ILNews

Indianapolis lawyer chosen for judicial commissions

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Attorney John C. Trimble, a partner at Indianapolis firm Lewis Wagner, has been chosen to be one of the newest members on two key judicial commissions focused on nominating new appellate judges and ethical, qualification issues for judges statewide.

Starting in January, Trimble will be one of seven voices on the Judicial Nominating and Qualifications commissions. Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard chairs the commissions, which include the same members. State law requires that three commissioners be attorneys while three others are lay members. The governor appoints the non-attorneys, while the Supreme Court Clerk selects those from the legal world.

Trimble takes over for Indianapolis attorney James H. Young, whose term expires Dec. 31 for the second judicial district. The term for Joan M. Hurley from Sellersberg also expires at year's end and the governor is responsible for appointing a replacement. The governor's office hasn't announced a successor, and if that doesn't happen then Hurley can carry over her term, according to commission counsel Meg Babcock.

Other commission members include attorneys Stephen L. Williams from Terre Haute and Sherrill Colvin from Fort Wayne, as well as non-attorneys Mark Lubbers of Indianapolis and Dr. Daryl Yost of Fort Wayne. More information on the commissions can be found online at the Indiana Judicial Web site.

Prior to joining the commissions, Trimble and prospective members can get a glimpse of the duties by watching interviews for the latest Indiana Court of Appeals opening. The Judicial Nominating Commission has selected 7 of 15 applicants interested in the spot to return for second interviews next week; three of those will be chosen for the governor to choose from. The new judge will ultimately replace Judge John Sharpnack, who's retiring in May.

Meanwhile, the Judicial Qualifications Commission has recently issued new advisory opinions, such as one detailing when jurists should recuse themselves. Those orders can be viewed here.
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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT