ILNews

IndyBar: Interrogatories

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Joel M. Schumm

Clinical Professor of Law, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law


He is a graduate of Ohio Wesleyan University, the University of Cincinnati, and the Robert H. McKinney School of Law. He served as a law clerk to Justice Theodore Boehm of the Indiana Supreme Court and Judge Paul Mathias of the Indiana Court of Appeals before joining the faculty at the McKinney School of Law. An award-winning scholar, he is Joel M. Schumm, and he has been served with interrogatories.



Q You’re an accomplished appellate advocate, but you were also an appellate litigant in the now-famous traffic infraction case of Schumm v. State. If you hadn’t represented yourself, who would have been on your short list to represent you?

A Indiana has many incredibly talented appellate lawyers, and I would have been lucky to have any one of them. Because I was appealing a $206.50 judgment, though, I would have chosen someone who would not have (1) told me I was completely nuts for pursuing an appeal or (2) caused me to take out a second mortgage on my house.



Q What advice do you give your students for navigating this incredibly difficult legal job market?

A Develop some connections by proving yourself though an externship or part-time job. Even in this tough market, I know many students who have landed permanent job through this route. That said, good (or at least respectable) grades, especially in legal writing, still matter for many jobs.



Q If you could change one thing about Indiana appellate procedure, what would it be?

A Electronic filing of briefs. My students have uploaded their writing assignments to an electronic dropbox for the past decade; I never touch a piece of paper in critiquing and returning them. I welcome the day I will not have to take each appellate brief to the printer, pick up the bound copies a few hours later, and then drop them off or mail them to the clerk’s office.



Q You’re a prolific author of appellate briefs, having participated in more than 100 Indiana appellate cases. Describe your writing process.

A I’ll briefly describe the process for briefs I write alone and then the process for cases in which I supervise students through the Appellate Clinic at the law school.

I read the record right away, make some notes, and ruminate about potential issues for at least a few days (sometimes during the morning run) before drafting anything. Some records present one or more strong issues; others require more rumination and ultimately some creativity. As I work through potential issues, I will do some legal research while drafting an argument. I always begin with the argument section but in cases with particularly helpful or important facts will draft the fact section fairly early in the process. The remaining sections are then pretty easy to draft. Before any brief is filed, I have someone proofread not just for typographical errors but also flow, clarity, and substance.

The process for cases in which I supervise students in the Appellate Clinic is a little different. Every student reads the record in every case and is instructed not to do any research. We meet as a group to brainstorm potential issues, and each student is then assigned his or her own case. Issues are winnowed based on research and further thought, and we usually go through at least a couple drafts before discussing a near-final draft as a class, which includes input from experienced appellate practitioners.



Q Which Indiana appellate judge would you most like to have a beer with and why?

A We are fortunate to have such an accessible group of appellate judges in Indiana. Lawyers are able to interact with them regularly at CLEs and bar association functions. Some of the most interesting discussion can be found over drinks the night before the Indiana Public Defender Council’s annual appellate CLE in May, which always includes at least one appellate judge as a speaker.



Q You were instrumental in the creation of the Indiana Appellate Institute, an IndyBar program modeled after Georgetown’s Supreme Court Institute that conducts moot arguments for advocates set to appear before Indiana appellate courts. What do you see as the future for the institute?

A I hope more advocates, especially those doing their first appellate argument, will take advantage of the Institute. We have a wonderful group of volunteer “judges” who spend time preparing for the argument, ask great questions likely to come up in the actual argument, and provide invaluable, constructive feedback. Professor Eugene Volokh, who mooted his Brewington argument before a panel that included Professor/Justice Sullivan, found the experience “tremendously useful.”



Q You are a guest-blogger at the Indiana Law Blog. If Professor Volokh invited you to also become a guest-blogger at the Volokh Conpsiracy, would you accept?

A That would be an incredibly flattering offer, which would be difficult to decline. I am somewhat spoiled in offering commentary for the ILB, though, because Marcia Oddi offers great feedback, editing, and (at times) filtering before anything I write is posted. (Related side note: I do not have a Twitter account. Some topics or phrases that seem like a good idea at first blush are best kept to oneself or a small group of friends.)



Q Is it easy for you to recognize the students who will be the most successful after graduation?

A Occasionally I am surprised. I view success in terms of professional satisfaction, though. A license to practice law offers enormous potential, and people take different paths in pursuing that potential. Depending on the individual, success might come through making partner at a big firm, landing an important political job, or making a difference in the lives of others through non-profit or governmental work.



Q What’s on your iPod?



A I use my iPod when running, so it has a variety of upbeat (no country) music spanning the last few decades.



Q How do you pronounce your last name? I have heard at least a couple variations.

A Rhymes with room—not rum. But I’ll answer to anything except scum.•

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 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."

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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;

  5. The story that you have shared is quite interesting and also the information is very helpful. Thanks for sharing the article. For more info: http://www.treasurecoastbailbonds.com/

ADVERTISEMENT