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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT