ILNews

Bankruptcy judge warns of impact of ‘fiscal cliff’

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Chief Judge James K. Coachys in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Indiana sent a memo to the Indiana State Bar Association Wednesday explaining how budget cuts and the potential “fiscal cliff” have affected the court.

Nearly 90 percent of the court’s budget this year has been allocated to pay clerk’s office personnel. The number of staff has been reduced over the years: for the fiscal years 2011 and 2012, the court cut four and five positions, respectively. Coachys anticipates cutting six positions by early January because of a projected shortfall of nearly $500,000. Since the end of fiscal year 2011, the staff has gone from 73 to 58 when including the upcoming cuts.

The court is also eliminating or severely curtailing funding for cyclical building maintenance, personnel training, travel and supplies, the memo says.

He expects the budget to be reduced further for fiscal years 2014 and 2015, leading to more personnel terminations.

Historically, the Southern District of Indiana has ranked in the top 15 of the 94 judicial districts in terms of the bankruptcy cases filed.

“Although the information here is specific to our district, the budget cuts described and the resulting changes are similar to those being experienced by bankruptcy courts cross the country,” Coachys writes. “In fact, I have patterned this memo on a similar one by Chief Bankruptcy Judge Pat Morgenstern-Clarren in the Northern District of Ohio – a court experiencing very similar challenges.”

The “fiscal cliff” – automatic budget cuts scheduled to take effect Jan. 2 unless Congress acts – will result in sequestration of funds otherwise budgeted for all federal agencies, according to the memo.

“I hope that the information is useful in understanding how this Court continues to restructure to operate with the amounts allocated to us, and how that process is expected to continue in future budget cycles,” Coachys writes to the state bar. “However, be assured that we are doing our utmost in these extremely challenging times of declining resources to continue providing prompt and efficient service to you and your clients.”

 

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT