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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT