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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT