ILNews

Judge’s pending retirement leaked in clerk applicant’s letter

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

News of Indianapolis-based 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge John Tinder’s retirement about a year from now came in a way he didn’t expect. And while he won’t be hearing cases in real life afterward, he may be available to play a judge on TV if the opportunity arises.

Tinder’s retirement plans became known after a clerk applicant received a reply letter from Tinder that read in part, “I recently decided that I will be leaving the court in 2015 so I will not be hiring any additional clerks.” A few days later, the letter was leaked and published on the legal blog Above the Law.

“I certainly didn’t expect to see personal communication posted on a website, but I guess that’s the way of the world,” Tinder said Tuesday. “If I give information to someone and I don’t restrict it, that’s my own fault.

“It’s not like it was a secret either, though. Anybody could look at the calendar and figure out” that he would turn 65 in February 2015, at which point he will be eligible to assume senior judge status. But Tinder said he doesn’t intend to hear cases after more than 25 years on the federal bench.

Though Tinder hadn’t publicly announced his retirement from the Chicago-based 7th Circuit, he said he notified court administration last month that he intends to retire from the court next February. He said he also had shared the news with colleagues.

“I walked into the building here at 46 E. Ohio (in Indianapolis) in May 1984, and I’ve been working in this very same building ever since,” Tinder said. “I’ve had dream jobs for lawyers – now, and on the District Court, and as U.S. Attorney. They’re all things I enjoyed every day and I continue to enjoy.

“There’s benefit in trying something different,” he said. “I don’t want to put any particular limits on what I might try.”

Tinder said he has some “hazy notions” about what some of those things might be – public interest advocacy, maybe arbitration – along with some time for extended travel. “I have some bad habits like golf I might unleash a little,” he said.

“I’ve not really had the opportunity to exercise my First Amendment rights since about 1987 or so,” Tinder said.

Tinder is clearer, though, on what he won’t be doing – starting a law firm or appearing in a courtroom. “I’m not retiring from the legal profession, but I will be leaving the court, and I hope to remain active in some way in the legal community and the community at large,” he said. “I’m not just going to sit home and watch sitcoms.”

But Tinder says he does allow binge-watching of “House of Cards” and other popular dramas, and figures he as well as anyone might put his experience to work in a more artistic endeavor.

“My great hope is that I get a phone call from the people who are producing the prequel to ‘Breaking Bad,’” Tinder mused. “It would be fun to be a judge in a courtroom where Saul Goodman appears,” he said of the crooked lawyer portrayed in the just-concluded AMC network series.

And why not?

“I never would have thought I would have had a chance to do the things in the legal field I’ve been able to do,” Tinder said. “It’s just amazing to me, and it’s been a fun ride. Who know what lies ahead?”

After his appointment as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana in 1984, Tinder was nominated as a District Court judge in 1987 by President Ronald Reagan. In 2007, President George W. Bush nominated Tinder to the 7th Circuit, who was confirmed without an opposing vote in the U.S. Senate. Tinder graduated from Indiana University Maurer School of Law in Bloomington in 1975.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT