsin local governmental entities.

The work in that area covers public utility, government and administration, employment, labor, and environmental law. That is a particular kind of client base. Advising municipalities and public bodies carries open-records rules and public-scrutiny concerns that private work does not.

Several of the firm's practice areas line up with that public work. Its list includes government law, government relations, election and political law, and public utility and energy law. Those are fields most often needed by public bodies and the businesses that deal with them.

Serving that many public entities points to steady, repeat relationships. Local governments tend to keep counsel they trust across long stretches of time. The figure the firm cites, more than 100, is a concrete number rather than a vague claim, and that makes it easier to weigh.

Who the firm serves

Beyond government bodies, the firm lists businesses, nonprofit organizations, and individuals among its clients. It says it represents clients throughout Wisconsin and nationally. It also describes work that reaches clients across the United States and internationally.

That mix matters for anyone weighing the firm. A construction company, a family planning an estate, and a city government are very different clients with very different needs. A practice that names all three is signaling that it handles both organizational and personal matters.

The national and international reach is worth reading carefully. Many Wisconsin firms serve local clients whose matters cross state or national borders. A listing that mentions work reaching beyond Wisconsin often reflects that kind of spillover rather than a network of far-flung offices. The firm names only two offices, both in Wisconsin.

What the public record shows

Here I want to be plain about the limits of the evidence. The firm's website sets out the office locations, the founding year, the practice list, and the government-counsel claim. It also links to profiles on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and Twitter/X.

The site did not make a full attorney roster available for this review. So this listing does not name individual lawyers, their bios, or their bar admissions. The firm does publish news and commentary written by its own attorneys, which suggests an active writing practice. Anyone who wants to check specific credentials should read the firm's attorney pages directly.

In my opinion, the firmest points here are the long Wisconsin history, the two-office footprint, and the sizable public-sector client base. Those are facts a prospective client can weigh with some confidence. Details such as individual attorney experience and case outcomes are most reliably confirmed by contacting the firm and asking.