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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.