ILNews

Court official named to national leadership roles

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
judson Lilia G. Judson has been named president of the Conference of State Court Administrators. (IBJ Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

Lilia G. Judson, executive director of Indiana Supreme Court Division of State Court Administration, has two new leadership roles involving the National Center for State Courts.

Judson was elected vice chair of the NCSC’s Board of Directors. She also was named president of the Conference of State Court Administrators, of which NCSC serves as executive staff. Both are for one-year terms.

She was appointed in late July at the NCSC’s Board of Directors meeting and the Conference of Chief Justices and COSCA annual conference, both in Vail, Colo.

Judson began working in the State Court Administration office in 1977 and has been executive director for 13 years. She oversees programs designed to promote more efficient administration of justice and to increase access to justice for residents.•

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