ILNews

13 interviewing for St. Joseph judicial vacancy

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Editor's note: This story has been corrected.

Thirteen candidates for a judgeship in South Bend are being interviewed Friday by the St. Joseph County Judicial Nominating Commission. The panel this evening will narrow the field of candidates to fill a St. Joseph Superior Court vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Roland W. Chamblee Jr.

Half-hour interviews began in the morning, and candidates were to interview in this order: Scott Duerring of Duerring Law Offices in South Bend; Stanley F. Wruble III of Wruble & Associates in South Bend; Andrew Straw of Andrew Straw Esq. in Mishawaka, solo practitioner Jeffrey E. Kimmell of South Bend, assistant U.S. Attorney John Maciejczyk of South Bend; St. Joseph Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Mary Catherine Andres; and Mark James of Anderson Agostino & Keller P.C. in South Bend.

Afternoon interviews are as follows: Andre B. Gammage of the Law Office of Berger & Gammage in South Bend; Elkhart County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David L. Francisco; Saint Joseph Circuit Court Magistrate Elizabeth Hurley; Edward P. Benchik of Shedlak & Benchik Law Firm LLP in South Bend; solo practitioner Jeffrey Sanford of South Bend; solo practitioner Mark Kopinski of South Bend and John P. Tuskey of Bingham and Loughlin P.C. in Mishawaka.

Assistant U.S. Attorney John Maciejczyk of South Bend had been scheduled to interview but withdrew his application for consideration.

After the interviews, commission members will convene in executive session to narrow the field to five candidates whose names will be forwarded to Gov. Mike Pence for his appointment, which must be made within 60 days of official notice.

According to the Indiana Supreme Court, the merit selection commission established 40 years ago is chaired by Justice Mark Massa, and formerly was chaired by Justice Frank Sullivan. Its seven members include three bar members selected by St. Joe lawyers and three non-lawyers appointed by a panel consisting of the St. Joseph Circuit Court Judge, the mayors of Mishawaka and South Bend, and the president of the county commissioners.



 

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