Public defender finalists named

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Two men vying for Marion County's top public defender spot will face public interviews next week before members of the county agency's governing board decide which one will ultimately be recommended for the position.

The Marion County Public Defender Agency's board of directors declined to release names publicly until today. The board is searching for someone to succeed chief defender David E. Cook, who is leaving the agency for Indianapolis immigration firm Gresk & Singleton.

Indianapolis defense attorneys Robert J. Hill Jr. and Eric K. Koselke are in the final running for the chief defender job.

But as the nine-member board moves into the final stretches of its search for a successor, it's investigating a potential conflict of interest. Because one of the two finalists works in the same firm as one of the voting members, that could mean only eight get to vote next week.

Board member Richard Kammen is a partner at Gilroy Kammen & Hill, the firm where Hill has practiced criminal defense since 2001. Kammen has been involved in the discussion phases so far, and a decision hasn't been made whether he'll participate in the public vote.

"We're still considering whether there's an issue," said board chairman Jimmie McMillian, an associate with Barnes & Thornburg. "We've discussed that but haven't decided how to proceed."

The board's legal counsel Logan Harrison couldn't be reached today, but the Hoosier State Press Association's legal counsel Stephen Key said the situation doesn't seem to rise to a state statute violation. Without knowing specifics, Key said the issue would be whether Kammen and the firm would gain in any way if Hill secured the top defender spot. An appearance of impropriety may be the only concern, but that doesn't rise to a statute violation level, he said.

"There may not be anything legally wrong, but what's the public perception?" Key asked. "If it appears that there's favoritism or a feeling of impropriety, then maybe they'd decide whether that person should step aside so no one could question (the vote) later."

An open meeting is scheduled for 11:45 a.m. March 12 in Room 260 of the City-County Building, 200 E. Washington St. Both Hill and Koselke will go through a third and final interview before the vote, McMillian said. The board interviewed 10 applicants Feb. 26 and trimmed the list to three: Hill, Koselke, and attorney Mark E. Kamish, who practices at Baldwin Adams Knierim & Kamish in Franklin. Kamish withdrew his name for "personal and professional reasons," according to McMillian.

Both finalists have extensive ties to the agency and experience handling a range of criminal cases. Koselke has been practicing since June 1985, working as a deputy state public defender for three years, chief public defender of Marion Municipal Courts for three years, six years working for the county defender's office, and for various private firms. He currently has his own firm devoted mostly to criminal defense, and he also serves as a special assistant to the state public defender.

Admitted to practice in January 1982, Hill has worked as deputy chief public defender from 1994 to 2000 and as a part-time 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, Hill practices at Gilroy Kammen & Hill as well as being a contract public defender for the Indiana Federal Community Defenders.

Following the interviews, the board will send a recommendation for consideration by the City-County Council, which has final confirmation power.

This final action from the agency's board comes more than three months after Cook notified members he'd be leaving the agency he's led for 12 years. He planned to stay until mid-February but delayed his departure for a month to give the board more time to find a successor. It's unclear whether he'll be able to do that again. He has told Indiana Lawyer that he cannot stay past April 1, which means the board will likely have to appoint an interim director to fill the spot until Cook's successor gets the City-County Council's confirmation.

McMillian expects the council to vote in mid-April, but he emphasized this appointment is urgent and needs consideration as quickly as possible. The council met Monday and its next scheduled meeting is March 24, according to an online meeting calendar.

Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues