Maybe it’s because we’ve been there before, but there aren’t any reports of Marion County courts in Indianapolis postponing hearings or trials because of the Super Bowl. Mario Massillamany with the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office told me no one has rescheduled anything and there are trials scheduled for Monday. He did say the prosecutor’s office has noticed attorneys are trying to get pleas earlier than normal. That bargaining usually happens closer to Friday. He thinks defense attorneys may be trying to speed up the process so they can avoid court on Monday.

If you’ve heard of anything in the legal community or courts being moved to accommodate the Super Bowl, feel free to share.

The nomination of two female judges to the U.S. District’s Southern District of Indiana is definitely a step in the right direction. It will double the number of women on the federal bench here; however, that sounds more significant than it really is. If confirmed, we’ll have four women on the federal bench, which will mean women make up only 13 percent of that bench. That is an improvement on our current 9.6 percent female makeup.

A report recently released by the Center for Women in Government & Civil Society from the University at Albany, State University of New York, ranked Indiana pretty low when it came to the female composition of our benches. We’re 46th in the country in terms of the percentage of women on our federal bench; we fared a little better in state courts, where we tied for 35th place with 20.7 percent of female judges.

The report attributes this gender gap to not a lack of qualified women but lack of opportunity and access to the bench. Various legal organizations and bar associations have addressed this issue, with the latest happening tonight in Washington, D.C. While the event “How to become a judge” doesn’t specifically say it’s for women, it’s presented in part by the District of Columbia Women’s Bar Association and is comprised of a mostly female panel.

Indiana’s courts are not very diverse, especially when compared to other states. We are one of a handful of states that don’t have a woman on our Supreme Court. What needs to be done to get more qualified women and minorities on the bench?

As President Barack Obama spoke about how the ruling will open up our elections to corporations here and abroad to spend without limits, the justices present for the speech sit there, mostly stoic, as attendees jumped to their feet to applaud the president.

Did you see Justice Samuel Alito scrunching up his face and shaking his head at the president’s comments? You can view a clip of it here. He also appears to mouth something, like “not true.”

I’d be uncomfortable if the president, during his State of the Union speech and in front of millions of people watching on TV, called me out for a decision he didn’t like. I imagine some of the justices were, but in order to make the big decisions on our nation’s laws, they must have thick skin.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said so in an opinion it released this week in an inmate’s appeal after his D&D games were taken away because of the fear it was a gang activity and would promote inmates to behave badly.

Seriously? I know prison officials want to prevent any kind of disruptive or dangerous behavior, but have they ever played the game, or any other role-playing game before? Anyone who has ever played D&D (and I admit I did once, as a child in the ’80s) knows it’s a fairly harmless game in which people spend time strategizing about what type of character they want to be, their powers, and create a fantasy world in which these elves, wizards, and other characters interact under the direction of a Dungeon Master. It may get heated in moments of battles, but I doubt punches are thrown because of it.

A prison in Wisconsin banned the game because it said it promotes violence, hostility, fantasy role playing, addictive escape behaviors, and possible gambling. The prisoner’s appeal of that decision made it to the 7th Circuit, which affirmed summary judgment for the prison. Apparently the inmate’s oodles of affidavit testimony that D&D isn’t associated with gangs and the game can help improve inmate rehabilitation didn’t show a genuine issue of material fact concerning the reasonableness of the relationship between the prison’s ban and legitimate penological interests.

Prison is supposed to be a punishment, not a vacation, but taking away outlets for prisoners to occupy their minds or pass the time seems like a bad idea. I think D&D is pretty tame, and anyone who gets caught up in it and believes the fantasy world is telling them to injure or kill someone in real life obviously has mental issues that preclude any involvement with the game. Plus, those inmates looking for a reason to fight will do so over anything.

Do the prison’s assumptions on D&D apply to the non-prison world? I imagine most people who play the game in their homes, at conventions, or in stores do so in part because of the fantasy world and escapism it provides. It’s intriguing and thrilling to make up a character and become that person, even if for a few hours. Hey, actors get paid to do that.

The only negatives I can find with playing D&D is perhaps getting too caught up in your fantasy world and not getting enough social interaction in other settings or exercise, but I’d never consider it anywhere close to a gang activity. That is, unless I start seeing D&D players dressing in their specific gang colors and having turf wars with other D&D groups.

I’m pretty green when it comes witnessing firsthand the workings of our legislators, so I was caught off guard at how the committee meeting I attended took place. I was amazed at how long it took for the 8:30 a.m. meeting to start. I foolishly thought that I had to be there right on time and that the legislators would value punctuality. I’m sure they are busy and have a lot to do and would want to get the show on the road, but that didn’t happen for another 20 minutes.

Some of the senators in this particular meeting checked their phones, got up frequently, and even stared into space for a period of time while someone was testifying about a bill.

Someone who doesn’t work in government or work with the government may be offended by the behavior if they aren’t prepared for it. To spend your time preparing a statement and then looking up to see what appears to be half the committee not paying attention would frustrate me.

In the private workplace, this behavior during a meeting wouldn’t fly, but as I attend more meetings and hearings, I’ll learn that’s just how it’s done in the legislature.

The changes stem from member feedback that the status quo isn’t working in the current state of the economy and legal profession, and significant change is required to help members meet current and future challenges.

The NALP Commission on Recruiting in the Legal Profession wants to do away with the current system in which law schools schedule on-campus interviews as early as possible before the first semester to give students a better chance at having an offer extended. Law firms are hopping from school to school trying to interview as many students during this time period as possible so as not to miss out on top-notch candidates for summer associates and new hires.

Instead, a date in January would be designated for 2L recruiting before which no offers could be extended, but may be extended any time after that date. The rolling period of time during which offers can remain open would shrink from 45 to 14 days. If the 2L had previously been employed at the firm, their offer could be extended at any time but would need to remain open until the kick-off date.

The 3L process remains mostly intact, but the report suggests the deadline in November for responding to offers extended to previous summer associates needs to correlate closely with the deadline for full-time offers to those who weren’t previously employed at the firm as a summer associate.

The commission believes adopting these changes will achieve a balance between giving employers additional time to process their hiring needs after looking at year-end financial data and giving law schools enough time to work with their students. You can read the full report on the NALP Web site, http://www.nalp.org/commissiononrecruiting.

There are some firms that aren’t fans of the proposed changes, which isn’t surprising given the legal community’s tendency to resist change and favor the status quo. But the changes aren’t perfect because law firms aren’t required to extended offers on the offer kick-off day, but are prevented from doing so any earlier. Students may receive offers from firms at different times and would face a shorter period in which to consider the offers. Firms that aren’t members of NALP may extend offers earlier, which could really throw a wrench in the process. Indiana has 14 firms – some with various offices – listed in NALP’s 2009-2010 member directory.

NALP is taking comments about the proposed changes through Jan. 29. You can send your feedback to suggestioninbox@nalp.org.

Law firms, students: What do you think about the proposed changes? Will it level the playing field or create different kinds of inequity and challenges for firms and schools?

I know the idea behind the legislation HB 1326 is the same as the other bans imposed on sex offenders: to protect children. But are these bans creating a slippery slope where soon sex offenders won’t be able to leave their homes?

Children congregate in lots of places – churches, shopping malls, restaurants. Will we have to enact legislation to ban registered sex offenders from these places? I guarantee you there are sex offenders working in malls and restaurants – just visit the state’s online database of sex and violent offenders to see for yourself.

I am in no way trying to downplay the seriousness of the crimes these offenders commit against innocent children. We need to protect children as best we can from becoming victims, whether that be vigilant about knowing who lives in your neighborhood, not letting your children play or walk alone outside, or in other ways.

I know that not every sex offender can be “cured” or rehabilitated in prison. But I also know that they have served their time and that unless our legislature wants to impose tougher and longer penalties against those who commit sex crimes against children, our society is going to have to find a way to deal with sex offenders interacting with the general public.