ILNews

Delaware Circuit judge resigns

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A Delaware County judge is resigning more than a month after the Indiana Judicial Qualifications Commission initiated an investigation of his business interests and judicial obligations.

Delaware Circuit Judge Wayne J. Lennington announced his resignation in a letter to Gov. Mitch Daniels last week. The judge did not return telephone calls from Indiana Lawyer, but he told media in Muncie that he wasn't resigning because of the investigation and had informed the commission that "health reasons" prompted his resignation.

His resignation takes effect May 15, which means the governor will need to appoint a successor.

Judge Lennington took the bench in 1998 after being appointed by then-Gov. Frank O'Bannon, and he'd served as a master and probate commissioner in the county since 1990.

Muncie attorney Charles Clark, who is representing Judge Lennington, said he wasn't able to speak about the matter and wasn't able to confirm any reasons for the judge's resignation. He did confirm that an agreement for resignation had been reached, though.

"The less said the better, I think," Clark told Indiana Lawyer today.

Whether Judge Lennington committed any misconduct was never established because he announced his retirement before it could get to that point, according to commission counsel Meg Babcock.

An agreement released by the commission states that it has agreed to suspend the investigation it began Feb. 25 but retains the right to reopen the probe if the judge violates the terms. One of the restrictions states the judge "will make no public statements misrepresenting the status of the Commission's investigation, of the criminal investigation, or of the terms of the Commission's agreement to suspend the investigation."
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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT