The Judicial Nominating Commission in August reappointed Indiana Chief Justice Loretta Rush for another term. It was hardly a surprise. Chief Justice Rush is a special kind of judge. Recently, she took time to reflect on her work and remarkable career.
In 2017, the Legal Services Corporation found 86 percent of civil legal problems of low-income Americans receive no or inadequate help. So what, if anything, should judges do when faced with people in court day after day without lawyers?
Marion Superior Judge David J. Dreyer channels his inner James Joyce for observations about a day in the life of a trial court judge.
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.
What do people think about judges? And what do judges think about them? In the nonstop information age, whatever the public thinks about the courts, it may not matter if nobody, including judges, can actually notice and think about it for any meaningful length of time.
In 2010, three Columbia University researchers worked with the Israeli justice system and looked at over 1,000 rulings made in the courtroom, over almost a year, about probation and parole. The results showed, as blogger Alex Mayyasi wrote on the website Priceonomics, that “the judges’ decision-making ability was as lousy as a kindergartener’s focus right before a snack break.”
Every trial judge must balance the letter of the law with the conscience of the community. A judge must be able to put any case in a full social and human context before applying the technical rules of the law. To do otherwise is to lose the most important and powerful tool upon which every judge must rely: the ability to feel.
All of us lawyers live two lives. One is the world of daily work endeavors — cases, clients, decisions, deadlines and problem-solving. The other life of lawyers and judges is the non-legal real world, away from smartphones and computers, outside our office, and outside the courtroom where experiences of family, friends, and private interests fill our personal time.
We continually see how the legal profession is profoundly affected by technology. Can we imagine a court case without a courtroom or any tangible paper? Many of us can because it already happens.
Justice Rucker showed there are ways a court can be sympathetic without the benefit of law or procedure and benefit a party even when they don’t “win.”
United States Chef Justice John Roberts administered the oath of office for President Donald Trump on Jan. 20. There is no law or provision indicating who shall give the presidential oath.
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.