ILNews

Clerk responds to attorneys’ concerns about personal security

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Attorneys’ concerns over personal security have prompted the Indiana Clerk of Courts to offer an opt-out feature when updating attorney registrations on its registration portal.

The new feature was unveiled as part of the courts’ reminder to Indiana attorneys that this is the time to make their annual attorney registration fee payments and IOLTA certifications. The deadline is Oct. 1, 2013.

The registration portal now allows lawyers to not have their business addresses publicly displayed on the Roll of Attorneys website. According to Sarah Kidwell, outreach coordinator for the Indiana Supreme Court, the feature was offered in response to the number of attorneys who are working from their homes and do not want the address of their personal residences made public.

In order to remove their business address, attorneys must check the opt-out box when registering online. It will not be done automatically.

Attorneys can register and pay online through the Indiana Clerk of Courts Portal at http://appealsclerk.IN.gov. The web-based portal was introduced in 2011 and updated to its current version in 2012.

Kidwell said since the registration announcement was made last week, the portal has been working. Some attorneys have needed assistance after forgetting their passwords or user names.

Attorneys who do not register by the deadline face fines up to $440 and possible suspension.

Lawyers who prefer not to use the portal can request a paper form by contacting the Roll of Attorneys administrator at 317-232-5861, ext. 4, or rollatty@courts.in.gov.

 

 

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

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT