ILNews

Indiana courts to host judicial independence panel discussion

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court is hosting a panel discussion in mid-February to discuss the broad topic of judicial independence and how courts operate in our democracy, and it’s turning to the online and social media world to help shape how the event unfolds.

Adopting an American Bar Association Judicial Division project known as “The Least Understood Branch,” the program runs from 1:30 to 4:30 p.m. on Feb. 15 and will be held at Martin University in Indianapolis.

This program is a direct result of efforts by Disciplinary Committee Executive Secretary G. Michael Witte, who chairs the ABA’s Judicial Division and has created and hosted these events nationally.

Indiana Supreme Court Justice Robert Rucker will talk about the state’s various judicial selection systems and also Supreme Court operations, while Marion Superior Judge David Dreyer will moderate a panel discussion on judicial independence that asks “Is it we the people, or we the courts?” Members of that panel include U.S. Judge Sarah Evans Barker from the Southern District of Indiana and Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis professor John Hill, who teaches political and legal theory.

In honor of Black History Month, the program will include past Indiana State Bar Association president Rod Morgan, an attorney at Bingham McHale, who will discuss an Indianapolis African-American attorney named John Morton Finney who was admitted to the state bar in 1935 and practiced until age 105.

Attorneys can receive 1.5 CLE credits for attending this program, and those interested in that credit must reserve a seat by contacting Sarah Kidwell at skidwell@courts.state.in.us.

The Indiana courts are using Facebook and Twitter to spread the word and create discussion in advance in order to determine how the program itself might be conducted. Online visitors to the court’s event page can choose to “like” the event, but whether they do that or not they can find access to various program materials or a new music video featuring the courts. They can also ask questions and participate in discussions with others online.

This is another tool the Indiana courts have been using recently to interact through social media, which also includes more than 500 followers on Twitter from the media, law firms, and members of the public, court spokeswoman Kathryn Dolan said.

Based on what responses the court receives, the program could entail a range of issues such as how judges are chosen or the role of judicial pay and legislative oversight as it relates to the judiciary’s independence, she said.

“We’re not sure what to expect or what the interaction will be, but it could lead to some jumping off points for the discussion to focus on,” she said. “We’re looking to appeal to a larger audience, maybe students who might be interested and use social media to communicate. This Facebook event could be a way to introduce the judicial branch to a larger audience who might not normally be interested, but could be if they find out about it through a friend.”

Members of the public and the legal community can submit questions for the panel to consider that day as well as offer an opinion on the role of the courts or judicial independence through the event Facebook page.

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. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT