ILNews

9 remain in running for Indiana Supreme Court

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Nearly three-quarters of the 34 attorneys who’d applied for an Indiana Supreme Court opening won’t get a second interview.

After two days of interviewing all the candidates, the Judicial Nominating Commission narrowed the full list of applicants to nine people after about two hours of deliberation behind closed doors on Wednesday. Those semi-finalists will return for second interviews July 30 before the seven-member commission chooses three names to forward on to Gov. Mitch Daniels to make the final appointment.

Whoever is chosen will succeed Justice Theodore R. Boehm, who announced earlier this year his plans to retire Sept. 30.

The semi-finalist group is made up of four women and five men, who in their professional legal roles offer a variety of experiences: four are trial judges, two are big firm private practitioners, one is a law school general counsel, one is a state senator, and one is the state’s solicitor general. Semi-finalists are:

Indianapolis attorney Ellen E. Boshkoff, a partner at law firm Baker & Daniels for more than a decade and who’s been in practice for more than 20 years.

Boone Circuit Judge Steve David, who’s been on the bench since 1995 and has had an active career with the Army Reserves.

Bloomington attorney Kiply S. Drew, who has served as associate general counsel at Indiana University in Bloomington since 1994.

Johnson Superior Judge Cynthia S. Emkes, who’s been on the bench since 1987 after serving as a magistrate and working in private practice.

Thomas M. Fisher, who has been Indiana's solicitor general since the office’s creation in 2005 and has worked in the Attorney General’s Office. Before joining the AG, he worked at Baker & Daniels in Indianapolis and also Jones Day in Washington, D.C., following a clerkship at the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Marion Superior Judge Robyn L. Moberly, who’s been on the bench since 1997 and had worked as a commissioner after being in private practice.

Indianapolis attorney Karl L. Mulvaney, who’s been practicing since 1977 and is an appellate attorney with Bingham McHale. He previously served as Indiana Supreme Court administrator from 1984 to 1991.

Hamilton Superior Judge Steven R. Nation, who has been on the bench since 1995 and previously served as Hamilton County prosecutor.

State Sen. Brent E. Steele, R-Bedford, who’s served in both the House and Senate and works an attorney with the law office of Steele & Steele.

Following a unanimous public vote on the semi-finalists, Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard, who chairs the commission, said that he initially expected fewer semi-finalists than the number chosen, but it was a direct result of having so many highly qualified applicants to draw from.
 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT