ILNews

Plaintiff attorney chosen to serve on judicial commissions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indianapolis plaintiff attorney has received the most votes from colleagues to join the Indiana Judicial Nominating and Judicial Qualifications commissions, and he’ll take a spot on a seven-person panel in January.

William E. Winingham Jr., a name partner at Wilson Kehoe & Winingham who’s been practicing since 1979 with a focus on plaintiffs’ civil litigation work, was chosen by other attorneys in the 19-county 2nd judicial district. He replaces Indianapolis defense attorney John Trimble, who finishes his three-year term at the end of this year.

The clerk’s office took more than two hours Wednesday after the ballot submission deadline to count the votes, according to Appellate Clerk Kevin Smith. Ballots were mailed out Oct. 12, and the deadline for submission of votes was 4 p.m. Wednesday. Approximately 2,196 ballots of the 7,092 sent out were returned. The 31 percent return rate topped the 25.4 percent response in 2007.

Winingham received 672 votes, while attorney Jan M. Carroll received 543, Kathy L. Osborn received 399, Joel M. Schumm received 310, and David R. Hennessy received 272 votes.

Winningham now becomes one voice on the commissions, which are chaired by Indiana Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard. Winingham joins two other lawyers chosen by colleagues and three non-attorneys appointed by the governor. The commissions not only review applicants for the states’ appellate courts, as has been done twice this year, but members also review potential judicial misconduct actions and handle other judicial qualifications and disciplinary issues, such as the senior judge list.


 

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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. 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.

  3. 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!!!

  4. 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!

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT