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. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT