ILNews

Federal Bar Update: Comments sought for changes to local rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Federal Bar UpdateNorthern District of Indiana

The Northern District of Indiana has posted on its website its proposed amendments to its local rules, welcoming public comment by Dec. 1. The proposed changes are stylistic not substantive, but nonetheless significant and include: (a) altering the numbering convention from L.R. 1.1 to L.R. 1-1; and (b) stylistic modifications consistent with style changes to federal rules in recent years. These amendments are scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, 2012.

The renumbering is aimed at avoiding confusion when a corresponding federal rule such as Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.1 uses a decimal. Under the old system, the N.D Ind. Local Rule was 5.1.1. Under the new system, the N.D. Ind. Local Rule will be 5.1-1. This will allow easier numbering and tracking going forward as the federal rules seem to be adding “.1” rules periodically to existing federal rules.

The restyling is aimed at trimming unnecessary verbiage in the local rules, and also using the same style and language used in the revised federal rules (FRCPs, FRAPs, etc.). Terms like “should, shall, may, and must” are addressed, with shall being deleted in favor of must when the rule requires something to be done. Practitioners and local rule committee members Tom Vetne and Brian Kubicki, in particular, deserve thanks and praise for hundreds of hours of work on this multi-year project.

Southern District of Indiana

The Southern District is in the process of amending its local rules as well, probably effective January 1 pending court action. The Southern District is likewise considering the same renumbering as the Northern District, and similar restyling. Watch for further notices on this front in this column and on the court’s website.

Fee Increases

Various court fees have increased effective Nov. 1 and are available on court websites. Meanwhile, per page costs on PACER are scheduled to increase from $.08 per page to $.10 per page on April 1.

Federal Civil Practice Seminar

The Annual Federal Civil Practice Seminar will be held Friday, Dec. 16 in Indianapolis, starting at 1:30 p.m. Three hours CLE will be provided. Panelists include Chief Judge Richard Young and Magistrate Judges Mark Dinsmore and Denise LaRue from the Southern District of Indiana, along with Clerk Laura Briggs and Don Wall from the 7th Circuit. See www.theindianalawyer.com for information and to register.•
__________

John Maley – jmaley@btlaw.com – is a partner with Barnes & Thornburg, LLP, practicing federal and state litigation, employment matters, and appeals. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT