The final 2 interviews

September 27, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Michelle Baldwin
Michelle Baldwin told commission members about her varied background, including how she went off on her own to represent clients on tax matters and her current work focusing on the energy industry clients and tax incentives. She discussed her experience on medical licensing issues for pharmacies and pharmacists, and talked about the importance of having those review boards in place. She discussed the importance of how the Tax Court must follow statutes and also make sure people understand why the statutes were enacted. Someone within the Tax Court acting as a legislative liaison might be a beneficial function in helping lawmakers understand what proposed legislation might mean for taxpayers. Baldwin also discussed work on soldiers’ right areas, and noted that she’s seen both sides of tax issues in a way she think would allow her to be impartial and be a good tax court judge.

Thomas Ewbank
The grandson of former Indiana Supreme Court Justice Lewis who served in the early 20th century, Ewbank talked about his longtime practice that has involved inheritance tax work since the late 1960s and how this could be a capstone to his legal career. However, he’d only be able to serve eight years because of the mandatory retirement age of 75 for state appellate judges. He talked about how important ADR is to help courts, and also noted that the tax court judge could be influential in helping the legislature understand and clear up ambiguities in proposed legislation.

The seven-member Judicial Nominating Commission began deliberating behind closed doors just before 3:30 p.m. on who to name as semi-finalists. Once members reach a decision, they will hold a public vote on who to bring back for second interviews.

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. 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