Is due process any less of a right when a family faces eviction than when a person faces criminal charges? The legal profession has been trying to answer that question for about 100 years.
The benefits of “going paperless” can be exciting. A municipal court in suburban Seattle recently reported saving $500,000 annually by e-filing.
Changes in the legal landscape are of course parallel to what is happening everywhere. Lawyers used to function and prosper well during any economic or social circumstances. Law firms seemed to be immune to barriers and uncertainties facing other business entities. But today, as Jerry Garcia once wrote, “if the thunder don’t get ya, the lightnin’ will.”
There is now a great opportunity to pick our next Supreme Court justice. But our problem is that we have to replace the irreplaceable Justice Brent Dickson.
As we complete a long, complicated year, my great judge journey leads me to a wish list. While wish lists are not uncommon for gift-giving season, or the start of a new year, this one is intended for regular rumination.
We legal professionals have a unique role to translate ancient theorems into optic fiber. Along with that obligation arises a longstanding devotion to ensuring the world understands what law is and has always been: an imperfect process to determine “facts” and apply the rules.
Judges are decidedly impartial, but not necessarily unequivocally impartial.
When New York City claimed 20-30 inches of snow were coming (and got less than 10), I was reminded of so many lawyers who claim three days for their case (but only use one). All of us on the bench or bar tailor our talents toward forming our best judgments. Such a responsibility necessarily includes the talented due consideration of time.
Drawing upon Mr. David Letterman’s famous comic premise – the Top Ten List – we judges and lawyers would do well to take a similar look at our professional selves. So, for what it’s worth, see this judge’s Top Ten legal quotes, starting with No. 1 (and explanations). Of course, very few of them were said by lawyers.
As judges, we struggle with “rule of law” questions every day. The gray areas between a fact and a supposition dog our paths. The tension between the letter of the law and the conscience of the community complicate our considerations. In some cases, the rule of law just seems to be unjust. But overall, the true meaning of “rule of law” should not be a barrier.
On June 25, 2014, and the next day, I officiated over 50 same-sex marriages. For reasons I did not expect, it may have changed my life.
If judges wore wigs in the United States, there might be a marked increase, I say, in public confidence in our courts. Hopefully, it would not be outweighed by any marked increase in public satire, but it could not be any worse than the judge shows now on daytime TV. The public always needs to understand that courts are serious and judges are different. More importantly, it is necessary to understand why.
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.
Like most judges, Shay Minton’s achievements were numerous, but largely unmeasured.
Marion Superior Judge David Dreyer discusses the "Change of Judge" rule in this issue of Indiana Lawyer.
Have you ever Googled “lawyer dog”? If you do, be prepared to see a limitless line of websites all featuring identical photos of the same canine seated behind his desk, along with various one-liners related to the law, dogs and just silliness.
Judge David Dreyer writes a letter to Gov. Mike Pence about how to make people more legally literate.
We judges are obligated to actually ignore popular opinion or preference and apply the law, but we are further constrained to not discuss our decisions on talk shows or interviews. Yet, public confidence in courts is more important than any other branch of government because people need to believe in us or they will not believe or obey our rulings.
Judge Dreyer comes up with a way to cure court budget woes and provide reality TV.
Some people just do not like judges. But according to Indiana University Maurer School of Law professor Charles Geyh, most people do – at least up to a point.