5 vying for state judicial commissions

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Five Indianapolis attorneys have put their names in the hat for a single opening on the state’s judicial commissions, which are responsible for deciding whether disciplinary actions should be taken against a jurist and determining who should be on the state’s appellate courts.

By a Friday deadline, those who’d submitted their names to be considered are:

Jan M. Carroll, a partner at law firm Barnes & Thornburg who was admitted to practice in 1984.

David R. Hennessy, a solo practitioner who sits on the Indiana Public Defender Council’s board of directors and has been practicing since 1982.

Kathy L. Osborn, a partner at Baker & Daniels who’s been practicing since 2000.

Joel Schumm, an Indianapolis attorney since 1998 and a law professor at Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis.

William E. Winingham Jr., a name partner at Wilson Kehoe & Winingham who was admitted to practice in Indiana in 1979.

Attorneys in the 19-county Second District will vote on which of those nominees they want to put on the seven-person commission, which is made up of three lawyers and three non-attorneys and is chaired by the chief justice. Ballots and biographies will be mailed out by the Indiana Appellate Clerk’s Office on Oct. 12, and attorneys must return the ballots by 4 p.m. Nov. 10. The ballots will be counted at 10 a.m. Nov. 12, according to a clerk’s office notice.

The vacancy for the Judicial Nominating Commission and Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications opens up at the end of the year, once Indianapolis attorney John Trimble fulfills his three-year term on the panel for the Second District. That district is made up of Adams, Blackford, Carroll, Cass, Clinton, Delaware, Grant, Hamilton, Howard, Huntington, Jay, Madison, Marion, Miami, Tippecanoe, Tipton, Wabash, Wells, and White counties.

Whoever fills that spot would succeed Trimble for the next three years. In the past three years, the commission has interviewed applicants and recommended finalists for the Indiana Court of Appeals and most recently for the Indiana Supreme Court, and in the coming months the members will interview those interested in becoming Indiana’s next Tax Court judge.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?