ILNews

Indiana Supreme Court appoints attorney to fill Judge Brown’s post

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis criminal defense attorney David Cook has been appointed as judge pro tempore to fill the duties of suspended Marion Superior Judge Kimberly Brown.

The Indiana Supreme Court issued the order appointing Cook Friday. He will take over the local court on Feb. 10 because Brown has been suspended pending the final disposition of her disciplinary case. Brown is accused of multiple violations of the Judicial Code of Conduct including wrongfully detaining defendants, improperly supervising trials, failing to act on orders from the Indiana Court of Appeals and retaliating against court staff.

A 1977 graduate of Indiana University Maurer School of Law, Cook served as chief trial deputy for the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office from 1980 to 1989 and was chief public defender in the Marion County Public Defender Agency from 1995 to 2008. In addition, he was a master commissioner for the Marion County Circuit Court from 1990 to 1995.

As an attorney in private practice, he has represented clients on criminal and immigration matters.

The Supreme Court also appointed Senior Judge Steven E. King as judge pro tem in Lake Superior Court No. 4 to fill the vacancy created by the death of Judge Gerald N. Svetanoff.

Originally, the Supreme Court had appointed Senior Judge E. Duane Daugherty as judge pro tem in September 2013 when Svetanoff stepped down because of an illness. Daugherty is unable to continue after Friday.  

King will succeed Daugherty effective Monday, and be on the bench through Feb. 28, 2014 or further order of the Supreme Court, whichever comes first.    

 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT