ILNews

Commission interviewing 9 semi-finalists today

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

One set of interviews remain before the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission goes into a closed-door meeting to deliberate which three names should be sent to the governor to decide who will be the state’s next Supreme Court justice.

The seven-member commission this morning interviewed six of the nine semi-finalists to succeed Justice Theodore R. Boehm once he retires in September. Almost three dozen applicants had put their name in the hat for the justice spot, and two days of interviews in early July narrowed that list to nine semi-finalists. The commission is tasked with providing three finalists’ names to Gov. Mitch Daniels, who will have 60 days to make a decision.

Interviewed so far today: Boone Circuit Judge Steven David, Indiana Solicitor General Thomas M. Fisher, Johnson Superior Judge Cynthia Emkes, Indianapolis attorney Ellen Boschkoff with Baker & Daniels, Indianapolis attorney Karl Mulvaney with Bingham McHale, and State Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford. Those being interviewed this afternoon are Marion Superior Judge Robyn Moberly, Hamilton Superior Judge Steven Nation, and Indiana University associate general counsel Kipley Drew.

Each person began their 30-minute interview with a congratulatory welcome from Chief Justice Randall Shepard, who chairs the commission. He then asked each semi-finalist to address a two-part question sent out by the commission earlier this week:

"What do you consider your finest professional accomplishment or contribution?" and "Name two things that need improving in the Indiana court system that a justice might help solve."

Some of the semi-finalists mentioned technology as a key area the judiciary must focus on, including Boshkoff, Judge David, and Steele.

“As a member of the court, with my experience in the legislature, I can keep the Odyssey program on track,” Steele said, adding that he’d be in favor of seeing the Supreme Court establish a sort of “mini-law school,” or indoctrination program for new lawyers to learn the basic tenets of the law and how to apply those to their practices.

Judge David responded to one commission member’s concern about his military career and said it wouldn’t interfere because he’d finished his service, and overall his military experience and international law knowledge make him unique among the nine semi-finalists in bringing something new to the court.

In talking about his greatest accomplishments, Fisher discussed the three Supreme Court of the United States arguments he’s made through the years. As far as changes, he noted that the court might explore allowing merit briefs similar to what the SCOTUS allows and possibly look at changing evidentiary rules to mesh with what’s already in place in the federal system.

Judge Emkes spoke about her biggest accomplishment as being her familiarity with and education for trial judges on the death penalty, given her history in that area. She also spoke about expanding problem-solving courts to include business areas, and also the need to establish best practices for criminal sentences and alternatives.

In response to the advance question, Boshkoff said that her review of court activity shows her that access to justice and civil litigation costs are the two top areas that the judiciary must address. She praised the court’s action on IOLTA accounts, court interpreters, low-cost ADR, civil legal aid, pro se litigants, and the mortgage foreclosure crisis, but said more needs to be done as far as access is concerned.

Once the interviews end today, the nominating commission goes into an executive session to discuss who the finalists should be. The process could be quick or take hours – members were able to narrow the initial 34 applicants to nine semi-finalists in about two hours.

Reflecting on that decision and how the semi-finalists view it, Judge David provoked laughter from the commission when he talked about how he felt about waiting to know who’d move on to the final round.

“This is like being nine little birds in a nest… You’re flying overhead with a worm, and we’re all waiting with our mouths open wanting that one worm,” he said. “Now I know what a bird feels like.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT