ILNews

Commission conducts first Tax Court judge interviews

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission is interviewing 14 people who’ve applied to be the state’s next Tax Court judge, narrowing down the list to semi-finalists who will return for second interviews in October.

Starting at 9 a.m., the seven-member commission chaired by Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard has been questioning those interested in the appellate tax court, which will for the first time since its creation in 1986 see a change in leadership once Judge Thomas G. Fisher retires at year’s end. Fifteen had applied, but one person withdrew his name last week leading up to these first-round interviews.

Before taking an hour-long lunch break, the commission had interviewed Martha Wentworth, George Angelone, Hon. Karen Love, Andrew Swain, Hon. Bruce Kolb, Marilyn Meighen, Joseph Pearman, Joby Jerrells, and Melony Sacopulos. The five remaining following lunch included Dan Carwile, Hon. Carol Comer, Randle Pollard, Michelle Baldwin, and Thomas Ewbank.

Each person appeared for a 20-minute interview. The chief justice greeted each applicant who came before the commission today, thanking that person for applying and asking everyone about their interest in the judicial spot. The responses were all similar, differing to a degree based on their own experiences but with many saying this would be a logical evolution in their legal careers and that they wanted to continue the practice of having fair and concise caselaw that Judge Fisher has created during the past 24 years.

“I’ve always enjoyed the intellectual puzzles that tax law presents,” said Melony Sacopulos, general counsel at Indiana State University, as she discussed her work for a national tax office in Washington, D.C., that she said gave her unique experience.

Commissioners asked some of the same questions to applicants, such as their views on the Tax Court’s mission and how the court and judge should interact with the legislature on tax law and issues. Members also turned to applicants’ information about their most significant legal matters and also how those experiences might have prepared them for the tax bench.

Hendricks Superior Judge Karen Love discussed what she calls the “ABCs” of this court, which she described as meaning the attitude of a judge, the balance she can bring based on her experience, and those critical aspects of clarity, consistency, and communication.

Deputy Attorney General Andrew Swain said he didn’t think that ADR Rule 2.7(b)2 applied to the tax court because the attorney general and the governor must approve any mediated settlements. But in the next interview, Administrative Law Judge Bruce Kolb said he wanted to examine why only one case during the past three years has been referred to mediation. Kolb also said his experience with pro se litigants could be beneficial in an area that is sure to see an increase of those cases in coming years.

Attorney George Angelone, who has spent three decades working for the Legislative Services Agency, said he focused on tax and public finance work and that agency is one of the only places you can find a similar caseload to what the Tax Court faces. He noted that two- or three-year waits on some tax issues at the local level isn’t good enough, and more must be done at that stage to make the process efficient. The bar could help on that, possibly through continuing legal education, he said.

The commission is scheduled to finish interviews this afternoon and begin deliberating in executive session at 4 p.m., and will then hold a public vote on who it chooses as semi-finalists. The second interviews are scheduled for Oct. 27, and the commission will forward three names to the governor to make the final decision.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT