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. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  2. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT