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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT