Should all judges be lawyers?

October 27, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
From IL reporter Michael Hoskins:

If you’re responsible for applying the law, no matter if the case is a traffic infraction or a civil or criminal proceeding, is a law license required? The answer is no, but it’s a topic being debated as it applies to city and town court judges.

The Commission on Courts on Friday talked about whether all of Indiana’s city and town court judges should have to be attorneys in good standing. Only 10 have that requirement now, while 56 city or town courts don’t have the attorney requirement. There are 35 layman judges at that level without a law degree. Some think it should apply to everyone on the bench.

Chief Justice Randall Shepard is in favor of the idea, noting that these judges are on the front lines and litigants must have the best possible legal representation from everyone at that level. Often, higher courts of record and the appellate level must handle the consequences of what comes from those most-local courtrooms and it makes sense for attorneys to be the ones issuing those decisions, he said. But the Indiana Association of Cities and Towns and several local judges are opposed to the idea. IACT attorney Jodie Woods said this falls under the home rule umbrella and it isn’t right to force an area with few attorneys to have to pick one of those to be a judge.

Three attended the commission meeting, including Jeffersonville City Judge Kenneth Pierce who offered a more neutral viewpoint. While he truly thinks these judges should be attorneys (he is licensed), he knows sitting non-attorney judges with more experience and expertise than some attorneys.

Some compromises were laid out, such as removing a residency requirement that would allow out-of-city or town court judges to serve a nearby jurisdiction; and applying the law-degree requirement only for the future so all sitting judges would remain on the bench until they chose not to run. Commission members weren’t all convinced and a motion to recommend this to lawmakers failed, but the idea will likely come up again. The chief justice noted that this issue is not an emergency, but a useful idea that could take years to implement statewide.
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 wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  2. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  3. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

  4. Well, I agree with you that the people need to wake up and see what our judges and politicians have done to our rights and freedoms. This DNA loophole in the statute of limitations is clearly unconstitutional. Why should dna evidence be treated different than video tape evidence for example. So if you commit a crime and they catch you on tape or if you confess or leave prints behind: they only have five years to bring their case. However, if dna identifies someone they can still bring a case even fifty-years later. where is the common sense and reason. Members of congress are corrupt fools. They should all be kicked out of office and replaced by people who respect the constitution.

  5. If the AG could pick and choose which state statutes he defended from Constitutional challenge, wouldn't that make him more powerful than the Guv and General Assembly? In other words, the AG should have no choice in defending laws. He should defend all of them. If its a bad law, blame the General Assembly who presumably passed it with a majority (not the government lawyer). Also, why has there been no write up on the actual legislators who passed the law defining marriage? For all the fuss Democrats have made, it would be interesting to know if some Democrats voted in favor of it (or if some Republican's voted against it). Have a nice day.

ADVERTISEMENT