ILNews

Supreme Court amends state rules for courts, attorneys

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Multiple new rule changes will begin next year for the state’s court system, which were announced in a slew of Indiana Supreme Court orders released earlier in the week.

Seven orders dated Sept. 20 were posted online Thursday and make changes to trial and evidentiary rules, post-conviction remedies, appellate procedure, admission and discipline rules and attorney professional conduct regulations. Most take effect Jan. 1, 2012.

The rules revised are:
-    Trial Procedure: Rules 3.1, 53.1, 59, and 81.1
-    Post-Conviction Relief: Rules PC1 and PC2
-    Appellate Procedure: Rules 2, 9, 10, 11, 14, 14.1, 15, 16, 23, 24, 25, 46, 62, 63, and Forms 9-1, 9-2, 14.1-1, 15-1, 16-1, and 16-2
-    Admission and Discipline: Rules 2, 3, and 23
-    Evidence: Rules 501, 502, and 803
-    Professional Conduct: Rule 6.6
-    Administrative: Rules 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 14

Among the changes are revisions to the rule about attorneys admitted temporarily before Administrative Law Judges, the process for “lazy judge motions,” and the district structure for Indiana’s pro bono attorneys.

Specifically, Indiana Trial Procedure Rule 53.1 deals with what are known as “lazy judge motions,” and the changes put the determination that a judge’s ruling was past the 30-day limit in the hands of the Supreme Court’s Division of State Court Administration executive director, rather than the clerk of the court. Proposed changes in the spring would have given judges additional time – 45 instead of 30 days – to rule on motions and cases, but the final version approved by the Supreme Court keeps that time limitation at 30 days with the possibility of extensions.

Admission and Discipline Rule 3, Section 2 is amended to address those out-of-state attorneys and lay people who appear before Administrative Law Judges in state agency proceedings. The issue came up last year after a conflict was discovered between the Indiana Constitution and the state’s Admission and Discipline Rules. The former gives that attorney-admission authority exclusively to the Supreme Court, while the rules haven’t clearly addressed how non-Hoosier lawyers practicing before executive agencies should be handled.

Some ALJs have been admitting out-of-state attorneys for those proceedings, while others haven’t. The Supreme Court was considering whether the ALJs, Supreme Court, or local general jurisdiction court should have the authority to grant that status. In the rule changes, the Supreme Court allows any Indiana court to permit an out-of-state lawyer to appear in those administrative agency settings. The regular admission requirements for temporary attorneys then apply.

Another rule revision made this week includes Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 6.6, regarding the voluntary attorney pro bono plan. The court reshaped the jurisdictional infrastructure from 14 to 12 districts.

The new districts are:

- District A consists of Lake, Porter, Jasper, and Newton counties;
- District B is LaPorte, St. Joseph, Elkhart, Marshall, Starke, and Kosciusko counties;
- District C is LaGrange, Adams, Allen, DeKalb, Huntington, Noble, Steuben, Wells, and Whitley counties;
- District D is Clinton, Fountain, Montgomery, Tippecanoe, Warren, Benton, Carroll, Vermillion, Parke, Boone, and White counties;
- District E is Cass, Fulton, Howard, Miami, Tipton, Pulaski, Grant, and Wabash counties;
- District F is Blackford, Delaware, Henry, Jay, Madison, Hamilton, Hancock, and Randolph counties;
- District G is Marion County;
- District H is Greene, Lawrence, Monroe, Putnam, Hendricks, Clay, Morgan, and Owen counties;
- District I is Bartholomew, Brown, Decatur, Jackson, Johnson, Shelby, Rush, and Jennings counties;
- District J is Dearborn, Jefferson, Ohio, Ripley, Franklin, Wayne, Union, Fayette, and Switzerland counties;
- District K is Daviess, Dubois, Gibson, Knox, Martin, Perry, Pike, Posey, Spencer, Vanderburgh, Sullivan, Vigo, and Warrick counties; and
- District L is Clark, Crawford, Floyd, Harrison, Orange, Scott, and Washington counties.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Key change in appellate rules
    This article doesn't mention an important change in the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure. As of January 1, 2012, the Notice of Appeal goes from a simple document filed with the trial court clerk to a much more extensive document with multiple attachments -- essentially, the Appellant's Case Summary, which will no longer exist -- to be filed with the Court of the Clerks (appellate court clerk) and served on the trial court and parties. There is a two-year window of tolerance during which filing with the trial court will not forfeit the right to appeal -- but the rules do not say what happens if one files the old short-form Notice of Appeal with the trial court clerk during that period.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

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. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  2. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  3. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

  4. Well, I agree with you that the people need to wake up and see what our judges and politicians have done to our rights and freedoms. This DNA loophole in the statute of limitations is clearly unconstitutional. Why should dna evidence be treated different than video tape evidence for example. So if you commit a crime and they catch you on tape or if you confess or leave prints behind: they only have five years to bring their case. However, if dna identifies someone they can still bring a case even fifty-years later. where is the common sense and reason. Members of congress are corrupt fools. They should all be kicked out of office and replaced by people who respect the constitution.

  5. If the AG could pick and choose which state statutes he defended from Constitutional challenge, wouldn't that make him more powerful than the Guv and General Assembly? In other words, the AG should have no choice in defending laws. He should defend all of them. If its a bad law, blame the General Assembly who presumably passed it with a majority (not the government lawyer). Also, why has there been no write up on the actual legislators who passed the law defining marriage? For all the fuss Democrats have made, it would be interesting to know if some Democrats voted in favor of it (or if some Republican's voted against it). Have a nice day.

ADVERTISEMENT