ILNews

JNC’s justice candidate evaluation letter sent to governor

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

The Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission sent its letter to Gov. Mitch Daniels Wednesday explaining the qualifications of justice finalists Hamilton Superior Judge Steven Nation, Tippecanoe Superior Judge Loretta Rush, and Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP partner Geoffrey Slaughter.

The commission selected the trio as finalists Aug. 8, and statute requires that it send a written evaluation of each nominee to the governor. Upon receipt, Daniels will have 60 days to make his appointment.

On Nation, the letter says: “With thirty-seven years of diverse legal practice – as a civil trial attorney, a prosecutor, and trial judge – Steven Nation has a familiarity with all facets of the Indiana judicial system and is recognized as a wise, compassionate, and fair jurist. … His commitment to public service is demonstrated not only from his past activities but also from his unwavering pledge to dedicate the remaining thirteen years of his career to the Indiana Supreme Court, if selected.”

On Rush: “As a jurist, administrator, and community leader, Loretta Rush has developed an impressive reputation for being one of the judiciary’s most dedicated leaders and, as one community leader described, ‘[A] visionary with incredible foresight.’ Knowledgeable observers routinely spoke of her courage, commitment, patience, and tireless energy in approaching some of the court’s most intricate and formidable problems.”

On Slaughter: “Highly regarded for his intellect, penetrating legal analysis, wisdom, and judgment, he is often sought out by his peers for consultation and referral of clients on sensitive legal matters. As one prominent practitioner wrote, ‘Brilliant is not a term I use lightly, but it applies here … He is known throughout this state as a man of integrity and character, and holds a place of respect in the legal community that few others hold.”


 

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. Judge Roger B. Cosbey is unethical and bias toward African American who seeks justice in Title VII claims. He disrespected and used his authority to attempt to intimidate me into taking an unfair settlement and when I refused he proceeded to get my case dismissed and to deny me my Constitutional and Civil Rights. He disobeying several rules of law; specifically, by ruling on summary judgment motions against the Fed. R. Civ. P., without authority of Judge William C. Lee, without consent of the attorneys, and with conspiracy to commit “fraud on the court,” as he conspired with my former attorney. He proved to me that he is bias, unethical, unfair and unfit to be reappointed. In my opinion, he should be disbarred in 2013, for committing fraud on the court, which would make him ineligible for reinstatement in 2014. See docket 3:07 cv 629 where he rules on dispositive motions, knowing magistrates are not vested with that power (especially without consent), grants the defendant an unconscionable number of extensions, accepts my former attorney request for extension for dispositive motion knowing he was working with the opposition, and unbelievably grants the defendant another extension after he requested an extension after he missed the deadline. I know another attorney filed charges against him for bias in race discrimination case(s). I know what he did in my case before he voluntarily recused himself, I just do not know how many other innocent people have been stripped of their rights because of him. I say shame on him and no more of the same.

  2. they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.

  3. vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!

  4. Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.

  5. With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.

ADVERTISEMENT