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.














Never heard of remand to another state. How often does that happen?
I highly recommend Deanna and her team of professionals that serve the legal community. Great information and many thanks for sharing.
they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.
vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!
Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.