Kentucky

Well, someone out there actually reads these pages! 

Last week I mentioned a procedure in Indiana in which elected count officials, legislators, and  members of the judiciary meet and brainstorm ideas to improve the justice system.  I liked the idea and posted the Indiana Law Blog post with a few comments of my own:  INDIANA:  "Commission on the Courts" Consisting of Court and Legislative Members - et tu Ky?

Aaron Silleto has posted a comment which I have taken the liberty of moving here and posting separately.  Yes, I know there are rules committees, and ethics committees, and judicial campaign conduct committees, and class action ethics issues committees.  But, as everyone chops those trees in front of them, they miss the beauty and the interconnectivity of the forest (bad metaphor but its late).  A big picture approach needs to be made and waiting for that phantom other person to do it means it won't be done.

By the way, Aaron has his own blog and ran an uphill race for district court judge last month.  With 17 candidates in the initial starting gate, Aaron gets a tip of the hat for laying it all on the line and doing his best.  Click here for his blog. And his comment is as follows:

I think this Commission on the Courts would be a worthwhile idea for Kentucky. To stoke the conversation, here are a few items for such a commission to consider:

-- The modifications to Civil Rule 45 proposed by SCOKY, if they are not otherwise adopted this summer. (For details, feel free to check out my latest blog post. [added by KLB -Proposed rule changes merit support]).

-- Conforming Civil Rule 23 to bring it into line with the Federal Rules. Judge Billingsley at LawReader had some good comments on this a while back. The federal courts have a great deal more control over class action settlements than state judges do, and I think that where there are differences, the federal rules are more consumer-friendly.

-- Your suggestion about changing the commencement of an action to coincide with the filing of a complaint, as opposed to the issuance of summons, would be a good change. But in addition to modifying Civil Rule 3.01, the General Assembly would also have to amend KRS 413.250 to effect the change. Also, to prevent abuse, SCOKY would probably have to consider adopting a provision in the Civil Rules analogous to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules (120-day time limit for service after commencement of an action).

-- What about expanding the scope of KRS 422.300, et seq. (allowing hospitals to supply certified medical records to the court in lieu of the records custodian appearing at trial), to include all licensed medical providers, as opposed to only hospitals? As far as I know, this has never been a problem, and is honored more in the breach. But codifying existing practice seems to make sense.

I could probably conceive of a few other things, but hopefully this will further the discussion. (Michael, I am interested to hear what your ideas are that you alluded to in your post.)