New lawyers advised to remember the oath during their careers

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana’s newest lawyers were admitted to practice Wednesday at an Indianapolis ceremony where they were advised to “think like a lawyer” and remember the oath they have taken to support and defend the Constitution.

At the Indiana Supreme Court admission ceremony, 137 lawyers took oaths to be admitted to practice in Indiana, as well as in the U.S. District Courts for the Northern and Southern Districts.

Chief Judge Nancy Vaidik talked about thinking like a lawyer — being analytical, rejecting quick thoughts, seeing the world in shades of gray instead of black and white.

“I realized I had fundamentally changed in law school and so have you,” she told the new lawyers, joking the process was like the Vulcan mind meld from “Star Trek.”

She noted in today’s political climate, more people need to think like lawyers. Indiana Supreme Court Justice Mark Massa in his remarks also talked about how today’s times are challenging — both for the legal profession and in general. He urged lawyers to be the first to come to the defense of free-speech challenges.

Natural-born U.S. citizens do not have to take an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution — only those in the military, public service and lawyers, he pointed out.

“Remember the oath always as you report to duty tomorrow,” he said. On behalf of the Indiana Supreme Court, “welcome to the bar, and welcome to the fight.”


  • Legal physicians, heal thyselves
    It is not the powerless attorneys who need to be directed to uphold the constitutions. It is the powerful, like those Hoosier attorneys and judges who "extreme vetted" me over my religion ... to keep me out of the bar, and then banished me for life for daring to blow the whistle on their founders'denying double standards and constitution-violating ways. What attorney, fresh out of law school, would ever believe that this question can be asked in a bar admission hearing, as was put to me: “My question is direct, is that correct … do you firmly believe that you’re obligated as a Christian to put obedience to God’s law above human law? That’s my question to you?” “Is that assessment correct? The question is, is that assessment correct?” Force to choose between my Saviour/King and the Hoosier judiciary, I chose Jesus. And my family has paid a very dear price, much like Soviet Christians put to the same vetting by statist Kommissars. Details here: SO YES, LET us all hold fast to the constitutions. I did, and as a whistleblower against powerful Hoosier Kommisars am now forbidden, for the rest of my life, from ever re-applying to the Indiana bar .... after passing the Indiana bar exam, which they did allow me to sit for .. despite grave concerns about my loyalty to their brand of rabid secularism. Doctors of the law, heal thyselves before preaching to those young and idealistic unpolluted ones who know better... and see through your rampant corruption.

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. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.