ILNews

Indiana attorney gets award for work on recusals

IL Staff
December 31, 2009
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A partner at an Indianapolis law firm is being recognized by the National Center for State Courts for his work on judicial recusals, and he has some ideas that state chief justices and Indiana's top court could find interesting.

George T. Patton Jr. of Bose McKinney & Evans, a Washington D.C.-based partner in the litigation group who co-chairs the firm's appellate group, praises the Indiana Supreme Court's leadership on judicial recusals and its code of conduct, but thinks that one change might be worth exploring here.

With five justices, one recusal could leave the court with a 2-2 split decision because of the four remaining to decide a case. Other states have adopted policies allowing lower appellate or trial judges to fill in for recused judges, and Indiana would benefit from that practice, Patton said.

The other suggestion Patton has for chief justices nationally is to adopt the American Bar Association's model judicial canons, something Indiana did and put into effect in January 2009.

His recommendations come after a June decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Company, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 2252 (2009), which offered guidance on how judges should recuse themselves in cases where they've received campaign contributions from litigants or have an interest. Patton considers it at the top of the list in state court impact and in the top five of all federal and state cases that will likely be remembered in the future.

Patton's work stems from an amicus curiae brief he crafted and filed on behalf of the Conference of Chief Justices - something that had a significant impact on the high court's decision-making in Caperton. That brief was mentioned eight times in the opinion, he said.

Since that ruling, Patton has closely monitored the national scene on how state courts are coping with Caperton. So far, he hasn't observed any "flood of recusal motions" as some feared could happen as a result of the decision. The topic has also spurred congressional hearings on the issue of recusals in recent months, and Indiana University Maurer School of Law - Bloomington professor Charles Geyh has testified on the issue.

For his work, Patton is receiving the NCSC's 2009 Distinguished Service Award, considered the organization's highest recognition that is presented annually for contributions to the judicial administration field.

Patton will receive his award Feb. 2 at the chief justices' conference in the U.S. Virgin Islands. He'll give a 30-minute presentation entitled "Recusal: Where Art Thou?" which also delves into his previous work on the related SCOTUS decision of Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002) that addressed judicial free speech issues and has led to conflicting caselaw on judicial canons nationally.

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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT