ILNews

IBA: Three IndyBar Members among SC Semi-Finalists

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Following the first round of interviews, three Indianapolis Bar Association members remain in the hunt to fill the upcoming vacancy on the Indiana Supreme Court. Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher, Marion Superior Court Judge Robyn Moberly, and Bingham McHale partner Karl Mulvaney are among the nine semi-finalists announced by the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission.
 

Fihser Tom Fisher

Thomas Fisher

Indiana Solicitor General

Education: A.B. summa cum laude Wabash College; J.D. magna cum laude Indiana University Maurer School of Law - Bloomington

Admission to the Indiana Bar: October 31, 1994

Significant legal matter noted on application: Served as counsel of record in the U.S. Supreme Court and argued successfully that the Sixth Amendment does not guarantee the right of self-representation for a mentally impaired but trial-competent defendant.

Jury Experience: No jury trial experience.
 

Moberly Robyn Moberly

The Hon. Robyn Moberly

Judge, Marion Superior Court

Education: B.A. Indiana University; J.D. cum laude Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis

Admission to the Indiana Bar: May 18, 1978

Significant legal matter noted on application: Presided over a capital case, entering several months after it was filed. Posted chronological case entries on the court website along with copies of pleadings to facilitate media access which was new to the court system at the time.

Jury Experience: As a practicing attorney was involved in approximately jury trials (civil & criminal). Has preside over 16-20 jury trials each year in civil court.
 

Mulvaney Karl Mulvaney

Karl L. Mulvaney

Partner, Bingham McHale LLP

Education: B.S. cum laude The Ohio State University; J.D. cum laude Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis

Admission to the Indiana Bar: October 11, 1977

Significant legal matter noted on application: Involved in a case involving the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals’ application and enforcement of what was then relatively new Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act and one of its purposes which was to thwart child stealing.

Jury Experience: No jury trial experience, but numerous bench trials.

On July 30th the Judicial Nominating Commission will interview the nine named semi-finalists. The Commission will consider those nine applicants in an executive session. The Commission will then vote on the final nominees in public. A press release naming the finalists will be posted to courts.in.gov shortly after the public vote.

In May, Justice Theodore R. Boehm announced he would step down from the bench on September 30, 2010. The seven-member Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission is searching for Justice Boehmís successor. Chaired by Chief Justice Shepard, the Commission interviews the candidates and will send the names of three candidates to Governor Mitch Daniels. The Governor will select Indiana’s next justice.•

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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT