Read | Q&A with President John Day in the Nashville Post

As seen in the Nashville Post – Read the full Q&A here: https://www.nashvillepost.com/business/q-a-john-day-american-college-of-trial-lawyers-president/article_30314fac-dfe8-426d-b214-d2ee9b96c2a2.html

 

Longtime Nashville litigator discusses changing legal industry, threats to the judicial branch

John Day has been working as a lawyer in the Nashville market since the early 1980s, witnessing sweeping changes as national law firms have increased their presence in the city.

A native of small-town Wisconsin who obtained his law degree from the University of North Carolina, Day came to Nashville upon the recommendation of his college professor, who highlighted the area’s then-low-profile legal market and political prominence as the state capitol.

In 1981, he joined what was then Boult, Cummings, Conners and Berry (now Bradley Arant Boult Cummings), at which he worked for more than 11 years before exiting the firm to open his own personal injury practice, which he continues to operate.

In October, Day was named president of the American College of Trial Lawyers. He recently spoke with the Post about the role and his observations of the changing view of the local legal industry.

You’ve been in the Nashville market for a long time. In what ways have you seen the legal landscape here change?

It has changed dramatically. One thing that happens now that was virtually unheard of 44 years ago was lawyers changing law firms from one big firm to another big firm. Of course, from time to time, somebody would leave a law firm and start their own firm. That’s what I did.

It seems like every January there’s a shuffle of partners with somebody going somewhere after the year-end bonus. It’s just an entirely different market, and those lawyers who have a good book of business now are actively sought out by competing law firms, either in-state firms or out-of-state firms, hoping to plant the flag in Nashville. That mobility is something that simply did not exist 44 years ago.

The second major change is the influx of out-of-state law firms coming into the Nashville market. The growth in the legal industry has just been dramatic, coupled with out-of-state firms that didn’t even know where Nashville was. I can make a comfortable guess that the number of lawyers in Nashville has doubled, or maybe even more than doubled, in the last 40 years.

What is your role as president of the American College of Trial Lawyers?

There’s several responsibilities. I preside over all meetings, and I’m sort of the lead on every one of our committees. We have 57 state and province chapters throughout the United States and Canada. I don’t have a vote on any of those, but it’s sort of my responsibility, ultimately, that those chapters are doing what they should be doing. We have 43 what we call general committees where we conduct the work of the college. I’m involved in supervising their work. I’m an ex-officio member of all those committees, but I’m trying to shepherd them along and make sure they’re doing what we have asked them to do.

From time to time, I’m called upon to issue public statements or speak to the media about the issues we care about, which are judicial independence and judicial safety, the rule of law and access to justice. So my job is to, with the assistance of the executive committee and the board, keep our finger on the pulse of what’s going on and then be prepared to speak about it at appropriate times.

You mentioned judicial independence. How does the ACTL view the role of this in the U.S.?

In our view, the founding people of this country got it right when they believed that our government should function with an executive branch, a congressional branch and a judicial branch — and then each of those three branches should have equal power. Now, obviously it isn’t always the most efficient way to do things. But they envisioned that as a power check, believing that despite the inefficiencies at what they had created, in the long run, three equal branches of government would be in the best interest of the people.

Independence of the judiciary — and what we mean by that is the ability of judges to fulfill their roles under the Constitution without fear of being undermined actively by the Congress or by the administration, and without fear for their own safety when they’re out there doing their jobs.

So for instance, a judge has a right to expect that their orders will be followed. People have the right to an appeal if they don’t like a judge’s decision, but at the end of the day, the decision of the court must be followed, because that’s what independence of the judiciary means, in part, that their role is recognized and respected. And that they do so without having to worry about getting shot or otherwise killed over it. We are alarmed at the number of threats against judges. They’re increasing exponentially. There have been murders, and that is alarming to us. So we speak out about that.

Are there any specific threats to judicial independence the ACTL is seeing?

We have almost nonstop accusations made against judges that they are crooked, that they are wildly liberal or wildly conservative, that they vote consistent always with the political party that nominated them to their office, that they have disregarded the law. All those are attacks on an independent judiciary.

These are comments made by smart people. I’m talking about leaders who make those kind of accusations against judges. Those accusations trickle down to ordinary citizens and bring disrespect to the judiciary. It’s inappropriate and when we see it, we call it out. We call it out, regardless of the party who’s doing it. So we have condemned certain words of President [Donald] Trump. We’ve condemned the words of Senate Majority Leader, at the time, Chuck Schumer. We’ve condemned words of [California Gov.] Gavin Newsom. It’s something we’re very, very serious about and monitor all the time.

Do you think we’re seeing more partisanships in the courts?

I think we’re having people assuming that because the judge rules this way or that way, they’re being partisan. But no, I don’t think we’re seeing any more partisanship.

It may be a fact that a judge was appointed by a Democrat. It may be a fact that a judge was appointed by a Republican. That doesn’t necessarily mean that those judges are going to walk in lockstep with the person who appointed them.

In fact, if you look at many actions by many, many judges over the last nine months, you will see judges appointed by Republicans taking positions inconsistent with the Republican administration. You will see judges appointed by Democrats who take positions consistent with the administration. It’s because these judges are, in my opinion, doing the best they can to follow the law as they perceive it based on the facts they are presented. They are not looking at it through a political lens. They are looking at it as independent arbiters of the truth who are attempting to define the law based on statutes and statutory construction and other things. That’s the way it works.

The idea that every single judge is going to follow the political lead of the appointer to that position, that’s just inconsistent with my experience and inconsistent with the experience of the 5,700 lawyers that our organization represents.