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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT