Interviews over, now wait begins

July 30, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

From IL reporter Mike Hoskins:

JUDGE ROBYN MOBERLY: Though she’s proud of handling some of the most complex and varied litigation throughout the state, Judge Moberly said she’s most proud of the energy and initiative she’s put into the state’s Family Court Project, which she’s been a part of since it started almost a decade ago. “One reason I mention that, not only because it’s a passion of mine, is that I want to illustrate the possibilities of what support from the Supreme Court can do for local communities.”

The burgeoning number of pro se litigants is one of the biggest concerns she sees the judiciary facing, and one idea would be for the justices to implement a public law librarian program modeled after how the court recruits teachers to educate students about the Third Branch. Judge Moberly also explained the importance of managing the inevitable statewide court system changes, and how statewide funding is a significant point to consider. She said regional funding might be a step in that direction, and something that everyone can more easily agree on.

Judge Moberly discussed her multiple Supreme Court assignments on disciplinary cases, media matters, and the child support guideline revisions. She also reflected on her views on precedent when there are conflicting Court of Appeal panel rulings, that the doctrinal basis of each case and issue must be analyzed, she said.

JUDGE STEVEN NATION: Judge Nation was the only of the nine semi-finalists that commission members almost didn’t have enough time to ask any questions of, as he spent almost his entire 30-minute interview addressing the submitted two-part question. As far as his biggest accomplishment, he told members about how he wants to be remembered for treating everyone in his court with respect.

The judge discussed how the courts could better reach out to at-risk attorneys on mentoring and tutoring, and he also suggested changes in how judges are designated to do complex litigation. Senior judges could be used to handle the more regular judicial tasks while the active judge handles the more complicated matter. He also suggested expanding the use of interlocutory appeals, as well as getting attorneys more involved in the overall process in different ways.

KIPLEY DREW: She delved into her background that touches on a wide variety of issues, from evicting college residents, to a multi-million software contract, to how daycare operators might have to be aware of a decree or protective order when someone comes to pick up a child. Drew praised the court reform efforts on judicial education and said she’d like to see more outreach opportunities to enhance the public perception of the state judiciary. She talked about justices having to maintain an extra level of discretion to avoid the perception of impropriety, and that while politics shouldn’t be a consideration a justice must be aware of potential ripple effects from any decision.

One commission member asked Drew about her ability to not be influenced by her husband's job clerking for Indiana Court of Appeals Chief Judge John Baker. She said it wouldn't be an issue.

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
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT