ILNews

Southern Indiana commercial litigator to assume top spot in DTCI

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Evansville attorney Jim Johnson always wanted to be a lawyer, but he did not always want to be a leader.

The litigator will become the president of the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana at the start of 2014. He will guide the organization as it works on a long-range plan with the goal of remaining responsive to members’ needs as well as adapting to changes in legal work.

Johnson is excited about assuming the top job although he admits he had to adjust to the idea of leading a statewide organization.

james johnson Johnson

A longtime member of DTCI, he stepped away from the board in 2004 because he was not sure he was ready or mature enough to handle a leadership position. He rejoined the board in 2008 and began the move toward the presidency.

“I just thought I was ready to give back to the profession,” Johnson said, quickly adding that reason sounds like such a cliché. “I was just ready to become more involved.”

Within the legal community, Johnson is described as a “well respected member of the bar” and a “very effective advocate.” While he may have harbored doubts at one time, DTCI treasurer Michele Bryant has confidence in his abilities.

“I think Jim will do a fantastic job as president,” said Bryant, partner at Kahn Dees Donovan & Kahn LLP in Evansville.

Even while he was not on the board, Johnson was still involved with DTCI. He served for 10 years as chair of the Amicus Committee, a position that combined his interests in appellate work and legal writing. He headed up the process of determining in which cases DTCI would file a brief and soliciting other attorneys to do the writing. He said the work was collaborative and discussions were focused solely on the law, not on the politics.

johnson-facts.jpgJohnson shied away from calling the committee’s efforts a success but he did note that many times the courts would rule in favor of the position DTCI had advocated.

Born and raised in a blue-collar family in Evansville, Johnson earned his bachelor of science degree at Florida State University and his law degree at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. He first practiced at Matchett and Thopy in Shelbyville before returning to his hometown and joining the firm that is now Randolph Fine Porter & Johnson LLP.

He has always been a litigator, cutting his teeth on insurance defense for more than 10 years before morphing into commercial litigation. Johnson’s attraction to appellate work developed early in his career. He liked what he called the purity and intimacy of working through the briefs and the challenge of presenting oral arguments.

Outside of the office, Johnson serves on the board of directors of the Ronald McDonald House Charities of the Ohio Valley. There, he not only lends his legal expertise to the organization but also volunteers regularly at the house.

Jeremy Evans, the charity’s executive director, described Johnson as being deeply and personally connected to the charity and bringing a wealth of knowledge to the board. Seeing his work on the board gave Evans confidence that Johnson will do well leading DTCI.

“Jim’s good humor, loyalty and leadership are a valued asset to our charity, and I feel certain that he’ll be of immense value as the president of the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana,” Evans said. •



IL: You will serve as president of DTCI in 2014. What are your plans for the organization?

JJ: In 2014, DTCI will conduct a Long Range Planning Conference (LRPC). I hope through this process to ensure DTCI is responsive to its members.



IL: There are many local, state and national organizations for attorneys. What role do you see DTCI as fulfilling?

JJ: To serve attorneys in Indiana who are primarily representing defendants in civil cases.



IL: The practice of law is undergoing fundamental changes with the loss of jobs and rise of technology that can do legal work. Do you see DTCI as having to make any fundamental changes in the future to respond to these developments?

JJ: This is one of the main reasons for the LRPC. No one has all of the answers. The hope is by surveying the members and bringing officers, board members and members together, we can begin to answer these questions.



IL: As an attorney, what attracted you to civil litigation?

JJ: My first job as a law clerk in law school was with a defense firm (Hume Smith Geddes Green & Simmons). That job opened my eyes to civil litigation.



IL: In 2007, you were named DTCI’s Indiana Defense Lawyer of the Year. What have you learned about being a defense attorney during your career?

JJ: It is a privilege to handle civil litigation cases in Indiana. The practice level is high, the cases are interesting, and the attorneys are good to work with (for the most part).



IL: You were admitted to the Indiana bar in 1987. How has civil litigation changed over the years?

JJ: Technology has made things easier and faster. However, the basic practice has not changed. We represent one client at a time and do the best we can based on the cards we are dealt.



IL: Your firm, Rudolph Fine Porter & Johnson, posts on its website that its primary goal with new attorneys and lateral hires is to further educate, train and develop their skills. These days, many firms want attorneys who already know the nuts and bolts of practicing law. Why does your firm consider education as a primary goal?

JJ: Our approach hasn’t changed. We want to train Rudolph Fine Porter & Johnson attorneys to be as good an attorney as they can be.



IL: Your alma mater, Florida State University, will play in the 2014 BCS national championship. If you were offered a first-class plane fare, deluxe hotel accommodations, and a free ticket to the game but you had to sit with the fans of the opposing team, wear the T-shirt of the opposing team and cheer for the opposing team, would you go to the game?

JJ: In a heartbeat. I have always wanted to see a game in the Rose Bowl, and I would get a free Auburn T-shirt. Go Noles.•

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. 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