Dean's Address

There are a couple of practical suggestions on this subject. One is to send your opponent the Code of Civility when you answer a complaint so he knows you ascribe to its standards. Ask him to do the same. I am told some members of the California bar are adopting this approach before the wars start.

Another practical suggestion is a frank approach to your opponent at the start. Let me read you something I saw on an airplane last year. It gave me an idea. It was a short story that dealt with a father‑son relationship, and the following is a letter the adult son found on his pillow from his father:

Henri ‑ I don't know which it is, that we are too different or we are too similar, but I fear that we will fail as father and son. We have fought and argued for too long, and so I suggest a truce. What I offer are two things: a promise that I will never lie to you, and a promise that I will never be unfair to you. In return, I only ask one thingthat you trust me. I won't ask for your love, and I won't even ask that you like me, but in those days or years that you hate me, if you trust me, we will never lose each other.

The first part of this quote reminds me of most of our relationships in litigation today where there seem to be little trust at, all. As a result of reading this piece, I tried something new. I had a new major case with a lawyer others had told me not to trust. Whether their concern was just perceived or real, I really did not know.

My response was to call my opponent, introduce myself, and say "You can trust me in this case. If I say I will do something, I will. If I cannot or will not, I will also tell you. If you have a problem with someone in my firm, call me first" Then I asked: "Can I trust you?" Silence. After a pause to evaluate whether to distrust my motives, the lawyer said "Yes, you can trust me" We have had no trust problems since. A psychologist can probably explain why this worked so well so far, but it has. If one of my associates was out of line from his point of view, I got a call and vice versa. We worked it out instead of starting the usual expensive and counter‑productive war. None of our client's rights were compromised. We still give each other no quarter in the case, but we trust each other's word. The truce just saved expense, aggravation, and unnecessary delay for the clients. It worked. Try it!

E. We need to find a way to remove base politics from the selection of state and federal judges.

We all know politics plays a major role in the slating of judges who are elected, the appointments in Missouri Plan states, and the Federal Court appointments. Then we wonder why the public doesn't perceive the judges as independent.

In our federal judge selection process in Illinois, our two senators appoint a diverse blue ribbon bi‑partisan panel to screen candidates and make recommendations for each vacancy. Our senators committed to select only from those recommended by the committee and they did. There was extremely positive response from the media due to this process and the result has been excellent appointments.

Most Illinois State Court judges are elected. At the State Bar level, an alliance of ten bar associations have developed bi‑partisan efforts to recommend judges for election based only on merit. The results are broadly disseminated to the public before the election. The public then knows we care as a group about merit and the announced criteria are the judges' qualifications, not who sponsored him or her politically.

Illinois Associate Judges are appointed (about 40% of our judges). Our Chief Judge, Donald O'Connell, and the ten presiding judges of the Circuit court of Cook County as a committee, interview every applicant for Associate Judge. Then the Committee recommends twice the number to fill open slots. The Illinois Supreme Court then selects only from those recommendations.

We all should promote these bipartisan efforts to encourage the selection of the best judiciary we can seat in every jurisdiction. Those in some states know the result of totally partisan support for litmus test judges.

F. Our brethren in other organizations have started some very positive public outreach strategies to teach their communities about the concept of trial by jury, and the importance of jury service.

Our own Ron Rouda began a program through ABOTA called the "Justice by the People ABOTA developed a teaching guide to teach the jury system to grade school children. The teaching guide describes the reason for the system, the value of the system and the actual processes that lead to a jury result. The last time I talked to Ron, he indicated that ABOTA had distributed some 2,000 guides to schools around the country.

Last week while preparing my final thoughts for this address, I noticed in the newspaper that Phillip Anderson, president of the American Bar Association spent a morning outside Chicago explaining the jury system and the appeals process to a 7th grade class and responding to questions asked by the students about the system. There was a prominent one‑half page article with photographs dealing with his presentation. We need more of this kind of endeavor to advance our cause for the jury system. We need more lawyers to volunteer in this effort. If you don't have time to do it, send someone else.

Some of you are aware that the International Academy Board Members have been attending since 1994, a Round Table in Washington, D.C., consisting of the major law associations in this country. Those in attendance are the following bipartisan groups ATLA; IADC; ABA; DRI, ABOTA, ARLAC, FICC and the International Academy of Trial Lawyers. The purpose of the Round Table is to publish a White Paper concerning points of agreement with respect to the necessary role of juries in the Civil Justice System. That final product should be out this fall and it strongly defends the system and makes bipartisan recommendations for innovations that will better the system, rather than diminish it.

The Round Table also has draft recommendations to publicize the system for better public understanding, including the following:

• Press conferences with leaders of all branches of government pronouncing Jury Service Appreciation Week;
• Public service advertising campaigns using newspapers, television, mass transit, public buildings, libraries, grocery stores, court houses, and schools;
• Targeted media outreach using informal radio and television interviews with trial judges, other court personnel, attorneys, and citizens with positive experience with the system;
• Targeted educational outreach to high school government, speech, U.S. history, or civic classes through which judges explain the role of the jury in the judicial process; and citizens describe these roles and perspectives.
• The development of educational videos that put student audiences in the role of a simulated jury, hearing evidence and jury instructions and deciding cases.

Some of these activities are already occurring, but we need more to help turn the tide. You all are definitely in a position to do so to regain the public's respect and trust so men like Attorney Steve Jones from Enid, Oklahoma who accepted the court's appointment to defend Timothy McVeigh at great personal risk, are given the praise they deserve for their service to the system of justice.

I will try to end on a positive note, since it is my nature. This videotape is one of my heros who the public learned to respect not only for his skill as an advocate, but for his courage under the circumstances. Joe Welsh took on Joe McCarthy in 1953 in one of the greatest examples of brilliant and effective advocacy which helped save our democratic institution.

Shame on us if we don't do more to serve the most important institution for our democracy. The right to trial by jury.