ILNews

9 semi-finalists in running for justice spot

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Nine attorneys remain in the running to be the next Indiana Supreme Court justice after a seven-member commission narrowed down a list of nearly three-dozen applicants earlier this month for the court opening.

After two days of interviewing 34 initial applicants, the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission chose nine people as semi-finalists after about two hours of deliberation on July 7. Those individuals will return for second interviews at the end of the month, before three names are submitted to Gov. Mitch Daniels for consideration.

Whoever is chosen will succeed Justice Theodore R. Boehm, who announced earlier this year his plans to retire Sept. 30. This will be the Republican executive’s first chance to put someone on the high court.

The semi-finalist group consists four women and five men who in their professional legal roles offer a makeup of four trial judges, two big firm private practitioners, a law school general counsel, a state senator, and the state’s Solicitor General.

Following a unanimous public vote on the semi-finalists, Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard – who chairs the commission – said that he initially expected fewer semi-finalists than the number chosen, but it was a direct result of having so many highly-qualified applicants to draw from.

Semi-finalists are, as arranged by the time they will have second interviews on July 30:
 

David David

8:45-9:15 a.m.: Boone Circuit Judge Steven David, who’s been on the bench since 1995 and also has had an active career with the Army Reserve. The judge said that he didn’t plan to re-engage in active duty and that he could retire anytime, so his service wouldn’t impact any judicial duties. He discussed his views on the use of international law in considering constitutional issues here. The judge also delved into his work drafting new parenting-time guidelines and the comments that are easy to understand for lawyers and litigants, as well as his experience as a special judge handling the high-profile Zolo Azania death penalty case where he ruled the state couldn’t proceed with that sentence after 23 years of delays and new trials. The state Supreme Court reversed him 3-2, and Judge David said he supports the idea of the death penalty in the right circumstances.
 

Fihser Tom Fisher

9:15-9:45 a.m.: Thomas M. Fisher, who has been Indiana’s solicitor general since the office was created in 2005, and previously worked in the Attorney General’s Office. Before joining the AG’s Office, he had worked at Baker & Daniels in Indianapolis and Jones Day in Washington, D.C. Fisher told commission members that he’d wanted to be a judge since clerking for Judge Michael Kanne on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, and that through the years he’d fine-tuned that consideration for where he would want to work. His current job won’t last forever and this justice position is the next logical step that fits well with his “career trajectory,” he said. He outlined characteristics for an ideal justice as someone having intellectual curiosity, a sense of fairness, dispassion, and “open-mindedness about where the law can take us.”
 

Emkes Emkes

9:45-10:15 a.m.: Johnson Superior Judge Cynthia S. Emkes, who’s been on the bench since 1987 after serving as a magistrate and working in private practice. Judge Emkes talked about the intense population growth in her county and how it’s impacted the court system, ending the random rotation of case filing and allowing judges to instead divide up amounts and specific types of cases. She also spoke about the emotional experience handling death penalty cases, such as the Michael Dean Overstreet case in 2000, and told members that it would be an honor for all Indiana trial judges to have one of their own appointed.
 

Boshkoff Boshkoff

10:30-11 a.m.: Indianapolis attorney Ellen E. Boshkoff, a partner at law firm Baker & Daniels for more than a decade and practicing for more than 20 years. During her interview, Boshkoff mentioned she’d been in the trenches and argued cases at both the trial and appellate levels and told members about her desire to learn more. Members delved into her background clerking for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and she explained her views that the economy was the biggest challenge the judiciary faces.
 

Mulvaney Karl Mulvaney

11-11:30 a.m.: Indianapolis attorney Karl L. Mulvaney, who’s been practicing since 1977 and is an appellate attorney with Bingham McHale. Drawing on Mulvaney’s service as Indiana Supreme Court Administrator from 1984 to 1991, the chief justice noted that he’d observed proceedings around the conference table in that room more than almost anyone. Mulvaney said it would be a “pinnacle” for any appellate lawyer to join the court, and he stressed the importance of being collegial, open-minded, and willing to listen. In response to a question about his appellate-only experience and lack of trial-level experience, Mulvaney said that he’d worked closely through the years with many trial attorneys and tried disciplinary, mandate of funds, and many other cases before the appellate courts.
 

Steele Steele

11:30 a.m.-12 p.m.: State Sen. Brent E. Steele, R-Bedford, who’s served in both the House and Senate and works as an attorney with the law office of Steele & Steele. The senator said his legislative work on both sides of the aisle has prepared him for the court, and he spoke about his lifetime commitment to public service. He spoke about his support of merit-selection versus judicial elections, and said campaign fundraising typically involves at least a public perception that a legislator will vote a certain way.
 

Moberly Robyn Moberly

1:15- 1:45 p.m.: Marion Superior Judge Robyn L. Moberly, who’s been on the bench since 1997 and previously had been a commissioner after working in private practice. She spoke about her experience handling various aspects of law, and said she loves to write and almost always takes cases under advisement for that writing and intellectual process.
 

Nation Nation

1:45-2:15 p.m.: Hamilton Superior Judge Steven R. Nation, who has been on the bench since 1995 and previously served as Hamilton County prosecutor. During his interview, he pointed out his experience as a prosecutor and judge and spoke about his efforts to try and reach kids early on to keep them out of the system later in life. As a judge, he tries to ensure consistency on the bench to give clear guidance to attorneys and litigants. Specific cases he mentioned included the Geist zoning case, which he said entailed 30,000 pages of documents.
 

Drew Drew

2:15-2:45 p.m.: Bloomington attorney Kiply S. Drew, who has served as associate general counsel at Indiana University in Bloomington since 1994. She told commission members during her first interview that she’d be good as a justice based on her intellect, writing ability, and appreciation for the role of the court.

But aside from those selected as semi-finalists, some of the most colorful and interesting comments came up during the two days of interviews and demonstrated the state bar’s colorful characters.

For example, Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Elaine Brown was the only appellate jurist to apply for the post and unlike most applicants, she relied heavily on a prepared speech lasting more than 10 minutes to outline her initiatives and other ideas for the court. Lake Superior Judge Mary Beth Bonaventura stressed her experience handling juvenile cases, and made the statement that despite her groundbreaking involvement in televising juvenile proceedings that she didn’t generally think those types of cases should be televised to the public because of the sensitive nature.

During Miami Superior Judge Robert Spahr’s 20-minute interview, he discussed his two decades of experience as a child services attorney and harshly criticized the current direction of the state’s Department of Child Services and financially motivated decisions about juvenile justice. As a trial judge, he’s too concerned with micro-managing and service cuts and that makes his job more difficult. Judge Spahr also noted that he felt trial courts are often “confused” by appellate direction because there’s not enough direction or clarity, and he urged members to visit his personal website promoting his books to see how good a writer he is.

But one of the most interesting interviews came from Steuben Circuit Court Judge Allen Wheat, who’d opened his interview by telling members that he isn’t “the sharpest knife in the drawer.” The judge asked members rhetorically why litigants in a civil money case can get automatic judge changes but criminal cases involving liberty cannot. He also noted the rise of mediation in the past two decades has diminished the number of great trial lawyers, and how that has impacted the civility and professionalism of the practicing bar.

Ending his interview, Judge Wheat offered a monologue to the commission.

“How about a story, if that’s OK,” he said. “About an hour ago I was terribly nervous. For some reason I envisioned this antelope running across the African savannah. And he was going just as fast as he could. His heart was pounding and his nostrils were flaring and then all of a sudden there appeared a lioness that went right for the antelope’s throat. The antelope screamed in pain, rolled over, died. It’s over.

“I don’t wish to be that antelope,” he said.•

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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT