ILNews

Judge David Dreyer: Law is about people, emotion and all

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Commentary

IJA-Dreyer-DavidMy daughter lives in Oregon but she never calls. But the other night she did text. Of course I did not find it until later, and it simply reported in plain terms the largest historical event of her young adult life. No glee, no joy, just a simple statement about what happened in Pakistan. But I have not been able to stop thinking what made it so important to contact her parents.

I am reminded of two different times when, as a practicing lawyer, I was conducting a direct examination. One time years ago, it was a routine uncontested divorce final hearing – no problems, no issues. But when I simply asked, “Is your marriage irretrievably broken?” (required legal talk), my client stopped, looked down, and struggled to answer through bitter, grieving tears – I never saw this coming. I had to help her from the courtroom. Some years later, I was questioning a young witness during the Mike Tyson grand jury investigation. When I asked her about her observations of the victim the day after the rape, she stopped and suddenly ran out of the room sobbing. Again, I did not see this coming, and I spent the next hour consoling this young person who had such strong unrealized feelings that could not be suppressed.

We lawyers and judges are privileged, whether we like it or not, to powerful and unpredictable human emotions. “Law is about people,” someone once said. And people are everywhere in the law – even corporations are made up of shareholders and employees. There are landowners, spouses, injured plaintiffs, witnesses, court staff, etc. One of my most moving experiences as a judge occurred one afternoon in an almost empty courtroom, with just me, a lawyer, a court reporter, and a woman who had lost her son in a car accident. It was an uncontested damages hearing for a default judgment, and the grieving mother had to briefly describe her pain and suffering for the record to justify the uncollectible judgment. Who was I to whom she had to justify her grief? As I watched, I felt so utterly unworthy to share such a dignified moment with such a noble person. Again, I did not see it coming. After the brief hearing, I came down, hugged her, and thanked her for doing something so difficult. Indeed, the law is an entirely human enterprise.

Judges are humans, too, and can also sometimes be confidantes and consolers. I have had more than one instance in my 14 judicial years when lawyers (men and women) shared personal and professional problems in my office with tears and worry. But nothing is so weighty as the conflict and concern that arises when a lawyer faces a tough case – and the burden gets to them when they don’t see it coming.

So why are so many lawyers unhappy if there is so much rich human experience bounding about? Experts generally point to several factors which usually become reported as too much hard work, too little gratification, and the overall sense that one will never do anything like Atticus Finch, or even one of those guys on “Law & Order.” To which we must say, “So what?” Unhappiness does not spring from a lack of experiences, but rather a lack of appreciation when they come our way so unexpectedly. When I find myself surprised because I didn’t see something coming, that is an epiphany of sorts. I can realize that my work then allows me to perhaps share – a time, a solution, a promise to work forward – that is unique to that case and to that person, whether that person is a corporation or a grieving mom.

So when we are faced with that occasional uncivil moment with a judge, opposing counsel, even a colleague at the firm, we will do well to allow them to be human. Our trained logic and reason may get us only so far, because as Blaise Pascal famously observed, “The heart has reasons that Reason does not know.” It is not trite to think that the merits of a common courtesy, a handshake, a pat on the back, a soft word of conciliation are just as important as any legal argument. It is those times that may make our profession a rewarding one, whether you are a judge, lawyer, party, witness, whatever – just as long as you are a human, it would seem. In fact, we should resolve to look for those moments, because they may come when we don’t see them coming – like a late-night text from a daughter far away.•

__________

The Hon. David J. Dreyer
has served on the Marion Superior Court since 1997. He is a former board member of the Indiana Judges Association. The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s.

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. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT