ILNews

Indiana Sen. Mike Delph's bills raise brows in legal community

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

State Sen. Mike Delph made headlines when he proposed a bill that would have required judges to award attorney fees to prevailing parties in all civil litigation. He made headlines a short time later when he abruptly killed his own legislation.
 

delph-mike-mug Delph

Many bar members around the state were incensed at Senate Bill 88 and fumed even after Delph withdrew it. “I think they are incredibly dangerous,” Frank Julian, a personal injury attorney at Sweeney Julian P.C. in South Bend, said of SB 88 and similar tort-reform measures. For people of modest means, Julian said, “The courthouse door would be shut and locked forever because of this bill.

“Part of the reason we fought a Revolutionary War way back in 1776 and onward was because we thought it was critical to have a right to a civil jury in our Constitution,” he said.

Amid such rhetoric, Delph, R-Carmel, pulled the bill he said he was carrying at the request of a member of Gov. Mike Pence’s staff.

“My purpose was, I was asked to engage on this. I’ve not really worked on this particular issue. … It’s not something I had a deep-seated passion on,” Delph told Indiana Lawyer. A self-described conservative populist, he said the discussions that ensued made the effort worthwhile and that SB 88 and other bills he’s introduced might not get committee hearings, but they do get attention.

“I don’t introduce every issue to make law,” he said. “Sometimes you introduce a bill when you want to take control of an issue or you want to highlight an issue.” Other times, the bills serve as discussion starters, Delph said. SB 88 got people talking.

Indiana Trial Lawyers Association director Micki Wilson said Delph’s decision to withdraw his own bill was highly unusual. “I don’t know why he did that, but good for him.”

Objection to SB 88 was swift and loud because, “It’s really pretty simple – we support the American rule, not the British rule,” Wilson said. “This is a solution in search of a problem, and I believe upon reflection, the policymakers sort of had a bit of discussion about it … and have concluded there is no problem in this regard.”

Jeff Ahler of Kahn Dees Donovan & Kahn LLP in Evansville, said judges already have statutory discretion to award fees in frivolous litigation and that reducing litigation is a worthy goal. “I wouldn’t doubt Sen. Delph’s heart was in the right place, but the question is, what is the best way to approach the issue?

“Whether or not Indiana needs a loser-pays law, it seems to me it would be appropriate for such a significant issue to be studied by the state bar association, the courts and the other appropriate committees and entities to get their input,” Ahler said. “Indiana is not necessarily known as a hotbed for questionable class-action lawsuits with large verdicts.”

Delph said “people who know my thinking,” including Senate Judiciary Chairman Brent Steele, R- Bedford, whose own similar effort failed in the 1990s, persuaded him to withdraw the bill. But Delph insisted, “I’ve also heard from members of the bar who’ve been on the other side of the courtroom, if you will … silent cheerleaders.”

SB 88 was one of several measures Delph has authored that would fundamentally transform how parts of the judiciary function. Others are:

• Senate Bill 55, which would eliminate grand juries; and

• Senate Joint Resolution 6, which would require Court of Appeals judges and Supreme Court justices receive 67 percent of the vote in a general election to be retained and lift restrictions on their political activities.

Delph said the bills as a whole represent an attempt to reconnect constituents to the judiciary. “The question is, are we doing the best job connecting people (to the judiciary) as opposed to an elite, segregated group of people? … We should not be a walled-off, segregated branch of government.”

“I think the judicial branch has not been in contact with the people paying taxes, and they are the sovereign,” he said.

The proposal to eliminate grand juries, Delph explained, plays to concerns about abuses. “There have been examples you can point to where the grand jury was used as a political shield. … It is a very closed-off, undemocratic process.”

A grand jury indictment carries the presumption of guilt, he said. “I think we have a presumption of innocence in America and in Indiana, and I think that should be backed up by public policy.”

Longtime special prosecutor and former Delaware County prosecutor J.A. Cummins said he understands the argument, but that grand juries are valuable for their investigative powers and independence. “It was always and still is my opinion you can get a lot of good advice from a grand jury,” Cummins said.

Secrecy also is vital, particularly for people who might be fearful of testifying. “A lot of times people will tell you things in a grand jury that they won’t tell you in a police investigation or a prosecutor’s investigation because the law says grand jury proceedings are secret,” Cummins said.

Stanley Levco, a special prosecutor and former prosecutor in Vanderburgh County, said eliminating grand juries would take ordinary people out of the judicial process.

“I know a lot of times you hear people say a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich,” Levco said. “When I took a case to a grand jury, I took it with the idea that it was their decision. If I knew what I was going to do, I would have done it.”

Delph said SB 55 likely will evolve into a summer study committee on grand juries and special prosecutors. Larry Landis of the Indiana Public Defender Council said, “We’re looking at needs for additional safeguards, but we think there are legitimate reasons for grand juries.” He said a key reform proposal is that the grand jury secrecy privilege should end with the filing of charges.

Under another proposal authored by Delph, appellate judges would have to garner 67 percent of the retention vote to remain on the bench. “There’s nothing special about that number,” he said. “It’s a high threshold.”

The same legislation would permit politicking by appellate court judges, contrary to longstanding practice. Current law as it pertains to appellate judges “denies the right to participate in the (political) process,” Delph said, “and I don’t think it recognizes the political nature of human beings.”

Like Delph’s other judiciary proposals, his proposals impacting appellate court judges had not been scheduled for a hearing at IL deadline, but he said that doesn’t mean such legislation should be considered frivolous.

“In this job, people are going to have criticisms of what you do and your motives,” he said. “People are going to make judgments on what all of us do based on a finite amount of information.”•
 

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

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. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT