ILNews

Democrat stalwart said to be U.S. attorney nominee

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


The U.S. Attorney's Office in Southern District of Indiana has been without a presidentially appointed U.S. attorney for more than two years - an extraordinarily long stretch for a position that usually can be filled in half that time.

Political watchers point to President Barack Obama's taking longer than his past two predecessors to fill the nation's top 93 federal prosecutor appointments. In the Northern District of Indiana, the president nominated acting U.S. Attorney David Capp in late December to fill that district's vacancy. Capp has been interim U.S. Attorney since July 2007 when then U.S. Attorney Joseph Van Bokkelen joined the District Court. His nomination is still awaiting confirmation. But in Indianapolis, another factor is contributing to the delay.

Sources said high-profile trial lawyer Linda Pence in October withdrew her candidacy, which was fronted by Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh, several months into the routine, yet extensive, vetting process.

Now the frontrunner for the post is Joe Hogsett, another Indianapolis lawyer, according to sources including Ed Treacy, chairman of the Marion County Democratic Party.

Neither Pence nor Hogsett would discuss details of their nominations, which they refused to even acknowledge.

Pence, who practices at the Indianapolis office of Cincinnati-based Taft Stettinius & Hollister, is a veteran white-collar criminal litigator. Her credentials include working at the Department of Justice from 1974 to 1983.

Hogsett, a partner at Indianapolis-based Bingham McHale, served as Indiana Secretary of State from 1989 to 1994, and was chief of staff for then-Gov. Bayh from 1995 to 1997.

"I think either one of them would make an excellent U.S. attorney," Treacy said. "Hopefully, they can get something done soon."

Because Bayh is foregoing an attempt at re-election in November, Treacy and other political insiders think a new U.S. attorney in Indianapolis could be named before he leaves office. Bayh gets to submit a candidate to the president because he's Indiana's senior senator belonging to the party occupying the White House. Phone calls to Sen. Bayh's office in Washington, D.C., were not returned.

After Obama's first year in office, just a third of his nominations had been confirmed by Congress, compared with more than half at roughly the same time under former presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

"One might expect things to move more quickly, but this president has been slower to nominate U.S. attorney positions," said David Orentlicher, a former state representative and professor at Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis.

Both Orentlicher and Treacy attributed some of the cause for the delay to partisan politics.

"Because of the difficulty of the Republicans in the Senate holding everything up, that it would take such a long time to get done, [Pence] withdrew her name from being considered," Treacy said.

Senate-confirmed appointments to Department of Justice offices, particularly U.S. attorneys, are political in nature. They serve under the direction of the Attorney General and conduct most of the trial work in which the United States is involved. That includes the prosecution of criminal cases brought by the federal government, and the prosecution and defense of civil suits. Yet they really don't set policy but follow the strategies deemed important by the new administration, former U.S. Attorney Susan Brooks said.

In Indianapolis, the U.S. attorney manages a staff of about 80, including roughly 30 lawyers.

The Southern District has been without a presidentially appointed U.S. attorney since Brooks left in October 2007, about a year before Obama was elected president. Given the short time remaining before the election, political experts said it wouldn't have made much sense for Bush to nominate a successor.

Brooks, now general counsel and vice president of work force and economic development at Ivy Tech Community College, can appreciate what Pence endured.

Background checks conducted by the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation are quite extensive and typically comb through a candidate's past dating to his or her college years.

Criminal, political and financial histories are explored, as well as even the views expressed in written documents, said Brooks, whose nomination took 10 months to get confirmed in October 2001.

Brooks doesn't fault former President Bush for failing to recommend a replacement for her. But the time that has elapsed without a permanent U.S. attorney is "what's getting long now," she said. Such an extended period of time without a permanent replacement can create uncertainties, said John Maley, a partner at Indianapolis-based Barnes & Thornburg, who has a large federal practice. "It's not something that you would want to leave open indefinitely," he said, "just in terms of continuity and expectations and those types of things."

Moreover, having an interim U.S. attorney likely means the staff is short one lawyer, who is filling the position, Maley said.

That person would be Tim Morrison, a 20-year veteran of the Department of Justice, who has served as interim U.S. attorney twice before - in October 1993, and from February 2000 to October 2001. Morrison, who declined to specify a political slant, said he's not interested in being nominated for the job. "Politics has nothing to do with it," he said. "It's because I want to stay." U.S. attorneys are prevented from working in any position in the offices after they have finished serving. Morrison, like many of the lawyers on staff, boasts several years of federal legal experience. Newly appointed U.S. attorneys typically are prohibited from replacing staff, making turnover rare despite the enticements of a more lucrative private practice.

"They stay there because they love the work," Brooks said. "I think they love the fact that their client is the United States of America."

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. I grew up on a farm and live in the county and it's interesting that the big industrial farmers like Jeff Shoaf don't live next to their industrial operations...

  2. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  3. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  4. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  5. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

ADVERTISEMENT