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

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. 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."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT