ILNews

Court's efforts recognized with 2 awards

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard will be busy next week accepting two awards, one for the court's "Why Lincoln Was a Lawyer" program and one for jury-system improvements.

The Indiana Historical Society will recognize the Supreme Court's educational outreach program, Courts in the Classroom, with its 2009 Indiana History Outstanding Project Award. The chief justice will accept the award at the society's Founders Day Dinner Dec. 7.

"To be recognized by the Indiana Historical Society is a great honor," Chief Justice Shepard told Indiana Lawyer in an e-mail. "They are devoted to helping Hoosiers gain a better understanding of our state history. So to have a project that stands out in their minds is really an accomplishment."

"Why Lincoln Was a Lawyer" was an effort of the Supreme Court and Indiana State Bar Association to educate students about Abraham Lincoln's life as a lawyer, Hoosier, and president. The same program was recently recognized by the American Bar Association with its 2009 Law Day Outstanding Activity awards.

"I had high expectations that teachers and students would enjoy the Lincoln program. However, I did not expect to receive so many letters of thanks from judges and attorneys who participated in the program," Chief Justice Shepard said. "Many of the attorneys and judges who participated sent us photographs and thank-you notes that they received from the classrooms where they spoke. I could not have been more pleased with how the program turned out and with the Indiana State Bar Association's partnership."

The Indiana Supreme Court's Judicial Technology and Automation Committee will also be honored by the National Center for State Courts as a recipient of the 2009 G. Thomas Munsterman Award for Jury Innovations. The award recognizes the collaborative efforts of the Supreme Court, Department of Revenue, and Bureau of Motor Vehicles to ensure a broader and more accurate jury system that includes the compilation and distribution of a statewide master jury pool list.

"Having a jury resolve a dispute is a cornerstone to our system of justice. With the technology upgrades to the jury list, we are really using 21st century technology to accomplish one of the most fundamental requirements of our democracy," the chief justice said.

JTAC makes the master jury list available to all Indiana trial courts through a secure Web site, which allows jury administrators to access the lists as they need.

Chief Justice Shepard and Gov. Mitch Daniels will accept the award at the Indiana Judicial Center's winter conference Dec. 11. The two will speak about the importance of Indiana's statewide master jury pool list and other court technology projects.

The chief justice said he is pleased that Gov. Daniels will attend the conference to share in the award because partnering with his administration is one of the main reasons the project is a success.

"We are so pleased with this new electronic method created by our Judicial Technology and Automation Committee. It's just another example of the many projects we are working on devoted to improving court technology," said Chief Justice Shepard.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT