ILNews

Judge Margret Robb to lead Indiana Court of Appeals

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Though she’s been on the appellate bench for 12 years, Judge Margret Robb is now adding a new distinction to her judicial title.

The word “chief” now precedes her customary title and name.

With that, she also becomes the first woman to be elected chief judge for Indiana’s intermediate appellate court.
 

Margaret Robb Robb

“I’m honored that my colleagues voted for me and that I’m the first woman,” Chief Judge Robb said about the appellate court chief election earlier in the year. “But at the same time, I am just as proud that it was not because I’m a woman, but because they saw me as someone they want to be the chief.”

She succeeds Judge John G. Baker, who took on that role in 2007. Judge Baker followed Judge James S. Kirsch, who became the chief judge mid-year in 2005 after Judge Sanford Brook retired from the court and started the domino effect for the non-calendar year terms.

Just retained by voters in November for a second 10-year term, Chief Judge Robb took the bench in July 1998 after Gov. Frank O’Bannon appointed her to the fifth judicial circuit seat. The Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis graduate practiced for more than 20 years in Lafayette, also serving as a federal bankruptcy trustee in the Northern District of Indiana and previously as a Tippecanoe County deputy public defender. During the past decade, she’s held multiple leadership roles in bar associations and the legal community statewide and nationally, including serving on the American Bar Association’s committee that accredits law schools.

Now that she’s chief judge, part of her responsibility includes serving on the Indiana Judges Association – a role that Judge Baker held during his time as chief judge.

Judge Nancy Vaidik, who’s been on the appellate court since 2000, said the significance of having a female in that chief judge role is important.

“I’m proud of our court, and she can be a female role model. That’s particularly important since we don’t have any women on our Supreme Court, and there are only two (nationally) without one,” she said.

Judge Robb recognizes the importance, but emphasizes that she doesn’t want to put too much emphasis on the gender aspect.

“I’m mindful that this is significant to a lot of people,” she said. “By me being first, that now means there can be a second and a third… until eventually no one notices and talks about it because it’s so common. That’s the way it should be.”

Chief Judge Robb said it’s too early to have any specific plans or focuses for her administrative role. Instead, she plans to carry on the work of her predecessors and make sure the appellate court maintains its reputation of being efficient and professional within the legal community.

During Judge Baker’s time as chief judge, Chief Judge Robb said the court pushed to make sure that attorneys were more realistic in what they requested as far as extensions and procedural matters. That is something she plans to continue.

“When things are working really well, it’s tough to see where you need to go,” Chief Judge Robb said. “You want to see where the shortcomings are and make sure the court stays on task as well as it has, generally. I do see issues that might come up, but they don’t really relate to me specifically and would likely present themselves no matter who was the chief.”

Those include the ongoing balance between efficiency and cost management, which puts the appellate court’s caseload at odds with limited financial resources statewide and for the judiciary overall. The idea of adding a new sixth panel to the bench has come up in recent years but hasn’t gone anywhere to date. Chief Judge Robb said e-filing and court reform will also likely be continuing topics of discussion for everyone.

She also points to the issue of whether all appellate opinions should be citable, a long-debated point that became more significant in 2006 when the Indiana Supreme Court allowed Not for Publication opinions to be posted online. The rule change didn’t alter Appellate Rule 65(D) that says these rulings aren’t precedent-setting, as the federal courts and other states allow. Chief Judge Robb thinks that may continue being a question that the court must consider.

With a background that includes experience as a registered family and civil mediator, Chief Judge Robb notes that Indiana has never embraced the idea of appellate mediation and she wonders whether that will be a topic of discussion down the road. One reason it hasn’t taken hold is the judiciary’s efficiency makes it difficult to have ADR at that level, she said.

“Overall, we’re an intermediate court so on many things we don’t have the authority to do,” she said. “I think we, as a court, have reasonable expectations from the practicing bar and we mutually respect each other. That goes a long way.”•

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. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  2. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

  3. This outbreak illustrates the absurdity of the extreme positions taken by today's liberalism, specifically individualism and the modern cult of endless personal "freedom." Ebola reminds us that at some point the person's own "freedom" to do this and that comes into contact with the needs of the common good and "freedom" must be curtailed. This is not rocket science, except, today there is nonstop propaganda elevating individual preferences over the common good, so some pundits have a hard time fathoming the obvious necessity of quarantine in some situations....or even NATIONAL BORDERS...propagandists have also amazingly used this as another chance to accuse Western nations of "racism" which is preposterous and offensive. So one the one hand the idolatry of individualism has to stop and on the other hand facts people don't like that intersect with race-- remain facts nonetheless. People who respond to facts over propaganda do better in the long run. We call it Truth. Sometimes it seems hard to find.

  4. It would be hard not to feel the Kramers' anguish. But Catholic Charities, by definition, performed due diligence and held to the statutory standard of care. No good can come from punishing them for doing their duty. Should Indiana wish to change its laws regarding adoption agreements and or putative fathers, the place for that is the legislature and can only apply to future cases. We do not apply new laws to past actions, as the Kramers seem intent on doing, to no helpful end.

  5. I am saddened to hear about the loss of Zeff Weiss. He was an outstanding member of the Indianapolis legal community. My thoughts are with his family.

ADVERTISEMENT