ILNews

Indianapolis lawyer chosen for judicial commissions

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Attorney John C. Trimble, a partner at Indianapolis firm Lewis Wagner, has been chosen to be one of the newest members on two key judicial commissions focused on nominating new appellate judges and ethical, qualification issues for judges statewide.

Starting in January, Trimble will be one of seven voices on the Judicial Nominating and Qualifications commissions. Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard chairs the commissions, which include the same members. State law requires that three commissioners be attorneys while three others are lay members. The governor appoints the non-attorneys, while the Supreme Court Clerk selects those from the legal world.

Trimble takes over for Indianapolis attorney James H. Young, whose term expires Dec. 31 for the second judicial district. The term for Joan M. Hurley from Sellersberg also expires at year's end and the governor is responsible for appointing a replacement. The governor's office hasn't announced a successor, and if that doesn't happen then Hurley can carry over her term, according to commission counsel Meg Babcock.

Other commission members include attorneys Stephen L. Williams from Terre Haute and Sherrill Colvin from Fort Wayne, as well as non-attorneys Mark Lubbers of Indianapolis and Dr. Daryl Yost of Fort Wayne. More information on the commissions can be found online at the Indiana Judicial Web site.

Prior to joining the commissions, Trimble and prospective members can get a glimpse of the duties by watching interviews for the latest Indiana Court of Appeals opening. The Judicial Nominating Commission has selected 7 of 15 applicants interested in the spot to return for second interviews next week; three of those will be chosen for the governor to choose from. The new judge will ultimately replace Judge John Sharpnack, who's retiring in May.

Meanwhile, the Judicial Qualifications Commission has recently issued new advisory opinions, such as one detailing when jurists should recuse themselves. Those orders can be viewed here.
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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT