ILNews

7th Circuit, Bankruptcy Court seek comment on rule changes

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Indiana want to hear from attorneys about proposed rule changes.

The 7th Circuit looks to revise Circuit Rules 3, 10, 11, 22, 26.1, 28, 34, 45 and 46. Some of the changes deal with updating language to include electronic submissions or format or use of email.

Rule 34 seeks to extend the notice a clerk must receive in advance as to who will present oral argument from two days to five days.

Rule 45 on fees has been rewritten to make fees collected by the clerk in accordance with the Court of Appeals Miscellaneous Fee Schedule established by the Judicial Conference of the United States under 28 U.S.C. Section 1913.

Under Rule 46, attorneys who seek admission to the 7th Circuit will pay a $15 local fee plus a national fee based on the Miscellaneous Fee Schedule.

Comments must be received by Aug. 1. All of the proposed changes are available on the court’s website, as well as the email and street address to direct comments.

The Bankruptcy Court is accepting public comment concerning a proposed change to Local Rule B-2002-2, Notice of Opportunity to Object to Motions.

The change would amend the rule for clarification by changing Paragraph (a)(24) from “Applications to employ professionals nun pro tunc” to “Applications to employ professionals retroactively.” The amendment also would add additional explanatory commentary.

Comments must be received by July 2. The mailing address and email to direct comments to, as well as the proposed change, are available on the court’s website.

ADVERTISEMENT

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 need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT