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
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