ILNews

Wanted: new federal magistrate

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Attorneys who want to be a magistrate judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana can now apply.

Court officials are accepting applications until June 30 for those interested in becoming a federal magistrate to succeed Magistrate William T. Lawrence who is on his way through the U.S. Senate's confirmation process to become a federal judge. If confirmed, he would succeed Judge John D. Tinder who was elevated to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals late last year.

An application and job description for the full-time magistrate position, which has an eight-year term and pays an annual salary of $155,756, can be found on the U.S. District Court's Web site.

The person selected to succeed Magistrate Lawrence would be responsible for conducting most preliminary proceedings, trials and dispositions of misdemeanor cases, civil mediation and settlement proceedings, various pretrial and evidentiary matters, and civil trials and dispositions upon consent from all litigants.

Applicants must be younger than age 70 and an attorney in good standing for at least five years, competent to perform all duties, of good moral character, emotionally stable and mature, committed to equal justice under the law, patient and courteous, and capable of deliberation and decisiveness.

While the selection process is confidential, a merit selection panel of attorneys and other members of the legal community will be named publicly to review applicants, Chief Judge David Hamilton said. The panel will name five candidates it considers best qualified, and then the court will make the appointment following an IRS tax check and FBI investigation.

The process is expected to take about six months once started, though much depends on the number of candidates and how quickly Magistrate Lawrence's confirmation moves to the full Senate. The U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary approved his nomination earlier this month and no timeline exists for when the full legislative body might consider his nomination.

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