IBA: Courts Announce Renewal of Attorney Access Cards

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Marion County Court Administrator’s Office has announced the renewal schedule for attorney access cards to the City-County Building. Effective Feb. 23, 2012 application and distribution will begin for new cards and those issued prior to that date will no longer be valid on April 1, 2012. Application cost for the 2012-13 card is $25.

To obtain an access card an attorney must complete the application form and bring it to Court’s Jury Pool Office (2nd Floor, City-County Building), City-County Building, 200 E. Washington St., Center Tower, Room T-202, Indianapolis, IN 46204. Beginning Feb. 23, 2012 hours for application and distribution are limited to Thursdays from 2:00 pm to 4:00 pm and Fridays from 9:30 am to 11:30 am. Forms are available at the Indianapolis Bar Association. They may also be obtained online at or

The Court considers the issuance of the cards to be a privilege extended to members of the Bar as officers of the court. Once obtained the authorized attorney identification card may be presented to a court security officer at a City-County Building security screening station which will allow the attorney to enter a secured area without requiring a search.

Two forms of identification are required for application. First, any Government issued and approved photo identification like an Indiana State Driver’s License or other approved photo identification must be presented. Second, a current and valid Indiana Supreme Court Certificate of Good Standing card (“Bar Card”) must also be provided to verify the active status of the attorney’s license and state attorney number. The fee of Twenty-Five Dollars ($25.00) must be paid at the time issuance of the card. Payment may be made by personal or business check, cashier’s check, or money order, made payable to “Marion County Treasurer.”

Attorneys receiving the access cards must agree that they will not bring firearms, knives, or any other weapons or contraband into the City-County Building; that the card is issued for the exclusive personal use of the authorized attorney, and is not to be loaned out to other persons; and that card will be used in accordance with the Rules of Professional Responsibility and the attorney’s responsibilities as an officer of the court. The Court reserves the right to revoke issuance any time at the sole discretion of the Court Administrator. Finally, the Court Administrator’s office must be notified immediately if there is a change in status of the attorney applicant, such as resignation, suspension or disbarment from the practice of law, retirement, or if the card is lost or stolen.

Cards issued on or after Feb. 23, 2012 will expire on Dec. 31, 2013.•


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.