ILNews

Legal analysts use media to educate public about issues

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Lawyers and judges who eat, sleep, and breathe the law might find it easy to forget that not everyone understands the finer points of how the justice system works. Issues of public interest, high-profile court cases, and even the day-to-day workings of the court can create drama and lead to misunderstanding.

This is where legal commentators – analysts of the inner workings of the legal system – come into play.
 

pundits Marion Superior Judge John Hanley hosts legal public access show “Off the Bench.” (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

Throughout Indiana, a number of attorneys and judges share their professional expertise and insights on legal issues through television and radio shows. A law school dean who comments on various sports topics and has an affiliation with the NFL Network; a former Marion Superior judge who now has a small firm and frequently works with local network stations covering legal news; and a current Marion Superior judge who hosts a monthly show about the court for a government cable access channel in Indianapolis discuss their experiences.

Sports law analyst

If you watch the NFL Network, you may have recognized one of its commentators. Indiana University School of Law

– Indianapolis Dean Gary R. Roberts has been serving as an on-air legal analyst for the network discussing the current dispute between National Football League team owners and players.
 

Roberts-DeanGary-mug Roberts

So far, he has done a few call-in interviews, including one on March 11 to discuss the labor negotiations. That interview was recorded at the WFYI studio in Indianapolis and is available on the NFL Network’s website.

In that interview, Roberts explained the role of lawyers and the possible trajectory of the NFL labor negotiations through the court system.

When he gives his analysis on any item in sports news, he said, he doesn’t take sides and only comments on the legal aspects, such as whether one side has a strong or weak legal argument and why.

During the March 11 interview, Roberts told the other commentators, who were in the NFL Network studio in Los Angeles, that he expected both sides to come to an agreement shortly before the 2011 NFL season is scheduled to begin and that he expects there to be a Super Bowl in Indianapolis in 2012.

Roberts said the NFL Network contacted him to be a commentator likely based on his past analysis for other media outlets regarding legal issues of various sports. The law school dean is a leading expert on sports law and antitrust law and has testified nine times before congressional committees. He is a certified commercial and sports arbitrator with the American Arbitration Association and is a founding member and serves on the board of directors of the International Association of Sports Professionals and Executives.

Roberts said he enjoys explaining the legal issues surrounding sports because there are so many and the latest developments in this area of law are something he studies on a regular basis. He also enjoys doing it because it helps him to promote the law school in Indianapolis.

“It brings our institution into the public’s consciousness, where good people are doing interesting things,” he said.

When he began his tenure as dean of the law school in 2007, Roberts hoped to incorporate more sports law courses, but he said finding external funding has been difficult. The school currently offers two sports law courses, one taught by the dean and the other by Scott Bearby, managing director of legal affairs and associate general counsel to the NCAA.

Local news analyst

Gary Miller, an attorney who has taught ethics as an adjunct professor and is known for his lectures involving scenes from television shows and movies featuring lawyers that illustrate unethical behavior, can now be seen on television as himself.


Gary Miller Miller

Miller, a former Marion Superior judge who is now a name partner at MillerMeyer in Indianapolis, is a frequent commentator on a number of local network stations that reach audiences in central Indiana.

When he was on the bench, he oversaw a number of high-profile cases and got to know a number of journalists covering those cases. After Miller left the bench, those reporters and producers started calling him.

“Anything that involves the law is something that reporters and news directors want help explaining to the lay audience,” he said. “It runs the gamut of Officer (David) Bisard’s arrest to Tim Durham’s situation, to the woman who took rat poison to self-induce abortion. For all legal issues, reporters are looking for credible sources.”

Sometimes he’s on-air, and sometimes he is simply asked to explain a legal issue in a way that the reporter can use to make it understandable to viewers during the next broadcast.

When he is going to be on-air, he said, “the very first thing you have to realize is the amount of time you have to explain something is very short. The only thing I know in advance is what’s the general topic and do I need to find out a specific law. I will try to put myself in a position of a lay person who will be watching, and say what kind of information about this topic is important.”

He said he’s yet to get any legal business as a direct result of being on the air, and most of the time when he is on television he is identified as a former judge and not by his firm name. But, he said, that isn’t why he does it.

“Anytime they call and I’m in town and available, I’m more than happy to help,” he said. “Most of the people I deal with are friends, so when a friend calls I try to help. It’s just the way I’ve always operated.”

“Off the Bench”

In Marion Superior Court, a program called “Off the Bench” has covered a number of legal topics since it started airing in 2005. Issues addressed have included alternatives to juvenile incarceration and Marion County juvenile justice reform efforts, re-entry programs, identity theft, voter laws, the justice system’s response to mentally ill offenders, and court appointed special advocates.

The program has had four hosts since it started: Judge Cale Bradford, now with the Indiana Court of Appeals; Judge Gerald Zore; and most recently, Judge Robert Altice. The current host is Judge John Hanley, who taped his first show in early March.

In that show, he hosted Marion Superior Judges David Dreyer and David Shaheed who discussed their work with the April 4 commemoration program to recognize the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the speech Robert Kennedy gave in Indianapolis on his presidential campaign tour that night.

As a student he had done some reporting for his college radio station and newspaper at the University of Notre Dame, and Judge Hanley said he had not been on-air since then. However, he felt fairly comfortable on-air for his first show, he said, and is looking forward to future programs.

Selected “Off the Bench” programs may be viewed online at www.indy.gov. Select “Government TV; On Demand; Special Events” and search “Off the Bench.”

While all three commentators got onto television in different ways, a common thread is the desire to explain legal issues to the community in a way that increases understanding of the law and clarifies the legal process.•


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. G. Michael Witte letter states he's suspended for three years. The case that got him suspended is identical to my estate case, including havin the Late Judge Deiter recuse himself because Newman had a conflict of interest with the judge. His Modus Operandi is nearly identical.

  2. SIGNED BY G. MICHAEL WITTE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY INDIANA SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION DATED MAY 17, 2012.

    Your 6th complaint against Lawrence T. Newman filed on 4/12/2012. On 1/31/12, the Indiana Supreme Court entered an order suspending Lawrence T. Newman’s law license for a period of three years. More important, even after three years, Lawrence Todd Newman will not get his license back unless and until he goes through a separate proceeding to prove that he is fit to practice law. This is not an easy process, and the burden is upon Lawrence T. Newman to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is fit to return to practice.
    Because of the length of Lawrence T. Newman’s license suspension and the fact he may never succeed in getting his law license reinstated, we are not opening an investigation file at this time.
    Should Lawrence T. Newman seek reinstatement in the future, we will open your file and ask Lawrence T. Newman to address your grievance as part of his burden of proving fitness. We have attempted to notify Lawrence T. Newman that this will be required of him.
    It may disappoint you to hear that we will be doing nothing on your grievance at this time. However, the most our office can ever accomplish is to take away a lawyer’s license to practice law. We have already done that, albeit as a result of misconduct in cases other than your own. It makes better sense for our office to focus its limited resources on cases where the lawyers are still actively practicing law.

  3. Is there any justice in the Marion County Superior Court Civil Division? I am the unfortunate victim of a retaliatory lawsuit brought by Lawrence Todd Newman, the attorney from an estate case on which I worked as a unsupervised personal representative in 2006. The contract agreement for that case stated that the estate would be responsible for all attorney fees, but Newman refused to close the nearly insolvent estate when my duties were complete and his fees were paid. Instead, he tried to extort additional attorney fees from me by keeping the case open to address a wrongful death claim, despite the estate’s heir’s lack of interest in pursuing it and an expert doctor’s opinion that it would not be worth doing so. He also knowingly deceived me into believing that a “closing statement” was needed to close the estate, even though this requirement had actually been waived by the estate’s heir. The heir’s attorney filed a motion to have Newman removed from the case. After the court closed the probate case with prejudice (barred from further litigation) Newman illegally re-opened the case in another courtroom.
    As a result of complaints filed against him for these and similar actions, Newman has been suspended from practicing law for 18 months by the Indiana Disciplinary Commission. In retaliation, he has filed suit against me demanding additional attorney fees for the 2006 estate case, despite the fact that I made no agreement stating that I would pay any fees from my own assets on behalf of the estate. This lawsuit violates the rules of ethics, due process of law, and equal protection of law. Newman has been allowed to file ridiculous pleadings at an alarming rate and has been supported by a biased court system. Judge Carroll refuses to recuse himself from the case despite the fact that, by his own admission, he intends to grant Newman sanctions regardless of the evidence. When my former counsel discovered that the previous judge on the case, Judge Sosin, was a long-time close friend of Newman’s family, Judge Carroll commented for the record during a hearing that Judge Sosin in so many words “he finds the door “was weak for recusing himself from the case as a result of this obvious conflict of interest.
    This case is a public policy issue. Statutes put in place to protect unsupervised personal representatives in probate matters are being ignored. This case will affect thousands of individuals involved in probating and the personal representation of estates. Justice cannot possibly be served as long as a biased judge is allowed to defend a “vexatious litigant,” as Newman has been described by Judge Logan in Bradenton, Florida court. If there is any justice in the Marion County Superior Court Civil Division, this case against me will be dismissed with prejudice.

  4. Every affront to decency and every style adopted by criminals is not per se a constituttional violation. Only fools believe or espouse that.

  5. This was an unnecessary change in law, a needless fiddling with a tax that impacted very very few hoosiers, but one that erodes a tax base benefitting very many hoosiers. Just because some people wanted to chalk up a "tax cut" on their legislative brag-list, and didnt give a fig about replacing the revenue any other way. Really stupid. I am a republican my whole life and this just shames me like hell. I have to use a fake name over this because I know my fellow republicans are all brain washed over tax cutting too.

ADVERTISEMENT