ILNews

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.





 

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