Two months ago, Rodney Acker became the 70th president to lead the American College of Trial Lawyers, one of the most prestigious and selective trial lawyer organizations in the U.S. and Canada.
Acker, a commercial and securities litigation partner in Norton Rose Fulbright’s Dallas office, follows a legacy of ACTL leaders within his own law firm. He succeeds the leadership of two former Fulbright & Jaworski managing partners — famed Watergate prosecutor Leon Jaworski, who served as ACTL president for a year in the early sixties, and Kraft Eidman, who did so in the late seventies.
Unlike his predecessors, Acker will have entered and exited his presidential term with the College during an unprecedented period for the legal profession and the world as society navigates the threat, disruption and reintegration into a “new norm” that the novel coronavirus has posed upon all of us.
Acker recently caught The Texas Lawbook up on what the ACTL does, what he’s been up to so far during his presidency and what kinds of challenges he’s currently seeing within the practice of law. He discussed the impact that COVID-19 is having on the trial bar and jury trials, how the change in presidential administrations impact the trial bar and the selection of judges in Texas.
Texas Lawbook: Tell us a little bit about the American College of Trial Lawyers. What does it take to get in, and how many members do you have?
Rodney Acker: The American College of Trial Lawyers is an invitation-only organization of approximately 5,000 trial lawyers in the United States and Canada. Our mission is to maintain and improve the standards of trial practice, professionalism, ethics, and the administration of justice. The College supports the judicial independence, trial by jury, respect for the rule of law, and access to justice.
Experienced trial lawyers can be invited to become Fellows only after an extensive investigation process. This process begins when an existing Fellow identifies a trial lawyer that she or he believes meets the standards of talent, experience, ethics and collegiality required for Fellowship. Information about the nominee is gathered without the candidate’s knowledge. The candidate is then investigated by the Fellow conducting the investigation, calling the judges before whom the nominee has appeared, and the opposing counsel in the nominee’s cases.
If, after a thorough investigation, a lawyer is approved by the state or province committee, the Fellows in that state or province are polled for their opinions and comments about the nominee. The results are then provided to the Regent for that state or province for further investigation.
Following the Regent’s further investigation, the candidate is presented to the National Board of Regents for a vote. The nomination and investigations are conducted without knowledge by the candidate. As stated in our Bylaws, membership is limited to “those trial lawyers who are outstanding and considered the best in a state or province,” and “who have demonstrated the very highest standards of trial advocacy, ethical conduct, integrity, professionalism and collegiality.
TLB: What are your duties as president and what does it mean to lead the College?
RA: The duties include chairing the Board of Regents and the Executive Committee’s meetings and working with the committees to carry out the College’s mission. The President also presides over the national Annual and Spring Meetings of the College.
TLB: You’ve been on the job for over a month now. What have you been up to so far?
RA: Following my induction in September, we held our annual leadership workshop, and for the first time, it was virtual. The workshop involves a two-day meeting attended by the Executive Committee, the Regents and the chairs and vice-chairs of our 100-plus general and state committees. The focus is on improving how the College fulfills its mission statement, which is addressed primarily through its committees.
The College also addresses the need to respond to statements attacking judicial independence and the rule of law. The fun part of being President is to attend state, province and regional meetings to meet and socialize with the Fellows and report on what is happening nationally. Of course, with the pandemic still affecting everyone, we try to abide by local safety guidelines to keep people safe and are only meeting by Zoom for the time being.
TLB: What are you hearing from your members across the U.S. and Canada in regard to the problems they’re facing this year?
RA: Like the rest of the nation, the College Fellows are dealing with unprecedented challenges in their personal and professional lives. Everyone is trying to adjust to the new normal with more Zoom trials, depositions and mediations, and trying to figure out how to safely and effectively try cases in person.
TLB: You are the third Norton Rose Fulbright lawyer to lead the College. How many lawyers from your firm are members, and how many Texas lawyers from your firm are members?
RA: While Norton Rose Fulbright has a long history of participation and support for the College, the College does not provide information on membership by firm.
TLB: The other two NRF presidents were Kraft Eidman (1977-78) and Leon Jaworski (1961-62). What kind of legacy did they create both during their leadership of the College and within your law firm? Did you ever cross paths with either? What’s your biggest takeaway from how they led?
RA: Unfortunately I never met Mr. Jaworski or Mr Eidman. I know that they were both revered in the firm for their leadership and their ability as trial lawyers.
TLB: Do you have any specific agenda for what you would like to achieve for the College during your presidency?
RA: Certainly, I want to continue all the College’s work to further our core missions. In particular, however, I had hoped to focus on continuing the College’s mission of mentoring and training young lawyers. With the pandemic and the social issues and conflict surrounding the election, however, the focus has been on administering justice, with the courts having limited capacity to try cases, and on the attacks on the judiciary. The College is well-positioned to address both those issues with two of our new committees: the Advocacy in the 21st Century Committee and the Judicial Independence Committee.
TLB: Between the pandemic, racial justice issues and a deeply divided political climate, it’s been a tough year. What kind of role does your organization play in the intersection of these pressing issues?
RA: Well, as an organization, the College is not a political organization and tries to stay in its lane and address the issues that affect our core missions, such as the administration of justice and judicial independence. Individually, our Fellows are very active as citizens, and we have Fellows who are both Democrats and Republicans. Those Fellows are very active politically in addressing these issues facing the country. That is not to say that the College sits on the sideline with its head in the sand. For example, this last year, the College created a new award called the Thurgood Marshall Award for Equality and Justice to recognize individuals publicly – lawyers or not – who have led the fight for racial equality and justice.
TLB: Do you think the number of jury trials that have been postponed due to COVID-19 has done any serious long-term damage to the jury system? Are any of your members worried about the impact COVID-19 has had on the impact of the jury system?
RA: I think everyone worries about the pandemic’s effect on our justice system, but I believe that we will get through it. I do believe that what we have seen is that technology has provided the opportunities to more efficiently expedite hearings and sometimes trials. I don’t think, or at least I hope, we won’t be replacing in-person trials any time soon, but there may be ways to make the administration of justice faster and less expensive.
TLB: What can we expect to see from the College when it comes to ensuring the wheels of justice keep turning as the legal profession tries to get the jury trial system back on track?
RA: This is why the College created a Task Force on Advocacy in the 21st Century and why that Task Force was turned into a permanent committee. That committee produced some interim guidelines for how to safely return to in-person trials. One Judicial fellow on that Committee, Judge Barbara Lynn, was one of the first federal judges nationally to conduct an in-person jury trial. Her experience helped guide that committee’s work in creating the guidelines.
TLB: As you probably know, there was just a COVID-19 outbreak in a federal courtroom in Texas. What kinds of concerns are you hearing from lawyers when it comes to the health and safety of their clients and teams while in court?
RA: Throughout the remainder of the pandemic, I think everyone will remain concerned with the safety of all the trial participants from the jurors, parties, witnesses, lawyers and court staff. I have been before that judge, and I found him conscientious and he has done everything possible to keep the participants safe. I am certain that all judges are continually reassessing the safety of conducting jury trials to keep the participants safe.
TLB: When there is a change in the U.S. presidential administration, does the litigation practice change at all? If so, how, and which areas do you expect may pick up in activity — be it antitrust law, securities litigation, labor and employment, or something else?
RA: Some changes will occur in some practice areas as they always do, and others will be unaffected. The new administration certainly affects how regulators approach their areas of enforcement. I think we could certainly see stepped-up enforcement emphasis in some of the areas you mentioned.
TLB: In Texas, we’ve just been through another round of judicial elections.The amount of money being raised for the candidates and the level of partisanship among the races have been hot topics. In your view, does the fact that judges are elected by political partisanship and monies raised by law firms in any way taint the justice system or undermine the public’s confidence in the judicial system? Why or why not?
RA: I am a fan of the Missouri plan with the initial appointment of judges and confirmation elections. I believe most judges become judges out of a desire to serve the public, not to become politicians. That said, I don’t see Texas not electing judges in my lifetime. I believe that judges, once elected, call balls and strikes as they see them, not based on how much money a lawyer, hers or his firm, or the parties have contributed to his election.