ILNews

Indiana Justice Boehm stepping down after 14 years

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

When he started practicing law more than four decades ago, the thought of someday being a justice on the state’s highest court wasn’t something Theodore R. Boehm had in mind.

But after rising through the private practice ranks and tours of corporate counsel duty, he found himself as a member of the Indiana Supreme Court in August 1996.
 

Boehm Justice Theodore R. Boehm is retiring from the Indiana Supreme Court in September after 14 years on the bench. He became the state’s 104th justice when he was appointed in 1996. (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

Reflecting on that time, the 71-year-old justice says now that it was more luck than anything, and he didn’t or couldn’t plan on becoming an appeals judge if he’d tried.

“I certainly didn’t expect to be an appellate judge, and it was a tremendous amount of luck that went into getting this type of position,” he said. “I just happened to be in the right place at the right time.”

Now, after 14 years on the Indiana Supreme Court, Justice Boehm is ready to enter the next stage of his life and career. He announced May 25 that he’s stepping down from the court Sept. 30, about two weeks after he turns 72. Though he sought and received voter retention in 2008, he knew then that he wouldn’t be able to continue his full term before reaching the mandatory retirement age of 75. This has been a decision Justice Boehm’s been mulling for some time, but a combination of factors such as his wife’s approaching retirement and a desire to spend more time with family helped make up his mind.

“It’s been an honor, but it would have to happen in the next three years,” he said, adding that he isn’t sure if he would’ve reached the same decision if the mandatory retirement age wasn’t set as it is. “This is what state law says, and I’ve known about it since I started, and so this is the best time for me.”

Becoming a justice

Born in Illinois, Justice Boehm grew up in Indianapolis and went on to graduate magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1963. He served as a law clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren after graduation, and then returned to Indiana. He joined Indianapolis firm Baker & Daniels in 1964, becoming a partner in 1970 and the firm’s first managing partner in 1980. He was heavily involved in complex corporate law cases, including representing Eli Lilly against insurers who refused coverage of multi-million dollar lawsuits brought by women, and even made it to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Boehm left Baker & Daniels in 1988 to become general counsel of General Electric’s appliances division, moving up the ranks quickly before becoming deputy general counsel for Eli Lilly in the mid-1990s. He then returned to Baker & Daniels the year before his selection to the Indiana Supreme Court.

Through the years, he was also actively involved in Indianapolis sports and economic development and served in roles such as leader of the organizing committee for the 1987 Pan American Games in Indianapolis, as well as first president and chief executive officer of Indiana Sports Corp.

His litigator role changed in 1996, when then-Gov. Evan Bayh chose him as the state’s 104th justice to succeed Justice Richard DeBruler, who retired that year after a quarter century on the appellate bench. He was 57 at the time, which was “old for a rookie justice,” Justice Boehm says now.

Through the years, Justice Boehm has authored 468 majority opinions and 77 dissenting opinions at the time of this story’s deadline. Some highlights of his judicial career include his work on webcasting all of the court’s oral arguments, leading the effort for a set of new appellate rules, leadership on a jury pool project, and a 2000 constitutional amendment that changed the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to a mostly discretionary role.

But he doesn’t take credit for it. Keeping a modest tone about his role and accomplishments, he downplayed his significance on the court and said he’s just been one member of a phenomenal five-person court that’s remained together for more than a decade.

“This is all a compliment to the court, not me personally,” Justice Boehm said about the response to his retirement announcement. “It takes three, at least, to get anything done and this is nothing that I can personally take sole credit for. This court has left a legacy for modernizing the Indiana judiciary overall, but it’s a process that took all of us.”

In fact, recalling stories that stand out during his time on the bench, Justice Boehm pointed to one about how he influenced his colleagues.

“One of the most memorable moments was during a conference, when a great big fly about a half-inch in length was in the room, and I was there catching him flat-handed. … That absolutely astonished the staff and justices,” he said with a laugh, noting that it’s a highlight that illustrates how collegial the court has been.

Though he’s modest, Justice Boehm’s colleagues and those within the legal community who know him the best say that he’s irreplaceable.

“While it is disappointing to lose Justice Boehm as a colleague, we are all grateful for his 14 years of service to our state’s judiciary,” Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard said in a statement. “He has brought powerful insight to our deliberations and enormous energy to the goal of making Indiana a better place for its citizens.”

Nationally, the Indiana Supreme Court is widely regarded for its efforts to modernize the state’s judicial system and also for its collegiality – something that observers largely attribute to the merit-based selection system that’s been in place since 1970 and doesn’t result in the heated election campaigns that other states experience.

That collegiality is one aspect of how Justice Boehm has stood out in being the person other justices can rely on when a quick analysis and decision is needed on a complicated case, said Joel Schumm, Indianapolis attorney and law professor at Indiana University School of Law -- Indianapolis who clerked for the justice in the late ’90s.

For example, the Indiana Toll Road case in 2006 and a Southwestern Bell Corp. case in the late ’90s were emergency cases that were lengthy and complicated, but Justice Boehm was able to turn them around quickly and make them understandable, Schumm said.

“He’s at the top of his game, and his productivity and work product are as good as they could ever be,” Schumm said. “I’d say he’s brilliant. He can take any legal issue in any wide variety of law, take those complicated matters and make them understandable with ease and poise. He’ll be hard to replace because he can do so many different things.”

Other issues that stand out in Justice Boehm’s time on the court include the 2000 constitutional amendment that gave the Supreme Court almost complete discretion over which cases to consider, basically making it a court of last resort.

In death-penalty cases where unanimity hasn’t been as common, Justice Boehm tended to side with granting inmates further appeals, often in the dissenting position. Last fall, he was one of three judges in the majority when the court adopted a new rule that will require videotaping of most felony police interrogations starting in 2011.

“He’s been at the court at a time when the administrative side has grown significantly, and that’s helped the justice wheels turn more quickly and efficiently here in Indiana and across state lines,” said Indianapolis attorney Paul Jefferson, who clerked for Justice Boehm from 2002 to 2004. “His ability to distill complicated issues into the simplest terms is amazing and what many of us aspire to do as attorneys.”

Justice Boehm’s outside involvement in cultural tourism initiatives, the sports community, and economic development has been a benefit to everyone – not just those in the legal community.

“He’s done many things outside of just wearing a robe, and I think the city and state are better off for it,” Jefferson said.

Uncertain future

Now, the search begins for a new justice. This is the first vacancy on the high court since former Justice Myra Selby left the bench for private practice in 1999, and Justice Robert Rucker took that spot. Applicants have until the end of June to submit their names for consideration, and interviews are expected to wrap up in July before Gov. Mitch Daniels gets his chance to select his first state justice.

Justice Boehm won’t weigh in on the process, and he doesn’t want to talk about what his future holds before his service on the court wraps up. With four months remaining, he plans to continue hearing cases and deciding transfers until it’s no longer prudent to do so. He hasn’t made a decision and won’t begin discussing options until after his judicial service ends, in order to not infringe on any cases that may come before him this year. That’s different from the last time the Supreme Court saw an opening, when former Justice Selby announced her retirement with plans to return to private practice at a specific firm.

For now, all Justice Boehm will say is that golf, traveling, and family time are likely in his future after September. Until then, he won’t know whether his prediction from his days as a “rookie justice” – that this would be his last stop in his legal career – will remain true.

But those who know him, such as former clerks, agree that this likely won’t be the end of the legal community’s interaction with the longtime lawyer who’s been a key force in the state’s judiciary.

“I don’t think we’ve see the last of him,” Jefferson said. “Don’t expect him to sit quietly by and go into retirement without doing anything. That’s not Justice Boehm.”•
 

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