ILNews

5 Court of Appeals judges up for retention

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

One third of the Indiana Court of Appeals judges face a retention vote this year, including two initially appointed within the past three years to fill vacancies on the state’s second highest court.

Voters statewide will have the chance Nov. 2 to cast a “yes” or “no” vote in deciding whether to keep some of those jurists on the bench for 10 more years to craft opinions, interpret state law, and represent the Hoosier legal world in setting judicial standards. Those facing retention this year are:
 

Mark Bailey Bailey

Judge L. Mark Bailey, a former Decatur County judge who was appointed to the appellate bench in 1998 and retained in 2000. He represents the First District, which comprises southern Indiana.


Elaine Brown Brown

Judge Elaine B. Brown, who served on the Dubois Superior Court for a total of 15 years before she was appointed to the appellate bench in May 2008. This is her first retention vote after being named to the court, and she represents the Fifth District that includes the entire state.


Cale Bradford Bradford

Judge Cale J. Bradford, who served for more than 10 years as a Marion Superior judge before being elevated to the appellate bench Aug. 1, 2007. He represents the Second District, which includes the central part of the state.


Melissa May May

Judge Melissa S. May, a former 14-year insurance defense and personal injury attorney in Evansville who was appointed to the Court of Appeals in April 1998 and then retained in 2000. She represents the Fourth District that encompasses the entire state.


Margaret Robb Robb

Judge Margret G. Robb, who was appointed to the appeals court in July 1998 after 20 years of general practice in Lafayette and service as a bankruptcy trustee for the Northern District of Indiana. Judge Robb also has served as a mediator and deputy public defender. She represents the Fifth District that includes the entire state and was last retained in 2000.

This is the first time since 2006 that five of the 15 intermediate appellate court judges have faced retention votes. None faced retention last year, and only one did so in 2008.

With Indiana requiring appellate judges to step down from active service at age 75, none of those facing retention this year would hit that mandatory retirement age and could serve at least one more term if they chose.

All point to their experience and judicial service on the bench as reasons they each should be allowed to remain on the appellate court. Together, they emphasize that more access, transparency, and efficiency through technology are key to making sure the judiciary can continue working effectively in the coming years.

“Indiana is at the forefront of efforts to make the judiciary more transparent,” the five wrote in a joint response to questions posed by Indiana Lawyer, citing the increase in webcasting and online information about cases and judges. “When we help our citizens better understand the function and operation of the appellate court system, we ultimately give them more confidence in the justice system as a whole.”

The judges answered 12 questions posed by IL.


One tool being used to help the legal community and general public keep informed about these jurists is the state judiciary’s website at www.in.gov/judiciary/retention, which was updated this summer to mirror the one created in 2008 after Senate President Pro Tem David Long urged the judiciary to provide more information about the retention process to voters.

In addition, the Indiana State Bar Association’s Improvements in the Judicial System Committee e-mailed a survey to its members statewide in September asking attorneys to take a confidential “yes” or “no” poll on whether those judges should be retained. The surveys went out five times to give everyone a chance to respond, and results were expected to be released Oct. 12 – after deadline for this story. This was the second time attorneys have received the poll by e-mail rather than traditional paper ballot; the first was in 2008, when three Indiana Supreme Court justices, one Court of Appeals judge, and the Tax Court judge were up for retention. About 8,000 members were polled two years ago and about 1,500 cast ballots, translating to an 18.5 percent response rate that overwhelmingly supported the jurists.•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT