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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT