Higher gas prices, fewer court appearances?

June 20, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
You can’t turn on the television or read a newspaper these days without seeing a story about how the increased cost of oil is affecting people. People are making a more concerted effort to carpool, cut back on extraneous driving, or take public transportation in attempts to offset the costs of driving.

But what can attorneys who have clients in different parts of the state do? The Indiana Supreme Court and Court of Appeals typically hold arguments in Indianapolis, which means attorneys outside of the city have to go to Indianapolis to represent their clients. Occasionally, arguments are held in different parts of the state, meaning an Evansville attorney now might have to travel even farther to make it to Valparaiso or Richmond instead of Indianapolis for a case. Some attorneys have to travel to a different county just to attend one, short court hearing.

Attorneys don’t have the luxury of grabbing a bus to attend a hearing two counties away, and carpooling may not always be an option. Even driving within the same county for trips to court every day takes a toll on the wallet.

How has the price of gasoline affected your practice? Does your law firm or office allow telecommuting? According to a recent survey by Chicago-based outplacement firm Challenger Gray & Christmas, 14 percent of companies polled let workers telecommute at least one day a week.

What about the courts – do you think they should let attorneys telecommute for certain proceedings to save on gas?
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
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT