ILNews

Letter to editor: Articles attack integrity

April 28, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Letters to the Editor

To the editor:


Over the course of my 41 years as a member of the Indiana bar, I have worked to help improve the justice system in Marion County and the state of Indiana. Many of those activities have involved working to uphold the integrity of the bench and bar. You can imagine my surprise, then, upon reading articles in the Indiana Lawyer, The Indianapolis Star, and the Indianapolis Business Journal falsely impugning my integrity and the integrity of our law firm.


Specifically, those articles suggested that an associate of this firm and I secured a sentence modification for Paula Willoughby in 2009 that was based on campaign contributions instead of the merits of this particular case. These suggestions are baseless and are the result of reckless journalism.


I represented Ms. Willoughby in her original trial in March of 1992. That trial ended in a mistrial, and I represented her in the re-trial in August of 1992. My involvement in Ms. Willoughby’s case ended in 1996, when the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed her conviction following appeal and reduced her sentence from 110 years to 70 years. I have had absolutely no involvement in her sentence modification whatsoever, contrary to the false suggestions in the reporting of this matter.


The insinuation that campaign contributions made by me and associate Jennifer Lukemeyer were improper and resulted in the modification is equally inaccurate. Over the course of my career, and as a Democrat, I have given to candidates of both parties in local, state, and national elections. In the last election for Marion County prosecutor, I made a donation to the campaigns of both Carl Brizzi and his opponent, Melina Kennedy. My motivation in making these and other donations has been to support well-suited candidates to improve our government. I have never made an improper donation or accepted an improper advantage from making a donation, and neither has Jennifer Lukemeyer. Suggestions to the contrary are false and could have been resolved with proper research.


There is a lengthy tradition of campaign support from members of the Indiana bar to candidates in local elections. Lawyers often have many interactions with local candidates, whereas the typical citizen has no interaction with local candidates. As a result, lawyers are often better informed to evaluate local candidates, and in many instances have been asked by those candidates to fund their campaigns. A number of years ago, I was a member of the Indianapolis Bar Association Board of Managers. We discussed, and I supported, establishing a blind trust for campaign contributions to judicial candidates. The idea was not embraced at the time. This idea is again being considered by the Indianapolis Bar Association and many others following the United States Supreme Court opinion in Caperton v. Massey, which addressed contributions to judicial candidates. While I continue to support the idea of establishing a blind trust, the contributions made by me and my associates were proper and had no bearing on the outcome of any case.


Readers of the articles covering the Willoughby case and several other cases should note that no effort was made by the media to disclose the merits of granting the requested relief. One such case was that of Guilford Forney, represented by Bruce Donaldson at Barnes & Thornburg. Mr. Donaldson has written an eloquent letter, published in the Indianapolis Business Journal and Indiana Lawyer detailing the specific deficiencies of the reporting in these cases. I agree with him when he wrote that the media has injured its own reputation and credibility as a reliable source of information as a result of these articles.

James H. Voyles Jr.
Voyles Zahn Paul Hogan & Merriman, Indianapolis

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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT