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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues