ILNews

Dickson: Lawmakers’ help needed to fix Marion County Small Claims courts

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Chief Justice Brent Dickson told a joint session of the General Assembly Wednesday that lawmakers’ help was needed to fix Marion County Township Small Claims Courts, which have been plagued by allegations of forum shopping and other criticism.

“Systemic change is imperative, and this requires legislative action,” Dickson said in his State of the Judiciary speech. He noted local leadership and rules changes instituted after a task force examined problems in the courts “can only scratch the surface.”

Reforming the township courts in Indianapolis was one of three judicial items Dickson said would require legislation. Others include bringing the abstract of judgment into the digital age. The court has been working with clerks and other stakeholders, he said, “in an effort to modernize this relic of the quill pen era. We need your help.”

Lawmakers in the future also should “consider shifting more and more funding of the judicial branch expenses from local government to state funding. For many reasons, this is wise and sound public policy, and it is used effectively in many other states.”

Dickson’s second State of the Judiciary address comes in a short session when lawmakers won’t be hashing out a budget or doing much heavy lifting on financial matters, and he didn’t lobby hard for funding.

“Indiana’s judges are very, very busy; we are extremely challenged but quite gratified every day. We could do even better with more resources,” he said at the outset.

He said the judiciary is “an amazing value to Hoosiers,” spending only 9 cents of every $10 collected by state and local units of governments, and returning more than half of those expenditures in collected revenue.

Mandatory reporting of pro bono hours for Indiana attorneys is moving forward. “We are working to have such a program in place in the coming months,” he said, noting an overview of civil cases statewide recently showed 63 percent of litigants were without counsel.

“When people are in court without a lawyer, bad things happen,” he said.

Meanwhile, Dickson said courts would assist with implementation of the Legislature’s “masterful achievement” of revising Indiana’s Criminal Code. “A product of multiple years of thoughtful efforts and difficult negotiations, the result was an outstanding piece of legislation,” he said.

The full text of Dickson’s address may be viewed on the court’s website.
 

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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT