ILNews

Indiana Judges Association: Are changes needed to ‘change of judge’ rule?

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

IJA-Dreyer-DavidOnce upon a time, there was a corporation that wanted to sue a lot of other corporations in Indiana. After the lawsuit started, one defending corporation moved for an automatic change of judge under Indiana rules. The case was re-assigned, and a different defending corporation moved to dismiss, citing related out-of-state litigation and the like. After about a year and a half of briefing, arguing and procedural running in place, the motion was denied. So the moving corporation filed its own automatic change of judge motion. But the judge said “no, y’all already got one change, can’t have another.” Then, all the defendants went to the Indiana Supreme Court and convinced it to let them have another change of judge. And when the change was made randomly by the local clerk, the case ended up with the original judge where it started way back when. No one seemed to notice and no one seemed to care.

This is a true story.

An objective observer would have to conclude that the parties did not really care who the judge was – they must have had some other strategic reason for delay, or wanted to discharge a judge who ruled against them once and might again, or some other reason. But the whole basis for an automatic change of judge is rooted in the ideal that you can get one free pass on a judge you think is biased, and be excused from having to allege or prove bias, especially when that judge is the one who gets to decide if you are right. It has now become necessary to reconcile the ideal with the reality: Changing judges as a gaming litigation strategy has nothing to do with who the judge is or any actual bias.

According to our Division of State Administration, there may have been as many as 3,500 automatic change of judge motions in Indiana over each of the last two years. This is almost 10 times over for each judge in the state and about 5 percent of the most commonly filed civil cases. That’s a lot of changing. Are there that many parties and lawyers who have that many problems with that many judges? Or is it just a small group of biased judges that are changed from virtually all of their cases? Or, more likely, is it a growing strategy of lawyers and litigants that is largely unrelated to actual provable bias?

Originally, the National Center of State Courts reports, automatic change of judge procedures arose as far back as the 1800s to stem problems in less populous communities where only one judge ruled and he or she knew literally everybody. It also allowed defendants to “unpick” judges picked by plaintiffs. Former Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard has traced the Indiana history and found automatic change motions emerging in the 1950’s when the profession recognized them as preferable over the friction bred by disqualification motions. But Maurer School of Law professor Charles Geyh, former director of the American Bar Association’s Judicial Disqualification Project and judicial ethics expert, says that only about 20 states have automatic change of judge rules, and those are almost all west of the Mississippi (where Judge Judy lives, so they need it). He sees a more central problem, that is, we are “divided over when it is reasonable for the presumption of impartiality to yield to the suspicion that extralegal influences may have compromised the judges’ impartial judgment.” If judges are presumptively neutral, how best to litigate a change of the few who are not?

While Professor Geyh acknowledges the delay game now grown into automatic change of judge procedures, he believes the best solution is found by providing disqualification motions be decided by a neutral judicial officer, not the targeted judge, which increases the legitimacy of disqualification procedures and thus increases pubic confidence in courts’ impartiality. “They should not be grading their own papers,” says Professor Geyh.

The ABA finds, naturally, that disqualification motions are less common in states with automatic change rules. But if we adopt procedures like Professor Geyh suggests, do we still need the obvious downsides of delay now inherent in automatic change? Tom Carusillo, the director of Trial Court Services in our State Court Administration, reminds us that Indiana changed its rule just this year by removing the striking panels. The old rule allowed the discharged judge one privilege before he or she left the case: listing the judges for the parties to pick. The striking panels are now gone, says Carusillo, because data showed significant delays and confusion in many cases. In addition, former Chief Justice Shepard recalls that similar considerations led to the repeal of automatic change of venue rules and restricted automatic changes in child-related matters.

So, it is worth wondering why we need automatic change of judge rules and if the trend is going against them. After all, we judges don’t get an automatic change of counsel. And believe me, there are times when we could really use one. So if we can live without it and be responsible professionals, why can’t lawyers? Just sayin’ … .•

__________

Judge David J. Dreyer has served on the Marion Superior Court since 1997. He graduated from the University of Notre Dame and Notre Dame Law School. He is a former board member of the Indiana Judges Association.

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