ILNews

Chinn: (A Small) Part of the Solution

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

iba-chinn-scottThe American Bar Association’s theme for Law Day to be observed on May 1 is “No Courts, No Justice, No Freedom”. The theme is meant to headline the growing problem of diminished funding for court systems across the country, which in some places has led to crisis conditions more indicative of third world legal systems than of the American ideal of justice. In the weeks to come, you’ll hear more from me and other bar leaders about that issue and its manifestations in Indiana.

But as we lead up to May 1, there is another aspect of our modern system that I thought worthy of addressing. Specifically, I have heard concerns from lawyers and judges recently about how our 24/7 media and information culture is producing false expectations and misunderstandings about the nature of the litigation process. Think about recent Indiana cases involving mass torts, political offices, and the remarks of prosecutors in criminal matters. Each context has presented challenges to public understanding about how our system works, i.e., what are its basic fairness guarantees to the parties, how motion practice and discovery work, and how long is “normal” to wait for an appropriate resolution of the case.

To some extent, we will never be able to completely disabuse the public about the pitfalls of jumping to conclusions when a case is filed, when a defendant is charged or when a public statement about a case only captures one side of the story or a piece of the process. But the question on my mind – and on the minds of those who have raised this issue with me – is what lawyers should be doing (and not doing) to aid the public understanding and to cause light to be shed from public comments instead of heat.

First, when called upon to speak about cases publicly, we should take pains to provide reasoned and tempered statements of our clients’ positions in the matter, be willing to accurately describe the process of decision, and avoid dramatic flair that can so easily overwhelm public understanding about the process. Second, we should take opportunities when appropriate, not necessarily in connection with our own representations, to offer our understanding to non-lawyers about the fundamentals of how the process works. Finally, we should personalize the lesson we give when we are asked informally about the litigation process. What would it be like if you were charged with a crime, would you want the prosecutor making you sound evil on television? What if your small business was sued for allegedly injuring someone and your livelihood was on the line, wouldn’t you want your day in court?

I don’t find particular fault with the popular media. I believe most journalists still impose on themselves an obligation to report accurately and as much in context as reasonably possible. Much will necessarily be lost in translation and in the brevity demanded in contemporary news stories. We should try to help journalists understand as much as possible about the process and not feed them with salacious sound bites.

By calling on lawyers to act with good purpose and restraint in public comments on cases, I also don’t mean to present a one-dimensional view of legal discourse in these matters or for wooden cadence that would please only lovers of Joe Friday. (Note to readers: using Dragnet references is a sure way to create a generation gap.) As a current example occurring outside our borders, take the case of the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida. The circumstances of the case present both understandable civil rights inquiries and questions about the impact of Florida’s so-called “Stand-Your-Ground” law. Lawyers are involved in speaking publicly about these issues, including as advocates for investigation and reform. I find reasonable expressions of that advocacy completely appropriate, even though we don’t yet know all the facts of the shooting or of the actions of the Sanford police in responding to it. So, there’s an art to this.

We are all tempted (the author included) to short-circuit the process in talking about who we think is guilty, who we think is at fault, and who should get a comeuppance. The world of instant media – both traditional and social – gives easy means to fall to that temptation. If lawyers continue to act as the voices of reason, however, that will be a small part of the solution to the problem of ensuring the American ideal of justice.•

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. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  2. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  3. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  4. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

  5. Access to the court (judiciary branch of government) is the REAL problem, NOT necessarily lack of access to an attorney. Unfortunately, I've lived in a legal and financial hell for the past six years due to a divorce (where I was, supposedly, represented by an attorney) in which I was defrauded of settlement and the other party (and helpers) enriched through the fraud. When I attempted to introduce evidence and testify (pro se) in a foreclosure/eviction, I was silenced (apparently on procedural grounds, as research I've done since indicates). I was thrown out of a residence which was to be sold, by a judge who refused to allow me to speak in (the supposedly "informal") small claims court where the eviction proceeding (by ex-brother-in-law) was held. Six years and I can't even get back on solid or stable ground ... having bank account seized twice, unlawfully ... and now, for the past year, being dragged into court - again, contrary to law and appellate decisions - by former attorney, who is trying to force payment from exempt funds. Friday will mark fifth appearance. Hopefully, I'll be allowed to speak. The situation I find myself in shouldn't even be possible, much less dragging out with no end in sight, for years. I've done nothing wrong, but am watching a lot of wrong being accomplished under court jurisdiction; only because I was married to someone who wanted and was granted a divorce (but was not willing to assume the responsibilities that come with granting the divorce). In fact, the recalcitrant party was enriched by well over $100k, although it was necessarily split with other actors. Pro bono help? It's a nice dream ... but that's all it is, for too many. Meanwhile, injustice marches on.

ADVERTISEMENT