Issue 17.1 JAN/FEB 2008
of the ALSO INSIDE:
Summit on Children brings together child welfare stakeholders from around the state 5 New Code of Judicial Conduct proposed by Ethics Committee 18
courttimes CONTENTS Our Odyssey Begins: Case Management System Launched in 10 Courts ............... 2 Indiana Summit on Children Meets in Indianapolis ........................... 5 Accolades: Judge, staff attorney, and court interpreters are recognized ................................. 6 State of the Judiciary: A Court System with Reform in its Heart ... 8 New Clerks Announced ............ 12 Indiana Supreme Court Adopts New Rules Effective January 1, 2008 ....................................... 12 Does a Trial Court Ever Maintain Jurisdiction with an Appeal Pending? .................................. 14 Employment Law: A Positive Note for the New Year 15 BITS & BYTES JTAC Commences Indiana Courts Online Reports and Receives $50,000 Grant ......................... 16 New Jury Management System Qualiﬁes for Duty ..................... 17 New Code of Judicial Conduct Under Review ........................... 18 Security Protocol at New Location for Supreme Court Agencies ..... 20
2 JAN/FEB 2008
Odyssey Case Management System Launch
he Indiana judiciary’s ambitious plan to equip all Hoosier courts and clerks with a 21st century case management system took a dramatic step forward at year’s end when all nine courts in Monroe County and the Washington Township Small Claims Court in Marion County began using the Indiana Supreme Court’s “Odyssey” computer system to manage their cases. “The Odyssey Case Management System will change the way we do our work in ways that we have not yet imagined,” Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard predicted. Shepard said the ground-breaking work of the ten pilot courts in Monroe and Marion Counties will benefit the entire state. “Being first can be a point of pride, but it also requires a special commitment and a lot of hard work. Monroe Circuit Court Presiding Judge Kenneth G. Todd, Monroe Circuit Court Clerk Jim Fielder, and Washington Township Judge Kimberly Brown, and their colleagues and staff gave us the full measure of their input and expertise,” Shepard said in appreciation.
Drama and Hard Work Accompanied Deployment After months of preparation, actual deployment of the Odyssey system began in Washington Township at the close of business on Wednesday, December 12, when the court ceased processing cases on its old case management system. Technical experts from Tyler and JTAC under the direction of consultant Ben Balke immediately began electronically to convert the data on over 100,000 old cases into the format required by Odyssey. The arduous conversion process took all Wednesday night, all day Thursday, and well into Thursday night. But when the court was ready to open for business Friday morning, Odyssey was too. At 8:50 a.m., Project Director Donna Edgar, on site in Washington Township, e-mailed the Supreme Court’s Director of Trial Court Technology Mary DePrez, “We are up and running. Stay tuned.” An hour later came news that the first new case had been added to Odyssey.
FIRST ”BEING CAN BE A POINT
OF PRIDE, BUT IT ALSO REQUIRES A SPECIAL COMMITMENT AND A LOT OF HARD WORK.
Odyssey was developed by Tyler Technologies, Inc. The Supreme Court’s Division of State Court Administration chose Tyler to provide the Odyssey case management system for Indiana following a competitive procurement process, public demonstration sessions, and the recommendation of three review committees. The Odyssey project is under the direction of the Supreme Court’s Judicial Technology and Automation Committee (JTAC).
On hand to assist Judge Kimberly Brown and her staff throughout “go-live” day were Project Directors Edgar and Mary Wilson, Washington Township Team Lead Gaye Lynn Strickland, and additional staff from both JTAC and Tyler. In fact, JTAC and Tyler staff remained on-site in Washington Township for several weeks thereafter until Judge Brown determined that Odyssey was operating to her satisfaction and her staff no longer required on-site assistance. Support continues to be available via the JTAC help desk.
ON THE COVER: Old Monroe County Courthouse (PHOTO by David Steward); Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard at the 2008 State of the Judiciary (PHOTO by Lindsey Borschel)
ed in Monroe County and Marion County’s Washington Township As exciting as it was to go-live in Washington Township, that court has but one judge and handles but one case type. Monroe County—with nine courts (one of which opened for business for the first time on January 2, 2008), 10 judicial officers, all 35 case types, and nearly 40,000 filings per year—would be much bigger and more complicated. The old case management system in Monroe County was turned off at the end of business on Friday, December 14. As had been the case in Washington Township, JTAC and Tyler technical experts immediately began electronically converting data on all of the old cases in Monroe County into the Odyssey database. This was a massive effort as there were well over 500,000 such cases. And the time window for completing conversion was relatively small. Monroe County Clerk Jim Fielder, JTAC, and Tyler had agreed that Fielder’s entire staff would come into the office at 1 p.m. on Sunday, December 16, for a dry run on the new system prior to the office opening for business on Monday morning. Sure enough, Odyssey was up and running in Monroe County in time for the 1 p.m. training session— despite a big snow storm that had hit Bloomington the night before. When the Monroe County courthouse opened on Monday, December 17, all of the staff in the clerk’s office and court administrator’s office, and all of the judges, court reporters, and other staff in the courts were using Odyssey to manage their cases. Project Directors Edgar and Wilson had moved down to Bloomington from Washington Township over the weekend where they joined Monroe County Team Lead Nate Pelczar and several dozen other JTAC and Tyler employees in assisting Monroe County employees in their work and in identifying and resolving problems. Many JTAC and Tyler employees remained on-site in Bloomington for this purpose through the end of January.
Conﬁguration, Training, and Network Efforts Preceded Deployment Key to the successful deployment of Odyssey in Washington Township and Monroe County were intense efforts by personnel from JTAC, Tyler, Washington Township, Monroe County, and the Indiana Office of Technology in three areas: configuration, training, and networking. While the Odyssey case management system is designed to meet the needs of Indiana courts and clerks generally, special modifications needed to be made to reflect the particular business practices of Washington Township and Monroe County and the rights and roles of the staff there. These were conducted under Edgar’s leadership by JTAC and Tyler personnel in close cooperation with court and clerk personnel. As the deployment date approached, Wilson, Strickland, Pelczar and their staff identified the individuals in both locations who would be using Odyssey and conducted training classes for them. Principal users of the system each received approximately 60 hours of training prior to deployment. Historically, each Indiana court has maintained and run its own case management system from within its own courthouse. One of the most revolutionary aspects of Odyssey is that the system runs on a centralized group of computer servers maintained by the Indiana Office of Technology (IOT) in Indianapolis and is connected to the users’ desktops over the Internet. This presents a host of technical requirements supervised by JTAC Project Director Andy Cain: acquiring the servers and installing them at IOT; installing Odyssey on the servers; assuring the Internet connection between IOT and Washington Township
and between IOT and Monroe County was both fast enough and secure enough; assuring that the network within the Washington Township and Monroe County courthouses was adequate; and installing the so-called “Odyssey client” on the individual desktop computers in the courthouses.
No Charge for Public Access to Case Information Another of the major innovations of Odyssey is that public information on cases in these courts is available at no charge via the Supreme Court’s website (www.courts.in.gov). Every time a new court begins to use Odyssey, its case information will be added to the public website. Public access and connections between Odyssey and law enforcement and other government agencies further the Supreme Court’s goal to connect Indiana’s court case management system to those who need and use court information. Electronic connections—called “interfaces”—already exist to transmit SR-16 information from Odyssey to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles; tax warrant information to Odyssey from the Indiana Department of Revenue; and traffic citation information from law enforcement to Odyssey. The last of these interfaces is producing dramatic results: hundreds of traffic infraction cases have already been filed on Odyssey in Monroe County electronically—without any data entry required at all in the Clerk’s office! CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
JAN/FEB 2008 3
These Courts Were Called Pilots for a Reason While deployment in Washington Township went smoothly, several major—but not insurmountable—problems were encountered in Monroe County. Perhaps the most disconcerting was the inability of the new system to produce court calendars that accurately reflected court hearing dates and times set prior to December 17. There were also problems with the accuracy of certain financial information in the pre-December 17 case data. These problems—indeed approximately 90% of the problems encountered—were not with the Odyssey program itself but with difficulties in accurately converting old case data into the Odyssey database. Tyler and JTAC staff have worked very hard to correct these problems as they have arisen and have learned important lessons about data conversion for future deployments.
have many additional courts using Odyssey by next year’s end. Statewide roll-out will continue over the next several years. Although the Odyssey system is and will be used by local Indiana courts, the Supreme Court is and will be responsible for all costs associated with the licensing, maintenance, and further upgrading of the system. The General Assembly has directed that a portion of court filing fees underwrite the cost of this project, and we are deeply grateful for the Legislature’s confidence in this effort.
“With approximately 1.8 million cases filed in Indiana courts in 2006, Hoosier courts and court clerks need 21st century case management systems and Hoosier law enforcement officers, lawyers, government agencies, and citizens need timely and accurate court information,” Shepard concluded. “With ten Indiana courts using Odyssey, free public access to their records, and aggressive rollout plans for 2008 and beyond, we are well underway toward meeting those needs.” by Hon. Frank Sullivan, Jr. Justice, Indiana Supreme Court
In addition, changes to the Odyssey program to meet Indiana court and clerk requirements continued to be made until only a few days before deployment in Washington Township and Monroe County. This meant that the training provided prior to deployment did not take place using the same version of Odyssey that users faced on the go-live dates. This meant that the advance training was not as comprehensive as desired. This problem should be avoided in future deployments as comparable changes will not be being made to Odyssey at the last minute. Finally, it was not possible in advance to know whether the network would be fast enough to meet the needs of the courts’ users. “Bandwidth” and other adjustments have had to be made in both Washington Township and Monroe County to improve performance.
While the simultaneous deployment of Odyssey in ten Indiana courts is a milestone to celebrate, 2008 promises to be a year of even more aggressive progress toward the Supreme Court’s goals. A significant upgrade to Odyssey is scheduled to be released in late winter, adding even more features to help Indiana courts and court clerks—and we hope to 4 JAN/FEB 2008
PHOTO. Gaye Lynn Strickland
Aggressive Plans for Odyssey in 2008 and Beyond
PICTURED: (top) In Monroe County, Kyle Warner from Tyler Technologies works with Connie Crohn to master the Odyssey CMS; (bottom) JTAC staff and consultants support Washington Township Small Claims Court as court staff process their ﬁrst cases using Odyssey.
More information on the Indiana Supreme Court’s Case Management System is online at: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/jtac/programs/cms.html
t i m m on u Children S IN
M MEETS IN INDIAN INDIANAPOLIS NAPOLIS
n December ber 14, 1007, teams of child welfare stakeholders gathered at the Indianapolis Convention Center for the judges, legislators, mental health e Indiana Summit on Children. More than 300 court ofﬁcials, judg professionals, caseworkers serving abused and nals, foster parents, educators, service providers, and state casew neglected children attended the Summit. It was called “Partners Planning for Permanency.”
Michigan Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan delivered the keynote speech. She is a noted national expert on child protection, foster care, and adoption. Justice Corrigan, who served as Chief Justice of Michigan from 2001 to 2004, was a member of the influential Pew Commission on Foster Care. That commission recommended broad improvements to foster care funding and courts’ handling of child protection cases. She has also been honored nationally for her work in improving child support enforcement and adoption opportunities. In May 2005, the Detroit News named Justice Corrigan a “Michiganian of the Year” for her work on behalf of foster children.
In addition to Justice Corrigan, speakers at the event included Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard, Indiana Department of Child Services Director James Payne, and Bill Stanczykiewicz, President and CEO of the Indiana Youth Institute.
The Summit provided an opportunity to network and share ideas for child welfare stakeholders from across the state and from various disciplines. In addition, during the daylong Summit, county teams used this meeting time to collaborate and plan for ways to improve the child welfare process in their own counties. PHOTOS. Lindsey Borschel
The Court Improvement Program of the Indiana Supreme Court sponsored the Summit. The federally funded program encourages courts to focus on the process used in child abuse/neglect cases. The Indiana Summit on Children brought together judges with jurisdiction over child abuse and neglect cases and their staff, officials and staff from the Indiana Department of Child Services, and other community stakeholders to collaborate and explore ways to improve outcomes for children and families in the child welfare system.
Of particular interest to those in attendance was a panel of youth who had been in foster care. They shared with the participants some of their firsthand observations, experiences and suggestions for improvement to the Indiana foster care system.
PICTURED: Hon. Maura Corrigan, Michigan Supreme Court (top); Summit attendees listened to speakers with particular expertise in child welfare (bottom).
Counties represented at the summit included: Allen, Bartholomew, Blackford, Boone, Brown, Carroll, Cass, Clark, Dearborn, Decatur, Delaware, Elkhart, Fayette, Floyd, Fountain, Fulton, Hamilton, Henry, Howard, Johnson, LaGrange, Lake, LaPorte, Lawrence, Madison, Marion, Monroe, Noble, Ohio, Owen, Perry, Porter, Posey, Pulaski, Putnam, Randolph, Ripley, St. Joseph, Scott, Shelby, Spencer, Steuben, Tippecanoe, Tipton, Vanderburgh, Vermillion, Warren, Warrick, and Wayne.
by Nancy Gettinger CIP Grants Administrator, Indiana Judicial Center
JAN/FEB 2008 5
DIVISION ATTORNEY RECEIVES IU LAW SCHOOL AWARD
HON. LORENZO ARREDONDO
ROBYN M. RUCKER
This honor is the most prestigious recognition awarded by the Association. The award is not often given. It has only been awarded five times in the Association’s 35-year history.
Lilia Judson, Executive Director, Indiana Supreme Court-Division of State Court Administration said: “I am very happy for Robyn and proud that my former law school has chosen one of our valued staff attorneys for this honor. CLEO is one of our most innovative programs. It affords an opportunity for a legal education to many qualified and talented students who would otherwise not have such an opportunity.”
Robyn M. Rucker (Williamson), (JD ’02) has been selected as the 2008 Early Career Achievement Award recipient. This is the first year the Early Career Achievement Award will be bestowed. The ECA honors an alumnus who has earned a degree within the last ten years, has served and contributed to the legal profession, the community, and/or to his alma mater, and who shows potential for continued success. Ms. Rucker is currently serving as a staff attorney with the Indiana Supreme Court - Division of State Court Administration and as the Indiana CLEO Coordinator (Conference for Legal Education Opportunity). Originally from Gary, IN, she now resides in Indianapolis.
PICTURED: Judge Stahl of Texas, Co-Chair of the Judicial Council; Judge Arredondo of Indiana; Jimmie V. Reyna of Washington, D.C., President, HNBA; and Judge Cota of Arizona, Co-Chair of the Judicial Council.
he Honorable Lorenzo Arredondo, Judge of the Lake Circuit Court, has been awarded the Lincoln-Juarez Award by the Hispanic National Bar Association. The Award is named after two legal legends whose legacies include a strong dedication to fairness and equality and were contemporaries: President Abraham Lincoln and President Benito Juarez. Both were leaders in the legal profession and were committed to a lifelong struggle against injustice.
The Lincoln-Juarez Award is bestowed to an individual with outstanding achievements in the legal profession. For over 30 years, Judge Arredondo has tirelessly served his community and the legal profession and is one of the founders of the Hispanic National Bar Association. This recognition is given to express the gratitude the Association demonstrates to Judge Arredondo for his lifelong passion and commitement to justice, fairness, and equality under the rule of law.
6 JAN/FEB 2008
The other award recipient this year was William Neale (JD ’73). He has been selected as the 2008 Distinguished Alumni Award recipient. Mr. Neale is a partner in the Indianapolis law firm, Krieg DeVault, LLP. Danny Kibble, Director, Alumni Relations, asks everyone to mark their calendars for the evening of May 16, 2008 when these deserving recipients will be honored at the annual IU School of Law – Indianapolis Reunion Weekend. The evening will also honor the following class years: 1958, 1968, 1983, and 1993. Additional information can be obtained from him at IUPUI Office of Alumni Relations, 850 W. Michigan Street, Suite 241, Indianapolis, Indiana 46202.
PHOTO. Lindsey Borschel
he Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis Alumni Association and its Awards, Recognition, and Reunion Committee, recently announced the recipients of the 2008 alumni awards.
INDIANA’S FIRST CERTIFIED FRENCH COURT INTERPRETER
MOLLY K. SMITH
Certiﬁed court interpreter in Spanish & French
n this September’s testing cycle, Molly K. Smith became Indiana’s first certified court interpreter in French. Only 7 other court interpreters have achieved this designation nationwide! Moreover, she is certified in two languages.
Currently, Molly Smith is the Language Services Department Manager at Clarian Health Partners, supervising a staff of 17 interpreters. She oversees document translation and interprets Spanish and French for patients and hospital staff.
PHOTOS. Justin Harter
A native English speaker, Molly has studied Spanish for over 10 years, achieving certification in November 2005, and has studied French for over 8 years. From 2001-2004, Molly worked in France as a legal translator intern at Coudert Frères and Ashurst Morris Crisp in Paris. She also worked for two translation agencies in Rennes. PICTURED: (above) Justice Theodore Boehm presented Smith with her Interpreter Certﬁcate at a swearing-in ceremony in which 28 individuals (below) were admitted as Indiana interpreters.
Molly Smith, along with 27 other court interpreters were sworn in on December 5, 2007, in a ceremony officiated by Justice Theodore R. Boehm. The 27 certified Spanish court interpreters honored were Gema Aparicio, Fort Wayne, IN; David Araujo, Gary, IN; Enrica Ardemagni,
Indianapolis, IN; Olivia Bernal, Indianapolis, IN; Marta Rainero Birge, Indianapolis, IN; Susannah Bueno, South Bend, IN; Ronald Collins, Goshen, IN; Azalea DeFord, Indianapolis, IN; Viviana Delgado, Elizabethtown, KY; Patricia Dyess, North Riverside, IL; Keith Ellis, Washington, IN; Eileen Ervesun, Carmel, IN; Abiel Gonzalez, Chicago, IL; Bill Hargis, Trenton, OH; Lisa Hernandez, Spencer, IN; Lucy Hernandez, Dolton, IL; Judith Kenigson Kristy, Nashville, TN; Catherine Kruck, Fort Wayne, IN; Lorena Martin, Corpus Cristi, TX; Samuel Melo, Fort Wayne, IN; Tatiana Mitchell, Indianapolis, IN; Rebecca Ortega, Charlestown, IN; Kimberly Perez, Logansport, IN; Carolina Salter, Crawfordsville, IN; Ivan Villasboa, Indianapolis, IN; Adriana Vowels, Louisville, KY, and Maria Wildridge, Indianapolis, IN.
To learn more, including contact information, about Molly and Indiana’s other certified court interpreters, visit the Indiana certified court interpreter registry at www.in.gov/judiciary/ interpreter/registry.html.
JAN/FEB 2008 7
Court System with Reform in itsHeart A
On January 16, 2008, Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard delivered his 21st State of the Judiciary address to a joint session of the Indiana General Assembly, as required by Indiana’s Constitution. An abridged version of his remarks follows.
Over the last few months I have worked on reform in local government but there is already much we’re doing to reform Indiana’s courts. We have changed many things in the courts and are working on much else to provide thoughtful and expeditious justice to the 6.3 million people who call Indiana home. Courts are reforming by embracing technology, which is perhaps the dominant story line of our age, in some ways a story about the generations. My grandmother used to tell me when electricity came to town; my daughter Mattie has no memory of the day before laptops.
criminal prosecution, but in terms of prevention, one of the leading tools is the protective order, which seeks to keep the abuser separated from potential victims. When a woman or child is threatened by the abusing boyfriend or the ex-husband, how does the officer know whether the boyfriend is there in violation of a protective order, subject to arrest. Previously, the officer could verify the existence of a protective order only by calling the county clerk’s office, if the confrontation occurred during business hours. These gaps in information have sometimes resulted in tragedy.
STATE of the JUDICIARY
This will not be a report about bytes and bandwidth, but rather about what we can do that will actually make a difference in the lives of people. We are using technology to combat domestic violence. The court system metes out punishment after the fact through 8 JAN/FEB 2008
Soon, every officer in the state will be able to access every protective order around the clock, virtually from the moment it is issued. We are more than halfway through installing a statewide registry that immediately sends these orders directly to the local police and sheriff’s department (and the databases of the Indiana State Police and the FBI)
so responding officers can act on them at the scene. No one doubts this change, made possible through technology, will make life safer for endangered women and children. Combatting Drunk Driving Technology is also being used to enhance impaired driving enforcement. When the court suspends that license of a suspected drunken driving pending trial, news of that suspension went to the BMV on paper via mail. Weeks passed before the suspension showed up in the computers. It was possible for a drunk driver to leave the courtroom, and head for the nearest tavern. An officer who stopped him for, say, a tail light violation, would check the computer, see the driver’s license as being in good standing, issue a tail light citation, and send the potential drunk driver on his way. As recently as two years ago, this was exactly the sort of thing that could happen most places in Indiana. Now, ninety-five percent of the state’s courts send information by computer directly to BMV and law enforcement agencies. There can be no doubt that people who would otherwise have been the victims of drunk drivers are alive today because of this technology reform. And, so it will soon be with another kind of tragedy. We cringe when a law enforcement officer is injured or even killed while writing a traffic citation at the roadside while motorists pass by at 60 miles per hour. An electronic citation system launched in December uses hand-held equipment like that you see at rental-car agencies. Officers can scan the bar code on the back of a driver’s license to create a ticket in about five minutes rather than hand writing one in fifteen or twenty. Collaboration with the State Police, the BMV, the Criminal Justice Institute, and the judicial branch made this happen. The General Assembly has supported this project by making statutory changes, and the collaboration between the executive branch and the courts has been superb. Because of this cooperation we’ll get the officers and the drivers off the shoulder faster and everybody will be safer.
In yet another field, people who experience disintegration of a family rely on courts in a host of ways. Families, mostly women and children, face hard times until they can get a court order for child support. Our child support guidelines have helped move that along because lawyers handling divorces can estimate how much support a court is likely to order. Now, parents can now calculate that for themselves, over the Internet. Last year, about 800 people a day did just that. It promotes settlement, reduces litigation, saves time, and translates into faster help for children in need.
PHOTO. Lindsey Borschel
Faster Child Support
Thatâ€™s a good story about simplifying, but there are still lots of things that can be confusing and difficult for people working their way through the courts. Iâ€™ll mention three examples. How do people summoned for jury duty know where in the courthouse to report? If you want to file a small claim on your own, how do you learn how to do that? If you forget your hearing date, how do you find out when you are due in court? People who are going to the courthouse can now find their way through virtual courthouse tours, available so far in twenty-one counties. The Internet program walks you through the building and guides you to the right room. If you need to file something on your own, the Indiana court webpages will show you how to complete certain simple transactions, like uncontested divorces or name changes. We supply standard forms for those kinds of straightforward legal matters, and last year people downloaded 528,000 of them before going to court. One Case Management System And, as for problems like forgetting your court date, we are on the brink of something much bigger and more far-reaching: a twenty-first century case management system that connects all Indiana courts to each other and to state agencies that need and use court information. And 2007 was a watershed year for that initiative. CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
JAN/FEB 2008 9
In December, ten Indiana courts, nine in Monroe County and the Washington Township Small Claims Court in Marion County, began using a new system (it’s called “Odyssey”) that provides Internet access to all manner of case information, nearly everything about the 1.8 million cases filed in our state each year. Turning this system on for testing by real live court personnel reflected years of work by court employees, clerks, prosecutors and of course, technology experts. It will vastly improve the work we do in sentencing criminals, administering estates, collecting taxes, pursuing child support, and all the other things that people rely on courts to do for society. This is all not just pushing a button. This massive undertaking has many hands on the lever, especially leaders like Lilly Judson and Mary DePrez, and others supporting our State Court Administration and our Judicial Technology and Automation Committee. People like Court of Appeals Judge Paul Mathias, Lake Superior Court Judge Jeff Dywan, Andy Cain, Donna Edgar, John Kellam, Mary Wilson, Kristin Wheeler of our lead contractor Tyler Technologies, and the Daniels administration’s Indiana Office of Technology, and the many legislators who carried or supported bills. The heroes in Monroe County include Chief Judge Ken Todd, and his colleagues, County Clerk Jim Fielder, and Prosecutor Chris Gaal. In Washington Township, our heroes include Judge Kimberly Brown of the Small Claims Court.
And, finally, the individual whom everyone involved recognizes as having supplied the vision and the acumen and the monumental commitment to make all this happen: Justice Frank Sullivan, Jr. This is the most massive venture in the history of the Indiana court system, and the benefits to our citizens will exceed even the many we can already identify.
“There can be no doubt that people... are alive today because of this technology reform.”
The Hendricks County courts are about to open a work release center with space for educational classes and substance abuse counseling, saving taxpayer dollars because inmates pay to serve there and because it frees up jail cells.
And there are a host of other initiatives, some using technology and others not, that reflect a court system with reform in its heart. In Steuben County and many others an automated telephone link advises potential jurors if their trial is still on schedule, so they can go to work instead of trudging to the courthouse only to learn the trial has been settled or postponed.
Problem-solving courts represent a new technique of intensive intervention in specific problems. Twentyseven counties now have drug courts. A recent independent evaluation of Monroe County showed a 66% reduction in recidivism. Madison County
(left to right) Sen. Ed Charbonneau (R-Valparaiso), Rep. Sean Eberhard (R-Shelbyville), Rep. Bob Cherry (R-Greenﬁeld), and Rep. Richard McClain (R-Logansport)
In Noble County and others, television or the internet links the courthouse and the jail and many DOC facilities so arraignments, conferences, and hearings can be conducted by video.
Marion County has devised an interactive system to handle the 10,000 probationers required to call in every day to learn if they are one of the 500 randomly selected for drug tests the next day.
Reform in Many Fields
The address is given before a joint session of the Indiana General Assembly.
10 JAN/FEB 2008
In Indianapolis, a GPS system called Sentinel protects domestic violence victims before and after trial. The defendant and the alleged victim each receive a handset similar to a cell phone, keyed to areas the defendant cannot visit. If the defendant comes near the victim, an alert warning goes off. In one case, the defendant was arrested 31 minutes after the alert.
Justices Dickson (left), Sullivan (center), Boehm (right
We’re at work recruiting and training a record number of volunteer advocates for abused and neglected children, with help from the Indiana Retired Teachers Association.
is planning for a re-entry court based on the model invented in Fort Wayne that helps inmates reintegrate after returning from prison. Benton County and scores of others take our nationally-recognized jury pool list, feed it to their own database, and reach 99% of their eligible citizens.
We’re modernizing the code of ethics for judges (ethics is important for lawyers and judges, who spent 27,000 hours in classrooms studying how to do right).
Our Judicial Conference is planning ahead for how courts will be ready for the retirement of the Baby Boom generation.
We’ve quadrupled the number of trained mediators who help people resolve their disputes without the cost of litigation (and established a new record of counties where mediation is free).
We began offering county clerks a jury management system to use in the 2,000 jury trials we conduct each year.
We devised a new system that will assure felons on probation who move from one county to the next can be monitored in the places where they live and work.
We signed on to be your partners in the new “Indiana Channel” and published and posted a host of materials to promote the study of civics and citizenship in schools. The Lake County Clerk’s office has introduced on-line payment for traffic violations. Lake County will soon become our first county to begin electronic filing.
SAVE A TREE STAY INFORMED
If you would like to help save a tree and still stay informed, you may receive the Indiana Court Times via email, or you can access our website: www.IN.gov/judiciary/admin (click on “Publications”). To have your name removed from our hardcopy mailing list, contact Deborah Guthrie-Jones at email@example.com.
Conclusion In short, this is a judiciary with reform in its heart, its feet on the ground, and its mind focused on its customers.
We’re about to pilot plans for operating local courts after disasters like tornadoes and floods.
by Hon. Randall T. Shepard Chief Justice of Indiana
We celebrated the tenth anniversary of Indiana CLEO that helps minority and disadvantaged students become lawyers (New York has launched a similar initiative).
t), and Rucker (not pictured) attended the event.
Governor Mitch Daniels (left) applauds Justice Shepard’s State of the Judiciary Address. PHOTOS. Lindsey Borschel
JAN/FEB 2008 11
NEW COURT CLERKS ANNOUNCED
INDIANA SUPREME COURT ADOPTS NEW RULES
We congratulate the newly elected Clerks and we thank the Clerks who have served well and are moving on to new responsibilities.
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2008
The Indiana Supreme Court issued a number of noteworthy rule amendments that became effective January 1, 2008.
The following individuals will assume the duties of Clerk of the Circuit Court in their respective counties.
Rules of Trial Procedure
Adams County: Gayla Rinehart Bartholomew County: Tammy Hines Brown County: Beth Mulry
Trial Rule 4.11 was amended to permit elec-
tronically transmitted return receipts for establishing receipt of certified mail. This amendment brings the rule in line with the United States Post Officeâ€™s new electronic certified mail receipt system and should generate savings on certified mailings.
Jury Rules Jury Rule 20 was amended to permit
alternate jurors to submit witness questions for consideration by the court, and to participate in discussions of the case with other jurors during recesses pursuant to Jury Rule 20(a)(8).
Trial Rules 26, 34 and 37 were amended
Clark County: Barbara Bratcher-Haas Daviess County: Sherri Healy* Delaware County: Steven Craycraft Hamilton County: Peggy Beaver Knox County: Lisa Clark-Benock Lawrence County: Myron Rainey Marshall County: Julie Fox Martin County: Julie Fithian Miami County: Debra Walker Porter County: Pamela Mishler Fish Vermillion County: Florinda Pruitt * Will not take ofďŹ ce until 3/12/2008
to account for the growing area of discovery involving electronically stored or maintained information. These amendments provide procedures for the preservation and discovery of information kept in an electronic format. The rules were inspired by the new federal rules governing such discovery.
Appellate Rule 14(C) was added to per-
mit interlocutory appeals of trial court orders granting or denying class action certification. Such appeals are discretionary with the Court of Appeals and do not require certification by the trial court. Appellate Rule 22 was amended to pro-
vide a form of citation for county local court rules.
Also of significance is Trial Rule 37(E), which provides:
Appellate Rule 23(E) was added to require that all motions, petitions, briefs, appendices, acknowledgements, notices, responses, replies, appearances or case summaries filed with the Clerk of the Supreme and Appellate Courts must be signed by an attorney of record, pro se party or amicus.
Absent exceptional circumstances, a court may not impose sanctions under these rules on a party for failing to provide electronically stored information lost as a result of the routine, good faith operation of an electronic information system. Trial Rules 72 and 55 were amended to
clarify that clerks may not enter defaults or judgments by default. These changes make clear that defaults and judgments by default require judicial action.
rule. The amendment also sets forth jurisdiction of appeals by reference to
PHOTO. Lindsey Borschel
Rule PC2 was re-written to clarify the
Rules of Appellate Procedure
Of particular note is Trial Rule 26(B)(5)(b), which provides that a party that receives information through discovery that is privileged or protected as trial-preparation material must, upon request, return or destroy the material, or seek a determination from the court regarding the claimed privilege or protection from discovery.
12 JAN/FEB 2008
Appellate Rules 4 and 5 and the sentence imposed as a result of the challenged conviction or sentence.
Appellate Rule 43(D) was changed to
add additional fonts that may be used in submitting appellate pleadings. Appellate Rule 63 was amended to
change the process by which Tax Court decisions are appealed. Motions to Correct Error are no longer used to seek rehearing in the Tax Court of a Tax Court final judgment or disposition. Instead, a Petition for Rehearing is the appropriate means for asking the Tax Court to rehear its own final judgment or disposition. As before, a Petition for Rehearing is not required to seek a Petition for Review. The amendments also increase the time for filing a brief in response to a Petition for Review from 20 days to 30 days, and require a section before the Argument section of the Brief entitled “Reasons for Granting [or Denying] Review”. This new section should concisely explain why review should or should not be granted.
Rules for Admission to the Bar and the Discipline of Attorneys Rule 2 was amended to increase the annual registration fee from $105 to $115. Rule 23 § 27 was amended to create
Attorney Surrogates in Indiana. The attorney surrogate rule does not apply to lawyers who practice solely as an employee of another Lawyer, Fiduciary Entity or organization not engaged in the private practice of law. This new rule provides that when a lawyer covered by the rule has a physical or mental condition that significantly impairs the lawyer’s ability to practice law, has disappeared, or been disbarred, or suspended and has not complied with Rule 23 § 26, a designated attorney surrogate, or in the absence of
a designation, a senior judge or other suitable member of the bar, may be appointed as attorney surrogate.
would otherwise expire on or after the date of filing of the petition and before the extended date.
Under the new rule the lawyer’s annual registration form will require affected lawyers to designate an attorney surrogate or if practicing in a Fiduciary Entity to provide the name and address of the Fiduciary Entity.
Finally, absent intentional wrongdoing, the rule provides immunity from civil suit for damages for all actions and omissions of the attorney surrogate acting under the rule.
The attorney surrogate’s role is to:
ment agreements in judicial discipline cases become public when the Supreme Court accepts the agreement in whole or in part and issues an order or opinion resolving the case.
1. take possession of an examine files and records and obtain information as matters which may require attention 2. notify clients of the lawyer that it may be in their best interest to obtain replacement counsel 3. apply for extensions of time pending employment of replacement counsel 4. file notices, motions and pleadings where jurisdictional time limits are involved and replacement counsel has not been obtained 5. give notice to other appropriate persons and entities of the surrogates appointment 6. arrange for the surrender or delivery of clients’ papers or property 7. take possession of trust accounts and take appropriate action with respect to such accounts 8. deliver the file to the client, make referrals to replacement counsel, or accept representation at the request of the client. The rule also provides that upon granting a verified petition for appointment of an attorney surrogate, statutes of limitation, deadlines, time limits or return dates are extended automatically for 120 days from the date of the filing of the petition, if it
Rule 25 § VIII now provides that settle-
Rule 29 § 3 was amended to provide attorney-legislators with Continuing Legal Education credit during their service in the Indiana General Assembly.
Administrative Rules Rule 1 and Rule 2 were each amended to require courts to submit their quarterly case status reports and fiscal reports in an electronic format. Rule 5 was amended to provide that se-
nior judges may not serve as an employee of a governmental entity or subdivision, except with Supreme Court permission. The previous language limiting this restriction to situations outside the judicial branch was removed. Rule 17 was added and it provides a
mechanism for the Supreme Court to issue orders to maintain the orderly administration of justice in emergencies brought about by natural disaster, civil upheaval, disease or other exigent circumstances. by Thomas M. Carusillo Director, Trial Court Services
JAN/FEB 2008 13
DOES A TRIAL COURT EVER MAIN JURISDICTION WITH AN APPEAL
he Indiana Court of Appeals has found numerous instances of trial courts continuing to act in a case even when the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court of Indiana has taken jurisdiction over an appeal in that case. This article will discuss the very limited circumstances under which the trial court may act while an appeal is pending and the consequences that follow from a trial court acting without jurisdiction due to a pending appeal.
When May a Trial Court Continue to Act? Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 8, appellate courts acquire jurisdiction over a matter when the Notice of Completion of Clerk’s Record (“NCR”) has been filed. See Ind. Appellate Rule 8. In previous versions of the Appellate Rules, the Court on Appeal acquired jurisdiction when the record of proceedings was filed. Indiana’s appellate courts have had many opportunities to apply Appellate Rule 8 and its predecessors, and a standard has evolved. At times, Indiana’s appellate courts sharply circumscribed trial courts’ jurisdiction while appeals were pending. In one older case, the Indiana Supreme Court concluded that once the record of proceedings was filed, the trial court was deprived of “any further jurisdiction over the action.” See Bright v. State, 259 Ind. 495, 496, 289 N.E.2d 128, 129 (Ind. 1972) (emphasis added). But more recently, a shift away from language barring any jurisdiction began with Donahue v. Watson, 413 N.E.2d 974 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980), reh’g den. In that case, a trial court had granted the appellees’ request for attorney’s fees after the record of proceedings had been filed for an appeal from the trial court’s judgment. See id.
14 JAN/FEB 2008
at 975. Although the Court of Appeals repeated the rule that once “appellate jurisdiction is acquired, the trial court is deprived of any further jurisdiction in the action,” the Court nevertheless concluded that the attorney’s fee issue was an “ancillary matter” that the trial court had impliedly reserved to be addressed after the entry of judgment. See id. at 975-76. Because the attorney’s fee issue was ancillary to the judgment, the trial court retained limited jurisdiction over the case to dispose of those claims left unresolved by the first judgment. See id. Subsequent opinions also hinted that the trial court might have the authority to act in a case on matters so long as those matters are not the subject of a pending appeal. See Schumacher v. Radiomaha, Inc., 619 N.E.2d 271, 273 (Ind. 1993) and Coulson v. Ind. & Mich. Elec. Co., 471 N.E.2d 278, 279 (Ind. 1984). The rejection of an absolute bar to trial court action while an appeal is pending in that case culminated in Bradley v. State, 649 N.E.2d 100 (Ind. 1995). In Bradley, the appellant had been denied bail and sought interlocutory review as a matter of right. See id. at 106. While the interlocutory appeal was pending, the trial court tried the appellant on the criminal charges. See id. at 106. The Indiana Supreme Court determined that even when an appellate court acquires jurisdiction, the trial court may retain jurisdiction to perform tasks that do not “intermeddle with the subject-matter of the appeal.” See id.
Thus, the current standard is that a trial court may continue to act in a case after the NCR is filed so long as those actions do not “intermeddle” with the subject of the appeal.
What Is “Intermeddling?” Unfortunately, there is no definitive statement of what actions intermeddle, or interfere, with a pending appeal. It is safe to say that a trial court’s modification or vacatur of the order that is the subject of the appeal is not appropriate once an appellate court acquires jurisdiction, and such trial court action is void. See Schumacher, 619 N.E.2d at 273; Coulson, 471 N.E.2d at 279; Southwood v. Carlson, 704 N.E.2d 163, 165-166 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (vacating a trial court’s grant of a motion for relief from judgment because the trial court lacked jurisdiction); Bartley v. Bartley, 712 N.E.2d 537, 547 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (determining that a trial court order that “clarified” the order on appeal was void for lack of jurisdiction). But, a trial court order that has only an indirect relationship to the order that is the subject of the appeal may be void. See In re Hickman, 811 N.E.2d 843, 849-850 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), reh’g den., trans. den. (determining that an order rescinding a stock transfer was implicitly and necessarily related to the guardianship order that was the subject of the appeal, and that the stock transfer order was therefore void). On the other hand, post-judgment proceedings for attorney’s fees at the trial level have been deemed appropriate. See Donahue, 413 N.E.2d at 976. Furthermore, contempt proceedings arising out of the judgment may apparently continue. See Meade, 671 N.E.2d at 1180. Finally, the trial court may still tax costs, correct
NTAIN PENDING? the record, or enforce a judgment while an appeal is pending. See Bradley, 649 N.E.2d at 106. Because the resolution of these jurisdictional issues is case-specific, however, it is advisable for a trial court to exercise caution when it continues to act in a case after an appellate court has acquired jurisdiction pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 8.
What are the Consequences of Trial Court Action in the Absence of Jurisdiction? Although there is no bright-line rule to delineate when a trial court is acting without jurisdiction due to a pending appeal, it is clear that when a trial court lacks jurisdiction, the trial court’s actions are void. See In re Hickman, 811 N.E.2d at 852-853 (vacating the trial court’s order rescinding a stock transfer). Unfortunately, acting without jurisdiction has resulted in a significant waste of the trial court and the parties’ time and resources. See Powers v. State, 579 N.E.2d 81, 84 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991), trans. den. (reversing the trial court’s judgment after retrial because the first appeal was still pending, and remanding for a new trial). Such appellate court decisions reinforce the suggestion that the trial court should be cautious of proceeding after an appellate court acquires jurisdiction.
Conclusion Indiana’s appellate courts have identified certain circumstances under which the trial court may continue to act after an appellate court acquires jurisdiction pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 8. Nevertheless, if the trial court is found to have acted without jurisdiction, those actions will be void. by Joe Merrick Staff Attorney, Indiana Court of Appeals
A POSITIVE NOTE FOR THE NEW YEAR
"Motivation is the art of getting people to do what you want them to do because they want to do it."
—DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER
t is a very simple phrase that is under-rated and often forgotten. How does an employer motivate employees to keep up the good work and continue to use their best qualities that benefit the court system? Perhaps a private employer has more incentive options available because they are not limited by controlled budgets and shared control over employment benefits. However, that doesn’t mean that there are no incentives open for you to use. One of the most effective ways to let an employee know that you value his or her work is both inexpensive and easy to do. It is simply to write a personal “thank you” note. It costs almost nothing, takes very little time, and yet it raises an employee’s self esteem, gives a feeling of being part of the court’s mission, and motivates continued good work. If you copy the note for the employee’s personnel file, it also provides a quick way to document performance. A “thank you” note should be brief, to the point, and indicate the admired
extra effort. It is important to write and present the note as soon as you can after the exemplary performance. If you relegate it to a later day, you will probably never get it done. Hand-written notes can be the most meaningful. Keep a pack of stationary note cards in your desk in order to take quick action when you notice good performance. The note can be something as simple as “Thank you for your cheerful greeting to our visitors. I appreciate the way you tactfully handled their questions.” Many employees treasure and keep written tokens of appreciation, which is just one indication of their impact. And even if it just brings a smile to brighten their day, well that’s not so bad either. If your employees feel that you care about them, it is more likely that they will be motivated to work hard, and less likely that you will have to deal with poor performance. May you find many occasions to write “thank you” notes in 2008!
“People often say that motivation doesn’t last. Well, neither does bathing—that’s why we recommend it daily.”
By Brenda Rodeheffer Employment Law Services, State Court Administration
JAN/FEB 2008 15
0101010001010010101110101 0010101010111010101000101 101000 0101010101010001010101010 01 101 0101 0 01 01 0101 010 01 0 010101010 0001 00 0101010 010 1010101010101010100001110 10 010 010 1010 101 10 010 101010100 1000011 110 1011001101001100111011010 1100 011 11 101 010 01 00110011 00 01110110 010 1010001011110100101011010 1000 0010 010 101 011 1111 110 01 10 0010 01011 10 01 0 010 0110101001100101010100010 1010 1010 01 10 00 01 110 001 01010101 0 000 010 0101011101010100101010101 01 101 011 110 0101 0101 101 0100 100 0010 1010 10 010 1010101 0101 NEWS FROM THE 0101010001010101010101010 01010001010101010101010 JUDICIAL TECHNOLOGY AND 0010101010101010101010101 10101010101010101010101 AUTOMATION COMMITTEE 0101000011101010110011010 01000011101010110011010 1001110110101010100010111 1001010110100101101010011 1010101000101001010111010 1001010101011101010100010 1010101010101000101010101 0101010101010101010000111 0101100110100110011101101 0101 01 0100 0001 0101 0111 1110 1010 1001 0101 0101 0110 101 1 1011010100110010101010001 0010101110101010010101010 1010101000101010101010101 0001010101010101010101010 1010 10 1010 1000 0001 0111 1101 0101 0101 0110 1001 0110 101 1 1100 11 0011 1110 1011 1101 0101 0101 0101 0100 0001 0101 011 1 0100101011010010110101001 0101 01 0101 0101 0100 0001 0101 0100 0010 1010 1010 1010 101 1 0101010101000011101010110 1010011001110110101010100 0111 01 1110 1010 1001 0101 0101 0110 1010 1001 0101 0110 101 1 00110 0101010100010100101 1101010100101010101110101 0001010101010101010100010 1010101010101010101010101 0011101010110011010011001 0110101010100010111101001 0110100101101010011001010 1000101001010111010101001 0101011101010100010101010 1010 10 1010 1010 1000 0010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 1010 101 1 0101010101010000111010101 0110100110011101101010101 0101111010010101101001011 0100 01 0011 1100 0010 1010 1010 1010 1000 0010 1010 1001 010 0 1110101010010101010111010 1000101010101010101010001 0101 01 0101 0101 0101 0101 0101 0101 0101 0101 0101 0101 010 0 0001 00 0111 1101 0101 0101 0110 1001 0110 1010 1001 0110 100 0 1011010101010001011110100 101101001011010100110010 101000101001010111010101 101010101110101010001010 101010101010001010101010 101010101010101010000111 010110011010011001110110 101010001011110100101011 001011010100110010101010 101001010101010101010101 000011101010110011010011 16 JAN/FEB 2008 courttimes 111011010101010001011110 010101101001011010100110
INDIANA COURTS ONLIN AND RECEIVES $50,000 GRA
he U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, through the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute, awarded a $50,000 grant to the Division of State Court Administration for the development of the Indiana Courts Online Reports (ICOR) program. The ICOR application, which was developed in-house by our JTAC staff, is a web-based program and is part of the judicial INcite portal through which trial courts load requested data into a state database. ICOR provides a secure method for the collection, storage, retrieval, analysis, and dissemination of court statistics. It also streamlines the reporting process and makes the collected data more easily searchable and readily available. Most importantly, the new automated data reporting application has increased the accuracy and consistency of the reporting process.
The Division of State Court Administration (STAD) is charged by law to collect from all courts extensive case and financial data and to publish such data in an annual report, the Indiana Judicial Service Report. Until ICOR’s implementation, the 400+/- Indiana trial courts reported thousands of data elements per year on paper forms. By its very nature, this enormous manual exercise was subject to delay and error. The ICOR program now allows courts to compile the information electronically and in real time. “When the material arrived at the Division of State Court Administration the long, manual compilation process would begin, and it would take months before the information was all gathered into one report. Often, errors and omissions would not become evident until totals were tabulated and comparisons to prior years were made,” said James Walker, Director of Trial Court Management.
For more information on all JTAC Programs look o http://www.in.gov/judiciary/jtac/programs
NEW JURY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
E REPORTS ANT
QUALIFIES FOR DUTY
ndiana’s trial courts conduct more than 2,000 jury trials each year. To make this happen, local clerks and jury administrators must create random, representative jury pools, notify jurors when to report, determine how many jurors to call on a certain day, assign panels for civil and criminal trials, keep track of those who cannot serve or need to be called in the future, and finally, compensate jurors for their service. A cooperative effort by the Division of State Court Administration, the Judicial Technology and Automation Committee, and the Indiana Judicial Center resulted in the development of an automated Jury Management System (JMS) to help in this process.
In the past, the thousands of pieces of data had to be tabulated first at the local level, and then at the Division. With ICOR’s automated functions, the chances of errors are greatly reduced in the reporting process. "With formulas built into the application, calculation errors should be eliminated, much to everyone's relief," said Walker. The data collected from each court includes the number of cases filed, cases disposed, the method of case disposition, the court’s probation caseloads, all moneys expended on the courts, and the revenues generated through their operations.
County clerks and jury administrators access the JMS application through the INcite (Indiana Court Information Technology Extranet) website which is the home of several other automated state court programs. There, they begin the jury selection process by using a Master Jury Pool Lists compiled through another model cooperative project between the judicial and executive branches of government. The Master Jury Pool Lists are county-specific, scrubbed compilation of names residing in the databases of the Indiana Department of Revenue and Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles. The new JMS is now being used in 19 counties: Clay, Crawford, Dearborn, Floyd, Fountain, Hendricks, Howard, Jennings, Lake, LaPorte, Marshall, Monroe, Parke, Posey, Scott, Shelby, Steuben, Union, and Warren.
And in not too distant a future, the statewide case management system, Odyssey, which first went live on December 17, 2007, in the Monroe Circuit Courts and the Marion County, Washington Township Small Claims Court, will interface with ICOR so that the data will be delivered directly from Odyssey to the ICOR application. This technological advancement is another item on the extensive menu of innovations shepherded by the Supreme Court’s Judicial Technology and Automation Committee. PHOTO. Bill Wolfred
In addition to reporting statistics, ICOR data will assist STAD in analyzing new case filings and judicial resources using Weighted Caseload Measurements (WCM). WCM helps to ensure an even distribution of cases between judges and to determine how much assistance courts need to handle heavy caseloads.
If you are interested in using the JMS or want more information contact Jill Russell at (317) 234-2734 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
The Jury Management System can: ; Select jurors randomly ; Assign panels ; Manage panels ; Ensure juror information is searchable and up to date ; Merge juror and trial information into appropriate documents ; Prepare claim information for compensating jurors ; Print labels and summonses and merge information into orders and other documents Planned future functionality will included a website that lists panel cancellations by ID number. This will enable citizens to check if they are needed via the Internet instead of calling the courthouse. Monroe County Jury Administrator, Lisa Abraham, will begin using the Jury Management System in 2008. “The advantages of the system are quite numerous. The application will ensure that people aren’t called for more than one panel. And, because all the data is searchable, it will only call eligible jurors. For example, someone identified in the system as a law enforcement officer would not be called for a criminal trial or someone who served in June would not be called again in August,” Abraham said. by Cindy Collier Communications Consultant, JTAC
by Cindy Collier Communications Consultant, JTAC
online at: courttimes
JAN/FEB 2008 17
NEW CODE OF
JUDICIAL CONDUCT UNDER REVIEW
This year, after considering comments from the judiciary, the bar, and the public, the Indiana Supreme Court will amend the Code of Judicial Conduct, effective 2009. In 2007, the Supreme Court appointed a subcommittee of the Ethics and Professionalism Committee, Hon. Marianne Vorhees, Chair; Hon. Marc R. Kellams; Hon. Margret G. Robb; Hon. Evan S. Roberts; Hon. Michael P. Scopelitis; and Hon. Dean A. Sobecki, to study the new ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct and to draft a new Indiana Code. In December, the full committee sent its proposed rule to the Court, recommending adoption of the ABA Model with several amendments. In mid-January 2008, the proposed Code, among other new rules, will be posted for comment on the Court’s website at http://courts.IN.gov/code. At the Court’s direction, the Ethics Committee adopted the structure and most of the substance of the ABA Model, suggesting only those changes it believed necessary for application in Indiana. The new Model Code and the proposed Indiana Code are reorganized, with Canons 1 and 2 merged into Canon 1 only, leaving four Canons instead of ﬁve. Within each Canon are numbered rules, followed by numbered comments, similar to the Rules of Professional Conduct and the Model after which they were patterned. Canon 1 relates to upholding the independence, impartiality, and integrity of the judiciary, Canon 2 to the proper performance of judicial and administrative duties, Canon 3 to extrajudicial activities, and Canon 4 to political conduct.
expressly stating that a judge may ac-
maintaining the “appearance of im-
explicitly permitting judges to consult
ubstantively, the most significant aspects of the 2007 ABA Model Code include:
propriety” standard as an independent basis for discipline, and emphasizing the fundamental notions of impartiality, integrity, and independence; adding domestic partners to the
definition of “members of a judge’s family”; recognizing the propriety of some non-
traditional approaches in problemsolving courts; encouraging judges to participate in
activities promoting professionalism within the legal community and public understanding of the judicial system;
commodate pro se litigants to ensure fair hearings; with other judges under certain conditions; explicitly permitting judges, under
some circumstances, to respond to allegations concerning the judge’s conduct in a case; forbidding judges from making
pledges, promises, or commitments in connection with issues likely to come before the court, and requiring disqualification in a case if a judge made a public statement appearing to commit the judge to a particular result; eliminating the 1-year grace period
during which a judge who belongs to a discriminatory organization may 18 JAN/FEB 2008
work to change the policies in lieu of resigning, and clearly stating that the rule does not apply to membership in religious organizations or the military;
including a rule that a judge must take
appropriate action, such as a confidential referral to an assistance program, if a lawyer’s or judge’s performance is impaired by alcohol, drugs, or a mental, emotional, or physical condition; including a rule requiring cooperation
with disciplinary authorities; permitting judges to solicit members
for organizations concerned with the legal system and allowing them to be guests of honor at those organizations’ fundraising events, and stating expressly that a judge does not violate the fundraising rules by volunteering goods or services at fundraising events; restructuring the rules about receipt
of gifts and loans to address three tiers of gifts and loans—those a judge may never accept, those which may be accepted and not reported, and gifts which may be accepted but must be reported depending upon the value; adding a rule allowing judges to ac-
cept reimbursement of expenses for attendance at seminars only if the judge determines to do so would not undermine the judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality and only if the transaction is reported; continuing to limit judges’ financial
and business interests to managing their investments and operating closely held businesses; permitting all types of judicial can-
didates, partisan, non-partisan, and retention candidates, to contribute to parties and to candidates and to attend party and candidate events, but only when running; permitting retention judges to form
committees at any time during the year of the retention election; including commentary to the new rule
on political activities distinguishing
CANON TWO to not require judges to report invita-
permissible statements about legal, social, and political issues from impermissible pledges, promises, and commitments in connection with cases or controversies likely to come before a court; and,
tions to bar-related or charitable and civic functions as gifts;
to permit nonpartisan judges to at-
tend party functions on a nonpartisan basis at any time;
eliminating the prohibition against a
to permit partisan judges to attend
candidate personally soliciting public support.
to not include a specific dollar
to state clearly that employees who
perform judicial functions are bound directly by the Code unless exempted under the Application section.
The Ethics Committee work was exhaustive, but it is only the first step towards
PHOTO. Lindsey Borschel
mong the changes to the ABA Model recommended by the Ethics Committee for the Indiana Code are:
party functions and to contribute to
bound by the rule applicable to the judges; and,
amount triggering a judge’s absolute duty to disqualify when a lawyer has contributed to the judge’s campaign; to continue to omit from Indiana’s
Code a rule permitting remitter of disqualification; to prohibit nepotism rather than
requiring judges only to avoid it; to continue to prohibit broadcasting
of proceedings; to specify that a judge does not violate
the rule against acting as a character witness by writing a letter of recommendation, and to provide limited flexibility to the rule against testifying as a character witness only by appearing pursuant to a subpoena; to continue to permit judges to accept
appointments to governmental commissions if approved by the Supreme Court; to exempt judges practicing law
pursuant to military service from the prohibition against practicing law; to maintain the current rule in Indi-
ana that judges may engage in business activities so long as they do not impair the integrity, impartiality, or integrity of the judiciary, still obligating judges to give precedence to their judicial duties and to not engage in any business activities which would interfere with judicial performance, lead to frequent disqualification, or involve the judge in frequent transactions with lawyers or litigants;
political parties at any time; to continue to prohibit retention
judges from attending party functions or contributing to political parties; to permit only partisan judges to en-
dorse and attend functions for other political candidates running in the same election cycle; to permit judges to participate on
a limited basis in family members’ campaigns; to clarify that a candidate for appoint-
ment to judicial office is bound by the limitations on political activities applicable to judges holding that office; to caution candidates for appointment
to judicial office to exercise restraint in soliciting letters of recommendation for the appointments;
amending Indiana’s Code. Your input is crucial. Please check the Supreme Court’s website at http://courts.IN.gov/ code for links to the 2007 Model Code, the Committee’s Proposed Code, the Committee’s Report, a list of Committee members, and other related documents and information. Most importantly, study the Model Code and the Committee’s proposed Indiana Code, discuss it with your colleagues, and let the Ethics Committee and the Supreme Court know your thoughts and reactions. The Code of Judicial Conduct is more than a list of prohibited conduct; it should inform and guide you as you continue to make Indiana’s judiciary a great institution. Our readers—judges, lawyers, and court personnel—are in the best position to know if the proposed new Code is realistic, user-friendly, and fair. Please post your comments.
to continue the rules that employees
of nonpartisan and partisan judges may not run for or hold nonjudicial elective office or hold office in a party’s central committee and that employees of retention judges are
by Meg Babcock Counsel, Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualiﬁcations
JAN/FEB 2008 19
courttimes court times Indiana Supreme Court Division of State Court Administration 30 South Meridian Street, Suite 500 Indianapolis, IN 46204
EDITORIAL BOARD Lilia G. Judson, Publisher Executive Director, State Court Administration
David J. Remondini, Managing Editor Chief Deputy Executive Director, State Court Administration
James F. Maguire, Editor Staff Attorney, State Court Administration
Lindsey Borschel, Publication Designer Web Coordinator, State Court Admin./JTAC
Deborah Guthrie-Jones, Distribution Coordinator Administrative Assistant, State Court Admin.
MISSION Our goal is to foster communications, respond to concerns, and contribute to the spirit and pride that encompasses the work of all members of the judiciary around the state. We welcome your comments, suggestions and news. If you have an article, advertisements, announcement, or particular issue you would like to see in our publication, please contact us.
SECURITY PROTOCOL AT NEW LOCATION FOR SUPREME COURT AGENCIES
he Supreme Court agencies that have re-located to 30 South Meridian Street are now open for business and looking forward to welcoming guests and visitors.
Our new landlords have in place security protocols, which our visitors need to know. The procedures require that visitors who enter through the buildingâ€™s front lobby (on S. Meridian Street) must sign in at the front security desk located inside the lobby. Every day each agency provides to security a list of expected visitors. Judges and others who are expected for meetings and other scheduled appointments will be on the list. Thus, a visitor who has given advance notice of arrival or confirmed attendance at a meeting will simply give his or her name to the security attendant and, once checked off, will proceed to the nearby elevators and be on his or her way. For a visitor whose name is not on the expected visitor list, security will contact the appropriate agency and will obtain permission for the visitor to proceed to his or her destination. In our new building, the 5th floor is home of the Division of State Court Administration, including the JTAC offices; the 8th floor hosts the Disciplinary Commission and Board of Law Examiners; and the 9th floor is the home of the Indiana Judicial Center and Commission for Continuing Legal Education. Although the security procedures may seem strict, the security personnel is very visitor friendly. Please visit us as often as you like and rest assured that all our staff and our new landlords will work hard not to let the security precautions interfere with or impede your visit. After all, this building was once the home of the famous LS Ayres Tea Room with its award winning chicken velvet soup, located in Indianapolis, Indiana, not Langley, Virginia.
CONTRIBUTORS Hon. Randall T. Shepard Chief Justice, Indiana Supreme Court
Hon. Frank Sullivan, Jr. Justice, Indiana Supreme Court
Meg Babcock Counsel, Indiana Commission on Judicial QualiďŹ cations
Thomas M. Carusillo Director of Trial Court Services, State Court Administration
Brenda Rodeheffer Employment Law Services, State Court Administration
Nancy Gettinger CIP Grants Administrator, Indiana Judicial Center
Joe Merrick Staff Attorney, Indiana Court of Appeals
Cindy Collier Communications Consultant, JTAC
PLEASE CIRCULATE TO CO-WORKERS This newsletter reports on important administrative matters. Please keep for future reference. Issues are also available online at:
20 JAN/FEB 2008
Published on Sep 29, 2008
Published on Sep 29, 2008
JAN/FEB 2008 issue of the Indiana Court Times, the bi-monthly news magazine published by the Indiana Supreme Court Division of State Court A...