ILNews

3 remain in running for high court

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Boone Circuit Judge Steven David said it best about what it’s like to be in the running for an opening on the Indiana Supreme Court.
 

David David

“This is sort of like being nine little birds in a nest,” the longtime judge said during his interview with the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission. “You’re all flying overhead us with a great big worm, and we’re all in the nest with our mouths open wanting a piece of that worm. Now, I know what a bird feels like but fortunately, there’s no elbowing.”

The judge and two others are finalists for the state’s highest court. Following a full day of interviews July 30, the seven-member commission chose Judge David, Marion Superior Judge Robyn L. Moberly, and Indianapolis appellate attorney Karl L. Mulvaney with Bingham McHale for the governor to consider for the next justice.

Moberly Robyn Moberly


They were among nine semi-finalists who’d interviewed for the spot after surviving a first round of interviews of the 34 initial applicants. The vacancy will be created once Justice Theodore R. Boehm retires Sept. 30.

Whoever is chosen will be Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels’ first appointment to the state’s highest court and the first new justice since 1999.
 

Mulvaney Karl Mulvaney

“I can’t imagine ever being better,” Judge Moberly said within an hour of hearing the news of her selection as a finalist. “I’m thrilled and humbled to be one of the three being sent to the governor.”

Judge Moberly, 56, has been a Marion Superior Court judge since 1997 and handled domestic violence and major criminal cases before moving to the civil side almost a decade ago. She’d previously served as a commissioner before taking the bench as a judge. Prior to that, she practiced privately since her graduation cum laude in 1978 from Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis.

Story continues below


If chosen, Judge Moberly would become only the second female justice in the court’s history and the first since Myra Selby stepped down in 1999. Indiana is one of only two top state courts in the country – the other is Idaho – without a female justice. The legal community has been vocal about the need for a female justice and many – including retiring Justice Boehm – have expressed an interest in seeing a woman appointed. But the chances have narrowed as 19 women initially applied, four made the semi-finalist round, and now only one is under consideration.

But aside from Judge Moberly and the gender diversity, the governor also has two other finalists who most agree are stellar choices for the Supreme Court.

Judge David, 53, has been on the bench since January 1994. The 1982 Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis graduate served as a U.S. Army judge advocate general following law school and then practiced law privately in Columbus before serving as in-house counsel at Mayflower Transit in Carmel. Once being elected to the bench, Judge David has presided over all types of civil, criminal, and juvenile matters and also served as special judge by Supreme Court appointment and hearing officer or special master in attorney and judicial misconduct cases. Throughout those years, he remained in the Army Reserves and worked on reforming the treatment of detainees in Iraq in 2003, as well as serving as chief defense counsel for Guantanamo Bay detainees at one time.

The only non-judicial finalist is Mulvaney, 60, who’s a partner at Bingham McHale and a cum laude graduate in 1977 from IU School of Law – Indianapolis. Following law school, he’d served as the Indiana Supreme Court’s assistant administrator and administrator from 1978 to 1991, reviewing transfer petitions and handling an array of administrative and legal issues. He began his legal practice at what was then known as Bingham Summers Welsh & Spillman in 1992, and since has handled scores of appellate cases and argued before both the state appellate courts.

Aside from the three finalists, those who made it past the first round of cuts were: Indianapolis attorney Ellen Boshkoff with Baker & Daniels, Indiana University associate general counsel Kiply Drew, Johnson Superior Judge Cynthia Emkes, Indiana Solicitor General Thomas M. Fisher, Hamilton Superior Judge Steven Nation, and State Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford, who’s an attorney at Steele & Steele.

Each person began their 30-minute interview with a congratulatory welcome from Chief Justice Randall Shepard, who chairs the commission. He then asked each semi-finalist to address a two-part question sent to them prior to the interviews: “What do you consider your finest professional accomplishment or contribution?” and “Name two things that need improving in the Indiana court system that a justice might help solve.”

All raised points about what they might tackle if they were a member of the court, and then responded to other questions posed by commission members – their views on approaching issues of first impression, how they might complement the current court makeup, what the judiciary’s three most pressing issues are, and how justices should factor in political, economic, and social ramifications in decision-making.

Judge David said the biggest challenge is how the state judiciary stays efficient and relevant without much money, and he said more centralized operation and coordination between the 92 counties must be explored. The court must be as open and transparent as possible in order to make sure litigants have adequate access to justice. As part of improving transparency, the judge said he supported both cameras in the courtrooms and also the Judicial Technology and Automation Committee’s statewide case management system.

Mulvaney told the commission that his experience in handling attorney ethics matters is his biggest accomplishment. Potential changes might include how judicial mandates are handled and possibly a rule revision about how long juvenile cases can have to be briefed on appeal. One commission member praised Mulvaney’s appellate experience and also allowed the attorney to delve into his experience as Supreme Court administrator and how that gave him experience in many issues before the court.

In the last of the three finalists to face their interview, Judge Moberly discussed her pride in being involved in the state’s Family Court Project since it began almost a decade ago. She also said that the growing number of pro se litigants is one of the judiciary’s biggest concerns, and that one idea that could help might be creating a public law librarian program modeled after how the court recruits teachers to educate kids about the judicial branch. She also explained the importance of managing the inevitable statewide court system changes, and how statewide funding is a significant point to consider. She said regional funding might be a step in that direction because everyone might be able to easily agree on that.

After hearing Judge Moberly speak so passionately about her family and trial court work, one commission member asked her why she wanted to move to the Supreme Court despite her loving what she does now.

“I know there’s another chapter in my career … I hope this is the next chapter, but I know there’s something more for me out there and I hope it presents itself here,” she said. “If not me, who would do it?”

One of those three are now waiting for “the big worm” that the governor is holding. The governor’s general counsel, David Pippen, said a 60-day clock begins once Daniels receives an official evaluation report on the three finalists from the nominating commission – expected in the first week of August. Interviews will likely be scheduled “pretty quickly,” and there’s really no set procedure for how that interview process will happen. Whether one interview will take place or finalists will be invited for a second informal interview hasn’t been determined, but it will be up to the governor to decide. Pippen said he doesn’t expect the governor will come close to running the 60-day deadline, but if Daniels doesn’t meet that deadline, the chief justice would make an appointment from the same list.•


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hello everyone am precious from the united state of America am here to testify in the name of this great man who has brought back happiness into my family after my lover Chris left me for 3years for another woman,i really loved Chris because he was my first love i tried everything within my power to get Chris back to my life but people i met just kept on scamming me and lying to me,Then normally on Saturdays i do go out to make my hair and get some stuff,Then i had people discussing at the saloon if they do listen to there radio well,That there is a program (how i got back my ex)And started talking much about Dr EDDY how this man has helped lots of people in bringing back there lover,So immediately i went close to those ladies i met at the saloon and i explained things to them they said i should try and contact Dr EDDY that he has been the talk of the town and people are really contacting him for help immediately we searched on the internet and read great things about Dr EDDY i now got all Dr EDDY contact instantly at the saloon i gave Dr EDDY a call and i shared my problem with him he just told me not to worry that i should just be happy,He just told me to send him some few details which i did,And then he got back to me that everything would be okay within 36hours i was so happy then Dr EDDY did his work and he did not fail me,My lover Chris came to me in tears and apologized to me for leaving me in deep pain for good 3years,So he decided to prove that he will never leave me for any reason he made me had access to his account and made me his next of kin on all his will,Now the most perfect thing is that he can't spend a minute without seeing me or calling me,Am so grateful to Dr EDDY for bringing back the happiness which i lack for years,Please contact Dr EDDY for help he is a trustworthy man in email is dreddyspiritualtemple@gmail.com or you can call him or whatsapp him with this number...+23408160830324 (1)If you want your ex back. (2) if you always have bad dreams. (3)You want to be promoted in your office. (4)You want women/men to run after you. (5)If you want a child. (6)[You want to be rich. (7)You want to tie your husband/wife to be yours forever. (8)If you need financial assistance. (9)If you want to stop your Divorce. 10)Help bringing people out of prison. (11)Marriage Spells (12)Miracle Spells (13)Beauty Spells (14)PROPHECY CHARM (15)Attraction Spells (16)Evil Eye Spells. (17)Kissing Spell (18)Remove Sickness Spells. (19)ELECTION WINNING SPELLS. (20)SUCCESS IN EXAMS SPELLS. (21) Charm to get who to love you. CONTACT:dreddyspiritualtemple@gmail.com

  2. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  3. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  4. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  5. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

ADVERTISEMENT