ILNews

CJ signs order for increased judicial education requirements

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana judges and magistrates will have to take more judicial education classes to improve their legal skills next year. Indiana Supreme Court Justice Randall T. Shepard today signed the order amending the Indiana Rules for Admission to the Bar and Discipline of Attorneys that requires enhanced continuing education for judicial officers.

Now, they will need to take at least 54 hours of Continuing Judicial Education credits and 5 ethics credit hours every three years, 15 hours of CJE each year, and no more than 18 hours of non-legal subjects. Distance education is also capped at nine hours. The order applies to all Indiana appellate judges, trial judges, magistrates, and full-time commissioners and referees. The new requirements begin Jan. 1, 2011.

The requirements for senior judges, part-time commissioners and referees, Marion County small claims judges, and city/town court judges weren’t changed under the order. They will continue to need at least 36 hours of CJE every 3 years, 6 hours each year, no more than 12 hours of non-legal subjects, and 3 ethics hours every three years.

The Board of Directors of the Judicial Conference of Indiana voted unanimously in April in favor of the enhanced education requirements. The increase in credit hours is part of a larger plan to improve the judicial branch.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT