ILNews

High court seeks comment on rule changes

IL Staff
January 1, 2009
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court is seeking comment on potential changes to the Indiana Professional Conduct Rules, Rules of Appellate Procedure, and Trial Rules.

The court's Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure is considering recommending to the high court changes to Professional Conduct Rules 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, and 7.5, which deal with lawyer advertising, recommendations or solicitations of professional employment, and communication of specialty practice; Rules of Appellate Procedure 14, 18, 39, 41, 46, 49, and 50, which include interlocutory appeals of right, amicus curiae appendix and brief addendum, briefs arrangement and contents, and appendices filing and contents; and Trial Rule 62 regarding stay upon appeal.

The committee is also accepting comment on a change proposed by the Indiana Pro Bono Commission to Trial Rule 23, which covers disposition of residual funds. Details about the specific proposed rule changes are available on the court's Web site. 

Comments will be accepted until March 1, 2010. They may be sent to localrulescomments@courts.state.in.us or to Lilia G. Judson, executive director, Indiana Supreme Court Division of State Court Administration, 30 S. Meridian St., Suite 500, Indianapolis, IN 46204.
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. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT