ILNews

Supreme Court amends more rules

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has amended various rules of court, including admission and disciplinary, alternative dispute resolution, and appellate procedure rules.

The orders - all dated Sept. 15, 2009 - were posted Monday afternoon on the court's Web site. The following rules have been amended:

- Administrative Rule (5)

- Rules for Admission to the Bar and the Discipline of Attorneys

- Rules of Appellate Procedure

- Rules for Alternative Dispute Resolution

- Rules of Evidence (201)

- Rules of Procedure for Original Actions

- Rules of Professional Conduct

- Rules of Trial Procedure

The justices unanimously agreed regarding all of the orders except for the admission and disciplinary amendments. Justices Brent Dickson and Robert Rucker dissented to amendments made to Rule 23 Section 20 involving immunity. The changes say each person shall be absolutely immune from civil suit for all of his or her oral or written statements intended for transmittal. The word "sworn" was replaced by "oral."

Justice Rucker also dissented to Rule 2, which involves registration and fees. The amendment adds that any attorney who fails to make an Indiana Interest on Lawyer Trust Account certification by Oct. 1 of each year shall be assessed a delinquent fee.

The Supreme Court also released two orders Sept. 15 detailing changes to the Child Support Rules and Guidelines, and adding a new Rule of Evidence that certain statements must be recorded before they can be admitted into evidence in felony criminal prosecutions.

All of the changes take effect Jan. 1, 2010, except for the recording of statements. That rule begins Jan. 1, 2011.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT