ILNews

Dickson named chief justice as court faces ‘upheaval’

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Brent E. Dickson was selected Indiana chief justice Tuesday after his Supreme Court colleagues unanimously said he embodied the leadership qualities needed during a period of transition.

Dickson had been named acting chief after longtime chief justice Randall T. Shepard retired in March. Shepard was replaced by Mark Massa.

Since then, Justice Frank Sullivan Jr. announced he, too, was resigning, and Dickson said Tuesday that the court’s other long-serving jurist, Robert Rucker, had not decided whether to run for retention in November. Rucker’s office had no immediate comment, but Supreme Court public information officer Kathryn Dolan said Rucker has until mid-July to decide.

After his unanimous selection by the Judicial Nominating Commission, Dickson said he had not considered himself a candidate until he heard from judges and legal professionals around the state who were seeking stability on the court.

“There were a growing number of voices that persuaded me,” Dickson said. “Our employees needed to know civility was going to reign.”

He credited Shepard for nurturing a civil atmosphere on the court and said he wished to continue that tone and court programs Shepard championed and developed during his 25 years as chief.

The commission invited each justice to share views of the qualities needed in a chief justice. Massa, Steven David and Rucker each said Dickson embodied those most needed in a transitional period for the court that some called unprecedented.

Dickson will face mandatory retirement when he turns 75 in July 2016, before his five-year term as chief expires. He said he has made no decision whether he will retire before he reaches mandatory retirement age.

“It’s very well-deserved and not something that I would think of as a gold watch or a  lifetime achievement award,” Massa said in recommending Dickson, who he called a consensus builder and thought leader. “Justice Dickson would be a marvelous choice.”

Massa and others said Dickson also possessed the “small ‘P’ political skills” needed to be the public face of the court and represent the judiciary in the legislature.

“As far as the immediate decision, what I would look for if I were you,” David told the commission, then leaned and stared across the table at Dickson, who chairs the panel. He called Dickson “the right fit.”

Rucker said the chief justice also acts as a chairman of the board of the state’s judiciary. He said the courts face budgetary challenges, assaults on judicial independence and questions of access to justice for those most in need.

Rucker said “with upheaval in our ranks … maybe more upheaval to come,” that Dickson “has been that steady hand, that visionary, if you will, who has done a magnificent job.”

Dickson said that continuity is important amid change. “I’d like to keep things moving as they have been,” he said.  

Dickson’s appointment is effective immediately.

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. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT