ILNews

Indiana Judges Association: Are changes needed to ‘change of judge’ rule?

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

IJA-Dreyer-DavidOnce upon a time, there was a corporation that wanted to sue a lot of other corporations in Indiana. After the lawsuit started, one defending corporation moved for an automatic change of judge under Indiana rules. The case was re-assigned, and a different defending corporation moved to dismiss, citing related out-of-state litigation and the like. After about a year and a half of briefing, arguing and procedural running in place, the motion was denied. So the moving corporation filed its own automatic change of judge motion. But the judge said “no, y’all already got one change, can’t have another.” Then, all the defendants went to the Indiana Supreme Court and convinced it to let them have another change of judge. And when the change was made randomly by the local clerk, the case ended up with the original judge where it started way back when. No one seemed to notice and no one seemed to care.

This is a true story.

An objective observer would have to conclude that the parties did not really care who the judge was – they must have had some other strategic reason for delay, or wanted to discharge a judge who ruled against them once and might again, or some other reason. But the whole basis for an automatic change of judge is rooted in the ideal that you can get one free pass on a judge you think is biased, and be excused from having to allege or prove bias, especially when that judge is the one who gets to decide if you are right. It has now become necessary to reconcile the ideal with the reality: Changing judges as a gaming litigation strategy has nothing to do with who the judge is or any actual bias.

According to our Division of State Administration, there may have been as many as 3,500 automatic change of judge motions in Indiana over each of the last two years. This is almost 10 times over for each judge in the state and about 5 percent of the most commonly filed civil cases. That’s a lot of changing. Are there that many parties and lawyers who have that many problems with that many judges? Or is it just a small group of biased judges that are changed from virtually all of their cases? Or, more likely, is it a growing strategy of lawyers and litigants that is largely unrelated to actual provable bias?

Originally, the National Center of State Courts reports, automatic change of judge procedures arose as far back as the 1800s to stem problems in less populous communities where only one judge ruled and he or she knew literally everybody. It also allowed defendants to “unpick” judges picked by plaintiffs. Former Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard has traced the Indiana history and found automatic change motions emerging in the 1950’s when the profession recognized them as preferable over the friction bred by disqualification motions. But Maurer School of Law professor Charles Geyh, former director of the American Bar Association’s Judicial Disqualification Project and judicial ethics expert, says that only about 20 states have automatic change of judge rules, and those are almost all west of the Mississippi (where Judge Judy lives, so they need it). He sees a more central problem, that is, we are “divided over when it is reasonable for the presumption of impartiality to yield to the suspicion that extralegal influences may have compromised the judges’ impartial judgment.” If judges are presumptively neutral, how best to litigate a change of the few who are not?

While Professor Geyh acknowledges the delay game now grown into automatic change of judge procedures, he believes the best solution is found by providing disqualification motions be decided by a neutral judicial officer, not the targeted judge, which increases the legitimacy of disqualification procedures and thus increases pubic confidence in courts’ impartiality. “They should not be grading their own papers,” says Professor Geyh.

The ABA finds, naturally, that disqualification motions are less common in states with automatic change rules. But if we adopt procedures like Professor Geyh suggests, do we still need the obvious downsides of delay now inherent in automatic change? Tom Carusillo, the director of Trial Court Services in our State Court Administration, reminds us that Indiana changed its rule just this year by removing the striking panels. The old rule allowed the discharged judge one privilege before he or she left the case: listing the judges for the parties to pick. The striking panels are now gone, says Carusillo, because data showed significant delays and confusion in many cases. In addition, former Chief Justice Shepard recalls that similar considerations led to the repeal of automatic change of venue rules and restricted automatic changes in child-related matters.

So, it is worth wondering why we need automatic change of judge rules and if the trend is going against them. After all, we judges don’t get an automatic change of counsel. And believe me, there are times when we could really use one. So if we can live without it and be responsible professionals, why can’t lawyers? Just sayin’ … .•

__________

Judge David J. Dreyer has served on the Marion Superior Court since 1997. He graduated from the University of Notre Dame and Notre Dame Law School. He is a former board member of the Indiana Judges Association.

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 just wanted to point out that Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, Senator Feinstein, former Senate majority leader Bill Frist, and former attorney general John Ashcroft are responsible for this rubbish. We need to keep a eye on these corrupt, arrogant, and incompetent fools.

  2. Well I guess our politicians have decided to give these idiot federal prosecutors unlimited power. Now if I guy bounces a fifty-dollar check, the U.S. attorney can intentionally wait for twenty-five years or so and have the check swabbed for DNA and file charges. These power hungry federal prosecutors now have unlimited power to mess with people. we can thank Wisconsin's Jim Sensenbrenner and Diane Feinstein, John Achcroft and Bill Frist for this one. Way to go, idiots.

  3. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  4. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  5. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

ADVERTISEMENT