ALJ, problem-solving courts bills moving

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A House bill dealing with problem-solving courts and a Senate bill that involves administrative proceedings and administrative law judge disqualifications have made it out of their respective judiciary committees.

House Bill 1153 was amended by the House Judiciary Committee and passed out of committee Jan. 20. The introduced bill included a chapter on possession of handguns by judicial officers, which was removed in committee. HB 1153 spells out when a problem-solving court may terminate an individual’s participation in the court program. The bill also makes the parent or guardian of a child accepted into a problem-solving court program financially responsible for court service fees and chemical testing expenses.

Senate Bill 67 made it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee Jan. 20 with several amendments. The legislation deals with administrative proceedings, dictates that the proceedings before an administrative law judge are de novo, and adds to the section dealing with ALJ disqualifications.

Also moving as of Monday morning:
-    SB 43, which would allow the parole board to require certain child molesters and other sex and violent offenders to wear a GPS tracking device. The bill moved out of the Committee on Corrections, Criminal & Civil Matters Jan. 12 and passed second reading in the Senate Jan. 18.
-    SB 74, which deals with guardianships, and HB 1055, which deals with adult guardianships and protective proceedings, both made it out of their respective judiciary committees last week.
-    SB 169, involving probate, trusts, and transfer on death transfers, gained approval of  the Senate Judiciary Committee Jan. 20 without amendments. The legislation would allow for joint owners of motor vehicles and watercraft to transfer title as a transfer on death transaction. It also deals with matrimonial property and trusts and other probate matters.

Several bills of interest will be heard in committee this week. This morning, the House Judiciary Committee heard three bills, including HB 1182 on the creation of a consumer protection assistance fund. The bill passed and moved on for second reading. On Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hear several bills including SB 91 on unifying Henry and Madison Circuit courts; SB 301 proposing an automated record-keeping fee that would fund the implementation of case management system Odyssey in state courts; SB 97 on the funding of lawsuits; and SB 499 on nominating Lake Superior judges instead of the current election process.

A complete list of bills is available on the General Assembly’s website at


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.