ILNews

Standing up for the judiciary

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

Indianapolis attorney Tom Schultz sees that the judiciary is under attack and, as a past president of the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana, he’s doing something about it.

He pointed to examples nationwide on how the judiciary’s independence is in danger, from the landmark Supreme Court of the United States decision in early 2010 that allowed unlimited campaign donations in judicial elections to the November 2010 general election where three Iowa Supreme Court justices lost their seats as the result of public sentiment over a decision allowing same-sex couples to marry.

schultz-thomas-mug.jpg Schultz

Indiana saw that danger after a May decision from the Indiana justices on the Barnes v. State case involving residents’ rights to resist police entry into a home. Justices received death threats, a public rally protested the decision and lawmakers formed a legislative study committee in response to the ruling. That ruling also sparked a conversation among some lawmakers that Indiana re-examine its merit selection system for appellate judges.

With those examples fueling concern within the legal community about whether judicial independence is in jeopardy, the DTCI is forming a new committee to help advocate for the third branch by educating the public and legislative leaders about the judiciary’s purpose and inner-workings.

Schultz says the things the committee may look at include overall reaction to judicial opinions, public criticism of judges or courts, issues surrounding judicial selection, and efforts to limit funding or judicial salaries. He envisions the committee working through the media, Legislature and school systems to educate lawmakers and members of the public, possibly even being a place for the media to turn for fair comment on judicial rulings.

Schultz expects those details will be worked out once the committee – which will include six to eight attorneys – starts meeting in January. Eventually, Schultz hopes the defense bar can work with the judicial and legislative branches as well as other bar associations, including the plaintiffs’ bar, to discuss judicial issues impacting attorneys and judges throughout Indiana.

“As an organization, we see that it’s apparently en vogue to attack the judiciary,” the principal partner at Schultz & Pogue said. “But while that’s a problem in itself, a bigger problem is that judges can’t stand up and defend themselves. So that falls to us, as lawyers. We need to defend the system we have and also educate people about the role of the judiciary.”

Schultz said the negative tone against lawyers sometimes clouds the public’s view of the entire legal system. He doesn’t believe an answer can be easily found by turning to tort reform or changing how judges are chosen – two elements Schultz sees as the most common responses when legislators or members of the public don’t like what the courts are doing.

“Lawyers and courts are easy targets, but many people don’t understand the basics about the system,” he said.

Indianapolis defense attorney John Trimble, a past DTCI president and member of the defense attorney advocacy group known as DRI, has been a part of national and statewide efforts studying the issue of judicial independence.

“Public perception of our judiciary is largely based on headlines and not the merits of a case as derived from the facts, law and precedent,” Trimble said. “It’s very easy for the public to criticize and lambast judicial holdings, especially now with blogs and other Internet options allowing them to voice opinions. The public lashes out against judges and urges legislators to do something about it, based on limited or no understanding of what a decision might have said.”

Other states’ defense bars have embraced efforts similar to that being undertaken by DTCI, such as in Washington where a defense bar committee joined the teacher’s association and League of Women Voters to work on shaping opinions about how judges are selected. Other jurisdictions have done the same on other court-related issues, Trimble said.

trimble_joh-mug.jpg Trimble

Those types of efforts could be duplicated by the DTCI committee, Trimble and Schultz said.

“For us lawyers, we’re the front line consumers of judicial services based on the work we do for our clients,” Trimble said. “But in generalities, we attorneys are guilty of standing idly by while our judiciary deteriorates. We get accustomed to the day-to-day operations of courts that we deal with and we don’t realize how corrosive these attacks on courts can be. If we don’t defend the courts, no one will.”

The Indiana Trial Lawyers Association supports the effort and looks forward to working with the defense bar on some of those common issues involving the judiciary, according to ITLA president and Fort Wayne attorney John O. Feighner. When judicial pay or judge selection debates have happened in the past, he said the plaintiffs and defense bars have worked along with the Indiana State Bar Association to address those concerns on the public and legislative fronts.

“We all want to see the courts treated fairly and that transcends the boundaries of who we represent and which side we’re on,” he said.

For the ISBA, the educational effort is already underway as it works to make sure the decision-makers in the General Assembly understand the legal system and how the courts are meant to function. The ISBA held its first-ever Law School for Legislators prior to Organization Day in mid-November. Organizers believe it was the first of its kind in the nation.

ISBA legislative counsel Paje Felts said the decreasing number of practicing attorneys in the General Assembly means that fewer legislators know the practical impacts of the legislation they’re considering and passing. This is becoming an even more important trend now that Indiana is expected to lose several key lawyer-legislators who plan on not running for re-election, Felts said.

“When you look at the numbers, it looks like the amount of lawyers has risen,” she said of her count of 26 legislators who have law licenses. “But so many haven’t practiced and don’t really understand these issues we see in the legal community. Lawyers have to bring this knowledge to the table.”

At the legislative law school, Felts said legislators were able to discuss issues such as how their legislative mandates impact administrative law and more general topics such as judicial selection and the interaction between the legislative and judicial branches.

Whether it’s led by the DTCI, another bar association or other organization, Felts said the educational aspect is what is important about any effort focusing the judiciary.•
 

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. Yes diversity is so very important. With justice Rucker off ... the court is too white. Still too male. No Hispanic justice. No LGBT justice. And there are other checkboxes missing as well. This will not do. I say hold the seat until a physically handicapped Black Lesbian of Hispanic heritage and eastern religious creed with bipolar issues can be located. Perhaps an international search, with a preference for third world candidates, is indicated. A non English speaker would surely increase our diversity quotient!!!

  2. First, I want to thank Justice Rucker for his many years of public service, not just at the appellate court level for over 25 years, but also when he served the people of Lake County as a Deputy Prosecutor, City Attorney for Gary, IN, and in private practice in a smaller, highly diverse community with a history of serious economic challenges, ethnic tensions, and recently publicized but apparently long-standing environmental health risks to some of its poorest residents. Congratulations for having the dedication & courage to practice law in areas many in our state might have considered too dangerous or too poor at different points in time. It was also courageous to step into a prominent and highly visible position of public service & respect in the early 1990's, remaining in a position that left you open to state-wide public scrutiny (without any glitches) for over 25 years. Yes, Hoosiers of all backgrounds can take pride in your many years of public service. But people of color who watched your ascent to the highest levels of state government no doubt felt even more as you transcended some real & perhaps some perceived social, economic, academic and professional barriers. You were living proof that, with hard work, dedication & a spirit of public service, a person who shared their same skin tone or came from the same county they grew up in could achieve great success. At the same time, perhaps unknowingly, you helped fellow members of the judiciary, court staff, litigants and the public better understand that differences that are only skin-deep neither define nor limit a person's character, abilities or prospects in life. You also helped others appreciate that people of different races & backgrounds can live and work together peacefully & productively for the greater good of all. Those are truths that didn't have to be written down in court opinions. Anyone paying attention could see that truth lived out every day you devoted to public service. I believe you have been a "trailblazer" in Indiana's legal community and its judiciary. I also embrace your belief that society's needs can be better served when people in positions of governmental power reflect the many complexions of the population that they serve. Whether through greater understanding across the existing racial spectrum or through the removal of some real and some perceived color-based, hope-crushing barriers to life opportunities & success, movement toward a more reflective representation of the population being governed will lead to greater and uninterrupted respect for laws designed to protect all peoples' rights to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. Thanks again for a job well-done & for the inevitable positive impact your service has had - and will continue to have - on countless Hoosiers of all backgrounds & colors.

  3. Diversity is important, but with some limitations. For instance, diversity of experience is a great thing that can be very helpful in certain jobs or roles. Diversity of skin color is never important, ever, under any circumstance. To think that skin color changes one single thing about a person is patently racist and offensive. Likewise, diversity of values is useless. Some values are better than others. In the case of a supreme court justice, I actually think diversity is unimportant. The justices are not to impose their own beliefs on rulings, but need to apply the law to the facts in an objective manner.

  4. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

  5. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

ADVERTISEMENT