ILNews

IBA: Board Approves Judicial Reform Resolutions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indianapolis Bar Association Board of Directors approved two resolutions related to the judicial system in Indiana at its July meeting on Friday, July 13.

The first resolution amended the purpose of the IndyBar’s Attorneys for an Impartial Bench (AIB) Standing Committee, which was converted to a standing committee from its status as a political action committee by a previous action during the board meeting.

AIB was created by a Board Resolution passed in 2010 in response to concerns raised by the U.S. Supreme Court Caperton decision addressing the issue of judicial campaigns and the appearance of impropriety that may arise as a result of attorney contributions. The stated purpose of AIB at that time was to receive and distribute voluntary contributions to judicial candidates for the Marion Circuit and Superior Courts, providing IndyBar members with an alternate method of supporting judicial campaigns.

Based on meetings conducted and input solicited from other interested parties, AIB Officers and its Executive Committee determined that the usefulness of AIB was much broader than the purpose approved at the time of its creation. Thus, it was recommended to the Board of Directors that AIB’s purpose be amended to include the broader goal of using AIB as a mechanism to truly achieve Attorneys for an Independent Bench by all manners approved by the IndyBar Board of Directors. This resolution was unanimously approved by the board. As a result of the amended purpose, AIB will no longer collect or distribute contributions.

The second resolution approved by the Board of Directors solidified the bar’s support of judicial elections issues reform, authorizing the President or selected designees to continue to advocate for needed reform to the Marion County judicial election and selection process.

The process by which the judiciary in Marion County is presently selected and/or elected has been the subject of ongoing criticism and controversy and has been studied by the IndyBar on several occasions. Historically, the IndyBar passed a Resolution on Merit Selection in 2005, authorizing a task force to facilitate a merit selection bill in the Indiana legislature. In 2009, the IndyBar conducted a survey in which 83.4 percent of members participating indicated that they favored a nonpartisan merit selection and retention election system in Marion County over the current slating and election system. Further, in 2010, AIB was formed as noted above.

Most recently, on April 11, 2012, the Judicial Qualifications Commission issued an opinion stating that the practice of imposing a slating fee on judicial candidates in Marion County was deemed to be in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. As the approved resolution notes, “this practice is but one component of the system by which partisan politics influences the selection of the Marion County judiciary.”

As a result of this approved resolution, the bar will focus on facilitating dialogue related to both short- and long-term solutions designed to implement a better system for selecting Marion County judges, as well as seeking the repeal or reform of the current slating fee practice. All actions related to this effort will be subject to approval by the Board of Directors.•

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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT