ILNews

Commissions applicants Q&A online

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

More than 7,000 attorneys in 19 central Indiana counties can now vote for one colleague they’d like to see join the Indiana Judicial Nominating and Qualifications commissions.

The Indiana Appellate Clerk’s Office mailed ballots and biographies Oct. 12 to attorneys’ homes, and those lawyers have until 4 p.m. Nov. 10 to return ballots. The returned ballots will be counted at 10 a.m. Nov. 12 to determine who fills the vacancy for one spot on the seven-member panel that’s chaired by Indiana Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard and includes three lawyers chosen by colleagues and three non-attorneys appointed by the governor. Indianapolis attorney John Trimble completes his three-year term at year’s end and five lawyers are running for the job.

Applying for the post in the 2nd judicial district for the 2011-2013 term are:

• Jan M. Carroll, a partner at Barnes & Thornburg.

• David R. Hennessy, a solo criminal defense attorney.

• Kathy L. Osborn, a partner at Baker & Daniels.

• Joel Schumm, an attorney and a professor at Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis.

• William E. Winingham Jr., a name partner at Wilson Kehoe & Winingham.

The district is made up of Adams, Blackford, Carroll, Cass, Clinton, Delaware, Grant, Hamilton, Howard, Huntington, Jay, Madison, Marion, Miami, Tippecanoe, Tipton, Wabash, Wells, and White counties. But whoever is chosen to start in January 2011 will have statewide impact on how judicial discipline and qualifications issues are tackled by the commissions.

Click here to read each of the five nominees’ responses to questions from Indiana Lawyer .•

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Bob Stochel was opposing counsel to me in several federal cases (including a jury trial before Judge Tinder) here in SDIN. He is a very competent defense and trial lawyer who knows federal civil procedure and consumer law quite well. Bob gave us a run for our money when he appeared on a case.

  2. Awesome, Brian! Very proud of you and proud to have you as a partner!

  3. Oh, the name calling was not name calling, it was merely social commentary making this point, which is on the minds of many, as an aside to the article's focus: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100111082327AAmlmMa Or, if you prefer a local angle, I give you exhibit A in that analysis of viva la difference: http://fox59.com/2015/03/16/moed-appears-on-house-floor-says-hes-not-resigning/

  4. Too many attorneys take their position as a license to intimidate and threaten non attorneys in person and by mail. Did find it ironic that a reader moved to comment twice on this article could not complete a paragraph without resorting to insulting name calling (rethuglican) as a substitute for reasoned discussion. Some people will never get the point this action should have made.

  5. People have heard of Magna Carta, and not the Provisions of Oxford & Westminster. Not that anybody really cares. Today, it might be considered ethnic or racial bias to talk about the "Anglo Saxon common law." I don't even see the word English in the blurb above. Anyhow speaking of Edward I-- he was famously intolerant of diversity himself viz the Edict of Expulsion 1290. So all he did too like making parliament a permanent institution-- that all must be discredited. 100 years from now such commemorations will be in the dustbin of history.

ADVERTISEMENT