ILNews

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.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  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