ILNews

High court names public information officer

IL Staff
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A former television journalist is the new public information officer for the Indiana Supreme Court.

Kathryn Dolan, former morning news anchor at WLFI in Lafayette, was hired in an effort to continue promoting public awareness about the Supreme Court.

Dolan will work to help better inform citizens about how the court works and the impact of its decisions, and will also encourage media coverage of the Supreme Court. Dolan, a New Mexico native, started in the position June 30.

She takes over a position formerly manned for 12 years by David Remondini, who left the position as counsel for the chief justice last year to take the second-in-command spot with the court's Division of State Court Administration. Remondini will work with Dolan so that they're not reinventing the wheel, and the pair's expertise in print and broadcast media will work well for the court, she said.

"Really, I tremendously enjoyed covering courts and crime stories and I was so excited to learn that I'd be able to do a marriage between the two things I love the most," she said.

Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard said he hasn't yet decided if and when he'll appoint someone new to cover the legal duties that Remondini had attended to.
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

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. 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