Lawmakers vote on COA panel, Lake County fee

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Both houses of the Indiana General Assembly took action on court-related legislation Thursday.

The Senate moved forward with Senate Bill 35, authored by Sen. Richard Bray, R-Martinsville, that would create a sixth Indiana Court of Appeals panel. No amendments were offered on the second reading Thursday, and it's expected to get a final third reading for adoption next week. If approved, this would be the first expansion since 1991 and would bump the number of intermediate appellate judges from 15 to 18 starting in January 2010.

Despite doubt that the bill would get enough support this session because of tough economic times and difficult budget balancing, the legislation that carries an estimated price tag of $1.3 in its first year and $2.2 million afterward is moving swiftly so far. SB 35 received unanimous consent from both the Senate's judiciary and appropriations committees.

If approved by the full Senate before its deadline to do so next week, the bill would move to the House of Representatives for consideration before the session concludes in late April.

Meanwhile, the House passed a bill that would add a $10 fee onto Lake County court cases to pay for the eventual construction of a centralized judicial center.

Lawmakers voted 53-41 in favor of House Bill 1435, authored by Rep. Linda Lawson, D-Hammond, which would establish a fund aimed at financing, constructing, and equipping a new facility in or near Crown Point. The fund for a consolidated judicial center comes on the heels of a 2007 study recommending many ways that the local government could be more efficient, including the idea of centralizing into one location.

If enacted, a $10 fee would be charged on any civil filing in Lake's Circuit or Superior courts, and in criminal cases where someone is convicted of an offense, required to pay a pretrial diversion fee, or found to have committed an infraction or ordinance violation.

With more than 100,000 cases filed in Lake County, this $10 fee could bring in an estimated $800,000 a year.

Rep. Charlie Brown, D-Gary, objected to the bill and said a centralized judicial center would disenfranchise residents far from Crown Point, particularly lower-income residents without adequate transportation options. Lawson told him that the city courts in Gary and Hammond would remain open, but Brown wasn't satisfied and voted against the proposal.

The measure now moves to the Senate for consideration.


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. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues