ILNews

Mandatory retirement, unified court bills still alive

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The bill that would end a mandatory retirement age for certain judges and the bill that would unify Clark County courts are ready for third reading in their respective houses.

Senate Bill 463 seeks to eliminate or repeal any provision that establishes a mandatory retirement age for Superior and County court judges. The law currently states that an attorney must be less than 70 years old at the time he or she takes office.

House Bill 1266 made it out of the Committee on Courts and Criminal Code as introduced, but on second reading legislators amended the bill to include Madison County courts. The legislation now proposes to establish unified Circuit Courts for Clark and Madison counties.

Also passing second reading this week:
- Senate Bill 212, which repeals the law concerning the establishment and operation of county courts and discusses trial court jurisdiction;
- Senate Bill 214, state use of contingency fee counsel, which was amended in committee;
- Senate Bill 97, funding of lawsuits by companies via a loan to plaintiffs, which was amended on second reading;
- Senate Bill 520, application of foreign laws;
- Senate Bill 495, lawsuits by school corporations, which was amended in committee; and
- Senate Bill 530, on merging criminal deviate conduct into the crime of rape.

Senate Bill 540, on the discharge of long-term inmates, was adopted Tuesday by the Corrections, Criminal & Civil Matters Committee. Senate Bill 346, on environmental legal action statute of limitations, passed the Energy & Environmental Affairs Committee Tuesday with amendments.

Senate Bill 180, on limited partnerships and liability companies, passed second reading Monday and the Senate on Tuesday. It has not yet been assigned to a committee in the House of Representatives.

A complete list of introduced legislation is available on the General Assembly’s website.
 

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT