Indiana Doesn't Need Another Wave of Laws. It Needs a Legal System Hoosier Voters Can Trust

The 2025 legislative agenda covered almost everything. But one of Indiana's most important systems still needs serious attention: the regulation of lawyers, judges and the administration of justice.

The Indiana General Assembly entered the 2025 session with an ambitious agenda. The list of Senate and House bills covered an extraordinary range of subjects: local government finance, Medicaid, education, elections, water, energy, criminal justice, housing, taxes, professional licensing, economic development and public safety.

Consider just a few of the Senate proposals: SB 1 addressed local government finance; SB 2 Medicaid; SB 4 water; SB 10 voter registration; SB 120 DNA collection at arrest; SB 141 eyewitness identification; SB 142 eviction issues; SB 151 statutes of limitation; SB 159 warrant procedures; SB 222 civil legal aid; SB 281 expungement; and SB 524 the practice of law.

The House agenda was equally broad. HB 1001 addressed the state budget, HB 1006 prosecutors, HB 1144 courts, HB 1466 agency administrative procedures, HB 1471 law enforcement impeachment evidence, and HB 1478 pro bono legal services fees.

These proposals illustrate the legislature's willingness to regulate, reform and oversee nearly every corner of public life.

No Doug's Law, which was once advanced by Rep. Scott Pelath.

But there is a glaring question: Who is looking after the people who must navigate Indiana's legal system—and who is holding the legal profession itself accountable?

Indiana does not necessarily need another collection of statutes. It needs a better system for regulating the people entrusted with interpreting, administering and enforcing those statutes.

The missing piece: confidence in the legal profession

For ordinary Hoosiers, the legal system can be expensive, intimidating and difficult to understand. A dispute that should be resolved efficiently can become a prolonged battle. Legal fees mount. Motions multiply. Relationships deteriorate. And the people who can least afford extended litigation may find themselves paying the highest price.

Lawyers deserve protection, too. Most attorneys work hard to represent clients, comply with professional obligations and resolve disputes responsibly. They should not have to fear arbitrary disciplinary action, inconsistent enforcement or a process in which allegations can damage a professional reputation before the facts are fairly examined.

Consumers deserve protection from incompetent or unethical representation. Lawyers deserve fair treatment and due process. Judges must be held to meaningful standards of impartiality, integrity and accountability.

Those interests are not in conflict. A fair regulatory system should protect all three.

A new gatekeeper for lawyer regulation -- Doug's Law

Indiana should consider creating an independent, professionally qualified gatekeeping process for appropriate disputes involving lawyers and their clients.

Before an eligible attorney grievance escalates into a costly disciplinary proceeding—or a client dispute turns into malpractice litigation—the parties should have access to independent, nonbinding mediation.

The purpose would not be to shield lawyers from accountability or discourage legitimate complaints. Serious misconduct must remain reportable, and clients must retain the right to pursue legal remedies.

The objective is to separate disputes that can be resolved through communication, clarification, correction or compensation from cases that genuinely require formal investigation and litigation.

A structured process could reduce unnecessary escalation, protect consumers, give attorneys a fair opportunity to respond and reserve disciplinary resources for matters that warrant them.

It could also shift costs toward the conduct that creates unnecessary conflict. Parties who manufacture drama, refuse reasonable resolution or unnecessarily multiply proceedings should not automatically be able to impose the resulting expense on everyone else.

The system should reward responsible conduct—not procedural gamesmanship.

Judges must be part of the conversation

The question of accountability cannot stop with lawyers.

Judges exercise extraordinary authority over people's property, liberty, families and financial futures. Their decisions can have consequences that last for years. Yet public confidence requires more than the existence of judicial conduct rules. It requires procedures that are credible, transparent and capable of addressing legitimate concerns.

Indiana should examine whether judicial complaints are handled consistently, whether disciplinary procedures provide meaningful public accountability, and whether litigants have effective avenues when they believe judicial conduct has compromised the fairness of a proceeding.

This is not an argument for politicians to control judges or for dissatisfied litigants to use complaints as another weapon in litigation. Judicial independence is essential. But independence should never be confused with immunity from accountability.

A system that expects lawyers to follow strict ethical rules must also demonstrate that judges are held to equally serious standards of integrity and fairness.

Reform should reduce the cost of justice

The ultimate goal is not to create another bureaucracy. It is to make the existing system work better.

Indiana should examine:

• Independent early resolution of appropriate lawyer-client disputes.

• Consistent and transparent attorney disciplinary procedures.

• Meaningful protections for clients and fair due process for attorneys.

• Clearer standards for handling frivolous, retaliatory or unnecessarily escalated complaints.

• Greater transparency and accountability in judicial conduct proceedings.

• Procedures that discourage needless motions, delay and litigation expense.

• A fairer allocation of costs when one party's unreasonable conduct drives up the expense of a dispute.

These are practical reforms, not partisan talking points.

The next legislative session should look inward

The 2025 legislative agenda demonstrates that Indiana lawmakers are willing to tackle complicated policy questions. They considered hundreds of proposals affecting the daily lives of Hoosiers.

It is time to reduce the unchecked powers of Loretta Rush.

Now they should turn their attention to the legal and regulatory institutions that determine whether those laws are administered fairly.

A state can pass laws protecting consumers, regulating businesses, improving public safety and expanding access to services. But if the legal system responsible for enforcing those laws lacks public confidence, the entire effort is weakened.

Indiana needs fewer unnecessary legal battles, better regulation of lawyers, accountable judges and a system that protects both the consumer and the professional.

The General Assembly should make that its next major reform project.

Hoosiers do not need government simply to write more rules. They need government to ensure that the rules—and the people charged with enforcing them—operate fairly.

The measure of a successful legal system is not how many laws it passes, how many complaints it processes or how many cases it decides. It is whether people can trust it to deliver jus