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. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT