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.”


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. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

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

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.