ILNews

Improving judicial professionalism starts in the classroom

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

Many of the proposals made in the 2009 white paper, “A New Way Forward,” which called for sweeping changes to the state’s judicial system, remain proposals. The recommendations to overhaul the court structure and to develop a uniform process for selecting judges continue to spark debate. But one piece has received approval and been implemented with little fanfare.

Since 2011, Indiana judges must complete 54 hours of continuing legal education every three years, up from the prior requirement of 36 hours. The nine-member Strategic Planning Committee of the Indiana Judicial Conference, which authored the white paper, had upped the credit limit because those on the bench should be held to a higher standard.

baker-john-g-mug Baker

“I don’t think you’d want to go to a doctor who graduated in 1965 and never ever went back to look at what’s happening in medical science today,” Indiana Court of Appeals Judge John Baker said. “All professions, law or medicine, have an obligation to maintain their education.”

Baker is a member of the strategic planning committee whose members were appointed by retired Indiana Chief Justice Randall Shepard and the Indiana Judicial Conference board of directors.

Increasing the CLE hours was a part of the education recommendation and the easiest to enact. The Judicial Conference board of directors voted unanimously to approve raising the requirement, and despite a little initial grumbling from some in the judiciary, most are expected to log the 54 hours with little trouble by the end of the three-year cycle on Dec. 31, 2013.

In fact, the committee believes most judges will surpass the 54 hours. At the end of the three-year period in 2010, a reported 65 percent of the bench had posted at least 60 hours.

Baker explained that for the judiciary, obtaining additional education is a matter of pride.

“Indiana judges want to be informed,” he said. “They want to learn to do their jobs better so they can serve the citizenry better.”

A higher standard

Prior to the increase in required CLE, judges had to register the same number of hours as attorneys.

The strategic planning committee felt increasing the mandatory minimum by 50 percent would not create a burden for judges. Each year, judicial officers are now required to complete at least 15 CLE hours. Of the total 54 hours, five hours must be ethics credits and no more than 18 hours can be from non-legal subjects.

The committee made other educational recommendations that have not yet been implemented. These include requiring all judges to graduate from the Indiana Judicial College within 10 years of taking a seat on the bench and mandating all judges attend training on judicial matters such as courtroom decorum and jury trial management.

Education was touted by the committee as the key to boosting the professionalism of the judiciary, improving the judicial system for all litigants and enhancing public confidence in the third branch.

willis Willis

Hamilton Superior Judge William Hughes reiterated Baker’s point that judges must meet higher expectations because of the status they hold in society. Hughes is currently chair of the Judicial Center’s education commission.

“Judges should be more accountable in a variety of ways,” he said. “We should have to have more hours because we sit on the bench.”

A former trial court judge, Baker knows keeping abreast of decisions handed down by the appellate division and new laws passed by the Legislature is hard to do when sitting in court all day.

Attending CLE seminars at judicial conferences enables judges to keep up-to-date on changes. They also gain new insight by talking to their colleagues from other parts of the state.

During the sessions, the judges tend to speak up and ask questions. They want interactive and interesting programs so much so that a strict lecture format may elicit some audible boos.

The CLE courses are valuable, said Henry Circuit Judge Mary Willis, a member of the strategic planning committee that developed the recommendations. New laws, changes in the law, trends in cases can all be part of the educational mix.

As a presenter, Willis has taught an entire CLE class on the history and evolution of judicial campaigns. She used the novel “To Kill a Mockingbird” as a starting point for a discussion on ethics. She showed clips from the movie based on the book and highlighted cases from the Supreme Court of the United States.

“Judges want to be engaged and to contribute,” Willis said. “They want to learn.”•

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. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT