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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT