Indiana Court Times 18.6

Issue 18.6 NOV/DEC 2009

Let's suppose you opened your mail this morning and found a catalog full of interesting classes being offered next year by the National Judicial College. Or perhaps your spouse called with the news that your son or daughter was finishing special military training at Pensacola next month and wanted you to visit and share the two free days before shipping out. Suddenly you are then faced with the dilemma of a court docket that will not go away.

You cringe when you think of the price you will pay in the long hours of catch-up work - even if you employ a judge pro tem to handle the end-of-day matters, such as continuances, scheduling hear-ings and a myriad of other orders. You realize that there is only so much you can ask a busy attorney to do as a twenty-five dollar pro tem, and there will still remain the stack of items a pro tem could not handle because of conflicts. And you

think about the pro tem fee that will be paid from the already

strained county funds. You sigh, discard

the course catalog for another year, send your spouse to Pensacola without you, and turn back to the stack of files on your desk.

Enter the senior judge. If you have not yet used a senior judge, don't let con-cerns over startup get you down. Senior judge information, including answers to frequently asked questions, and docu-ments and forms, are readily available on the Indiana Judicial website at courts.in.gov/admin/senior-judges.

All retiring judges have the opportunity to apply for senior judge status, and any judge on the Court of Appeals, county circuit, superior, or probate court may request the appointment of a senior judge certified by the Supreme Court Judicial Nominating Commission. The number of days a court may use a senior judge is dependent on caseload. Under recent Supreme Court orders, every court has been able to use a senior judge for at least ten days during the calendar year. One hundred eight senior judges were certified in 2009, which provides for the use of at least one senior judge in every county in the state (Indiana Code provisions governing the appoint-

ment, certification, and compensa-tion of senior judges are at

IC 33-23-3).

HELP ISAT HANDSENIOR JUDGES CAN EASE THE BURDEN

OF CROWDED COURT CALENDARS

BY HON. DIANA J. LAVIOLETTE AND HON. BARBARA BRUGNEAUX, SENIOR JUDGES

2 NOV/DEC 2009 courttimes

CONTENTSHelp Is at Hand: Senior JudgesCan Ease the Burden of Crowded Court Calendars ............................... 2

Supreme Court Website Assists Self-Represented Litigants ...................... 4

It's a Small World: Judicial Conference in Australia Identifi es Issues of Common Concern to Courts in All Countries ................................. 5

BITS & BYTES

Shooting at Virginia Tech Eff ects Change for Hoosiers ......................... 6

Alternative Dispute Resolution: New Supreme Court Video Provides Answers ............................................ 7

SIDEBAR

Hon. William J. Boklund ................... 8

BITS & BYTES

New Online Child SupportCalculator ......................................... 9

ASK ADRIENNE

Ethical Considerations of Using Social Networks Sites ............................... 10

SPOTLIGHT ........................................11

Cover Photo. Sergiy Serdyuk.

Most judges agree that the availability of senior judges is a valuable asset to any court. However, there are many miscon-ceptions about the use of senior judges. Presiding judges often do not realize just how much they might benefit from the services of a senior judge. Because of this here is a list of the Top Ten Reasons to Use a Senior Judge.

Everything you always wanted to know about senior judge status but were either afraid to ask or were not suffi ciently interested.

All certified senior judges are experi-1. enced, and often well versed in par-ticular areas of critical need, like family court, criminal, probate, juvenile or civil juries. Senior judges are required to meet the same CLE credits as sitting judges, therefore assuring that that they are current with changes in the law and recent court decisions.

Senior judges are paid for service by 2. the day, and must have special permis-sion for any compensation or credit for service less than a day. Adminis-trative Rule 5(B)(3)(d) states that “the service shall be substantially equiva-lent to the daily calendar of the court to which assigned.” If signed on for the day, the senior judge is available not only for the bench, but for all of the files that cross the desk, as well as the 3:45 PM protective order, prob-able cause hearing, or emergency detention application, to name a few.

A senior judge has the same jurisdic-3. tion as the presiding judge of the court in which she/he sits. And a senior judge may retain jurisdiction in an individual case by order of the presiding judge, a significant matter since a continuance of a hearing is often necessary.

A presiding judge may conduct other 4. court business during the times a senior judge is also present. Often judges ask senior judges to cover their daily calendar, while they take advan-tage of that time to research, conduct interviews, or handle administrative matters that only he/she could handle.

Since 1989, Indiana has been able to tap into an experienced pool of for-mer judges to help alleviate the pressure of increasing caseloads. Enabling legislation provides that a former judge may apply to the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission for certifi cation as a senior judge under rules adopted by the Indiana Supreme Court. The legislation further provides that any trial court and the Indiana Court of Appeals may request that the Indiana Supreme Court appoint a senior judge to assist that court. The Di-vision of State Court Administration administers the senior judge program.

In 2003, the Indiana Supreme Court developed a comprehensive set of standards for the certifi cation, service, appointment and payment of senior judges. This rule enables the Supreme Court to allocate senior judge time to courts with the heaviest caseloads while still allowing all courts to have suffi cient senior judge help (a minimum of 10 days per year) to relieve trial judges during necessary absences from the bench.

The Division’s administration of the senior judge program includes process-ing certifi cation applications and orders of certifi cation, requests for ap-pointments, weighted caseload comparisons and orders of appointment. The Division also administers senior judge benefi ts and processes claims for payment of per diem expenses.

Small at fi rst, the Indiana senior judge program has grown into an invalu-able resource of seasoned judicial offi cers who serve at minimal cost to the state and no cost to the counties. In 2008, Indiana had 92 certifi ed senior judges who served a total of 3,636 days. These days are equivalent to approximately 20 full-time judicial offi cers. There were 108 senior judges certifi ed in 2009. The Court authorized 6,492 service days for courts plus gave 22 courts unlimited service days.

For more information, see the Senior Judge Program statistical reports in the Indiana Judicial Service Report, Year in Review, Volume I.

The Indiana Judicial Website has the following information available for every presiding judge and every senior judge:

Court usage of senior judges/days allowed and days used•

Senior judge court usage/court served, number of days served, and • dates of service

Listing of days served for each senior judge•

This information is regularly updated and readily available for accurate record keeping and may be accessed at http://courts.in.gov/admin/senior-judges. Just click on Documents and Forms and it is listed under “Senior Judge Appoint-ments and Days Served.”

SENIOR JUDGE PROGRAMBACKGROUND INFORMATION

courttimes NOV/DEC 2009 3

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

A senior judge is authorized to serve 5. as a mediator under Administrative rule 5(B)(9). If the senior judge is a registered mediator, he/she may re-ceive service credit provided the com-pensation is not at a rate greater than the per diem rate for senior judges. This facilitates access to mediation for parties where cost was a deterrent.

Senior Judges are able to maintain 6. a health insurance package for an increased premium, but still below the self-insured market, by serving for a minimum of thirty days. Senior judg-es are usually challenged to obtain the necessary days before the end of the year. Remember it must be service for a full day, or at least a half a day, not just an hour here and there.

Although many courts are limited to 7. ten days for the use of senior judges, additional days may be required and judges may request additional days, which the Supreme Court has granted for good cause.

A senior judge brings years of experi-8. ence on the bench and can handle the daily calendar, with fewer conflicts than many attorneys serving as judge pro tem. It is important to remember that there is no cost to the county for a senior judge, whereas a pro tem is paid by the county.

Several presiding judges have learned 9. to utilize the services of senior judges in many helpful and important ways. For example, some senior judges cover particular types of cases on pre-set days, like Title IV-D, foreclosure conferences, small claims or traffic trials, thus freeing the presiding judge to deal with more pressing mat-ters. Senior judges have provided an invaluable service by handling routine matters for the court during major jury trials.

Some presiding judges simply keep 10. their docket clear when they are absent for several days. This means that an already congested docket is even busier of the judge's return, causing additional frustration to the

local bar and litigants. In many cases, the senior judge is familiar with the staff of the requesting court and their particular procedures, and can readily step in when the presiding judge is away, which is a benefit to all.

If the senior judge program is going to succeed, it will require the willingness of all courts to utilize their expertise, and their ability to help every court deal with a crowded docket. This article seeks to provide sufficient information to enable every sitting judge to realize that help is readily available. There are issues that the senior judge committee wishes to ad-dress regarding the ways we can best serve all presiding judges and the state judi-ciary. Any suggestions or questions you have would be most appreciated. Pat Gifford is the chair of the senior judge committee and can be reached at [email protected]. If you have any difficulty or questions not answered by the website, call State Court Admin-istration Staff Attorney, Jim Maguire, at 317-233-3018, or email him at [email protected].

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE

Almost every trial judge knows that there is a growing number of litigants who represent them-selves in court, either by choice

or because they cannot afford to hire attorneys. In 2008, more than 400,000 people represented themselves in Indiana trial courts. Those individuals may go to court without the benefit of an attorney, but that doesn’t mean the self-represent-ed litigant must do so without some guid-ance. The Indiana Supreme Court is aware that self-represented litigants often look first to our trial courts and clerks for answers to their legal questions.

To alleviate the pressure on trial courts, and to help self-represented litigants better navigate a challenging process, the Indiana Supreme Court continues to upgrade and improve the Court’s online self service legal center. The self service

legal center was originally created in Oc-tober 2001. The most notable improve-ment to the site is the transformation of online forms into user-friendly interactive documents.

The old site required a user to download and print forms, including several pages of instructions created as a guide for the proper line-by-line completion. While helpful in providing some guidance, courts would invariably receive unneces-sary, or incomplete, pleadings.

Self-represented litigants using the up-dated site now have access to documents that include an automatic-fill feature. The forms are designed to be fill-in style questionnaires that are written in plain English, not “legalese.” When the user answers a question, the information is automatically inserted into the appropri-ate location throughout the form. This

saves time for the user and increases the accuracy of the completed documents. Court staff are not permitted to give legal advice, but they must check pleadings for accuracy. Now they can refer self repre-sented litigants to the improved online self service legal center as a resource. While the online documents promote greater accuracy, new, printable forms are also in development. These forms will be an updated version of the former print-able forms with instruction, but designed to maintain greater accuracy and com-pleteness.

The website prominently features a video, Family Matters: Choosing to Repre-sent Yourself in Court, which provides information about the self-represented litigant’s responsibilities and the court procedures the litigant will be required to follow. It also provides resources for finding an attorney, doing legal research, and information on mediation and alternative dispute resolution. For more information about the improved forms for self-represented litigants, please visit the Supreme Court website at courts.in.gov/selfservice.

Supreme Court Website Helps CourtsManage Self-Represented LitigantsBY KATHRYN DOLAN | PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, INDIANA SUPREME COURT


Canada Israel Ukraine Pakistan G

ha

na

Ph

illippines Nepal Solomon Isla

nds S

pa

in I

raq

Vie

tn

am Seychelles Australia Un

ited

States Senegal South Africa

Ne

w Z

ea

lan

d Fra

nce Chile United Kin

gd

om

Singapore

Some of the issues facing the judiciary are the same the world over, while oth-ers differ dramatically from country to country. I recently encountered these similarities and differences at the confer-ence of the International Organization of Judicial Training (IOJT) held in Sydney, Australia in October.

Countries as diverse as Solomon Islands, Iraq, Pakistan, the Seychelles, Austra-lia and the United States agreed that juvenile delinquency, self represented litigants, and judicial independence are areas of major concern in each of their respective legal systems. Of these, there was universal agreement that judicial independence was of the greatest impor-tance.

An example of some the striking dis-similarities were those cited by Chief Justice of Iraq-- trafficking in women and money laundering. Major legal issues in the Solomon Islands revolve around that society’s widely held view of women as personal property rather than persons possessing human rights.

The IOJT conference provided a won-derful opportunity for educators to meet and discuss judicial training as the critical means by which these and other major concerns can be addressed. Other topics included distance education, judicial evaluations and training for more tenured judges.

Judicial independence was discussed ex-tensively. While the delegates agreed on the importance of this issue, each coun-try’s experience varies greatly. In the U.S., Canada, and Australia, the context of discussion of an independent judiciary

is mainly one of avoiding encroachment by the legislative or executive branches. In other countries, judicial independence is literally a life and death reality. For example 36 Iraqi judges have been killed recently for the decisions they have made or merely because they were judicial officers. Some of the other countries which have experienced the assassination of judges are Columbia, the Philippines, and Rwanda. In addition to those killed and injured, many more judges are af-fected by the kidnap, torture and murder of family members.

Even though the magnitude of the problem differs from region to region, conference attendees agreed that a great danger to judicial independence is in-competency of judges. As a Justice of the Pakistan Supreme Court said, “Judicial competency generates public confidence in the system as a whole and helps secure appropriate funding.” Chief Justice Michael Black of the Federal Court of

Australia identified another bulwark of judicial independence as that of the col-legiality of judges. All agreed that educa-tion of the judicial branch as well as the public is vital. “Judges need to explain (to the public) what they do and why,” said Justice Black.

I presented my paper, prepared as a representative of the National Judicial College, on my experiences over the last eight years as a faculty member of NJC web-based courses. In the same session on distance education, Judge Felix Azon Vilas (Spain) spoke on the exciting efforts being made in Europe to train judges via the internet. These programs are help-ing to unify nations who were engaged in deadly combat only a relatively short time ago during World Wars I and II. Milt Nuzum and Judge Thomas Zachman explained the gigantic leaps in judicial education Ohio has taken by delivering a portion of the training in an e-learning format. Mr. Waleed Malik, The World Bank (USA), gave interesting insights into the assistance provided by the World Bank to countries seeking to utilize the internet to train judges.

Separate sessions included: Organizing Pan-Continental Legal Training (mainly via the web) and Developing Online Learning among Countries. Many in this country might be surprised to see the valuable lessons to be gained from the e-learning experiences of so-called “develop-ing countries.” Due to distances between large urban areas and lack of financial resources, these countries have become very creative in using distance learning techniques. The extent of distance educa-tion in South America is truly amazing. Not limited by national boundaries, the Justice Studies Center of the Americas makes judicial education available to a large and increasing number of South and Central American judges.

A sampling of other conference of-ferings includes: Enhancing Judicial Performance, Institutionalizing Judi-cial Training in a Developing Country Context, Interactive Skills Training for Judges, and Developments in Judicial Education around the World. If you would like further information about the conference, a copy of the agenda, or the papers presented at the confer-ence, please contact Barbara Arnold Harcourt, Indiana Judicial Center [email protected] or 317/234-5996.

IT'S AJudicial Conferencein Australia Identifi esIssues of Common Concern to Courtsin all Countries

Small WorldIT S AIT S A

AFTER ALLl Worldl World

BY HON. BARBARA ARNOLD HARCOURTSENIOR JUDGE/JUDICIAL STAFF ATTORNEY, INDIANA JUDICIAL CENTER


In the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting tragedy, on April 16, 2007, Congress passed the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (“The Act”). The Act gives states greater incentives to submit records to the FBI regarding individuals who are prohib-ited from purchasing firearms. Representative Vern Tincher, a retired Indiana State Police officer from Terre Haute, sponsored the legislation inspired in part because of this new federal law that eventually became House Enrolled Act 1428, signed into law on May 15, 2009, by Governor Mitch Daniels.

Public Law 110-2009 became effective on July 1, 2009, and requires the Division of State Court Administration (Division) to establish and administer an electronic system for: (1) receiving information that relates to certain individuals who may be prohib-ited from possessing a firearm; and (2) transmitting this informa-tion to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for inclusion in NICS. The law requires courts that have made a finding concerning a person’s mental health that disqualifies the person from possess-ing a firearm under federal law to transmit certain information regarding this finding to the Division of State Court Administra-tion for transmittal to NICS.

On November 13, 2009, the Division’s Judicial Technology and Automation Committee (JTAC) sent notices to all of Indiana’s trial court judges and clerks that they could begin to input mental health adjudication data into a new INcite (Indiana Court Infor-mation Technology Extranet) software application. A court is now able to electronically send information to the Division of State Court Administration when the court determines that:

an individual is mentally ill and either dangerous or gravely dis-• abled, and the individual is then temporarily (more than 72 hours) or regularly committed to an appropriate facility;

an individual has been found not responsible for a crime by reason • of insanity;

an individual is found guilty of a criminal act but is mentally ill; or •

a defendant in a criminal case lacks the ability to understand the • proceedings and assist in the preparation of a defense;

The Division, then, transmits this information to the FBI.

A number of state agencies worked together to ensure that Pub-lic Law 110-2009 was implemented throughout Indiana. The initiative was funded by a grant from the National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP), administered by the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute. The Division of State Court Administration, through JTAC, worked with the Indiana State Police, the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council, Homeland Security, FSSA’s Division of Mental Health, and the Indiana Judicial Center to help create a system that promotes Indiana’s compliance with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. By so doing, Indiana continues to demonstrate its commitment to keeping firearms out of the hands of poten-tially dangerous people.

This is another example of how JTAC is using technology to provide Indiana judges and clerks with the tools necessary to allow them to comply with those laws that ensure the timely determination of a person’s eligibility to possess firearms. Legislation like this has been passed to improve our national security and to enhance the public safety of citizens throughout the country. The software used in this project will send critical information from the courts, via the Division and the Indiana Data Communication System (IDACS, maintained by the Indiana State Police), to the FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC). This information is then available to all states seeking prior clearance of individuals who desire to possess or purchase a firearm.

SHOOTING AT VIRGINIA TECH EFFECTS CHANGEFOR HOOSIERS

Indiana joins a growing numberof states providinginformation to the FBI to help keep fi rearmsfrom the hands of disqualifi ed individuals

Photo. Gennady Kravetsky.

COURTS.IN.GOV/JTAC


BITS & BYTES

BY MARY L. DEPREZ | DIRECTOR AND COUNSEL, TRIAL COURT TECHNOLOGY

Child custody and support issues associated with divorce and paternity cases almost always

generate emotional upheaval. The traditional adversarial court process far too often only serves to fan the flames of these emotions by focusing on one party emerging as the “winner.” Judi-cial officers who work in these areas know that separating families into winners and losers is counterproduc-tive, especially for the children. Courts are increasingly encouraging, or even requiring, parties to attempt to resolve cases through alternative dispute resolution (ADR), but many litigants remain unfamiliar with this process and the options available to them.

The Indiana Supreme Court Divi-sion of State Court Administration, through the Family Court Project, recently released a new video entitled: “Real Dialogue. Real Answers. Alterna-tive Dispute Resolution.” The video is designed to give people involved in family law cases an overview of the op-tions available for resolving their cases outside of court. It focuses primarily on mediation, but other options are also addressed, such as facilitation and arbitration. Viewers can find informa-tion about the role of the mediator, how mediation works, the types of disputes that can be mediated, and the benefits of mediation. The video also contains a brief vignette demonstrating a typical mediation session.

The popularity of last year’s "Fam-ily Matters: Choosing to Represent

Yourself in Court" demonstrated that video can be a powerful tool in provid-ing information to litigants. Anecdotal reports from court personnel, pro bono program directors, and library staff indicate that Family Matters has been well-received by litigants seeking information regarding self-representa-tion. The most popular chapters of the Family Matters video have been viewed from 3000 to almost 6000 times, and have received high ratings by viewers.

An increasing number of counties are adopting ADR plans under I.C. 33-23-6, which was enacted in 2003 and allows a court to collect an additional $20 filing fee in domestic relations cases. The fees must be placed in a fund to provide low cost ADR ser-vices to family law litigants who might not otherwise be able to afford those services. Some counties have adopted local rules requiring mediation under certain circumstances. As a result, many family law litigants are ordered to mediation with no idea what media-tion is, or what it entails. Many oth-ers, who are not ordered to participate, could benefit from mediation but have no idea what it is or how to access the services. The video is intended to be a useful tool for all family law litigants by introducing them to the basics of ADR and giving them a general idea of what they can expect from the process.

The video is divided into short chapters for ease of viewing and can be found on the Supreme Court website at courts.in.gov/webcast/adr.html.

For more information on the video, or on starting an ADR plan in your county, contact Family Court Project Manager Loretta Oleksy, 317/233.0784 or [email protected].

A LT E R N AT I V E D I S P U T E R E S O L U T I O N Q U E S T I O N S

New Supreme Court Video Provides AnswersBY LORETTA OLEKSY, ESQ. | FAMILY COURT PROJECT MANAGER, STATE COURT ADMINISTRATION

ADR PROGRAM AT-A-GLANCEOn July 1, 2003, legislation went into eff ect allowing counties to charge an additional $20.00 fee to parties fi ling a petition for legal separation, paternity or dissolution of marriage, to be placed into an alternative dispute resolution fee fund.

The funds must be used to promote domestic relations alternative dispute resolution, and must primarily benefi t liti-gants who have the least ability to pay.

Alternative dispute resolution is defi ned broadly and includes such activities as mediation, reconciliation, non-binding arbitration, and parental counseling.

Litigants with current charges or a for-mer conviction for certain crimes relating to domestic violence are excluded from participating.

Counties wanting to participate in an ADR program must develop an ADR plan consistent with the statute. The Execu-tive Director of the Supreme Court, Divi-sion of State Court Administration must approve the plans.

Some of the benefi ts of the ADR pro-grams are:

they provide an opportunity for liti-• gants involved in divorce and pater-nity litigation to mediate their dispute when they would otherwise be unable to aff ord it;

mediation resolves issues much more • quickly and effi ciently and saves a tremendous amount of court time;

mediation reduces the adversarial hos-• tility of the litigants and gives them a model as to how to resolve their disputes on their own;

mediation provides better access and • more effi cient processing for self-rep-resented litigants; and

parenting classes and counseling help • parents to reduce confl ict between them and to maintain a more positive parenting relationship for the sake of the children.

The Division of State Court Administra-tion has developed a guide to help judg-es who are interested in starting an ADR program. Download the ADR Starter Kit at courts.in.gov/adr/forms.


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

I love the interesting stories and thorny legal issues that real life presents. No one could dream up some of the things I have seen and heard in court. I also appreciate having the opportu-nity to work with fellow judges on committees and on the Board of Directors. It is gratifying to play even a very small part in the evolution and direction of our state’s law and legal system.

On the other hand lawyers and litigants who interrupt or over-talk their opponents as a substitute for out reasoning them are my least favorite thing.

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

I majored in English literature and minored in Business. I was the only one of my kind at that time. My advisor thought I was crazy. I have been interested in law since first grade, when I would run home from school to watch a TV show called Di-vorce Court. I did not know what lawyers were, but I really en-joyed watching them cross examine witnesses. My grandmother, who lived with us, thought I had a character flaw. Maybe she was right, but I ended up on this side of the bench, and I hope she would have approved of that.

WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOU WERE NOT A JUDGE?

I’d probably teach law full time. If I had not become an attor-ney, I probably would have been a medieval literature professor.

WHO ARE THE PEOPLE YOU MOST ADMIRE?

My late, high school track coach, who demanded much of me and got more from me than I thought I had, and one of my Eng-lish professors who did the same thing with academics. Those two changed my life.

WHAT ARE YOUR HOBBIES OR FAVORITE LEISURE ACTIVITIES?

I like exercise, most often tennis, aerobics or weight lifting. I also love to fly fish. The fish I pursue generally live in beautiful, quiet places, and fly fishing requires an uncluttered mind. To catch a fish, you must pay full attention to the fly. If you think of anything else, you risk missing a possible strike. It is a Zen experience whether you want it or not.

I also have a passion for legal and constitutional history. It is replete with heroes and villains and people who blur the line between them. The legal doctrines we rely on are the bi-products of the human experience and courage of those who forged them. Knowing their experiences gives deeper meaning to doctrine and sometimes moral support to a judge who faces one of those cases that tests the bounds of ethics, justice, and commitment to the rule of law.

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

My recommendations here are for American legal history buffs. One of my favorite books is The Forgotten Memoir of John Knox. Knox served as law clerk for perhaps the most despicable person ever to sit on the United States Supreme Court. Justice J. C. McReynolds was so disliked by his colleagues that not a single, liv-ing justice attended his funeral. Even so, Knox was not judgmen-tal in his presentation. He lets the reader form conclusions about the Justice. He also reveals a glimpse into the personal side of the other justices who served that Court with McReynolds.

I am reading a book now entitled FDR v. The Constitution, which provides a look at the battle over the meaning of the Constitu-tion, the issue of court packing, and the independence of the Supreme Court during the crisis of the Great Depression. Un-like some historians, the author breathes life into the story and keeps the reader turning pages. If you like the subject, this one is worth reading.

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

CIARY. LAPORTE SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE WILLIAM J. BOKLUND IS OUR JUDGE FEATURED IN THIS ISSUE. JUDGE BOKLUND WAS

FIRST APPOINTED AS SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE IN 1993, ELECTED IN 1996 AND RE-ELECTED IN 2002 AND 2008. HE GRADUATED FROM

PURDUE UNIVERSITY, WITH DISTINCTION, IN 1973, AND RECEIVED HIS DOCTOR OF JURISPRUDENCE FROM VALPARAISO UNIVERSITY

IN 1977. HE WAS IN PRIVATE PRACTICE AND SERVED AS A LAPORTE COUNTY DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY FROM 1977 UNTIL

HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE BENCH IN 1993. HE IS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE INDIANA JUDICIAL CONFER-

ENCE. JUDGE BOKLUND RECEIVED A MASTER’S CERTIFICATE FROM THE INDIANA JUDICIAL COLLEGE IN 2008 AND PRODUCED A

POWER POINT AUDIO/VIDEO PRESENTATION, “A GRANDMOTHER, FREE SPEECH, AND THE TRAIN RIDE THAT CHANGED AMERICA.”

SIDEBAR

Hon. William J. Boklund

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


BITS & BYTES

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

I grew up in LaPorte, Indiana, about one half block from a marsh and about a quarter mile from a lake. As a middle child, I did not suffer the close scrutiny my siblings did, so I was able to spend a lot of time with my friends around the water, riding my bike, at the ball diamond or on the basketball court. I lived with great parents, great siblings and a wise, old grandmother who told many stories. To me, it was a Norman Rockwell painting.

DO YOU HAVE A FAVORITE QUOTE(S)?

I have two favorite quotes. The first is “When you are up to your neck in alligators it is sometimes difficult to remember that the objective is to drain the swamp.” The second is drawn from the Rudyard Kipling poem “If”, and is engraved over the players’ entrance to Centre Court at Wimbledon. “If you can meet with triumph and disaster and treat those two impostors just the same.” I find myself often leaning heavily on both.

WHERE IS YOUR FAVORITE VACATION SPOT?

My favorite spots are tending my backyard water garden in sum-mer, watching a fly on any quiet stream or lake at sunset, or any place with my family.

WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE MEAL/RECIPE/RESTAURANT?

My favorite “restaurant” is in my home. My wife Cathy pre-pares better meals than any I have ever tasted in any restaurant, period. It takes a great deal of self-discipline to not gain weight at my house. I also enjoy the Eagle’s Nest and Buca di Beppo in Indianapolis, both for their food and ambiance, obviously for different reasons.

Judge Boklund is an avid fl y fi sherman.

NEW ONLINECHILDSUPPORTCALCULATOR JTAC web development staff and the Indiana Judicial Confer-ence's Domestic Relations Committee have spent the end of 2009 building a new child support calculator to comply with amendments to the Indiana Child Support Guidelines effective on January 1, 2010. Changes to the Guidelines that had the most impact on the calculator include a new form for Health In-surance Premiums and new guideline schedules for basic child support obligation.

The calculator, published on December 31, 2009, is the first in a series of new calculators based on the 2010 Guidelines. This calculator is designed specifically for parents and pro se litigants, with helpful text and links to specific sections of the Guidelines along the way.

A simpler version of the online calculator designed for attor-neys, judges, and court staff is in development, and a download-able version will follow.

Benefits of the new calculators include:

Works in several major browsers and on Apple computers (the • old calculator did not)Works faster than the old calculator and is better organized for • the publicProvides a summary screen and the ability to easily go back and • edit any sectionSave a calculation on the server and access it again from any • Internet-connected computer; transaction numbers printed right on the forms.

To access the new calculator, go to

http://courts.IN.gov/childsupport

COURTS.IN.GOV/JTAC


During the course of their professional lives, judges often have ethical questions about the application of the Code of Judicial Conduct to particular situations. Should a judge disqualify from a particular case? May a judge attend and partici-pate in a specific fundraiser? What should a judge do about an ex parte communication that the judge just received? As Counsel to the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications, I am avail-able to provide advisory assistance to Indiana judges whenever they have ethical issues or questions. Any judge can call on me for help in navigating through the Judicial Code.

After providing advice to judges over the last year, I’ve noticed a number of recurring questions from judges around the State. The purpose of this column is to address some of these routine ethical questions.

In this inaugural column, I am picking up on an article in the most recent issue of Court Times concerning the use of social networking sites, Social Media and the Employer, by Brenda Rodeheffer. She explored the idea of examining such sites as an employment tool. Undeniably, these sites can be a wealth of information relevant to employment issues, and using these sites for that purpose certainly comports with the Code of Judicial Conduct. A number of judges, however, have asked whether it is ethically permissible for judges to join internet-based social networks and to create personal and/or professional profiles? And, if it is generally acceptable, are there any ethical consider-ations that judges should be aware of when using these net-works?

The quick answer to the first question is that judges generally can join internet social networks. Under Rule 3.1 of the Indi-ana Code of Judicial Conduct, judges are permitted to engage in extrajudicial activities so long as the activities do not other-wise violate the Code. The mere fact that the activity involves communication through advanced technology does not make it inherently problematic under the Code.

However, when deciding whether to join a specific internet social network, a judge should consider whether participating in the network could lead to frequent judicial disqualification in matters pending before the judge. For example, a judge who regularly hears debt actions would want to avoid an internet network group that is devoted to the interests of debt collection attorneys.

Judges also should consider whether joining certain networks would give the appearance of undermining the judge’s inde-pendence, integrity, or impartiality. By way of example, while joining a network devoted to various social interests certainly is permissible, a judge might want to think twice about joining a group called “Legalize Marijuana” or “Alcohol Improves My For-eign Language!” Even when a judge uses only general network groups (e.g. LinkedIn or a personal profile page on Facebook), the judge should always be mindful of the public aspect of these networks and adjust his/her postings accordingly so as to not run afoul of a judge’s ethical obligation to act at all times in a manner that promotes confidence in the judiciary.

A judge likewise should consider the appearance created when an attorney or someone else appearing in the judge’s court is con-nected to the judge through networks like Facebook or MySpace. Although the relationship may not be close enough to require dis-qualification, an opposing party may have questions or concerns about the potential for inadvertent ex parte communications on the network about the case. To avoid issues, the judge may want to remove the attorney or party as a “friend” from his Facebook or MySpace list until the case is over.

Although LinkedIn also allows for attorneys and judges to net-work, it is not necessary for a judge to remove an attorney from a LinkedIn group simply because the attorney has a case pending before the judge. LinkedIn limits the ability to post anything more personal than the same information that can be found on

[Editor’s Note: Adrienne Meiring is Counsel to the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications and will be writing an article for Court Times on topics relating to judicial ethics. She and Brenda Rodeheffer, Director of Employment Law for the Division of State Court Administration, and author of the popular Brenda’s Bailiwick column, will be alternating every other issue.]

Ethical Considerations ofUsing Social Networking Sites


BY ADRIENNE MEIRING | COUNSEL, COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS / JUDICIAL NOMINATING COMMISSION

ASK ADRIENNE

Trial courts can seek advice on judicial ethics issues by contacting Adrienne Meiring directly at (317) 232-4706 or [email protected].

a resume or curriculum vitae, so concerns about an appearance of impropriety are lessened. Essentially, the level of connection on LinkedIn is more akin to what is seen between participants in a bar association subsection or an alumni association. Addi-tionally, the danger of receiving an inadvertent ex parte commu-nication is lessened on LinkedIn since there is not the ability to post daily musings.

Even the most considerate judge who has taken steps to minimize conflicts and other ethical issues when using social networking sites should be prepared to deal with unexpected issues that may arise. For example, upon learning the judge’s identity, other users of the network may ask for legal advice or seek comment about a pending matter. Worse yet, a judge oc-casionally may find himself or herself receiving ex parte infor-mation about a pending case (even if the person is not a party or attorney on the case). The judge may want to have pattern responses for dealing with these situations and, if an ex parte communication is received, take whatever corrective action is necessary.

In short, there is no reason that the technologically-savvy judge cannot enjoy internet social networking so long as certain precautions are taken. As a sister judicial ethics advisory commission in New York noted, at a baseline, judges should “employ an appropriate level of prudence, discretion and decorum in how they make use of this technology.” (See New York Advisory Opinion 08-176 at www.nycourts.gov/ip/judicialethics/opinions/08-176.htm). That’s a pretty good rule of thumb for anyone using the Internet.

INDIANA SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE RANDALL T. SHEPARD has been selected by the American Judicature Society (AJS) as the recipient of the Sixth Annual Dwight D. Opperman Award for Judicial Excellence. The American Judicature Society (AJS), which was founded in 1913 to educate the public and build confidence in the justice system, created the Opperman Award to honor state trial and appellate judges for distinguished judicial service. The award will be presented in early 2010. For more information on AJS, visit their website at www.ajs.org.

INDIANA WAS TOUTED AS A LEADER IN JURY PRAC-TICES by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) as a recipient of a 2009 G. Thomas Munsterman Award for Jury In-novations. Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard accepted the award on behalf of the Court emphasizing it is shared with Governor Mitch Daniels’ Administration because their collaboration made the project a reality.

“Indiana is using 21st century technology to ensure that our juries represent the people of our state,” explained Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard. “With Governor Daniels’ partnership we created an accurate statewide jury list that ensures a broader and more reflective pool of applicants will be eligible to serve on an Indiana jury.” The NCSC presented the award to the Indiana Supreme Court’s Judicial Technology and Automation Com-mittee for the Jury Management System (JMS) which includes a master jury pool list.


SPOTLIGHT


PLEASE CIRCULATE TO CO-WORKERSThis newsletter reports on important administrative matters. Please keep for future reference. Issues are also available online at:

courts.IN.gov/admin/court-times

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

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

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

Hon. Barbara Brugneaux,Senior Judge

Hon. Barbara Arnold HarcourtSenior Judge, Indiana Judicial Center

Hon. Diana LaViolette,Senior Judge

Adrienne MeiringCounsel, Judicial Nominating Commission / Commission on Judicial Qualifi cation

James F. MaguireStaff Attorney, State Court Administration

Loretta OleksyFamily Court Project Manager,State Court Administration

Kathryn DolanPublic Information Offi cer,Indiana Supreme Court

& SAVE A TREESTAY INFORMED

If you wouldlike to help save a tree and still stayinformed, you may receivethe Indiana Court Times viaemail, or you can access ourwebsite: courts.IN.gov/admin (click on “Publications”).

To have your name removed from our hardcopy mailing list, contact Andrea Rusk at [email protected].

KEEP UP-TO-DATEwith legislation before the Indiana General Assembly

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE BLOGAccess the blog at

courts.IN.gov/center