ILNews

Commission sends 3 names as finalists for Tax Court opening

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Within two months, Indiana will have a new state tax judge for only the second time ever.

The Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission has recommended that that the governor consider Bloomington attorney Joby Jerrells, Hendricks Superior 3 Judge Karen Love, and attorney Martha Wentworth of Greenwood as finalists for the state’s only specialized appellate court.

Gov. Mitch Daniels will make the final decision on who replaces Judge Thomas G. Fisher. Judge Fisher retires from the tax bench on Jan. 1, 2011, culminating a legal career that’s included 24 years of service as the state’s first and only tax court judge.

Meeting with seven semi-finalists on Oct. 27, the commission interviewed four women and three men for 25 minutes each. These second interviews followed an initial round on Sept. 27 with 14 applicants and delved more in-depth into each person’s background and what he or she thinks about the tax court. Aside from the finalists, the others interviewed were: George Angelone, Dan Carwile, Hon. Carol Comer, and Melony Sacopulos.

The commission had submitted a question to each semi-finalist, asking them to reflect on how the tax judge might contribute to the development of the state’s jurisprudence and to the improvement of the overall judiciary.

“All the candidates have experience that gives us the core competency and intellect, which is good news for this commission and the state,” said banking attorney Dan Carwile from Evansville, one of the semi-finalists.

One of the main themes discussed during the second round of interviews focused on public access and transparency and making sure the tax court operates efficiently so that its cases move as quickly as possible and the public understands what is happening.

Administrative law judge and semi-finalist Carol Comer told the commission that courts in general are considered “scary” places for non-attorneys and that the entire judiciary needs to do a better job with transparency and access.

“The point is, the Tax Court needs to be just as accessible for the layperson as someone represented by counsel,” she said. “Most claims don’t make it to court because that’s where things become ‘very legal and complicated.’”

She said the court’s message must reach the broadest possible audience, and that using Twitter and Facebook could even be something to consider for the future in order to “be more conscious on how ideas are communicated concisely, clearly, quickly, and to the point.”

“Modern communication is changing,” she said. “Imagine a day when the Tax Court has a Facebook page where people can befriend and see opinions as they’re issued, or get updates from the court as they happen. That’s not different from what’s on the court website now, but it’s just a different form for the more modern generation.”

Chief Justice Shepard complimented everyone who’d applied for the post and said it was a tough decision for the commission to narrow down the initial or semi-finalist list, but that members were confident these were great choices for the governor to consider.

Jerrells

A second-career attorney who’d worked in computer operations before enrolling in and graduating from Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis in 2003, Jerrells now works as both a deputy prosecutor in the Attorney General’s Office and is also a self-employed attorney out of his home in Bloomington. He talked about his experience in all types of law, from tax and civil issues to criminal prosecutions and corporate clients. He ran for Monroe County judge in 2008 but was defeated in the general election.

If chosen for this appellate seat, Jerrells said he would be interested in trying to “enhance, hone, and improve” the jurisprudence that has been created during the past quarter century. He said an electronic docket would be beneficial for that court’s efficiency and that he’d want to make sure pro se litigants understood the process.

Responding to a question about the structure of how appeals come from the Department of Revenue, Jerrells told members that the issue is “brewing” and that the discretion given by the Tax Court to those state agency decisions might need to be examined, possibly by a rule or statute. He also said timeliness should be examined and efficiency should be improved if necessary, particularly since there’s no “lazy judge” rule as exists for state trial courts.

“Since there’s going to be a new tax judge, there’s an opportunity where we can determine what needs to change,” he said.

Love

The only trial judge interviewed, Judge Love said the tax judge’s responsibility is to provide “timely and affordable justice for all” and that her experience on the bench since 1995 has prepared her for this role on the administrative, legal and judiciary sides. She hopes the tax court judge can help Indiana become a leader in tax law just like it is known nationally for jury reform.

In addition to her judicial experience, Love has also practiced law privately, worked as a certified accountant, and she helped draft the state’s Child Support Guidelines. Nominating commission members also asked about her experience on a bank board and the decisions she’d had to make in that role.

Though noting that appellate courts aren’t doing their jobs to effectuate change, Judge Love noted that she’d conduct a review of pending cases and actively communicate with outgoing Judge Fisher as well as the practicing bar to get familiar with the court.

One commission member noted that he was impressed with her writing, and Judge Love noted that she’s learned from the lawyers and other jurists throughout the state. “I’m a product of the legal profession, the judiciary in Indiana,” she said. “I want you to see what trial judges are like, and I want to make them proud.”

Wentworth

Wentworth echoed many of the aspects that her fellow semi-finalists pointed out, and she noted that she’d spent time reading State of the Judiciary speeches to get an idea of how the Hoosier judiciary has changed through the years. Today, Wentworth serves as tax director for the multi-state group Deloitte Tax LLP. Her previous professional roles have included clerking for the Tax Court in the early 1990s and working closely with the state Department of Revenue. Her experience shows that she’s advocated for continuing education, professionalism and collegiality, she said.

Saying that judges must be careful in communicating with lawmakers, Wentworth said it would be appropriate to help the legislature understand what possible unintended consequences might result from state statute changes. She said the state faces so many intriguing and challenging legal questions on tax law, such as what is considered distortion on taxes, the amount of discretion the DOR has in allowing separate corporate entities to file separate or joint returns, and how the state agency can discretionarily change federal taxable income.

“My first job out of law school was working for a judge. I never thought I’d have this opportunity, but when it came right down to it, I couldn’t just not try. I have such a passion for tax law and for Indiana’s tax law to be fair and good and have other states look to us. That, to me, is so important; that pride is worth so much more than what I’m doing now.”

The governor’s choice

Daniels’ general counsel David Pippen, who sat through all of the interviews, said the process hasn’t been formalized and he wasn’t sure how the three finalists might be interviewed or whether a hypothetical case might be presented to the trio as was done with the most recent Indiana Supreme Court vacancy.

By law, Daniels has 60 days to make a decision from the time a final report is sent from the nominating commission. The commission sent it to the governor Nov. 5. Though he has until early January to make a decision, the governor is expected to announce the new jurist by the end of this year. If that doesn’t happen, the chief justice can pick from the three finalists’ names.•

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. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

  2. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

  3. Been on social security sense sept 2011 2massive strokes open heart surgery and serious ovarian cancer and a blood clot in my lung all in 14 months. Got a letter in may saying that i didn't qualify and it was in form like i just applied ,called social security she said it don't make sense and you are still geting a check in june and i did ,now i get a check from my part D asking for payment for july because there will be no money for my membership, call my prescription coverage part D and confirmed no check will be there.went to social security they didn't want to answer whats going on just said i should of never been on it .no one knows where this letter came from was California im in virginia and been here sense my strokes and vcu filed for my disability i was in the hospital when they did it .It's like it was a error . My ,mothers social security was being handled in that office in California my sister was dealing with it and it had my social security number because she died last year and this letter came out of the same office and it came at the same time i got the letter for my mother benefits for death and they had the same date of being typed just one was on the mail Saturday and one on Monday. . I think it's a mistake and it should been fixed instead there just getting rid of me .i never got a formal letter saying when i was being tsken off.

  4. Employers should not have racially discriminating mind set. It has huge impact on the society what the big players do or don't do in the industry. Background check is conducted just to verify whether information provided by the prospective employee is correct or not. It doesn't have any direct combination with the rejection of the employees. If there is rejection, there should be something effective and full-proof things on the table that may keep the company or the people associated with it in jeopardy.

  5. Unlike the federal judge who refused to protect me, the Virginia State Bar gave me a hearing. After the hearing, the Virginia State Bar refused to discipline me. VSB said that attacking me with the court ADA coordinator had, " all the grace and charm of a drive-by shooting." One does wonder why the VSB was able to have a hearing and come to that conclusion, but the federal judge in Indiana slammed the door of the courthouse in my face.

ADVERTISEMENT