ILNews

Darden winds down his appellate career

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Carr Darden has worked every day since he was 13, but that’s soon going to change.

The state’s mandatory retirement age of 75 for appellate judges is knocking on Darden’s door, requiring him to step down this summer from the job he’s held for almost 18 years.

carr darden Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Carr Darden will wrap up a 40-year legal career when he retires from the state’s intermediate appellate court in July, the month he reaches the mandatory retirement age of 75. (IBJ Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

Darden submitted a letter Jan. 3 to the Indiana chief justice and the governor’s office announcing he will retire as a full-time appellate judge on his 75th birthday, July 21. He plans to stay until the last day, balancing the line between “leaving too early” and staying around until he’s “ineffective or callous in judging.”

Darden said he’s been preparing for several months, hoping to ease into retirement with a smooth transition.

“There’s no doubt I would say yes, that I’d stay on longer if the law didn’t say I had to leave at this point,” he said. “But on the other hand, I look at all the years I’ve worked and this is a relief in that sense.”

Darden was appointed by Gov. Evan Bayh in 1994 to fill a vacancy created by Judge Stanley B. Miller’s death. He graduated in 1970 from Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law and spent the first part of his career in the State Public Defender’s Office and Marion County Public Defender’s Office.

Darden originally laughed at the idea of becoming a judge when others suggested it, but he later became a Marion County master commissioner to see if it was a career path he’d like to pursue. That led to him serving on the Marion Municipal and Superior courts in the late 1980s and early 90s until his appointment to the COA.

Since then, caseloads have increased by more than 14 percent and Darden said much of the way the court does business has changed significantly – from technological changes to how the appellate panels are structured to decide cases. When he started, the panels were divided up by each of the four judicial districts instead of the rotating nondistrict-focused organization the appellate court uses now. That meant each panel was together for at least two years instead of only a few months as they are now before a random rotation of new judges occurs.

But change has been a good thing. Darden said the court collaborated better after blurring those divisional lines.

“Now when we speak, we do so as a unified court of appeals that operates in three-judge panels representing the state,” he said. “That was a significant change.”

Darden doesn’t discount the significance his presence on the court has had in the area of diversity – he’s the only African-American on the Court of Appeals since Justice Robert Rucker left the intermediate appellate bench to join the Supreme Court in 1999. He hopes diversity will be a consideration when his successor is chosen to ensure at least the same minority representation on the court.

“I wish I could guarantee another African-American could be a part of the process,” he said. “Having diversity on the court makes an impact, since we can enlighten each other on our own views and reading of the laws. We shouldn’t blindly follow that, but know that diversity is important and needed because everyone has to be represented in what we’re doing here.”

Darden said he spoke with Chief Justice Randall Shepard in August about his retirement, indicating he would gradually phase out his leadership responsibilities. Darden decided to submit his letter at the start of 2012 to allow the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission enough time to begin interviewing judicial applicants.

Shepard’s announcement in mid-December about his plan to retire in March was a surprise, Darden said, and he wonders how that will impact the selection process for his replacement. The process to find Darden’s successor has not yet started.

To prepare for his retirement, Darden stepped down from leadership roles with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program Committee, the Criminal Court Benchbook Committee of the Indiana Judges Association and the Senior Judges Committee for the Indianapolis Bar Association. He isn’t able to decrease his caseload, but he has started saying no to new assignments in order to allow others to take on those tasks.

“My staff doesn’t like to leave me alone, because it seems like every time they step away, I’m answering the phone talking and agreeing to something,” he said. “I’m cutting back on that.”

The Judicial Family Institute has said that retirement is something too many judges fail to adequately think about while they’re on the bench, not considering how they’ll truly feel about being retired before they get to that stage.

Senior judges who’ve gone through the retirement process say that the administrative planning Darden’s doing is about all that anyone can do before stepping down. How much a judge can gradually withdraw depends on the level of activity and involvement each person has.

Senior Judge Patrick D. Sullivan, who left the Court of Appeals in 2007 after four decades, said he evaluated in advance of his retirement whether he could continue to contribute as a senior judge.

“You have to know when your time’s come and look ahead to what you’ll want to realistically do,” he said.

No other Court of Appeals judges are required to retire soon due to age, but that doesn’t mean they can’t choose to leave at any point, court administrator Steve Lancaster said.

“There’s not much you can actually do and plan for until there’s a new judge named, but you can gather your resources and energy mentally,” he said. “We don’t assign cases differently and there’s really not a lot the court can do about the loss of experience because that’s inherent. You really have to make sure the staff is ready for a smooth transition and the new judge has the ability to hit the ground running.”

Darden plans to be a senior judge at the appellate and trial court levels, but he is concerned about how much the trial court experience has changed in the nearly 18 years he has been a COA judge.

Darden recalls a conversation with his friend, U.S. Senior Judge William Steckler, prior to his death. For so long, Steckler said, he and his wife had put off “living life off the bench” until he retired, and then within only a few years of his retirement, she died. Darden has used that experience as guidance in his own life, traveling and spending time with his family and doing church activities as much as he can.

“I’ve been living my life while on the bench, not waiting until after I’ve left,” he said, noting that he and his wife of 57 years have maintained a balance between his judicial work and leisure. “This has been the best job in the world and this is my home, but we’ve tried to make sure we’re not waiting for something that might never come.”•
 

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. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

  2. Low energy. Next!

  3. Had William Pryor made such provocative statements as a candidate for the Indiana bar he could have been blackballed as I have documented elsewhere on this ezine. That would have solved this huuuge problem for the Left and abortion industry the good old boy (and even girl) Indiana way. Note that Diane Sykes could have made a huuge difference, but she chose to look away like most all jurists who should certainly recognize a blatantly unconstitutional system when filed on their docket. See footnotes 1 & 2 here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html Sykes and Kanne could have applied a well established exception to Rooker Feldman, but instead seemingly decided that was not available to conservative whistleblowers, it would seem. Just a loss and two nice footnotes to numb the pain. A few short years later Sykes ruled the very opposite on the RF question, just as she had ruled the very opposite on RF a few short years before. Indy and the abortion industry wanted me on the ground ... they got it. Thank God Alabama is not so corrupted! MAGA!!!

  4. OK, take notice. Those wondering just how corrupt the Indiana system is can see the picture in this post. Attorney Donald James did not criticize any judges, he merely, it would seem, caused some clients to file against him and then ignored his own defense. James thus disrespected the system via ignoring all and was also ordered to reimburse the commission $525.88 for the costs of prosecuting the first case against him. Yes, nearly $526 for all the costs, the state having proved it all. Ouch, right? Now consider whistleblower and constitutionalist and citizen journalist Paul Ogden who criticized a judge, defended himself in such a professional fashion as to have half the case against him thrown out by the ISC and was then handed a career ending $10,000 bill as "half the costs" of the state crucifying him. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/ogden-quitting-law-citing-high-disciplinary-fine/PARAMS/article/35323 THE TAKEAWAY MESSAGE for any who have ears to hear ... resist Star Chamber and pay with your career ... welcome to the Indiana system of (cough) justice.

  5. GMA Ranger, I, too, was warned against posting on how the Ind govt was attempting to destroy me professionally, and visit great costs and even destitution upon my family through their processing. No doubt the discussion in Indy today is likely how to ban me from this site (I expect I soon will be), just as they have banned me from emailing them at the BLE and Office of Bar Admission and ADA coordinator -- or, if that fails, whether they can file a complaint against my Kansas or SCOTUS law license for telling just how they operate and offering all of my files over the past decade to any of good will. The elitist insiders running the Hoosier social control mechanisms realize that knowledge and a unified response will be the end of their unjust reign. They fear exposure and accountability. I was banned for life from the Indiana bar for questioning government processing, that is, for being a whistleblower. Hoosier whistleblowers suffer much. I have no doubt, Gma Ranger, of what you report. They fear us, but realize as long as they keep us in fear of them, they can control us. Kinda like the kids' show Ants. Tyrannical governments the world over are being shaken by empowered citizens. Hoosiers dealing with The Capitol are often dealing with tyranny. Time to rise up: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/17/governments-struggling-to-retain-trust-of-citizens-global-survey-finds Back to the Founders! MAGA!

ADVERTISEMENT