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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  2. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  3. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  4. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  5. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

ADVERTISEMENT