ILNews

Judge-backed court staff attorney pilot program bill moves out of committee

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Legislation that would create a pilot program administered by the Indiana Judicial Center to assist trial courts when preparing and writing certain motions moved out of the House Committee on Courts and Criminal Code 11-0.

House Bill 1411, authored by Rep. Tom Washburne (R-Evansville) establishes the two-year pilot Circuit Court and Superior Court Staff Attorney Pilot Program. The bill calls for the program to be created and facilitated by the Indiana Judicial Center, which will report to the Commission on Courts for possible implementation statewide after the initial test period.

Jane Seigel, executive director of the Indiana Judicial Center, testified in support of the bill, as did former Indiana Chief Justice Randall Shepard. The Indiana Judges Association, Indiana Chamber of Commerce and the Indiana Manufacturers Association also support the legislation.

Seigel told Indiana Lawyer Thursday the Indiana Judicial Center is dedicated to helping trial judges across the state and this is an additional tool that can be implemented to help the courts.

The pilot program under the introduced legislation would make IJC staff attorneys – which are defined as an attorney, senior judge or third-year law student - available to judges to help prepare orders granting or denying dispositive motions. The language was amended in committee to replace “dispositve” with “complex” based on a suggestion from Rep. Ed DeLaney, D-Indianapolis, who signed on as a co-author.

The legislation is written broadly enough to leave a lot of the program details – including what kinds of cases falls under “complex” – up to the IJC, Washburne said. He thinks that some lawsuits are filed in some jurisdictions where there’s a perception the party can “blow that lawsuit by the judge” as the judge doesn’t have time to deal with motions to dismiss or for summary judgment and the case proceeds perhaps farther than necessary based on the law.

“Because judges don’t have many resources, a lot of those get through and cause a lot of problems for defendants,” he said. “Ultimately, having more resources will cut back on frivolous filings.”

A party in an action where the pilot is running may ask the court to have a staff attorney from the pilot program to assist the court in preparing a judicial opinion that explains the reasons for granting or denying the motion. A judge may also request the assistance of an IJC attorney.

The idea for this legislation came from Washburne, vice president and associate counsel for Old National Bancorp in Evansville, based on his experience managing litigation for the bank and his time as a law clerk for U.S. Judge S. Hugh Dillin.

Trial judges have high workloads but don’t have the same available resources as the federal courts do in writing decisions. Washburne said some judges have told him if they want to do real writing, they have to take it home. The pilot project attorneys can act as law clerks for trial judges.

The pilot program will be established in at least five counties: two with a population of less than 50,000; two with a population between 50,000 and 200,000; and one county with at least 200,000 residents.

In 2011, the number of cases disposed by a bench disposition – including dispositive motions – ranged between seven percent for civil torts to 18 percent for civil plenary cases, according to the fiscal impact statement for the legislation. The idea is this bill will help parties avoid lengthy litigation, and if state or local units of government are involved, would help reduce their costs of litigation.

The bill will be eligible for second reading next week in the House.

 

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. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  2. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

  3. She must be a great lawyer

  4. Ind. Courts - "Illinois ranks 49th for how court system serves disadvantaged" What about Indiana? A story today from Dave Collins of the AP, here published in the Benton Illinois Evening News, begins: Illinois' court system had the third-worst score in the nation among state judiciaries in serving poor, disabled and other disadvantaged members of the public, according to new rankings. Illinois' "Justice Index" score of 34.5 out of 100, determined by the nonprofit National Center for Access to Justice, is based on how states serve people with disabilities and limited English proficiency, how much free legal help is available and how states help increasing numbers of people representing themselves in court, among other issues. Connecticut led all states with a score of 73.4 and was followed by Hawaii, Minnesota, New York and Delaware, respectively. Local courts in Washington, D.C., had the highest overall score at 80.9. At the bottom was Oklahoma at 23.7, followed by Kentucky, Illinois, South Dakota and Indiana. ILB: That puts Indiana at 46th worse. More from the story: Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Colorado, Tennessee and Maine had perfect 100 scores in serving people with disabilities, while Indiana, Georgia, Wyoming, Missouri and Idaho had the lowest scores. Those rankings were based on issues such as whether interpretation services are offered free to the deaf and hearing-impaired and whether there are laws or rules allowing service animals in courthouses. The index also reviewed how many civil legal aid lawyers were available to provide free legal help. Washington, D.C., had nearly nine civil legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty, the highest rate in the country. Texas had the lowest rate, 0.43 legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty. http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2014/11/ind_courts_illi_1.html

  5. A very thorough opinion by the federal court. The Rooker-Feldman analysis, in particular, helps clear up muddy water as to the entanglement issue. Looks like the Seventh Circuit is willing to let its district courts cruise much closer to the Indiana Supreme Court's shorelines than most thought likely, at least when the ADA on the docket. Some could argue that this case and Praekel, taken together, paint a rather unflattering picture of how the lower courts are being advised as to their duties under the ADA. A read of the DOJ amicus in Praekel seems to demonstrate a less-than-congenial view toward the higher echelons in the bureaucracy.

ADVERTISEMENT