News & Press: ISBA News & Events

A special message from ISBA: Comments sought on proposed rule amendments

Thursday, March 29, 2018   (2 Comments)
Posted by: Carissa Long
Share |

As a valued member of the Indiana State Bar Association, we want to ensure you’re aware of several proposed changes to the Rules of Court posted this week by the Indiana Supreme Court Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure.


Of the proposed rule amendments, we have received many comments from members specific to Criminal Rule 2.1 (requires cell phone numbers and email addresses in appearances) and Trial Rule 3.1 (requires cell phone numbers in appearances). Click here for the complete list of proposed amendments:


The Rules Committee invites public comment, and those wishing to comment should do so, in writing, no later than April 27.


Comments should be sent by email to or addressed to:


ATTN: Rules Committee

Hon. Mary Willis

Indiana Office of Judicial Administration

251 N. Illinois Street, Suite 1600

Indianapolis, IN 46204


Mark E. Neff says...
Posted Friday, April 20, 2018
Requiring cell phone disclosure is an unnecessary intrusion into my personal life. I have the right to some privacy. My office has a land line. My home has a land line. My cell phone use is primarily for a limited number of persons. If the Committee assumes that attorneys only use cellphones, their assumption is wrong.
Suzanne Sturgeon says...
Posted Wednesday, April 4, 2018
To the Rules Committee, I am not in favor of changes to Trial Rule 3.1 or Criminal Rule 2.1 that would require attorneys to include their cellphone numbers. I do not give my cellphone number to clients. I do not want to give the impression to clients that I am available 24/7 to them, because I am not. I do not answer my cellphone every time it rings. I use my cellphone primarily for directions and internet searches--not for communication. I do not even give my cellphone number to some of my relatives. Will judges be required to give out their cellphone numbers, will prosecutors, public defenders, members of the Rules Committee? I do not have, nor do I plan to have, a separate cellphone for business. I do not know why the Rules Committee thinks that this is an important change. Is there a problem the members are trying to fix? If so, then the Rules Committee should give a better explanation of the problem it is trying to solve.