Ralph Ike Lancaster, Jr.
A profile of the decision maker
By Jane Harrison
Lakeside News
The hopes of Georgia peanut farmers, Florida oystermen, lawn manicurists, lake lovers, subdivision developers, and business boosters rest on the recommendations of a man known for his fairness, work ethic, and love of the law.
Ralph Ike Lancaster, Jr., appointed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2014 to advise justices on how to rule in a Florida V. Georgia lawsuit over water allocation, is praised even by those who lose, revered by those who’ve observed his persistence and attention to detail, and well-liked by associates in and out of the courtroom. Described as cheerful, gentlemanly, affable, tireless, open-minded, quick to grasp and sift complex issues, and extraordinarily prompt and fair, the 86-year-old prominent Maine legal expert possesses attributes sought out by the High Court and cherished by friends.
The four-time Supreme Court Special Master declined by email to be interviewed for this story, as did David Barry, managing partner in the Portland, Maine law firm where Lancaster has practiced for more than 50 years. Lancaster has ordered those directly involved with the case not to communicate with the media. “He does not wish to have our firm participate in any media coverage while the case is pending,” Barry wrote, expressing the wishes of one of the first trial lawyers hired by Pierce Atwood LLP. The firm now staffs 145 attorneys in seven offices.
Despite lack of access to Lancaster and his firm’s associates, it’s not too difficult to trace portions of the octogenarian’s endurance trek from his Depression Era childhood in Bangor, Maine to the steps of the Supreme Court.
Recording offers insight
His path to the Portland firm—which hired him after a homesick summer intern quit—was strewn with challenges that would thwart most endeavors. Much about Lancaster’s boyhood and early career can be gleaned from a 2009 recording from a George E. Mitchell Oral History Project at Bowdoin College, a small private liberal arts institution in Brunswick, Maine. The copyrighted interview is referenced here by permission.
Speaking with interviewer Mike Hastings in an unpretentious tone with mild New England dialect, Lancaster revealed that after his mother died in childbirth when he was three, he was raised by an elderly great aunt and uncle who hadn’t finished elementary school. But, they valued education and invested in bringing up a happy, well-educated, hard working boy.
During high school, he tended bar in the evenings at his uncle’s two drinking establishments in Bangor. He also drove a garbage truck, installed roofing, and toiled in a variety of trades. After enrolling at College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, where he majored in English and minored in history, he worked nights at a Coca Cola bottling plant.
He was accepted at Harvard Law, the only law school to which he applied, spent nights at the poker table his freshman year and got married his sophomore year. “I graduated on a Sunday, and Monday I got a draft notice. I was old, married and my wife was pregnant,” Lancaster said.
He served two years during peace time, working mostly as a clerk typist in the courts section and making ends meet selling movie tickets and encyclopedias.
A fixture in courtrooms
In 1957, he and Mary Lou, then with two children, moved to Portland where he took a one-year clerkship with Federal Judge Edward T. Gignoux. The justice invited him to stay another year after the inexhaustible clerk pounded the pavement looking for a job in his chosen profession. When it looked like he’d run into a dead end in Portland, Gignoux introduced him to partners in the firm that later formed Pierce Atwood. He became a fixture in Maine courtrooms and later all over the country, trying civil and criminal cases (from personal injury claims to murder and white collar crime to complex maritime and commercial cases) every day, every week of the year. He also became known for pro bono services for Maine’s low income residents.
His legal acuity and work ethic earned recognition from his community and for his firm. The notoriety ultimately reached the Supreme Court, which has appointed Pierce Atwood attorneys as special masters at least six times.
“He’s one of those legal giants,” well known and much respected in Maine’s largest city, said Alec Leddy, Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court in Portland, where Lancaster will hear Florida V. Georgia arguments. “Some people view being a lawyer as a job, for him it’s a true calling. He has a real love for the law. And he’s also a true gentleman.”
David T. Pride, Executive Director of the Supreme Court Historical Society in Washington, D.C., hailed Lancaster as the “one of most successful membership chairs the society has ever had.” He and Lancaster collaborated to get congressional approval of a commemorative coin to honor the fourth U.S. Chief Justice, John Marshall. Pride recounted Lancaster put forth a “Herculean effort” that included daily emails “in the wee hours.”
In a word: hardworking
“He’s extraordinarily energetic,” Pride said. “His mind is always working … I’m considerably younger and he was working me to death. It’s very hard to keep up with Ralph Lancaster.” But, Lancaster’s rigor and strict adherence to schedule did not render him a cruel taskmaster. “It was a real pleasure working with him … he made the work fun,” Pride added.
He could hardly heap enough compliments on Lancaster, whom he also described as a “wonderful fellow,” devoted father (of six), great husband, and friend with a “terrific sense of humor.” Plus, “he’s extraordinarily fair.”
Andrew Baida, former Maryland solicitor general whose state came out on the losing side of a water war with Virginia, argued against Lancaster’s 2003 recommendations to the Supreme Court.
“Obviously, I would have preferred (the special master) recommended in my client’s favor,” Baida said. Nonetheless he deemed his dealings with Lancaster “a positive experience” marked by the master’s courtesy, professionalism and control that gave each party ample opportunity to present evidence. “I don’t think he treated either side unfairly. He was even handed.”
Transcripts of monthly teleconferences Lancaster has required during his two years as ringmaster in Georgia and Florida’s water fight reflect courtesy, fairness, punctuality, and wit. He starts the 10 a.m. calls with formal introductions and compliments attorneys on timely filed, well-written briefs. He allows parties equal opportunity to report and often raises questions about the millions of documents filed.
He’s said “I hope I life long enough” to see the matter resolved and warned states in Feb. 2015 they were exploring a deep morass. He chided attorneys in March 2016 for time spent digging a ditch in discovery rather than taking a high road to mutual resolution: “Let me suggest – and I hope I’m not being too unkindly here, that if you had invested up to 10 percent of the effort and time and expense you have used in discovery on mediation, we would not be here spinning our wheels.”
He has granted some modifications in the case management schedule when presented a justifiable need, but only to a point. He personally prefers litigants to get documents to him ahead of deadline. He portrays an immense knowledge of legal precedent, occasionally citing cases unfamiliar to counsel. He appreciates thorough, but concise presentations and warned attorneys they may see his “eyes glaze over” in trial if they cannot present their cases thusly.
He told attorneys he’d be “very liberal” with the number of witnesses and documents allowed, so they won’t complain to the court they were denied opportunity. But, he cautioned that if they present multiple witnesses “saying the same darned thing, or you present hundreds of documents showing the same darned thing, it's going to be counterproductive.”
A stern warning
Lancaster has repeatedly beaten the drum for settlement, which he admitted would be less advantageous to his own pocket. He voluntarily cut his compensation from $650 to $550 per hour. He quipped in September that the trial venue in bankruptcy court might be an apt setting for litigation that could cost the states “millions or perhaps billions of dollars.”
Lancaster’s previous Special Master reports, each consisting of about 100 pages of thickly footnoted, deeply sourced legal rationale, portray the complexities he’s faced advising the Court about how to rule in rifts between the states.
For now, his attention is focused on a certain discomfort in two southern states, where if he were born he might have walked a straight furrow behind a mule or crunched shells with an oysterman’s tongs. The recommendations he gives the Court, maybe by the end of the year, will reflect the reputed fair-mindedness of a man who’s walked in many shoes, argued many cases, and read untold legal briefs and tomes to follow his love of the law.
Posted online 10/31/16
No comments:
Post a Comment