The interviews continue

July 30, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

From reporter Michael Hoskins

ELLEN BOSHKOFF

Boshkoff said a justice must be open-minded. Important that the person be collegial, that they be passionate about the law. Integrity is the most important quality, she said. “A justice must be absolutely faithful to the law, must be absolutely scrupulous and fair to the litigants.”

Commission members so far have asked her the most questions: her views on how she could compliment - not duplicate - the other justices’ experiences, her views on first impression issues, pro bono initiatives, and what the three most pressing issues the court may face. Boshkoff said that her review of court activity shows her that access to justice and civil-litigation costs are the two top areas that the judiciary must address.

She highlighted the court’s action on IOLTA accounts, court interpreters, low-cost ADR, civil legal aid, pro se litigants, and the mortgage foreclosure crisis. But there’s still a lot to be done, she noted, especially since there’s been a 35 percent increase in people needing services in the past decade and the ratio of lawyers to litigants is “fairly poor,” and most aren’t even aware of what resources are available to them.

The Supreme Court could do more to possibly motivate and incenticize lawyers to help on that front in improving access to justice. A second area of concern is civil litigation costs, which Boshkoff said is something that judges must be more focused on because it prevents access to justice. Specifically, she pointed to rocket dockets that are “incredibly painful for everyone involved, but it does accomplish something and those cases do get resolved quickly.” Boshkoff said ADR isn’t used the way it should be, and there should be a review on how it can be phased in earlier into the litigation process. She also said technology is an important focus, one that Justice Frank Sullivan is already highly involved in with the statewide case management

KARL MULVANEY

He told the commission that his experience in handling attorney ethics issues is his biggest accomplishment, and changes that could be made include how judicial mandates are handled and possibly a rule revision on how long juvenile cases can have to be briefed on appeal. One commission member praised Mulvaney’s appellate experience in that he’s handled multiple areas of law. It garnered a response from the attorney that he viewed his advocacy role as being like an umpire and calling balls and strikes, between the legislature and the Constitution. Mulvaney also highlighted his experience as a Supreme Court administrator in giving him insight on very many legal matters that come before the court, and he opined on the quality of law school graduates and how he’s personally responded to ethical issues he’s faced as an attorney.

In responding to the common question from member John Trimble about his views on first impression issues, Mulvaney cited an issue in recent years where the justices addressed the definition of a child in relation to the Adult Wrongful Death Statute. He noted the chief justice’s analysis of what other states have done and how those issues may mesh with the state constitution.

SEN. BRENT STEELE


Referring to the commission’s multi-part question given out, Steele said that question is one that keeps you up at night, about wanting to give the right answer.  His being a lawyer in the first place is his biggest accomplishment, and how he’s been able to use those skills in contributing back to his community and the overall society. Two areas that need the court’s attention are both technology and how attorneys are taught practical aspects of practicing law, he said.

“As a member of the court, with my experience in the legislature, I can keep the Odyssey program on track,” Steele said. He also suggested the Supreme Court setup a sort of “mini-law school,” or an indoctrination program for new lawyers to learn the basic tenets of the law and how to apply those to their practices.

Now, the commission members are on a break until 1:15 p.m., when the final three semi-finalists face interviews. The commission goes into executive session at 3 p.m.
 

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. 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.

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

  3. This outbreak illustrates the absurdity of the extreme positions taken by today's liberalism, specifically individualism and the modern cult of endless personal "freedom." Ebola reminds us that at some point the person's own "freedom" to do this and that comes into contact with the needs of the common good and "freedom" must be curtailed. This is not rocket science, except, today there is nonstop propaganda elevating individual preferences over the common good, so some pundits have a hard time fathoming the obvious necessity of quarantine in some situations....or even NATIONAL BORDERS...propagandists have also amazingly used this as another chance to accuse Western nations of "racism" which is preposterous and offensive. So one the one hand the idolatry of individualism has to stop and on the other hand facts people don't like that intersect with race-- remain facts nonetheless. People who respond to facts over propaganda do better in the long run. We call it Truth. Sometimes it seems hard to find.

  4. It would be hard not to feel the Kramers' anguish. But Catholic Charities, by definition, performed due diligence and held to the statutory standard of care. No good can come from punishing them for doing their duty. Should Indiana wish to change its laws regarding adoption agreements and or putative fathers, the place for that is the legislature and can only apply to future cases. We do not apply new laws to past actions, as the Kramers seem intent on doing, to no helpful end.

  5. I am saddened to hear about the loss of Zeff Weiss. He was an outstanding member of the Indianapolis legal community. My thoughts are with his family.

ADVERTISEMENT