ILNews

In-box: IBA's move is a step in the right direction

September 15, 2010
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Letters to the Editor

To the editor:

Several articles have been written on the recently announced Indianapolis Bar Association PAC relating to judicial campaign contributions. The article appearing in this paper compelled me to write this letter to the editor.

Our legal community has for years worked under a system that requires judicial candidates to fund-raise from lawyers who appear before them. This puts attorneys and judges alike in the untenable position of being linked both by money and justice. With the U.S. Supreme Court case of Caperton v. Massey came the recognition that this system can, and often does, create an appearance of impropriety that simply is not tolerable. The court gave no bright-line test to determine when direct campaign contributions are beyond scrutiny; no threshold amount was offered for guidance, and there was no exclusion for “judges in Marion County who have integrity.” Is the amount of the contribution the guiding factor, or is it the personal financial support that is key? Does a client care whether $150 or $1,500 was given or is the issue really the direct financial link between attorney and judge? In his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts recognized that the opinion provided no guidance on these issues and opined that the case would “inevitably lead to an increase in allegations that judges are biased, however groundless those charges may be.”

To the astute, informed reader, the opinion left unanswered the question of when direct contributions, in any amount, are ever acceptable between lawyer and judge. Indeed, Caperton raised the profile of an issue deserving of legitimate concern and did nothing to quell the public perception that perhaps justice can be bought. Just this past year, attorneys were scrutinized by the media for hosting fundraisers and contributing to public officials in the legal field. The public was led to believe that these contributions, no matter how small, were evidence of untoward motivations and ill-gotten gains. In fact, this very paper used speculation and innuendo to imply that attorneys were buying justice for their clients. The Indiana Lawyer article “Justice for Sale?” was similarly off the mark.

The real story here is that lawyers are concerned about misconceptions surrounding the legal system and are working to do something about it. As with every initiative undertaken, the bar does not respond with a “knee-jerk” reaction. Instead, the issues brought to light by Caperton over a year ago were carefully studied and all options were considered. The alternative offered by the bar to avoid direct contributions to judicial campaigns neither presents constitutional free speech concerns as suggested by “some people” in the article, nor does it solve all issues relating to the election of trial judges in Marion County. The proper, honest role that money plays in judicial elections is just one of those issues. The IBA through its board has, creatively and courageously, attempted to undertake positive reform in this regard.

All too often, tough issues get buried for fear of facing them; problems persist rather than solutions being implemented because answers are not easy or risk-free. As the PAC is put to use, it will be refined as with everything the bar does. We don’t take that task lightly. That the PAC has been criticized by some as not enough does not detract from the fact that it is, first and foremost, a step in the right direction.•

Christine Hayes Hickey, President

Indianapolis Bar Association

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  2. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  3. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

  4. Well, I agree with you that the people need to wake up and see what our judges and politicians have done to our rights and freedoms. This DNA loophole in the statute of limitations is clearly unconstitutional. Why should dna evidence be treated different than video tape evidence for example. So if you commit a crime and they catch you on tape or if you confess or leave prints behind: they only have five years to bring their case. However, if dna identifies someone they can still bring a case even fifty-years later. where is the common sense and reason. Members of congress are corrupt fools. They should all be kicked out of office and replaced by people who respect the constitution.

  5. If the AG could pick and choose which state statutes he defended from Constitutional challenge, wouldn't that make him more powerful than the Guv and General Assembly? In other words, the AG should have no choice in defending laws. He should defend all of them. If its a bad law, blame the General Assembly who presumably passed it with a majority (not the government lawyer). Also, why has there been no write up on the actual legislators who passed the law defining marriage? For all the fuss Democrats have made, it would be interesting to know if some Democrats voted in favor of it (or if some Republican's voted against it). Have a nice day.

ADVERTISEMENT