ILNews

Chinn: Checking Our Institutions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

iba-chinn-scottEvery time I travel alone, say for an out-of-town deposition, I am conscious of those blocks of time in which you get to be alone in your thoughts. As much as the travel itself is rarely fun, I almost always find great value in those periods of “travel reflection,” especially when things prior to leaving home have been so busy.

Most recently, during an episode of travel reflection, I thought about the importance of the three cousins of dissent, acting against self-interest, and candidness in the face of power. All are essential components of checking powerful interests and institutions. And the first thing I noticed is that I haven’t spent much time thinking or talking about those things lately. True, we’re trying to do lots of things at the IndyBar to be inclusive and pluralistic, not the least of which is our engagement in a several year, multi-phase communications plan initiated under Mike Hebenstreit’s leadership last year that we are confident will add many avenues of receiving and distributing bar-related content. But that’s not the same thing as critically observing the need to review and, where appropriate, reform our leading institutions.

To take a half-step back (actually, maybe 23 years back), I once thought a lot more about these things. I am the stereotypical former college student that was “destined” to be a civil rights lawyer. I vividly recall sitting in a high-backed chair in the Indiana University Memorial Union reading the opinion in Texas v. Johnson (the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1989 flag burning case) for an undergraduate communications law course. Justice William Brennan’s majority opinion spoke to me: “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” By contrast, I found Chief Justice Rehnquist’s dissent nearly laughable. It focused on undeniably profound historical reasons for revering the American flag, but chided Justice Brennan for his “civics lesson” on the importance of dissent.

Time traveling forward to 2012, it turns out that my résumé doesn’t read like that of a civil rights lawyer. For most of my 18 years in practice, I have represented institutions – state governments, every kind of local government body, elected officials, public schools, corporations and others. It was in representing one of those governments that I argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in a case in which I got exactly three votes for my position – those of Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justices Scalia and Thomas (Who’s laughing now?!). And I’m speaking to you as the President of one of the important institutions in our legal community. As a liberal college professor friend of mine observed not that long ago, “Chinn, you’ve become the man.” To be clear, he meant that in the 1960s Yippies sense, not in the sense of the modern superlative compliment, “bro, you da man!

Much like the aging, paunchy former athlete that still sees himself as the youngster who chased down so many fly balls that should have been hits, I still see myself as a fighter for the underdog. But I know that moniker rightfully goes to others – like my good friend Jane Henegar, who recently took over the reins of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana. She now gets to work with lawyers and staff dedicated to making sure that our institutions don’t transgress the individual liberties of those without comparable power. Among those lawyers is Ken Falk, the legal director of the ACLU of Indiana, and my favorite adversary over the years (Ken racked up the other six votes against me in the Supreme Court, by the way.).

For my part, I don’t feel content to live vicariously through Jane and Ken. There is a role for those of us representing the institutions of power to consider reform from within. And we don’t have to wait for a crisis. We in the major institutions of the legal community should reserve part of our time for reflection on the need and opportunity for beneficial change. In Marion County, the delivery of pro bono legal services and judicial selection are two such matters that warrant review. If you think there are others, please speak up. You don’t even have to wait until returning from your next solitary trip.

Best wishes.

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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT