ILNews

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.

 

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