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. Mr. Ricker, how foolish of you to think that by complying with the law you would be ok. Don't you know that Indiana is a state that welcomes monopolies, and that Indiana's legislature is the one entity in this state that believes monopolistic practices (such as those engaged in by Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers) make Indiana a "business-friendly" state? How can you not see this????

  2. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  3. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  4. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  5. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

ADVERTISEMENT