ILNews

Dickson values continuity for court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana’s new chief justice will preside over a Supreme Court facing a transition that could test the stability and civility that have been its hallmarks for more than two decades.

Brent E. Dickson’s ascension to chief justice from acting chief was affirmed May 15 by the Judicial Nominating Commission. Dickson, a 26-year justice, replaces Randall Shepard, whose 25-year term as chief justice had been the nation’s longest.

The change in leadership accompanies the pending retirement of one, and perhaps two, longtime justices and unprecedented change in the court’s makeup.

DicksonBrent Dickson became chief justice May 15. He will face mandatory retirement before his term ends.

Mark Massa was appointed in March to replace Shepard. Two years prior, Steven David was named to the court to replace 14-year justice Theodore Boehm. Justice Frank Sullivan Jr., who’s been on the court nearly 19 years, announced he will retire this summer. The court’s remaining veteran, Justice Robert D. Rucker, indicated he’s undecided whether he will run for retention in November after 13 years on the Supreme Court.

Rucker joined David and Massa in endorsing Dickson to serve as chief justice. But Rucker also hinted at his uncertainty about staying on the bench in his comments to the commission.

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

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

Should Rucker step aside, David would be the senior justice when Dickson retires.

Judicial appointment expert Charles Geyh, associate dean for research and John F. Kimberling Professor of Law at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, said Dickson’s leadership will be critical.

“I think that this is a somewhat precarious time in the history of the state Supreme Court in the limited sense that Chief Justice Shepard had a long and stable tenure,” Geyh said.

Shepard left the court in good health and one of the most respected judiciaries in the country, Geyh said, and he expects Dickson to maintain a steady course.

Dickson said as much during his appearance before the Judicial Nominating Commission.

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

“I’d like to keep things moving as they have been,” Dickson said after his selection. “Our employees needed to know civility was going to reign.” He said he hadn’t planned to run, but a growing number of voices persuaded him.

Dickson has written and spoken often on the importance of fostering civility among attorneys, and when he spoke to the commission, it was the trait he said was most important in a chief.

“No. 1 is collegial behavior and judicial temperament,” he said. He stressed the importance of justices being agreeable when they disagree, and he said the justices maintained an open-door environment in which colleagues might encourage one another to moderate the tone of a particularly harsh draft.

Scathing dissents can “have a subtle effect on how (justices) interact with each other,” he said.

Geyh said that with four or fewer years as chief, Dickson is unlikely to leave an imprint on the court that can be measured against Shepard’s quarter-century.

“In the larger scheme of things, I think this is a sensible pick that isn’t going to create a ripple effect,” Geyh said. “The wait-and-see moment is who comes on the court next.

“The complexion of the court will change in some fairly significant ways, and that will affect how they do business,” he said. One of those ways could be a shift from the court’s traditionally apolitical approach to doing business.

The transition, Geyh said, “is coming as more and more courts are under siege from political detractors. … Efforts to politicize the judiciary are more common. Judge Shepard had steadfastly resisted those.”

Geyh said that if a justice or future justice politicizes the court, it could be counterproductive and damage the court’s esteem, which maintained a relatively low profile under Shepard.

Charles GeyhGeyh

“The court hasn’t been in the crosshairs of political fights that have gotten (state supreme courts) in trouble in other states,” Geyh said. With another chief justice selection no more than four years off, those who will be frontrunners are those who build comity on the bench and inspire confidence in their fellow justices, he added.

“In many ways the judges who may well be interested in a chief justice position, if they are, the irony or the paradox is they can’t do the kinds of things politicians do to get a successful outcome for themselves,” he said.

The court could be composed of five Republican appointees if Rucker retires. He and Sullivan are the only Democratic appointees, and Gov. Mitch Daniels will appoint his third justice to fill Sullivan’s vacancy, and possibly a fourth if Rucker leaves.

But Geyh said one-party dominance is not necessarily a worrisome scenario. “To me, it depends on whether the participants in the process remain committed to the goals of a merit-selection system.

“Daniels has shown himself to be someone who is committed to that system,” he said. “It’s always an open question as to whether the next governor will see it the same way.”

During the chief justice selection process, Dickson’s colleagues offered their views of the qualities of a chief, and each praised Dickson’s leadership as he chaired the nominating commission as acting chief.

“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.

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 with a sly smile across the table at Dickson. He called Dickson “the right fit.”

Rucker said the chief justice also acts as a chairman of the board of the state’s judiciary, and Dickson was ideally suited to do so.

Daniels praised Dickson’s selection.

“To me, the commission made the right and natural choice. Brent Dickson is universally respected and has earned the complete trust of his colleagues and lawyers statewide. Any other selection would have been a surprise.”•
 

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. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT