ILNews

Indiana Judges Association: What you need to know about state judges

David J. Dreyer
January 29, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

IJA-Dreyer-DavidCherry Hill is an authority in the field of horsekeeping and horse training. Having not ridden a horse since the pony rides of pre-adolescence, I am nevertheless struck by Hill’s keen insights into the art of judging. In 2005, she published an online article called “The Profession of Judging” in which she discusses what makes a good judge – for horse shows. For example:

1. Must be a keen observer and make sound decisions

2. Able to work long hours

3. Must be punctual, have a good sense of time and be organized

4. Must thoroughly know the rule book

5. A judge should be stable, not moody. It is probably best for a judge to be somewhat reserved yet pleasant. Excess formality or “good-old-boy” casualness can be misinterpreted and counterproductive.

6. The judge dictates the mood, so personal feelings must be put aside.

7. All selections and decisions must be based on fair play. Problems will be minimal, questions can be answered straight-forward, and there will be no restless conscience.

8. A good judge is alert, knowledgeable, confident and ethical.

While there may (or may not) be a big difference between horses and humans, there may not be any difference between horse judging and human judging. After all, judging is a fundamental objective endeavor. It is always instructive to compare “judging” with “judgmental,” that is, a conclusory perspective borne from bias, stereotype or narrow subjective information. Columnist Cal Thomas once wrote that “judgment” is “holding people accountable to a standard we did not create,” and “judgmentalism” is “thinking ourselves morally superior because we haven’t committed the acts of others.” So for more than 17 years, I have been a judge, not a judgmentalist. And the same goes for practically every judge I know.

My non-lawyer friends spend almost all their time at social events with me asking about judging and judgmentalism. This is what I want them to know:

Judges work hard.

Last year, we state judges alone worked on more than 100 million cases, according to the National Center on State Courts. In Indiana, our Division of State Court Administration reports about 1.2 million cases last year. Our mortgage foreclosures are up 11.9 percent and Indiana murders up by 21.6 percent. No judge gets extra pay for working extra time. The judges do what the job demands, year in and year out.

Judges rule against people they like, and in favor of people they don’t like.

As our horse-judging list shows above, personal feelings must be put aside, or else the judge is not judging. As a normal person, I see people every day that are on my good list or my bad list. The essential quality of judging is to see one’s judgmentalism present all the time, and be perfectly fine with setting it aside. Lawyers do it with clients, businesses do it with customers, and neighbors do it with neighbors. I certainly like some lawyers much better than others – but I can honestly attest that it doesn’t make a bit of difference. It is this level of professionalism that is the currency of a judge’s daily practice.

Judges don’t have publicists.

Can you remember the last time you saw a judge on the cover of a news magazine (when we still had news magazines)? Have you ever seen a judge interviewed after a big trial? In fact, can anyone remember ever reading a quote from a judge not taken from a written legal opinion or from the bench? There are exceptions, fortunately, but judges, more than other branches of government, have to let their actions speak for themselves. They don’t take polls, have town meetings or hold press conferences. That is not the nature of judging. Our legal system is too important to risk losing public confidence by doing anything other than calling balls and strikes – and taking the boos and catcalls if they come.

Judges are connected to people and their problems.

What other job involves making everyday decisions about people with real problems like an estate, theft, mortgage, unpaid bills, business transactions, medical malpractice, bankruptcy, divorce, environmental cleanup, drunken driving, employment, child custody, insurance coverage, juvenile delinquency, or just plain old-fashioned murder? It may be safe to say that no elected officials solve more daily problems for people face-to-face than state trial judges. Beyond that, the community sees judges regularly involved in activities outside the courtroom. According to Indiana Judicial Center data, about 90 percent of all Indiana judges are involved in extra-judicial activities in bar associations, not-for-profit charities or judicial committees. You just can’t say we don’t care.

Judges are stewards of the law.

All of us are stewards of the legal profession. But only judges are stewards of the law. Inevitably, those of us who take the oath become a different sort of advocate. Our ability, ethics and fidelity are directed toward applying, interpreting and distinguishing. The human balance that unquestionably enters every human endeavor does not spare judges. But every judge knows he or she must seek to develop a keen instinct to recognize if, how, or when to let that balance enter any particular decision. This judicial discretion is the heart of the law and only a judge practices it.

Even the Pope now says “Who I am to judge?” when faced with the prospect of being a judgmentalist. So the next time you find yourself doing some horse-trading in the courthouse, chances are you can have a good judge who will help – even with a horse show.•

__________

Judge David J. Dreyer has been a judge for the Marion Superior Court since 1997. He is a graduate of the University of Notre Dame and Notre Dame Law School. He is a former board member of the Indiana Judges Association. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT