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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT