ILNews

Potential COA judges: Apply now

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Applications are now being accepted for the second opening on the Indiana Court of Appeals in less than a year.

Judge John T. Sharpnack is stepping down May 3, 2008, because of mandatory retirement, and his successor has until 4:30 p.m. Nov. 1 to apply for the upcoming vacancy.

The seven-member Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission, chaired by Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard, will conduct first public interviews with applicants Nov. 12 and 13 in Indianapolis, followed by second interviews Dec. 12. The commission selects three finalists to recommend to the governor, who makes the final decision.

Judge Sharpnack's retirement comes after fellow appellate Judge Patrick D. Sullivan stepped down from the court in August, also because of mandatory retirement, and was succeeded by Judge Cale Bradford from Marion County.

For this judicial position, a candidate must be either an Indiana attorney for a minimum 10 years or a trial judge for at least five years. The applicant would represent the fifth judicial district and face statewide retention, but must live in one of the 53 counties in the first geographic district of the Court of Appeals. Those counties include the southern third of the state.

Applications for the $143,367 salaried position are available on the judiciary's Web site at http://www.in.gov/judiciary/notices/vacancy.html. Candidates can get more information about the process at the judiciary's site or by contacting Meg Babcock, the commission counsel, at (317) 232-4706 or at mbabcock@courts.state.in.us.
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. 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