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. It is so great to see that the Grace of God, in Christ, and the pledge to protect our communities from enemies domestic can transcend the narrow selfishness of race-based identity. See the funeral of a Latino and Asian police officers, heros both, in this weekend's headlines, such as here: http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/12/26/thousands-expected-for-wake-for-fallen-officer-rafael-ramos/

  2. Number one, only $1 was earmarked as punitives. Most of the $1,950,000 was earmarked as pain and suffering. But I will give you, JS, that sure does sound punitive! Number two, remittitur, for certain, but how does one unring the dinner bell that has now been sounded? Catholic school blood is in the sharktank.

  3. Hi, I had an auto accident on 12/26/2012 on I-65 near Lafayette, IN. I rear hit a semi truck. Meanwhile, I got a traffic ticket. I went to White Superior Court to have a hearing. I thought that I could win the case. I lost. I am not sure if you will be able to reverse the judgment in the White Superior Court. Meanwhile, I will try to let the insurance agency for the truck driver to pay the damages to my car. I wonder if your office is willing to handle the case. Thanks.

  4. Putting aside the question of how they got past the pastoral purpose/ 1st Amendment/ MSJ hurdle-- let me ask this: a million bucks in punitive damages? are you kidding me? absolutely ridiculous. Remittitur.

  5. Compromising precious constitutional rights in order to protect them? Rather like the military intelligence slogan that the town had to be destroyed in order to save it. Looks like Joseph, Mary and Baby Jesus will have quite the eventful Boxing Day this year. Wise men will arrive to find no one to accept their gifts? Oh well, wisdom not all that desired this xmas anyway. Maybe the ACLU and Christian attorneys can work out a "three days every third year" visitation compromise and all of this messy litigation stuff can just be boxed up as well? It is an art form, now isn't it? Thomas More, a man of manifold compromises is undoubtedly cheering on wildly.

ADVERTISEMENT