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. 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