ILNews

Editorial: All who serve as judges should be lawyers

February 16, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Editorial
stoner-mark-mugBW Stoner
shewmaker-terry-mugBW Shewmaker

By Judges Mark Stoner and Terry Shewmaker

The Indiana trial court system has several types of courts: Circuit, Superior, Small Claims and one Probate court. In 2009, 1.5 million cases were filed in those courts and all of the cases were heard by judges who are lawyers. Those judges are in good standing with disciplinary authorities and licensed to practice law in Indiana.

Indiana also has approximately 75 City and Town courts. In 2009, 375,000 cases, including criminal misdemeanors and speeding tickets, were heard in these courts. Not all of the judges in those courts are lawyers. Some cities and towns do not require it.

Senate Bill 312 would require all judges in Indiana to be lawyers. Judges who are not lawyers would be allowed to complete their current terms. Their replacements would have to be lawyers in good standing, admitted to practice law in Indiana.

The Indiana Judicial Conference (judges from across the state) and the Strategic Planning Committee of the Conference strongly support SB 312. Indiana judges believe that non-lawyers serving as City and Town court judges attempt to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. We simply believe that in matters of great importance to Indiana citizens, a person who has graduated from law school and passed the bar exam should hear the case.

Hoosiers have important constitutional and statutory rights. Most people think of serious felony cases when they think of constitutional rights. They think of television trials like those shown on “Law & Order.” But Hoosiers have important rights which apply even in matters such as speeding tickets. Citizens having cases heard in City and Town courts can lose their driving privileges or even be jailed. It is important that judges follow all statutes and apply the law properly in all cases. SB 312 would protect Hoosiers’ rights by ensuring that law-trained judges preside over all cases in Indiana, from murder to divorce to speeding tickets.

Most Indiana citizens will never see the inside of a courtroom for a serious felony offense or a complicated contract dispute. But many Indiana citizens will receive a speeding ticket, a parking ticket, or have an issue with their driver’s license that must be resolved in court. We believe all Hoosiers deserve to have a law-trained judge resolving these disputes.

This proposal is just one reform proposed by the Strategic Planning Committee as part of a bigger plan called The New Way Forward. More information can be found at www.courts.in.gov/committees/strategic/. E-mail us with suggestions or words of support.•

__________

The Hon. Mark Stoner
is a judge in Marion Superior Court, and The Hon. Terry Shewmaker, is judge in the Elkhart Circuit Court. They are co-chairs of the Strategic Planning Committee of the Indiana Judicial Conference. The opinions expressed in this column are the authors’.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • overkill
    Is law school really necessary for these kind of petty offenses? Not really. And a law like this further enhances the public perception of lawyers as a self serving cartel. The editorial makes good points which are reasonable but that's what I believe.

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. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  2. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  3. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT