Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard gives an emotional goodbye to Supreme Court employees during a staff-hosted retirement celebration. (Photo by Lindsey Borschel)

See photos from Chief Justice Shepard’s Retirement Ceremony on Flickr

Editor’s Note: We bid adieu and bon voyage in this issue of Court Times to our leader as he embarks on the next leg of his remarkable life journey and career. We have no adequate words to express our deep gratitude and warm admiration for all he has done in the 25 years that he has served as Indiana’s Chief Justice.

Because he has had such a lasting impact on the trial judges in Indiana, we are printing a tribute to him delivered by the Honorable Charles F. Pratt, Judge, Allen Superior Court, that includes the words and observations of some of these judges. Judge Pratt spoke these words on April 14, 2010 in Indianapolis during the presentation of the American Judicature Society’s Sixth Annual Dwight D. Opperman Award for Judicial Excellence to Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard. An excerpted version of Judge Pratt’s remarks follows.

Ours is a state about which we have much to boast. Yet it often goes against our Hoosier roots to do so. Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard is no exception and as we celebrate the Dwight D. Opperman Award, he will quickly state that his achievement is actually a reflection of Indiana’s judiciary. However, it is clearly because of his leadership that we Indiana Judges have been able to envision a better judiciary for our state.

Included in the qualities required to be recognized with the prestigious Dwight D. Opperman Award is the ability to reinforce collegial ties within the judicial branch. As Indiana trial judges can tell you, the hallmark of the Chief Justice’s gifts is his ability to engage in what can be best characterized as Collegial Leadership—a leadership that recognizes that we are his colleagues, working together to improve our collective and individual service to Indiana citizens.

Randall T. Shepard is sworn into office in 1985 by the late Gov. Robert D. Orr.

Through his leadership, new reforms and innovations have become the norm for Indiana. These reforms put our state at the forefront in many areas.

In any given year over 300 Indiana judicial officers regularly meet in various committees to consider improvements in our practice. In the midst of this work the Chief Justice encourages us to stretch beyond conventional paradigms. In addition to standing committees, the Chief Justice has sought our input on every innovation and proposed reform. Through his leadership and this collaborative process we can employ Alternative Dispute Resolution, Family Courts, Drug Courts, Truancy Courts, Mental Health Courts, Child Support Guidelines, Protective Orders, pro se services, jury reform, family group decision making practices, dependency facilitation, and technological improvements that include collaboration with other agencies including the state police and the BMV. Just to name a few.

He is indeed a visionary leader who has chosen to walk with us as he leads.

By his collaboration with the other branches of government he has paved the way for us to secure much needed raises and improvements in pension plans. He has ensured that we, the local trial judges, are granted a direct voice with the legislature in matters important to the judiciary. He has never failed to provide Indiana Trial Judges with the needed support when we find ourselves at the precipice of controversial issues.

Possibly the greatest attribute that the Chief Justice brings to his Collegial Leadership is his humility. Today is one such example. In consideration of today’s recognition he e-mailed me:

“…so many of the things for which I was nominated are in fact accomplishments in which trial judges and court staff have played such important roles. I see this award as commending all of us in the Indiana judiciary for the many positive things that have been happening here…”

What he failed to say, however, was that we are only able to embrace reforms because he has empowered us to be so engaged. In addition, as new reforms prosper he is content to allow the local judge to receive the accolades.

Members of the Supreme Court following Shepard's selection as Chief; left to right: Hon. Roger O. DeBruler, Hon. Richard M. Givan, Hon. Randall T. Shepard, Hon. Brent E. Dickson, and Hon. Alfred J. Pivarnik. (Photo by University of Notre Dame)

Lest one may sense that my comments are simply my own, allow me to “walk” across Indiana through the comments I received from Indiana’s trial judges:

We begin our journey around Indiana at the northwest corner of our state:

Judge Mary Harper, Porter Circuit Court:

“Under his guidance, we now are able to assist individuals in our day-in and day-out case work. We are no longer seeing just defeat—that is those who re-offend or violate probation. Rather we are now able to congratulate drug-free clients and we are able to watch the rebuilding of families. From the development of Mental Health Courts to Family Courts he has led us from a system of granting and denying to one of developing and helping.”

In nearby Lake County:

Judge Mary Beth Bonaventura, Lake Superior Court—Juvenile Division:

“Chief Justice Shepard is not just reactive to national trends but proactive in exploring and adopting trend setting procedures such as allowing cameras in the court rooms of juvenile courts for ground breaking projects: allowing young people and parents to witness the results of poor choices and behaviors as it relates to juvenile delinquency and child abuse and neglect.”

Moving east across the state to Northeast Indiana:

Judge Fran Gull, Allen Superior Court:

“Indiana is leading the country in jury reform as a direct result of the Chief Justice’s leadership in examining jury trials across the state and the adoption of new jury rules.”

A few miles south of Allen County we enter Adams County:

Judge Fred Schurger, Adams Circuit Court:

“The Chief Justice has demonstrated himself to be pro-judge. I am amazed by his ability to discern trends that are coming and to correctly determine where Indiana should be within those trends.”

Hon. Randall T. Shepard is sworn for his fourth term as Chief Justice in 2002 by late Gov. Frank O'Bannon.

Travelling to Central Indiana:

Judge Steven David, Boone Circuit Court (now Indiana Supreme Court Justice Steven David):

One of the Chief Justice’s early State of the Judiciary addresses profoundly influenced Judge Steve David:

“The Chief Justice encouraged us to step out from behind the bench, to have an impact as a community player and to take leadership risks for the benefit of the people we are elected to serve. His call to duty was not empty as he provided us with continued support in our steps to shift the paradigm of our office.”

And then to neighboring Indianapolis:

Judge Tanya Pratt, Marion Superior Court (now Federal Court Judge Tanya Pratt, United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana):

“At the urging of Chief Justice Shepard, the State of Indiana launched an ambitious effort to increase the number of minority, low-income and non-traditional students in Indiana’s law schools. The Indiana Conference for Legal Education for Opportunity (ICLEO) has changed the face of the Indiana legal community for over 11 years. Our Chief Justice has always encouraged and promoted diversity within the Indiana Judiciary. He has been extremely supportive of my career and offers wisdom, guidance and professional support to the judges who serve in the Indiana State judiciary.”

Chief Justice Shepard with seven of the eleven Justices with whom he served during his 27 years on the bench; left to right: Hon. Robert D. Rucker, Hon. Randall T. Shepard, Hon. Theodore R. Boehm, Hon. Myra C. Selby, Hon. Roger O. DeBruler, Hon. Steven H. David, Hon. Brent E. Dickson, and Hon. Frank Sullivan, Jr. (Photo by John Gentry)

Moving to the Southeast:

Judge James Humphrey, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Dearborn and Ohio Counties:

“Justice Shepard understands what it means to be a trial judge. He has given us the tools to make the process work and the discretion to get the cases tried.”

Judge Roger Duvall, Scott Circuit Court:

“The Chief Justice has made tremendous efforts to make new judges feel welcome and comfortable within the Judges Association. The services he has made available to new judges are extraordinary. As a personal example of that support I am grateful to recall a New Years Eve several years ago. The Chief Justice considered it a priority to brave a winter snow storm as he travelled to Scott County to swear in myself, another judge, and the prosecutor.”

We continue our travel to Southern Indiana:

Judge Vicki Carmichael, Clark Superior Court No. 1:

“The Chief Justice is one of those rare individuals who remembers a person’s name and knows something about them. He always has a comment for new judges and young judges. Regardless of our status within the judiciary, he has always made a point to treat everyone with respect and fairness. As a result, our profession has been enhanced.”

We travel westward across to the central area:

Judge Frances Hill, Monroe Circuit Court, Division 6:

“In 1997, Chief Justice Randall Shepard said in his State of the Judiciary that ‘a family court is a place where you deal with the whole family in a single courtroom regardless of the label.’ From that day forth, the Chief Justice has gently, but with dogged determination, advocated for innovative ways to serve our families and children in the court system. His imperative that we should always strive to better meet the needs of the people we serve, is the mark of excellence that he has stamped on the Indiana judiciary, and the yard stick I use to measure my own efforts as a Judge. I am proud and grateful that he has set the bar so high for each one of us.”

Then we go to Indiana’s southern tip—a place known well to Justice Shepard:

Judge Brett Niemeyer, Vanderburgh Superior Court:

“We’re proud he’s from Evansville. He’s made the state and his home town proud.”

Back up along the western border to the central western area:

Judge Susan Henderson, Fountain County Circuit Court:

“Over the years Chief Justice Randall Shepard has lead by example. He sets expectations for us and encourages creative thinking to prepare for problems that are yet only on the horizon. He recognizes there is no one-size-fits-all and supports innovative programs that may become models for courts across the State.”

Judge John Rader, Warren Circuit Court:

“When I meet with judges from other states and discuss the resources we have available, they are amazed. The breadth of support that we have, thanks to the Chief Justice’s leadership, range from extraordinary judicial education to services that include judicial balance and the judicial assistance program—all of which work to help us do our jobs better. We are the envy of other state judiciaries.”

We end our tour in Indianapolis:

In acknowledging that the employees of the “Supreme Court Enterprises” are proud to be on his team, Executive Director Lilia Judson wrote:

“When Chief Justice Shepard took the helm, his goal was to bring the Indiana judiciary to a place where other states would ask: “what does Indiana say and what has Indiana done?” Under his leadership, Indiana courts have reached and surpassed this goal. From an administrative perspective, Chief Justice Shepard’s visionary leadership has empowered our staff and the trial courts to implement innovative ways to deal with the ever more challenging problems facing our courts. We are constantly improving the delivery of justice in Indiana because he never stops thinking about how we can do better. At the same time, his legal acumen and scholarship have brought a new level of respect and recognition for Indiana jurisprudence.”

Jane Siegel, Executive Director of the Judicial Center adds:

“In addition to delivering his vision, the Chief Justice ensures that we in the Supreme Court family are given the support we need to achieve these goals.”

This award recognizes, and these testimonials clearly demonstrate, that we are uniquely blessed as a judiciary to have a visionary leader at the helm. As a result, we are better judges and the people we are called to serve are the beneficiaries.

As we encounter the future, and the challenges it brings to our profession, we can be assured that we will have a voice in the required resolutions and we can be further assured that in our Chief Justice, we will have a leader who listens as a colleague.

Chief Justice Shepard, on behalf of the Indiana Trial Judges, we thank you and extend our heartfelt congratulations.

The reflections from Judge Pratt and the other trial judges represent just a small sampling of the deep regard in which the Chief Justice is held throughout Indiana.

In all other Indiana counties, the circuit or superior courts hear and resolve small claims cases. In Marion County, nine divisions of the Marion County Small Claims Court system handle collection disputes and landlord-tenant matters with a $6,000 limit.

Chief Justice Shepard in January 2012 appointed a two-person Small Claims Task Force—Court of Appeals Judge John Baker and Senior Judge Betty Barteau, a former Court of Appeals Judge—to investigate allegations that the Marion County Small Claims Courts do not meet fairness and impartiality standards.

Both Judge Baker and Judge Barteau spent several years presiding over small claims cases. Judge Baker served as a Superior Court judge in Monroe County and Judge Barteau was Boonville City Judge in Warrick County. They each have extensive experience at every level of the judicial system. Chief Justice Shepard describes both as possessing “deep knowledge and understanding of the Indiana justice system and the crucial role of impartial courts.”

The Small Claims Task Force conducted three public hearings during which it sought comments from the public about the practices and procedures of the Marion County Small Claims Courts. More than 200 local residents attended these hearings, held on February 22 in Perry Township, February 29 in Pike Township, and March 7 in Marion Circuit Court. About 50 individuals—including collection attorneys, landlords, tenants, small claims defendants, law students, pro bono attorneys, and a state senator—testified before the Task Force. A certified court reporter attended each hearing to ensure a written, accurate transcript of the statements. The Task Force accepted additional written comments on the small claims courts until March 15 and is conducting a thorough research of the statues, rules, case law and other authorities relating to these courts.

The nine Marion County Small Claims Judges, under the leadership of Marion Circuit Court Judge Louis Rosenberg who has certain statutory responsibilities in regards to those courts, have also met and formed a plan of action in response to these allegations, including a plan to post brochures in all courtrooms detailing litigants’ rights and responsibilities. The Task Force hopes to complete the fact-finding process and submit any recommendations for rule changes to the Supreme Court’s Rules Committee by May 2012. Legislative recommendations will be forwarded to the Commission on Courts.

View the Task Force Report released on May 1, 2012

See photos from the Task Force public hearings on Flickr

Click to enlarge (Photo by Dave Remondini)

See more photos from the CASA Rally on Flickr

Volunteers from Indiana’s Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) programs came from across the state and took part in a rally in Indianapolis on March 5th. Approximately 350 people clothed in blue T-shirts filled the north atrium of the State House. The goal of the rally was to draw attention to the need for more CASA volunteers and the importance of their role as a voice for vulnerable children.

There are 3,200 CASA volunteers working in 72 Indiana counties advocating on behalf of 18,613 abused and neglected children. CASA volunteers advocate on behalf of abused and neglected children whose families are involved with the child welfare system.

Supreme Court Justice Steven David addressed those in attendance. Leslie Dunn, director of the State Office of GAL/CASA, was also one of the featured speakers. And, Danielle Pierson, a former foster youth and now on the staff at Child Advocates in Indianapolis, also spoke at the rally about her experiences in foster care and the benefits of having a child advocate.

Indiana Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard was honored for his long-time commitment to CASA and presented with a small statue of children with a plaque thanking him for his many years of commitment to CASA programs and to Indiana’s children. The Rally was sponsored by the Indiana Child Advocates Network and the State Office of GAL/CASA, of the Indiana Supreme Court, Division of State Court Administration.

Under certain conditions, Trial Rule 81.1 allows a judge to use “Family Procedures” and exercise jurisdiction over all cases involving the same family or household (as defined). Family Procedures are defined in the rule as the coordination of proceedings and processes, and information sharing among cases in a court or courts involving family or household members. The goal of the new rule is to avoid uninformed or inconsistent rulings in multiple cases involving one family or household and therefore better serve children and families in our courts.

Using the new rule:

• When a court intends to use Family Procedures for a case, it must enter an order notifying all parties to this case of the court’s intentions.
• A party has 15 days after notice of this order is sent to object to his or her case being selected to be heard using Family Procedures.
• This court order also affects a party’s ability to request change of venue from the judge. Only those motions for change of venue permitted by Indiana Trial Rule 76 may be granted for cause once this notice is sent.
• Within 30 days after a case is selected, the court must provide a list of all cases the court will hear using Family Procedures to each party to all these cases.
• The court can set concurrent hearings on some issues and rule on the admissibility of evidence for each separate case.
• When using Family Procedures, a judge must choose whether to maintain the separate integrity and docket numbers for each case but hear the cases together or consolidate a family’s cases into one common case number if multiple cases are being heard before one judge.

The new rule provides that cases to which Family Procedures are being applied can retain their separate case numbers OR be combined under one case number if multiple cases are being heard before one judge.

The recommended best practice is for courts to maintain the separate case numbers for the cases pulled into Family Proceedings.

The use of common case numbers could pose challenges to court case management systems, has the potential to skew a court’s statistics, could cause confusion as to the burden and proof, and also could confuse parties on deadlines for when to file appeals and other pleadings. The confidentiality of the records in cases joined under one case number can also become very problematic. Under Administrative Rule 9, the parties to a case have access to all the records in the case (except in certain situations such as protective orders). The new rule provides records excluded from public access remain confidential to the added parties, even if all cases are consolidated into a single case. This means that the record keeper will need to remember somehow which parties in a case can have access to which records.

For all of the above reasons, the Division of State Court Administration recommends that cases not be joined into one case number. This will mean that the court will have to enter similar orders and make entries in each “bundled” case file and CCS.

If a court decides to consolidate multiple cases into one, the court should pick one case that will remain as the primary case. The court must enter an order of consolidation and cause the order to be filed in the case filed for each consolidated case and noted on the CCS of each case. At the time of consolidation, the court must enter a statistical disposition for each of the case numbers except the one remaining. Only one case will remain as pending. The others must be counted as being disposed by “transferred out.”

Further questions about this issue may be directed to Jeff Wiese at (317) 232-2542 or jeffrey.wiese@courts.in.gov.

In the September/October 2010 issue of the Indiana Court Times, we discussed the differences between a Petition for a Restricted Driver’s License under Indiana Code 9-24-15 and a Petition for Judicial Review of a Habitual Violator Suspension under Indiana Code 9-30-10. One of those differences is the type of court costs that are assessed. Regular civil costs are assessed for the former and infraction costs for the latter. However, both of these proceedings are assigned a civil miscellaneous (MI) case type. Hmmm, this could be trouble. How does the clerk know which costs to assess?

We have a prepared the following easy-to-read chart to help clerks quickly distinguish which type of proceeding is being filed so that they can identify and charge the appropriate court costs. We encourage clerks working at the front counter where these matters are filed to keep this reference chart handy and refer to it when these sort of petitions are tendered for filing.

Click to enlarge

The Division encourages judges to apply for a grant. The money awarded can help improve your local court system. Up to $30,000 per grant request is available for initial study grants, while up to $40,000 per request is available for implementation grants. Last year, the Court awarded $280,510 to a total of 10 counties.

Requests for the following projects will be given priority consideration:

1. Unified court administration
2. Multi-county and/or multi-district problem-solving courts
3. Measuring court performance through use of CourTools
4. Studies and/or implementation of ways courts could consolidate judicial responsibility for court records
5. Modern court technology

For more information on these categories and the types of grants awarded please refer to the Court Reform Grant Application. Grant applications are due by June 1, 2012.

For questions or more information about the Court Reform Grants, please contact Elizabeth Daulton, Staff Attorney, at elizabeth.daulton@courts.in.gov or (317) 234-7155.

How should a judge react to commentary in a motion, brief, or other pleading that is inappropriate, scandalous, or just has no place in a public record? Trial court judges are very familiar with these types of writings: when the husband accuses the wife of having an affair; the wife accuses the husband of molesting the children; or one lawyer calls the other lawyer a liar and a cheat.

Remember, Trial Rule 12(F) can be a judge’s best friend. That rule states that a trial court, upon its own initiative, may order stricken from any pleading “any insufficient claim or defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.”

When confronted with an attorney or attorneys who use inappropriate commentary or are doing battle through written pleadings, a judge must deal with the issue as soon as possible. The situation could quickly accelerate into more scurrilous writings. The judge should call both attorneys into chambers and advise them that this type of unprofessional action will not be tolerated.

What should a presiding judge do if he or she is the target of the written attack? First, take a deep breath. Do not act in anger or with emotion. The trial judge has the tools available to address the situation under Trial Rule 12(F), by using direct contempt power, or both.

Making disparaging or inflammatory remarks about the judge in court pleadings can constitute direct contempt. Kerr v. State, 141 N.E. 308 (Ind. 1923); Jacobsen v. State, 384 N.E.2d 1041 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979). Although the specifics regarding direct contempt proceedings are beyond this column’s scope, judges should exercise caution if they delay deleting the inappropriate material from the record and scheduling a hearing. Time is a factor, and the longer the wait, the less likely the issue may be a matter of direct contempt.

Judges should also consider allowing a different judge to hear the contempt proceedings, especially when the situation is extremely serious. If someone has made very personal remarks against the judge or a family member, perhaps the judge should let a judicial officer who is not personally affected hear the contempt proceedings.

The justice system may be more damaged by scandalous or inappropriate commentary in written materials filed with the court than from comments made in court. These documents are part of the court’s permanent record. Judges should remember to wisely use the tools available to them when dealing with inappropriate written materials.

I recently had an opportunity to speak with eight ICLEO law students who were hired in 2011 as summer interns at the Indiana Court of Appeals, the Indiana Tax Court and the Office of the Public Defender. They were eager to share their experiences.

Brandon Skates, a second year law student at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, worked in the chambers of Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Terry A. Crone and really enjoyed his time there. He said: “I love to learn more than anything. Every case presented a new challenge and a new aspect of the law requiring my research. I had to understand the law and the issues before presenting a draft opinion that met the high standards of Judge Crone and his law clerks.”

Viorel Ciobanu, a third year law student at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, had an extraordinary summer experience at the Indiana Court of Appeals and the Indiana Tax Court. He appreciated the diversity of the Courts’ summer clerks and reported to me: “Hoosiers with Ghanaian, Korean, Vietnamese, and Eastern European roots had the opportunity to harmoniously work for the benefit of the people of Indiana under the leadership of our illustrious Indiana jurists.” He admired the commitment of the judges and law clerks to public service and the example that they set for their community.

The Court of Appeals took interns on field trips to expose them to different areas of the law. Andrew Duncan, a second year law student at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, gained new insight into his future. Duncan said: “Because of these field trips and working at the Indiana Court of Appeals, I realize that I would like to work as a lawyer in the public or non-profit sector where I feel I can help people the most. My internship has been a wonderful learning experience.”

Jheremy Perkins, a third year law student at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, agreed with Duncan. He said: “The memorable and inspirational moments were plentiful this summer. I researched various issues of substantive law and drafted several opinions, including some for publication. My greatest experience was the opportunity to pick the brains of many Indiana judges. We discussed the decision-making process and current trends in the law. These judges offered career and professional advice and gave us the opportunity to make invaluable connections. In addition to the judges on the Indiana Court of Appeals, we met with Marion County trial court Judges Jose D. Salinas and Mark D. Stoner; Indiana Tax Court Judge Martha Blood Wentworth; Indiana Southern District Federal Court Judges Sarah Evans Barker, Tanya Walton Pratt, and Jane E. Magnus-Stinson.” Perkins is certain that the ICLEO Summer Intern Program will provide contacts, friends, and experiences that will last a lifetime.

Trinh Vo, a third year law student at Valparaiso University School of Law, focused on the substantive skills she gained during her internship. She reflected: “My summer internship with the Indiana Court of Appeals has made significant improvements in my writing skills. I want to emulate the law clerks’ clarity and consistency in writing.”

Amy Beard echoed the thoughts of the other fellows. Beard, a second year law student at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, was enriched by her summer clerkship working for Judge Martha Blood Wentworth in the Indiana Tax Court. In her words: “This opportunity was one of my best experiences. I cannot begin to articulate how much I learned. I spent the summer assisting Judge Wentworth in drafting opinions, conducting legal research, and writing memos. It was an honor and a privilege to work for the Indiana Tax Court and I am so proud that one day I will be joining this legal community. The skills that I gained throughout this summer clerkship will remain with me during my law school journey over the next two years, and throughout my legal career.”

Amber Benson, a third year law student at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, and Stepheni Ennis, a second year law student at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, had somewhat different experiences. Both students worked in the State Public Defender’s Office where they helped attorneys prepare appeals in capital and non-capital cases. Benson said: “The capital unit attorneys educated me on the sometimes arbitrary administration of capital punishment. I will remember forever my travels throughout Indiana participating in mitigation investigations and client visits at Indiana state prisons. I am lucky to have spent the summer with the crème of the legal profession.”

Ennis agreed, saying: “It was an amazing and incomparable experience that allowed me to gain great insight into criminal law. The internship gave me practical experience and a passion for working with indigent clients.”

All of the students reported they were grateful for the opportunity to do meaningful work and truly enjoyed their ICLEO summer intern experience, and they look forward to becoming a part of the Indiana legal community.

On Jan. 11, 2012, Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard delivered his 25th and final State of the Judiciary address to a Joint Session of the Indiana General Assembly. An excerpted version follows. The State of the Judiciary was broadcast to a statewide audience over the Internet and on radio and television through Indiana Public Broadcasting Stations. Video of the speech and the full text of the 2012 address are available online. Visit courts.in.gov/supreme/2338.htm for all addresses since 1988.

The yesterday of Indiana’s courts lasted largely unchanged over decades. Our courts were a collection of unconnected silos. There were few agreed ways of conducting the court’s business. For much of our history, courthouse rules and practices varied so much that even lawyers, and certainly citizens, could rightly think they were crossing the state line when they simply went to the next county.

Over time Indiana’s courts have become less like a collection of Lone Rangers and more like a group of united colleagues. The legislature created unified courts in urban areas, and it began to support collaboration between judges.

The movement towards collaboration was visible in 2011 when the legislature created unified courts in Henry, Clark, and Madison counties. Judges and county officials concluded they could be more effective by working together. We have also adopted rules to consolidate multiple probation departments into one.

Joint Action for Families and Children

You could call this growing commitment to joint effort “court reform” or “tax dollar-efficiency,” but it makes a difference in people’s lives. A generation ago, courts heard disputes about families and children and domestic violence much the same way as cases on property ownership or breach of contract. The techniques had not grown alongside the size of the problems.

That has changed dramatically. Indiana’s ability to care for abused or neglected children is light years ahead from a decade ago. Governor Daniels launched an agency that focuses solely on children, whose caseworkers have enough training and time to do the job right, at state, instead of local, expense.

When children went to court in the old days, too often no one spoke for them because parents were so focused on their own conflict. Today, Indiana’s courts have volunteer Court-Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs) who speak just for the best interests of the child. The Daniels Administration and the legislature gave the judiciary the resources to recruit and support an army to speak for children. Indiana has more local CASA programs than any state but Texas. In 2011 we trained the largest number of new volunteer advocates ever—1,010. And the number of children awaiting assignment of a CASA is half what it was this time last year.

For particularly acrimonious divorces involving children, family mediation is available. Allen County Judge Tom Felts first launched this initiative and legislation authorizes its use statewide. It is now in 33 counties.

In the cases involving the worst threats, we have more tools than ever for combating domestic violence. Previously when a court issued a protection order, only paper copies existed, making it tougher for police to enforce them. Now judicial orders are sent immediately and electronically to law enforcement. We have also trained victim advocates in women’s shelters to help victims in 61 counties file requests for protective orders electronically.

Last year we were working on a way to send text or email messages to victims when a protective order is actually served on the abuser, a particularly dangerous moment. Last year we sent notices to 9300 victims. These improvements literally save lives.

More Effective Criminal Justice

When I was a trial judge, judges mostly had two sentencing options: prison and probation. In the intervening 25 years, everyone in the criminal justice system has wrestled continually with the twin challenges of exploding prison populations and persistent recidivism.

But ingenuity has produced a different world: 49 drug courts, highly professional probation departments with the time and tools to monitor tens of thousands of felons, 56 court drug and alcohol programs, the first veterans courts, delinquency projects run jointly with school corporations and social workers, and the new risk assessment tools that help identify the most effective sanction for individual offenders. Last year we evaluated 134,000 offenders using this 21st century evaluation technique.

Members of the Indiana House and Senate attended Chief Justice Shepard's final State of the Judiciary address in the Indiana House Chambers.

Courts and Healthy Commerce

Among the heart-warming aspects of stories written recently has been commentary describing how Indiana’s courts are not a barrier to economic development. Businesses shy away from some states because of the litigation climate.

One way the legal system can be a barrier has to do with sheer complexity, but Indiana sometimes produces simplicity. For example, to decide what evidence is admissible in court, for 175 years Indiana followed the ancient common law system of evidence. People confronted with these issues had to search thousands of pages of opinions for guidance.

We’ve replaced those millions of words with the Indiana Rules of Evidence, just 24 pages covering everything from hearsay to when you need the original document or just a copy.

Debates still occur about what is admissible. But lawyers and judges now can know which rule applies and can focus on exploring how to apply the rule to a particular situation. Citizens who find themselves in court without a lawyer can also use this relatively simple roadmap.

Calling such a reform “modernization” passes over that it holds down the cost of litigation and improves citizen access. The same is true of the Jury Rules (a recent study ranked Indiana fourth on the fairness of juries—they’re drawn from the most inclusive in the country) and the Plain English Jury Instructions (which give jurors a fighting chance to escape the legalese).

The other barrier is partially organizational and partially mental frame of reference. Do people in courts understand that how they perform affects a state’s economic climate? That the work we’ve done on mortgage foreclosure proves our bona fides on that point. Led by Lieutenant Governor Skillman, with energetic participation by Attorney General Zoeller, Indiana has been working to revise statutes and develop new court practices that give homeowners a better chance to re-write their mortgages and stay in their homes.

The judiciary has been working to focus all these techniques in the place where it really matters, the courthouses. A new package of best practices is in place in the 20 counties that represent two-thirds of the foreclosures. It turns out that these new processes multiply the chance a homeowner might achieve a successful workout by six times!

A Better Legal Profession

Over two decades ago, Indiana became a state where lawyers have to complete continuing legal education because lawyers thought it would be good for them and for clients. The Indiana State Bar Association’s original proposal left out judges, but judges insisted that we should impose on ourselves whatever we required of lawyers.

In 2011, continuing that same spirit, judges proposed that judges should have an even higher requirement than lawyers, and now we do.

What else is better about the lawyers and judges who make up Indiana’s legal profession? We have:

• improved bar admissions by adopting three new national exams., including one on ethics and one on problem solving
• created the country’s first joint program for impaired lawyers and judges;
• created the first statewide lawyer leadership academy, a project of the State Bar in which Justice Steven David is playing a leading role;
• created with your help, the Indiana Conference on Legal Education Opportunity and doubled the number of minority lawyers.

Is This Quality Work?

In addition to the whole judiciary, I do want to say a few words about the appellate courts. One way to measure quality is whether Indiana’s decisions are used by lawyers and judges in other states.

There was a time when Indiana stood near the top of where lawyers, scholars, and other judges looked for answers to legal problems. A study in 1912 examined how often state courts cited each other, and Indiana was fifth, following only New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, and California. Our ranking dipped over the years and by 1975 a study of the reputation of state supreme courts placed Indiana twenty-fifth.

That’s not the way it is today. Court of Appeals Chief Judge Margret Robb’s recent opinion about environment liability has been cited in Massachusetts and Texas, placed in a handbook on insurance law, explored by a law journal in Ohio, and cited by the American Law Institute. Supreme Court Justice Brent Dickson’s opinion on the use of risk assessment tools in criminal sentencing was described as the best piece of work anywhere. The Chief Justice of Nevada said to me, “We were so grateful for Justice Frank Sullivan’s opinion on gaming.”

This is, of course, grounds for professional pride, and it’s probably one reason why more people are voting in retention elections than ever before. But there’s a much more important reason. It is the value in the public sector of what George Will recently called “reasoned judgment.” Whether the disputes people bring to us are thoughtfully and honestly decided according to facts and law is crucial to a free society.

An Extraordinary Circle of Servant-Leaders

These are but the most evident trends from where we used to be to where we are going, and it is not humility but simple fact for me to say that the circle of people on the bench and in the bar who have been lending ingenuity and leadership is very broad. We are well served by people like:

• Lilly Judson, State Court Administration, and Mike Witte, of the Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission, who have both just finished terms leading national organizations.
• Justice Frank Sullivan has played a key role in bringing more minority law students into court clerkships and is now leading all of the bar’s efforts on ethics and professionalism.
• Judge Wayne Trockman of Evansville whose ground-breaking work in drug courts was recently honored by the National Association of Drug-Court Professionals.
• Judge John Surbeck of Fort Wayne, fairly called one of the inventors of re-entry courts, is literally in world-wide demand for his expertise.
• Jan Dickson was rightly recognized in November by the National Center for State Courts for having done more to help the families of judges than anyone, anywhere.
• Justice Robert Rucker, who chairs the National Bar Association‘s Judicial Council and whose career has been such an inspiration to others that the Lake County Commissioners recently renamed the facility in East Chicago the Robert D. Rucker Courthouse.

Extraordinary People Working on Important Causes

These extraordinary people and others have been engaged in making the system of justice work better tomorrow than it did yesterday and their collective commitment is the reason we can be confident about tomorrow. Here are some examples from 2011:

• After winning national awards for innovation from organizations like the Council of State Governments, JTAC, led by Mary DePrez, is just on the verge of deploying our new 21st century case management system in 40% of the state’s cases.
• Our program on civics, Courts in the Classroom, won its tenth award, from the National Council on Public History, for its success in helping teachers and students and the public understand courts and their government.
• Judge Diane Schneider of Lake County and others launched ground-breaking work on guardianships for those seniors without family to look after their affairs.

Lieutenant Governor Becky Skillman applauded the Chief Justice after the conclusion of the speech.

My Thanks for the Opportunity

To be engaged with so many splendid people in so many worthwhile causes has for me been a better career than one could ever imagine.

To deliver this final report standing in this place where so many valuable measures in support of a fairer society have found success is simply uplifting. To do this between Mitch Daniels and Becky Skillman is very poignant, for their friendship has enriched my life. And if a fellow imagined that he’d be linked in public memory on the back end of a hyphen, where the name at the front was Joe Kernan’s, how could you beat it?

Could there be a better cause, a more worthwhile way to “spend and be spent” in life than working toward greater justice?

The scores, if not hundreds of times when members of the General Assembly have been willing partners in improving the delivery of justice have been a great gift. Those many moments, and the demonstrated achievements by so many of the men and women on the bench and in the bar, are the reasons why I say that Indiana will have an even better system of justice tomorrow than it has today.

I have been able to carry my own role in all this with the steadfast love of Amy MacDonell. Amy and Mattie and I are enormously grateful for the countless generosities and acts of kindness we have received.

That graciousness, and simple observable facts, will allow me to leave the stage with full confidence that we will succeed in building Indiana as a safe and prosperous and decent place.

God Bless you, and God Bless Indiana.

Ind. Code § 33-35-1-1(a) permits a second or third class city or a town to establish or abolish a city or town court by ordinance every fourth year after 2006. An ordinance by a city or town establishing a court must be adopted not less than one year before the judge’s term will begin. Additionally, under subsection (d) of this section a city or town court in existence on January 1, 1986, may continue in operation until it is abolished by ordinance. When such a court is created or abolished, the city or town is required to give notice of its action to the Division of State Court Administration (Division).

Indiana welcomes two new town courts in 2012: the Town Court of Fishers in Hamilton County and the Town Court of Cumberland in Marion County. We also bid adieu to city courts in Aurora and Charleston, and town courts in North Manchester and Sellersburg on December 31, 2011 and Knightstown on October 31, 2011. The Monon Town Court was abolished effective January 1, 2011. The Alexandria City Court was abolished on December 5, 2011.

What do we do when they’re gone?

When a city or town court is abolished, the policy of both the Division and the State Board of Accounts is that the records of that court should be transferred to the clerk of the circuit court. Any unpaid tickets for cases that had been filed in the abolished court should be paid through the circuit court clerk. The outstanding tickets should be given new case numbers, but if possible to do so without creating conflicting case numbers, only the court identifier in the first group of characters in the case number should be changed. If changing only the court identifier would create conflicting case numbers, then an entirely new case number must be assigned.

Infraction and ordinance violation cases pending when a city or town court is abolished should be assigned to a circuit or superior court in the county that DOES NOT handle infraction and ordinance violation cases under the local caseload allocation plan.

The Division recommends that this procedure is the most straightforward way to number and track any outstanding infraction or ordinance cases from the abolished city or town court, and will reduce the possibility of conflicting case numbers. For example, an unpaid ticket from a town court with a case number of 91I01-1108-IF-000096 would be changed to 91C01-1108-IF-000096.

If it is necessary to transmit an SR 16 to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles under a new circuit or superior court case number to close an FTA or FTP that originated under a city or town court case number, and the FTA/FTP is not closed automatically due to the difference in the Court Case Number, a report will be generated by the BMV for manual review. If the BMV is satisfied that the SR 16 is a match to an existing FTA or FTP suspension, the BMV will manually close the suspension.

Misdemeanor cases that are pending at the time the city or town court is abolished should be assigned to the circuit or superior court(s) that handles misdemeanor cases under the local rule for assignment of criminal cases that is required by Ind. Criminal Rule 2.2.

Civil cases that are pending in a city court at the time the court is abolished should be assigned to a circuit or superior court that handles civil cases. When the case is assigned to a circuit or superior court, the case will retain the original case type that had been assigned to the case in the city court. Even if more than one court handles civil cases under the county’s caseload allocation rule, all of the civil cases transferred from the city court should be assigned to a single court in order to facilitate tracking.

All records, for which the retention periods have not expired under Ind. Administrative Rule 7, if maintained electronically, must be printed out and transferred to the clerk of the circuit court. The Record of Judgments and Orders (Order Book) must be maintained permanently for all case types. Chronological Case Summaries (CCS) for Infraction Cases and Ordinance Violation Cases must be maintained for 10 years after final disposition of the case. The CCS for all other case types must be maintained permanently.

If you have any questions or need any assistance, please contact the Division’s Record Manager, Tom Jones, at tom.jones@courts.IN.gov, and he will be happy to work with you to resolve any issues that may arise.