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

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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT