ILNews

Lawyers offer legal expertise in the political arena

Michael W. Hoskins
August 3, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Lawyers venturing into politics is not a new concept.

But how much influence do those office-seeking or campaign-supporting attorneys and judges have on the political process, and does it really matter if people have a law degree as part of their background?

Current political campaigns involve well-known and highly respected members of the legal community who are flexing their influence, both vying for votes personally and working to have others elected.

Lawyers and judges often say their professional backgrounds prepare them to problem-solve and think on their feet, and their legal minds help them find solutions to questions often confronted in the political arena. The involvement of lawyers or judges can send a message to members of the legal community who might be voting or trying to analyze a particular political race.
 

brooks-susan-mug Brooks

“It’s one thing to have such well-respected people running for office, that’s just their qualifications and you may agree or disagree,” said Indianapolis attorney Bob Hammerle, an active political participant who’s been involved in state, federal, and presidential politics on the Democratic side for years, including hosting rallies at his home. “When you have people with such gravitas involved and campaigning, that lends their credibility to someone who stands out in their own right. That does make a difference to us.”

One of the most recent members of the legal profession to throw her hat into the political ring is current Ivy Tech Community College general counsel and former U.S. attorney for the Southern District Susan W. Brooks. Brooks has announced her entry into the 5th U.S. Congressional District race as a Republican candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives. She’ll face incumbent Dan Burton next year as well as John McGoff, a doctor who has twice ran unsuccessfully against Burton.

Brooks has been with Ivy Tech since September 2007 and at one time oversaw the school’s statewide workforce development strategies. She became general counsel after serving as the Southern District’s top federal prosecutor from 2001 to 2007.

In the late 1990s, Brooks served as deputy mayor of Indianapolis before moving to the government services practice at law firm Ice Miller. The Fort Wayne native began her law career as a criminal defense attorney in both state and federal courts after graduating from Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis.

Her campaign has some high-profile names attached. The campaign is co-chaired by retired U.S. Magistrate Judge V. Sue Shields, a respected and recognized state appellate and Hamilton County judge, and attorney Murray Clark, a former state senator who most recently chaired the Indiana GOP.

“Susan is the right candidate for Congress at just the right time,” Magistrate Judge Shields said. “She has spent her entire career as a relentless advocate on behalf of Hoosiers in all walks of life, and she will be a strong representative for residents in the 5th Congressional District.”

That Central Indiana political race presents a similar attorney-involvement scenario as a contest in northwest Indiana. Chicago attorney and former Indiana state representative Dan Dumezich from Schererville is active in the campaign for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Indianapolis attorney Bob Grand at Barnes & Thornburg and Dumezich are co-chairing the Romney campaign in this state and in late July held a fundraiser at Dumezich’s home. Minimum $1,000 contributions were required, according to news coverage.

Both attorneys’ names have been associated with politics for years, and Dumezich has been mentioned as a possible contender for Congress or U.S. Senate.

Grand said he sees the representation of lawyers involved in politics higher than many other professions, and it’s important for the legal community to be a part of that process.

“Naturally, you have more lawyers who are politically active just because of what we do in the process of interpreting and applying laws,” Grand said. “I’m not sure if our involvement means anything more to the process or has any more weight ... that might just depend on who the lawyer or judge is. But I know personally, I’ve found it intriguing to be a part of the government process like this to help shape public policy.”

In Indianapolis, attorney Melina Kennedy left law firm Baker & Daniels late last year to kick off her mayoral campaign against first-term incumbent Greg Ballard. If elected, she will return to the office where she began her career as deputy mayor after law school. She said her legal background complements her public service passion perfectly, and she feels it is time to use it for that.

“I see how much good you can do in city government, and as I’ve had the opportunity to look at ways of getting back into that service. I thought this was a good time for doing that,” Kennedy said. She believes it is important for law students and lawyers to be involved in public service efforts, whether that means running for office or working behind the scenes.

“Our legal community is just one segment of a bigger political community that everyone’s a part of,” she said. “Studying the law, you can see why so many attorneys are involved – it’s because we have a true understanding of the process, and that means we need to have more involvement.”•

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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT