Ad deja vu

October 25, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Reporter Mike Hoskins wrote today's post.

Consider 2010 an echo of the general election season back in 2008, when two attorneys were vying for the Indiana Attorney General post.

One ran an advertisement criticizing how the opponent had previously represented clients that are of the type that the AG would have to prosecute. Some attorneys took issue with that, saying it’s not fair to criticize lawyers for the clients they keep.

Now, the legal community in Marion County has a sense of déjà vu.

Leading up to the Nov. 2 general election, the Marion County Prosecutor’s race has brought those same issues to light. Prosecutor Carl Brizzi is leaving office at year’s end, and Republican candidate Mark Massa and Democratic candidate Terry Curry are battling for that post. Both have servitors in the state’s largest county, and Curry has also served as a defense attorney and mediator while Massa has most recently spent his time as counsel to Gov. Mitch Daniels.

Recently, Massa ran a television ad condemning Curry for defending a convicted child molester on appeal. A video is online at YouTube. The case involved Steven Young, and in 2001 on direct appeal the Indiana Supreme Court upheld the man’s convictions and 80-year aggregate sentence.

Using that as ad material, Massa created the commercial entitled, “One Question for Terry Curry” and poses whether the Democratic candidate can “get tough with child predators” when he has “no problem defending them?”

That ad has caused some Indianapolis attorneys to speak out against Massa, criticizing him for that ad.

Bob Hammerle – who raised concerns about the same issue in the 2008 AG race and unsuccessfully requested the Disciplinary Commission to weigh in – has spoken out. Lawyers shouldn’t be judged by the clients they keep, he believes, and says: “I’m so disappointed with Mark Massa that I can’t even find the words to describe it. This shouldn’t be allowed to stand from the lawyers’ perspective.”

Attorneys Jon Little and Ryan Ray are also disappointed and disgusted, saying that Massa has lost their votes.

“Your ad against Mr. Curry is essentially condemning him for upholding our oath and protecting the Constitution,” says a letter from Little and Ray to candidate Massa. “As attorneys we should be doing everything in our power to bolster the confidence in our judicial system and the offices of the court. In running your misleading advertisement, that condemns an officer of the court for doing his job, you have violated the very oath of the office of prosecutor should be so desperately trying to abide by following the current administration. You have disrespected the courts of justice, judicial officers, and the Constitution. Your condemnation of the actions of a fellow attorney simply upholding our sworn oath and the Constitution raises serious questions about your own integrity.”

At this point, no one has said they’ve contacted the Disciplinary Commission about Massa’s ad. But when Hammerle did that two years ago, he didn’t get very far. At the time, the agency didn’t find an appropriate basis for formal action because if dealt with public affairs and political discourse – the heart of the First Amendment.

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
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT