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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT