7 semi-finalists still vying for Tax Court

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Seven attorneys remain in the running to be the next Indiana Tax Court judge, and they return for second interviews before the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission Oct. 27. Here is a glimpse of the seven who made it past the first cut from the 14 who went through the first interviews.

George Angelone Angelone

George T. Angelone

Indianapolis attorney with the Legislative Services Agency who was admitted to practice in 1976.

Angelone has three decades of experience reviewing tax and public finance work. He knows the legislature, the legal environment, and workings of tax court caseload, and is committed to outreach to improve the profession. He can bring a methodical approach to analyze and apply the law, and knows how all the pieces fit together. He said more can be done locally to improve the tax law process because two- or three-year waits aren’t efficient.

Dan Carwile Carwile

Dan J. Carwile

Banking attorney who is senior vice president with Old National Wealth Management in Evansville. He was admitted to practice in 1983.

Carwile said his experience has prepared him for this post, and he emphasized his hard work and ethics as being important. He said he’d be sensitive to pro se litigants and small-claims issues.

Carol Comer Comer

Hon. Carol S. Comer

Administrative law judge with the Indiana Board of Tax Review who has been practicing since 1996.

Judge Comer’s entire career has been spent on the administrative side and she has handled all issues, including reworking the tax board’s procedural rules in 2007 because of the assessment law and agency structure changes. She said it’s important to be mindful of caselaw exemptions that can build up and prevent a big ruling like Town of St. John, and that the court could work with the legislature to ensure that it understands constitutionality.

Joby Jarrells Jerrells

Joby D. Jerrells

Second-career attorney admitted in 2003 who works in the Indiana Attorney General’s Office as a deputy prosecutor and also a self-employed attorney out of his home in Bloomington.

Jerrells discussed the variety of his workload and his work on the Trump and Aztar cases, which allowed him to use his policy-analysis skills and also showed him how the principles of the law apply more than the dollar amount.

Karen Love Love

Hon. Karen M. Love

Hendricks Superior judge since 1995 after practicing privately and working previously as a certified accountant. She was admitted to practice in 1986.

She discussed with commission members what she calls the “ABCs” of this position, which she described as meaning the attitude of a judge, the balance she can bring based on her experience, and those critical aspects of clarity, consistency, and communication. Judge Love helped draft the child support guidelines and she said her work on the domestic relations committee has been the most rewarding.

Melony Sacopulos Sacopulos

Melony A. Sacopulos

General counsel at Indiana State University in Terre Haute who has been practicing since 1988.

Sacopulos said her university experience means handling many different areas each day and having to make prudent judgment calls that impact someone’s life or career. The judge’s opinions that interpret statute should be the extent of the relationship between the court and legislature, she said.

Martha Wentworth Wentworth

Martha B. Wentworth

Tax director at the Greenwood-based multistate group Deloitte Tax LLP who’s previously served in roles that included clerking for the Tax Court in the early 1990s. She was admitted to practice in 1990.

Wentworth has seen the devastating impact on taxpayers from adverse tax decisions, and she has worked closely with the state Department of Revenue and knows how significant those rulings can be for the agencies and government. She wasn’t sure how she would have ruled on the Town of St. John case. She said access and transparency on the court is important in helping people understand these tax laws.•


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.