“I have no doubt what the future looks like. The only question is, when will that future roll around?”
Well, it’s taken 11 years for that future to roll around.
The above words were spoken by Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard for a news story not long after Justice
Robert Rucker was named to the court in 1999. Justice Shepard was expressing his confidence in the fact that the next choice
for a justice on the high court here would be a woman.
We mean in no way to disparage the gentlemen who make up our Indiana Supreme Court, but if one looks at the historical makeup
of the court strictly from a diversity standpoint, it’s not an attractive picture by the numbers: one woman, two African-Americans,
102 white men.
So if since May 25 you’ve spent more than 30 seconds talking with a woman lawyer who practices in Indiana, you’ve
doubtless heard something along these lines: “How can we be one of only two states in the nation without a woman on
our Supreme Court?”
That date, of course, is when Justice Ted Boehm announced that he will retire from the court later this year.
We truly hate to see him go, but his departure makes room for some gender diversity on our high court.
It wasn’t always so male.
The only woman and first African-American on the Supreme Court was Myra Selby, who was a justice from 1995 to 1999 before
returning to private practice. The vacancy formed when she left was filled with Justice Rucker, who was elevated from the
Indiana Court of Appeals.
At that time, women’s groups called for the expansion of the court to allow for more diversity, but to no avail. Indiana’s
constitution allows for up to eight justices, but an expansion is an expensive proposition in any economic climate, and our
state was in much better financial shape in 1999 than it is now.
Still, we take heart in what Chief Justice Shepard said 11 years ago on the subject of a woman becoming a member of the court:
“It does matter that you have people from different walks of life, and both men and women. You get a healthy mix of
experiences and ideas when the group isn’t all cut out of the same cloth.”
Amen to that.
In the same aforementioned news story, Indianapolis lawyer and Julian Center Executive Director Ann DeLaney was among those
calling for an expansion of the court. She pointed out then that it could be years before any of the justices decided to retire.
She ended up being right, of course, but we also would remind readers of what she said on the subject then:
“Having an all-male court sends the wrong message.”
Amen to that, too.
Our research on the subject led us to story from a couple of years ago when some of our justices were facing a retention
vote. Former justice Selby told us then: “… I’m a firm believer that our court is one of the most important
aspects of our society, and it ought to reflect that society in order to remain vibrant and be a part of that fabric of what
we’re all about. Having broken the barrier (of having a woman on the court) doesn’t mean we should rest. It’s
still something that deserves our attention and focus.”
It is our sincere hope that the future Chief Justice Shepard looked to 11 years ago will soon be decidedly more female.•
on Facebook & Twitter
Back to Top
G. Michael Witte letter states he's suspended for three years. The case that got him suspended is identical to my estate case, including havin the Late Judge Deiter recuse himself because Newman had a conflict of interest with the judge. His Modus Operandi is nearly identical.
SIGNED BY G. MICHAEL WITTE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY INDIANA SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION DATED MAY 17, 2012.
Your 6th complaint against Lawrence T. Newman filed on 4/12/2012. On 1/31/12, the Indiana Supreme Court entered an order suspending Lawrence T. Newman’s law license for a period of three years. More important, even after three years, Lawrence Todd Newman will not get his license back unless and until he goes through a separate proceeding to prove that he is fit to practice law. This is not an easy process, and the burden is upon Lawrence T. Newman to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is fit to return to practice.
Because of the length of Lawrence T. Newman’s license suspension and the fact he may never succeed in getting his law license reinstated, we are not opening an investigation file at this time.
Should Lawrence T. Newman seek reinstatement in the future, we will open your file and ask Lawrence T. Newman to address your grievance as part of his burden of proving fitness. We have attempted to notify Lawrence T. Newman that this will be required of him.
It may disappoint you to hear that we will be doing nothing on your grievance at this time. However, the most our office can ever accomplish is to take away a lawyer’s license to practice law. We have already done that, albeit as a result of misconduct in cases other than your own. It makes better sense for our office to focus its limited resources on cases where the lawyers are still actively practicing law.
Is there any justice in the Marion County Superior Court Civil Division? I am the unfortunate victim of a retaliatory lawsuit brought by Lawrence Todd Newman, the attorney from an estate case on which I worked as a unsupervised personal representative in 2006. The contract agreement for that case stated that the estate would be responsible for all attorney fees, but Newman refused to close the nearly insolvent estate when my duties were complete and his fees were paid. Instead, he tried to extort additional attorney fees from me by keeping the case open to address a wrongful death claim, despite the estate’s heir’s lack of interest in pursuing it and an expert doctor’s opinion that it would not be worth doing so. He also knowingly deceived me into believing that a “closing statement” was needed to close the estate, even though this requirement had actually been waived by the estate’s heir. The heir’s attorney filed a motion to have Newman removed from the case. After the court closed the probate case with prejudice (barred from further litigation) Newman illegally re-opened the case in another courtroom.
As a result of complaints filed against him for these and similar actions, Newman has been suspended from practicing law for 18 months by the Indiana Disciplinary Commission. In retaliation, he has filed suit against me demanding additional attorney fees for the 2006 estate case, despite the fact that I made no agreement stating that I would pay any fees from my own assets on behalf of the estate. This lawsuit violates the rules of ethics, due process of law, and equal protection of law. Newman has been allowed to file ridiculous pleadings at an alarming rate and has been supported by a biased court system. Judge Carroll refuses to recuse himself from the case despite the fact that, by his own admission, he intends to grant Newman sanctions regardless of the evidence. When my former counsel discovered that the previous judge on the case, Judge Sosin, was a long-time close friend of Newman’s family, Judge Carroll commented for the record during a hearing that Judge Sosin in so many words “he finds the door “was weak for recusing himself from the case as a result of this obvious conflict of interest.
This case is a public policy issue. Statutes put in place to protect unsupervised personal representatives in probate matters are being ignored. This case will affect thousands of individuals involved in probating and the personal representation of estates. Justice cannot possibly be served as long as a biased judge is allowed to defend a “vexatious litigant,” as Newman has been described by Judge Logan in Bradenton, Florida court. If there is any justice in the Marion County Superior Court Civil Division, this case against me will be dismissed with prejudice.
Every affront to decency and every style adopted by criminals is not per se a constituttional violation. Only fools believe or espouse that.
This was an unnecessary change in law, a needless fiddling with a tax that impacted very very few hoosiers, but one that erodes a tax base benefitting very many hoosiers. Just because some people wanted to chalk up a "tax cut" on their legislative brag-list, and didnt give a fig about replacing the revenue any other way. Really stupid. I am a republican my whole life and this just shames me like hell. I have to use a fake name over this because I know my fellow republicans are all brain washed over tax cutting too.