Attorney voting for Judicial Nominating Commission to be extended

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The voting process to select a lawyer representative to the Judicial Nominating Commission by more than 7,400 eligible attorneys will be extended due to an undetermined glitch that resulted in some lawyers not receiving ballots.

Indiana Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathryn Dolan said the court expects to issue an order extending the deadline for balloting that had been scheduled to conclude Nov. 19. Attorneys in good standing in the Court of Appeals Second District are eligible to vote.

Two Indianapolis attorneys – Barnes & Thornburg LLP partner Jan Carroll and Cline Farrell Christie & Lee partner Lee Christie – are on the ballot to succeed William Winingham, whose term on the seven-member commission expires Dec. 31.

Dolan said 7,439 attorneys are eligible to vote, but it became clear some of them hadn’t received ballots sent out from the Supreme Court clerk’s office in recent weeks. She said Carroll and Christie were notified and supportive of efforts to contact eligible voters and provide ballots to those who didn’t receive them.

“We know some attorneys have not received ballots but we cannot seem to uncover the pattern,” Dolan said. The clerk’s office will be contacting eligible voters and “implementing a plan to ensure individuals who have not voted and not obtained a ballot will receive a ballot and can vote.” She said ballots will be counted for attorneys who’ve already returned them, so they need to take no further action.

The commission is comprised of three attorney members elected by lawyers in each of the three COA districts, as well as three non-lawyer members appointed by the governor from each district. The chief justice chairs the panel, which interviews and recommends finalists for vacancies on the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals from which the governor selects appointees.

Elected and appointed members serve three-year terms, so those chosen to serve terms that begin next year will play a role in deciding who will replace Chief Justice Brent Dickson, who will turn 75 in 2016 and face mandatory retirement.  

The commission members also serve as the Commission on Judicial Qualifications, which investigates complaints against judges.

Court of Appeals District 2 includes these counties: Adams, Blackford, Carroll, Cass, Clinton, Delaware, Grant, Hamilton, Howard, Huntington, Jay, Madison, Marion, Miami, Tippecanoe, Tipton, Wabash, Wells and White.



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