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. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT