ILNews

Finding the right forum

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

As a small claims judge in one of Marion County’s nine townships, Judge Douglas Stephens isn’t worried about the familiar faces who file claims in his court.

Though he knows that some attorneys probably choose his court, as they might choose other courts and judges because of location and convenience, the local judge in Pike Township is more concerned about making sure the litigants – especially those not represented by an attorney – know and understand their rights.

“We’ve been painted as a cold heartless collection court,” Stephens, who’s been on the bench for more than eight years, said about the county’s
 

stephens-douglas-web-15col.jpg Judge Douglas Stephens (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

small claims court. “But we are first trying to make this a pleasant and fair experience for those people who have to come here, and we’re not focused on why certain lawyers are filing in a particular court.”

The national spotlight shined on Indiana’s largest county court system in July after a front page Wall Street Journal article highlighted perceptions about “forum shopping” in the Marion County small claims courts. The article focused on debt collection cases and how the location of proceedings is often determined based on a lawyer’s perceptions of local courts and the collections practices imposed by each judge.

The issue has received increasing attention in recent years. In early 2011, a federal judge in New York found that Illinois-based Allstate was “judge shopping” by filing in Manhattan its $700 million mortgage debt lawsuit against Bank of America Corp’s Countrywide. The judge moved the case to Los Angeles to ensure consistency and efficiency.

The WSJ reported that some Indiana judges handle their courtroom practices differently by accommodating “frequent-filer” collection attorneys. For example, some have different practices for supervising meetings between creditor attorneys and debtor litigants or which cases actually go before the judge. The judges cited in the WSJ article tell Indiana Lawyer their comments were taken out of context. While they acknowledge forum shopping does happen, they say it is not the concern that the national newspaper makes it out to be.

In Marion County’s township courts, court figures from the state show most of the debt collection cases involve less than $6,000 and those can be filed in any of the nine townships – except in landlord-tenant disputes, which must be filed in the township where the property is located. But in every case, no matter the jurisdiction, the defendant has the ability to ask that the suit be venued to the township where he or she lives.
 

gonon-richard-mug.jpg Gonon

Attorneys practicing in small claims court have mixed feelings about the notion of forum shopping. Indianapolis medical debt collection attorney Richard Gonon said the practice is used and that it can cut both ways, depending on where either party is located.

“Forum shopping isn’t illegal. It’s a valuable mechanism to use as a method to best advocate for your client,” he said. “It might have a poor connotation, but the way it’s implemented is perfectly legal and there’s no need to change it.”

Gonon said some courts may appear eager to accommodate plaintiffs who file 50 to 100 lawsuits a week – simply for the efficiency and convenience of it, not the end result of ruling for or against them.

Indianapolis attorney Paul Ogden, who occasionally practices in the small claims court, sees the practice as more of a problem than his colleague does. He takes issue with what he describes as informal settings in some courts that seem to better accommodate frequent users, allowing them access behind court counters, use of copy machines or even preferences on setting court dates.

“The problem is that small claims courts are profit centers for a township and end up competing against each other for business,” he said. “While the shopping around doesn’t affect the judges’ perspective on cases, there is a sense that you want to keep the attorneys happy. Every court acts a little differently and has different ways of handling attorneys who are always in there, but the underlying incentive seems to be to keep those frequent filers happy. That gives the appearance of impropriety and it leaves a bad taste in your mouth.”

But the judges say it’s not a matter of judge shopping, but rather the attorneys picking places that might help the process move more smoothly for them and the other parties involved in cases.


rosenberg-louis-mug.jpgRosenberg

Marion Circuit Judge Lou Rosenberg said he sees concerns surrounding local forum shopping to be more about how court services are used than any ideological disposition of a particular judge. That is something the small claims court judges agree on.

“It’s not forum shopping in the traditional sense, it’s basically which court of the nine is closest to me as an attorney and which gets me out the quickest and most efficiently and conveniently,” Stephens said. “If there’s any shopping going on, it’s probably staff shopping more than judge shopping.”

Stephens and the other judges echo that they aren’t deciding cases to please frequent filers. While internal court practices may currently differ to some degree, judges say the end result is based on the facts.

“Every judge may be familiar with the same faces that appear in his or her court, but it wouldn’t dawn on me that they might be choosing this or some other court for whatever reason,” said Judge Michelle Smith-Scott in Center Township, which has the most landlord-tenant disputes and is the only small claims court located in the Marion County City-County Building. “I just don’t monitor that. I’m more interested in safe-guarding the system to make sure our courts are fair and accessible to all.”

Since the WSJ story ran, Smith-Scott said she has made a practice of speaking with larger filers, such as creditors, and instructing them to meet with people before court officially convenes in order to discuss settlements or possible garnishments, and if there are any disagreements those go before the judge.

“That’s always been an option, but now this is more of a formalized process we’ll be doing,” she said. “I don’t want any private discussions where litigants might feel pressured.”

Judge Garland Graves in Warren Township said that since the article ran, he’s been observing the nine small claims court judges working more closely and communicating more than before. Rosenberg has also been advising and helping the small claims courts create a more unified and consistent approach to how they handle cases and work with litigants.

The courts are working on a “rights and responsibilities” pamphlet to display and hand out in court to litigants to help ensure the public knows the rules and what is and isn’t allowed. That should be finalized by year’s end, Rosenberg and Stephens said.

“We didn’t realize that some of these perceptions exist about judge shopping in a way that treats people unfairly, and now we’re doing our best to make sure those things aren’t happening and the perceptions are addressed,” Stephens said.•
 

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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT