Opinion
Delivered July 3, 2003
In our per curiam order dated January 30, 2003, In re: Administrative Order Number 14 — Administration of Circuit Courts, we directed that administrative plans be submitted by the various judicial circuits by July 1, 2003. The plans have been submitted, and the Court has reviewed them. We announce the following actions with respect to the plans.
It is not necessary for the one-judge judicial circuits, 9th-E, 11th-E, 18th-W, and 19th-E, to submit plans.
(1) The administrative plans submitted by the following judicial circuits are approved: 1st, 4th, 8th-N, 8th-S, 11th-W, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th-E, 19th-W, 20th, 22nd, and 23rd.
(2) The plan adopted by the majority of the circuit judges and submitted by the administrative judge in the 10th judicial circuit is approved.
(3) The administrative plans submitted by the 7th, 9th-W, 13th, and 21st judicial circuits are approved conditioned upon these plans being modified to provide for the computerized random assignment of cases. ( See Administrative Order Number 14(3)(a)(3)).
(4) Administrative Order Number 14(3)(a)(2) provides that "except for the exclusive assignment of criminal and juvenile division cases, cases in other subject-matter divisions should not be exclusively assigned to particular judges absent extraordinary reasons which must be set out in the circuit's administrative plan." The plans submitted by the 2d 5th, 6th, and 12th judicial circuits provide for particular judges to exclusively hear domestic relations and probate cases, but the plans fail to set out the extraordinary reasons for such assignments. Accordingly, these plans are remanded, and the above listed circuits are directed to furnish the Court with the required explanation or to submit a modified plan.
(5) The plan submitted by the 3rd judicial circuit provides that one judge "will primarily hear equity cases." We have made clear that cases cannot be assigned based upon a law/equity dichotomy; consequently, this plan is remanded with directions to correct this flaw.
The plans submitted by the 1st judicial circuit and the 6th judicial circuit as it relates to case assignments in Perry County have a troubling feature. Each provides for the open assignment of certain cases as opposed to the assignment of each case to a particular judge. We understand the reasons for this practice, but these judicial circuits should work toward assigning each case to a judge. In the future, plans may not be approved with this open assignment feature.
Finally, we announce that it is the Court's belief that rotation of judges in those instances where judges are exclusively assigned to criminal or juvenile cases may be desirable. The possibility of "burn-out," as well as a desire to diversify, are factors worthy of consideration. Administrative judges and all circuit judges should be cognizant of this consideration as plans are prepared in the future. Hopefully, the wishes of colleagues will be addressed, but the Court will consider the possible need for rotation in specific instances, as well as any necessary amendment to Administrative Order Number 14.
Pursuant to Administrative Order Number 14, approved plans shall be effective January 1, 2004.
CORBIN, J., not participating.
GLAZE and IMBER, JJ., dissent.
This court adopted Administrative Order Number 14 wherein this court, in discussing case assignments provided that the assignment of cases shall, among other things, assume "random selection" of unrelated cases. The court defined "random selection" to mean that cases assigned to a particular subject-matter division shall be randomly distributed among the judges assigned to hear those types of cases. The judicial districts except the First District and Sixth District (Perry County) submitted administrative plans that comply with the case-assignment procedure directed by Order 14. There is no reason these two districts should be given special treatment in Order 14.
This court adopted the foregoing case-assignment requirement so the assigned judge would be the one responsible and accountable for whatever happens in that case. Of course, if the assigned judge has a conflict of any kind making him or her unable to conduct a hearing or trial, he or she can obtain an exchange agreement with another judge to hear or try the matter. This procedure assures there is always one judge that is particularly responsible for the life and disposition of the assigned case.
The majority court is not only ignoring its own Order 14, but it also applies its Order unfairly in favor of Districts One and Six. There is absolutely no reason for allowing this disparate treatment of judicial districts. Cases within a division are to be assigned to judges. In this respect, the per curiam handed down today is going to create problems in our judicial system that it does not need. If I were a judge in all the other judicial districts besides the First and Sixth, I would not be too happy with this court's diverging from its order.
For these reasons, I dissent from that part of the per curiam.
IMBER, J., joins.