Judicial nominees on the road to confirmation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

When he was being considered for a seat on the federal appellate bench, Judge John D. Tinder recalled getting a phone call about an ongoing case just before he was set to appear before senators in Washington, D.C.

Someone on the other end of the phone asked about a cross-burning sentencing that had received some media attention in the past, and how a similar case was set for trial on his docket in the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. The judge recalled being told that topic might become a controversial point in his upcoming confirmation hearing because of hate crime legislation Congress was exploring at the time.

But when Judge Tinder went through his confirmation hearing in 2007, no one questioned him about the case and the issue didn't come up. The same phenomenon happened two decades earlier when he was first elevated from the U.S. Attorney post to the District Court bench, and controversial cases at the time turned out to not have an impact on his pending confirmation.

It's all part of the nomination game, when those selected for judicial seats or top attorney roles find themselves battling the political process while carrying on their current jobs as lawyers or judges.

"It can be awkward for a nominee in their daily work because you're sort of a moving target for those in the legislative branch who might weigh in on those cases you're handling," Judge Tinder said in hindsight. "You have to keep your head down and work, and keep your docket moving regardless of what controversy may come up."

That's what Indiana's three current judge nominees face as they go through the confirmation process. Marion Superior Judge Tanya Walton Pratt and U.S. Magistrate Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson were chosen in January for Southern District of Indiana judgeships, while banking attorney Jon DeGuilio has been chosen for the Northern District of Indiana.

The trio of judicial nominees wasn't on the Senate's vote calendar at deadline for this story, though on April 22 the Senate did confirm by unanimous consent David Capp as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District. Capp was nominated last year to succeed Joseph Van Bokkelen, who took the bench in July 2007.

Regardless of those pending nomination statuses, they all face a politically lined maze within the legal system that all must wind their way through when confirmation comes calling.

Nominees are often cautioned about public statements and told to lay low until their confirmations are complete, but that doesn't mean the nominees' existing jobs can come to a halt. Those daily duties go on mostly as usual for sitting judges and magistrates who must still hear and rule on cases and work with counsel, while the practicing attorneys who've been nominated have to keep up their own client relations and caseloads.

It's not always an easy task, particularly if partisan delays hold up the nominations.

Though Indiana judicial nominees successfully confirmed in the past three decades have faced an average waiting time of 3.4 months between initial selection and final approval, partisan gridlock has stalled some more than others and caused those within the legal community to frown on the entire process. Meanwhile, national data shows the overall process is changing the makeup of District Courts throughout the country as fewer private practice attorneys are vying for these public service judicial posts.

The American Judicature Society reports that federal judges' vocational backgrounds since the Dwight D. Eisenhower administration in 1953 have steadily declined in the number of judges coming from private practice - three quarters of nominees in 1953 compared to the one-third during George W. Bush's administration. By comparison, the proportion of sitting judges appointed to appellate courts in the same period has stayed around the 50 percent mark, an AJS article says.

Analysts say that trend reflects a mentality that public-sector appointees make for a more "professional" judiciary who better understand the umpire-like role and aren't as close to their attorney advocacy roots. Others point to private practitioners as necessary parts of the judiciary's makeup, representing some of the bar leaders with more diverse views.

Of the Hoosier jurists who now hold either a District or Circuit judgeship, only four came to the bench from private practice - Judge David F. Hamilton is the only active judge, while Circuit Judge Daniel Manion, and Judges Rudy Lozano and William C. Lee in the Northern District have all taken senior status. The others either rose from the ranks of magistrate judge, federal prosecutor, or state judge.

Two of the three pending judicial nominees have judicial experience; DeGuilio is the only one currently working in private practice, though he served as U.S. Attorney for six years in the 1990s.

"I'd say the most dangerous effect of delays and uncertainties in the process would be to discourage somebody in private practice," said Judge Hamilton from Indianapolis, who was recently elevated from the Southern District to the 7th Circuit. "A public announcement that a person is on the way to an appointment can really slow down the flow of new business. Some of that is inevitable, but with one that drags out for months or even more than a year, it can be corrosive and discourage otherwise interested people from the private sector."

When he was nominated for the federal bench in June 1994, Hamilton worked for Indianapolis-based firm Barnes & Thornburg. His nomination process lasted about four months and during that time he recalls it was difficult to bring in new clients with the looming change.

"When you're nominated you have to do your regular job, but it was difficult to go out and convince clients they needed my services when I might not be there a few months from then," he said. "At a big firm, it might be easier to cushion that effect than someone at a smaller firm."

Though it took twice as long for his confirmation to play out for the appellate bench and it was much more controversial, Judge Hamilton said he was almost better shielded from the impacts during the 2009 process. He was in a more ideal position to tolerate some of the delays because of the fact that he as a judge he had to rule on cases regardless.

In Hammond, Judge Van Bokkelen reflected on his six-month nomination process that brought him up from being U.S. Attorney for the northern part of the state. During that time, he did try to change his visibility level in his running of the federal prosecutor's office. Instead of him making public statements about cases, Van Bokkelen said his second-in-command - now-confirmed successor Capp - became the face for that office.

"Clearly, it changes a little how you purport yourself and it does affect you," he said. "I became less visible than I was before."

Overall, Judge Sarah Evans Barker said the nuances of how nominees might be impacted shows a bigger concern about the confirmation process. Since she was first nominated for the federal bench in 1984, the judge has watched the process become more political and delay-burdened - dragging on much longer than the one month it took for her to go from nomination to confirmation.

"I had a noncontroversial appearance before the Senate and my nomination went click click click, but it also deserves to be said that it was a different era and this was a District Court judgeship," she said.

Now, the path is a more complicated process that Judge Barker said has broader implications on judicial independence and makes it more difficult for courts to function without a full roster of jurists on board.

After she was nominated to the District Court, she didn't change how she prosecuted cases as U.S. Attorney and doesn't think that any of her Hoosier colleagues faced those kinds of decisions, but Judge Barker realizes the temptation exists and could present concerns to those who don't fully understand how the legal system works.

"The length of the process is unduly long, and consequences are substantial because courts have to be able to do their essential function," she said. "When a person is drawn into that nomination vortex, you might not want to create controversies that could undermine your confirmation process or drag it on. That politicization of the process is a sadness, a weakness. Is there a tendency during that delicate phase to hold back or maybe put a decision on the backburner? That could be a likely technique, and there might be a tendency to think about that."


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. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  2. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  3. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  4. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  5. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well