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. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT