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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT