Comments welcomed for many court rule amendments

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A multitude of Indiana court rules are being examined for potential revision, and the legal community has a chance to offer comment about how those changes are made.

The Indiana Supreme Court’s Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure has issued a notice of proposed rule amendments and is seeking public comment until March 25.

Provisions that would set out requirements for telephone and audiovisual hearings to ensure attorney-client privilege and change how judges or clerks are removed from a case if they don’t rule in a timely manner are among those being considered for revision. Changes also attempt to bring statewide coordination to family court rules that have been implemented gradually during the past decade as individual counties have signed on to the state’s pilot project.

Also available online, the proposed rule amendments are:
--Indiana Administrative Rule 14: Changes set out requirements for conducting hearings by telephone and audiovisual telecommunications, in part focusing on ensuring the confidentiality of attorney-client communications. Revisions to Administrative Rule 9 would conform those rules to the proposed changes to the appellate rules.

--Appellate Rules 2, 9, 10, 11, 14, 14.1, 15, 16, 23, 24, 30, 46, 62, and 63; and Forms 9-1, 9-2, 14.1, 15-1, 16-1, and 16-2:  Changes would abolish the Appellant’s Case Summary and change the filing of the Notice of Appeal from the trial court clerk to the Clerk of the Indiana Appellate Courts. The specific contents of the Notice of Appeal are spelled out in the amendments, and they also seek to clarify the service of documents and running of time limits in appeals.

--Rules of Trial Procedure 3.1, 53.1, and 59:  Changes deal with procedures for withdrawal of representation and temporary or limited representation, and 53.1 concerns procedures for removing a case from a judge who has not acted or ruled in a timely manner as provided in the rule. It also suggests removing the local court clerk from the process.

--Post-conviction Relief Rules PC1 and PC2: Modifications would clarify the proper venue for filing PCR petitions and would conform the rules to the changes being proposed in the appellate rules.

--Rules of Evidence 501, 502, and 803: Revisions would include new language covering situations involving the inadvertent disclosure of privileged information and clarification of the hearsay exception related to statements made by individuals seeking medical diagnosis or treatment.

--Rules for Family Proceedings: Changes are part of an attempt by the court to bring the rules governing the Supreme Court’s Family Court Project to the rest of the state. The rules would follow the pilot that has been implemented in more than two dozen counties since 1999, and this would permit courts to exercise jurisdiction over multiple cases involving the same family or household members.

The public can submit comments on the proposed revisions to Executive Director Lilia G. Judson, with the Indiana Supreme Court’s Division of State Court Administration, 30 S. Meridian St., Suite 500, Indianapolis, IN 46204, or by e-mail to


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.