ILNews

New chief justice to be selected Aug. 6

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The next chief justice of the Indiana Supreme Court will be chosen by the Judicial Nominating Commission Aug. 6, the court announced Friday.

The commission previously said interviews would take place that day with the four justices who could succeed Brent Dickson, who announced he would step down as chief justice sometime before Sept. 1. Beginning at 1 p.m., each justice will have 20 minutes before the commission in the following order: Loretta Rush, Mark Massa, Steven David and Robert Rucker.

The commission will meet from 1 to 2:30 p.m. before adjourning to executive session, after which members will reconvene in public session to vote for the next chief.

Dickson chairs the commission as is customary for chief justices. He said this week he doesn’t expect justices to unite behind a potential successor, as happened when he was named two years ago to take the place of retiring Chief Justice Randy Shepard.

“As in the past, all current Supreme Court justices have been invited to share their thoughts with the commission during the meeting. The commission has asked the justices to speak about the qualities and attributes important in a chief justice,” according to a statement released by the court.

Dickson in June announced he would step down as chief justice but remain on the court until he reaches the mandatory retirement age of 75 in July 2016.




 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Massive transformation
    From an earlier article in this e-zine "Chief Justice Brent Dickson, who worked in private practice in Lafayette prior to his appointment to the bench, said Rush’s appointment “marks the completion of a massive transformation of the Indiana Supreme Court.” He praised Rush for her intellect, determination and respect for judicial precedent and restraint." LORETTA RUSH FOR CHIEF JUDGE! And ..... Thank God for the massive transformation ... so very welcome. It only gets better and better.

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. Paul Ogden doing a fine job of remembering his peer Gary Welsh with the post below and a call for an Indy gettogether to celebrate Gary .... http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2016/05/indiana-loses-citizen-journalist-giant.html Castaways of Indiana, unite!

  2. It's unfortunate that someone has attempted to hijack the comments to promote his own business. This is not an article discussing the means of preserving the record; no matter how it's accomplished, ethics and impartiality are paramount concerns. When a party to litigation contracts directly with a reporting firm, it creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Court reporters, attorneys and judges are officers of the court and must abide by court rules as well as state and federal laws. Parties to litigation have no such ethical responsibilities. Would we accept insurance companies contracting with judges? This practice effectively shifts costs to the party who can least afford it while reducing costs for the party with the most resources. The success of our justice system depends on equal access for all, not just for those who have the deepest pockets.

  3. As a licensed court reporter in California, I have to say that I'm sure that at some point we will be replaced by speech recognition. However, from what I've seen of it so far, it's a lot farther away than three years. It doesn't sound like Mr. Hubbard has ever sat in a courtroom or a deposition room where testimony is being given. Not all procedures are the same, and often they become quite heated with the ends of question and beginning of answers overlapping. The human mind can discern the words to a certain extent in those cases, but I doubt very much that a computer can yet. There is also the issue of very heavy accents and mumbling. People speak very fast nowadays, and in order to do that, they generally slur everything together, they drop or swallow words like "the" and "and." Voice recognition might be able to produce some form of a transcript, but I'd be very surprised if it produces an accurate or verbatim transcript, as is required in the legal world.

  4. Really enjoyed the profile. Congratulations to Craig on living the dream, and kudos to the pros who got involved to help him realize the vision.

  5. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

ADVERTISEMENT