ILNews

Applications open for Allen Superior Civil Division judge

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Applications are open for qualified Allen County attorneys interested in serving as a judge in Superior Court, Civil Division.

Indiana Supreme Court Justice Steven David chairs the Allen County Judicial Nominating Committee and announced in a statement Tuesday that the commission will consider applicants to fill a vacancy that will be created with the retirement of Judge Steven Sims from his position in the Family Relations Division.

Judge Daniel Heath will transfer to the Family Relations Division, replacing Sims as allowed under IC 33-33-2-39, which governs Allen County courts. Heath’s move will create the vacancy in Allen Superior Court, Civil Division, which will be filled by the commission.

Applications are available on the Supreme Court’s website and at the Allen County Clerk’s Office, 715 S.  Calhoun St., Room 200A, Fort Wayne, IN, 46802. Applications must be turned in to the clerk by 4:30 p.m. on April 9. The Allen Judicial Nominating Commission will meet at 9 a.m. on April 25 and 26 to interview applicants at a location to be announced later.

The commission will select the three most highly qualified candidates from which Gov. Mike Pence will make an appointment.

“I encourage those interested in a public service career to submit their names to the commission,” David said. “We recognize the commission will have a tough task with many qualified Allen County attorneys, but we are looking forward to meeting with the applicants and providing the governor with an excellent list of candidates.”

The seven-member commission was established by the Indiana General Assembly in 1983 and includes three members admitted to the bar and selected by the county’s lawyers and three non-lawyer members chosen by the governor. The panel is chaired by a justice or Court of Appeals judge appointed by the chief justice. David was recently appointed chairman by Chief Justice Brent Dickson.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT