ILNews

Dickson encourages attorneys to consider being an appellate judge

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

If you’re an attorney in Indiana, chances are you received an email from acting Chief Justice Brent Dickson Wednesday. Dickson sent the email to the legal community encouraging lawyers to apply for the upcoming vacancy on the Supreme Court.

“Appellate judicial service can be an enormously satisfying opportunity to serve your professional and your fellow Hoosiers,” Dickson wrote.

Dickson explained that he never intended to be an appellate judge and was happy practicing law in Lafayette. But two friends suggested he consider the possibility when an opening occurred on the Supreme Court in 1985. Dickson joined the court in January 1986.

The letter was prompted by the recent announcement by Justice Frank Sullivan that he will be stepping down from the court to begin teaching full time at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law this fall.

Dickson also encouraged attorneys in the Second District to consider applying for the opening on the Indiana Court of Appeals that will be created when Judge Carr Darden retires this summer.

The application deadline has not yet been established for Sullivan’s vacancy. Applicants have until May 9 to apply for the Court of Appeals judgeship. Initial public interviews will occur May 15-17 in Indianapolis, with a second round of interviews June 4-5. Darden is stepping down July 21, his 75th birthday.


 

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 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