ILNews

Hebenstreit: How Could You Not be Humbled

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

IBA-hebenstreitI don’t know about you, but when I was in law school, I read the appellate cases and was impressed with, and in awe of, the entire legal system. It was a system whose foundation rested soundly on the Constitution, but had immense flexibility in its application. That was left to the advocates and ultimately to the juries and the Courts. I was proud, and humbled, to be learning how to be a part of that great system.

We were taught the importance of the rule of law. We were also taught about the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the balancing of Federal versus State interests. These are concepts that are sometimes forgotten in the day to day aspects of a busy law practice. When you were in law school did you foresee yourself handling a First Amendment case, arguing a search and seizure issue or a voting rights case? Many lawyers have never tried a jury trial and even fewer have handled an appeal. As time passes we begin to pay attention to the immediate issues facing us and the demands of our clients and families, not to mention the economics of earning a living. We slowly lose sight of the idealism and lofty concepts we thought about in law school. Sure, we still read cases, stay up on the new changes, and stay sharp in our respective areas, but do we ever stop to remember why we became a lawyer or what it means to be a lawyer?

Since May 1st was Law Day, it is probably an appropriate time to stop and think about our legal system and what it means to be a lawyer. Luckily, I was able to experience that first hand. I was fortunate enough to have been invited to travel to Chicago to observe the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Circuit Judge John Daniel Tinder invited a small group of friends with rather diverse backgrounds to observe “his world” in the Federal appellate system. It was absolutely fascinating. One member of our party (a non lawyer) commented that we were all on an adult civics class field trip—a very apt observation.

Our visit started on a Sunday with a behind the scenes look at the Dirksen Federal Building including the chambers, the Seventh Circuit Courtroom, the conference room where the Judges confer after arguments, and the Judges’ locker room. We then went to the District Courtroom where, on the following day, the second corruption trial of former Governor Blagojevich was to begin.

On Monday morning the streets outside the Federal Building were jammed with mobile television trucks, and the lobby was crowded with network television camera crews. We did get a glimpse of the defendant on his way to Court. In the long corridor on the 25th floor there was a sign identifying the area as the location of the trial of the United States of America v Blagojevich. I can’t imagine how one feels walking down that corridor on the way to opening statements in a proceeding that could cost you your freedom. But it was also comforting to know that he, unlike alleged corrupt officials in other countries, has the benefit of a sound legal system, a jury, and the right of appeal to insure that the system works and that he receives the fairest result possible. All those ideals that they taught us in law school were present.

I have not been privileged enough to actually argue before the Seventh Circuit, and it was truly awe inspiring to be seated in that impressive Courtroom. Silently waiting for the session to begin, I could only imagine the level of angst, nerves, and adrenaline those appellate counsel must have been experiencing. Then the panel entered the Courtroom. It felt important because it is.

There were six cases to be argued that morning. One dealt with systemic organizational changes the Girl Scouts of America wanted to implement and the injunctive challenge of one of their Wisconsin councils. Another case dealt with the propriety of confiscating passports of citizens stemming from a collections case. Another was an immigration matter. One case involved the refusal of Great Britain to extradite a Nigerian to the US to stand trial for crimes against Americans in our Circuit. It dawned on me that these were not the typical cases heard in the courtrooms of the City County Building. These cases involved deep legal issues with impact beyond that of the individual parties to the litigation. It was fascinating and thought provoking, not just to the lawyers in the crowd but to the non lawyers as well.

Our group caucused after the arguments. We critiqued the attorneys and made our prognostications about the outcome of each case. All of us were impressed at the depth of knowledge the panel exhibited about the cases--the facts, the record and the legal precedent. Once the opinions are issued, we will know if we saw the cases in the same way the panel did, but it was a most impressive experience.

Although we occasionally get distracted by the nuts and bolts of actually practicing law, it is clear that the system we learned about in law school is working very well. It made me proud to be a lawyer and to be a small part of that system.•

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. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT