ILNews

Change at the top means new leadership at Supreme Court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Chief Justice Brent Dickson led the Indiana Supreme Court for just two years, but attorneys who practice before the court said his decision to hand the reins to a colleague is in keeping with the leadership tone he set.

Dickson expects to step down from his position as chief justice sometime before Sept. 1, according to a statement from the court. He will remain on the court as an associate justice until July 2016 when he will turn 75, the mandatory retirement age.
 

dickson-brent.jpg Dickson

“He is one of the smartest men I know, and one of the most intentional men I know,” said Maggie Smith, an appellate practitioner at Frost Brown Todd LLC who clerked for Dickson from 1996 to 1998.

“When a new chief is selected this fall, he’s still there on the court to be a backup and to help the new chief get his footing,” Smith said. Likewise, Dickson has divided the court’s administrative duties and given new justices plenty of experience that’s positioned any of them to lead, she said.

“His goal in agreeing to be chief justice was to make sure the transition was smooth,” after Randall Shepard retired, closing the books on the longest tenure as chief in the state’s history, Smith added. “I can’t imagine a smoother transition.”

Dickson announced June 11 he will relinquish his leadership as chief justice, saying “The time is right for this transition.”

The Judicial Nominating Commission will select the next chief justice and has scheduled public interviews Aug. 6 with Justices Steven David, Mark Massa, Robert Rucker and Loretta Rush. The commission then will determine Dickson’s successor.

“It has been a great joy and a privilege to have helped continue the Court’s tradition of excellence – especially with four hard-working colleagues who are devoted to the law,” Dickson said in a statement. “I am looking forward to being able to spend most of my time in legal research, deciding cases and writing opinions.”

Dickson has led the court since May 2012, when he succeeded Shepard. “Knowing that my tenure as chief justice was limited, each associate justice has actively participated in much of the administrative responsibilities and decisions of the office of chief justice,” Dickson said.

“The court and state will be well served when one of my colleagues is selected as the next chief justice.”

Gov. Mike Pence saluted Dickson, saying he “has served our state well for the last two years as the head of our state’s highest court, and has brought his outstanding legal expertise and practical judgment to bear throughout his 28 years as a member of the court. I know him to be a man of great faith, and I applaud his long-standing commitment to public service in the legal system and look forward to his continued wisdom as he remains on the court.”

Attorney General Greg Zoeller said that Dickson continued the successes of the Shepard court and “presided over the Indiana Supreme Court with great dignity, wisdom and fairness, and all attorneys who appear before the Court know they must be prepared during oral argument for the Chief Justice’s thorough questions and penetrating insight.”

Jon Laramore, a partner and appellate lawyer at Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, said that as chief justice, Dickson “maintained the atmosphere at oral arguments that was welcoming to counsel and encouraged a conversation between the lawyers and the justices about each case.”

Laramore said Dickson’s body of opinions on property taxes in the 1990s and numerous other areas were “path-breaking” in developing law around the Indiana Constitution.

“He has written the key cases on the qualified privileges clause, the property tax uniformity clause, double jeopardy and important opinions about special laws, religious freedom and, most recently, education,” he said. “Those opinions will live for many more decades.”

Indiana State Bar Association President Jim Dimos said he was surprised by Dickson’s announcement but pleased he will remain on the bench.

Dickson, Dimos said, “has been a pleasure to work with. He is collaborative in his efforts and was very interested in hearing the input of the practicing bar. I’m confident whoever his successor will be, that collaboration will continue.

“He was approachable and was interested in hearing what lawyers were thinking and he was very deliberate in his decision-making,” Dimos said.

Practicing before Dickson, Dimos won some and lost some. “At the end of the day, I always though Chief Justice Dickson gave due consideration to the arguments on both sides.”

As chair of the seven-member Judicial Nominating Commission, Dickson will have a say in who succeeds him on the court. The commission also includes three lawyers elected by attorneys and three lay members appointed by the governor. Currently, there are two members appointed by Pence and one completing the final year of a term who was appointed by former Gov. Mitch Daniels.

Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law Professor Joel Schumm said court-watchers will be interested to see if more than one justice expresses interest in the leadership position. He noted that during Dickson’s selection, his colleagues on the court were unanimous in backing him for chief.

“There hasn’t been for more than 25 years a contested race,” Schumm said. And because the commission is mostly Republican, justices appointed by Daniels – David, Massa and Rush – are the likeliest candidates.

“It’s likely the person selected will serve 10 or 15 years,” Schumm said. Dickson, he said, “has done a very good job in a time of transition for the court.”

Dickson was selected in 1986 as the 100th justice appointed to the Indiana Supreme Court. His former colleague on the high court, Frank Sullivan Jr., said Dickson’s modest and inclusive approach has been appreciated by the many judges, lawyers and citizens with whom he has had contact.

“I am pleased that Chief Justice Dickson will remain a member of the Supreme Court,” said Sullivan, now a professor at IU McKinney School of Law. “During his long tenure – indeed, the second longest tenure of any Indiana Supreme Court justice in history – he has authored some of the most important and far-reaching opinions of the court. The breadth and strength of the court’s decisions will benefit from his continued efforts.”

Among the major initiatives during his tenure as chief justice, Dickson continued efforts to expand the Odyssey case management system to all Indiana courts; revitalized the use of volunteer attorneys to provide civil legal aid to the needy; and initiated the reform of Indiana’s pretrial release system to enhance public safety, reduce taxpayer expense and provide greater fairness.

Under his watch, the court advanced proposed rules requiring e-filing in Indiana courts and requiring mandatory reporting of attorneys’ pro bono hours.

Smith, Dickson’s former clerk, said few attorneys realize the heavy volume of administrative work that falls to chief justices, estimating writing opinions is probably less than a quarter of the job. “Frankly, I’m surprised he has issued as many opinions as he has as chief justice,” she said.

She’s not surprised, though, that Dickson decided to let someone else lead the court before mandatory retirement.

“For him, I’m thrilled that he’s going to use the next two years to kind of finish what he started, which is the development of Indiana law,” Smith said. “He doesn’t do anything capriciously. He does what’s going to be best for the court as a whole.”•

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. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT