In Courtroom 4 of the Duval County Courthouse today, the Florida Supreme Court Historical Society will honor the legal career and accomplishments of recently retired Florida Supreme Court Justice Major B. Harding as part of its ongoing oral history program. Following stints as a juvenile judge, Circuit Court judge and finally, as chief judge for the 4th Judicial Circuit, the North Carolina native was appointed to the Florida Supreme Court by former Gov. Lawton Chiles on Jan. 22, 1991. In addition to his contributions to the legal profession, Justice Harding has served on the Supreme Court’s Matrimonial Law Commission, the Gender Bias Study Commission, the Bench Bar Commission, the Florida Court Education Council, the Judicial Council, and he was also president of the Rotary Club of Riverside, Jacksonville. Harding and his wife Jane live in Tallahassee. They have three children, Major, David and Alice, and eight grandchildren. Harding spoke this week with Daily Record staff writer J. Brooks Terry to share his thoughts about his legal career.
Question: What was Jacksonville like for a young lawyer in the 1960s?
Answer: In Jacksonville, it was actually a great deal of fun; almost like a fraternity. I had always observed the lawyers to be cordial and congenial to one another. They were helpful to one another. The young lawyers coming to town were always able to ask questions. A group of us would have lunch over by the Blackstone Building in a cafeteria pretty regularly and new lawyers were always welcome to join us. It was a very wonderful and fun time in the practice of law.
Q: Is it still that way today?
A: No, I don’t believe it is. I haven’t practiced law myself since 1968, but my law clerks tell me that it is much different now. When I was a lawyer, we didn’t have time sheets and the pressure to produce in that way didn’t exist.
Q: What are some other changes that you’ve seen?
A: I think one of the biggest changes is simply the numbers. I think there are about 72,000 members of The Florida Bar now. When I practiced law back then there were not nearly that many. It’s been amazing to watch the growth. I’ve also seen changes in the number of cases involving divorce and no-fault insurance. There’s just a real widespread increase in the differing types of litigation.
Q: But it’s something you still enjoy?
A: Oh yes. I have always enjoyed being in the courtroom. I enjoyed it as a lawyer, as a judge and later on as an appellant judge.
Q: What was it like going from being a lawyer to a judge?
A: Primarily, the biggest change is that when you are a lawyer you’re trying to get the judge to make up his mind your way. After you become a judge, you have to look at an issue from a different, outside perspective to make up your mind.
Q: What about the transition from trial judge to appellant judge?
A: That was an interesting transition. When you’re a trial judge, you’re the king of the mountain, so to speak. You can make the decisions and, until you do make those decisions, a case won’t proceed and a matter won’t move forward. In the appellant court, you have to get at least three other people to agree with you. It can prove to be a bit more difficult at times.
Q: Park Trammel from the Florida Supreme Court Historical Society has said that you are universally regarded as being fair and just both in and out of the courtroom. Has that always been easy for you?
A: Probably. A lot of that has to do with the way that my mom and dad raised me. Often times, I find myself in situations, even today, wondering what my mom would tell me to do. She was a great teacher. Growing up she would always have wonderful life lessons to teach me. My parents were wonderful.
Q: How did you originally decide to pursue a career in the legal field?
A: I wish I could say that it was some esoteric call (laughs), but it wasn’t really. I realized that I was going to be graduating from college and I would be drafted into the service. Law school, at the time, was a very legitimate way to defer that reality. I went to check out law school to see if it could be a possibility and it turned out that it was. But you know, I look back on it now and I realize that it was probably not as much me trying to get out of something as much as it was the good Lord trying to get me into something. I really do.
Q: Looking back, what are some of the most memorable things about your career?
A: When I look back, the realty of being able to help people in their time of need has been very valuable to me. It truly has. You don’t find people who go to lawyers just because it’s something fun to do. Normally they go to lawyers and they, ultimately, go to court because they can’t get any relief otherwise. I have found that being able as a lawyer and as a judge to help those people who are in need is almost like a calling in that respect. It has been a very rewarding opportunity just to help. We, often times as legal professionals, cannot resolve emotional issues, but we can help resolve legal issues and factual issues that cannot be resolved otherwise anywhere else.
Q: What’s next for you?
A: I am still going to the court a day or two a week and voting on cases that I heard before I left. I would hope to be finished with that in the next few weeks. At this point, I don’t have any further plans, really.
Q: It seems as though your bow tie has become somewhat of a signature for you, how did that get started?
A: You know, I don’t really know. I guess in the 1980s I started wearing a bow tie and it just sort of took. Pretty quickly it became all that I wore. I remember when I came to my interview for the Supreme Court Nominating Commission, a great deal of conversation took place as to whether or not I should wear the bow tie and I ultimately said, ‘Look, this is who I am.’ I would hate to go down there and have someone ask where it is. When I walked in the room, I was pleased to see that I was not the only one. A gentleman on the nominating commission was wearing one also. It’s just been a part of my dress for many years.
Q: Where do you see the legal profession going in the future?
A: I think we’re going to see many more issues dealing with professionalism, economic issues dealing with the number of lawyers and the type of work that we have to do. It just seems to me that over the past few years we’ve seen an increasing concern for professionalism over the practice of law. I see more effort being addressed to that.