ILNews

Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission vote extended

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Two Indianapolis attorneys – Barnes & Thornburg LLP partner Jan Carroll and Lee Christie, partner with Cline Farrell Christie & Lee – will have to wait a bit longer to find out who their peers elect to serve on the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission.

An untold number of lawyers didn’t get ballots, so the voting deadline has been rolled back. Stakes are high, because the person elected will participate in decisions that will shape the Indiana Supreme Court. Chief Justice Brent Dickson will turn 75, hitting the mandatory retirement age for judges, in the final year of the three-year term for which Carroll and Christie are vying.

A glitch in mailings discovered earlier this month prevented some of the more than 7,400 eligible attorneys from receiving ballots. When Indiana Supreme Court staff discovered the problem, they scrambled to make sure all eligible voters received ballots, and the deadline was extended from the original vote-tallying date of Nov. 19 to Dec. 3.

Attorneys in good standing in Marion County and 18 other counties north of Indianapolis are eligible to vote for the successor to Indianapolis attorney William Winingham, whose term on the seven-member commission expires Dec. 31. Commissioners may not be elected or appointed to serve full consecutive terms.

Carroll and Christie each sent voters information about themselves in materials asking for support. For Carroll, the appeal included an overture to elect her as the first woman attorney to serve on the panel established in the early 1970s.

Prominent Carroll supporters formed a group called the 1893 Committee, which refers to the year that a female lawyer was first admitted to practice in Indiana. Backers “thought it was high time for a woman lawyer to be represented on the commission,” Carroll said.

Like Carroll, Christie has lined up big-name, influential supporters he cited in his mailings to voters. “I’m kind of reaching out to people who are more small- and medium-sized practitioners,” Christie said. He said it’s important for such firms to have a seat at the table.

Former Justice Frank Sullivan, now a professor at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law in Indianapolis, said the attorney member elected this year – and the commissioners elected or appointed in the next few years – unquestionably will influence the future direction of the court.

“In mid-2016, Chief Justice Dickson will reach the mandatory retirement age of 75 and be required by the Indiana Constitution to retire. This means that the attorney elected will participate in selecting the nominees to succeed (Dickson),” Sullivan said.

“Of equal if not greater importance, the commission itself elects – actually elects, not just nominates – which justice serves as chief justice,” he said. “This means that when Chief Justice Dickson steps down, the attorney elected will also participate in selecting the next chief justice of Indiana.”

Dickson declined to discuss his thoughts about a potential successor. But as chair of the panel that includes three attorney members elected by lawyers and three non-lawyer members appointed by the governor, Dickson would hold considerable influence over the selection of the justice who succeeds him and have an even greater say on who the commission selects as the next chief justice.

At the time of Dickson’s mandatory retirement, the panel will include three members appointed by Gov. Mike Pence. The term of non-lawyer member Molly Kitchell, representing COA District 1, expires Dec. 31, and a Pence spokeswoman said no decision had been made regarding a successor. Indiana Code 33-27-2-1 provides that the governor appoint commissioners one month before terms expire, but commissioners may continue to serve until such time as appointments have been made.

Christie has been a practicing trial attorney for 32 years, and Carroll a litigator for almost 28 years. Neither said they were motivated to seek election to the commission by the prospect of having a say in future decisions on who will serve on and lead the Supreme Court.

“My motivation was just having some input on the judges that would be screened to go to the governor,” Christie said. Both Christie and Carroll said judicial temperament would be a key consideration in evaluating nominees to the judiciary.

“I feel that based on my experience as a trial lawyer and a state court practitioner, I have a good sense of what it is that makes a good judge, and we all have an interest in having quality appellate judges,” Carroll said.

Before she began practicing law, Carroll was an Associated Press Statehouse reporter who covered the merit selection of Dickson and Randall Shepard as justices. “I had an interest in it from my reporting days, and that obviously continued in my law practice.”

Along with his experience in the courtroom, Christie has also operated an alternative dispute resolution practice that he said in 20 years has handled some 2,500 cases. “My ideals are more from the individual and from the more small-firm perspective as opposed to the more big-corporation, big-firm perspective,” he said.

Addressing the voting glitch, Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathryn Dolan said ballots will be counted for attorneys who have already returned them, so they need not take further action.

On Nov. 12, the court issued an order that extended the balloting deadline, but the order signed by Dickson shed little light on what happened or why. “During the week of Nov. 4, 2013, it came to the Clerk and the Court’s attention that while most eligible electors had received their ballots and accompanying materials through the mail, many had not,” the order says. “After further investigation, the Clerk determined that an unidentified issue with the delivery of the mail had caused an unknown number of ballots and accompanying materials not to be delivered to eligible voters.”

The commission’s three attorney members are elected by lawyers in each of the three geographical COA districts, and the three governor-appointed non-lawyer commissioners also are selected from each of those districts. The panel interviews candidates and recommends finalists for vacancies on the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and Tax Court, from which the governor chooses appointees.

The commission members also serve as the Commission on Judicial Qualifications, which investigates complaints against judges.

Court of Appeals District 2 is made up of Adams, Blackford, Carroll, Cass, Clinton, Delaware, Grant, Hamilton, Howard, Huntington, Jay, Madison, Marion, Miami, Tippecanoe, Tipton, Wabash, Wells and White counties.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT