JTAC fee, Clark County courts bills before committees

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A bill that would increase the automated record-keeping fee to pay for implementation of a statewide case-management system and a bill that proposes to create a unified Circuit Court in Clark County are just two of the bills before committees this week in the Indiana General Assembly.

Senate Bill 301, which deals with the automated record-keeping fee, will be heard at 8 a.m. Tuesday before the Tax and Fiscal Policy Committee. The Senate Judiciary Committee reassigned the bill to this committee last week. The bill proposes that the automated record-keeping fee should be increased to $10 from July 1, 2011, to June 30, 2015. The $3 increase from the current fee will help pay for Odyssey, a case-management system run by the Indiana Supreme Court’s Judicial Technology and Automation Committee. After June 30, 2015, the fee would return to the current $7 charge.

The Senate Corrections, Criminal, and Civil Matters Committee meets at 9 a.m. Tuesday to discuss eight bills, including Senate Bill 540 on the discharge of long-term inmates and Senate Bill 561 on corrections and sentencing.

At 9 a.m. Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hear six bills focusing on the following areas: Senate Bill 459, access to identifying information for adoptions; Senate Bill 96, which would add a state-paid deputy prosecuting attorney in Cass County; Senate Bill 63, suspension of local officeholders from office; Senate Bill 520, enforcement of foreign law; Senate Bill 34, interstate compact for juveniles; and Senate Bill 180, limited partnerships and liability companies.

The committee meets again at 9 a.m. Friday to discuss the following legislative proposals: Senate Bill 582, settlement conferences in residential foreclosures; Senate Bill 465, Department of Child Services matters; Senate Bill 215, forfeiture and amount of law enforcement costs; Senate Bill 463, mandatory retirement age for trial court judges; Senate Bill 212, trial court jurisdiction and the repealing of laws on county courts; and Senate Bill 214, state use of contingency fee counsel.

On Wednesday, the House Family, Children, and Human Affairs Committee meets at 10:30 a.m. to discuss four bills including House Bill 1316, which establishes the Division of Youth Services Transitional Services Fund to provide juvenile transitional services to delinquent offenders. The bill also allows a juvenile court to order a parent or guardian to pay or reimburse the Department of Correction for costs incurred by the department for a child who is committed to the DOC.

At 1:30 p.m. Wednesday, the House Courts and Criminal Code Committee will hear House Bill 1416, on credit time for approved correspondence courses; House Bill 1324 on child molesting; and House Bill 1266 on the creation of a unified Circuit Court for Clark County.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.