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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT