ILNews

IBA: IndyBar Member Selected as New U.S. Magistrate Judge

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana recently announced the selection of Mark J. Dinsmore as the new United States Magistrate Judge. The position filled by Dinsmore was vacated by the elevation of the Hon. Jane Magnus Stinson.

Dinsmore, a member of the Indianapolis Bar Association, is currently a partner at the law firm of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, where he has practiced since 1996. His practice concentrates in the areas of complex commercial disputes and construction litigation matters, as well as media law issues.
 

Dinsmore-mark-mug Dinsmore

A Magistrate Judge Merit Selection Committee chaired by retired Magistrate Judge V. Sue Shields reviewed more than 50 applications and recommended five candidates for the position. The District Judges of the court interviewed the five candidates and ultimately selected Dinsmore.

Regarding the selection, Chief Judge Richard L. Young commented, “The Merit Selection Panel forwarded to the court an array of very outstanding candidates, and it was a difficult decision for the court to select only one of them. We do believe that Mark Dinsmore has the credentials, background, and experience to make an outstanding Magistrate Judge.“

Born in Valparaiso, Indiana, and a magna cum laude graduate of the University of Toledo College of Law, Dinsmore graduated first in his class, served as lead articles editor of the University of Toledo Law Review, and was named the Outstanding Law Graduate. He received his A.B. in economics from Wabash College in 1983. Mr. Dinsmore has litigated throughout the United States, focusing on management of complex cases, with concentrations in construction litigation and electronic discovery. He has also represented clients in international and domestic arbitrations, including representing the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina in an international arbitration arising out of the Dayton Accords that ended the Balkan war. He serves as treasurer of the board of directors of Indiana Legal Services, Inc., and is a member of the board of directors of the Heartland Pro Bono Council. Mr. Dinsmore is admitted to practice in the state of Indiana, the United States District Courts for the Northern and Southern Districts of Indiana, and the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.

During his practice he has focused on the use of technology to facilitate the management of complex matters and chairs the firm’s Litigation Department Technology Committee. Prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg, Dinsmore served as a law clerk for the Honorable John Daniel Tinder, then judge of the United States Court District Court for the Southern District of Indiana and now judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Before attending law school, Dinsmore served as a captain in the United States Army in, among other places, the Republic of Korea. During his service he was twice named Eighth Army Outstanding Junior Leader.

United States Magistrate Judges are appointed by the Judges of the U.S. District Court for a term of eight years, and are eligible for reappointment to successive terms. Mr. Dinsmore’s appointment will be effective upon completion of required IRS and FBI background investigations.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He TIL team,please zap this comment too since it was merely marking a scammer and not reflecting on the story. Thanks, happy Monday, keep up the fine work.

  2. You just need my social security number sent to your Gmail account to process then loan, right? Beware scammers indeed.

  3. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  4. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  5. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

ADVERTISEMENT