ILNews

Commission sends finalists letter to governor

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A 60-day clock has started for Gov. Mitch Daniels to choose the next Indiana Supreme Court justice, after three names were officially sent to him Thursday afternoon.

The Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission a week ago selected two judges and one appellate attorney – Boone Circuit Judge Steven David, Marion Superior Judge Robyn Moberly, and Bingham McHale attorney Karl Mulvaney – from nine semi-finalists vying for a vacancy on the state’s highest court. The seat opens once Justice Theodore Boehm retires Sept. 30.

After a full day of interviews July 30, the seven-member commission chaired by Chief Justice Randall Shepard made its selection based on those 30-minute interviews and the previous ones earlier in July, when all 34 initial applicants were interviewed.

By law, the commission must send an evaluation report to the governor for official consideration. Now that that’s happened, Daniels has 60 days to name the next justice. This will be the Republican governor’s first appointment to the high court and the first new justice since 1999. If he doesn’t meet that deadline, the chief justice then would choose from the same three finalists.

The four-page letter says the commission members considered each applicant’s legal education, writings, reputation in the practice, commitment to the profession and to public service, financial interests, and other pertinent information members considered important. They also interviewed references and reviewed recommendation letters, as well as initiating independent inquiries about the candidates, the letter says.

Written by Chief Justice Shepard, the letter includes a brief summary of each finalist and indicates why the commission chose that particular person.

• Judge David has “proven himself utterly indefatigable in the service and leadership of his fellow citizens. ‘We’ve got a good thing here,’ he said in speaking about Indiana’s legal system. The Commission regards him as a leading part of the reason that this is so.”

• “Asked where we need to do better, Judge Moberly offered a new idea for helping citizens who don’t have a lawyer and also spoke convincingly about the need to manage change in the court system. She has proven her own bona fides on these counts. As a prominent practitioner wrote to us: ‘Judge Moberly would bring an exceptional intellect, a wonderful understanding of the purpose and significance of the law, and great personal skills and character to our highest Court.’”

• "Other attorneys seek out Karl Mulvaney for advice on ethics, and they recruit him to join in representing their clients when something important and challenging is at hand. He is one of those select few about whom people use the term ‘a lawyer’s lawyer.’”

The governor’s general counsel, David Pippen, told Indiana Lawyer following the second interviews last week that interviews with Daniels would be scheduled quickly and that he didn’t expect the governor to come close to running out the 60-day clock.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT