ILNews

IndyBar: The Appellate Courts Demystified

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By the IndyBar Professionalism Committee

For some trial attorneys, the courtroom becomes like a second home. They can come to feel like they spend more time there than with their families or friends. However, those same attorneys can feel the fear in their hearts when they hear a case has gone up in appeal. Many view the appellate process as if it were a foreign country where they don’t speak the language and have no idea of the local customs.

While some of the same rules of civility apply in the appellate courts as in the trial courts, the judges and justices in the appellate courts may have some expectations of civility which would surprise attorneys more familiar with the trial court systems. As part of the Professionalism Committee’s ongoing series of videos on civility, Hon. Margret Robb, Chief Judge of the Indiana Court of Appeals, has recorded a video where she discusses some of the rules of civility for the appellate court system.

If you have a case coming up in the appellate courts, or if you fear the appellate courts more than the dentist, take a moment and watch Judge Robb’s video. It may make you feel as if you’ve been given a guidebook explaining some of the local customs of that foreign country.

New videos will be distributed regularly and are available on the IndyBar website at www.indybar.org/resources/video-gallery. If you have any suggestions for future topics regarding professionalism and civility, please contact Caren Chopp at cchopp@indybar.org.•

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT