ILNews

Indianapolis attorney chosen as magistrate judge

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A partner at Indianapolis law firm Barnes & Thornburg has been chosen as the newest federal magistrate judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

The court announced Aug. 27 that the merit selection panel had chosen Mark J. Dinsmore to succeed Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson, who was elevated to an Article III judgeship in June. Dinsmore was one of 52 people to apply for the post and one of the five individuals recommended by the panel to the District judges, who made the final decision. The selection panel was chaired by retired federal magistrate V. Sue Shields.
 

Dinsmore-mark-mug Dinsmore

U.S. District Chief Judge Richard Young said in a statement, “The Merit Selection Panel forwarded to the court an array of very outstanding candidates, and it was a difficult decision for the court to select only one of them.”

A Valparaiso native, Dinsmore is a magna cum laude graduate of the University of Toledo College of Law who graduated first in his class. He was admitted to the Indiana bar in October 1994 and has been at Barnes & Thornburg since 1996. He chairs the firm’s Litigation Department’s technology committee, and his practice involves complex commercial disputes and construction litigation matters, as well as media law issues. Dinsmore has focused on using technology to manage those complex litigation matters

Prior to joining the firm, Dinsmore clerked for then-U.S. District Judge John D. Tinder in the Southern District of Indiana. Dinsmore was a captain in the U.S. Army before attending law school.

Aside from his law firm work, Dinsmore also serves as treasurer of the Indiana Legal Services board of directors and is a member of the Heartland Pro Bono Council board of directors.

The court said that Dinsmore’s appointment depends on required FBI and Internal Revenue Service background checks, and so an expected start date isn’t yet known. That could take several months, and that will also impact when the court schedules an investiture ceremony. The position pays an annual salary of $160,080 and runs for an eight-year term, after which that person is eligible for reappointment.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  2. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT