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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT