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. 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

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

  4. 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

  5. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

ADVERTISEMENT