ILNews

Justice encourages judicial applications

IL Staff
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
An Indiana Supreme Court justice is in South Bend today to actively encourage attorneys to apply for an opening on the St. Joseph Superior Court that will be available when Judge William T. Means retires Sept. 30.

"Being a judge is a challenging but enormously gratifying way for an attorney to use all of his or her legal skills in a way that improves both the quality of life in our community and the quality of justice in our state," Justice Frank Sullivan Jr. said. "Many lawyers think about pursuing a judicial career; this is a perfect time to do so."

The announcement seeking applicants was made in mid-June, and the county's Judicial Nominating Commission is accepting applications until 5 p.m. Aug. 29. Interviews for applicants will be Sept. 12 in South Bend.

According to state law, unlike other counties in Indiana that have partisan elections for judges, a seven-member nominating commission can submit up to five nominees to the governor for consideration. The governor may also not consider partisan politics in his decision.

Justice Sullivan, who has chaired the commission since 1993, said state law requires the commission to make its recommendation based strictly on merit.

To be eligible, applicants must live in St. Joseph County, be a U.S. citizen, and be admitted to practice law in Indiana. Factors considered by the commission include the applicant's law school record, scholarly work, public service work in civic affairs and justice administration, legal experience, probable judicial temperament, and potential conflicts of interest.

Application forms are available from St. Joseph Court Clerk Rita Glenn at (574) 235-9772 or online at www.in.gov/judiciary/stjoseph/judicial-application.pdf.

"In the 15 years that I have had the great honor of chairing the St. Joseph Superior Court Judicial Nominating Commission, I have been impressed by the high quality and diversity of legal talent in St. Joseph County," Justice Sullivan said.

Many commission-appointed St. Joseph Superior judges have moved on to higher positions: Judge Robert L. Miller became a U.S. District judge and Judge Sanford M. Brook joined the Indiana Court of Appeals.
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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT