ILNews

Comments wanted on proposed changes to senior judge rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court wants to hear from the public and legal community about revising the state’s senior judge program, allowing certified former judges to serve in any court rather than specific jurisdictions.

Public comments are being accepted through Dec. 1, according to an announcement Friday from the state’s highest court. The revisions would amend Administrative Rule 5 regarding the certification and appointment of senior judges to allow them broader jurisdictional power anywhere in the state they might be needed.

The proposed changes come from the Indiana Judicial Conference’s Strategic Planning and Senior Judge Committees, as part of a broader discussion and ongoing effort to reform Indiana’s courts. The changes would follow legislative action this past year that streamlined trial courts’ jurisdiction and gave them the ability to unify their local court systems for more efficiency.

On Thursday, that court reform topic and a mention of these senior judge program changes came up at the interim Commission on Courts meeting. Lawmakers and court officials discussed the state judiciary’s strategic plan on consolidating Indiana’s court systems – described as “one of the most complex” in the U.S.

“This opens up the door for more judicial creativity in resolving cases and collaborating,” Marion Superior Judge Mark Stoner, co-chair of the Judicial Conference Strategic Planning Committee, said about the overall court reform.

These proposed revisions to the senior judge program would complement those ongoing efforts. Specifically, the proposed changes would permit a certified senior judge to serve in any court, clarify the senior judges’ jurisdiction, provide information to trial courts about senior judges’ expertise and preferences, develop a set of “best practices” for those serving, and increase the number of automatic senior judge days that each court has. The specific revisions can be found online.

More than two decades after the Indiana General Assembly created this senior judge program in 1989, Indiana currently has 92 former judges certified to serve in senior judge capacities. The most recent data from 2010 shows they served 3,592 days in courts throughout the state – equivalent to 20 full-time judges, according to the state’s weighted caseload analysis.

Comments on the proposed changes can be sent to RulesComments@courts.in.gov, or by mail to Tom Carusillo in the Indiana Supreme Court Division of State Court Administration, 30 S. Meridian St., Suite 500, Indianapolis, IN 46204.

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. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT