ILNews

President Obama taps Indianapolis attorney

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indianapolis attorney is President Barack Obama's newest nomination for a key administration post within the Department of Commerce.

The president Monday nominated John R. Fernandez to be assistant secretary of commerce for economic development and Economic Development Administration administrator for the nation's commerce department. The position requires Senate confirmation.

Fernandez is of counsel for Krieg DeVault and advises both private businesses and governmental organizations on economic development, public finance, and public-policy issues. A 1992 graduate of what is now the Indiana University Maurer School of Law - Bloomington, he'd previously served as Bloomington's mayor between 1996 and 2003. He ran unsuccessfully against Todd Rokita for Secretary of State in 2002.

Fernandez also serves as senior vice president of Bloomington-based First Capital Group, leading the real estate investment firm's new development and acquisition team.

A White House release details his background and says Fernandez joined Obama's campaign team for Indiana last year and served as a senior advisor and fundraiser.

This is Obama's second Bloomington-based nomination for his administration. He nominated Bloomington law professor Dawn Johnsen in March to be an assistant attorney general heading the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel; her nomination has been pending before the U.S. Senate since then.

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