ILNews

Pyle takes oath at robing ceremony

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana’s newest Court of Appeals judge also holds the distinction of being the only official appointed twice by Gov. Mitch Daniels.

Daniels said it was three years ago Tuesday that he appointed Rudolph Pyle III to the vacancy in Madison Circuit Court. Daniels, an avid biker, joked during Pyle’s robing ceremony that his subsequent appointment of Pyle to the appellate bench had nothing to do with the judge’s past as a motorcycle instructor.

“In a close one it would have been a tie-breaker,” Daniels said. “This wasn’t a close one.”

Pyle choked back tears as he thanked his parents, Rudolph and Caroline Pyle, who performed the ceremonial robing Oct. 16. “My parents gave me the foundation for success through love, discipline and excellence,” he said.

Pyle also praised his mentor – the man he succeeded, COA Senior Judge Carr Darden – for whom Pyle was a law clerk while a student at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. Darden, he said, taught him not only what it was to be a good judge, but to be a good attorney.

Darden said it’s no surprise people recognize Pyle as a young, smart, rising jurist.

“You see, I’ve been doing that for a long time,” he said.

Pyle is believed to be the first Indiana appellate judge who also clerked for the appellate bench, COA spokesman Martin DeAgostino said.

Pyle also is the first appellate judge who was an Indiana Conference for Legal Education Opportunity fellow. He also is the first appellate judge who formerly served as an Indiana State Police trooper.

COA Chief Judge Margret Robb said a cursory glance at Pyle’s resume, which also includes work as a deputy prosecutor, proves humbling. “You have a clear picture of the gifts Judge Pyle brings to the court,” she said.

But all those accomplishments, she said, “are nowhere near as important as what Judge Pyle will do in the future.”

Pyle also noted that the occasion allowed men, women and people of all races and creeds to join together in the chambers of the Indiana Supreme Court. “There are folks in this room who remember a time when that was not so,” he said.

 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT