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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT