Right now, from 1:45pm to 5:15 pm, attorneys at the Indiana Bar Association Annual Conference in French Lick Indiana are sitting in a CE session on Rule 702 hearings. No idea what that is. But I do want to offer a question:
Are there minimum standards for someone to present continuing education to attorneys?
Here we have Judge Welch, who failed not once but twice to properly handle an Indiana Trial Rule 53.1 Precipe for transfer from her failure to rule in August / September of 2017. The second time, she denied a motion to correct error, which attached the exact instructions from the Supreme Court that the trial judge is not allowed to rule on this request. The detail and filings are in this previous post.
The Indiana Supreme Court issued Advisory Opinion #2-07 on the Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3 (not sure if I described that correctly). You download the opinion if you prefer. Here is the full text:
A party in a case delayed by the judge may, under Indiana Trial Rules 53.1 and 53.2, file a
praecipe representing that the judge has not set a motion for hearing within 30 days, has not
ruled on a motion within 30 days if a hearing is not required, or has not ruled for over 90
days on an issue taken under advisement. The rules require the Clerk of the court to
determine whether a delay has occurred and, if so, to give written notice to the judge and to
the Supreme Court that the case has been withdrawn from the judge, after which the Supreme
Court appoints a special judge to assume jurisdiction.
The Commission occasionally reviews complaints against judges alleging that they, rather
than the Clerks, have ruled on Trial Rule 53 motions or have, upon the filing of Rule 53
praecipes in which delays have occurred, set the delayed hearings or ruled on the delayed
motions. These complaints often raise valid concerns that the judges have violated Canons 1
and 3B(2) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which require judges to respect and comply with
the law. [emphasis mine]
The Commission advises judges and Clerks that Rules 53.1 and 53.2 require the Clerk, and
not the court, to assess motions alleging delays and seeking withdrawal from the court. If the
Clerk determines that withdrawal of a case is required, the withdrawal is effective as of the
time the praecipe is filed. Ind. Trial Rule 53.1(e)(2). Judges should not interfere with this
process, although they and their staff should assist the Clerk, if necessary, in the Clerk’s
determination.
If that is bad, what about then denying the motion to correct error. Maybe the motion should have been denied anyway. But not her call. And when her error was pointed out, she denied that. As my post from yesterday demonstrated, Mary Willis, who is allowed to rule on TR 53.1 motions, partially bailed Welch out by backdating her own denial to before Welch's denial of motion to correct error.
But all is good. If Welch was unfit, it would be remedied shortly. Because 6 months later, on March 12, 2018, the Marion County Judicial Selection Committee held its first judicial retention interviews, which Welch was included in. I would assume that even cursory due diligence, would mean reviewing any motions to correct error then exploring where the judge may have made an error and what was learned. Right? If not, what are they reviewing? Or is it just all pageantry without substance? Certainly not, given the attention that has been given to this new process for judicial selection and retention in Marion County. Given that Welch still is on the bench, the Committee needing to prove this new method ensures justice, I guess they determined she is competent. They did issue an official recommendation that Welch be retained. So if not incompetent, was she biased in her ruling? Or was she unfit just at that moment, actually two moments?
Or did the Committee not even consider past judicial performance of those it reviewed?
Hopefully the lengthy CE all those attorneys are accumulating right now, will still count...
No comments:
Post a Comment