ILNews

Editorial: Don't keep quiet, join a healthy debate

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Editorial

We know you have opinions – thoughtful, reasonable ones that would make for great discourse in the newspaper. But getting you to share them is more difficult than we would like.

Let’s face it: In an age where just about anyone can shell out a few bucks and create a website or a blog and call themselves an author or a pundit, intelligence is becoming difficult to find.

Yet our ears perk up when someone insinuates that “you can’t write that” or “you can’t read that” because someone might get the wrong idea.

We appreciate the concern readers have expressed about a couple of recent columns – one of which appeared in this newspaper – by different lawyers who expressed opinions about what they thought should be the outcome of particular cases pending in Indiana appellate courts.

A reader called to share his concern with this newspaper about the practice in general and the column in particular – his concern that only one side was represented in the column, and that this one side may serve to inappropriately influence the court.

While the reader was clearly upset, the reader was pleasant and cordial while making his point, which is another thing we appreciate about lawyers and judges: most of you can disagree in an agreeable manner, which only helps in bridging differences of opinion.

As a result of that phone conversation, the newspaper has decided to place all the columns that clearly are “opinion” pieces on the Viewpoint pages, where they belong. We hope this move will avoid any confusion or misunderstanding on the part of readers who may not immediately recognize that a column that appears in the news pages is an opinion piece.

An enormous amount of work goes in to what you do on behalf of your clients, and we appreciate the zealous advocacy and the lengths you go to in order to present your clients’ case to the best of your ability. Those are admirable qualities and the kinds of traits we hold in high esteem.

We also hold the work that most of our judges do in equally high esteem. Some cases are clear, while others are more along the lines of what retired United States Supreme Court Justice David Souter recently said in his address at his alma matter, requiring a resolution of “conflict between the good and the good.”

Writing stories about pending cases makes up quite a bit of what we do around here on a daily basis, and we’re not likely to stop that anytime soon. Our news stories on such topics always contain as many sides of the case as we can manage, and we even note when one side has not returned calls seeking comment just so readers will know that we tried to get the missing pieces of the story.

Some call the practice of writing a column with an opinion on the outcome of a pending appellate case a supplemental amicus brief. One such lawyer is Jerry Garau of Garau Germano Hanley & Pennington, who told one of our reporters for a story in this issue of the newspaper “… it’s an improper use of those publications and goes outside the avenues that are appropriate to influence the court.” He has a case pending in the Indiana Supreme Court, and the case was written about last spring in another legal publication. “I realize there are judicial canons, but the bottom line is that judges are human and they receive these publications and read these articles … that plants the seed.”

Others believe such concerns demonstrate a lack of faith in our judges’ ability to weed out what they may and may not consider when deciding a case, and that prohibitions on discussion of pending cases are in opposition to basis freedoms.

“It’s a healthy debate to talk about pending cases, and that’s all protected by the First Amendment,” said Indiana appellate attorney George Patton, who works in the Washington, D.C., office of Bose McKinney & Evans.

So what do you think? We believe this is one of those healthy debates we’d like to hear more about from our readers. Let us hear from you.•

Opinions: Readers may offer opinions concerning Indiana Lawyer stories and other legal issues. Readers may respond immediately by viewing the “submissions” section on our website http://www.theindianalawyer.com. We reserve the right to edit letters for space requirements and to reproduce letters on Indiana Lawyer’s website and online databases. We do not publish anonymous letters. Direct letters to editor Rebecca Collier at rcollier@ibj.com or 41 E. Washington St., Suite 200, Indianapolis, IN 46204.




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. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT