ILNews

Commission discusses technology, hardship license

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Commission on Courts - the legislative interim study committee that considers issues instrumental in court operations - gathered Tuesday to hear about technological initiatives under way in the state courts and expanding the jurisdiction of courts issuing driver's licenses because of hardship.

Mary DePrez, director and counsel of trial court technology for the Supreme Court's Judicial Technology and Automation Committee, told the commission about new initiatives launched recently on a protective order registry and e-traffic citations, all of which will eventually tie into a statewide case management system being implemented in coming years. Monroe County courts and Washington Township's Small Claims Court in Marion County are the first participants and should be up and running by March 17, 2008. Five more counties will be selected to move forward at that time, Justice Frank Sullivan told commission members.

Still under discussion and consideration is how public access to the case management system will be handled, Justice Sullivan said. Attorneys will have access, but the JTAC committee will likely develop policy and make suggestions to the Indiana Supreme Court for consideration about how that public access will be implemented.

Commission members also heard a presentation about hardship licenses, which Dearborn Superior Judge G. Michael Witte said is a topic of discussion for judges across the state. Currently, only Circuit courts can hear these cases in the jurisdiction where the person lives, rather than the court where the license was suspended. Judge Witte proposes that Superior courts be allowed to handle these and that they be kept in the same courts considering the person's other driving-related issues.

Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard described this as a "very good idea" and said it would help organize these matters for efficiency. He proposed drafting language that would make it clear only Circuit and Superior courts have jurisdiction, not city or town courts.

No vote was taken, but lawmakers said they plan to do so at a coming meeting. The commission plans to meet next Oct. 1 to hear proposals about new courts and judicial officers. They also plan to discuss Indiana Trial Rule 60.5 that deals with mandate of funds, and the issue of allowing magistrates of the Vanderburgh Superior Court to enter final orders or judgments in small claims or protective-order cases.
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. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT