ILNews

IndyBar: Interrogatories -- Q & A with Jeffrey J. Graham

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By Tyler D. Helmond, Voyles Zahn & Paul

Jeffrey J. Graham, Partner
Taft Stettinius & Hollister
 

graham-jeff.jpg Graham

He is a graduate of the University of Notre Dame and the Valparaiso University School of Law. He served as a law clerk to the Honorable S. Hugh Dillin before joining his current practice in bankruptcy and creditor rights at Taft Stettinius & Hollister. He is Jeffrey J. Graham, and he has been served with interrogatories.

Q The bankruptcy world was fixated on Stern v. Marshall when it was released two years ago. For the uninitiated, what is Stern v. Marshall, and where do things stand on that subject?

A Unfortunately, the bankruptcy world is still keenly aware of the unlikely legal legacy of Anna Nicole Smith. Essentially, the case was a turf war between what rights could be determined by an Article I judge created by Congress (i.e., bankruptcy judges) and what is reserved to Article III judges (i.e., district judges) by the Constitution. If an issue is a public right and part of a comprehensive federal scheme, like most bankruptcy matters, then, Article I judges have the ability to rule on those issues. However, if an issue is a private right between two parties, those matters are reserved to Article III judges only and cannot be determined by an Article I judge. We could spill pages of ink getting into the nuances, but that is the general overview. Most jurisdictions have tried to walk this fine line by having the parties consent to the jurisdiction of bankruptcy judges to hear certain matters that might be considered private rights. The Supreme Court has granted certiorari on two decisions and theory will tell us whether the jurisdictional issues raised in Stern v. Marshall can be waived by the consent of the parties or if bankruptcy judges are prohibited from ruling on private right issues even with the consent of the litigants. Or the Supreme Court could throw more jurisdictional headaches at us. I’m pulling for the former.



Q Your first legal work was clerking for Judge S. Hugh Dillin. What is the most important thing you learned from that experience?

A It was such a great experience beginning my career as a newly minted lawyer working for someone like Judge Dillin. When I started he was already on senior status and had cemented his legacy years earlier. Yet he continued to come into work every day and carry a full criminal case load and a half load of civil cases. He certainly didn’t have to at that point of his career, but he did because he loved the law and what he was doing. I have tried to do the same and approach the law as something to practice and enjoy rather than as a source of employment.



Q Were those “the good old days,” and if so, are lawyers on average more nostalgic than non-lawyers?

A I’m not the right person to answer that question as I love history and am fascinated with the past. But I can see how lawyers in general might be more likely to look wistfully at a time without fax machines, computers, smartphones and tablets than non-lawyers. We live in a real-time world, and as service providers we lawyers are required to give answers and advice real time, any time. There is a great deal of appeal to a time when things moved slower and you as a lawyer had the perceived luxury of thinking something through before a client required a response.



Q You have been involved in some of the biggest of the mega-bankruptcies in the Southern District, like ATA Airlines and Lauth, Inc. What is the secret to staying organized when a file consists of hundreds, if not thousands, of documents?

A Magic. Having good staff and co-workers helps a lot, too. Electronic filing is great when you have to do the filing, but the tradeoff is what seems to be an hourly deluge of CM/ECF filing notices. Without help, even the most organized soul would be overwhelmed. Fortunately, I have been blessed with great assistants and partners who help keep track of the large cases. I also keep a suit on the back of my door just in case I need to run across the street to a hearing.



Q In your experience, what percentage of people successfully pronounce Stettinius on the first try?

A Oh my goodness, maybe 25-30 percent? I cannot tell you how many times people will try to say or read my firm’s name and have a sheer look of panic when they try to say or read Stettinius. The second time the person usually just says Taft and calls it a day.



Q What is the most indispensable book on legal writing or advocacy in your collection?

A I am still a big fan of Strunk & White’s “The Elements of Style” and place an unhealthy weight to the Bluebook. But the most indispensable thing really is giving yourself enough time to proofread and trying to eliminate the word “clearly” from legal briefs. If it was really all that clear nobody would be arguing about it in the first place.

 

Q What is on your iPod?

A My friends and those exposed to my work playlist have described it as an eclectic mix of classical, bluegrass, alternative, 80s rock, and whatever else has managed to migrate to my vast archives (is Gregorian chant even a genre?). Lately Jamie N. Commons, Imagine Dragons and the Lumineers have been in the playlist rotation most frequently.



Q There seems to be a temptation in litigation to judge the quality of a lawyer’s work solely in terms of win/loss. How do you get away from that?

A The same debate is going on in baseball right now with regard to a pitcher’s wins and losses. But baseball has metrics like ERA, WHIP, and WAR (what is it good for?) to stir debate. Lawyers have wins and reputation. Wins are much easier to pitch to clients than reputation alone, so hence wins being touted as an indicator of quality. There are merit-based awards like the various Colleges, certifications, A/V rating and awards like Super Lawyer and Best Lawyers which may reflect a lawyer’s reputation, but I’m not sure of their resonance with clients. Personally, there are cases a lawyer should win, some a lawyer should lose, and some that could go either way. A good lawyer wins the ones she should, wins some she should have lost, and wins her fair share of those in the middle.•

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. I like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT