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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT