ILNews

5 vie for spot on judicial commissions

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Openings on the Indiana Supreme Court and state Tax Court in recent months have put more focus on the selection process and what goes into choosing appellate jurists, leading to increased interest from the legal community about who has a voice in deciding nomination and other judicial qualifications issues.

Now, more than 7,000 attorneys in 19 central Indiana counties have the chance to vote on one colleague who will be that voice and be a part of the decision-making that will impact the judiciary and legal system throughout the state.

The vacancy will be for one seat on a seven-member panel that doubles as the Indiana Judicial Qualifications Commission and Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission, which is chaired by Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard and includes three lawyers chosen by colleagues and three non-attorneys appointed by the governor. Indianapolis attorney John Trimble completes his three-year term at year’s end, and five lawyers have submitted their names for consideration to replace him.

Applying for the post in the 2nd judicial district for the 2011-2013 term are:

Jan Carroll Carroll

• Jan M. Carroll, a partner at law firm Barnes & Thornburg in Indianapolis who was admitted to practice in 1984 and handles product liability, professional liability for lawyers and doctors, real estate and land use, and general commercial contract disputes. A former journalist who worked as an Associated Press reporter for 11 years, she also handles First Amendment and media law issues.

• David R. Hennessy, a solo criminal defense attorney in Indianapolis who sits on the Indiana Public Defender Council’s board of directors and has been practicing since 1982.

• Kathy L. Osborn, a partner at Baker & Daniels in Indianapolis who’s been practicing since 2000 and handles commercial, antitrust, and appellate litigation. She also chairs the Indianapolis Bar Association Appellate Practice Section.

• Joel Schumm, an Indianapolis attorney since 1998 and a law professor at Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis, largely practices criminal defense at the state trial and appellate levels.

David Hennessey Hennessy

• William E. Winingham Jr., a name partner at Wilson Kehoe & Winingham in Indianapolis who was admitted to practice in Indiana in 1979, has been an assistant U.S. Attorney assisting crime victims, and a state court prosecutor. Currently, he’s a plaintiff’s attorney focusing on civil litigation that includes vehicle accidents, fires and explosions, products liability, and cases against insurance companies.

The district is made up of Adams, Blackford, Carroll, Cass, Clinton, Delaware, Grant, Hamilton, Howard, Huntington, Jay, Madison, Marion, Miami, Tippecanoe, Tipton, Wabash, Wells, and White counties.

But whoever is chosen to start in January 2011 by those attorneys will have statewide impact on how judicial discipline and qualifications issues are tackled by the commissions. Those five are using that fact to point out specific areas that need more attention and emphasize how the makeup of those lawyer members is an important consideration.

The election also means the legal community is seeing a mix of pseudo campaigning from the group, with some contacting colleagues by word-of-mouth only and others tapping into more organized campaigns using letters, e-mails, and social media.

Through the years, the attorney election for the commissions has evolved into what’s largely viewed as a “plaintiffs versus defense” bar type of race. Trimble noted that when he started practicing in the early 1980s and into the ’90s, the biggest law firms would pool their votes and back one person. That hasn’t happened in 15 to 20 years, though.

“With five people running, it will be interesting to see how votes fall and how this all turns out,” said Trimble, the LewisWagner partner who is wrapping up his time on the commission after starting in January 2008.

Most of the nominees have phoned Trimble to discuss what the commission does and how much time commitment is involved, and he thinks all are qualified and any one of the lawyers would be an excellent choice.

Kathy Osborn Osborn

Traditionally, attorneys do some campaigning for the spot and that’s involved writing letters, calling colleagues, and just mentioning their interest and the vote possibility in casual conversation.

Trimble said he didn’t make phone calls or send brochures when he was seeking the position, but he did ask select attorneys, friends, and law firms in central Indiana to e-mail co-workers to let them know about his running. He described his as a “somewhat organized” effort, not a highly organized e-mail or phone campaign. He said the defense bar has been more word-of-mouth, while he’s observed the plaintiffs bar sends letters and pamphlets outlining a person’s biography and qualifications, and particular endorsements.

In responses about that campaigning, the five nominees offered different answers about how they’re handling it. Most are relying on word-of-mouth to some degree, with that level varying with each person and some asking fellow attorneys and law firms to spread the word.

Schumm said he isn’t sending letters or placing any ads, but he is relying on e-mail and word-of-mouth.

Hennessy said he hadn’t considered campaigning and even declined the attorney-contact CD offered as a resource, but he may do letters and rely on word-of-mouth because he’s being urged to campaign.

Carroll said she’s also contacting colleagues and using her personal contacts from her days as a reporter, and she’s considering a letter after receiving one herself from another nominee.

Winingham said he’s called colleagues and sent a letter explaining his interest and summarizing his qualifications.

Osborn indicated she had the most organized and systematic approach in contacting lawyers and law firms, and she also sent letters to all of the county bar associations in 2nd District. Her firm, Baker & Daniels, sent a news release – and posted it online – about her interest, and she said her friends and colleagues are using social media to further campaign efforts.

Joel Schumm mug Schumm

“I’m not sure that (level of campaigning) was there in previous years,” Carroll said. “Every lawyer is looking for someone who is truly neutral and has the experience and background to make good decisions. For me, the function of these letters is to say, ‘Hey, there’s an election, so be alert and cast your ballot.’”

Ballots and biographies will be mailed Oct. 12 to attorneys’ homes by the Indiana Appellate Clerk’s Office, and attorneys must return the ballots by 4 p.m. Nov. 10. The ballots will be counted at 10 a.m. Nov. 12, according to a clerk’s office notice. During the 2007 election process for that district, the clerk’s office sent 6,616 ballots to attorneys and 1,678 were returned – a 25 percent return response. The clerk’s office expects to send 7,092 ballots this time.

Hennessy said he wasn’t aware of any practicing criminal defense attorney being on the commission, as most practice on the civil side.

Osborn noted that the commission selection has often been cast as “plaintiff’s versus defense bar races” and that has disenfranchised a large portion of the practicing bar. She also emphasized that women make up more than 50 percent of the bar, but no female lawyer has ever been on the commission since it was created in 1970. Women have been on the commission in the past and there’s one currently, but all have been non-attorneys chosen by the governor. Evansville resident Christine Keck – who is director of strategy and business development for renewable energy at Energy Systems Group in Newburgh – is the commission’s only woman and her term also expires in December.

Winningham-Bill-mug Carroll

“The disappointing fact that Indiana only ever has had one female Supreme Court justice, and currently has none, is an historical one that goes to the cumulative decisions that have been made over nearly two centuries,” Osborn said, noting that Boone Circuit Judge Steven David’s recent appointment to the high court isn’t to blame. ”I am interested in serving on the Judicial Nominating Commission in part because I believe the fact that there has never been a female attorney on that commission could be one factor of many that has impacted historical nominating and appointment decisions.”

All cited their interest in judicial ethics and the nominating process, and the larger issue of making sure the judiciary remains strong.

Hennessy said he’s observed a decline in court sessions starting on time and overall civility toward lawyers and litigants, and he wants to see greater exposure and transparency, as well as increased sensitivity and early intervention on judicial-stress issues.

Trimble said that it’s most important for the candidates to remember and understand that 95 percent of the work the commissions do involves judicial qualifications issues that come before them, including the selection and appointment of senior judges.

“This is interesting and challenging work, and it’s certainly something I’ve generally enjoyed and would describe as a life-changing experience,” he said.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

  2. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

  3. Low energy. Next!

  4. Had William Pryor made such provocative statements as a candidate for the Indiana bar he could have been blackballed as I have documented elsewhere on this ezine. That would have solved this huuuge problem for the Left and abortion industry the good old boy (and even girl) Indiana way. Note that Diane Sykes could have made a huuge difference, but she chose to look away like most all jurists who should certainly recognize a blatantly unconstitutional system when filed on their docket. See footnotes 1 & 2 here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html Sykes and Kanne could have applied a well established exception to Rooker Feldman, but instead seemingly decided that was not available to conservative whistleblowers, it would seem. Just a loss and two nice footnotes to numb the pain. A few short years later Sykes ruled the very opposite on the RF question, just as she had ruled the very opposite on RF a few short years before. Indy and the abortion industry wanted me on the ground ... they got it. Thank God Alabama is not so corrupted! MAGA!!!

  5. OK, take notice. Those wondering just how corrupt the Indiana system is can see the picture in this post. Attorney Donald James did not criticize any judges, he merely, it would seem, caused some clients to file against him and then ignored his own defense. James thus disrespected the system via ignoring all and was also ordered to reimburse the commission $525.88 for the costs of prosecuting the first case against him. Yes, nearly $526 for all the costs, the state having proved it all. Ouch, right? Now consider whistleblower and constitutionalist and citizen journalist Paul Ogden who criticized a judge, defended himself in such a professional fashion as to have half the case against him thrown out by the ISC and was then handed a career ending $10,000 bill as "half the costs" of the state crucifying him. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/ogden-quitting-law-citing-high-disciplinary-fine/PARAMS/article/35323 THE TAKEAWAY MESSAGE for any who have ears to hear ... resist Star Chamber and pay with your career ... welcome to the Indiana system of (cough) justice.

ADVERTISEMENT