ILNews

Lake County bench brawl

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A fight over a Lake County judicial vacancy put the Indiana Supreme Court in the unusual position of issuing three orders in 12 days recently, ultimately telling the warring parties to settle among themselves a bitter dispute gone public.

The infighting among judges revealed a level of animosity that surprised some longtime attorneys familiar with the local bench.
 

Bonaventura-MaryBeth.jpg Bonaventura

After Judge Mary Beth Bonaventura announced she would depart Lake Superior Court Juvenile Division to run the Indiana Department of Child Services, judges in the merit-selection county shuffled the deck, and Judge Nicholas Schiralli was granted leave to transfer to the juvenile bench from Superior Court County Division 1 on the basis of seniority.

Bonaventura cried foul, saying state law required the position be filled through the Lake Judicial Nominating Commission’s vetting process, in which attorneys interested in the position would be interviewed and five finalists’ names would be submitted for Gov. Mike Pence’s selection.

Juvenile court magistrates also said the transfer conflicted with the merit-selection statute and would deprive them of an opportunity to apply for the vacancy. They requested a writ of mandamus on March 20, days before Bonaventura was to depart, in State of Indiana ex rel. Glenn D. Commons, et al., v. the Hon. John R. Pera as Chief Judge of the Lake Superior Court, et al., 45S00-1303-OR-209.

The Supreme Court issued a succession of orders:

On March 21, the court issued an emergency order and writ staying Schiralli’s transfer until justices could rule further;

On March 22, the court appointed Senior Judge Thomas W. Webber Sr. to serve as judge pro tem in the juvenile court “until the selection of a replacement for Bonaventura can be determined”; and

On April 1, the court appointed former Justice Frank Sullivan Jr. to oversee mediation among the parties. Mediation is expected to resolve the standoff by mid-May, and Sullivan is to file a mediation report with the court by May 23.

But just in case mediation fails, the court ordered briefing from the judges filed by April 8.


Schiralli-Nicholas.jpg Schiralli

Neither Schiralli nor Bonaventura responded to messages seeking comment regarding the situation, but as the controversy percolated, at least one Lake County judge lashed out in writing.

Lake Superior Judge Jesse M. Villalpando wrote to Chief Judge John Pera and copied three other judges, congratulating Pera on a March 11 letter to Justice Robert Rucker stating the reasons why Schiralli’s transfer was permissible under local rules.

Bonaventura’s objection illustrated her “misplaced priorities,” Villalpando wrote in the letter to Pera published by the Times of Northwest Indiana. Bonaventura had urged the transfer of Judge John Sedia, who declined, before she urged merit selection at a February meeting of Lake Superior judges, Villalpando wrote.


“Her parting shot to her colleagues indicating that she cannot imagine any one of us being able to replace her as Juvenile Court Judge is Exhibit A: Arrogance,” Villalpando wrote. “For her own good she needs to wake up, otherwise, she is in for a rude awakening upon arriving in Indianapolis. … She should be focused on her future and serving the needs of the children of Indiana.”

Judges say they are within their rights under Lake Superior Court rules to fill the vacancy by transfer, but Bonaventura and now the magistrates said merit selection is required.

Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP partner Karl Mulvaney is representing the Lake County judges in the dispute. “There certainly is an issue regarding a local rule and a state statute,” Mulvaney said. He said he could not comment on his clients’ position ahead of mediation.

Lake County Bar Association President Michael Jasaitis said the local bar has taken no position in the dispute.

“As a result of the recent filings, this matter is now before the Indiana Supreme Court for disposition. Therefore, the Lake County Bar Association, as an organization, has taken the position that it should refrain from commenting on the current pending litigation,” Jasaitis said in a statement.

A veteran Lake County attorney who occasionally practices in juvenile court spoke with Indiana Lawyer on condition of anonymity and said local rules permit transfers within civil, criminal and juvenile divisions. There have been a couple within specific divisions in the past decade, but transfers across those divisions have not happened, the attorney said.

“Lawyers are disappointed with the way the vacancy is being approached by the judges,” the attorney said. “The legal community is somewhat put off that the judges have put off the statutes” regarding merit selection.

The peek behind the curtain of the judges meeting was startling, the attorney said, because Bonaventura “was a very popular judge, and she may have been envied because she was so popular statewide.

“It’s been a surprise to everyone that there’s been this much strife.”

Charles Geyh, a professor and judicial appointment expert at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, said the dispute in Lake County is “driven by the perverse eccentricities of Indiana’s trial court selection processes.

“One would like to think that the process for replacing a juvenile court judge would be sufficiently clear that one would not need to resort to litigation to figure out whether new judges are chosen by commission-based gubernatorial appointment or by other judges within the district,” Geyh said.

The situation in Lake County illustrates the need for a uniform statewide method of trial judge selection, he added.

Meantime, resolution of the dispute will be left up to the parties involved, at least for the next month or so, until Sullivan’s deadline for a mediation report.

“This court expects the mediation process to begin promptly and to proceed with all due deliberate focus,” Chief Justice Brent Dickson wrote in the April 1 order. “This court retains jurisdiction over this original action during mediation but holds in abeyance its consideration of this original action, pending completion of mediation.”

The Lake County attorney was doubtful: “There’s no suggestion or indication that anyone’s going to back down.”•

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