ILNews

New state public defender, BLE director chosen

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Announcing two new appointments simultaneously, the Indiana Supreme Court has chosen the state public defender and director of the Board of Law Examiners.

The court announced its decisions Thursday, filling the two vacancies and completing search processes that have been under way for months.

Stephen T. Owens of Indianapolis is the new state public defender, one of 43 attorneys who applied to succeed Susan Carpenter after her retirement May 31. He has been a deputy and chief public defender in the statewide office for nearly 25 years after being admitted to practice in October 1985.

Owens immediately begins a four-year term as the administrative head of the 67-person office with about 1,150 ongoing criminal appeals, including two death penalty cases.

“I’m extremely excited and honored, and all I can hope is to maintain what (Carpenter) has established,” Owens told Indiana Lawyer.

In addition to the public defender appointment, the court selected Bradley W. Skolnik as the next BLE leader. The Indianapolis partner at Stewart & Irwin succeeds Linda Loepker, who resigned in early December. More than 91 individuals applied for the post. While the search and review was pending, David Remondini from the Division of State Court Administration temporarily fulfilled the duties of the director.

At Stewart & Irwin, Skolnik practices in the areas of securities regulation, financial services, and general corporate litigation. Prior to his private practice, he worked as the Indiana securities commissioner in the Secretary of State’s office. He served as president of the North American Securities Administration Association, and in that role he has testified before the U.S. Congress.

“Serving as the executive director will afford me a unique opportunity to use the skills I developed as a regulator and private practitioner in an area that deeply interests me,” Skolnik said in a news release. “I passionately support the Board’s role in maintaining the integrity and high standards of the legal profession.”

The state BLE plays a pivotal role in the legal community, overseeing not only the admission of attorneys in Indiana through the bar exam but also administering legal intern certification and the formation and renewal of professional corporations, limited liability companies, and limited liability partnerships within the legal profession.

 “It is a coup for us to bring Brad Skolnik back to state government,” Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard said in a prepared statement. “Having his management and investigatory skills at work in the judicial branch will allow us to continue ensuring the legal profession embraces the highest standards.”

 

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. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT