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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. People have heard of Magna Carta, and not the Provisions of Oxford & Westminster. Not that anybody really cares. Today, it might be considered ethnic or racial bias to talk about the "Anglo Saxon common law." I don't even see the word English in the blurb above. Anyhow speaking of Edward I-- he was famously intolerant of diversity himself viz the Edict of Expulsion 1290. So all he did too like making parliament a permanent institution-- that all must be discredited. 100 years from now such commemorations will be in the dustbin of history.

  2. Oops, I meant discipline, not disciple. Interesting that those words share such a close relationship. We attorneys are to be disciples of the law, being disciplined to serve the law and its source, the constitutions. Do that, and the goals of Magna Carta are advanced. Do that not and Magna Carta is usurped. Do that not and you should be disciplined. Do that and you should be counted a good disciple. My experiences, once again, do not reveal a process that is adhering to the due process ideals of Magna Carta. Just the opposite, in fact. Braveheart's dying rebel (for a great cause) yell comes to mind.

  3. It is not a sign of the times that many Ind licensed attorneys (I am not) would fear writing what I wrote below, even if they had experiences to back it up. Let's take a minute to thank God for the brave Baron's who risked death by torture to tell the government that it was in the wrong. Today is a career ruination that whistleblowers risk. That is often brought on by denial of licenses or disciple for those who dare speak truth to power. Magna Carta says truth rules power, power too often claims that truth matters not, only Power. Fight such power for the good of our constitutional republics. If we lose them we have only bureaucratic tyranny to pass onto our children. Government attorneys, of all lawyers, should best realize this and work to see our patrimony preserved. I am now a government attorney (once again) in Kansas, and respecting the rule of law is my passion, first and foremost.

  4. I have dealt with more than a few I-465 moat-protected government attorneys and even judges who just cannot seem to wrap their heads around the core of this 800 year old document. I guess monarchial privileges and powers corrupt still ..... from an academic website on this fantastic "treaty" between the King and the people ... "Enduring Principles of Liberty Magna Carta was written by a group of 13th-century barons to protect their rights and property against a tyrannical king. There are two principles expressed in Magna Carta that resonate to this day: "No freeman shall be taken, imprisoned, disseised, outlawed, banished, or in any way destroyed, nor will We proceed against or prosecute him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land." "To no one will We sell, to no one will We deny or delay, right or justice." Inspiration for Americans During the American Revolution, Magna Carta served to inspire and justify action in liberty’s defense. The colonists believed they were entitled to the same rights as Englishmen, rights guaranteed in Magna Carta. They embedded those rights into the laws of their states and later into the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution ("no person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.") is a direct descendent of Magna Carta's guarantee of proceedings according to the "law of the land." http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/magna_carta/

  5. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

ADVERTISEMENT