ILNews

Southern District names new magistrate

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana announced today the selection of Mark J. Dinsmore as magistrate judge. He fills the position vacated by Jane E. Magnus-Stinson, who was elevated to an Article III judgeship in June.
 

Dinsmore-mark-mug Dinsmore

A Magistrate Judge Merit Selection Committee chaired by retired Magistrate Judge V. Sue Shields reviewed more than 50 applications and recommended five candidates for the position. The District judges of the court interviewed the candidates and chose Dinsmore.

Dinsmore is currently a partner at Barnes & Thornburg. He has focused on the use of technology to facilitate the management of complex matters and chairs the firm’s Litigation Department Technology Committee. Dinsmore has focused his litigation practice on management of complex cases, with concentrations in construction litigation and electronic discovery. He has also represented clients in international and domestic arbitrations, including representing the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina in an international arbitration arising out of the Dayton Accords that ended the Balkan war.

Prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg, he was a law clerk for Judge John D. Tinder when the judge was on the bench of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana. A Valparaiso native, Dinsmore is a graduate of the University of Toledo College of Law where he graduated first in his class. Before attending law school, Dinsmore served as a captain in the U.S. Army.

He serves as treasurer of the Indiana Legal Services board of directors and is a member of the Heartland Pro Bono Council board of directors.

U.S. magistrate judges are appointed by the judges of the U.S. District Court for a term of eight years and are eligible for reappointment to successive terms. Dinsmore’s appointment will be effective upon completion of required Internal Revenue Service and FBI background investigations.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT