ILNews

New chief public defender? Not yet

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Nine people will soon decide whom they want to see as the next chief public defender for Indiana's largest county.

The Marion County Public Defender Agency's board of directors conducted second interviews March 4 with two applicants who want to succeed Chief Public Defender David E. Cook when he leaves the agency. A third had withdrawn his name prior to those interviews, according to board chairman Jimmie McMillian.

He declined to release any names and would only say the second interviews "went well." The board had interviewed 10 original applicants for the position Feb. 26.

Now, the board plans to meet for an executive session and subsequent public vote to decide on the appointment. Following Tuesday's interviews, the board planned to meet for a vote on March 6. But that plan was scrapped after the board's legal counsel informed members that Indiana's public access law requires 48 hours notice, McMillian said. A date hadn't been determined by Indiana Lawyer Daily deadline.

Once a decision is made, the board will make a recommendation to the City-County Council, which has the final say with a confirmation vote.

McMillian didn't know when that might happen but said it's urgent they consider this appointment as quickly as possible. It could take two meetings to complete the process, he said. The council met Monday, and its next scheduled meeting is March 24, according to an online meeting calendar.

Cook notified the board in early December 2007 of his plans to step down from the agency, where he's been for 12 years. He planned to stay until mid-February, but postponed his departure for a month to give the board more time to find a successor. Cook told Indiana Lawyer today that he has not been asked to stay longer, and that he couldn't stay past April 1. He will start work at Indianapolis immigration firm Gresk & Singleton.
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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT