Pope, Jack

St Mary's University School of Law Digital Repository

St. Mary's Law Journal Volume 26 Number 4 Article 3 1-1-1995 Chief Justice Calvert: Simple Rules Made Him Great In Memoriam. Jack Pope Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.stmarytx.edu/thestmaryslawjournal  Part of the Environmental Law Commons, Health Law and Policy Commons, Immigration Law Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, Law and Society Commons, Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Commons, Military, War, and Peace Commons, Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation Jack Pope, Chief Justice Calvert: Simple Rules Made Him Great In Memoriam., 26 ST. MARY'S L.J. (1995). Available at: https://commons.stmarytx.edu/thestmaryslawjournal/vol26/iss4/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the St. Mary's Law Journals at Digital Commons at St. Mary's University. It has been accepted for inclusion in St. Mary's Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Commons at St. Mary's University. For more information, please contact egoode@stmarytx.edu, sfowler@stmarytx.edu. CHIEF JUSTICE CALVERT:SIMPLE RULES MADE HIM GREATJACK POPE*I first saw Robert W. Calvert in 1935 from the gallery of theTexas House of Representatives in Austin. At the time, I was a lawstudent at the University of Texas, and he was a candidate for elec-tion as Speaker of the House. I had heard about this bright youngman who was challenging the establishment. Although he lost thatrace, he won in 1937.In 1950, our paths crossed many times. He was running for aposition on the Texas Supreme Court, and I was a candidate for theFourth Court of Civil Appeals in San Antonio. Robert Calvert wasa country lawyer from Hillsboro who had earned statewide respectas chairman of the Texas Democratic Party.' He won, and so did I.Robert Calvert easily assumed the role of a judge. He put asidehis party leadership and promptly gained the respect of the benchand bar as an industrious member of the court. When I began mytenure there in 1965, he was serving as the court's chief justice.From the foot of the court's conference table I daily watchedChief Justice Calvert. Unhurried, deliberate, pressing for decisionsand votes, patient, attentive, organized, prepared-these weresome of my first impressions as I tried to become comfortable withthe meetings in which important decisions had to be made weekafter week.I had served as a trial and appellate judge for more than eight-een years, but I was surprised at the differences in operation be-tween the Texas Supreme Court and the Fourth Court of CivilAppeals. For example, the intermediate appellate court did not* Chief Justice (retired), Supreme Court of Texas; B.A., Abilene Christian Univer-sity; LL.B., University of Texas. Chief Justice Pope retired in 1985 after nearly 40 years ofservice as a member of the Texas judiciary.1. Chief Justice Calvert's story is fully recorded in his autobiography, HERE COMESTHE JUDGE: FROM STATE HOME TO STATE HOUSE: MEMOIRS OF ROBERT W. CALVERT(Joseph M. Ray ed., 1977).1Pope: Chief Justice Calvert: Simple Rules Made Him Great In Memoriam.Published by Digital Commons at St. Mary's University, 1994ST MARY'S LAW JOURNALhave the burden of deciding applications for writs of error. Grant-ing and denying writs consumed at least one-third of our judicialtime and effort. I was accustomed to discussing opinions with twojustices. At the supreme court, I had to persuade eight. Nine jus-tices produced three times as many opinions as the three of us onthe court of civil appeals.I soon learned that the supreme court devoted several days eachweek to court conferences. Monday was "application day," Tues-day was "opinion day," and Wednesday was "argument day."Finding time to study and write an opinion was a problem I had tolearn to resolve.Chief Justice Calvert had the ability to keep things simple. Hehad some rules, but very few. I do not recall ever reading them.Perhaps his own daily example best displayed these rules. After awhile, I realized that his rules for the conduct of the court's affairswere similar to Robert Fulgum's All I Really Need to Know ILearned in Kindergarten.2Chief Justice Calvert's first rule involved punctuality for eachcourt conference, for oral arguments, and for the court's ceremo-nial occasions. Of course, he always arrived first at all of our meet-ings. In January 1971, former Governor Price Daniel wasscheduled to take the oath of office as a justice of the court. Theclerk advised the chief justice that Governor Daniel had not yetarrived. Nevertheless, Chief Justice Calvert looked at his watchand said it was time to begin. We entered the courtroom with allthe chairs on the front row empty. The chief justice began the pro-gram as it was printed. Smiles appeared on faces throughout theassembly as Governor Daniel and his party walked into the court-room late. It did not happen again. We needed no printed rules toknow what the Calvert rules required.Another Calvert rule was that each judge should hear whatevery other judge had to say about every case. Stated in a differentway, the rule was "Do not lobby other judges in their offices."With nine judges walking in and out of offices up and down thethird floor of the supreme court building, little undisturbed re-search and writing could be done. This rule also meant that discus-sion in the court's conference room, with all present, was2. ROBERT FULGUM, ALL I REALLY NEED TO KNOW I LEARNED IN KINDERGARTEN:UNCOMMON THOUGHTS ON COMMON THINGS (1988).[Vol. 26:9192St. Mary's Law Journal, Vol. 26 [1994], No. 4, Art. 3https://commons.stmarytx.edu/thestmaryslawjournal/vol26/iss4/3IN MEMORIAMimportant. Everyone would hear the same arguments and reasonsto grant or deny an application or to accept or dissent from anopinion. Each judge was equally responsible for every decision.Every judge had an equal right to speak about an application orcause. Chief Justice Calvert recognized each justice in successionuntil we had circled the conference table. He also enforced whathas been called the first rule of civil procedure ever announced onthe North American continent. An unknown Indian chief createdthe rule when he said that only one brave may speak at a time.Every judge had the privilege to "pull down" an application orcause and to take the file to his office for study, for writing, or, asChief Justice Calvert would say, "to agonize" for a few days. Oncetaken, however, an obligation existed to give that item priority sothat it could be returned to conference for disposition.Extraordinary proceedings had their own special unwritten rules.When a mandamus, prohibition, or habeas corpus proceeding wasfiled, the file was immediately delivered to a judge in his turn toexamine it and to determine whether it was an emergency. Whenwe received notice to go to the conference room, we knew that acase needed prompt attention and an early setting.To Chief Justice Calvert, court conferences were court confi-dences. The integrity of our decision making, the arguments, theclose votes, and the changes of votes were all privileged. Thus, theconference discussions were always free and open, but spirited ar-guments sometimes led to hurt feelings. Nevertheless, we all knewthat disclosure of our votes on dispositions could result in a miscar-riage of justice to the parties or their attorneys. The Calvert ruleconcerning confidentiality was always observed and respected.This rule also encompassed a requirement that judges leave theirarguments and wounded feelings inside the conference room,never to be mentioned outside.Finally, Chief Justice Calvert expected judges to arrange theiraffairs to prevent any conflicts with the court's work. Successfulperformance of judicial services did not include absenteeism. Thus,except for sickness or other emergency, we seldom had an absencefrom the court.These represent some of the rules I discovered when I firstreached the court. Perhaps Chief Justice Calvert also derived themfrom the court's practices upon his arrival. Fairness dictated theserules and they were effective. Chief Justice Greenhill carried them1995]3Pope: Chief Justice Calvert: Simple Rules Made Him Great In Memoriam.Published by Digital Commons at St. Mary's University, 1994ST MARY'S LAW JOURNALforward during his able administration, and I saw no reason tochange them.Conditions, like courts, change. Different courts proceed in avariety of ways. It was Chief Justice Calvert's fairness, the justices'uniform acceptance of his rules, and his long, untroubled adminis-tration that kept our conferences focused upon the work at hand.Chief Justice Calvert's court produced many landmark cases andhammered out a number of reforms. It was an era when the courtdeclared rules that will govern the civil law for a long time. Hisown opinions, prepared after diligent research, were consistentlywritten clearly and with forceful reasoning, resting solidly upon set-tled law. Lean and stripped of distracting dictum, his opinions evi-denced scholarship, independence, detachment, judicial restraint,and integrity. He upheld the common law, located the legislativepurpose in construing statutes, and wisely took the next step innovel cases or those that moved beyond the periphery of the ex-isting case law.Chief Justice Calvert always seemed to be guided by the inscrip-tion over the portal of the United States Supreme Court building:"Equal Justice Under Law." He never lost sight of his North Star.For his long and honorable career of service, I would put him in mymythical Texas Supreme Court Hall of Fame.[Vol. 26:9194St. Mary's Law Journal, Vol. 26 [1994], No. 4, Art. 3https://commons.stmarytx.edu/thestmaryslawjournal/vol26/iss4/3

Chief Justice Calvert: Simple Rules Made Him Great In Memoriam.

Digital Commons at St. Mary's University, San Antonio

St. Mary's Law Journal Volume 26 Number 4 Article 3 1-1-1995 Chief Justice Calvert: Simple Rules Made Him Great In Memoriam. Jack Pope Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.stmarytx.edu/thestmaryslawjournal  Part of the Environmental Law Commons, Health Law and Policy Commons, Immigration Law Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, Law and Society Commons, Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Commons, Military, War, and Peace Commons, Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation Jack Pope, Chief Justice Calvert: Simple Rules Made Him Great In Memoriam., 26 ST. MARY'S L.J. (1995). Available at: https://commons.stmarytx.edu/thestmaryslawjournal/vol26/iss4/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the St. Mary's Law Journals at Digital Commons at St. Mary's University. It has been accepted for inclusion in St. Mary's Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Commons at St. Mary's University. For more information, please contact sfowler@stmarytx.edu. CHIEF JUSTICE CALVERT:SIMPLE RULES MADE HIM GREATJACK POPE*I first saw Robert W. Calvert in 1935 from the gallery of theTexas House of Representatives in Austin. At the time, I was a lawstudent at the University of Texas, and he was a candidate for elec-tion as Speaker of the House. I had heard about this bright youngman who was challenging the establishment. Although he lost thatrace, he won in 1937.In 1950, our paths crossed many times. He was running for aposition on the Texas Supreme Court, and I was a candidate for theFourth Court of Civil Appeals in San Antonio. Robert Calvert wasa country lawyer from Hillsboro who had earned statewide respectas chairman of the Texas Democratic Party.' He won, and so did I.Robert Calvert easily assumed the role of a judge. He put asidehis party leadership and promptly gained the respect of the benchand bar as an industrious member of the court. When I began mytenure there in 1965, he was serving as the court's chief justice.From the foot of the court's conference table I daily watchedChief Justice Calvert. Unhurried, deliberate, pressing for decisionsand votes, patient, attentive, organized, prepared-these weresome of my first impressions as I tried to become comfortable withthe meetings in which important decisions had to be made weekafter week.I had served as a trial and appellate judge for more than eight-een years, but I was surprised at the differences in operation be-tween the Texas Supreme Court and the Fourth Court of CivilAppeals. For example, the intermediate appellate court did not* Chief Justice (retired), Supreme Court of Texas; B.A., Abilene Christian Univer-sity; LL.B., University of Texas. Chief Justice Pope retired in 1985 after nearly 40 years ofservice as a member of the Texas judiciary.1. Chief Justice Calvert's story is fully recorded in his autobiography, HERE COMESTHE JUDGE: FROM STATE HOME TO STATE HOUSE: MEMOIRS OF ROBERT W. CALVERT(Joseph M. Ray ed., 1977).1Pope: Chief Justice Calvert: Simple Rules Made Him Great In Memoriam.Published by Digital Commons at St. Mary's University, 2023ST MARY'S LAW JOURNALhave the burden of deciding applications for writs of error. Grant-ing and denying writs consumed at least one-third of our judicialtime and effort. I was accustomed to discussing opinions with twojustices. At the supreme court, I had to persuade eight. Nine jus-tices produced three times as many opinions as the three of us onthe court of civil appeals.I soon learned that the supreme court devoted several days eachweek to court conferences. Monday was "application day," Tues-day was "opinion day," and Wednesday was "argument day."Finding time to study and write an opinion was a problem I had tolearn to resolve.Chief Justice Calvert had the ability to keep things simple. Hehad some rules, but very few. I do not recall ever reading them.Perhaps his own daily example best displayed these rules. After awhile, I realized that his rules for the conduct of the court's affairswere similar to Robert Fulgum's All I Really Need to Know ILearned in Kindergarten.2Chief Justice Calvert's first rule involved punctuality for eachcourt conference, for oral arguments, and for the court's ceremo-nial occasions. Of course, he always arrived first at all of our meet-ings. In January 1971, former Governor Price Daniel wasscheduled to take the oath of office as a justice of the court. Theclerk advised the chief justice that Governor Daniel had not yetarrived. Nevertheless, Chief Justice Calvert looked at his watchand said it was time to begin. We entered the courtroom with allthe chairs on the front row empty. The chief justice began the pro-gram as it was printed. Smiles appeared on faces throughout theassembly as Governor Daniel and his party walked into the court-room late. It did not happen again. We needed no printed rules toknow what the Calvert rules required.Another Calvert rule was that each judge should hear whatevery other judge had to say about every case. Stated in a differentway, the rule was "Do not lobby other judges in their offices."With nine judges walking in and out of offices up and down thethird floor of the supreme court building, little undisturbed re-search and writing could be done. This rule also meant that discus-sion in the court's conference room, with all present, was2. ROBERT FULGUM, ALL I REALLY NEED TO KNOW I LEARNED IN KINDERGARTEN:UNCOMMON THOUGHTS ON COMMON THINGS (1988).[Vol. 26:9192St. Mary's Law Journal, Vol. 26 [2023], No. 4, Art. 3https://commons.stmarytx.edu/thestmaryslawjournal/vol26/iss4/3IN MEMORIAMimportant. Everyone would hear the same arguments and reasonsto grant or deny an application or to accept or dissent from anopinion. Each judge was equally responsible for every decision.Every judge had an equal right to speak about an application orcause. Chief Justice Calvert recognized each justice in successionuntil we had circled the conference table. He also enforced whathas been called the first rule of civil procedure ever announced onthe North American continent. An unknown Indian chief createdthe rule when he said that only one brave may speak at a time.Every judge had the privilege to "pull down" an application orcause and to take the file to his office for study, for writing, or, asChief Justice Calvert would say, "to agonize" for a few days. Oncetaken, however, an obligation existed to give that item priority sothat it could be returned to conference for disposition.Extraordinary proceedings had their own special unwritten rules.When a mandamus, prohibition, or habeas corpus proceeding wasfiled, the file was immediately delivered to a judge in his turn toexamine it and to determine whether it was an emergency. Whenwe received notice to go to the conference room, we knew that acase needed prompt attention and an early setting.To Chief Justice Calvert, court conferences were court confi-dences. The integrity of our decision making, the arguments, theclose votes, and the changes of votes were all privileged. Thus, theconference discussions were always free and open, but spirited ar-guments sometimes led to hurt feelings. Nevertheless, we all knewthat disclosure of our votes on dispositions could result in a miscar-riage of justice to the parties or their attorneys. The Calvert ruleconcerning confidentiality was always observed and respected.This rule also encompassed a requirement that judges leave theirarguments and wounded feelings inside the conference room,never to be mentioned outside.Finally, Chief Justice Calvert expected judges to arrange theiraffairs to prevent any conflicts with the court's work. Successfulperformance of judicial services did not include absenteeism. Thus,except for sickness or other emergency, we seldom had an absencefrom the court.These represent some of the rules I discovered when I firstreached the court. Perhaps Chief Justice Calvert also derived themfrom the court's practices upon his arrival. Fairness dictated theserules and they were effective. Chief Justice Greenhill carried them1995]3Pope: Chief Justice Calvert: Simple Rules Made Him Great In Memoriam.Published by Digital Commons at St. Mary's University, 2023ST MARY'S LAW JOURNALforward during his able administration, and I saw no reason tochange them.Conditions, like courts, change. Different courts proceed in avariety of ways. It was Chief Justice Calvert's fairness, the justices'uniform acceptance of his rules, and his long, untroubled adminis-tration that kept our conferences focused upon the work at hand.Chief Justice Calvert's court produced many landmark cases andhammered out a number of reforms. It was an era when the courtdeclared rules that will govern the civil law for a long time. Hisown opinions, prepared after diligent research, were consistentlywritten clearly and with forceful reasoning, resting solidly upon set-tled law. Lean and stripped of distracting dictum, his opinions evi-denced scholarship, independence, detachment, judicial restraint,and integrity. He upheld the common law, located the legislativepurpose in construing statutes, and wisely took the next step innovel cases or those that moved beyond the periphery of the ex-isting case law.Chief Justice Calvert always seemed to be guided by the inscrip-tion over the portal of the United States Supreme Court building:"Equal Justice Under Law." He never lost sight of his North Star.For his long and honorable career of service, I would put him in mymythical Texas Supreme Court Hall of Fame.[Vol. 26:9194St. Mary's Law Journal, Vol. 26 [2023], No. 4, Art. 3https://commons.stmarytx.edu/thestmaryslawjournal/vol26/iss4/3

https://commons.stmarytx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2150&context=thestmaryslawjournal

Chief Justice Calvert: Simple Rules Made Him Great In Memoriam.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

St Mary's University School of Law Digital Repository

Digital Commons at St. Mary's University, San Antonio