Supreme Court amends Indiana rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana justices have issued several orders amending the rules of court. Among them is a change that allows the Disciplinary Commission to seek reimbursement from attorneys who have resigned or been disbarred.

Orders dated Sept. 7 spell out the changes to Indiana’s Rules of Appellate Procedure, Admission and Discipline Rules, Administrative Rules, Rules of Criminal Procedure, and Rules of Trial Procedure. The justices modified Rule 23, Section 10 of the Disciplinary Commission and Proceedings to allow the commission the ability to seek $500 in reimbursement plus out-of-pocket expenses from attorneys who are disbarred or resign in any proceeding. The rule currently allows these costs to be obtained from attorneys whose complaints have been dismissed for cooperation or suspended. Rule 14 has also been amended.

The justices have amended Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure 3.1, 5, 6, 26, 34, 53.1, 72, 77, 79 and Appendix B. Changes include allowing the use of fax or email for service if a party consents. Other rules have been modified to include language referencing this electronic service. Judges appointed as a special judge under Rule 79(D) will now have seven days instead of 15 to decide whether to accept a case. If a special judge does not accept the case, or is disqualified or recused, the appointment of an eligible special judge will be made pursuant to a local rule. If a special judge is unavailable for any reason after assuming jurisdiction on a date when a hearing or trial is scheduled, that special judge may appoint a judge pro tempore, temporary judge or senior judge.

Indiana Administrative Rules 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 have been amended. The changes affect senior judge credit and what records are authorized to be microfilmed, and include the addition of language referring to the recently passed law that restricts access to certain criminal history information.

Rule 10 outlines how a trial court may reconstruct judicial records that have been lost or destroyed.

Rule 12 on change of venue in criminal cases has been updated to allow an application for a change of judge or venue to be filed within 30 days from the initial hearing. Current rules allow 10 days.

The rule changes can be viewed on the court’s website.  All amendments take effect Jan. 1, 2013.



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. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?