ILNews

IBA: Magistrate/Commissioner Survey Complete

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indianapolis Bar Association has delivered the results of a recent survey regarding the performance of all current Magistrates and Commissioners now serving those courts to the Marion Circuit and Superior Courts. The online survey was produced by the Indianapolis Bar Association at the request of the Court’s Executive Committee.

“The Magistrate and Commissioner Committee of the courts reviewed the survey results and shared them with the judicial officers and their supervising judges,” said Judge Robyn Moberly, a member of the committee. “The survey results were very consistent which gave us confidence in their reliability.  Most of the comments were constructive and have already been useful in addressing areas of weakness or concern. Our judges continue to stress the importance of competency, timeliness, and judicial demeanor in our court’s performance and this survey assisted the judges in targeting where more training is necessary. 

Nearly 1,200 attorneys responded to the survey which was sent by email to all attorneys in the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office and the Marion County Public Defender Agency, those entering an appearance in Marion Circuit Court or any of the county’s superior courts in the past three years, and all current attorney members of the Indianapolis Bar Association.

Those receiving the survey were asked to only respond in regard to those judicial officers with whom they have had direct professional contact. Forty-four judicial officers were listed.

Moberly said, “This is another example of the bar supporting the efforts of the judiciary to constantly improve ourselves.  Thanks to all of the lawyers who took the time to respond to the survey.”•

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT