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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT