ILNews

Semifinalists discuss important qualities of a justice

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission Wednesday interviewed 10 semifinalists to fill the vacancy on the Indiana Supreme Court created by the retirement of Justice Frank Sullivan Jr. Commission chair and Supreme Court Chief Justice Brent Dickson opened the interviews by asking each candidate what factors he or she believed the commission should be looking for in a justice.  Below are the first six interviews. The interviews are scheduled to wrap up around 4 p.m.

Delaware Circuit Judge Marianne Vorhees said she had worked with eight different judges, and her experience lent itself to the work of the state high court. “One of most important factors is someone who's open-minded and willing to work with others” and doesn't come to the court with an agenda, she said.

She said independence and a willingness to admit you’re wrong also are important, as well as having someone who’s independent but collegial.  

Commission member Jim McDonald commended Vorhees' “stellar career” but asked why Vorhees, as an elected Democrat, would expect Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels to break tradition and be the first governor to appoint a judge of another party.

“I firmly believe the people of Indiana in the end don't care whether the justice is a Democrat or a Republican,” but instead would expect the justice to be the most qualified, she said.

Vorhees, when asked about a court decision with which she disagreed, cited the Barnes v. State decision, which she believed overreached.

Asked about the importance of diversity, Vorhees said the commission should consider various forms of diversity, including geographic and practice diversity. But she also said gender diversity was important.

“I never had anybody give me something because I'm a woman,” she said. “I think my application is strong and I think it stands on its own.”

Asked whether the end result or law was most important, Vorhees said the law, and cited an example in which a high school student with no criminal record was involved in an armed robbery with other young people and waived into adult court. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six years executed at the Department of Correction. “I have absolutely no discretion; my hands are tied,” she said. Even though the penalty didn't seem just, “You don't have any discretion to disregard the law.”

Court of Appeals Judge Cale Bradford said he believed four things were most important in a Supreme Court justice: a broad legal background; superior administrative skills; the ability to make fair and wise decisions; and an exemplary temperament and collegiality skills.

“You need to have patience and respect for others' individual views,” Bradford said.

Bradford said he would bring to the court a breadth of experience in private practice, and as a deputy prosecutor, public defender, trial and appeals court judge. “The largest and most complex cases this state has to offer were the kind of cases I handled,” he said, noting cases involving the state's school funding formula, jail overcrowding and juvenile justice reform.

“I don't think there's any better preparation for being a Supreme Court justice,” Bradford said of his tenure on the COA.

Dickson noted Bradford's prolific work in the court, taking part in more than 2,300 decisions during his tenure, but mentioned that the work of the Supreme Court entailed more joint work among the justices than Bradford might have been accustomed to. Bradford said he would be willing to be where he needed to in order to serve the court and the state.

Commission member William Winingham noted that Bradford's energy and intensity sometimes could come across as less than congenial, and asked Bradford to provide an example of a time when he had been “warm and fuzzy.” Bradford said he thought people who watched oral arguments at the Court of Appeals would see that side.

“People who know me know I'm one of the most approachable judges,” he said. “It may feel intimidating, but it's never meant like that.”

On diversity, Bradford said his background was an example of diversity that should be considered. While acknowledging the importance of gender diversity, he said the quality of opinions was more important than what people looked like. “God made me who I am; I do not question his plan,” he said.

Bradford called the Indiana Supreme Court the gold standard for the nation and said he'd be humbled to apply his energy to the bench.

Indiana University Health general counsel Erin Reilly Lewis said personality was one of the most important qualities in a Supreme Court justice. “When you have a team of five sitting around this very table, it does take personality,” she said. “Someone with intelligence who's able to be a consensus builder.”

At 38, Lewis is the youngest of the 10 semifinalists, and Dickson asked whether she saw her age as a liability or an asset. “I think those concerned about my youth can be quite assured I will soon grow out of it,” she said. “I think the fact that I have done a varied amount of practice in my 13 years helps,” she said. She also noted that former Chief Justice Randall Shepard was about her age when he was appointed to the bench, and her selection would allow her to dedicate many years to public service.

Commission members also asked about Lewis' lack of trial experience and how she would get around that. She said she would rely on the experience of fellow justices. “I think I look at the issues carefully and look at the parameters of what you are reviewing as an appellate court judge.” She said she has the skills of a trial lawyer and can think quickly on her feet. “I don't think I'm hindered by the fact that I haven't had a jury trial,” she said.

Lewis worked in private civil practice with the court's most recent appointee, Justice Mark Massa. Asked about someone who she looked up to, she mentioned Susan Brooks, former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana. Lewis worked in that office for five years.

Lewis said justices should not legislate from the bench. When asked about a state Supreme Court ruling with which she disagreed, she cited the case involving  Brenda Moore, an intoxicated passenger in a car who had asked someone else to drive her home and was found guilty of public intoxication. She said Justice Robert Rucker wrote a dissent in that case that spoke to her about the possible implications were for people who had made the right decision but still faced punishment.

Geoffrey Slaughter, a partner at Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, said legal ability, collegiality, civility and respect for the court's institutional role were important qualities for a justice.

“It's tremendously important that everyone get along well,” Slaughter said. “It's important the members of the court respect and appreciate each other's company.”

Slaughter said the Indiana Supreme Court has a distinguished reputation nationally that grows from the court carrying out its mission of interpreting law as it was written and meant to be interpreted. “Reputations are precious and they can be fleeting,” he said.

Commission members raised Slaughter's lack of trial experience and he said his experience in a number of civil and regulatory matters in federal and state courts as well as the Indiana attorney general's office were valuable. He paraphrased Sullivan's sentiment that if the court got something wrong, he slept well at night knowing the General Assembly was there to correct a matter.

Asked about an area the court could improve, Slaughter suggested the possibility of hiring professional managers to oversee some of the court's many administrative functions.

Allen Superior Judge Fran Gull said the commission should consider a candidate's prior experience, background, talent, and ability to follow precedent. She believed prior judicial experience was important.

“The big elephant in the room you've all been talking about is diversity,” Gull said. And while gender and racial diversity are important considerations, she said, “I don't think those are the be-all and end-all of what you should be looking for.”

Dickson noted that nearly all of Gull's experience was in criminal matters, but Gull noted that she also brought a deep pool of administrative experience. She said she thought her criminal law experience would complement the current justices who have an array of civil, juvenile and other practice experience.

Gull stressed her experience with problem-solving courts and said drug court and re-entry court, among others, save time and money and produce better outcomes for some offenders. She said every county should make such services available, but funding and resources were an issue.

Asked whether the state and federal constitutions were organic, living, breathing documents or matters of strict interpretation, Gull said, “I think there is room for both. It depends on the specific issue you will be wrestling with,” and whether the framers faced those issues in their day.

“It's absolutely imperative that if precedent is there, it's incumbent on the Supreme Court to uphold that percent,” she said. But where matters such as technology are concerned, justices need to evolve and change with the times.

Benesch partner Andrielle Metzel said she had reduced the most important considerations in a Supreme Court justice to four “C's”: competency, character, commitment and collegiality.

A justice should have the competency to carry out administrative functions as well as interpret the law. “This is not all about cases, though that is a significant responsibility.”

Metzel said that through her work as a member of the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission, she's had the opportunity to address issues of character, which she said is “always on the forefront of my mind. ... It's very important for us to uphold that integrity.” She mentioned a comment at a dinner party in which a friend recalled being on a beach 20 years ago when Metzel declined to have pictures or video taken of her because she hoped to be a judge one day.

Justices can be role models for judges and attorneys, Metzel said, by enhancing civility inside the courtroom and out. Providing guidance on use of social media, for instance, and writing dissents that don't contain scathing critiques of fellow justices can provide examples. “We see that it has a positive effect.”

In interpreting constitutional matters, Metzel said “my judicial philosophy is more conservative than not,” and “adhering to the law and the Constitution as it is written is first and foremost to me. It's not within the scope of the judiciary to change the way the Constitution operates even though times have changed.”

Regarding diversity, Metzel said the term has many meanings including professional experience. She said she didn't believe that race or gender diversity was a core value that should be considered in the commission's deliberations for a justice.

Metzel also compared the challenges the court faces today to those from the early 1990s. She found in a review of the State of the Judiciary from 1991 that said resources were tested by a recession and the technology on the march was that of fax machines. “Today we're talking about Odyssey and using electronic documentation in court. ... I see this as an evolving 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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT