ILNews

New chief defender chosen

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indianapolis defense attorney Robert J. Hill Jr. is poised to be the next top public defender in the state's largest county.

The Marion County Public Defender Agency's governing board voted March 12 for him to lead the agency after David E. Cook resigns for private practice in mid-April. Cook notified the nine-member board of his decision in December to leave the office after 13 years at the helm, setting in motion a search for his successor.

To help facilitate the transition, Cook agreed today to stay on until April 20.

A public meeting earlier this afternoon entailed an interview of finalists Hill and Indianapolis attorney Eric K. Koselke, who were chosen from 10 original applicants for the job. A third finalist, Mark Kamish of Franklin, withdrew prior to the meeting.

Seven board members voted unanimously for Hill's appointment, with board member Rick Kammen abstaining because he and Hill work at the same firm, Gilroy Kammen & Hill. He noted that he didn't see any conflict, but agreed not to vote. Board member Jon Bailey didn't attend the meeting.

Both finalists had extensive ties to the agency and experience in handling a range of criminal cases, including multiple death penalty cases. Each candidate spoke briefly about their backgrounds, why they wanted the position, and what they saw for the future of the office.

"I've always had an interest and passion for public defense, and believe I can really make a difference for the office," Hill said. "As lawyers, if we don't take care of those without money the same as those with it, the system will break down. It's a calling for all of us."

Admitted to practice in January 1982, Hill has worked as deputy chief public defender from 1994 to 2000, and as a part-time public defender since 1983 on juvenile and major felony cases. Hill is a board member for the Indiana Public Defender Council and has served as a past chairman; he also stepped down from the county defender agency's board recently to apply for this slot. Currently, he works as a contract public defender for Indiana Federal Community Defenders, aside from his private practice.

His goals for the office include being able to transition to a full-time staff, be able to adequately fund the agency, and increase mentoring opportunities within the office, he told the board.

Now, the City-County Council must sign off on Hill's appointment before it takes effect. The board's legal counsel today planned to get the nomination to the council on Thursday so that it could be brought up at the next meeting March 24, but he didn't know if the council could immediately vote or if the issue would have to be referred to a public safety committee before a final vote.

If the council doesn't vote by Cook's departure April 20, Hill will temporarily lead the agency as interim director until the confirmation process is complete, the board voted today.
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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT