ILNews

IndyBar: Board Approves Model Rule Guidelines for Marion County Judicial Selection

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

As part of its ongoing efforts to facilitate judicial elections issues reform, the Indianapolis Bar Association Board of Directors approved at its July 2013 meeting a set of Model Rule Guidelines for the Marion County judicial selection system. The Model Rule Guidelines were drafted through the bar’s Attorneys for an Independent Bench Committee, which was also authorized at the July board meeting to seek implementation of these rules. Visit www.indybar.org to view the Model Rule Guidelines.

Also approved was a Resolution empowering the AIB Committee to move forward with said rules and to continue with the advocacy of additional short- and long-term solutions for the improvement of the Marion County judicial system. The resolution can be viewed online at www.indybar.org.

About the Attorneys For an Independent Bench (AIB) Committee:

AIB was created by an Indianapolis Bar Association Board Resolution passed in 2010 in response to concerns raised by the U.S. Supreme Court Caperton decision addressing the issue of judicial campaigns and the appearance of impropriety that may arise as a result of attorney contributions. The stated purpose of AIB at that time was to receive and distribute voluntary contributions to judicial candidates for the Marion Circuit and Superior courts, providing IndyBar members with an alternate method of supporting judicial campaigns.

Based on meetings conducted and input solicited from other interested parties, AIB Officers and its Executive Committee determined that the usefulness of AIB was much broader than the purpose approved at the time of its creation. In July 2012, the AIB purpose was amended to include the broader goal of using AIB as a mechanism to truly achieve Attorneys for an Independent Bench by all manners approved by the IndyBar Board of Directors. As a result of the amended purpose, AIB ceased to collect or distribute contributions.

At the same meeting, the Board approved a resolution solidifying the bar’s support of judicial election issues reform, authorizing the President or selected designees to continue to advocate for needed reform to the Marion County judicial election and selection process. As a result of this approved resolution, the bar and the AIB committee facilitated several meetings and discussions related to both short- and long-term solutions designed to implement a better system for selecting Marion County judges, resulting in the proposed model rule guidelines.•

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