A Lawyer’s Calling

Bill of Particulars / 1

Dean’s Message

A Lawyer’s Calling

Lauren RobelA

nnal

ese

Poor

man

The paths that led the current first-yearclass, the Class of 2005, to the School ofLaw are as varied as the paths they —like you — will follow after graduation.Students come to law from otherprofessions, from the study of many otherdisciplines, from communities across thecountry and around the world — bothcommunities based on proximity andthose based on affinity. While the study oflaw presents new vocabularies, skills, andideas, that study does not require leavingscholarly, professional, and personalhistories at the door. Quite the contrary— what makes law a particularlypowerful and humane force is its abilityto absorb wisdom from multipleexperiences, perspectives, and disciplines.The following is from Dean Robel’s 2002address to the entering class.

In the halls of the Law Schoolhang pictures of some of ourgraduates, members of our

Academy of Law Alumni Fellows.These alumni are honored for theirdedication to the highest standards ofpersonal excellence and to theprofession. They have followed manyand varied paths.

This fall, at the Buskirk-ChumleyTheater downtown (formerly theIndiana), the Bloomington commu-nity celebrated the music and life ofHoagy Carmichael, whose beautifulsong “Stardust” many of you know.A 1926 graduate of the Law School,Carmichael went on to a career inmusic and films, to concerts at theLondon Palladium and movies inHollywood.

Near him is Harriet Bouslog, a1936 graduate of the school. As theonly Hawaii lawyer willing torepresent the longshoreman’s union,

Bouslog fought ferociously in courtsthroughout the islands for the union’spoorest members, who were jailedduring a paradigm-altering strikeright after World War II. Bouslogimagined and advocated for a visionof the constitutional rights of thoseworkers that would not becomecommon for two decades more,demonstrating the kind of creativityand courage that distinguishes manyof the alumni you see representedthere.

Near Bouslog you will findWendell Wilkie, a 1916 graduate ofour school, whose visionary view ofinternational relations helped theUnited States overcome an instincttoward isolationism after the SecondWorld War.

While these three alumni — HoagyCarmichael, Wendell Wilkie, andHarriet Bouslog — could not havegone from the Law School into moredifferent careers and worlds, all threeshared vision, imagination, and thecourage to create a life that none ofthem probably imagined in theirIndiana childhoods.

On that wall as well are a numberof graduates whose careers arepathbreaking not only for themselvesbut for others: Shirley Abrahamson,JD’56, the first woman on the Wiscon-sin Supreme Court and now its firstfemale chief justice; Flerida Romero,LLM’55, one of the first women onthe Supreme Court of the Philippines;Juanita Kidd Stout, JD’48, the firstAfrican American woman in Americato be elected to the judiciary; SueShields, LLB’61, the first woman inIndiana to hold an appellate judge-ship; Franklin Cleckley, JD’65, thefirst African American on the West

Virginia Supreme Court.There are entrepreneurs, like

Michael Maurer, JD’67, whose successin business — in the early 1970s, hepioneered the initial developmentand operation of the cable televisionsystem — has been followed closelyby a life dedicated to communityservice. And there are a great numberof lawyers who served their commu-nities with passion, excellence, andprofessionalism during long anddistinguished legal careers, from thelargest cities to the smallest towns.

As an alumna of the Law Schoolmyself, I am proud of my fellowgraduates — proud of their reputa-tions for integrity and deep compe-tence. And as I talk to our alumni, Ifind they uniformly cherish thefriendships they made with thefaculty and administrators here, andwith their colleagues. I believe thatwhat binds us together is our sharedsense of calling, as advocates.

The root of the word “advocate” isthe Latin word “vocare,” which means“to call.” The word “advocate” comes

2 / Bill of Particulars

Spring semester at the Law School

into being through the addition of“ad” to “vocare,” changing its mean-ing from “to call” to “to summon toone’s aid.” Advocacy has the sameroot as vocation — meaning a callingaway from ordinary life, a summonsfrom God to undertake service toothers. And advocacy shares its rootterm — “vocare” — with the word“voice.” The roots of the word“advocate” break open its truemeaning: Advocates give voice to thepeople they are called to serve, acalling that has at its center a deepand awesome responsibility, as wellas, at its best, a touch of the divine.

Law study stimulates manyemotions — pride, fear, competitive

spirit, excitement, anger — but thelocus of these emotions is the student.The addition of a client changes thislocus to the human being whosecause is now yours. In the best ofadvocates, this change of locusstimulates both a deep fear and akind of fearlessness. Both the fear andthe fearlessness come from a fullunderstanding of the responsibilitylawyers take on. Lawyers who forgetthis lesson or never learn it — thosewhose arguments are infected bytheir own need to win approval froma teacher or a judge, or who let theirsense of competition get the best ofthe primacy of their client — arenever the advocates that they could

be, or that their clients deserve.Advocacy is an awesome responsi-

bility. Law school can hardly prepareyou for the feeling of having clientsentrust their liberty, or their business,or their children, to your skills. Insome sense, we should all feelinadequate to this task. But that senseof inadequacy needs to be the goad toa thoroughgoing honesty about ourresponsibility to prepare well and tothink hard. That responsibility iswhat it means to be part of ourparticular professional community;underlying all of our divergent paths,it is our common ground.

— Lauren Robel, JD’83Acting Dean, Val Nolan Professor of Law

At this time of year, almost every free room in the LawSchool building is booked for meetings, lectures, orvisitors. Listed below are some events that have takenplace during the semester. More are listed atwww.law.indiana.edu/calendar/calendarevents.shtml.At any time of year, we are delighted to welcome ouralumni back to the school.

• Jan. 24: The Indiana Court of Appeals holds oralarguments at the School of Law.

• Feb. 12: Diversity in Admissions: ProfessorPatrick Baude, Professor Kevin Brown, and KevinRobling, assistant dean for admissions, speak on legaland policy implications of the Supreme Court’s rulings,past and upcoming, on affirmative action.

• Feb. 27: “Theorizing Yes,” a public lecture byKatherine Franke on the conundrum of bringing law tobear on expanding sexual liberty for women.

• March 1: The Black Law Student Association’sannual Barristers Ball, the swankiest event of theschool year, honors Frank Motley, our former dean ofadmissions.

• March 3: Jeff Riffer, JD’78, gives a public lecture aspart of the Federal Communications Law Journal 10thAnniversary Speaker Series.

• March 4: Judge Marc Kellams, JD’78, on legalethics.

• March 6: Paul Simon, former senator from Illinois,speaks at a campus forum about one of the world’smost precious resources: water.

• March 10: Jamison Prime, JD’96, gives a talk forthe Federal Communications Law Journal Speaker Series.

• March 10: Ke-Young Chu, former deputy directorof fiscal affairs for the International Monetary Fund,

gives a lecture on the role of the IMF in an integratedworld economy.

• March 27: Journalist Panel (part of the FederalCommunications Law Journal Speaker Series) features IanMarquand, SPJ National Freedom of Information chair;Diana Penner, Indianapolis Star (witnessed McVeighexecution); David Protess, Medill School of JournalismInnocence Project; John Bessler, JD’91, Death in theDark: Midnight Executions in America. Moderated byProfessor Joseph Hoffmann.

• March 26: Lee Hamilton, JD’56• March 29: Parents & Partners Day• April 2: American Constitution Society program

on Bush v. Gore and voting rights• April 7: Harris Lecture by former faculty member

Hendrik Hartog, of Princeton University• April 11–12: Symposium on Globalization, Courts,

and Judicial Power

Tony Prather, JD’83, left, Frank Motley, and RaphealPrevot, JD’84, attended the Barristers Ball.

Cha

don

Pho

togr

aphe

rs


Feature Story

Advocating for the Smallest Clients:IU’s Child Advocacy Clinic

Amy Applegate

Students who work for the ChildAdvocacy Clinic, housed across the streetfrom the School of Law in an unassumingbungalow, characterize the experience asstressful, insanely time-consuming, andemotionally harrowing. They alsogenerally describe it as the best part oflaw school. Serving as guardians ad litemto children in contested custody cases,students come face to face with thepractical realities of lawyering, as theyinvestigate, report, file, and testify incourt — and also with the power theycan have, as lawyers, to change people’slives for the better.

Amy Applegate, who has been directorof the Child Advocacy Clinic since 2001,talks about the clinic and its role ineducating future lawyers.

— Leora Baude

What happens in the Child AdvocacyClinic? What do you all do over there onthe other side of Third Street?

The point of my work is to teachstudents how to be lawyers. We dothis through guardian ad litemappointments. The students at theclinic are asked by the court torepresent the best interest of thechildren, usually in contested custodycases. The students do a verythorough investigation and reallygrapple with big questions affectingone or more children in the family.

It is very exciting to watch them:At the beginning of the semester, theydon’t quite know what they are doingyet. By the end of the semester theyhave taken over their cases and areconsulting with me and our associatedirector, Michael Jenuwine, morethan being led by us. These students

Michael Jenuwine

put a lot of work — and their heartand souls — into it, and they reallycare about the children they arerepresenting.

Right up front, we spend 10 to 15hours with them learning the law,which is not simple — but neither isit hugely complicated — and theyhave to learn it. There is a lot of stuffthat they need to know and need toknow quickly. They need to know thelaw, they look at statutes, they look atcases, they look at rules, and basicskills for interviewing both adultsand children. Mike Jenuwine, who isboth an attorney and a clinicalpsychologist, brings a psychologicalperspective to the whole course thatis really invaluable. We spend quite abit of time on ethics, and we get themready in terms of the procedure: howto do subpoenas, how to do docu-ments, how to start an investigation.

After that initial two-week period,

we have classes for two hours eachweek. Students are paired up inteams of two: Each student is aguardian ad litem in one case and astudent attorney in another case.When students have enough creditsand have taken Legal Professions,they can be certified legal interns sothey can actually appear in court.

There are also carry-over cases, sowe have students from other semes-ters who are working on cases thatwe are monitoring. In a couple ofcases, Mike and I do some primarywork. We like to keep current so wehave that experience and rememberwhat it is like.

What is the experience like for thestudents?

The students come back from the firstset of interviews thinking whoeverthey meet first is great and they lovethat person. Then they come back

Ann

ales

e Po

orm

an

Ann

ales

e Po

orm

an


after meeting the other side and theyaren’t so sure anymore. They have todo a lot of third-party verification.Everybody says things that areobviously slanted in their own favor.You have to go out and subpoenacriminal records and driving recordsand you get releases for medicalrecords, mental health records, schoolrecords, pharmacy records. Thestudents will start out thinking thatMom, say, is a difficult person andshe really isn’t fair to Dad. Then itturns out that Dad has a seriousproblem. Over the course of thesemester it is interesting to watch.

There are all kinds of differentthings going on in this clinic, and Ithink the students have a wonderfulopportunity to do a very thoroughinvestigation and put together a case.They think through all the legalissues, the ethical issues, the expedi-ency issues — really what it takes tobe a good lawyer. They are advocatesfor a position, but they also have thisethical obligation to be absolutelyhonest and forthcoming to thetribunal no matter how much thatundercuts their position. So if theywant to recommend custody for oneparent and the parent has someproblems, they can’t sugarcoat thoseproblems to the judge. That makes foran interesting preparation for crossexamination. But by the time they gointo court, they are hyped up andthey do beautiful work. Over the pastyear and a half, I have taken incred-ible pleasure out of seeing studentscome in here not knowing whatthey’re doing, and then watchingthem take charge of their case, go intocourt, and do this incredible thing forthis child.

What path brought you to the ChildAdvocacy Clinic?

I have always loved being a lawyer.My career before I came here wasvery business-oriented. I started at amedium-sized law firm inWashington, D.C., then went to theFCC in enforcement, which flavoredmy career for many years to come. Idid investigations — which issomething that we do here at the

clinic — into violations of the FederalSecurity Clause, and while the lawwas, like family law, not inherentlydifficult, the situations make the lawdifficult. You have the law, but thento apply the law to a difficult set offacts is what the challenge really is, asin family law.

I moved to Cincinnati in 1987 andhad a more general practice therewith a small law firm, but I continuedto do enforcement work, from thedefense perspective, and I did allkinds of business litigation. I had anumber of really interesting, complexcases so I was always doing some-thing that was quite interesting, butin the midst of that I always had thefeeling that I wanted to be doingsomething beyond just fighting forsomeone’s money.

I had done some pro bono workinvolving teen-agers in Cincinnati,and over time I felt more and morethat I wanted to do this kind of work,although I didn’t have a specific ideaof where I wanted to go with it. Thenthis job came along, and it justsounded wonderful. It was a continu-ation, in some ways, of things that Ihad been doing, because I havementored young attorneys for a longtime. The family aspect I really hadn’tdone much of, other than the pro bonowork in Cincinnati and some CASAcases I did here in Bloomingtonbefore I started at the clinic.

I have to say that the law isn’t aschallenging. In family law there arestatutes, there are guidelines, there arecases. There is a limited universe ofthings that I deal with over and overagain: What is the best interest, whatis the standard to modify custody orvisitation. On the other hand, eachsituation is so interesting, and you getemotionally involved in it.

Is there one thing that more than othersseems to be a challenge for the students inthis process?

Even if the students have taken Ethicsbefore they get here, applying whatthey learned in the real world is notalways obvious to them. Constantlyin our meetings we talk about theseissues. Ethical issues come up all the

time in the practice of law, and it isvery hard for students and for newattorneys to really understand that.We try to help them see when there isan ethical issue and then figure outthe ethical rules and how to solve theissues. But sometimes there is simplynot a great resolution.

And how about for you: What is thehardest part of your work at the clinic?

Restraining myself from taking overthe process. The students are just nowstarting to practice; they are not goingto practice law the way that I wouldpractice law. They are coming at it asnew attorneys, so it isn’t going to bethe same hearing that it would be if Iwere doing the hearing.

The judges are great. They knowthat sometimes the students aren’tgoing to be as smooth as an attorneywho has practiced law for 25 years.Our students are just great in court,and they always have good resultsbecause they work very hard, theyknow their cases, they know the factsin their cases, and we try to anticipateeverything that could happen. Eventhe unexpected can be dealt with, andof course Mike and I can sit there andwrite them notes if all else fails.

How do you rate the value of clinicaleducation for law students?

I believe that it is very, very valuable.There are times when we are teachingthis course where the students haveinternalized something that they havelearned in the past but have not beenable to apply. We watch them applywhat they have learned in other lawschool courses, and then they use ithere. There is a certain mentaldevelopment that takes place whenthey get it.

Issues come up in Ethics, inEvidence, in Contracts, in FamilyLaw — something that they havelearned in other courses they areusing in a real-life context, and it hassome real meaning for them. It is areally great way to help studentstransition from law school into thereal world. I think all students shouldget the opportunity to be in a clinic.


Feature Story

Rethinking Judicial Elections

For the past several years, I havebeen working with a number oforganizations in an effort to

address problems relating to judicialindependence and accountability thathave arisen in different states acrossthe country. Of particular concern tothe organizations with which I haveworked are judicial elections, wheremany of the most serious challengesto judicial independence haveoccurred. Having toiled in thetrenches for several years now, I findthat I am rapidly reaching my“Popeye” threshold, which is to saythat “I’ve had all I can stands, I can’tstands no more.” Although I regardincremental efforts to reform judicialelections as valuable, I have reachedthe conclusion that judicial electionsare fundamentally incompatible withjudicial independence andfundamentally incapable ofadequately promoting judicialaccountability. The time has come torethink judicial elections, to the endof gradually phasing them out ofexistence altogether.

In this paper, I will first explainwhy judicial elections are properlythe center of attention for anyonewho is concerned about protectingjudicial independence and promotingjudicial accountability within statejudicial systems. Second, I willdescribe four political realities thattogether comprise what I call the“axiom of 80” and that complicateconsiderably judicial election reformefforts. Third, I will review recentincremental reform proposals aimedat ameliorating some of the indepen-dence-threatening effects of judicial

by Charles G. Geyh

elections that have been advanced inthe shadow of the axiom of 80.Fourth, I will argue that these incre-mental reform efforts are ultimatelydoomed to failure, because judicialelections are incompatible withpreserving judicial independence andpromoting judicial accountability.Fifth, and finally, I will attempt to layout a blueprint for the future, inwhich judicial elections may gradu-ally be phased out of existence infavor of a purely appointive model ofjudicial selection.

Why focus on judicialelections?Before launching into a discussion ofthe threats to judicial independencethat have occurred in various statesover the course of the past severalyears, it probably makes sense todefine judicial independence as I amusing the phrase here. For mypurposes, judicial independence hastwo distinct meanings. First, it refersto the capacity of a judge to decidecases according to the facts as shefinds them and the law as sheconceives it to be written, withoutinappropriate external interference(“decision-making independence”).Second, it refers to the capacity ofthe judiciary as a separate andindependent branch of government toresist encroachment from the politicalbranches and thereby preserve itsinstitutional integrity (“institutionalindependence”). In both cases,judicial independence is not an endin itself, but an instrumental valuedesigned to protect the rule of law.

Threats to judicial independenceare by no means confined to judicialelections. For example, in NewHampshire, the legislature proposedto strip the supreme court of jurisdic-tion to hear cases relating to thefunding of public schools, followingan unpopular decision of the court onthat subject. In several states, consti-tutional amendments have beenintroduced to limit the judiciary’spower to declare legislative enact-ments unconstitutional. In Marylandand other states, angry legislatorshave threatened to slash the budgetsof various courts in response tojudicial decisions with which thelegislators disagreed. In Florida,proposals were floated to pack thecourts, i.e., to enlarge the size of thecourt so as to affect its judicialdecision-making majority. And inseveral states, legislators havethreatened to bring impeachment

Charles G. Geyh

Ann

ales

e Po

orm

an


“Judicial elections have become ground zero in thepolitical battle to influence judicial decision making.”

actions againstjudges whosedecisions haveoffended them.

As troubling asthese threats maybe, they have materialized onlyrarely. In some cases, as with im-peachment, the weapon used tothreaten the courts has proven toocumbersome to use. In other in-stances, these devices have beendeemed at odds with well-establishednorms that respect the role of anindependent judiciary in stategovernment, and have not garneredthe support necessary to become law.

Judicial elections are anothermatter. Supreme court justices inIdaho, Mississippi, Nebraska, Tennes-see, and elsewhere have lost re-election or retention bids on accountof unpopular decisions they havemade in isolated cases. Judges inmany more jurisdictions have en-countered intense opposition to theirre-election or retention on account ofdecisions in cases involving a rangeof issues, including the death penalty,tort reform, products liability, educa-tion funding, and abortion. In assess-ing the threat posed to judicialindependence, it does not matterwhether the judge was actuallydefeated; rather, what matters iswhether the judge felt her tenurethreatened in ways that could affecther capacity to decide a case accord-ing to the law rather than accordingto her “constituents’” preferences.

The unprecedented sums thatsitting justices must now raise inorder to fend off challenges to theirretention or re-election suggest thatjudicial elections have, indeed,become ground zero in the politicalbattle to influence judicial decisionmaking. The cost of an averagesupreme court race has increased bymore than 100 percent since 1994. Inthe 2000 election cycle, nine supremecourt races cost more than a milliondollars each. The escalating cost ofjudicial elections has precipitatedadditional judicial independenceconcerns. Judges who are forced toraise increasing sums of money to

defend themselves against challengesto their continuation in office on thebasis of their decisions in isolatedcases must raise money from lawyerswho will appear before them andfrom organizations with an interest inthe outcomes of cases the judgesdecide. This, in turn, creates a publicperception that judges may beinfluenced by the campaign contribu-tions they receive — a point not loston single-issue voter groups, whocampaign for the defeat of incumbentjudges on the grounds that thosejudges have not only made baddecisions but have done so to curryfavor with special interests.

Judicial independenceproblems and the axiom of 80 If we accept that judges ought to beindependent, that they ought todecide cases on the basis of the law asthey construe it without fear of theelectorate or favor to theircontributors, then the developmentsdescribed in the preceding section arevery unsettling. Efforts at reform arehampered, however, by four politicalrealities that together constitute whatI characterize as the “axiom of 80.”

• First, 80 percent of the publicfavors selecting judges by election. Inother words, support for judicialelections is deeply entrenched, andthat entrenched support may consti-tute the single most significantimpediment to meaningful reform ofthe election process.

• Second, despite widespreadpublic support for judicial elections,as much as 80 percent of the elector-ate typically does not vote in judicialelections. When judicial elections arethe only item on the ballot, votersstay home; and when judicial elec-tions share the ballot with politicalbranch races, there is a demonstrable“roll-off” in which a significantpercentage of voters who cast ballotsin the political branch races decline to

vote in thejudicial races.

• Third, asmuch as 80percent of thepublic —

including many who cast ballots injudicial elections — are unfamiliarwith and unable to identify thejudicial candidates. This high level ofvoter ignorance may help to explainthe equally high level of publicapathy described in the secondpolitical reality: Voters who areunfamiliar with the candidates maysee no point in voting.

• Fourth, despite entrenchedpublic support for judicial electionsgenerally, 80 percent or more of thepublic perceives that when a judge isobligated to raise the monies neededto win election or re-election, she isinfluenced by the campaign contribu-tions she receives.

Incremental reform in theshadow of the axiom of 80The public’s longstanding support forjudicial elections, as embodied in thefirst political reality of the axiom of80, has caused reformers to concedetheir inevitability. Once theinevitability of judicial elections isconceded, then the remaining threepolitical realities — voter apathy,voter ignorance, and the publicperception that judges are influencedby their campaign contributors —become additional problems withwhich to reckon. And so, reformefforts have tended to tinker aroundthe edges.

To circumvent the impact of thefirst political reality, many states havesought to implement a “merit selec-tion” process, in which the governorappoints judges from a pool ofcandidates approved by a commis-sion that has evaluated them on thebasis of merit. Even then, meritselection systems concede the inevita-bility of elections by requiring thatjudges so appointed periodicallystand for retention elections. Toreduce the voter apathy and igno-rance reflected in the second andthird political realities, reformers


have proposed the use of voterguides and judicial performanceevaluations; to cope with the fourthpolitical reality that the public thinksjudges are influenced by their con-tributors, reformers have proposedpublic financing of judicial cam-paigns and limits on the contribu-tions that judges may receive. Nu-merous other proposals have beendeveloped, but one theme remainsconstant: Elections are an inevitabil-ity, and reform can go no further thanto tweak and massage judicialselection in the permanent shadowcast by elections.

Incremental reform unlikelyto yield lasting resultsWithout disputing the importance ofthese incremental reform efforts, I donot think that they can yield lastingimprovements, because judicialelections are ultimately antithetical tojudicial independence and unable toadequately promote judicialaccountability. As far as judicialindependence is concerned, myargument is relativelystraightforward: Asking judges todecide cases impartially and withoutregard to the whims of the majority isfundamentally incompatible with asystem that lets the whims of themajority decide whether the judgestays in office. Heroic judges can andhave made impartial rulings in theteeth of public clamor, but the successof our judicial system should not bemade to depend on all judges beingheroes.

With respect to the accountabilityside of the equation, one relativelyobvious point is that if only a fewpeople can identify the candidates,and only a few people vote, canelections really hold judges account-able in any meaningful way? Asecond, less obvious, point is thatunlike governors or legislators,judges must be professionals: Everystate that elects its judges requiresthem to be lawyers. No comparablerequirement exists for representativesof the political branches. That makessense: Judges have to decide what thelaw is, and that requires specialized

expertise. But how are voters sup-posed to assess the professionalcompetence of judges? It is one thingto expect voters with no training inthe law to decide whether the policiesfavored by legislators and governors(who may not be lawyers themselves)coincide with their own, and quiteanother to expect them to decidewhether the rulings of judges coin-cide with the law.

In the context of professionalmalpractice litigation, for example, itis ordinarily assumed that a lay jurycannot assess the professional compe-tence of a doctor or lawyer withoutthe assistance of expert witnesses. Injudicial elections, then, if we are tohold out any hope for voters beingable to inform themselves sufficientlyto cast an intelligent vote for judges,they will need even more informationthan they require to cast an informedvote in political branch races.

Ironically, however, voters haveaccess to considerably less informa-tion in judicial races. The judicialcode of conduct has traditionallyimposed substantial limits on whatinformation judicial candidates maycommunicate to their voters. Judicialcandidates may not comment onpending cases; they may not makestatements that appear to commit thecandidate with respect to cases,controversies, or issues that are likelyto come before the court; and theymay not make pledges or promises ofconduct in office. Voters have thusbeen left to receive what informationthey can, largely from single issuevoter groups that run independentadvertising campaigns — not pre-cisely a reliable source of relevantdata.

For better or worse, the informa-tion shortfall in judicial elections maysoon be ending. In Minnesota Republi-can Party v. White, a 5-4 majority ofthe U.S. Supreme Court invalidated,on First Amendment grounds, a codeof judicial conduct provision thatprohibited judicial candidates fromtaking positions on issues likely tocome before them later as judges. Inso holding, the court created consid-erable uncertainty concerning the

continuing validity of code of judicialconduct constraints on judicialcampaign speech.

The good news, such as it is, is thatjudicial candidates may now be muchfreer than in the past to communicatetheir views to voters and so morefully inform them. The bad news isthat in so doing, judicial impartialitymay be hopelessly compromised. TheSupreme Court did not see it thatway. Justice Scalia, writing for thefive-member majority, did not acceptthe argument that a ban on judicialcandidate position-taking wouldpromote judicial impartiality. In themajority’s view, judicial candidateswould feel no special need to adhereto positions on issues that they tookas judicial candidates after they hadascended the bench and begun todecide those very issues. The courtreasoned that the code of judicialconduct did nothing to preventcandidates from taking positions onissues before they became candidates— as lawyers, law professors, andpublic officials. To bar them fromtaking positions on issues in judicialcampaigns would do little, if any-thing, to protect impartiality, ChiefJustice Scalia concluded, becausejudges would feel no greater need tofollow their campaign positions thanpositions they had taken previouslyin their former professional lives.

The court’s analysis is problematicat best, for reasons explained byJustice Scalia himself, not in thecontext of the majority opinion inWhite but in his capacity as a judicialnominee answering questions beforethe Senate Judiciary Committee in1986. There, he declined to takepositions on issues that might comebefore him as a judge, on the groundsthat it would compromise his impar-tiality. When asked for his views onthe equal protection clause, forexample, then-Judge Scalia replied:“The only way to be sure that I amnot impairing my ability to beimpartial in future cases … before thecourt is to simply respectfully declineto give an opinion on whether any ofthe existing law on the SupremeCourt is right or wrong.” In response


to Justice Scalia’sargument inWhite that ajudge is no morelikely to compro-mise his future impartiality by takinga position on an issue during thecampaign than by taking such aposition at an earlier stage in hiscareer, candidate Scalia likewise hadan answer. In rebuffing inquiries intohis position on abortion, he ex-plained: “I think it is quite a thing tobe arguing to somebody who youknow has made a representation inthe course of confirmation hearings,and that is, by way of condition to hisbeing confirmed, that he will do this ordo that. I think I would be in a verybad position to adjudicate the casewithout being accused as having aless than impartial view of the matter(emphasis added).”

In other words, the position ajudicial aspirant takes before thegroup that will decide whether hebecomes a judge is uniquely impor-tant, because that position will betreated as a condition of his selection.For that reason, judges will obviouslyfeel greater need to adhere to thepositions they take during judicialcampaigns than at earlier stages oftheir careers, and on that score JusticeScalia’s rejection of candidate Scalia’sanalysis is simply baffling.

Although the scope of the court’sdecision in White remains uncertain,there is no denying that it will putadditional pressure on judicialcandidates to take positions on issuesthey are likely to decide as judges,and, in so doing, create the impres-sion with the public that they havealready decided those issues beforethe case is even filed. Within a matterof weeks of the decision in White, anIndiana lawyer had circulated aquestionnaire to state judicial candi-dates asking them whether they“believe” that the Indiana Constitu-tion protects the right to an abortion,the right to assisted suicide, andrelated questions. Although judgesare not required to answer suchquestionnaires, the pressure to do soin close races will be considerable,

given that those demanding answerscan now assert that the judge ishiding behind a defunct ethicalprohibition. And when judges dogive answers, single-issue votergroups disappointed with the posi-tions a judge has been pressured intotaking can be anticipated to launchattack campaigns of their own,thereby increasing the likelihood thatjudicial retention or re-election willturn on whether a judge’s construc-tion of the law on a single issue ispopular with the voters.

A blueprint for graduallyphasing out judicial electionsWith judicial elections in a state offree fall, the time is now to dosomething about it. If, for the reasonselaborated upon above, we acceptthat judicial elections are undesirablein principle, then our focus should beon devising a long-term strategy forphasing them out. Any such strategyshould keep the followingconsiderations in mind:

• Patience: The great social, politi-cal, and cultural movements of the20th century did not run their courseovernight. The women’s suffragemovement, the anti-war movement,the civil rights movement, and theenvironmental movement all tookdecades and, in some cases, genera-tions to run their cycle. Entrenchedpublic support for judicial electionswill not disappear quickly, and anymovement to end judicial electionsmust take that into account.

• Efforts to end judicial elections mustbe treated as a movement: My foregoingcomparison of a proposed campaignto end judicial elections to the greatmovements of the 20th century maystrike readers as aggrandizingjudicial selection or trivializing thegreat movements to which it iscompared. But therein lies theproblem. To gain traction with thepublic, judicial selection must achieve

the status of amovement. Itbears emphasisthat judicialelections them-

selves were the product of a move-ment that began with the administra-tion of Andrew Jackson in the 1830sand gradually swept the nation. Thetheme of the judicial selection move-ment must look beyond “judicialindependence,” because the goal isnot to protect judges so much as toprotect the people whom judgesserve. Our goal is to reassure theAmerican public that they will get afair shake in their courts, and, to thatend, a more appropriate themewould be “to restore impartialjustice.”

• Capitalizing on bellwether events:Great social, political, or culturalmovements calculated to win publicsupport over time have depended fortheir success on bellwether eventsthat galvanize public opinion andgive their movement focus and drive.The civil rights movement had Selma;the anti-war movement had KentState; and the clean air movementhad Los Angeles. A movement torestore impartial justice by endingjudicial elections has an ample supplyof bellwether events at its disposal,but to date those events have notbeen adequately exploited. A disas-trous election experience in Texasprompts critics to blame the partisanelection system there and to recom-mend nonpartisan elections, only tohave a disaster with nonpartisanelections in Wisconsin prompt criticsto recommend a merit selectionsystem, which could be countered bya disastrous retention electionexperience in the merit selection stateof Tennessee. Rather than allowingthese experiences to cancel them-selves out, we need to recognize thecommon theme: Judicial elections aresimply an unacceptable means ofselecting judges. The SupremeCourt’s recent decision in White canbe anticipated to spawn a whole newgeneration of election-related fiascosupon which a movement to endjudicial elections should be able to

“To gain traction with the public, judicial selectionmust achieve the status of a movement.”


capitalize further.• Ensuring judicial qualifications: If

we are to convince the public thatjudges ought to be selected differ-ently than are public officials in thepolitical branches, it is essential toexplain why, by highlighting thedifferences between them. Onedifference to which I alluded earlier isthe almost universal requirement thatthe judges be lawyers, which high-lights the specialized expertise thatstates expect judges — as distin-guished from legislators and gover-nors — to possess. That distinctioncould be drawn more vividly for thepublic’s benefit if the credentials ofall judicial candidates were publiclyreviewed by independent delibera-tive bodies prior to gubernatorialnomination to ensure that all judicialcandidates are capable and qualified.Although the independent delibera-tive body recommended here issimilar to the merit selection commis-sion, such commissions are some-times criticized for not being suffi-ciently independent of the governor.To ensure a baseline of competencefor all judges, it is imperative that thequalifications commission be trulyindependent of the appointingauthority.

• Enhancing alternative means topromote general judicial accountability:If the public is to abandon its supportfor judicial elections because of thethreat such elections pose to impartialjustice, alternative means to promotejudicial accountability must be morefully developed and promoted.Although systems of judicial disci-pline are in place in every state, theyare typically under-publicized, andfor that reason do little to reassure thepublic that judicial misbehavior willbe adequately addressed. Judicialdiscipline can be an effective meansto hold judges accountable for avariety of inappropriate behaviorsranging from chronic delays indecision making to abusivenesstoward lawyers, litigants, and staff, toinebriation on the bench, to genderand racial bias. The public ought tobe informed of that fact.

• Restructuring the judicial selection

process to provide prospective account-ability for a judge’s political and judicialphilosophy: To provide a means forassessing political acceptability in theabsence of elections, I would proposea modified federal model of judicialselection for the states. Like thefederal model, state judges could benominated by the governor andconfirmed by the state senate or someother subset of the state legislature.Judges so selected would then serveeither during good behavior, or for asingle, lengthy term. Three modifica-tions are in order: First, as disen-chanted as I may be with judicialelections, the problem judicialelections pose is far more acute at thepoint of re-election than at the pointof initial selection. If the public’ssupport for judicial elections isunwavering, I would be prepared toforego gubernatorial appointment asa method of initial selection in favorof an election if it meant that judgesonce so selected would not later beput at risk of losing their tenurebecause they made one unpopulardecision. Second, regardless ofwhether judicial candidates areelevated to the bench by means ofappointment or election, it is impera-tive that the judges so selectedpossess the competence, experience,character, and temperament neededto do the job well. Accordingly,judicial candidates, however initiallyselected, should be limited to thoseapproved by an independent judicialqualification commission, as I de-scribed earlier. Third, the federalmodel of judicialselection, uponwhich myproposal isbased, is cur-rently envelopedin a fog ofuncertainty as tojust how “politi-cal” the appoint-ments processshould be. Aselections havebecome the lastremaining meansto promote

political accountability of state judgesin the wake of the public’s gradualacceptance of an independent judi-ciary and a rejection of other account-ability-promoting devices thatthreaten the judiciary’s autonomy, sotoo the appointments process maybecome the one remaining means topromote political accountability inthe state. Viewed in this light, apolitical appointments process isinevitable, because the public and thepolitical branches will be loath torelinquish their last remaining meansof control over the court’s politicallandscape. It is likewise desirable,because it affords some measure ofprospective accountability withoutinterfering unnecessarily withsubsequent judicial decision makingor institutional autonomy.

When I was presenting some of theideas shared here at a conference heldearlier in the year, a member of theaudience raised his hand at theconclusion of my talk and indicatedthat he enjoyed my remarks, and thatthe only thing he would change is myname — to Don Quixote. I concedethe point that current public supportfor judicial elections makes theirelimination any time soon seemunlikely. Then again, I suspect that inthe 1940s, when civil rights lawyersgathered around tables to discuss astrategy for overturning Plessy v.Ferguson and ending Jim Crow lawsin their lifetime, the effort seemedequally daunting. I, for one, amoptimistic.

Then again, so was Don Quixote.

A member of the IU faculty since 1998, Professor Geyhhas served as director of the American JudicatureSociety’s Center for Judicial Independence, reporter toAmerican Bar Association commissions on judicialindependence and (more recently) the public financingof judicial elections, consultant to the NationalCommission on Judicial Discipline and Removal,legislative liaison to the Federal Courts StudyCommittee, and a member of the American LawInstitute. The author of numerous articles and bookchapters, Geyh in his recent scholarship has exploredissues relating to judicial administration,independence, and accountability.


Illinois residents were rightly horrified when theybegan to learn in late 1999 just how poorly theirjudicial system had performed in numerous capital

punishment cases investigated by student journalists atNorthwestern University and, later, the Chicago Tribune.

“In some cases, the people sitting on death row wereinvolved in cases that were clearly tainted and inothers, they were just plain innocent,” said IndianaUniversity law professor Joseph L. Hoffmann.

The evi-dence was sostrong that in2000, IllinoisGov. GeorgeRyan took thedramatic stepof declaring amoratoriumon executionsuntil existingcases could bereviewed andpotentialreforms couldbe studied.

In Decem-ber, Hoffmannoffered anintriguing

reform amendment to Illinois law when he testified toa state Senate committee in Springfield. His “Funda-mental Justice Amendment” aimed to clear away theprocedural haggling that typically comes into playduring death penalty appeals and focus on the basicconcepts of accuracy and fairness.

“Appellate courts in America generally have theauthority only to look at procedures that occur at trial,”Hoffmann said. Once the jury has spoken, the merits ofthe verdict are not subject to review under appeal. Theappellate court only looks at whether the rules werefollowed.

“My proposal would change that for capital casesand make it possible for the Illinois Supreme Court tonot only look at the procedures but the merits of thecase,” he said. “In other words, they could take asecond look at the facts of the case and not onlywhether the guilty verdict was correct but whether thedeath penalty was warranted.”

The execution of a citizen by the government is theultimate use or abuse of power. It only makes sense to

Hoffmann proposes death-penalty reform in Illinois

have as strong and skilled a review of death penaltycases as possible, and the state Supreme Court wouldseem to meet that high standard.

Hoffmann, who considers himself neither for noragainst capital punishment, said there is support for hisproposal from Democrats and Republicans alike. Thatwas the case last summer when the IU law professorwas invited to attend and provide commentary to acapital punishment review meeting in Joliet, and itremains true today.

What happens next will be a matter of politics. “Ithink it’s reasonably likely the Illinois Senate will acton this and pass it,” Hoffmann said. Whether theHouse will pass the measure in this last week of theIllinois Legislature is anyone’s guess.

Likewise, it is unknown whether outgoing Gov.Ryan will sign legislation including amendments notput forth by his own study commission. But if theLegislature puts a bill on his desk, it might be difficultfor Ryan not to sign it, given that the moratorium andreview of the fairness of capital punishment could wellbe his greatest legacy.

Senate Democrats are likely to reintroduce theFundamental Justice Amendment next year. Should itthen pass the Senate and House, it would go before anew governor, Democrat Rod Blagojevich, who ap-pears to be less sympathetic to reform than Ryan, aRepublican.

“I believe in this amendment and I think it’s theright thing to do,” Hoffman said. “My work in thisarea, basically focusing on the substance of the case, isa theme I’ve been writing about for the better part ofthe past decade. To have another institution, anotheractor, which in this case would be the (state) SupremeCourt, that’s really what this is all about.”

Hoffmann’s proposal is unusual if not unique inAmerican jurisprudence, and it could set a new stan-dard for fairness for other states. But, oddly enough,said Hoffmann, who is the Harry Pratter Professor ofLaw at IU, Indiana has a similar framework writteninto its Constitution.

“We have a constitutional provision that gives thestate Supreme Court the power to review sentences inall criminal cases, not just capital cases,” he said.“That’s a power that’s very rarely exercised in Indiana.But our Supreme Court could do exactly what we’reproposing in Illinois if we had the will to do so.”

This article is reprinted by permission of the BloomingtonHerald-Times. It originally appeared on Dec. 3, 2002.

Joseph Hoffmann

by Mike Leonard


Harry Pratter Remembered

Remembering Harry Pratter (1917–2002)

Harry Pratter, circa 1995

Samuel “Chic” Born, JD’70So you’ve come to law school? Youreally are from Gas City? No way!But, it’s your first day at law school,and you’ve been faced already with areading assignment.

You have arrived 10 minutes earlyfor this first class — a five-hourcourse in torts. There is a seatingchart, so you find your assigned placeand take a seat. Other students arrive;some were already there. All appear abit nervous — at least to a kid from asmall town. At one minute past 9a.m., the door opens tentatively. Thisbalding fellow, with one stray lock ofhair, peers in. He is somewhathesitant. He comes on through thedoor with books in his left hand andwalks with his eyes averted from thestudents, looking toward the wall on

At this year’s annual Alumni Weekend,colleagues, family, friends, and formerstudents of the inimitable ProfessorHarry Pratter, who died in March 2002,gathered to share their recollections of hislife and career.

Pratter, who was born in the Ukraineand emigrated to the United States as achild, began teaching at the Law Schoolin 1950, after earning his JD from theUniversity of Chicago. He taught manydifferent subjects, including CommercialLaw, Negotiable Instruments, Conflictsof Law, Contracts, Torts, and FamilyLaw. But more fundamentally, “hetaught life,” according to Professor FredAman, longtime dean of the school.

“For Harry,” says Aman, “there wasno such thing as just a legal problem.There were only human problems withwhich the law must deal.”

The following remembrances werepresented by Pratter’s former students:

his right. He is stooped slightly, bentas if pulling a laborer’s cart, and hemaintains this posture until his leftfoot steps on the teaching dais.

When this man hits his mark onthe raised dais, his entire aspect istransformed. He throws his shouldersback. He stands tall. He flips thatunruly lock of hair out of the way —it had been dangling in front of hisleft eye — and the transformation iscomplete. He may have trudged withthe gait and appearance of a work-man, but now he is the ringmaster!

This was my introduction toProfessor Harry Pratter on my firstday of law school, in my first lawschool class. I will not forget thatexperience because Harry Pratter,when he stepped on that teachingdais, was as unforgettable on my firstday of law school as he was on myfinal day in attendance as a studenthere in Bloomington.

Professor Pratter taught law on atleast three levels. As law students, wecould conceive of it as three intellec-tual horizons. The first horizon —

Cas

alin

i


close to us — was a direct definitionof the substantive legal theories andprecepts within a specific legalsubject matter: the elements of aparticular cause of action, a principleregarding choice of law, enumerateditems within a provision of theUniform Commercial Code. Thisteaching of the hard facts of the lawshowed us Professor Pratter in hisbest Socratic guise.

Harry Pratter may not have knownSocrates, but he certainly understoodhis teaching regimen. Don’t youremember? How the professor couldliterally pound you with questionswhile teetering back and forth fromheel to toe on the dais? As you gotcloser to a “better” answer, he wouldlean forward and bounce on histiptoes, encouraging you to help himfind the right answer. When youmissed the answer — and each of us

would — remember his disappoint-ment? How his expression changedand that lock of unruly hair droppedback over his eye? How he coulddismiss you with a wave of his hand?

The statements he would make inclass! Some were classics. This is notall, but some of his better onesincluded:

• Quoting Dickens, “The law is aass.”

• As he dropped three or four casebooks loudly on the teacher’s desk,“Excuse me, did I awaken you?”

• “How do you define success as alawyer, son? You know you’resuccessful when you have a Waringblender and you belong to thecountry club.”

• “The law is too rich for thehuman mind.”

• “You’re a lawyer, now, youngman! You’re in front of a jury right

there in Gas City.What’s the first thingyou do? You shootyour cuffs! No self-respecting lawyercan’t shoot hiscuffs!”

• “It’s four o’clockon the sun; whattime is it on earth?”

Harry Pratterbelieved that goodlawyers had to bedrudges some of thetime simply to get —to understand — thelaw. He told me onetime, “Son, in collegeyou may have read600 to 800 pages perweek. Here, you willnot read to cover asmuch, but you willread in a far moreconcentrated way:deeper, better, muchmore carefully.” Thatwas the student’sview of HarryPratter on the law.

But ProfessorPratter taught law ata second level, onethat required us to

raise our eyes and view a moredistant horizon. Harry Prattermarveled at real life and how the lawreacted to real life. How he made youlaugh when he described Mrs.Palsgraf’s predicament! What anoutrageous display! Harry Pratterstanding on the teacher’s deskpointing at the railroad below and thescales on the platform where Mrs.Palsgraf stood above. He was excitedby his description. He was havingfun and so were we. His explanationand his exclamations were exciting,entertaining, educating. What agremlin! an imp! a court jester! HarryPratter could be. And he taught youthat, indeed, the law is sometimes “aass” and sometimes too rich for thehuman mind. But he taught you thatit was necessary to see, feel, andknow the facts of a case just as muchas you needed to understand the law.

Professor Pratter taught an evenmore elevated sense of the law, too.And this was a far horizon. This wasa horizon that required us throughoutour law school careers to put ourintellect on its tiptoes, to shade ourmind’s eye from the harsh judgmen-tal sun and peer as far as we couldinto the distance. Harry Pratter’sfullest gift as a law professor, as ateacher, a pedagogue, one who caredabout each of us — I believe — wasthat he taught us to imagine. To teachlaw students, who are becomingmore cynical by the day, that imagi-nation is required at all times in thepractice of the law is an incrediblefeat. It is one feat that Harry Pratteraccomplished each and every day hecame into a classroom.

He may have appeared to ap-proach the teaching dais from theexterior door in a hesitant fashion,but he was hardly a timorous beastie.Harry Pratter was no shrinkingviolet. This was not timidity that hedisplayed as he approached hisprofessorial dais. It was thought! I amconvinced he was thinking, each andevery day, “How can I teach thesepeople to think, to think like lawyers,to act like lawyers, to understand thelaw, then to change it?” Imaginationwas Harry Pratter’s greatest gift toHarry Pratter, circa 1970


each of us as students.Imagine! And every time we do,

we thank you, Professor Pratter!Born is a partner at Ice Miller,

Indianapolis.

Joseph “Andy” Hays, LLB’59Harry Pratter was a gracious, gentleman, a true gentleman.

He was a man of tremendousintellect. He possessed a photo-graphic memory.

His was a unique intellectual reachthat touched on so many subjects,coupled with a driving, unrelentinginquisitiveness.

His greatest passion, however, wasfor the law.

As a learned man of the law, hewas especially studied in the prin-ciples and practices of law as theyrelated to commerce.

He thrived most when he becameinvolved in a scholarly dialogue withstudents and his faculty colleagues.

He had a great feeling for lawstudents, a special compassion, andhe was tireless in their support.

Through all of his activity, hepossessed and practiced a rare senseof humor.

Having offered these positive,admirable attributes, they are not theonly elements that made him sospecial back when my class was here,back in the late 1950s.

Born in 1917, in Kiev, in theUkraine of Czarist Russia, Harry wasthe son of a medical doctor. Shortlyafter Harry’s birth, as the Bolshevikrevolution was under way, both hismother and father died in a typhusepidemic. While the details of theensuing events are vague, it is knownthat a relative of his mother at-tempted to provide a home for Harryand a sister, but both children couldnot be properly cared for. So, youngHarry was separated from his sisterand sent off to live in a small Ukrai-nian village with a distant malerelative of his father, a man with asignificant number of issue, some 16or 17 children, it is told. Harry relatedthat the sons and daughters of thatman, distant cousins, raised him inhis earliest years.

An older son in that new familywas a pharmacist and, in the early1920s, he came to Buffalo, New Yorkand established a business and ahome. This permitted him in 1925 tobring the entire family to Buffalo andthose cold windy shores of Lake Erie.It was during this immigration thatthen 8-year-old Harry acquired thename “Pratter.” The clerks at EllisIsland fractured the family name,Predarkov. Predarkov became Pratter.

As Harry approached teen-ageyears, the older relative passed away.Harry was subsequently raised inBuffalo by his distant relatives. Harryoften described to Mary Rose theaffection and caring he felt in thisenvironment, that he was verycomfortable in this adopted family.He related that, as the youngest inthat situation, he was spoiled beyondthe pale. The love he felt inspiredhim, he related, giving him greatcomfort in his early life and confi-dence as a young person.

He was graduated from the publicschool in Buffalo. This was in thosetough depression years of the 1930s.Then at what is now the New YorkState University at Buffalo, he studiedin a liberal arts curriculum. He had aspecial interest in English literature.He was awarded both his under-graduate and master’s degrees. In thelate 1930s, however, there was apaucity of opportunities to make useof his study and degrees. The GreatDepression lingered in that period ofmilitary build-up prior to World War II.

He described that the best way tomake money in those times was towork in the expanding defenseplants. He became “Pratter theriveter,” blocking the rivets in theproduction of the wing assembly ofmilitary aircraft.

He was of that extraordinarygeneration that did so much for us all.

As the country became embroiledin World War II, Harry Pratter servedin the Army Signal Corps in the warwith Japan. He described that hislongest period of service was at postsin New Guinea in support of opera-tions in the South Pacific.

Before going off to the South

Samuel “Chic” Born, JD’70

Joseph “Andy” Hays, LLB’59

McG

uire

Stu

dio

Inc.

Pacific, Harry Pratter married anative of Buffalo and an IthacaCollege graduate, Mary Rose Lavin, ayoung modern dancer and physicaleducation teacher.

After the war, upon his dischargefrom the service, he taught for a fewsemesters in the English literaturedepartment at the University ofBuffalo. Pressured by his dean topursue his PhD degree, he choseinstead to pursue a career in law,having been inspired by the writingsof professors at the University ofChicago Law School.

In the fall of 1947, at the age of 30,he enrolled at the UC Law School.This bold pursuit of a law degree was


“Those who knew the man would agree, Isuggest, there was seldom a subject about which

Harry Pratter could not comment.”— Joseph “Andy” Hays

sessing a quick and great black senseof humor. ... He would be always thefirst to ask a question in class. ... Weknew he came from teaching, and hewas one of our class that appeareddestined to be a teacher.”

And a teacher he ultimatelybecame. Graduating from Chicago’slaw school in the spring of 1950, hewas extended by the then IndianaLaw School Dean Leon H. Wallacethe opportunity to head a new andunique program for foreign studentson the campus here in Bloomington.And he began what would become a44-year tenure at IU’s Law School.That career began in a small officeover at venerable Maxwell Hall, thenthe home of the School of Law.

Mary Rose describes that their firsthome in Bloomington was locatedadjacent to Herman Wells’s residenceat Woodburn House.

Six year later, in September 1956,my classmates and I were enrolled atthe IU Law School. That year, 1956,was the first of the Law School’svenue here at the corner of IndianaAvenue and Third Street. As the Classof 1959, we were the first to begraduated from this new law schoolbuilding. Many of us had served inthe military during the Koreanconflict, and, like Harry’s class 10years earlier, most of us were of anolder average age than traditionalfirst-year law students.

Back in the mid-’50s, we wereblessed with a great faculty: JeromeHall, Val Nolan, Austin Clifford,Ralph Fuchs, Frank Horack, IvanRutledge, Bill Oliver, Leon Wallace,and this man from the UC LawSchool, Harry Pratter, then in hissixth year at IU.

We were treated to several classesoffered by Harry Pratter: NegotiableInstruments, Domestic Relations,Conflicts of Laws, and Contracts. He

was a learnedscholar of theUniversalCommercialCode, both as tothe policies thatcreated it andthe substance of

the code itself.And, too, he was fascinated by the

unfathomable, complex writings ofthe eccentric Cambridge Universityphilosopher Ludwig Josef JohannWittgenstein. In what was a new andinnovative class for us as freshmen,called the Krannert Studies, thisprofessor required that we read someof Wittgenstein’s essays. Thesefocused on his theories of logic forclassic understanding, especially, asthey could be utilized in the casestudy method. My recollection is thatour eyes glazed over when Harryattempted to enlighten us on whatold Wittgenstein had to offer.

But despite that shortcoming, ourclass established a special bond withthis man Pratter and his peripateticstyle and great humor. I remember inour Conflicts of Laws course, hedwelled on the common law’sidiosyncratic practices for notice andservice of process. He dwelt speciallyon the English courts’ recognition asproper that notice would attach bythe posting of claims on the remoteand distant door of the court houseon the Island of Tobago, that tinyEnglish possession down in the farreaches of the Caribbean. Our learnedprofessor lectured that such notice inan isolated site was sufficient to makeclaims against maritime assetsaround the globe. We challenged thiswarped concept of notice, righteouslyasserting it was sophistry. He de-fended the practice, chiding us forour lack of acceptance and under-standing of the roots of the commonlaw. The exchanges became passion-ate.

Several of the class lived in an oldVictorian house down the street, onewith 14-foot-high ceilings and, underthem, great, heavy 12-foot-highdoors. Early one morning we tookdown one such door, hauled it over to

funded from thecombined cashflow of Harry’sGI Bill and MaryRose’s job as therecreation direc-tor of Chicago’sMichael ReeseHospital Nursing School.

His post-war class of 125 studentswas of a much older average age thanthe traditional first-year law students.They were mostly GIs who hadserved in the several branches of themilitary during the war. Almost allwere married. Many had smallchildren. Most of all, in the maturityforged in their experiences in the war,those GIs were strongly committed tomaking a success of their graduatestudy.

In these days, both the universityand the law school flourished underthe leadership of then-presidentRichard Hutchinson, in what aredescribed as the “most golden days”of the University of Chicago. In thatclass of achievers, Harry Pratter madehis mark: He recorded superiorgrades, developing a reputation forboth his scholarship and an eclectic,unyielding curiosity. He was de-scribed to have acquired a profoundzeal for the law.

His success as a law studentestablished, in his senior year, HarryPratter was named as one of sixmanaging editors of the school’s lawreview. The curriculum vitae of HarryPratter’s law review colleagues reflectoutstanding achievement: senior andmanaging partners of great law firms,leading positions in governmentagencies, and service on the greatcourts of our judicial system.

In recent weeks, I sought out andspoke with several of the survivingcolleagues on that 1949–50 lawreview staff. The comments aboutHarry Pratter were very similar:

“He was an older fellow, maybethe oldest man in our class. ... He wasvery serious about every aspect of thelaw. ... He was constantly reading,but he never seemed to be studyingthe cases required for his then-currentclasses. ... He was always fun, pos-


his classroom, and propped it up infront his lectern. As planned, it wasobtrusive and covered with bogusclaims and notices we had created.Pointedly, these writings challengedthe professor’s standing as an intel-lect, his level of scholarship, and hisability to teach. It was all in good funand he gave it back to us in memo-rable dialogues.

Those who knew the man wouldagree, I suggest, there was seldom asubject about which Harry Prattercould not comment. On the campusat large he was continually involvedin commentary and seminars onmany subjects. One time, here in theLaw School, he took part in a highlypublicized debate with some learnedand equally loquacious wag fromanother discipline, from one of theother colleges.

We all attended, having enjoinedour professor not to cause any mar onthe escutcheon of our noble lawschool. For the debate, one of ourcolleagues provided our man Pratterwith a tray, on which was provided apitcher and glass. Unknown to him,instead of water, in the pitcher wasstraight gin, with the appropriateamount of ice.

With all of us in on the scam, wewere stifling guffaws as our man inthe faculty poured glassfuls of theliquid and constantly sipped from hisglass during his extensive — nay,long-winded — remarks on hisobscure subject. In the subsequentcritique of his experience, while Icannot remember precisely hisremarks, he said something like this:“In the heat of debate, the championis not daunted along the way toultimate victory, he stays the course,but it is of great benefit to him to beproperly refreshed along the way.”

With the fullest respect to the manPratter, it is fair to say that he had ashort attention span on some aspectsof the courses he taught. The sparklewould leave his eye when he came toevery routine aspect of his subject.When that occurred, and it was often,he would veer off the subject andintersperse his lecture with observa-tions about lawyers and the law and

life’s lessons.One such lesson, for which he

became legend, was that in lawyers’experiences they will be required todemonstrate to clients and juries theirélan, their panache, their dash — allto show that lawyers are uniqueprofessionals. One such method todemonstrate these qualities is toadroitly shoot one’s cuffs.

This resource could be acquiredonly by the constant practice, earlyon, that is, to extend the cuffs of one’sshirt out beyond the cuffs of one’ssuit coat. He told us, “To showproperly one’s linen in this manner isto be the consummate professional.”Harry would demonstrate this withrepeated extension of his arms,pointing to the resulting exposed cuffof the shirt.

Another of his memorable conclu-sions centered on the appropriatedress for Hoosier lawyers. He coun-seled that when we were to appear infront of the Hoosier juries in the smallcounty courts around the state, it wasnot wise to wear white socks with ablue suit and black shoes. Juriesusually conclude, he offered gravely,that a lawyer at the bar who wearswhite socks with dark suits would befrom out of town, like from Chicagoor Cincinnati, and Hoosiers just can’trelate well to lawyers from big cities

out of state.The man had fun exercising his wit

to keep us involved and learning.And we loved it, given the contrast-ing, very somber, crisp, business-likelectures by most of Harry’s col-leagues.

And he had staying power. Giventenures of law professors, he was atthe school for an impressive numberof years. Look at his unbroken recordof service here. He served this lawschool for 44 years as a formalmember of the faculty, and anotherseven informally, for a 51-year total.Remember, he served here under noless than eight deans. Pray, considerthat burden. For one year, he evenserved as acting dean. Pray, considerthat chaos.

And, too, in the five decades hewas involved here, this law schoolexpanded, it prospered and flour-ished, adding constantly to itsreputation for breadth and excellence.

In the 160 years that this lawschool has existed, the record showsthat almost 9,000 law degrees havebeen awarded to its graduates. InProfessor Harry Pratter’s tenure,some 6,200 lawyers graduated fromthis school. It is a fact, then, thatHarry Pratter was exposed to andinvolved with two-thirds of this lawschool’s graduates. More than likely,

Harry Pratter, deep in discussion with Earl Singleton

Inst

ruct

iona

l Sup

port

Ser

vice

s, P

aul R

iley


he taught classesto two-thirds ofthose graduatedhere. Think aboutthat.

But beyond themerits of thisextraordinarytenure, he inspired so many of uswith the combination, first, of hiswide-open, constant desire to bechallenging the premise on so manysubjects and, second, his cuttingsense of humor.

We remember him as a graciousgentleman … as a brilliant intellect …as a learned man of the law.

However, his most memorable andspecial qualities, like no others in themodern days of the Law School, wereto be constantly engaged in theintellectual give-and-take and to doso with such an uncommon wit.

These two elements are what setHarry Pratter apart.

Hays is president of the Hays Group, aconsulting firm that provides counsel tocompanies on communications policy.

Sarah Riordan, JD’93I was a student of Mr. Pratter’s in thewinter term of 1992. During thatsemester he talked to us aboutphilosophy, torts, history, art, music,poetry and other forms of literature,and, here and there, basketball. For amoment or two, he also talked to usabout Article 2 of the UniformCommercial Code.

There were several of us uptightlaw students who thought during thecourse of semester, “Hey, what’s thisguy going to test us on? Is he going totest us on the formulation or is hegoing to ask us questions about thecode? What’s the deal?” By the end ofthe semester, of course, everythingworked out perfectly, because we hadlearned all the major points of thecode and how to read and under-stand it. In addition to that, we alsogot the good stuff: the jokes, thePratterisms, the formulations, thereferences to the French Law, and allthose things that made it such aspecial experience for us. I guess, forme, it was all of those things com-

bined with his manner and his messyhair that really left me completelysmitten. The same was true for myroommates who were also in theclass.

So, the next fall when I was nolonger his student, and one of theitems up for bid in the Women’s LawCaucus fund-raiser auction wascocktails with Harry Pratter, we wereall over it. We pooled our money andwent to the Women’s Law CaucusAuction, and we fought off manyvery competitive bidders, but in theend, we won. We secured our datewith Harry.

A few days later we went up to hisoffice to get it set up. We wereworried that he might not rememberus from last year. When we got therehe said, “I’ve been waiting for you.You bought me at auction, so now Iam your slave.” We made the dateand, of course, we met him at Nick’s— where else? When we got there, hewas waiting at a table. We went overand sat down, and he said to us, “Youcan have whatever you would like toeat and drink, it is all on me.” And heleaned in and added, “Have you everhad a boilermaker?” We hadn’t. So heexplained that there was beer andsome whiskey involved and it wasgreat thing to have. He said, “Youcould have one if you like.” It wasboilermakers all around.

Of course, he was very interestedin us, very solicitous. He wanted toknow how we were enjoying lawschool, how we felt about beingwomen entering this profession. Hewanted to know what we planned todo after we graduated — none ofreally knew at that point. Of course,he said, “Well if there is anything Ican to help you, let me know. I’myour slave.” During that night, healso talked a little bit about himselfand some of the remarkable things

that he didduring his life.As you canimagine, it wasall very low-keyand modest.

One of thethings I remem-

ber him telling us is the story of howhe met Mrs. Pratter, and how in oneof their first apartments they had thisthing called a Murphy bed. We hadnever heard of a Murphy bed. Heexplained to us that you just fold itup into the wall and there are doorsthat you close over it like a closet.When you get ready to go to bed, youjust pull it down and go to sleep, andin the morning you get up and fold itup and close the doors — sounds likea terrific thing. To us, after a boiler-maker or two and hearing him talkabout Mrs. Pratter and about theirMurphy bed, this was the mostromantic thing that we could imag-ine. After a while, he had to get hometo Mrs. Pratter, but he said, “You girlsfeel free to stay and have whateverelse you would like to eat or drink,and it’s on me — it’s on my tab.” Hereminded us that he was our slave.

True to his word, Mr. Pratterremained very responsive andattentive over the years. Later thatsemester, when Bill Clinton waselected president, my housematesand I threw a big party and invitedeveryone we knew, including Mr.Pratter. We didn’t expect him, but heshowed up at the door in his hat. Theother students, of course, were veryimpressed that this professor hadshown up at our house. It was evenbetter when he shared with many ofthem that he was our slave.

And he helped me get my first job.When I met him on one occasion herein Bloomington with my Mom andDad, he went out of his way to saynice things about me to my parentsand tell them that I was such a goodstudent — which was sort of true.Anytime that I came to Bloomingtonand wanted to stop by or talk to himon the phone or visit and talk aboutmy career and whatever else wasgoing on, he always made time, even

“Unfailingly considerate, as well as solid indemeanor and character, Harry Pratter

personified professional dignity and courtesy.”— George P. Smith II


when he wasn’t feeling so good.When my own father died, Mr.Pratter was one of the first people tosay comforting things to me and tomy family. The last time that I sawhim, it was at a party. I wanted tomonopolize his time, and he was OKwith that too. I know that I am justone of literally generations of stu-dents that he taught and helped. I amso very glad — and I know that I amvery, very lucky — to be a part of thatgroup.

Riordan is an associate with BoseMcKinney & Evans, Indianapolis.

George P. Smith II, JD’64“Tell them I had a happy life.”— Ludwig Wittgenstein on hisdeathbed, from “Wittgenstein: TheTerry Eagleston Script,” The DerekJarman Film 3 (1993).

This past July, while working atCambridge University, one morning Itook a stroll down All Souls Lane toAscension Parish Burial Ground,formerly St. Giles and St. Peter’s. Ihad made this visit several years agoand reported on it to Harry, who, inturn, expressed great interest. Thistime, the visit was especially senti-mental, for it honored Harry Pratterand his mentor, Ludwig Wittgenstein,who is buried there. Unlike thereported efforts of Hillary RodhamClinton when she was in the WhiteHouse to channel the spirits ofEleanor Roosevelt and MahatmaGandhi, I did not seek to channeleither Harry or Ludwig’s spirit.Rather, I sought to recognize and paytribute to two great influences in mylife.

Without doubt, Wittgenstein wasthe animating force in Harry’sintellectual life. The Wittgensteingrave is marked by a horizontalgranite slab with his name and theyears 1889–1951 on it. At the head ofthe marker is a small ivy plant, threepine cones, and several pebbles,together with a miniature woodenladder (symbolic, no doubt, of Jacob’sladder to heaven written of in the OldTestament) and some 12 tuppence. Idid not then, and still do not, under-stand the significance of the coppers

being on the gravestone, but I placedthree additional pieces with the othercoins — one each for Harry, me, andthe IU Law School.

Wittgenstein said, reportedly fromhis deathbed, “Tell them I had ahappy life.” I think it is a clearstatement of the record, that, onbalance, Harry Pratter had a goodand happy life, for he succeededadmirably in making his belovedfamily and those around him notonly happy but secure intellectually.

The Book of Proverbs tells us that“a good name is rather to be chosenthan great riches.” Harry Pratter hadboth, and his riches were to be foundwithin a caring and supportivefamily, respected colleagues, gratefulstudents, and rewarding and self-sustaining personal values of loyalty,friendship, decency, humility, com-passion, grace, and good humor.

Insofar as it is possible for anyhuman being to be both wise andworldly wise, to be selfless in anymaterial sense, to have no envy,jealousy, vanity, or conceit, to harborneither malice nor hatred (seldomeven moved to anger), and to alwaysbe reliable, considerate, generous,and never cheap, Harry came as closeto that as can be done. He was a kind,humble, and gentle man — noble andexemplary — yet one of exceptionalspiritual and moral conviction, allwithout being rigid, false, or pious.Unfailingly considerate, as well assolid in demeanor and character,Harry Pratter personified profes-sional dignity and courtesy. In a fast-paced society where courtesy isincreasingly rare, it was refreshing towitness Harry’s charm and civilityand, furthermore, to admire at firsthand his character, which was tied toa simple dedication to the inherentvalues of human dignity and thegoodness that comes from thisrecognition.

The law school world is known forbramble bushes, spelunking adven-tures, penumbras formed fromemanations, complex issues oflegislative drafting and interpreta-tion, land-use controls, administra-tive decision making and the antitrust

laws, as well as heavy jurisprudentialissues of social science and criminaltheory. What a wonderful counterbal-ance were Harry Pratter’s courses inConflict of Laws and CommercialLaw, where high drama and mirthwere introduced regularly throughSocratic hypotheticals drawn fromthe Bushmen of the Kalahari Desertin Southern Africa to the residents ofGas City, Ind. Invariably these richhypotheticals never yielded a defini-tive answer, which would in turnmove Harry, himself, to conclude, asCharles Dickens did, that “the law isa ass!” Not surprisingly, oftentimesthese very same hypotheticals wouldappear on the final examinations.

George P. Smith II, JD’64

Sarah Riordan, JD’93


“If Picasso had painted a tomato, he would havepainted a Picasso tomato, hence destroying its

Platonic essence.”— Harry Pratter

Perhaps ChiefJustice Shirley S.Abrahamson ofthe WisconsinSupreme Courtsummed upHarry’s ap-proach to lawteaching when, at last May’s gradua-tion exercises here in Bloomington,she said, “He made the class intellec-tually challenging and fun because(simply) he was intellectually chal-lenging and fun.” He taught JusticeAbrahamson, as he taught us, hisformer students, “how to approach aproblem ... and analyze issues ... howto identify and resolve inconsisten-cies; how to have fun figuring out thelaw and arriving at the best solutionsunder the circumstances.” Finally,and most important, he taught us, aslawyers, to be courageous and tohave courage in expressing andfighting for the ideals of justice.Indeed, the words of Shakespearecome to mind when Polonius advisedLaertes in Hamlet, “To thine own selfbe true, And it must follow, as thenight to day, Thou canst not then befalse to any man.”

Students have praised uniformlyHarry’s encyclopedic knowledge ofhis subject areas and his thoroughclass preparation. Indeed, his photo-graphic memory allowed him theluxury of coming to class withoutlecture notes; this was always amystery for some of his students.They simply could not comprehendhow a professor could have suchinstant recall. His life has been anadventure in learning shared with hisstudents. Notwithstanding histowering intellect, his students werenever intimidated; rather, HarryPratter’s penetrating understandingof the law stimulated his students tothink more clearly and deeplythrough his deft use of the Socraticdialogue.

The late Professor Curtis Berger ofColumbia University summed upaptly what Harry Pratter stood for asa teacher when he said: “I think thatwe as teachers must let our studentsknow that we value their humane as

well as intellectual qualities — andour own as well as theirs. For unlesslawyers value the compassionate inthemselves, I think they will beincapable of carrying about thehuman needs of others.”

In the 1974–75 school year, Harryand Mary Rose had a wonderful yearvisiting at the University of VirginiaLaw School. With side trips to theGreenbrier and the Homesteadresorts, Harry came to understandthe reality of the state motto, “Vir-ginia is for lovers!” In reporting onHarry’s appointment to law faculty,the Virginia Law Weekly of Sept. 27,1974, noted his course load of Con-tract Law, Legal Philosophy, andConflict of Laws, his research intoJohn Rawls’s A Theory of Justice, andhow at IU he not only workeddiligently on the revision of theStudent Conduct Code, but also“helped the athletic director and hiscoaches with legal problems in sportsand even aided one student, SteveDowning, in negotiating a contractwith the Boston Celtics.” At Indiana,we know that it was commonplace tofind Harry both at practice and atcourtside when the Hoosiers played.One can only imagine how manyWittgensteinian plays were shared byHarry with the coaches.

Harry’s popularity among thestudents was recognized at Virginiaby his selection as the graduationspeaker in 1975. While neither Harrynor the archivist at the Virginia LawSchool could locate a copy of theseremarks, one can speculate on whathe might have said. Addressing agraduating class that includedGeorge Allen, one of his top studentswho now is the junior senator fromVirginia in Congress, Harry mightwell have opened with a Pratterism, aconundrum, such as, “If a lion couldspeak, would we ever understand

him?” Mostlikely, he wouldhave encouragedthe graduates topursue wisdomand truth and tofight for socialjustice — just as

he, himself, did throughout his life.He would have, no doubt, suggestedthat with knowledge comes powerand intellectual growth and, thus,personal fulfillment; and that calm-ness of mind is one of the mosttreasured jewels of wisdom.

How fascinating, and — onoccasion — mind stretching, toparticipate in the “language game” ofWittgenstein and Pratter through thestudy of the Uniform CommercialCode. With legendary erudition,Harry was the first to use the code asa paradigm not only to explore howlanguage has meaning and, indeed, alinguistic behavior of its own, butalso to test the extent to which ageneral theory of legal interpretationcan be used in understanding linguis-tically the arcane provisions of thecode.

As if to prove the validity ofHarry’s path-breaking use ofWittgenstein, the University ofPennsylvania law review in 1988published original scholarship onWittgenstein and the UniformCommercial Code. I remember welltalking with Harry about this articleand his great excitement and pleasureover the fact that his pioneeringefforts in “selling” Wittgenstein cameto fruition.

From the classroom to the halls ofthe Indiana State Legislature, Harryassumed roles not only as a brilliantpedagogue, but also an equally astuteleader of law reform, thereby realiz-ing the goal of every legal educator:namely, to shape directly the courseof law. In the late 1950s and early’60s, with Herculean effort, heworked dauntlessly to ensure thatIndiana adopted the Uniform Com-mercial Code. His incisive andinsightful official comments and caseannotations to the individual provi-sions of the code breathed new


interpretative life and stability into anexceedingly complex area of the law.That said, the mysteries of the codestill provide great opportunities forbillable hours — and for that, theIndiana Bar owes Harry a great debtof gratitude.

When I telephoned Harry inJanuary 2002 to wish him New Yeargreetings, I told him of a new bookthat I was going to send him:Wittgenstein’s Poker. He repliedcheerfully that he had alreadyreceived it as a Christmas gift fromhis secretary and was having greatfun getting into it. I knew, then, that Ihad to read it myself. And, so, inpreparing these remarks, I did.

Briefly, the book recounts a 10-minute meeting on Oct. 25, 1946, ofthe Cambridge Moral Science Club inthe Gibbs building at King’s College,perhaps 20 feet from the famousKing’s College Chapel. LudwigWittgenstein was in the chair withsome 30 others in attendance, includ-ing Bertrand Russell. The meetingwas convened to hear a paper byrenowned philosopher Karl Popper,of the London School of Economics,titled, “Are There PhilosophicalProblems?” The discussion thatfollowed approached the topic ofphilosophy and the significance oflanguage as a linguistic entangle-ment. Popper argued that philosophyis meaningless, and Wittgensteinobjected and used a poker to jabconvulsively, punctuating his state-ment with it — much in the sameway Harry used to do with hispointer in my classes in CommercialLaw and Conflict of Laws. It wasoften surmised that Harry wasactually assuming fencing postures.

Almost immediately after theCambridge meeting, rumors spreadaround the world that the two greatphilosophers had come to blowsarmed with red-hot pokers. From allof this came Popper’s Poker Prin-ciple: Don’t threaten visiting lecturerswith pokers. As I read this book, Ithought how proud Wittgensteinwould have been had Harry been inattendance at this 1946 meeting andproffered examples of linguistic

entanglements or Pratterisms such as:“If it is four o’clock on the sun, whattime is it on earth?” or “If Picasso hadpainted a tomato, he would havepainted a Picasso tomato, hencedestroying its Platonic essence.”Finally, “Grapes are eaten one by one,especially if you pull them.”

As one grows older and assessesthe small contributions made duringa lifetime, a certain sense of pride inaccomplishment is held — a wonder-ful marriage, children, a fulfillingprofessional life, sustained success onthe stock market, an original andthoughtful piece of scholarship citedby the U.S. Supreme Court, a briefbefore the court, etc. What allows mea sense of personal fulfillment andpride is the establishment of theHarry Pratter Professorship. To myway of thinking, the significance ofthe professorship is so real because itmakes a statement of recognitionabout an individual and an institu-tion — for it embodies the veryessence of what has made this lawschool such a great one: namely,excellence in teaching, service, andscholarship. Long after all of us inthis courtroom are gone, the profes-sorship will remain as a symbol ofHarry’s immortality — an immortal-ity that is anchored in his profile asthe quintessential pedagogue, a greatthinker and intellect, a compassionateman, caring and informed colleague,loving husband and father, fun-loving grandfather, and of a humbleman who lived his entire personaland professional life according to thehighest intellectual and moralstandards with grace, humaneness,humor, and — most important — joiede vivre.

Professor Joseph L. Hoffmann, ininaugurating the Pratter Professor-ship, acknowledged Harry’s “intellec-tual curiosity” and his ability “to askquestions and make comments thatprovoke new and creative thought”— always “with a twinkle in hiseyes” that reflected “the lively andyouthful spirit of the man within.”Harry was a vital man who neverstopped exploring new ideas andnew knowledge. Indeed, I think

Harry’s whole character and disposi-tion showed unmistakably thevalidity of two propositions in theBook of Ecclesiastes: namely, that “aman’s wisdom illumines his face,”and a little folly is more weighty thanwisdom or wealth.

In sum, then, within the persona ofHarry Pratter we saw an incrediblykind and humble man in a professionwhere, all too often, the image ofpomposity and arrogance is oftenenjoyed publicly and not infrequentlypracticed. Harry stood as the greatcounter example for the effectivenessof kindness, the superior pleasures offriendliness and the deeper satisfac-tions of a life dedicated to careful andsustained thought. Harry was agentle man who enriched all whoknew him, for he not only maintaineda deep sense of duty toward the LawSchool and its greater community, thebar, the bench, and the university, buthe had a profound sympathy andtolerance for his fellow man. In Harrywas found a virtuous and trulyselfless man and, in the words ofWordsworth, a “Happy Warrior.”

Scripture reminds us that “there isan appointed time for everything,and a time for every affair under theheavens.” And so this afternoon, ithas been the appointed time to honora man who not only lived greatly inthe law but also lived greatly.

Smith is a professor at CatholicUniversity of America Law School inWashington, D.C.

• Six issues of the INDIANA ALUMNI

MAGAZINE per year• Access to the IU alumni online

directory and career center• Membership in the School of

Law—Bloomington alumniassociation and your local alumni club

• Discounts at the IU alumni online store

Show your pride in IU. Stayconnected. Join the IU Alumni

Association and receive:

Join online atwww.alumni.indiana.eduor call (800) 824-3044.


Around the School

Law School celebrates 160 yearsWhen the Law School turned 160 this past December, wemarked the occasion with birthday cake and the followingremarks by Professor John Applegate:

One hundred sixty years ago, on Dec. 5, 1842,Professor David McDonald, Indiana University’s

first professor of law, delivered his first lecture to thestudents of the newly established Law Department.

At the time, the Law School was a very different place.There were about 15 law students, they studied for twoyears, LSATs and GPAs weren’t even a glimmer inanyone’s eye, and the Law School held classes andhoused its library in a couple of rooms in various build-ings that now line the far sides of Dunn Woods.

The world, too, was vastly different — in some waysunrecognizable. Automobiles and telephones andStarbucks still lay in the future; computers hadn’t evenmade it into science fiction … in fact, science fiction didn’treally exist yet. The great legal revolutions of our nation— the Civil War Amendments, women’s suffrage, theNew Deal, the civil rights movement — were no part ofProfessor McDonald’s curriculum.

Over the years, the Law School went through manyvariations and many hills and valleys. But some thingshave remained the same. The university catalog for 1842included what today we would call a mission statement.It promised a law school that “shall be inferior to nonewest of the Mountains; one in which the student will be sotrained, that he shall never, in the attorney, forget thescholar, and the gentleman.”

Well, the “he” and the “gentleman” have certainlychanged, but I think that it is possible to distill two goalsthat can still inspire us today: a commitment to excellencein legal education and the practice of law, and a commit-ment to serving the public.

Through the peaks and valleys of the last 160 years, thecommitments to excellence and to public service haveremained firm — never more so than today. And as welook forward, let us do everything in our power to ensurethat these commitments remain vital for the next 160years of the School of Law.

Lecturers have IU ties

Professor Jost Delbrück will give this year’s SnyderLecture, an annual talk given alternately in

Bloomington and at Cambridge University in England.Delbrück, who earned an LLM from the Law School in1960, was awarded an honorary doctorate last year byIndiana University. A scholar of international law, he was

on the faculty at the University of Kiel, serving as directorof the Walther-Schücking-Institute for International Lawuntil his retirement last year, and he continues to teach atthe Law School each fall. His lecture will be published inthe Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies.

The annual Harris Lecture, a longstanding series thathas brought notable legal scholars to Bloomington overthe years, will be given on April 14 by another scholarwith Law School connections: Dirk Hartog, a professor oflegal and constitutional history at Princeton, who taughtat the School of Law from 1978 to 1983.

FCLJ celebrates 10 years at Schoolof Law—Bloomington

The Federal Communications Law Journal celebratesits 10th anniversary at the Law School this year. A

series of events, including panels and speakers oncommunications law topics, is planned to highlight thissuccessful partnership between the IU School of Law—Bloomington and the Federal Communications BarAssociation.

The IU School of Law competed for the FCLJ againstmany other law schools, and its decade-long presencehere has spurred the growth of an enriched curriculum incommunications, information, and intellectual propertythat includes courses in Internet Law, Electronic Commer-cial Law, Digital Copyright, Privacy, and many others.The Law School has hosted several visits by FederalCommunications Commission members, and the FCC hasin turn hosted students as summer interns. The LawSchool now boasts many alumni who practice in the area,both at the FCC and with law firms.

The oldest and largest communications law journal, theFCLJ is the seventh most-cited specialty law journal,including citation in judicial opinions nationwide, and hasmore than 4,000 subscribers in more than 125 countries,giving the it the second-largest readership of any specialtylaw journal.

Alumnus Richmond visits schoolas practitioner-in-residence

Each year, the Law School brings distinguishedlawyers to the school to participate in programs and

classes and meet with students. Jim Richmond, JD’69,brought his wealth of experience to share with us as lastfall’s practitioner-in-residence. A former U.S. attorney andspecial agent for the FBI and the criminal investigationdivision of the IRS, Richmond now practices withGreenberg Traurig in Chicago.


As a U.S. attorney, Richmond tried the first Medicarefraud case ever prosecuted and secured the conviction ofa former CIA employee for espionage. He served as thefirst special counsel for financial institution fraud to then-Deputy Attorney General William P. Barr and oversaw theprosecution for the failures of the 100 largest savings-and-loan institutions. He also represented a senior FBI officialcharged with obstruction of justice in the Ruby RidgeIncident.

During his visit, Richmond taught several first-yearcriminal law classes, gave an all-school lecture, and metindividually with dozens of students.

Cate named director ofcybersecurity center

Professor Fred Cate has been named director of theuniversity’s new Center for Applied Cybersecurity

Research. The center is unusual in that it will seek to drawon the expertise not only of faculty who teach andresearch in the area of cybersecurity, but also of officialsfrom the Office of the Vice President for InformationTechnology, University Information Technology Services,Risk Management, and the University Counsel’s Officewho actually have day-to-day responsibility for computerand network security issues and are regarded as beingamong the nation’s top cybersecurity practitioners.

The center will hold seminars, host guest speakers, andspearhead the university’s application for NationalScience Foundation funding in this area. Professor Catewill continue to teach at the Law School while serving asdirector.

Bose McKinney & Evanssponsors Moot Court

The Sherman Minton Moot Courtcompetition has received a boost from

Bose McKinney & Evans LLP. TheIndianapolis law firm has undertaken asix-year sponsorship of the competition,which typically involves one-half to two-thirds of the second-year class. Moot Courtnot only helps our students developpractical advocacy skills they will need aslawyers, but also introduces them to you— our alumni — who come as legalpractitioners and judges to serve ascompetition judges.

We are extremely pleased that BoseMcKinney & Evans recognizes the impor-tance to law students of the opportunity toparticipate in events such as the ShermanMoot Court competition. Their invaluablesupport will help sustain this thriving andpopular program.

Fromm takes on new role;Alumni Office reorganized

For more than 20 years, students at the Law Schoolhave known Leonard Fromm as their adviser,

counselor, and chief advocate. This year, he adds a newtitle — associate dean for students and alumni — and anew role as he devotes part of his time to our alumnioutreach efforts. Dean Fromm has already visited ourgraduates on both coasts, and this spring he is travelingthe state with Acting Dean Lauren Robel to visit withalumni here.

Fromm joins an expanded crew in the Alumni andDevelopment Office. Catherine Dyar has come to us afterpractice and a federal clerkship in Chicago to head up theFund for Excellence, the Law School’s annual givingcampaign. She received her undergraduate degree inEnglish and Russian from IU and her law degree fromUniversity of North Carolina.

Tim Hightower, a 2001 Law School graduate, came tothe Law School from a career in banking and business. Healso earned his undergraduate degree at IU. He is nowour director of development.

Brian Kearney joins us as our gift-planning officer fromdevelopment work here at IU.

In addition, Catherine Stafford, who earned her lawdegree at the University of Minnesota, divides her timebetween coordinating alumni events and seeking fundingthrough grants to help support many of the extracurricu-lar activities of the school. Last semester, Stafford taughtLegal Research and Writing.

Judge Marc Kellams of the Monroe County Circuit Court presides overhis final student trial at the School of Law. Kellams, who earned hisJD at the Law School in 1978, is calling it quits after teaching TrialProcess as an adjunct professor for 20 years.

Tyag

an M

iller


Faculty News

In October, Professor Alfred C.Aman presented a paper on“Globalization, Democracy, and

the WTO” to the section onadministrative law and regulatorypractice of the ABA. In November, atthe Law and Society Colloquium atNYU School of Law, he presented apaper on “The Future of Admin-istrative Law: Globalization andDemocracy Deficits in the UnitedStates.” Aman is on leave from theSchool of Law this year and is aFellow in the Law and Public AffairsProgram at Princeton University.Among other projects, he is workingon a book to be published by NYUpress, tentatively called Globalization,Democracy, and Law.

Professor John Applegate is actingassociate dean for academic affairsthis year. When he is not working onclass schedules or computer supportor the budget, he continues hisresearch on the precautionary prin-ciple, a foundation of European andinternational environmental law thatis just beginning to make an appear-ance in the United States. He partici-pated in a conference at William &Mary on the (then) upcoming worldsummit on the environment inJohannesburg and will publish hispaper, “The Taming of the Precau-tionary Principle,” in which he arguesthat the precautionary principle hasbeen systematically weakened sinceits first appearances in internationalenvironmental law. Applegate alsocontinues to serve on a NationalAcademy of Sciences committee onthe (very) long-term management ofradioactive wastes by the U.S.Department of Energy. Its report isexpected to be made public in early2003.

Professor Patrick Baude has beenof counsel to the Office of the Attor-ney General of Indiana. In November2001, he gave a paper on “TheIndiana Supreme Court and the Uses

of History” at the annual meeting ofthe Indiana Historical Society. Thisfall, as the Symposium Scholar for the2002 Indiana University South BendFreshman Honors Colloquium,Baude gave a series of talks tostudents, faculty, and the public oncivil liberties. Brenda Knowles,JD’77, a professor of business law atIU South Bend and director of thehonors program, described Baude’spresentations as “life-altering eventsfor the students ... that inspired themto take seriously their obligation tobecome active, responsible, enlight-ened citizens.”

In May of this year, ProfessorJeannine Bell presented a talk at theannual meeting of the Law andSociety Association. This year she isserving as chair of the Law andSociety Association’s standingcommittee on diversity.

Her article, “Deciding When HateIs a Crime: The First Amendment,Police Detectives, and the Identifica-tion of Hate Crime,” was publishedin Volume 4 of the Rutgers Race & theLaw Review (2002).

In July, her book Policing Hatred:Law Enforcement, Civil Rights and HateCrime was published as part of NYUPress’s Critical America Series. Thisfall, as part of a panel sponsored bythe American Constitution Society onhate crime and hate speech, she hasgiven talks at the law school inIndianapolis and at the School ofLaw—Bloomington about the investi-gation of hate crime.

In September of this year, Bell waschosen — one of only two nomineesfrom Indiana University — to submita proposal for the Carnegie ScholarsFellowship Program.

The case in which Professor CraigBradley wrote an amicus brief forPETA, Scheidler v. NOW, was arguedin the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 3.From Dec. 6 to Dec. 10, he attendedand chaired a session on Utilization

of Technology by InternationalOrganized Crime at the 16th Interna-tional Conference of the InternationalSociety for the Reform of CriminalLaw in Charleston, S.C. In December,his latest article appeared in the“Supreme Court Review” section ofTrial Magazine. It concerns the schooldrug testing case decided by theSupreme Court last term.

In June, Professor HannahBuxbaum’s article on “Conflicts ofEconomic Law” was published in theVirginia Journal of International Law. InJuly, she taught a seminar on interna-tional litigation at the University ofCologne, Germany, and she spoke onthe Enron matter before the GermanAmerican Lawyers Association. InSeptember, she served as reporter onthe harmonization of secured transac-tions law at the 75th AnniversaryCongress of UNIDROIT (the Institutefor the Unification of Private Interna-

tional Law) in Rome. The resultingarticle is forthcoming in the UniformLaw Review.

In October, Buxbaum gave a paperon cross-border collateral transactionsin investment securities at the Inter-

Buxbaum


national Economic Law Forum,Brooklyn Law School. Her review ofa book on the same topic is forthcom-ing in the American Journal of Com-parative Law. She wrote an article onthe application of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct to foreign accounting firms,which will appear in a German lawjournal. She is also expecting publica-tion shortly in the Texas InternationalLaw Journal of an article on discoveryof evidence abroad, written inconnection with a symposium at theUT law school last spring on interna-tional litigation.

Buxbaum was promoted fromassociate to full professor this fall.

Professor Fred Cate continues hiswork on privacy and other informa-tion law issues. He testified before theSenate Banking, Housing, and UrbanAffairs Committee and traveled toBeijing as a guest of the Chinese StateCouncil to advise the government onthe privacy implications of a draft ofthat country’s first credit reportinglaw. He has published numerousarticles, including “Principles forProtecting Privacy” in the CatoJournal; “The Commodification ofInformation and the Control ofExpression” in Amicus Curiae, theofficial journal of the Institute forAdvanced Legal Studies at theUniversity of London; and “The‘CNN Effect’ Is Far from Clear-Cut”in the United Nation’s HumanitarianAffairs Review. He completed work onone forthcoming book chapter:“Privacy,” in Who Rules the Net?Essays in Internet Governance andJurisdiction; two articles: “The Impactof Opt-in Privacy Rules on RetailCredit Markets: A Case Study ofMBNA” in the Duke Law Journal (withMichael E. Staten) and “Constitu-tional Issues in Information Privacy”in the Michigan Technology & Telecom-munications Law Review (with RobertLitan); and a monograph for TheFreedom Forum: The Privacy Problem:A Broader View of Information Privacyand the Costs and Consequences ofProtecting It. He also authored anamicus brief for the Coalition onSensible Public Records Access insupport of petitioner’s certiorari

petition to the U.S. Supreme Court inTrans Union LLC v. Federal TradeCommission.

Cate was appointed a member ofMicrosoft’s new Privacy AdvisoryBoard, and he continues as a visitingscholar at the American EnterpriseInstitute, a senior policy adviser tothe Hunton & Williams Center forInformation Policy Leadership, anacademic adviser to the AmericanLegislative Exchange Council, amember of the Experian ConsumerAdvisory Council, and a senator andfellow of Phi Beta Kappa. He alsochairs the Indiana UniversityBloomington Strategic PlanningCommittee.

In addition, he has been named asdirector of Indiana University’s newCenter for Applied CybersecurityResearch (see page 21).

Professor Ken Dau-Schmidtrecently published two casebookswith West Publishing Co.: LegalProtection of Individual Employees withMatthew Finkin, Alvin Goldman, andClyde Summers; and Labor andEmployment Law: Cases and Materialswith Robert Rabin, Eileen Silverstein,and George Schatzki. He also wasinvited to write the entry on law andeconomics for Herbert Kritzer’streatise Legal Systems of the World: aPolitical, Social and Cultural Encyclope-dia and is currently writing an essaywith Professor Jeff Stake, for theJournal of Legal Education on teachingmethods, titled “Teaching in a LargerSocial Context: Using Simulations toDemonstrate Socioeconomic Prin-

ciples and Their Relevance to Law.”Dau-Schmidt is currently chair of

the Association of American LawSchool’s section on law andsocioeconomics and will chair thatsection’s all-day session at theAssociation’s annual meeting Jan. 3–5in Washington, D.C. He also serves asthe treasurer for the Labor LawGroup and is involved in planningtheir triannual meeting this summerin Toronto to discuss labor andemployment law curriculum and casebooks.

Dau-Schmidt taught during thepast year at Friedrich-Alexander-Universität in Erlangen, Germany,and Université Panthéon-Assas (ParisII) in Paris.

Professor Roger Dworkin’s article“Cases and Guidelines in Genetics”was published recently in 10 Ann.Rev. of Law and Ethics 21 (2002). Hecontinues to serve on the IndianaState Board of Health GeneticsAdvisory Committee and on theBloomington Hospital Ethics Com-mittee. Last summer he taught aweeklong course on Law and Bio-medical Advance for the IndianaGraduate Program for Judges. Thisspring he taught an Introduction toAmerican Tort Law for three weeks atUniversité Panthéon-Assas (Paris II)in Paris, and next summer he willteach American Bioethics Law for fiveweeks at Friedrich-Alexander-Universität in Erlangen, Germany.

Professor Robert Fischman, aLouis F. Niezer Faculty Fellow, hasenjoyed his recent return after a yearand a half away. A sabbatical at YaleLaw School provided a stimulatingsetting in which to consider a varietyof issues related to cooperativefederalism and the meaning of publicland organic legislation. Visitingteaching stints at Vermont LawSchool and Lewis and Clark’s North-western School of Law allowed himto examine two of the top environ-mental law programs close up.Fischman plans to continue introduc-ing new features to our program inenvironmental law. For instance,beginning this year, all SPEA-Lawjoint degree students focusing on


environmental law now participate ina biweekly workshop that studies aset of related topics from an interdis-ciplinary perspective. This year, theworkshop is addressing the environ-mental issues of the Ohio River basin.

Fischman has published fourscholarly articles this year: “Stum-bling to Johannesburg: The UnitedStates’ Haphazard Progress TowardSustainable Forestry Law” in theEnvironmental Law Reporter; “ALesson for Conservation from Pollu-tion Control Law: CooperativeFederalism for Recovery Under theEndangered Species Act” in theColumbia Journal of Environmental Law;“Endangered Species Information:Access and Control” in a symposiumissue of the Washburn Law Journal;and “The EPA’s NEPA Duties andEcosystem Services” in the StanfordEnvironmental Law Journal. His recentpublications also include a bookchapter on recent developments inforestry law.

Dean Leonard Fromm directed the2002 University of San Diego Sum-

mer Program atTrinity College inDublin, Ireland,from July 1 toAug. 3. Lawstudents were ableto take courses inComparative CivilLiberties, Com-parative CriminalJustice, andInternationalHuman Rights; tointeract with Irishlawyers; and tovisit many legaland cultural sites.Fifteen Indianastudents partici-pated in thisprogram, with atotal of 50Bloomingtonstudents attendingthe other USDprograms, held inOxford, London,Paris, Barcelona,Florence, and

Moscow. Dean Fromm also partici-pated in the Women and Law Confer-ence in Indianapolis in October. Hisworkshop dealt with gender issues inthe negotiations process.

Professor Luis Fuentes-Rohwer’sarticle “Baker’s Promise, EqualProtection, and the Modern Redis-tricting Revolution: A Plea for Ratio-nality” was published in Vol. 80 ofthe North Carolina Law Review lastsummer. “Doing Our Politics inCourt: Gerrymandering, ‘Fair Repre-sentation,’ and an Exegesis into theJudicial Role” is forthcoming in Vol.78 of the Notre Dame Law Review.

Fuentes-Rohwer is currentlyworking on an analysis of the VotingRights Act, particularly the propercongressional action when the actcomes for reauthorization in 2007; therole of Latino politics in the innerworkings of the act, especially at thelocal level; and a critical examinationof the concept of judicial indepen-dence.

In October, he was the moderatorfor a panel discussion at the Univer-

sity of Michigan, “Bakke Goes to LawSchool: Affirmative Action and theUniversity of Michigan Law SchoolLitigation.” In November, he made apresentation to the Law Schoolfaculty on the rise of judicial indepen-dence in the American context.

Since January 2000, Professor AnnGellis has had a half-time appoint-ment in Research and the UniversityGraduate School as associate dean forresearch compliance. There arenumerous federal regulations thatapply to the conduct of research, suchas the use of human participants andanimals in research. In her adminis-trative role, the various facultycommittees that oversee compliancewith these regulations report to heroffice. She also serves as the researchintegrity officer for the campus withrespect to issues of research miscon-duct. In the past year, most of hertime has been devoted to putting intoplace a new set of policies andprocedures for reporting of conflictsof interest by faculty, and, perhapsmost time consuming, dealing withthe bioterrorism legislation andregulations enacted in the aftermathof 9/11.

Professor Charles Geyh’s recentwriting and service has focused onissues of judicial independence andaccountability. In the past year, he hascontributed chapters to two books:Judicial Independence at the Crossroadsand Improving the Administration ofJustice. He has published a lawreview article on public financing ofjudicial elections and has had twomore accepted for publication: one onthe history of judicial independencein the federal courts and the other, acritique of judicial elections. He hasalso finished drafting the report ofthe ABA Commission on PublicFinancing of Judicial Campaigns andhas begun work as reporter to theABA Commission on the 21st-Century Judiciary. He has given talks,presented papers, or led discussionson judicial selection, independence,accountability, and administration inWashington, D.C.; Indianapolis;Detroit; Raleigh, N.C.; Portland, Ore.;Philadelphia; and Austin, Texas.

Fuentes-Rohwer

Ann

ales

e Po

orm

an


In spring 2002, Professor RobertHeidt published two pieces aboutlaw school admissions policies in thenew political science journal theIndiana Policy Review. He also taughtfor several weeks in April at theESADE law and business school inBarcelona on one of the IU LawSchool’s many exchange programs.His subjects were law and economicsand international antitrust, and hewas grateful his students spokeEnglish. Later in the spring andsummer, he finished and had ac-cepted for publication a major tortsarticle he had been working on forsome time, titled “The Avid Sports-man and the Scope for Self-Protec-tion: Why Exculpatory ClausesShould be Enforced.”

The National Conference ofCommissioners on Uniform StateLaws has appointed Professor SarahJane Hughes the reporter for itsnewly formed study committee oncheck truncation. The committee,chaired by Professor James J. White ofthe University of Michigan LawSchool, will focus on harmonizingfederal check truncation initiativeswith other payments law, includingthe Uniform Commercial Code. Thisappointment follows ProfessorHughes’s work on the 2002 amend-ments to Uniform Commercial CodeArticles 3 and 4, approved by theAmerican Law Institute and theconference, as the American BarAssociation’s representative to theDrafting Committee on the MoneyServices Act, and a member of theadvisory task force on electronicpayments issues to the MoneyServices Act Drafting Committee.

Hughes continues to work onother consumer financial servicesissues, including the Fair CreditReporting Act and the financialprivacy provisions of the 1999Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. As part ofthis work, Professor Hughes advisedthe Indiana Legislature on its recentexemption from “public records”treatment of certain non-bank finan-cial services records and the Tennes-see Legislature on the privacy impli-cations of fingerprinting in consumer

financial transac-tions.

Also, ProfessorHughes providedcomments to theTreasury Depart-ment on regula-tions pertaining tothe financialservices industryand the USAPatriot Act andparticipated in aclosed session forgovernment anti-terrorism agencieson detecting theuse by terrorists ofvarious financialservices domesti-cally and interna-tionally. In connec-tion with her workon the deterrenceof money launder-ing, Hughescontinues to assistbank regulatoryefforts to improvedetection and reporting of suspectedmoney laundering.

Professor Dawn Johnsen’s recentwork has focused on the implications,especially for the protection ofindividual rights, of recent SupremeCourt decisions that have narrowedCongress’s authority to enact laws toenforce the guarantees of the 14thAmendment and pursuant to theCommerce Clause. She addressedvarious aspects of congressionalpower and federalism in severaltalks, including the 2002 JudicialConference of the Fifth Circuit, the“National Strategy Conference toStop the Supreme Court’s Rollback ofCivil Rights” at Columbia LawSchool, the Equal Justice Societyinaugural conference on “The Assaultof Federalism on Civil Rights” atHarvard Law School, and a confer-ence she helped organize at DukeLaw School on “Are There Progres-sive and Conservative Visions of theLaw?” She currently is completingtwo law review articles on theseissues. She also has published an

article in the Washington Monthlymagazine and provided advice to theProject on Federalism of the NOWLegal Defense and Education Fund.

Professor Julia Lamber’s article on“Intercollegiate Athletics: The Pro-gram Expansion Standard UnderTitle IX’s Policy Interpretation” isforthcoming in 12 Southern CaliforniaReview of Law and Women’s Studies, fall2002.

Professor Aviva Orenstein is avisiting professor at the CardozoSchool of Law in New York. She gavea lecture at the AALS EvidenceConference on how to teach rapeshield and is currently working on apiece about new evidence rules thatallow evidence of prior sexualmisconduct by the accused in crimi-nal sexual cases, tentatively called“Deviance, Due Process, and theFalse Promise of Rule 403.”

She writes that she misses Indianaa lot, although she is enjoying thealternative/independent movie scenein New York with two such theatersjust a block from the law school and

Johnsen

Ann

ales

e Po

orm

an


In memoriam: John Paul Frankby Colleen Pauwels

John Paul Frank, a member of the faculty at the IU School of Lawfrom 1945 to 1949, died at the age of 84 in Phoenix, Ariz., on Sept.7, 2002. He had come to IU from the U.S. Interior Department in

the same year as Ralph Fuchs (IU law professor 1945–85). Frank leftIU to teach at Yale Law School, but health issues drew him to Phoenix,where he joined the law firm of Lewis & Roca in 1954.

During his career, John Frank helped shape the law in many of thecountry’s most prominent cases. While at IU, Frank and others fromour law school were members of the Committee of Law TeachersAgainst Segregation in Legal Education, a group formed to expressthe conviction of law professors that segregation was unconstitutional.Together with a few others from the group, Frank wrote an amicusbrief in Sweatt v. Painter, a challenge to segregation at the University ofTexas Law School. This case, decided in 1950 by the Supreme Court,held the practice unconstitutional. The case laid part of the legalground work for the arguments used in the Brown case four yearslater.

During his time at Yale, Frank advised Thurgood Marshall, then ofthe NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc., who arguedthe Brown v. Board of Education case and later joined the SupremeCourt.

Perhaps John Frank’s most famous case was Miranda v. Arizona.Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix in 1963 on armed robbery,kidnapping, and rape charges. He signed a confession while incustody and was convicted, but in 1966 the Supreme Court threw outthe conviction in the landmark ruling against self-incrimination thatled to the familiar refrain: “You have the right to remain silent. …”

In other prominent cases, Frank defended Judge Clement F.Haynsworth Jr. during his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court andhe served as an adviser to Anita F. Hill, whose accusations of sexualharassment threatened the nomination of Justice Clarence Thomas.

Through the years, John Frank acted as a mentor to many youngattorneys and worked to open the legal profession to women andminorities. In addition, he was the author of 11 books, including abiography of Justice Hugo L. Black, for whom he had been a clerk,and the1961 classic, Lincoln as a Lawyer.

Although at IU only a short time, many of Frank’s former studentshave spoken of his influence on their careers. Some of IU’s lawstudents from that time who rose to prominence include U.S. 7thCircuit Senior Judge Jesse Eschbach, JD’49, former Indiana SenatorVance Hartke, JD’48, Judge Juanita Kidd Stout, JD’48, the first AfricanAmerican women to be appointed to a state supreme court, and ourown Emeritus Professor of Law Val Nolan Jr., JD’49.

great pastrami available within thesame distance.

Professor Bill Popkin wrote anarticle for an online publicationcommenting on Eskridge’s seminalarticle “Dynamic Statutory Interpre-tation.” His comment is titled “The

Dynamic Judicial Opinion.”Four publications by Professor

Gene Shreve have appeared in 2002:an article on “Fact, Value, and Actionin Nonconceptual Jurisprudence” in50 Am. J. of Comparative L. 2201;“Procedure, Civil: Appeals, Pretrial,

Trial” in The Oxford Companion toAmerican Law, Hall ed.; “ConflictsAltruism” in Law and Justice in aMultistate World: Essays in Honor ofArthur T. Von Mehren, Nafzieger andSymeonides eds.; and , with P.Ravenhansen, a treatise, Understand-ing Civil Procedure, Matthew BenderPub. Co. (3rd ed.).

David Snyder joined the facultythis year as professor of law. Hecurrently serves as chair of the ABAUniform Commercial Code Subcom-mittee on Article 1, and he led severalsessions and educational programs atthe annual meeting of the ABA andthe spring meeting of the businesslaw section. He was elected to theAmerican Law Institute in the fall,partly in recognition of his work onthe UCC. He also participated in acolloquium in Tucson, Ariz., on theAmerican Codification Debate. Hisnext law review article, “PrivateLawmaking,” will appear this springin the Ohio State Law Journal. InJanuary, Snyder will address thesection on contracts of the Associa-tion of American Law Schools, onwhose executive board he currentlyserves. The University of Toledo LawReview will publish his talk, “Closingthe Deal in Contracts: IntroducingTransactional Skills in the First Year,”together with others’ presentations,as part of a Contract Law Sympo-sium.

Professor Jeff Stake’s paper“Making the Grade: Some Principlesof Comparative Grading” is forth-coming in the Journal of Legal Educa-tion. In recent months he has alsomade a number of presentations atworkshops and conferences, includ-ing “Property Through an Evolution-ary Looking Glass” at the SloanInterdisciplinary Workshop atGeorgetown University Law Center;“Adverse Possession and Territorial-ity” at the SEAL Fifth Annual Schol-arship Conference at VanderbiltUniversity Law School; “ResidentialSubdivision Control: Getting Votersto Reveal Their Preferences” at theMidwest Law and Economics Asso-ciation Second Annual Meeting, heldat the University of Illinois College of


Law; “Topics in Property” for aconference at the Gruter Institute forLaw and Behavioral Research on“Investigating Justice: ApplyingEvolutionary Biology to Right andWrong in the Law”; and “An Evolu-tionary Angle on Prior Possession” atthe SEAL Annual Scholarship Confer-ence at Florida State UniversityCollege of Law.

A new book by Professor DavidWilliams, The Mythic Meanings of theSecond Amendment: Taming PoliticalViolence in a Constitutional Republic,was published by Yale UniversityPress in early 2003. In the book,Williams argues that from the begin-ning the Second Amendment hasbeen based on mythic stories aboutAmerican democracy, identity, andvalues. The Framers’ myth, about aunited people using political violenceonly to overthrow a corrupt govern-ment bent on subverting the commongood, has been supplanted by themodern myth that says social dis-unity is inevitable, and “good”Americans need to control “bad”Americans through force of arms.

In addition, Professor Williams hasbegun work on another book, aboutthe constitutional status of secession.He will be giving the IU Distin-guished Faculty Research Lecture thisyear and will be a Fellow at WolfsonCollege of Cambridge University andof the European University Institutein Florence.

Professor David Snyder is finishing his first year at the School of Law.

Ann

ales

e Po

orm

an

The Indiana University Alumni Association’sonline career center, launched on May 1, 2002,offers job searches, career guidance, andresearch services. It pulls job listings from morethan 100,000 company job sites and providesmore than 4 million job postings each day.

The site is at www.indiana.edu/~alumni/career/ and isavailable exclusively to members of the IU Alumni Association.Membership is open to all alumni and friends of IU. “For peoplelooking for a job or considering a career change, the online careercenter in itself is worth the membership cost,” says Ken Beckley,IUAA president and CEO.

The IUAA serves the university and itsmore than 440,000 living graduates throughprograms, services, and communications.One of the nation’s largest alumni organi-zations, the IUAA strives to keepalumni engaged with their almamater. For information, visitwww.alumni.indiana.edu or call(800) 824-3044.

job hunting?Visit the IU alumnionline career center.


Alumni in the News

Academy of Law Alumni Fellows inducts five

Bumbleburg

The Academy of Law Alumni Fellows,founded in 1985, pays tribute to alumniwho are leaders in the profession. To benamed to the academy is the highestdistinction that can be bestowed onalumni by the School of Law. DuringAlumni Weekend in October, five newmembers were inducted into theacademy, bringing the total number offellows to 78.

Joseph T. BumbleburgJoseph T. Bumbleburg is a seniormember and president of the lawfirm Ball Eggleston BumbleburgMcBride Walkey & Stapleton inLafayette, Ind.

He graduated cum laude from theUniversity of Notre Dame in 1958and earned his JD from IU in 1961.After graduation, he spent three yearsin the Judge Advocate General’sCorps of the U.S. Army beforereturning home to Lafayette to jointhe law firm he has been with eversince. Initially, he practiced trial law,but over the years, his practice hasshifted from primarily litigation toland-use and zoning. His advice andcounsel is commonly sought formajor real estate developments inTippecanoe County, and he has alsoestablished a successful mediationpractice — testament to his reputa-tion for both thoroughness andfairness among local lawyers. “Law-yers use his skills,” says a letter ofnomination to the academy, “andregard him as both friend and worthyopponent.”

Bumbleburg is deeply committedto Tippecanoe County and Lafayette,where he was born and where hischildren and grandchildren live. In

his professional capacity, he hasdevoted himself to the service of hiscommunity, and he has also beenactive throughout his life in a widerange of volunteer organizations.

To take just one example of theseriousness of his commitment to“volunteerism,” he first became avolunteer for the American Red Crossat the age of 15, was chosen aspresident of the Tippecanoe CountyJunior Red Cross in 1958, and hasbeen a member of the board of theTippecanoe County Chapter since1965, serving one term as secretaryand four as chair. He was chair of theSouth Central Indiana DivisionCouncil from 1971 to 1975 and was amember of the national board ofgovernors from 1975 to 1981. He hasserved at different times on a numberof committees and advisory councils,and in 1992 he received the HarrimanAward for Distinguished VolunteerService, the highest award the RedCross gives for volunteer service.

He has also been very active in theAmerican Legion and was namedLegionnaire of the Year for AmericanLegion Post 11 in 1982. In 1986, hereceived the legion’s Skelton Awardfor his contributions to youth base-ball. He has served on the board ofdirectors for the United Way, includ-ing terms as vice president andpresident, and in 1978 received thatorganization’s Gold Award. He hasalso served on the Lafayette PoliceCivil Service Commission and assecretary for the Tippecanoe CountySheriff’s Merit Board.

Since 1992, he has been a memberof the state board of trustees forIndiana Vocational and TechnicalCollege; he is currently chair of the

budget committee, a member of theexecutive committee, and board vicechair.

His commitment and service toboth his profession and his commu-nity are exemplary, a model forstudents and young lawyers tofollow, and we are delighted towelcome him to the academy.

Laura J. CooperLaura J. Cooper is a professor of lawat the University of Minnesota.

She was born and raised in Califor-nia, where she graduated summa cumlaude from the University of SouthernCalifornia. At the IU School of Law,she served as executive editor of theIndiana Law Journal, taught as anassociate instructor, and graduatedsumma cum laude in 1974. Followinggraduation, she clerked for the lateJohn S. Hastings, a distinguished IUgraduate, at the U.S. Court of Ap-


peals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago.In 1975, Professor Cooper joined

the faculty of the University ofMinnesota Law School. Her coursesthere include Civil Procedure,Conflicts, Labor Law, and AlternativeDispute Resolution in the Workplace.She has also taught at UppsalaUniversity in Sweden. She haswritten articles in the areas of welfarelaw, conflicts, labor law, and laborarbitration and is the co-author ofthree books on workplace disputeresolution.

She currently serves as chair of theLabor Law Group, an internationalorganization of scholars who collec-tively author textbooks on labor andemployment law. She has previouslyserved as chair or president of anumber of other professional organi-zations, including the Section onLabor Relations and EmploymentLaw of the Association of AmericanLaw Schools and the MinnesotaChapter of the Society of Profession-als in Dispute Resolution.

She works as a mediator andarbitrator in disputes betweenemployers and unions and is amember of the National Academy ofArbitrators.

Professor Cooper was the firstwoman to receive tenure on the lawfaculty of the University of Minne-sota. She has devoted considerabletime over the years to issues ofwomen and the law. She worked formore than decade on implementationof a class action consent decreeinvolving women university facultyand participated in studies of genderfairness in the courts for the Minne-sota Supreme Court and the U.S.Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit.She prepared an oral history of thefirst woman to serve as a justice ofthe Minnesota Supreme Court.

She has been a member of theboard of directors of the Legal AidSociety of Minneapolis for 23 yearsand has served as its president aswell as on the boards of a regionalservices organization and a legalservice fund-raising organization. Shehas also been a member of the board

of trustees and president of thecongregation for the First UniversalistChurch of Minneapolis.

Frederick F. EichhornFrederick F. Eichhorn is currentlypresident of the board of trustees atIndiana University. From 1977 to1996, he was senior partner for thelaw firm Eichhorn Eichhorn & Linkand its predecessor firm, where hefirst became partner in 1963.

He earned a bachelor’s degree inbusiness from IU in 1952 beforeenlisting in the U.S. Air Force. Afterthe end of the Korean War in 1954,Eichhorn enrolled in the IU School ofLaw, where he was selected as one of10 Krannert Fellows, elected presi-dent of the Law Club, and served as amember of Phi Delta Phi. He gradu-ated in 1957 and joined his father’slaw firm, Gavit and Eichhorn, inGary, Ind., where he worked until1963.

From 1977 to 1993, he was generalcounsel for Northern Indiana PublicService Co. and The Times(Hammond, Ind.). A member of theIndiana University board of trusteessince 1990, he was elected presidentfor 2002–03.

His many contributions to the stateof Indiana have earned him recogni-tion as a Sagamore of the Wabash

(1993) and as a Distinguished Hoosier(1996). He also received the PlannedParenthood of Northwest/NortheastIndiana Community Service Awardand the Indiana State BarAssociation’s Centennial ServiceAward in 1996, and the IndianaUniversity Northwest Chancellor’sMedallion in 1997. In 2000 he wasinducted into the Steel City Hall ofFame. He is listed in Who’s Who inAmerica, Who’s Who in American Law,and Best Lawyers of America.

He has served as commissioner onthe National Conference of Commis-sioners on Uniform State Law. In1985–86, he was president of theIndiana State Bar Association. He hasalso served as chair and member ofthe board of directors of the North-west Indiana Forum, and since 1989has chaired the Gary RegionalAirport Task Force. He served on theGary Housing Authority from 1972 to1975, the Gary Police Civil ServiceCommission from 1975 to 1982, andwas chair of the Lake County Com-munity Development Committee in1974. He has also served on the boardof directors for the Northwest Indi-ana Symphony.

Eichhorn is an outstanding lawyerand has given generously of his timeto serve his home state of Indiana. Weare proud to count him among ourgraduates.

Cooper Eichhorn


Rufus W. McKinneyRufus W. McKinney is anindependent energy and publicpolicy consultant.

Born in Arkansas, he graduatedsumma cum laude from the Universityof Arkansas at Pine Bluff with adegree in business administration in1953. That fall, he enrolled in theSchool of Law, and the next year hewas invited to join the staff of theIndiana Law Journal. When he becamenote editor during his third year,McKinney became the first AfricanAmerican to serve on the journal’seditorial board.

After graduating from law school,McKinney accepted a position withthe Solicitor’s Office of the U.S.Department of Labor, where heworked for 13 years before joining theSouthern California Gas Co. By 1975,he had risen to vice president ofgovernmental affairs, heading theWashington, D.C., office that watchedover the company’s legislativeconcerns.

In 1979, McKinney and a smallgroup of African Americans associ-ated with energy companies andcauses formed an organization calledthe American Association of Blacks inEnergy. Their intent was to ensure theinput of African Americans into thedevelopment of energy policy andrelated issues; to encourage theappointment of African Americans tohigh-level posts in non-traditionalareas of government; to heightenawareness within black organizationsand the public as a whole of impor-tant energy issues; and to encourageAfrican American students to con-sider careers in energy-related fields.McKinney was vice chair of theorganization in 1977 and 1978, andchair in 1980 and 1981. He has servedon its board of directors for morethan 20 years.

During the energy crisis of the1970s, McKinney helped draft theNAACP Energy Statement presentedto the Carter administration. He wasalso active in other energy-relatedorganizations, including the PacificCoast Gas Association.

In 1992, McKinney retired from theSouthern California Gas Co. Hecontinues to work as an independentconsultant. In 1998, he was appointedby Gov. Parris Glendening to a six-year term on the Maryland Commis-sion of Human Relations, whichadministers and enforces Maryland’santi-discrimination statute andinvestigates complaints of discrimi-nation in state government agencies.

An outstanding legal professionaland active civic leader, McKinney hasnot only had a distinguished career,but he has also sought to advance thevoices of African Americans and theunderrepresented, sometimes inunexpected ways. His courage andprofessionalism reflect honor on theSchool of Law and on our sharedprofession.

Ron S. ReinsteinRon S. Reinstein is currently a familycourt judge on the Maricopa CountySuperior Court in Phoenix, Ariz.

He graduated from IndianaUniversity in 1970 with a bachelor’sdegree in political science, and heearned his JD from the School of Lawin 1973. From 1974 to 1985, he was aMaricopa County deputy attorney,serving as supervisor of the CriminalTrial Unit and as head of the SexCrimes Unit. He was appointed to thebench in 1985, served as the presiding

criminal judge from 1990 to 1998, andwas the associate presiding judge ofthe court from 1998 to 2000. Wellknown and highly regarded through-out the Arizona legal community,Reinstein has earned a nationalreputation for his expertise on sexoffenders and DNA evidence andwas recognized by then-AttorneyGeneral Janet Reno for his work aschair of the Post-Conviction IssuesCommittee of the National DNACommission.

In 1998, Reinstein was named bythe State Bar of Arizona as therecipient of the James A. WalshAward for the outstanding judge inthe state of Arizona. In 1999, he wasselected as the first recipient of theJudicial Award of Excellence, givenby the Public Lawyers Section of theArizona Bar. In 2001, he received theAttorney General’s Award as theOutstanding Sexual Assault JudicialProfessional. He had also previouslyreceived the Henry Stevens Out-standing Judge Award from theMaricopa County Bar Association, theArizona Attorney General’s Distin-guished Service Award, the Society ofProfessional Journalists’ SunshineAward (for his efforts to keep thegovernment’s business open beforethe public), and the Lecturer of MeritAward from the National College ofDistrict Attorneys. He has alsoreceived awards from the Governor’s

McKinney Reinstein


Children’s Justice Task Force, theMaricopa County Victim-WitnessProgram, Parents of MurderedChildren, and the Maricopa CountyAdult Probation Office.

Reinstein serves as a member ofthe National Commission on theFuture of DNA Evidence, whosePost-Conviction Issues Committee hechairs; the National Advisory Boardof the Justice Department Center forSex Offender Management; theAdvisory Board of the Office forVictims of Crime-National Center forState Courts “Victims of Crime in theCriminal Justice System” project; andthe Governor’s Children’s JusticeTask Force.

He has also served on the facultyof a number of professional organiza-tions such as the National College ofDistrict Attorneys; the NationalJuvenile and Family Court JudgesCollege; the National Center for theInvestigation and Prosecution ofChild Abuse; the National Institute ofJustice; and the National Institute forTrial Advocacy.

Starting from scratch when hearrived as a stranger in Arizona aftergraduation, Reinstein has establishedhimself as a fine lawyer and thehighest-rated judge of the ArizonaSuperior Court. But just as important,in the words of one of his nominators,“Ron has given much of himself toour community both on and off thebench.”

Call for Nominations!

Nomination Formfor the

Academy of Law Alumni Fellowsand the

Distinguished Service Award

Please submit this form along with your separate statement of supportand pertinent biographical information for the nominee.

Nominations must be received byMay 1, 2003

Name of Nominee ________________________________ Class Year _____

Home Address ___________________________________________________

City_____________________________ State ______ Zip ______________

Career Field of Nominee___________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

Name of Nominee’s Law Firm/Business_____________________________

________________________________________________________________

Address _________________________________________________________

City_____________________________ State ______ Zip ______________

Name of Nominator ______________________________________________

Address _________________________________________________________

City_____________________________ State ______ Zip ______________

Relationship to Nominee __________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

✄

Send form by May 1, 2003, toIndiana University School of LawDevelopment and Alumni Relations Office211 South Indiana AvenueBloomington, Indiana 47405

Check out the School ofLaw online directoryLooking for former classmates?Need to know the businessaddress of a fellow graduate tonominate her for the Academyof Law Alumni Fellows? Use theLaw School’s online directory tofind them! Access to thedirectory requires a user nameand password. Send e-mail [email protected] or call(812) 855-9700.www.law.indiana.edu/alumni/directory/index.shtml


Class Notes

Before 1960Lee H. Hamilton, JD’56, LLD’91,former Indiana congressman andcurrent director of the WoodrowWilson International Center forScholars in Washington, D.C., wrotean introduction to the book Energy:Science, Policy, and the Pursuit ofSustainability. The book explainscurrent issues and problemssurrounding energy and theenvironment.

Theodore W. Hirsch, BA’54, JD’57,a lawyer with Ballard Spahr Andrews& Ingersoll in Baltimore, was namedamong The Best Lawyers in America2003–04. He is a member of the firm’sbusiness and finance department.

G. Weldon Johnson, BS’52, JD’57,was selected for inclusion in the2003–04 edition of The Best Lawyers inAmerica. He has a private law practicein Indianapolis.

1960sCarl VerBeek, JD’62, of counsel withthe labor and employment practicegroup for Varnum Riddering Schmidt& Howlett, Grand Rapids, Mich., isthe recipient of the OutstandingVolunteer Award presented by theAssociation of Fund-raisingProfessionals. VerBeek has beenactive raising money for WesternTheological Seminary and theAmerican Heart Association, hasserved for 16 years on the HopeCollege board, and is former chairand a current member of the HollandHome board of directors.

Judith Dwyer, LLB’63, is a judgeon the Daviess Superior Court inWashington, Ind. She was chosen bythe Daviess County RepublicanWomen as their 2002 Tribute toWomen honoree.

Robert P. Kassing, BS’59, JD’64, amanaging partner for Bose McKinney& Evans in Indianapolis, was selectedfor inclusion in the 2003–04 edition of

The Best Lawyers in America. He livesin Indianapolis.

David A. Butcher, JD’66, ofIndianapolis, was selected for inclu-sion in the 2003–04 edition of The BestLawyers in America. He is an attorneywith Bose McKinney & Evans inIndianapolis.

Darrel K. Peckinpaugh, LLB’66, ismaster commissioner for the Dela-ware County Circuit Court system.He lives in Muncie, Ind.

Frederick S. Meessen, BA’61,JD’67, has a private law practice inLafayette, Ind.

Richard E. Woosnam, BS’64, JD’67,MBA’68, president of Innovest GroupInc., was elected to the IU Foundationboard of directors. He lives in Phila-delphia.

Richard T. Payne, BA’66, JD’69,retired at the beginning of 2003 afterserving as judge of Hancock SuperiorCourt No. 1 for 31years. He will serveas a senior judge forthe Indiana SupremeCourt’s JudicialTechnology andAutomation Com-mittee. He lives inGreenfield, Ind.

1970sJohn David Craig,JD’70, ofIndianapolis, hasbeen named to theboard of directors ofColumbineRedemption, aneducation andinterventionprogram designed toreduce violence.

FormerBloomington mayorand congressmanFrank McCloskey,BA’68, JD’71, hasbeen named the

Kosovo director of the NationalDemocratic Institute.

Milton R. Stewart, BA’68, JD’71, apartner with Davis Wright TremaineLLC, Portland, Ore., was elected tothe IU Foundation board of directors.He is also a member of the IU Schoolof Law Board of Visitors and the IUFoundation’s Arbutus Society.

David P. Murphy, BA’69, JD’72,has been in private practice inGreenfield since 1972. He is a mem-ber of the Greenfield–Central Schoolboard and retired from the U.S. ArmyReserve at the rank of colonel in 2001.He lives in Greenfield, Ind.

Brent Welke, JD’72, has retiredfrom the general practice of law. He iscurrently pursuing a master’s degreeat the Regent University School ofDivinity in Virginia Beach, Va.

Terry A. Mumford, JD’73, recentlywas named a Sagamore of the

Barristers Ball

Frank Motley and Val Houghton

This year’s annual BLSA Barristers Ball wasdedicated to former dean of admissions FrankMotley. The Class of 2003 is the last of the“Motley Crew” he recruited to the school. Lookthrough class notes for more photos of guests.

Cha

don

Pho

togr

aphe

rs


Wabash by Gov. Frank O’Bannon.The award is the highest honor thatthe governor of Indiana can bestowon a citizen. Mumford lives inIndianapolis.

Arthur G. Surguine, BA’71, JD’73,a partner in the Fort Wayne office ofHunt Suedhoff Kalamaros, wasnamed a Diplomat of the IndianaDefense Trial Counsel for 2002. Thisaward is presented to members of theIndiana Bar who have distinguishedthemselves by outstanding contribu-tions to the representation of clientsin the defense of litigation matters.

James E. Carlberg, BS’72, JD’74, ofCarmel, Ind., is a lawyer with BoseMcKinney & Evans in Indianapolis.He was recently selected for inclusionin the 2003–04 edition of The BestLawyers in America.

Joseph S. Northrop, JD’74, has 29years of commissioned service withthe U.S. Air Force Reserve. He is anattorney with Mills Northrop & Goffin Huntington, Ind.

William R. Fatout, BA’73, JD’75,MBA’82, a former commissioner forthe Marion Superior Probate Court,has joined Stewart & Irwin as apartner. He practices in the areas ofestate planning and probate adminis-tration, civil and probate mediation,and civil and probate litigation. Helives in Indianapolis.

Stephen R. Pennell, JD’76, of theLafayette firm Stuart & Branigin, hasbeen named president-elect of theDefense Trial Counsel of Indiana.

Robert F. Parker, JD’77, has beennamed president of the Defense TrialCounsel of Indiana. Parker practiceswith the Merrillville, Ind., firm ofBurke Costanza & Cuppy.

Randall R. Riggs, BA’74, JD’77,was named the 2002 Defense Lawyerof the Year by the Defense TrialCounsel of Indiana. He is a partnerwith Locke Reynolds, Indianapolis.

Michelle A. Bernstein, BA’76,JD’79, writes, “I am in practice withmy husband, Buddy Bernstein, andtwo associates at Bernstein LawOffice. Our firm specializes in corpo-rate and entity law, commercial realestate, shopping center law, commer-cial leasing, and business transac-

tions.” She lives in Memphis, Tenn.David L. Swider, BS’75, JD’78, was

selected for inclusion in the 2003–04edition of The Best Lawyers in America.He is an attorney at Bose McKinney& Evans and lives in Indianapolis.

J. Mark McKinzie, JD’79, joinedRiley Bennett & Egloff as a partner.He lives in Carmel, Ind.

1980sSue A. Beesley, JD’80, is a member ofBingham McHale’s governmentservices and public finance practicegroups. Shehas served ascorporationcounsel forthe city ofIndianapolisand MarionCounty. Shelives inIndianapolis.

Edward D.Feigenbaum,BA’78,MBA’82,JD’82, runsINGroup, aNoblesville,Ind., basedfirm thatoffers infor-mation resources related to Indianastate politics and government. Hepublishes Indiana Legislative Insight, aweekly newsletter covering Indianapolitics and government.

Nina Harding, MPA’82, JD’82, wasnamed Outstanding Attorney by theKing County Bar Association, whichacknowledges her 10 years of probono service to under-representedclients at Seattle’s Central Area LegalClinic. She also received a plaque foroutstanding service from the LorenMiller Bar Association, the localAfrican American Bar. She lives inSeattle.

Thomas J. Goeglein, BA’80, JD’83, isthe head real estate attorney for EckerdDrug Stores, the country’s third-largestdrug store chain. He and his wife,Nicole, live in Clearwater, Fla.

Rhonda Brauer, JD’84, has beenpromoted to corporate secretary for

the New York Times Co., where shehas worked since 1992, first as anattorney, then as senior counsel, and,since 1996, as assistant secretary.

Pamela Jones Harbour, JD’84, hasbeen named chair of the 600-memberAntitrust Section of the New YorkState Bar Association. Harbour, aformer deputy attorney general forthe state of New York, is a partner inthe antitrust group Kaye Scholer,New York.

Leonard S. Kurfirst, JD’84, re-turned to the law firm WildmanHarrold as a partner. His practice

focuses on litigation, healthcareadvocacy, and corporate counseling.He lives in Western Springs, Ill.

John M. Hamilton, JD’86, headsthe largest agency in Indiana govern-ment as secretary of the Family andSocial Services Administration. Helives in Bloomington.

Christopher J. Randall, JD’86, is aconsular officer at the U.S. Embassyin Bucharest, Romania.

Robert G. Devetski, BA’83, JD’87,joined Barnes & Thornburg, Elkhart,Ind. He focuses on insurance law andlitigation.

Elliot R. Lewis, BS’83, JD’87,formed ELR International, a full-service executive and legal searchfirm based in Chicago.

James T. Young, BS’83, JD’87,MBA’87, married Sara A. Hook,MBA’88, JD’94, in May. He is an

From left: Jamhal Woolridge, Class of 2004; JenniferFehrenbach, Class of 2005; and Jason Towns, Class of 2005

Cha

don

Pho

togr

aphe

rs


attorney at Rubin & Levin, India-napolis, and she is associate dean ofthe faculties at IUPUI.

Matthew R. Gutwein, BA’85,JD’88, formerly a partner with Baker& Daniels, Indianapolis, has beennamed president and CEO of theHealth and Hospital Corp. of MarionCounty. He is chair of thecorporation’s board of trustees. Hiswife, Jane Henegar, JD’88, is deputymayor for neighborhoods for the cityof Indianapolis.

Kevin C. Schiferl, JD’88, has beennamed secretary of the Defense TrialCounsel of Indiana. He is an attorneywith Locke Reynolds, Indianapolis.

Cary A. Depel, BS’85, JD’89, isgeneral counsel for Gerrard, theUnited Kingdom’s largest specialistinvestment management companyfor private clients. He will also serveas a main board director. He lives inLondon.

Daniel H. Fogel, BA’86, JD’89,writes, “I recently switched mortgagecompanies. I sell residential andcommercial mortgages. The commu-nication skills I developed as anEnglish major are an asset in mywork.” He lives in Wilmette, Ill.

Natalie J. Stucky, BA’85, JD’89, apartner with Bose McKinney & Evansin Indianapolis, has been appointedto the Hispanic Center of Indianapo-lis board of directors.

Guy Tully, JD’89, is a partner inJackson Lewis, Boston, one of thenation’s largest labor and employ-ment law firms. He recently ended aterm as president of the Massachu-setts Chapter of the Federal BarAssociation.

1990sEllen B. Kiernan, BA’87, JD’90, ispresident of the New HanoverCounty, N.C., Bar Association. She isa partner with Strader Ballard &Kiernan. She and her husband,Michael Kiernan, celebrated the birthof their third child, Clare, on April 12,2002.

Mike Wheeler, JD’91, writes fromLos Angeles: “I’ve officially made thetransition from law to marketing in

corporate America. I occasionally willreview contracts, but not often. Thepractice of law and my legal educa-tion definitely have contributed tomy success. I’ve been focusing on theInternet the last three years at Nestle,but I’ll move to an off-line brand.”

Lisa McKinney Goldner, JD’92, apartner with Bose McKinney &Evans, Indianapolis, has been electedsecretary of the Law School’s AlumniBoard of Directors.

James C. Kraska, JD’92, of Spring-field, Va., is an international lawattorney for the deputy chief of NavalOperations in the Pentagon.

Pamela Ayo Yetunde, JD’92, is co-founder of the SmartSisters Network,a business devoted to encouragingfinancial literacy among women.Formerly a financial adviser for amajor Wall Street investment firm,Yetunde has written two books,Beyond 40 Acres and Another Pair ofShoes and The Inheritance, aboutinvesting and money managementfor women.

Phillip D. Hatfield,JD’93, writes, “I haveleft the Office ofIndependent Counsel,though I continue towork for them as aconsultant.” He nowoperates a private lawpractice in Springfield,Ore.

The YWCA ofHamilton, Ohio, hasnamed JanieMcCauley-Myers,JD’94, one of fiveOutstanding Womenof Achievement for2002 from ButlerCounty, Ohio.McCauley-Myers is in-house counsel andcorporate secretary forFirst FinancialBancorp, Hamilton,Ohio.

Jeffrey L. Novak,JD’94, has been electedto the partnership ofMcGuire Woods. Helives in Catharpin, Va.,

with his wife, Jaci D. Novak, BS’92,and their four children.

David O. Barrett, BA’92, JD’95, iscorporate counsel for Emmis Com-munications Corp. He and his wife,Jacqueline Barrett, BS’96, live inCarmel, Ind., with their two children,Joel and Allison.

David A. Locke, JD’95, has beenpromoted to partner at Stuart &Branigin, Lafayette, Ind., where hehad been an associate since 1997.

Cajardo R. Lindsey, JD’96, ofDenver, is an associate for the lawfirm Baldwin & Brown.

Veronica W. Brame, JD’97, ofChandler, Ariz., is a deputy countyattorney in the juvenile division ofthe Maricopa County attorney’soffice. Her e-mail address [email protected].

David E. Corbitt, JD’97, an attor-ney at Barnes & Thornburg, waselected to the school board for theMetropolitan School District of PikeTownship. The township is one of the

Brian Edge, JD’98, and Robyn Carr, Class of 2005

Cha

don

Pho

togr

aphe

rs


fastest-growing school systems in theIndianapolis area.

James E. Crawford, JD’97, writes,“I am presently starting the two-yearMBA program at the University ofNotre Dame.” He lives in NotreDame, Ind.

Tania A. Devries, JD’97, recentlyleft the law firm Miller Johnson Snell& Cummiskey and now practiceswith Russell A. DeMott, concentrat-ing on commercial and consumerbankruptcy and creditors’ rights. Shecelebrated the birth of her daughter,Lauren Elizabeth, in April 2002. Shelives in Grand Rapids, Mich.

Shelly Gibson, JD’97, and MarkFridy, JD’97, of Louisville, Ky., arehappy to announce the birth ofEmma Beth Gibson Fridy, born onSept. 9, 2002.

David E. Harris, JD’97, is thecharter school director for the city ofIndianapolis. He lives in Indianapoliswith his wife, Marion, and their son,Aidan.

Gregg E. Strellis, JD’98, and hislaw firm, Strellis Faulbaum Walsh &Field, recently opened a downtown

Chicago office. They also have officesin Waterloo and Belleville. He lives inEvanston, Ill.

Cynthia A. Bedrick, JD’99, hasjoined the firm McTurnan & Turner,Indianapolis, as an associate.

Jeffrey S. Nowak, BA’95, JD’99, ofLaGrange, Ill., married ShannonWood, MA’99, in Chicago in August.He is a labor and employmentattorney for McDermott Will &Emery and can be reached [email protected].

Jim Snyder, JD’99, an associatewith Sands Anderson Marks & Miller,Richmond, Va., has been appointed toa three-year term on the VirginiaState Bar’s Standing Committee onProfessionalism.

Daniel R. Wilkinson, BS’94, JD’99,is a deputy prosecutor in SpencerCounty, Ind.

2000sJeffrey D. Mills, BS’97, JD’00, joinedBaker & Daniels, Indianapolis, as anassociate. He will focus his practice incorporate finance. Also joining him atBaker & Daniels as associates are

Kitisri Sukhapinda, JD’01,

Shiv P. (Ghuman) O’Neill, JD’01,Kareem A. Howell, JD’01, and JasonJ. Stout, BA’93, JD’96. Sukhapindafocuses on biotechnology, Ghuman isa member of the litigation team,Howell practices in intellectualproperty law, and Stout concentrateshis practice in labor and employment.

Sandra Perry, JD’00, has joined thelitigation group at Bose McKinney &Evans, Indianapolis, as an associate.She had previously clerked for JudgeJohn G. Baker, JD’71, of the IndianaCourt of Appeals.

Ruengrong Boonyarattaphun,LLM’01, is a legal officer in thedepartment of intellectual property inthe Thai Ministry of Commerce inBangkok.

Jasna B. Dolgov, JD’01, is anassociate in the business securitieslaw group with Michael Best &Friedrich in Milwaukee. She wasmarried to Ivan M. Dolgov, MBA’01,on June 29, 2002, and they recentlybought a house.

Adam W. Johnson, JD’01, is anattorney for Meltzer Purtill & Stelle inSchaumburg, Ill. Partner Roger T.Stelle, JD’70, writes, “Adam is an

outstanding lawyerand a fine addition toour firm.”

Gunduz Karimov,LLM’02, is anassociate in Baker &McKenzie’s Baku,Azerbaijan, office.

Daniel J. Moore,JD’02, has joinedthe firm ofLaszynski &Moore, Lafayette,Ind., as an associ-ate.

Robert L.Moore Jr., JD’02,recently earnedcertification as asenior profes-sional in humanresources fromthe HumanResource Certifi-cation Institute.Moore lives inNorcross, Ga.

From left: Masah SamForay, Class of 2005;Steve Beard, JD’98; Jane Rueger, Class of 2003;and Robin Moll, Class of 2004

Chadon Photographers

Cha

don

Pho

togr

aphe

rs


We are collecting fax numbers and e-mail addresses from our alumni, as well as updating our records. Please take a fewmoments to fill out this form and mail it back to us, along with any current news about yourself. Photos and clippingsare always welcome. Material will be published in a future class notes column in Bill of Particulars or Alumni Update.

Name _________________________________________ Date __________________________________________

Preferred name _________________________________________________________________________________

Last name while at IU ___________________________________________________________________________

IU degree(s)/Yr(s) ______________________________________________________________________________

Soc. Sec. # or Student ID # _______________________________________________________________________

Home address _________________________________ Phone __________________________________________

City _________________________________ State ________________ Zip _______________________________

Law firm/business name ________________________________________________________________________

Law firm/business address ______________________________________________________________________

City _________________________________ State ________________ Zip _______________________________

Phone __________________________________________ Fax __________________________________________

E-mail _________________________________________ URL __________________________________________

New address? ❍ Yes ❍ No Mailing address preference: ❍ Home ❍ Business

Spouse name ____________________ Last name while at IU __________________________________________

IU Degree(s)/Yr(s) ______________________________________________________________________________

News & comments: _____________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Source: IU Law Bill of Particulars, Spring 2003

Mail this form, along with any attachments, to Development and Alumni Relations Office, IU School of Law,211 S. Indiana Ave., Bloomington, IN 47405; or visit our Web site at www.law.indiana.edu; or fax to (812) 855-0555.

HELP US STAY IN TOUCH …

A Lawyer’s Calling

Documents

Transcript of A Lawyer’s Calling