ILNews

Merit-selection panel formed to select new federal magistrate

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Anyone interested in being a federal magistrate for the southern part of Indiana has until Wednesday to apply for that position.

Attorneys face the Wednesday deadline for the magistrate opening in the U.S. District Court’s Southern District of Indiana, following last month’s elevation of Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson to an Article III judgeship.

An 18-person panel of attorneys and community members has the task of interviewing and selecting the next federal magistrate. Chairing the panel is former Magistrate Judge V. Sue Shields, who retired in 2007 and paved the way for Judge Magnus-Stinson to take the spot.

Attorneys on the panel are: Barry Bitzegaio, Robert L. Burkart, Amanda C. Couture, William W. Drummy, Angela M. Espada, Matthew R. Gutwein, Richard D. Hailey, Lacy M. Johnson, Bart A. Karwath, John F. Kautzman, Michael S. Miller, Doris Pryor, James H. Voyles Jr., William E. Winingham Jr., and Sally Zweig. Two other community members also sit on the panel: Larry Griggers, owner of Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse; and Dr. Paul R. Helft, director of the Charles Warren Fairbanks Center for Medical Ethics.

Once all the applications are submitted, the merit-selection panel will review them and interview prospects, said U.S. District Court Clerk Laura Briggs, who is the panel’s liaison. No timeline exists for making a decision, but Chief Judge Richard Young had previously said he hopes to have a new magistrate as soon as possible this summer or early fall. The process is confidential to protect applicants’ privacy, and the names of the five most qualified candidates will be forwarded to the District judges for consideration and final approval.

The position pays an annual salary of $160,080 and runs for an eight-year term before that person is eligible for reappointment. Applicants are required to have practiced for at least five years and be no more than 70 years old.

Those interested in applying can find an application online at the District Court’s website. Applications must be received or postmarked by July 14, 2010.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT