ILNews

‘Notre Dame 88’ lawyer cleared in discipline case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An attorney who argued that a judge’s bias warranted her recusal from a case involving pro-life students arrested for protesting the announcement of President Barack Obama’s appearance at the University of Notre Dame was cleared of disciplinary charges Tuesday.

The Indiana Supreme Court’s ruling in In the Matter of: Thomas M. Dixon, 71S00-1104-DI-196, held that Thomas Dixon’s arguments for recusal “are relevant to, and indeed required for, the relief sought.”

Dixon represented more than 80 people arrested on the South Bend campus in 2009 who objected to the announcement that Obama would speak at Notre Dame and receive an honorary degree. The collective defendants came to be known as “the Notre Dame 88” and the charges against them ultimately were dropped.

But before that, their consolidated trespass case was assigned to St. Joseph Superior Judge Jenny Pitts Manier, whose husband is a retired Notre Dame professor who Dixon noted in his petition for recusal had advocated for pro-choice causes. Dixon also noted a prior ruling by Manier against a pro-life protester that was reversed on appeal.   

The Disciplinary Commission focused on four statements Dixon made in court filings that it said violated the rule regarding attorney speech, Rule 8.2(a). The rule states, “A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge.”

“The Court concludes that none of the statements at issue, which (Dixon) made in support of his Motion for Change of Judge, violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 8.2(a), considering the entire context in which the statements were made, including Respondent’s supporting facts. We therefore enter judgment in favor of Respondent,” four justices wrote in a per curiam opinion.

Just three of the statements made by Dixon were considered by the court. They were:

  • Judge Manier’s inability to separate the college’s mission from her husband’s professional mission “calls into profound question her ability to navigate the waters of defendants’ legal defenses”;
  • That in applying an injunction in a prior ruling, Manier either didn’t understand Indiana Trial Rule 65 “or she did not feel duty bound to apply the rule because she was biased in favor of the abortuary”; and
  • That in refusing to allow a party Dixon represented to intervene in a case, the ruling “demonstrates to me that she was willing to ignore the applicable legal standards in order to move the case in a direction that negatively affected (his client’s) legal rights.”

Justice Robert Rucker dissented and would have sanctioned the statements. “I agree with the hearing officer that Respondent’s ‘comments went beyond legal argument, they became personal, and violate current professional standards.’”

Manier filed the grievance against Dixon and ultimately recused herself from the case, according to the record.
 


 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • NYT v Sullivan would have been better for us but...
    Carlos, I too like the subjective test better since we are talking about ethics here and ethics should take the actual thought process into account. However it does simplify the job of the court and it obviously contemplates that there are going to be a lot more beefs against lawyers in the future and they're prolly taking the opportunity to make their job easier. I read the decision and I assumed that the prosecutor has a to make a case that it was objectively unreasonable. I mean they cant seriously think they just allege remarks are unreasonable and then not introduce any evidence to support it and pass it to the defendant to try and rebut. I cant imagine that. But then again what do I know, the whole trend of punishing lawyer free speech has surprised me for the two decades time it has been accelerating
  • Next Question
    What this decision seems to be left unsaid, however, is whether the Comm'n bears the burden of showing whether the atty lacked the "objectively reasonable basis for making the statement" or whether the atty bears the burden of showing whether he HAD the "objectively reasonable basis for making the statement." I'd think it's the former but am not 100% sure since the Comm'n can't peer into the atty's mind and determine what said "reasonable basis" may have been.
    • good outcome
      Absolutely right decision. Dixon's motion was sound and effective advocacy and his assertions were backed by facts. it turns out truth is a defense I guess. Now the complaint against the other lawyer involved should be dismissed. What they did was excellent advocacy and by standing up and defending themselves they have defended all of us too. In the future judges should think twice before going after lawyers like this and consider if the outcome wont prove the point; ie, kind of like yanking the proverbial evidentiary harpoon in and out of the wound again and again.
    • Congrats to Tom Dixon
      Indiana attorneys owe Tom Dixon a debt of gratitude for standing up to a system bent on ending zealous advocacy and silencing dissent. This victory should be a banner story here, but it is not, likely due to pressure from the losing statists.

    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