ILNews

Recognizing judicial family issues

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

When Indiana Justice Brent Dickson joined the state’s highest court more than two decades ago, his wife was unsure whether she could take a specific job in her area of education.

His appointment came in January 1986, and Jan Dickson was hoping to use her education in pioneer family structures to land a position with the Indiana Historical Bureau that had opened up. But a potential conflict existed: the chief justice at the time was a board member of that organization and she didn’t know if it would be appropriate to take that job, given her husband’s new position with the Indiana Supreme Court.

dickson Jan Aikman Dickson (middle) was recently inducted into the Warren E. Burger Society for her work creating the Judicial Family Institute. Also posing with the portrait of Justice Burger are JFI Law and Literature chair Sheryl Washington (left) and JFI secretary/treasurer Roz Smith (right). (submitted photo)

The state’s judicial conduct code at the time didn’t address that issue and no guidance existed, so she didn’t apply. But that led Jan Dickson to begin searching for answers, not only on the issue she’d confronted but many others that raised ethical concerns for judges and their family members in ways that no one had addressed before.

“The judicial code back then was written for male judges and on the assumption that family would just follow the same rules,” Brent Dickson said. “Everyone had shared concerns about these things, but these were sudden surprises that weren’t expected by anyone and hadn’t been addressed.”

The answers were unclear on an array of issues including how spouses could interact when it came to local politics or social activities, how they navigated security in their homes, how children and families might respond when contacted by a reporter or acquaintances about a particular case or issue and what types of jobs or community involvement might present potential conflicts.

Jan Dickson went to work talking about those issues, setting in motion the creation of an organization that during the past quarter century has become a national educational resource instituted in multiple states to help judges, spouses and family members navigate the unique issues they might face.

“Any challenges we face in the context of judicial families is in the context of the importance of administration of justice,” she said.

That work has earned Jan Dickson a prominent place in the country’s legal history books. She was inducted into the Warren E. Burger Society in November. Membership honors those individuals who’ve demonstrated “an exemplary commitment” to the administration of justice through their contributions of service or support to the National Center for State Courts, which former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Burger founded in 1971.

Specifically, she received recognition for creating what has become the Judicial Family Institute, a nonpartisan organization that she began as a corporation with a quarterly newsletter in the late 1980s and with early support from the Indiana Bar Foundation. It became so popular that in 2001, the Conference of Chief Justices formally adopted the program as one of its own committees. The CCJ sponsors educational programs and conferences for the nation’s jurists and their families, with many programs coupled with state and federal judicial conferences. Multiple states also have created their own local efforts.

Jan Dickson recalled one of the earliest ethical issues that she and her husband faced – charitable fundraising – something that many judges and their families encounter on a regular basis. She had been involved in the Tippecanoe County March of Dimes efforts, and the justice’s wife wondered if she could have her name attached to any fundraising letters – especially those going to attorneys – because of her husband’s judicial role. She read and studied national judicial conduct codes addressing that issue.

“It’s been fun to watch the changes over the years and see how the judicial codes have evolved to embrace not only the changing judiciary, but their families,” Jan Dickson said.

Through the institute, judges and their families can find information on any number of broad topics: emergency preparedness, ethics, family and children, finances, health and quality of life, high-profile cases, judicial assistance, media interaction, adapting to change on the bench, political life, retirement and home or courthouse security concerns.

The institute’s services are widely sought by judges nationally and statewide, many say. Some issues that arise involve the tough lessons about what a judge and his or family might encounter when interacting in a local community, particularly smaller, more rural areas. Some might face conflicts when attorneys or community members try to befriend or associate with a judge or family member about a legal issue through a community activity or school function, judges say.

“Jan Dickson is the history of the JFI, and her work toward founding and growing the organization has provided an invaluable resource to judges around the country and closer to home,” said Jane Seigel, executive director of the Indiana Judicial Center. “Of course, Indiana’s judicial families have benefited from the JFI’s education and information, but the judges themselves also tell me what an impact Jan’s work has had on their quality of life.”

Many lawyers and judges in Indiana who have a spouse either on the bench or bar say they don’t discuss case specifics with their significant other. Some have a standing order in the firms or court clerks’ offices that trigger an automatic recusal if a lawyer who is the spouse of a judge or sometimes the firm itself is involved in a case before that particular judge.

Michael Hebenstreit, a partner at Whitham, Hebenstreit & Zubek in Indianapolis, said he has that arrangement on cases that might go before his wife, Marion Superior Judge Robyn Moberly. Technically, there’d be no conflict for another firm member to practice in her court, but they’ve just decided “not to go there.” They don’t have many other ethical issues or conflicts that have come up, he said.

“Marion County is big enough where we just kind of blend into the world a little bit better,” he said.

Boone Superior Judge Matt Kincaid learned about dealing with the home front of being a judge long before he took the bench a decade ago. His dad, Warren A. Kincaid III, presided over that same court before he did. The son recalls little things – having a burglar alarm installed for what seemed like no reason, and an apparently “dicey” Marion County case which led to threats and his school being put on notice. But overall, Kincaid said his parents operated mostly as he tries to do: with a balanced perspective at home.

“You always have to be cautious of the appearance of the judiciary,” he said. “It isn’t good enough to just be correct, it has to be 110 percent above board and transparent. That does go into your personal life as a judge.”

Jan Dickson sees the online world and aging judiciary as key issues to discuss in the future. Judges and their families interacting on Facebook and social media has been a concern nationwide, as have discussions about how judges face retirement and what they do after leaving the bench, she said.

Whatever the future holds for the Judicial Family Institute and the Dicksons individually, the justice who is now in his 25th year says the importance of the effort can’t be understated because it goes to the heart of what the legal system is about.

“We’re all in this together and they make us better judges,” he said of judicial family members.•
 

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. I like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT