Leadership in Law 2013: James D. Johnson

Partner, Rudolph Fine Porter & Johnson LLP, Evansville Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


johnson-james2-15col.jpg (IL Photo/DIA Photography, David Greene)

James D. Johnson is an outstanding business partner who has contributed to the firm’s success and growth from its four original founding partners to 21 attorneys today. He’s established a trusted, reliable reputation in the Evansville legal community and beyond. Jim is an accomplished litigator who has a “take charge” personality yet listens and shows empathy and concern. He is actively involved with the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana, serving as president elect. He served as DTCI’s amicus chair for more than 10 years, filing many cases on behalf of the organization. Jim serves on many nonprofit boards and as a community volunteer, including his regular stint as a Ronald McDonald House front desk host, making new guests feel welcome.

If you could take a sabbatical from the law for a year to work your fantasy job, what job would you choose?
A bartender at a tiki bar in the Caribbean. Pleasant surroundings and meet people when they are relaxed.

If you could meet and spend a day with one lawyer from history, who would it be and why?
Clarence Darrow. His practice covered the gambit of the law for his era, e.g. labor, railroad and individual rights. He would be a good person to have a drink (or two) with.

What civic cause is the most important to you?
Ronald McDonald House. It is there for people when they are at their most vulnerable – a sick child.

What is your best stress reliever?
Exercise. I am one person before I exercise and another person afterward.

In life or law, what bugs you?
People who treat children badly. All it does is create bad behavior in the child. If we could somehow teach kindness to the public, we could stop the cycle of rudeness, ignorance and stupidity.

What advice would you give your 25-year-old self?
I would first encourage him. I would say the dedication and work he is putting in will pay off in ways he couldn’t imagine. I would then try to give him some pause and say his profession is important, but it isn’t everything.

Would a world without 24/7 technology be a good or bad thing?
A bad thing. The opportunity to know what is going on is a positive. It allows us to work remotely and incorporate more of our lives into our work time. It is up to the individual if he/she wants to stay in constant touch.

What do you find scary?
Not being able to have an impact on the lives of the people I care about.

Numerous TV shows center around lawyers and their practices. Are any of them close to realistic?
No. I haven’t seen a show yet that shows a lawyer sitting at his/her desk answering discovery.

What class in law school did you find the most difficult?
Constitution law. It always seemed like a moving target.

If you could have one superpower, what would it be?
The power to transport. So when I am in a boring meeting, I could instantly leave.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Great observation Smith. By my lights, speaking personally, they already have. They counted my religious perspective in a pro-life context as a symptom of mental illness and then violated all semblance of due process to banish me for life from the Indiana bar. The headline reveals the truth of the Hoosier elite's animus. Details here: Denied 2016 petition for cert (this time around): (“2016Pet”) Amicus brief 2016: (“2016Amici”) As many may recall, I was banned for five years for failing to "repent" of my religious views on life and the law when a bar examiner demanded it of me, resulting in a time out to reconsider my "clinging." The time out did not work, so now I am banned for life. Here is the five year time out order: Denied 2010 petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): (“2010Pet”) Read this quickly if you are going to read it, the elites will likely demand it be pulled down or pile comments on to bury it. (As they have buried me.)

  2. if the proabortion zealots and intolerant secularist anti-religious bigots keep on shutting down every hint of religious observance in american society, or attacking every ounce of respect that the state may have left for it, they may just break off their teeth.

  3. "drug dealers and traffickers need to be locked up". "we cannot afford just to continue to build prisons". "drug abuse is strangling many families and communities". "establishing more treatment and prevention programs will also be priorities". Seems to be what politicians have been saying for at least three decades now. If these are the most original thoughts these two have on the issues of drug trafficking and drug abuse, then we're no closer to solving the problem than we were back in the 90s when crack cocaine was the epidemic. We really need to begin demanding more original thought from those we elect to office. We also need to begin to accept that each of us is part of the solution to a problem that government cannot solve.

  4. What is with the bias exclusion of the only candidate that made sense, Rex Bell? The Democrat and Republican Party have created this problem, why on earth would anyone believe they are able to fix it without pushing government into matters it doesn't belong?

  5. This is what happens when daddy hands over a business to his moron son and thinks that everything will be ok. this bankruptcy is nothing more than Gary pulling the strings to never pay the creditors that he and his son have ripped off. they are scum and they know it.