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. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT