Indiana Court Times 19.2

Issue 19.2 MAR/APR 2010

Debbie Guthrie-Jones, 58, of Indianapolis, passed away February 7, 2010. Debbie was born May 22, 1951 in New Castle, Indiana. Since 1986, she worked as a dedicated employee of the Indiana Supreme Court as an Administrative Assistant to its Division of State Court Administration. She served as Production and Distribution Coordina-tor for the Indiana Court Times and ably served in a staff support role for the Indiana Public Defenders Commission and the Court’s Records Management Committee. Indiana Division of State Court Administration Executive Director, Lilia Judson said, “Debbie will be sorely missed by all of us. She welcomed us to work, wished us well as we left for the day, and greeted all of our guests with a smile. Our thoughts are with Deb-bie’s family and friends, especially her husband Tom, who is our colleague at the Division.”

Debbie is survived by her husband Tom, whom she married on June 19, 1999 and who is employed as Records Manager for the Supreme Court.

Long-Time Court Employee Fondly Remembered

IN MEMORIAM

2 MAR/APR 2010 courttimes

CONTENTSIn Memoriam: Debbie Guthrie-Jones ................... 2

Problem Solving Courtsin Indiana ..................................... 3

Back Home in Indiana: Mortgage Foreclosure Project Update ............ 6

Update on Court Reform Grants .... 7

CLERK'S CORNERLinda Phillips ................................ 8

The National Center for State Courts: An Excellent Resource .................... 9

Allen County Courts Prepare for the Unexpected ................................ 10

Slowly But Surely:Jefferson County Courthouse Repair and Reconstruction ...................... 11

BITS & BYTESOne Less Obstacle for Abuse Victims Seeking Court Intervention .......... 12

SIDEBARHon. Terry C. Shewmaker ............ 14

Indiana Public Defender Goes Greent ....................................... 16

Mass Adoptions in the Marion County County Superior Court ..... 17

ASK ADRIENNEDisciplinary Responsibility of Judges and the Duty to Report Ethical Misconduct ................................. 18

SPOTLIGHTAwards and New Court Staff ....... 19

This too familiar scene prompted Senior Judge Barbara Brugnaux in 1996 to initiate one of the first drug courts in the state. Today that number has multiplied and continues to grow as part of the movement toward courts that solve problems rather than sentence individuals into our over-crowded prisons. Her journey to becoming one of Indiana’s first drug court judges began several years prior when she saw a Dateline report that focused on the Miami—Dade County, Florida, drug court. She was then a deputy prosecutor in Vigo Superior Court, Div. 5, which handled primarily drug and alcohol cases. When Brugnaux was appointed to the bench in the same court in 1994, she applied for a drug court planning grant through the United States Department of Justice. The grant was awarded and a team of Vigo County criminal justice professionals attended the first federally sponsored drug court planning training in Denver, Colorado in November 1995. When asked what caused her to pursue this opportunity to start a drug court, she stated, “Knowing the types of cases filed in my court and knowing the nature of addiction, it was

clear that we were not able to give these individuals the atten-tion that they needed to deal with the disease of addiction and stay out of the criminal justice system. We needed to try something new.”

While there are many sentencing alternatives available to judges, drug courts are unique in targeting non-violent of-fenders at a high risk to reoffend using a non-adversarial team approach. Team members include treatment providers, a prosecutor, defense attorney, a case manager or probation officer, and often include community corrections and law enforcement personnel. The drug court judge serves as the leader of the team conducting frequent status hearings with participants to ensure compliance with court ordered treat-ment, drug testing and other conditions. Graduated incen-tives and sanctions are used to reward compliance or address non-compliance with the program requirements. The length of participation varies from court to court, but may range from 12–36 months. Most drug courts accept offenders

ALL INDIANA JUDGES ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE “REVOLVING DOOR” OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. INDIVIDUALS

ARE SENTENCED FOR RELATIVELY MINOR CRIMINAL OFFENSES, ONLY TO RETURN MONTHS LATER FACING NEW AND

FREQUENTLY MORE SERIOUS CHARGES. WHILE TERMS OF IMPRISONMENT SEEM TO CURB CRIMINAL ACTIVITY FOR A PERIOD

OF TIME, EVENTUALLY THE RE-OFFENDING INDIVIDUAL REVERTS BACK TO OLD BEHAVIORS LEADING TO NEW ARRESTS,

CONVICTIONS AND PERIODS OF INCARCERATION. THE PATTERN CONTINUES FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, UNTIL AN INDIANA

TRIAL COURT JUDGE IS SENTENCING A SECOND GENERATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS WHOSE CIRCUMSTANCES

SEEM ALMOST IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THEIR PARENTS. JUDGES OFTEN CAN IDENTIFY ENTIRE FAMILIES WITHIN THEIR

COMMUNITIES WHOSE MEMBERS FREQUENTLY APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT IN A VARIETY OF LEGAL MATTERS INCLUDING

CRIMINAL CHARGES, JUVENILE DELINQUENCY CHARGES, DOMESTIC LAW AND CHILD IN NEED OF SERVICES (CHINS)

ISSUES. A COMMON DENOMINATOR IN THESE CASES IS THE ABUSE OF ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUGS.

Problem Solving Courtsin Indiana

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

Published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics in 1997, Drug Courts: The Key Components, serves as a model for drug courts nationally and is available online at:www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/DrugCourts/Defi ningDC.pdf

BY MARY KAY HUDSON | PROBLEM-SOLVING COURT ADMINISTRATOR, INDIANA JUDICIAL CENTER

courttimes MAR/APR 2010 3

charged with a variety of offenses, which may include posses-sion of a controlled substance, theft, prescription offenses, prostitution, forgery and operating a vehicle while intoxicated. In 1997, the Bureau of Justice Assistance published Drug Courts: The Key Components, which serve as a model for drug courts nationally.

In addition to Vigo County, the Gary City Drug Court was also formed in 1996. Between 1997 and 2000, several other drug courts emerged in Allen, Marion, Monroe, St. Joseph and Vanderburgh counties. Individuals working in the drug court field formed the Indiana Association of Drug Court Professionals (IADCP) and began looking at ways to institu-tionalize the drug court movement in Indiana. Enabling leg-islation for drug courts seemed to be the answer. As IADCP began exploring legislation in this area, Judge Wayne Trock-man of Vanderburgh County made a request to the Indiana Judicial Center (IJC) to “certify” his drug court as an IJC certi-fied court alcohol and drug program under IC 12-23-14. Judge Trockman’s request for certification became a component of proposed legislation for drug courts, which was adopted by the General Assembly in 2002 (IC 12-23-14.5). The Judicial Conference Board of Directors adopted rules for drug courts and IJC began certifying drug courts in 2003.

Individuals may participate in a certified drug court as a condition of probation, in response to a violation of proba-tion, or under a guilty plea by a defendant and the court withholding judgment pending successful participation. The court will dismiss the charges upon successful completion of the program. If the participant fails to complete the program, the court will enter judgment of conviction and sentence the defendant pursuant to the plea agreement. Today there are thirty operational drug courts, including twenty-six adult courts and four juvenile courts.

At the same time that drug courts were gaining momentum in 2001, Allen Superior Court Judge John Surbeck developed the state’s first “reentry court” to provide enhanced services and supervision to individuals returning to Allen County from the Department of Correction. The reentry court was developed under the premise that, with few exceptions, all of-fenders return to the community. The reentry court was based in part on the drug court model, with the key distinction being that the reentry court accepted all community transition program (IC 11-10-11.5) eligible offenders released to Allen County. The Allen County reentry court was developed with the assistance of Allen County Community Corrections and includes partnerships with probation, parole, and local service providers. Other reentry courts emerged over the next several

DID YOU KNOW?

A judge may initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications expressly authorized by law, such as when serving on therapeutic or problem-solv-ing courts, mental health courts, or drug courts. See Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct, Sec. 2.9(A)(5), Comment 4.

Cases heard in certifi ed problem-solving courts are eligible for weighted caseload credit. For ad-ditional information, contact Jim Walker, Director of Trial Court Management at [email protected].

The Supreme Court offers training scholarships for judicial offi cers, which may be used to attend a variety of programs including problem-solving court-related trainings and conferences.

The National Drug Court Institute offers free on-line training on how to plan and implement a drug court. www.ndci.org/training-0.

Indiana was the fi rst state to “certify” drug courts and reentry courts and will be the fi rst state to de-velop a certifi cation program for other problem-solving court models, such as mental health courts and family dependency drug courts.

An evaluation of the Allen County Reentry Court indicated that reentry court graduates demon-strated a 39% reduction in recidivism compared to the expected rates of rearrest for this population. Even participants that did not complete the entire program demonstrated a 22% reduction in recidi-vism compared to the expected rates of rearrest.

With funding from the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute, the Indiana Judicial Center coordinated a multi-site evaluation of fi ve adult drug courts and three juvenile drug courts, which was completed in 2007. The adult drug court evaluation concluded that participating courts reduced recidivism by up to 50% and can produce a return of up to $5.37 for every $1.00 invested in drug court. For a summary of the adult drug court evaluation results, visit courts.in.gov/pscourts/docs/eval-summary.pdf.

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE


years in Marion, Grant and Vanderburgh Counties. “Before reentry court, I was frustrated seeing the same people and multiple generations of the same families in criminal court on a recurring basis. Reentry court is now successfully working with these individual and families,” states Judge Surbeck.

In 2006, the General Assembly enacted legislation authorizing local courts to establish reentry courts (IC 33-23-14). The In-diana Judicial Conference Board of Directors adopted reentry court rules in 2008, and IJC began certifying reentry courts in 2009. There are currently six certified reentry courts in Indi-ana. The Judicial Conference established the Problem-Solving Courts Committee in 2006 to support the innovation of judges

at the local level. The committee’s mission is: “To encourage the broad integration of the problem-solving philosophy into the administration of justice to improve court processes and outcomes while preserving the rule of law and to encourage judges to take a proactive role, using a non-adversarial, coor-dinated strategy to problem-solving while creating an environ-ment where participants are encouraged to take responsibility for change.” Judge John Surbeck of Allen Superior Court serves as chair of the fifteen member committee.

Almost fourteen years after the start of the first drug courts in Indiana, the drug court model is being applied in a variety of settings in the Indiana court system and across the nation. Courts that apply the drug court model to other populations in the court system are referred to as “problem-solving courts.” Other problem-solving courts in Indiana include mental health courts, family dependency (CHINS), drug courts, and one community court. Domestic violence courts and veterans’ treatment courts are in the planning stages. Grant, Marion and Vanderburgh counties have implemented more than one problem-solving court, such as a drug court and a reentry court. Madison Unified Courts recently developed a problem-solving courts division to coordinate the operations of the county’s drug, reentry and mental health courts and to investigate implementing other problem-solving court models.

The Indiana Judicial Conference Board of Directors gave permission to the Problem-Solving Committee to promote the expansion of problem-solving courts in Indiana through legislation in the 2010 Indiana General Assembly. Rep. Eric

Koch (R-Bedford) authored House Bill 1271 with co-authors Representatives Matt Pierce (D-Bloomington), Kathy Richard-son (R-Noblesville) and Linda Lawson (D-Hammond). Senate sponsors included Senators Richard Bray (R-Martinsville), Tim Lanane (D-Anderson) and Randy Head (R-Logansport). Bill co-sponsors included Senators Lonnie Randolph (D-East Chicago) and Joe Zakas (R-Granger). The House passed the measure by a vote of 96–0 and the Senate passed it by a vote of 50-0. It will be effective on July 1, 2010. House Enrolled Act 1271 creates a framework for the establishment and certification for several problem-solving court models, includ-ing: family dependency drug courts, domestic violence courts, mental health courts, community courts and veterans’ courts.

In the coming months, the Problem-Solving Courts Commit-tee will develop rules for problem-solving courts subject to approval by the Board of Directors. The Judicial Center will work with the committee to develop training and education programs for judicial

officers, probation officers, prosecutors, public defenders, treatment providers and other team members of problem-solving courts.

Research clearly indicates that drug courts reduce recidivism. According to the National Association of Drug Court Pro-fessionals, “The most rigorous and conservative scientific meta-analyses have all concluded that drug courts significantly reduce crime as much as 35 percent more than other sentenc-ing options.” (National Association of Drug Court Profes-sionals, 2010 www.nadcp.org/learn/do-drug-courts-work). While research related to other problem-solving court models is not as widely available as drug court research, it continues to emerge with promising results. As Chief Justice Shepard noted in his recent state of the judiciary address, “Among the most effective strategies we have available are drug courts and re-entry courts, and the General Assembly has created statuto-ry frameworks that help Indiana courts make these techniques work.”

For a current listing of Indiana’s certifi ed drug courts, visit courts.in.gov/pscourts/docs/dc-directory.pdf.

For a current directory of Indiana reentry courts, visit courts.in.gov/pscourts/docs/re-directory.pdf.

For additional information about problem-solving courts, please contact Mary Kay Hudson, Problem-Solving Court Administrator, Indiana Judicial Center, [email protected].


Indiana’s mortgage foreclosure rate is among the highest in the country, largely due to the decline of the auto-

motive and manufacturing industries. In 2008, the state saw 45,394 foreclosures—a more than 50 percent increase since 2003. In January 2009, Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard addressed this crisis, vowing to train more professionals than any other state on how to deal with foreclosure cases. The “Back Home in Indiana—Guiding Homeowners through Foreclosure” training program began in March 2009 with sessions across the state, and in October 2009, this goal was reached—more than 1,100 attorneys, judges, and mediators received foreclo-sure prevention training.

State law now requires a creditor to notify a homeowner facing foreclosure of his or her right to participate in a settlement conference. Indiana Code 32-30-10.5 et seq. levies a $50.00 filing fee on all mortgage foreclosure cases filed after July 1, 2009, and requires that the homeowner be notified of his or her right to request a settlement con-ference with the lender. A portion of this filing fee is remitted to the Indiana Supreme Court to conduct training and hire coordinators to organize and assist with these settlement conferences.

As of early 2010, very few homeowners had taken advantage of the settlement conference provision. Many individuals who have already received foreclosure documents simply don’t open or read any mail they receive from the lender. Others don’t know precisely what a settlement conference entails or believe

that they need to hire an attorney but are unable to afford one.

After discussing the situation with a number of trial judges, the Division of State Court Administration has part-nered with the Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority (IHCDA) to create a system for coordi-nating all settlement conferences on a county or district-wide basis.

This program was launched on a pilot basis in January 2010 in Allen, Marion, and St. Joseph counties. A project manager at State Court Administration oversees local logistical coordinators, who coordinate with pro bono attor-neys, facilitators, homeowners, and lenders to schedule and take part in settlement conferences.

Although this program is still very new, it appears to be having some success when compared to settlement conference rates in non-pilot counties. According to Delaware County Judge Marianne Vorhees, of the 295 foreclo-sures filed in Delaware Circuit Court from July 1 to December 31, 2009, only 21 borrowers—or 7 percent—had requested a settlement conference. As of February 16, 2010, 5 of these cases

were successful (meaning that the bor-rowers remained in the home), while 6 were unsuccessful, 1 borrower did not appear, 3 were still negotiating with the lenders, and 5 of the conferences had not yet occurred.

In contrast, the settlement confer-ence model implemented by Judge Nancy Boyer of Allen Superior Court has resulted in at least 20 settlement conferences requested in less than 2 weeks. Under this structure, Judge Boyer collected all mortgage foreclosure filings dating back to January 1, 2010, and sent out an “Order for Telephone Conference” in each case, requiring the borrowers and lenders to call into the court on a certain date and time and speak with a facilitator. During these telephone conferences, the facilitator explains to the borrower what a settle-ment conference involves, and asks whether the borrower would like to request one. If the borrower declines, the foreclosure case proceeds; if the borrower requests a conference, the facilitator sets a time and date for the settlement conference and determines what documents each party must provide in order to negotiate. A second order confirming the conference date and describing all required documents is then issued. The first group of these telephone conferences took place on February 11, 2010; by February 23, 20 of the 24 borrowers who took part in a telephone conference had requested a settlement conference.

This data seems to show the importance of an “opt-out,” rather than “opt-in” model; this ensures that the maximum

BY ELIZABETH DAULTON | STAFF ATTORNEY, STATE COURT ADMINISTRATION

In 2008, the state saw 45,394 foreclosures—a more than 50 percent increase since 2003.

Mortgage ForeclosureProject Update

Back Homein Indiana


number of borrowers are reached, and that those borrowers who are con-tacted may make an informed decision whether or not they would benefit from a settlement conference.

Attorneys and mediators who have received training through the “Back Home in Indiana” program are en-couraged to take part in this project. Through funding from the IHCDA, pro bono attorneys are reimbursed up to $25.00 per conference for reasonable expenses (parking, meals, and office supplies, for example), while facilitators receive $150.00 per every four settle-ment conferences conducted.

Although Allen County is the only court system currently operating under this pilot project, several judges in St. Joseph, Marion, and Monroe counties are working hard to get their settlement conference programs up and running by early summer. If the projects in these counties are successful, they will be implemented on a state-wide basis beginning in early 2011.

Any attorneys, judges, or mediators who wish to assist with this project should contact David Remondini, Chief Deputy Executive Director of the Division of State Court Administra-tion, [email protected], or Elizabeth Daulton, Project Manager of the Mortgage Foreclosure Trial Court Assistance Project,[email protected], or by telephone at 317-232-2542. More infor-mation can be found at the Mortgage Foreclosure Task Force website, www.courts.in.gov/home.

In late summer 2009, the Supreme Court awarded nearly $350,000 to 12 courts across the state for the study and implementation of various programs designed to help courts streamline their operations. Under the Court Reform Grant (CRG) Program, grants of up to $30,000 are available for initial efficiency studies, while grants of up to $40,000 are available to put these study recom-mendations into action.

For the 2010 grant cycle, the Su-preme Court will give priority consid-eration to projects in the following areas:

Study or implementation of 1.

performance measures using

the National Center for State

Courts’ (NCSC’s) CourTools;

Modern court reporting 2.

technology;

Unifi ed court administration 3.

and budgeting on either a

county or district level; and

Cross-county programs, such 4.

as district problem-solving

courts.

Each of the projects funded in 2009 are representative of the types of proj-ects given special consideration. For example, Elkhart County Superior Court #4, Jennings County Circuit and Superior Courts, Martin Circuit Court, and Warren County each received grants ranging from $12,000 to $30,000 in order to purchase and install digital court reporting sys-tems. Clark Superior Court received a $40,000 grant to create a court administrator position; this adminis-trator will assume responsibility for core functions such as case manage-ment, budgeting and finance, human resources, planning and evaluation, and program coordination. Floyd County received a $30,000 grant to conduct a similar study evaluating means by which its court operations and administrative tasks could be streamlined.

Marion and Monroe counties each received $40,000 grants to imple-ment the National Center for State Courts’ CourTools program, which enables courts to collect and present evidence of their success in meet-ing the needs of litigants. Monroe County, a first-time CRG recipient,

...more than 1,100 attorneys, judges, and mediators received foreclosure prevention training

BY JAMES R. WALKER | DIRECTOR OF TRIAL COURT MANAGEMENTSTATE COURT ADMINISTRATION

CONTINUED ON PAGE 13

For further information about applying for a Court Reform Grant this year, contact Jim Walker, Director of Trial Court Management, at [email protected].

courtcourttimes times MAR/APR 2010MAR/APR 2010 77

Update on Court Reform Grants

PHO

TO. C

ourt

esy

of th

e M

iss

Am

eric

a O

rgan

izat

ion.

PHO

TO. C

ourt

esy

of C

lerk

Phi

llips

.

TO MOST PEOPLE IN TIPPECANOE COUNTY, LINDA PHILLIPS IS CLERK PHILLIPS. IN HER SECOND TERM AS THE COUNTY CLERK

SHE SPENDS HER DAYS ISSUING MARRIAGE LICENSES, HANDLING ELECTION MATTERS AND KEEPING TRACK OF THE NEARLY

35,000 NEW CASES FILED EACH YEAR IN THE COUNTY’S SEVEN COURTS OF RECORD. FEW PEOPLE REALIZE CLERK PHILLIPS IS

ALSO KNOWN BY THE MONIKER “SEQUIN QUEEN!”

“It is true, in some circles I am known as the Sequin Queen,” said Phillips who explained how the nickname came to pass. The one-time fashion student is an accomplished seamstress. Phillips acquired the skills as an undergraduate at the Fashion Institute of Technology at the State University of New York. She loved the work, but explained, “I quickly realized I was more attracted to the business end than the design end.” She moved back to Indiana to get a master’s degree in business from Purdue University. The lure of the fashion industry soon took a backseat to her business and public service career.

Through the years, Phillips contin-ued sewing, making many of her own clothes and some spectacular Hallow-een costumes for her children who over the years were dragons, Zorro and her personal favorite—the Energizer Bunny. Her runway world expertise has proved a valuable tool for a long-time family friend, Nicole Pollard, Miss Indiana 2009. Phillips and her husband have been longtime friends with Pollard’s parents. The Sequin Queen first met the future beauty queen when Nicole was four years-old. “Over the years that Nicole has competed in pageants, I have done her alterations, re-designed dresses, and sewn on more beads than I can count,” she recalled with a smile.

Phillips decided the one-thousand beads on the dress Nicole wore for the Miss Indiana pageant didn’t have enough sparkle. Linda said “I realized that it would be vastly more distinctive if it had more beads, so I sewed on about 10,000 more beads, crystals and sequins.” The work is labor intensive because bead-ing changes the size of the fabric panel.

“Beading draws up the fabric slightly, so I also had to insert bead covered lycra panels into the bodice so Nicole could draw enough breath to sing,” she noted. Nicole sparkled for the competition and took home the crown of Miss Indiana. The win catapulted her pageant career to the national stage and her seamstress was by her side.

In February 2010 Nicole represented Indiana in the 2010 Miss America Pageant. Phillips traveled to Las Vegas, Nevada to watch the competition and tend to last minute dress details, and re-flected on her experience. “It was a little crazy. One of the things I’ve learned over the years is never alter a dress until the last possible minute. Diets and workouts can cause the contestants to change size dramatically in a short time.” So while most of the Hoosier state was watching the Colts play-offs, “I was frantically re-beading a dress that was about four inches too big!”

Nicole’s dress for the talent portion of the Miss America pageant was a beaded lace overlay on two layers of silk taffeta. The strapless dress had about 5,000 beads and crystals, weighing about five pounds. “In order to hold it up, I built a waistline stay into the dress, removed a bunch of beads, altered each layer and then re-attached the beads” explained Phillips. “The dress was on stage for about 90 seconds and it took about 11 hours of work to alter!”

While Pollard didn’t take home the crown, Phillips said, “Nicole did a won-derful job representing Indiana. She looked stunning, her talent and inter-views were excellent, and her clothes fit perfectly!”

Clerk Linda Phillips TIPPECANOECOUNTY

BY KATHRYN DOLAN | PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, INDIANA SUPREME COURT

Top. Clerk Linda Phillips was once a fashion student and is an accomplished seamstress.

Below. Clerk Linda Phillips enhanced this gown worn by Miss Indiana Nicole Pollard for the talent portion of the Miss America Pageant.


CLERK'S CORNER

Indiana judges, clerks and their staff s don’t need to read statistical reports to know that thousands of cases are fl owing through their courts and that the number is constantly increasing. Th ey intuitively know from their daily work and the many litigants that come through their courts’ doors that state courts dispense justice in the United States. But if they wanted to verify this hunch, where is a good source to have it quantifi ed? A good place to start is the web site of the National Center for State Courts (NCSC or “the Center”).

The Center collects and analyzes data relating to the work of our na-tion’s state courts though the Court Statistics Project. And an interactive website through the NCSC provides users with tools for comparing and analyzing court data from all the state court systems.

But this is only one of hundreds of topics on which the NCSC provides resources to state courts. A quick look at the list of topics on the Cen-ter’s web site (www.ncsc.org) shows a myriad of relevant issues affecting state courts. Among the court top-ics are materials on Administrative Dispute Resolution, Budget Man-agement, Court Reporting, Drug Courts, Electronic Filing, Ethics and Discipline, Evidence Storage and Handling, Human Resource Manage-ment, Identity Thefts, Jury Manage-ment, Mental Health Courts, Public Access to Court Records, Technology Planning and Acquisition, Video Technology, Workload and Resource Assessment, and many, many more.

So what is the NCSC? It is an inde-pendent, nonprofit court improve-ment organization founded at the urging of former Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, Warren E. Burger. He envisioned the NCSC

as a clearinghouse for research information and comparative data to support improvement in judicial administration in the state courts. The Center’s main office is in Wil-liamsburg, VA, with smaller offices in Washington, D.C., Arlington, VA, and Denver, CO.

The “shareholders” of the NCSC are the Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ) and Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA). The Chief Justice who serves as the president of CCJ is also the Chair of the NCSC Board of Directors and the court administrator who serves as the President of COSCA serves as the Vice Chair of the NCSC Board of Directors. The Center also pro-vides association services to several other court related groups such as the American Judges Association (AJA), the National Association for Court Management (NACM), Coun-cil of Chief Judges of State Courts of Appeals (CCJSCA), Court Informa-tion Technology Officers Consor-tium (CITOC), the Conference of Court Public Information Officers (CCPIO) and others.

Similar to the National Conference of State Legislators and National Governors Association, the Center is

funded, in part, by annual dues paid by the state courts. Charitable con-tributions and revenues generated through the Center’s consulting arm provide additional sources of fund-ing for its operations. The Institute for Court Management is part of the NCSC, adding an educational cur-riculum especially designed for court managers.

The Center also has an international division which offers an array of research, consulting, education and information services to strengthen the rule of law in countries around the world. The Center’s consulting arm provides expert services to many courts needing assistance on a wide range of administrative, technologi-cal, organizational and other issues.

A Government Affairs office based in Washington DC maintains a close eye on federal legislation affecting state courts and particularly the availability of grant funding for state courts. The Center has been a vocal advocate for the state courts and their inclusion in grant programs that have traditionally been chan-neled though the states’ executive branches.

CONTINUED ON PAGE 13

Th eNational CenterforState Courts

BY LILIA G. JUDSON | EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATE COURT ADMINISTRATION


An Excellent Resource

Just as Jeff erson County’s Courthouse fi re of 2009 demonstrated the catastrophic impact of unforeseen events, ongoing efforts undertaken by the Allen County Courts are leading the way in preparing for such disruptions that could occur at any time. Agreeing to take the lead in helping to evolve the Indiana Courts Continuity Program in a way that will ultimately benefit all courts, Allen County has partnered with the Division of State Court Administration to test new components of continuity planning within the Indiana trial courts.

“The Courts in Allen County have benefited greatly by part-nering with the Division of State Court Administration and Trevor Moore for our C.O.O.P. planning process. Through a series of face-to-face meetings, which some of our Judges have been able to attend, we have been able to streamline the process and save time. We’re also on our way to having a meaningful, practical tool to use when the need should arise" said Jerry Noble, Court Executive, Allen Superior Court.

As planning in Allen County continues, it is clear that the most significant recent change to continuity planning within the Indiana courts is the creation of the Continuity Planning Analyst position and the implementation of a flexible, stream-lined format for plan development. The Continuity Planning Analyst provides a full-time, permanent resource for courts statewide. In addition to creating continuity procedures, docu-ments and tools, State Court Administration created the new position to assist courts by:

Providing continuity planning training and • guidance, and

Facilitating continuity planning activities such • as determining the essential functions of a particular court, development of recovery strategies and plans and testing plans through drills and simulation.

Enhancements to the plan format will allow courts to quickly develop a plan that addresses basic issues like command and control and communication. The plan can then be continual-ly improved over time through the addition of more in-depth components that cover specific considerations and recovery strategies for individual court functions. The flexibility of the plan format allows a court to start with a first-rate outline for an emergency and move to even more detailed and “robust” plans. When complete, a typical continuity plan will incor-porate a Line of Succession, Plan Activation Team, Internal and External Contact Lists, Essential Functions and Recovery Checklists that address Essential Functions.

Over the past few months in Allen County, Jerry Noble, Supe-rior Court Executive, and Tim Miller, Circuit Court Adminis-trator, have worked successfully to:

Develop a clear line of succession for leadership of 1. the Allen County Courts,

Compile complete contact information for all employ-2. ees as well as vendors and other government agen-cies,

Allen County Courts Prepare for the Unexpected

Starting with standard Plan Activation Instructions, courts will beginPlan Activation Team members and then compile contact informatiother external contacts.

BY TREVOR MOORE | CONTINUITY PLANNING SPECIALIST, STATE COURT ADMINISTRATION


Determination of who will lead activation of the plan and the team that will support initial impact assessments

Ensures the ability to communicate to employees and external parties by providing complete contact information

Definition and priority of Essential Functions and a guide to initial impact assessment and decision making

Detailed task lists to recover Essential Functions

Standard plan component covering initial notification and decision

The reconstruction of the Jefferson County Court-house is steadily progressing, according to the Jefferson County Commissioners. On May 20, 2009, just a few days after being repainted in anticipation of Madison’s upcoming Bicentennial Celebration, the roof and cupola of the 154-year-old courthouse were completely destroyed by fire. Efforts to stem the fire’s spread unfor-tunately resulted in water damage to the interior of the courthouse, including damage to most Circuit Court, juvenile, and probation records.

Jefferson County Courts are still adapting to this sudden loss, but are “just about back to normal,” says Circuit Court Judge Ted Todd. According to Judge Todd, the biggest adjustment was dealing with the incredible backlog of cases and disarray of files after the courts reopened on June 5, 2009. Clerk Kim Smith agrees, stating that although the courts have caught up on their caseload, her office is still diligently working on cataloguing and organizing the records removed from the courthouse. Most of these records are still in boxes, and are in no particular order. “There is a lot of hunt-ing,” she says, “but the public has been very patient.”

Following the fire, the Jefferson Circuit Court Clerk’s offices were temporarily transferred to the basement of the former Madison Bank and Trust building, approxi-mately one block west of the Courthouse, and the Cir-cuit Court itself was established in Venture Out Busi-ness Center on Madison’s hilltop. The Circuit Court has since moved across the street from the Courthouse. Jefferson Superior Court has relocated to Judge Alison T. Frazier’s former law office on East Second Street in downtown Madison.

Rough carpentry work on the roof was completed in early March, while masonry work, shingles, and the addition of copper downspouts are scheduled to be completed by March 22. On March 26, Jefferson County will receive and open bids for reconstruction of the courthouse cupola. The company chosen to perform this construction will build the cupola off-site, dismantle and ship it to Jefferson County, and rebuild it atop the courthouse.

After the cupola and roof have been completed, con-tractors will tackle the difficult and likely time-consum-ing task of mold remediation. As of yet, there is no end date set for this project, although Judge Todd states that he anticipates returning to the rebuilt Courthouse in approximately one year.

Defi ne the Essential Functions of the Civil, Criminal 3. and Family Relations divisions as well as of the Clerk and Administrative area, and

Prioritize the Essential Functions to determine which 4. must be recovered within the fi rst day following a disruption and which can be delayed.

The Division of State Court Administration is assisting in the efforts to develop recovery strategies and action plans for all Essential Functions of the Allen County courts. The goal is to ensure continuation of the most critical court services if impacted by disasters.

More information on the Indiana Courts Continuity Pro-gram is available on the Division of State Court Administra-tion website at: courts.in.gov/coop, or by contacting Trevor Moore by email at [email protected] or by phone at 317-234-7156.

Jeff erson County Courthouse Repair and Reconstruction

Slowly But Surely

n plan development by determining their Line of Succession and ion for employees as well as government agencies, vendors and


Victims of violence in Indiana can now file petitions seeking court pro-tection orders electronically from the privacy and safety of a victim advocate’s office or a domestic violence shelter. Over 250 victim advocates in more than 79 counties have been given access and trained to use a new Advocate Access site for the statewide Protection Order Registry (POR). Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) funds through the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute are support-ing these efforts.

Indiana’s Protection Order Registry began as a project to speed delivery of orders to law enforcement and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and to allow sharing of protection order information across county and state lines. The ultimate goal of the project was to increase victim safety through improved recordkeeping practices. The POR has largely been regarded as a suc-cess by courts, law enforcement, victim advocates, and the Indiana General Assembly, which enacted a law in 2009 requiring courts to use the system. That is when the Judicial Technology and Automation Committee (JTAC) staff turned its attention to extending the reach of the Registry so that victim advocates could use the system.

“I was excited when protection orders first became electronic,” said Linda Wilk, Director of Hands of Hope, a di-vision of Family Service Society, Inc., in Marion, Indiana, “but this new access for advocates takes it to a higher level in terms of victim care and protection.”

Victims of violence seeking a court protection order before the implementa-tion of this system had to visit a county clerk’s office and describe the intimate details of their abuse—an often intimi-dating experience. Now, a victim can sit in the privacy of an advocate’s office or a room at a shelter and tell her story without fear of being overheard or spot-ted by someone she knows, especially her abuser.

“The new Advocate Access to the POR improves victim safety in more ways than one,” said Kerry Hyatt Blomquist, Legal Director of the Indiana Coali-tion Against Domestic Violence. “The process of filing for a protection order is safer and more relaxed, and because of that, victims are able to give a more complete and thorough account of their experiences. This leads to a more

One Less Obstaclefor Abuse Victims Seeking Court Intervention

The process of fi ling for a protection order is safer and more relaxed, and...victims are able to give a more complete and thorough account of their experiences.

Left to right: Linda Wilk, Director of Hands of Hope, Family Service Society, Inc.; Justice Frank Sullivan, Jr., Indiana Supreme Court; Kerry Hyatt Blomquist, Legal Director of the Indiana Coalition Against Violence.

BY MARY L. DEPREZ | DIRECTOR & COUNSEL FOR TRIAL COURT TECHNOLOGYSTATE COURT ADMINISTRATION


BITS & BYTES

PHO

TO. Lindsey Borschel.

thorough request to the court for a protection order, and in turn improved enforcement by the police officers who are better informed by the contents of the petition and the order.”

How it worksAn advocate with access to the system is able to interview the person seeking protection while completing an online form through INcite, Indiana’s court extranet. The interview includes a description of events, the relationship of the parties, answers to the standard questions found on the protection or-der coversheet, and other details needed for the protection order. The online system generates a signature ready PDF petition and a confidential form that can be filed in the clerk’s office by ei-ther the victim or the victim’s advocate.

Once the petition is filed with the clerk of court, the clerk can import the electronic petition into the Protec-tion Order Registry, assign a court case number, and immediately forward the petition to the judge for review and ap-proval. For counties using the Odyssey case management system, a new feature is being piloted in DeKalb and Warren counties where the judge and clerk can exchange the case data between the POR and Odyssey. Following the pilot, this new functionality will be released to all counties that are using Odyssey.

To learn more about JTAC’s Protection Order Registry project, visit courts.in.gov/jtac.

Several Indiana courts have availed themselves of the Center’s expert con-sultant services. The Supreme Court and Court of Appeals have sought the Center’s advice on evaluating the tech-nology needs of the appellate courts; Center staff assisted the Supreme Court in recruiting and hiring an IT director for Appellate Technology; the Center also conducted a study for the Lake County Courts, and more recently the Center is conducting an evaluation for Clark County.

An invaluable resource is the Center’s library which holds over 36,000 items relating to court issues. The Library loans resources and provides photocopy services directly to members of the court community.

The Center’s Technology Division is instrumental in court technology efforts such as the Court Technology Confer-ence which is organized every two years, the development of national standards for court information, and vendor lists that help court managers find appropri-ate vendors for their technology needs.

Some recent Center projects included a public opinion poll, which is a first ever nationwide survey measuring public perception on how the three branches of government work together on public policy issues that affect the administra-tion of justice; a survey on court e-filing adoption and practices; work by the NCSC’s Center for Sentencing Initia-tive which contributed to a report from the Pew Charitable Trust showing that one in 31 US adults are behind bars, on parole or on probation; and the Third National Judicial Leadership Summit for the Protection of Children, which took place in Austin, Texas in 2009.

Indiana’s judges, clerks and their staffs will find the resources available through the National Center for State Courts extensive, timely and useful.

is partnering with the Supreme Court’s Judicial Technology and Automation Committee (JTAC) to design and ex-ecute the CourTools application, while Marion County is implementing the results of its previous CourTools study, funded by a 2008 Court Reform Grant.

Three counties are using Court Reform Grants awarded in 2009 to implement multijurisdictional problem-solving courts. Fountain and Warren counties are piloting a joint drug court that will help rehabilitate drug offenders with ad-diction issues. Drug courts have been shown to be cost-effective by reducing or eliminating incarceration time, and often demonstrate a lower recidivism rate than that of other courts. Madi-son County received a $30,000 grant to launch a Youth Court. Madison County Unified Courts already oper-ates three problem-solving courts: Drug Court, Mental Health Court, and Re-Entry Court. This grant will be used to pilot a court geared toward reha-bilitating juvenile offenders, as well as streamline and coordinate the county’s three existing problem-solving courts under one administration “umbrella” to reduce costs and resolve conflicts, gaps and inconsistencies in services.

For those courts interested in apply-ing for grants to be awarded in 2010, a completed grant application must be submitted by June 1. The Application for 2010 Court Reform Grants is avail-able on the Supreme Court’s website, courts.in.gov.

Court Reform Grants National CenterCONTINUED FROM PAGE 7 CONTINUED FROM PAGE 9


WHAT DO YOU LIKE MOST AND LEAST ABOUT BEING A TRIAL COURT JUDGE?

In Elkhart County we have a beautiful historic courthouse immaculately main-tained. An oil painting of Abraham Lincoln used as an election banner for the 1860 election hangs in my office. I look forward to greeting President Lin-coln each morning. My staff is person-able, polite, competent, and humorous. We work together well.

I love conducting jury trials in the Elkhart Circuit Court courtroom and watching lawyers work. Like most judges, adoptions are also a favorite type of case. Additionally, I enjoy working with other judges through my work with the Board of Directors of the Judicial Conference. In particular, the Strategic Planning Committee work has been both challenging and rewarding.

My least favorite part about the respon-sibilities of a judge is the amount of time spent sitting at a desk signing or countersigning orders and documents. Although necessary, this work seems less productive than interaction with lawyers, litigants, and witnesses.

WHAT WAS YOUR MAJOR AT INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND WHY DID YOU DECIDE TO STUDY LAW?

I graduated from Indiana State Uni-versity with a major in Economics and minors in Business and Geography.

After college I was employed by United Airlines for approximately five years. While at United I worked in the Con-tract Services area with the Legal De-partment, selling surplus aircraft. From this experience I became interested in law, enrolled at the DePaul University Law School in Chicago, and later trans-ferred to the Notre Dame University Law School, graduating in 1975.

WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOU WERE NOT A JUDGE?

It is likely I would still be practicing law. Once a trial lawyer – always a trial lawyer! If this did not work out as a trial lawyer or judge, I would be riding horses on a ranch somewhere in the West.

WHO ARE THE PEOPLE YOU MOST ADMIRE?

Fortunately, I have two wonderful parents who are excellent role models. Both of them emphasized the need for education. Both were involved in my activities and school events. They instilled a strong work ethic in their children.

In addition to my parents I admire two high school coaches, Mr. Malloy and Mr. Martin, who taught me to compete in sports as well as life. These lessons learned early in life have been important many times to me in my legal career.

Finally, I greatly admire my wife who patiently deals with me and my job.

WHAT ARE YOUR HOBBIES OR FAVORITE LEISURE ACTIVITIES?

For nearly thirty years I have been a director of the Elkhart County 4-H Fair, serving in a variety of areas. This county fair is one of the largest in the nation. Both of my children were 10-year members of the 4-H Saddle Club. Horses became a part of my life through a civil case as a young attorney. Our family has raised foals, participated in horse shows, trained horses to drive a cart or pull a sleigh, and camped with horses in the mountains. For me, horses are a good outlet from the daily stress of the courtroom. You can always talk to your horse; things will be fine as long as the horse does not talk back! And working with young horses teaches one that patience is truly a virtue.

Additionally, I love living on a lake. All of my family is involved in boating and water sports of all types. My wife and I taught our two grandsons to water ski when they were very young. The 4th of July holiday is special on our lake, and we always have a house full of guests.

THIS IS THE EIGHTH OF OUR COURT TIMES ARTICLES THAT HIGHLIGHT UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL A MEMBER OF THE INDIANA

JUDICIARY. ELKHART COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE TERRY C. SHEWMAKER IS OUR JUDGE FEATURED IN THIS ISSUE. JUDGE

SHEWMAKER WAS FIRST ELECTED AS CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE IN 1998, AND RE-ELECTED IN 2004. HE GRADUATED FROM INDIANA

STATE UNIVERSITY, CUM LAUDE, IN 1969, AND ATTENDED DEPAUL LAW SCHOOL AND NOTRE DAME LAW SCHOOL WHERE HE

RECEIVED HIS DOCTOR OF JURISPRUDENCE IN 1975. HE SERVED AS DEPUTY PROSECUTOR AND CHIEF DEPUTY PROSECUTOR

IN ELKHART COUNTY PRIOR TO HIS ELECTION TO THE BENCH IN 1998. HE IS A FORMER CHAIR OF THE CRIMINAL BENCHBOOK

COMMITTEE, A FORMER MEMBER OF THE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE COMMITTEE, AND CURRENTLY SERVES AS A MEMBER OF THE

BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF INDIANA. HE SERVES AS CO-CHAIR OF THE STRATEGIC PLANNING

COMMITTEE FOR THE JUDICIARY.

Hon. Terry C. Shewmaker

BY JAMES F. MAGUIRE | STAFF ATTORNEY, STATE COURT ADMINISTRATIONSIDEBAR


WHAT ARE YOUR FAVORITE BOOKS, AND HAVE YOU READ ANY RECENTLY, OR ARE READING NOW, THAT YOU WOULD RECOMMEND?

I have read and continue to read many best sellers. I also enjoy historical ac-counts of true events.

Presently, aside from a number of horse periodicals, I am reading The Life and Times of the Thunderbolt Kid, by Bill Bryson. My older brother gave me this book with his highest recommenda-tion. In his book, Mr. Bryson describes life, changing times, and growing up in small town America in the 1950’s (a subject with which I am familiar.) Spontaneous, audible and unexpected laughter occurs regularly as I read this book, since many of my own childhood experiences mirror those of the author. I LOVE THIS BOOK!

WHERE DID YOU GROW UP AND HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE YOUR CHILDHOOD?

I had a great childhood growing up in Terre Haute, Indiana with my parents and two brothers. Since I was the middle child, I had the advantage of learning from my older brother.

Both parents encouraged us to reach out to others, be fair, work hard, and achieve one’s own potential. I often stayed with my grandparents on their

farm. On summer break from school, I worked on the farm and for my father’s construction company. My father reserved the most distasteful jobs for my brothers and me to encourage us to further our education. Ultimately this experience led to a highly developed sense of humor in addition to an educa-tion.

During junior high and high school I participated in various activities, includ-ing Student Government, football, basketball and track

Having two parents in my life was a blessing.

DO YOU HAVE A FAVORITE QUOTE?

As a former trial attorney I appreciate counsels’ efforts expended to prepare for a hearing or trial. The following quotes from two outstanding litigators express my thoughts about preparation:

“I will get ready and then perhaps my chance will come.”

—Abraham Lincoln

“I would rather be a regular per-son who is eloquently prepared, than a person with an extraordi-narily high I.Q. who hasn’t been bright enough to prepare.”

—Gerry Spence

WHERE IS YOUR FAVORITE VACATION SPOT?

The western United States holds a special attraction for me. I love the mountains and the history surrounding the settlement of the West. Arizona is my favorite state because of the vari-ance in terrain, elevation, climate and vegetation.

I also love summers at Simonton Lake where I live.

WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE MEAL, RECIPE, RESTAURANT?

I enjoy Italian food of all types. Any Italian restaurant can be a favorite out-ing.

The Cowboy Judge

Judge Shewmaker describes the photo at left this way: On the sorrel horse is Bruce Coughennower (he owns a feed store in Arizona). In the middle is Mel Pritt from Shipshewana, Indiana (he spends the winter in Arizona and is a former client of mine when I practiced law). I am on the right on the bay horse. The bay horse did not have a “name.” He was called 88. So as my Administrative Assistant, Cheryl Jackson says: “I am riding through the desert on a horse with no name.” This photo was taken by Dave Foutz, a teacher friend of mine from Elkhart County, just North of Cave Creek Arizona in the Spur Cross Ranch Recreation area, following a 12-hour horse ride from the North side of Phoenix to Seven Springs.


PHOTO. Dave Foutz.

The Office of the Public Defender of Indiana has been recognized as a

Law Office Climate Challenge Part-ner by the American Bar Association (ABA). Public Defender of Indiana, Susan Carpenter, explained, “We are pleased to be a part of a program that will help the environment and allow In-diana to see savings from reduced paper consumption and lower printing costs.”

The ABA Section of Environment, En-ergy and Resources (SEER) partnered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to encourage law offices and organizations to take practical steps to become more energy-efficient and environmentally conscious. The Indi-ana Public Defender’s office is taking part in the initiative and has become a Climate Challenge Partner.

The office has modified its print server to shift printing from laser printers to copiers. This reduces the per sheet cost for printing because copier ink is much cheaper than toner cartridges for laser printers. The change also reduces con-sumption of paper because the copiers have the capability, unlike most laser printers, to print on both sides of a sheet of paper and to print multiple pages per side. “By making this change, the Public Defender’s Office has adopted best practices for paper management, and we anticipate a substantial savings to the state because of reduced paper consumption and lower costs for copier

ink compared to the expensive toner for printers,” explained Chief Deputy Public Defender of Indiana, Bill Polansky.

Law offices and organizations can meet the Climate Challenge by adopting best practices for office paper manage-ment or by participating in one or more of three voluntary EPA partnership programs. Indiana courts and agencies continue to demonstrate a commitment to diminishing paper waste. In April 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals be-came the first court in the country to be named a Law Office Climate Challenge Partner for implementing a comprehen-sive plan to reduce paper use within its offices. For more information about the ABA’s Climate Challenge program, visit www.abanet.org/environ/climat-

echallenge/partners.shtml.

The Public Defender of Indiana is a state-funded agency that provides representation to indigent incarcer-ated individuals in post-conviction relief cases to assure the fundamental fairness of the criminal justice system. It provides post-conviction counsel to indigent defendants in all capital cases and to eligible indigent defendants in non-capital cases. The Public Defender is appointed by the Indiana Supreme Court.

For more information on the Public Defender visit courts.in.gov/defender. For more information on the office’s green effort contact Bill Polansky at (317) 232-2475 or bpolansky@pdo.

in.gov or Kathryn Dolan at (317) 234-4722 or [email protected] .us.

Indiana Public Defender Goes GreenIN EFFORT TO HELP

ENVIRONMENT

AND SAVE INDIANA

TAXPAYER MONEY

BY KATHRYN DOLAN | PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, INDIANA SUPREME COURT


PHO

TO. K

athr

yn D

olan

.

For most of us, the holidays mean family, home, and a time for cel-

ebration. This past December 17, the Marion County Superior Court, Probate Division, helped to make that the reality for sixty-one children in Marion County. On a day set aside specifically for adoption hearings, Judge Tanya Walton Pratt, who presides over the Probate Division, finalized thirty adoptions, which is twice the number of non-contested adoptions she handles on a normal Thursday.

In 2009, Judge Walton Pratt reinstated the fifteen-year tradition that was origi-nally implemented by the late Judge Charles Deiter. The tradition arose out of a small Adoption Christmas Party started by Judge Deiter’s adoption coordinator. She cooked snacks for the families and started the tradition of providing each child with a stuffed animal. As the number of families and children taking advantage of the adop-tion holiday party increased, so did the celebration that went along with the day. The 2009 celebration included a visit from Santa Claus and a proclama-tion from Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard that December 17, 2009, was Adoption Awareness Day in Marion County. In keeping with tradition, each child received a stuffed animal and goodie bag, each family received a tree ornament, and photographs were taken.

There are an estimated 510,000 chil-dren in foster care in the United States with more than 129,000 of them wait-ing to be adopted. In Marion County alone there are hundreds of children who are eagerly waiting to find loving, safe, stable and secure homes. In 2009, a total of 614 children were adopted in Marion County in non-contested adoption hearings, with 309 of those children coming from the foster care system. Judge Walton Pratt said that

she reinstated the adoption day event in 2009 “to bring attention to the fact that children are waiting to be adopted, to dispel some of the myths and fears surrounding adoption, and to show appreciation to the families, lawyers, and stakeholders who participate in the adoption process.” She wants prospec-tive parents to know that they do not have to be rich, married, own a home or be of a certain age or race to become an adoptive parent. Adoptive families do not have to be traditional family units, and Judge Walton Pratt believes that “families that adopt children are unsung heroes of our community and they deserve support from their fami-lies, friends, and public agencies.”

Many of the day’s adoptions involved multiple children, including groups of siblings, and children with special needs. For Judge Walton Pratt, another of the event’s goals is to explain the somewhat misleading term “special needs.” Special needs can mean that the child is older, a minority, or requires placement of sib-lings, as well as physical and emotional concerns. All of the adoptions were non-contested and the Probate Court intentionally set the schedule so that approximately 75% of the children were from the Department of Child Services. One family in particular stands out for Judge Walton Pratt. A grandmother adopted her five grandchildren after her

thirty-year-old daughter passed away ear-lier in the year from a hereditary disor-der. One of the five grandchildren also suffers from the same disorder. Because the biological father had been unable to care for the children, the grandmother had become the children’s foster mother pending the adoption.

There is an annual National Adoption Day held on a Saturday in November each year where families, adoption advo-cates, policymakers, judges and volun-teers come together to celebrate adop-tion in communities large and small across the nation. Judge Walton Pratt wanted to model the Marion County event after the national day. Because Marion County actually conducts adop-tion hearings, it could not participate in the national event because it occurs on a Saturday.

For other courts interested in holding a similar event, Judge Walton Pratt stresses the importance of supportive court staff and attorneys. The Probate Division has two adoption/mental health coordinators who were instru-mental in enabling sixty-one children to be adopted during the Marion County event. The coordinators played an invaluable role in setting up the event and coordinating with attorneys to make certain that all paperwork was complete so that the proceedings could run smoothly and quickly. In addition, the adoption attorneys practicing in Marion County were supportive of the event, recommended clients to include on the schedule, and donated gifts for the children and families.

Judge Walton Pratt recognizes that “ev-ery child yearns for permanency in his or her life and deserves a loving parent or parents.” The 2009 Adoption Day Holiday event allowed sixty-one chil-dren to receive the gift of family. Judge Walton Pratt intends to hold this event again this year, and with the community awareness raised by last year’s event, 2010 promises to provide even greater cause for celebration.

Mass AdoptionsMARION COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT PROBATE DIVISION

BY MICHELE E. LOFTHOUSE | STAFF ATTORNEY, STATE COURT ADMINISTRATION

“Families that adopt children are unsung heroes of our community and they deserve support from their families, friends, and public agencies.”


Reporting the professional misconduct of a colleague or contemporary is never an easy task. For many judges, their most difficult duty may be deciding whether to report an ethical violation by another judge or an attorney. But, it also may be their most important.

As a day-to-day observer of other judges and attorneys, judges often have the best vantage point to notice patterns of recurring ethical violations, to observe substance abuse or mental health problems, or to learn about serious wrongdoing which might otherwise go undetected. Not only is it desirable for judges to take appropriate action in such circumstances, but it is critical to maintain the public’s respect for our justice system.

Of course, as most judges know, not all ethical violations are created equally and addressing ethical misconduct suitably is not always a simple equation. While a judge often can effectively resolve minor violations with a sincere and frank discussion with the judicial colleague or attorney, the judge may find that a series of minor violations is indicative of a bigger problem which requires more significant action. Similarly, although a judge may find that a referral to the

Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program (JLAP) usually is a humane and just way to handle a judge’s or lawyer’s substance abuse problem, there certainly are times when the contemporary’s substance abuse is so pronounced and so detrimen-tal to the public that a judge must elevate his or her response.

A judge may also struggle with the fact that not all information received about the alleged ethical misconduct of another judge or attorney is of the same caliber. For instance, a letter penned by a disgruntled litigant who has been known to stretch the truth does not carry the same weight as a trusted staff person who reluctantly discloses infor-mation about misconduct he or she observed.

In balancing these considerations, many judges are left wondering: Exactly when am I obligated to report alleged ethi-cal violations that come to my attention? Under Rule 2.15 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge is required to inform the appropriate disciplinary authority when the judge has knowledge that another judge or lawyer has committed an ethical violation that “raises a sub-stantial question regarding the judge’s [or lawyer’s] honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a judge [or lawyer].” However, the judge only must take “appropriate action” if the judge receives credible in-formation which indicates a substantial likelihood that another judge or lawyer has violated the Code of Judicial Con-duct or Rules of Professional Conduct.

Additionally, Rule 2.14 of the Code of Judicial Conduct further specifies that, when addressing issues of professional impairment due to substance abuse or mental, emotional, or physical condi-tions, “appropriate action” may include a confidential referral to JLAP. Com-ment 2 to Rule 2.14, however, warns that, “Depending upon the gravity of the conduct [resulting from the impair-ment] …the judge may be required to

Disciplinary Responsibility of Judges and the Duty to Report Ethical Misconduct

Trial courts can seek advice on judicial ethics issuesby contacting Adrienne Meiring directly at

(317) 232-4706 or [email protected].

BY ADRIENNE MEIRINGCOUNSEL TO THE INDIANA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS

Exactly when am I obligated to report alleged ethical violations that come to my attention?

ASK ADRIENNE


AJS PRESENTS DWIGHT D. OPPERMAN AWARD TO CHIEF JUSTICE SHEPARD HON. RANDALL T. SHEPARD, Chief Jus-tice of the Indiana Supreme Court, has been selected as the recipient of the Sixth Annual Dwight D. Opper-man Award for Judicial Excellence. The award was presented on April 14 at a luncheon during the Judicial Conference Spring Judicial College.

LAKE COUNTY COURTS BUILDING NAMED FOR JUSTICE ROBERT D. RUCKERThe Lake County Superior Court House in Gary will be named the Robert D. Rucker Building in honor of Indiana Supreme Court JUSTICE ROBERT RUCKER who is a Gary native.

NOBLE COUNTY JUDGE KRAMER WINS NATIONAL AWARD FOR DRUG COURTNoble Superior JUDGE MICHAEL J. KRAMER was named an Advocate of the Year at the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America’s National Leadership Forum in Wash-ington, D.C.

NEW ATTORNEYS AT STATE COURT ADMINISTRATION[These three new lawyers were hired to replace five lawyers who have left employment with State Court Administration.]

DOYAL MCLEMORE comes to us from Fort Wayne where he practiced law, and will be working on our Trial Court Management Team.

MICHELE LOFTHOUSE joins us after practicing law in Indianapolis and Greenfield and will be dividing her time between Judicial Qualifications and the Public Defender Commis-sion.

ELIZABETH DAULTON will be working primarily as our Project Manager for the Mortgage Foreclosure Settlement Conference project. She was sworn in last fall and married the next day. She is from the Madison, Ind. area and attended Berea College in Kentucky.

take other action, such as reporting the impaired judge or lawyer to the appro-priate authority, agency, or body.”

This means that, as a general rule, a judge will want to consider the fol-lowing five variables when deciding whether he or she is ethically obligated to report the alleged ethical violations of a fellow judge or lawyer to a disciplin-ary body: 1) the amount and quality of a judge’s information (rumor vs. firsthand knowledge); 2) the seriousness of the offense (technical vs. substantial violation); 3) the impact of the offense (substantial harm could or did result vs. no harm); 4) the possible remedial mea-sures a judge could take; and 5) whether prior attempts to address the violation have gone unheeded by the offending judge or lawyer. The first three vari-ables carry more weight than the latter two, as a judge bears a higher burden to report serious misconduct which harms others, even if there are other remedial options that the judge could take.

So what types of conduct raise a “sub-stantial question regarding the judge’s [or lawyer’s] honesty, trustworthiness, or fi tness” to serve or practice?

The Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct does not provide specific examples of the types of conduct that constitute seri-ous misconduct, but other jurisdictions, such as Arizona and Massachusetts have published lists of ethical violations which activate the duty to report. (See Arizona Advisory Opinion 03-3 and Massachusetts Code of Judicial Code, commentary to Section 3D). Similar to the examples found in the Arizona and Massachusetts commentary, the follow-ing conduct is sufficiently serious that it likely triggers the reporting requirement in Indiana:

Criminal or Deceitful Conduct• – Deceitful conduct may include giving false testimony under oath or tamper-ing with or falsifying court papers;

Sexual Misconduct/Harassment• – This includes unwanted, overt sexual advances to staff, colleagues, or mem-bers of the public that rises to the

level of harassment, but more minor misconduct, such as isolated inappro-priate comments, may be handled by taking other appropriate measures;

Abuse of the Prestige of Offi ce/• Abuse of Power – This includes misusing appointment power to show favoritism, attempting to use judicial status to receive favorable treatment during a traffic encounter, and tampering with or attempting to influence improperly the judicial action of another judge or a pending police investigation;

Pattern of Substance Abuse or Serial • Neglect – While taking other actions may be appropriate initially, a judge’s duty to report commences when a lawyer’s or judge’s substance abuse or neglect becomes routine or threatens to injure others;

Repeated Profane or Abusive Behav-• ior in Court/Conduct Bringing Judi-ciary into Disrepute – While an occa-sional language slip-up may not merit the attention of a disciplinary body, repeated abusive behavior by a judge or lawyer affects public perceptions of justice and tarnishes the reputation of the legal system as a whole.

Certainly, this list is not meant to be exhaustive, as other situations may arise which prompts a judge’s reporting obli-gation. Ultimately, for judges who are wrestling with the decision whether to report particular misconduct, the best advice may be Jiminy Cricket’s words to the wise to “always let your conscience be your guide.”* After all, if a judge finds himself or herself deeply bothered by information, then likely others will view the matter equally as troubling. Of course, judges are always welcome to call me for assistance with evaluating these issues. I promise not to whistle.

*Lyric from “Give a Little Whistle” (performed by Jiminy Cricket, voice of Cliff Edwards) in Disney’s cartoon classic, Pinocchio (1940).


SPOTLIGHT

courttimes now hasa blog!Our newsletter is now available entirely online in a searchable website with email subscription.

courts.IN.gov/times

If you like the blog version bet-ter than the magazine, you can unsubscribe from the paper ver-sion by emailing Andrea Rusk at [email protected].

Subscribe to the blog by email or with the RSS reader of your choice.


Indiana Supreme CourtDivision of State Court Administration30 South Meridian Street, Suite 500Indianapolis, IN 46204

EDITORIAL BOARD

Lilia G. Judson, PublisherExecutive Director, State Court Admin.

David J. Remondini, Managing EditorChief Deputy Executive Director, State Court Admin.

James F. Maguire, EditorStaff Attorney, State Court Admin.

Lindsey Borschel, Publication DesignerWeb Coordinator, State Court Admin./JTAC

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 by mail or email at [email protected].

CONTRIBUTORS

Lilia G. Judson, Executive Director,State Court Administration

Mary L. DePrezDirector & Counsel for Trial Court Technology, State Court Admin. / JTAC

James R. WalkerDirector of Trial Court Management,State Court Administration

Adrienne MeiringCounsel, Commission on Judicial Qualifi cations, State Court Administration

Mary K. HudsonProblem-Solving Court Administrator,Indiana Judicial Center

James F. MaguireStaff Attorney, State Court Administration

Michele E. LofthouseStaff Attorney, State Court Administration

Elizabeth DaultonStaff Attorney, State Court Administration

Kathryn DolanPublic Information Offi cer, Indiana Supreme Court

Trevor MooreContinuity Planning Specialist,State Court Administration

PLEASE CIRCULATE TO CO-WORKERS

This newsletter reports on important administrative matters. Please keep for future reference.

Documents

Indiana Court Times 19.2