IBA also not happy with Gov

September 23, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
First the Indiana State Bar Association issued a statement saying Gov. Mitch Daniels’ comments in the press regarding the “voter ID” decision last week weren’t “helpful in advancing the appropriate respect for the courts and the judicial process.”

Now, the Indianapolis Bar Association has released a statement from its president chastising the public criticism of the court. Its basic message: public criticism of judges has no place in the judicial process.

In the statement, IBA president James Voyles says, “As citizens, we have the right to be heard and to challenge rulings by judicial process. Indeed, our legal system is structured to permit judicial review to higher courts to afford litigants the ability to seek redress for unfavorable rulings. The court of judicial process is the appropriate forum for such relief; the court of public opinion is not.”

The statement goes on to say that those unhappy with the ruling should take up the appropriate legal process for relief instead of going to the media “to lodge personal attacks on the judges who are charged with the difficult task of preserving our constitutional rights.”

Finally, Voyles says “Regardless of personal opinion as to the ruling, that our judicial officers and our judicial process should command a greater respect goes unsaid. We enjoy freedoms and rights that many do not, and with that comes responsibility to respect the courts and those that take the oath to protect the integrity of the office of the judiciary.”

I can’t recall in the few years I’ve been working for the Indiana Lawyer seeing any bar association commenting publicly like this on reaction to a ruling. They’re obviously coming to the defense of the judges and trying to give another point of view on this topic. It’s too bad the judges who made the ruling can’t speak; I’m dying to know what they have to say about this controversy.
ADVERTISEMENT
  • I\'ll tell you what they think - the same thing the entire legal community thinks - mitch is an idiot and completely overstepped his bounds on this one. he is completely out of touch. he\'s shown his disregard for the judiciary one too many times. and he went to law school? huh.

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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT