ILNews

Southern District bankruptcy judge seeks reappointment

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

After 14 years on the federal bankruptcy bench, U.S. Judge Anthony J. Metz III in the Southern District of Indiana is seeking another term.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is considering Judge Metz’s reappointment once his current term expires Nov. 14, 2011. He has applied for reappointment and it’s up to the federal appellate court to make those appointments, rather than the president and the Senate who appoint federal Article III judges. The 7th Circuit is accepting comment from the public and legal community until March 1.

Comments from the public and the bar as to whether Judge Metz should be reappointed should be sent to 7th Circuit Executive Collins T. Fitzpatrick, 219 S. Dearborn St., Room 2780, Chicago, IL 60604.

A graduate of Indiana University Maurer School of Law and admitted to practice in 1972, Judge Metz has been on the bankruptcy bench since Nov. 14, 1997, and in May 2010 was elevated to the chief judge position. He is one of four judges on the bankruptcy bench here that includes Judges James K. Coachys, Basil H. Lorch, and Frank J. Otte.

His reappointment comes at a time when bankruptcy filings are up nationally by almost 14 percent in the past year, as well as in Indiana and the Southern District. Overall, the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts reports that Indiana ranked fourth with 7.49 new filings per 1,000 people and the specific Chapter 7 and 13 filings also increased during the past year. Statistics show the Southern District had about 28,000 new filings during 2010, up from the previous year.

Just in the past five years, the clerk’s office reports that Judge Metz has been assigned to handle approximately 34,762 cases.

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. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  2. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT