Judge reflects on new position on 1-year anniversary of confirmation

November 24, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

This post is by reporter Michael Hoskins.

A year ago, U.S. Judge David F. Hamilton got the green light from the Senate to move up to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals from the Southern District of Indiana. His confirmation came Nov. 19, 2009, and he began his appellate duties on Nov. 22.

The dates didn’t stand out on his calendar recently, but the judge gladly took some time to talk with Indiana Lawyer about his positive experiences in the new job so far.

“At this point, I feel like I’m settling into the job pretty well,” he said, noting that he hasn’t counted the arguments he’s heard or the opinions written so far. “I’m just focusing on the work that needs to be done. I do miss the trials and closer interaction with juries and lawyers and witnesses, but I do enjoy the challenges.”

Traveling to the Chicago-based appeals court a couple times a month, Judge Hamilton said he usually gets there for two-day sittings at a time but also for non-argument duties. He’s also enjoyed becoming a part of the law school campus in Bloomington, spending as much as three-quarters of his time there. Though he’s had some interaction with students – participating in one class session so far and planning on more this next spring semester – the judge said he mostly is able to attend the lectures and events at the law school because of his judicial duties.

Coincidentally, that lecture-attending ability also gave him the chance most recently – on the day marking his confirmation vote in 2009 – to attend an event focusing on his sister-in-law Dawn Johnsen, who is an Indiana University Maurer School of Law professor who’d been going through the Senate confirmation process for a top Department of Justice spot at the same time. But while the judge survived that process, Johnsen withdrew her name from consideration earlier this year because of partisan delays and debate.

On Friday, she gave a lecture at the law school that marked the first time she publicly talked about that whole process. Judge Hamilton attended the event to hear her speak, since he now has one of his offices located at the Bloomington law school where Johnsen teaches. The judge declined to comment on Johnsen's nomination process and said he’d prefer to keep his focus on his own judicial work. You can read a new Indiana Lawyer story on that in our latest edition that’s posted online about her experience.

Of course, those two going through the same confirmation process at the same time certainly makes you ponder what it’d be like to be a fly on the wall at the upcoming holiday gatherings, or even those from last year just after the judge’s confirmation while her’s was still pending. That may be details we’ll never know.
 

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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT