ILNews

Praising new judicial selections

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Hoosier legal community is publicly praising the newest nominees for the state's federal bench as good choices, particularly for those interested in seeing a more diverse judiciary.

The White House announced Jan. 20 that Jon E. DeGuilio , U.S. Magistrate Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson and Marion Superior Judge Tanya Walton Pratt would be nominated for three openings in the state's two U.S. District Courts.

This came two days after Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Indiana, made the announcement about the nominations at the federal courthouse in Indianapolis on Martin Luther King Jr. Day. In the Northern District, the nominee would fill the void left by Judge Allen Sharp, who died in July after serving in senior status for about two years. The Southern District seats are open after Judge Larry McKinney took senior status in July and Judge David F. Hamilton was elevated in November to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

While the triple-announcement comes as a first in the number of Hoosier judicial nominations made at the same time, Judge Pratt represents a historic milestone in that she'd be the first African-American to hold a seat on the federal bench in Indiana. Also, if Judges Pratt and Magnus-Stinson are approved, this would double from two to four the number of women on Indiana's federal bench.

The nominations come just as a new University of Albany study shows that female representation among the federal judiciary is lacking nationally - women make up 22 percent of all federal judgeships, with most states at the 20 percent mark and only Connecticut and New Jersey hitting the 33 percent mark. Currently, U.S. District Court Judges Sarah Evans Barker and Theresa Springmann put Indiana at the 20 percent mark, but if the new female nominees are confirmed, four of the 10 federal judges would be women.

Aside from the historic nature of the female nominees, Bayh described all three as being "recognized leaders in the Indiana legal community, demonstrating experience, insight, and non-ideological temperament that Hoosiers should expect from their judges. Indiana's Republican Sen. Dick Lugar praised his colleague's deliberative process in choosing these three, whom he also describes as legal community leaders.

DeGuilio currently serves as general counsel and vice president for Peoples Bank in northwest Indiana, after his six years in the 1990s as chief federal prosecutor for the Northern District of Indiana, and a stint as Lake County prosecutor and as a public defender there. He's also worked as a partner at the South Bend office of Barnes & Thornburg.

Magistrate Judge Magnus-Stinson started at the Marion Superior Court in the mid-90s and through the years presided over every type of felony case before moving to the federal bench in January 2007 to replace the retiring Magistrate Judge V. Sue Shields. Prior to the state bench, she served as counsel and deputy chief of staff to then-Gov. Bayh; she also worked in the civil litigation practice at LewisWagner for seven years before that.

Judge Pratt is on the Marion Superior bench, currently presiding over civil and probate cases after many years of handling major felony cases. She also has served on the Marion Superior Court's executive committee. She was a family law and probate attorney and a deputy public defender prior to taking the bench.

The first step for each of the nominees is the Senate Judiciary, which must approve a nomination before sending it to the full Senate for consideration. No timeline exists on the confirmation process, but the past four Indiana judicial nominees have taken anywhere from four to eight months. Nationally, other judicial nominations have been delayed for years when opposition arose.

In the legal community, attorneys asked about their thoughts on the nominations expressed satisfaction about each of the nominees whom they've practiced with or appeared before either in state or federal court.

Attorney Larry Evans at Valparaiso law firm Hoeppner Wagner & Evans, a frequent practitioner in federal court, said he's known DeGuilio through bar association and other connections through the years. Even though he hasn't had experience on the bench, Evans said he thinks his colleague is well qualified and has the ideal temperament, judicial demeanor, and overall intellect for the bench.

"That's not necessarily a good thing," he said about only having nominees who've presided on the bench. "That's the European model, where you're trained to become a judge right out of law school. But that's not how our system operates."

Other attorneys in the Northern District, such as Bill Padula in Munster and T. Edward Page in Merrillville, said that DeGuilio would make a fine addition to the federal bench because of his professionalism, temperament, and sharp legal mind. For DeGuilio, federal dockets show his name appearing in 40 criminal, civil, and bankruptcy cases through the years, mostly in the mid-90s.

In the Southern District, Indianapolis criminal defense attorney D. Alan Ladd spoke highly of the two nominees there, echoing the comments made by other attorneys. He's appeared before both and has found them to be fair and evenhanded.

Particularly, he praised how Judge Pratt moved from the criminal to probate side following the death of longtime Superior Judge Charles Deiter in late 2008.

"That was not an easy transition for anyone because it's a total change of gears, but she's very bright and thoughtful and did it so well for everyone involved," he said. "They both have great temperament and I'm pleased to see them both nominated."

Indianapolis attorney John Kautzman at Ruckelshaus Kautzman Blackwell Bemis & Hasbrook also said he has experience appearing before both Southern District nominees.

"I always favor judges who have trial court experience," he said. "That's a valuable resource to draw upon, and I think it makes them better federal judges."

He's found both to have an unusual and uncanny ability to cut through miscellaneous and complex issues and get right to the heart of a matter, and make practical decisions for all parties.

"That's a strong and important trait for any judge," he said.

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. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

  2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

  3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  5. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

ADVERTISEMENT