Counsel

Conflict of Trial Court Assignment Dates, Continuances and Engaged (A) Continuances; granting of. The continuance of a scheduled trial or hearing is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court for good cause shown. No party shall be granted a continuance of a trial or hearing without a written motion from the party or counsel stating the reason for the continuance, endorsed in writing by the party as well as counsel, provided that the trial judge may waive this requirement upon a showing of good cause. No court shall grant a continuance to any party at any time without first setting a definite date for the trial or hearing. When a continuance is requested by reason of the unavailability of a witness at the time scheduled for trial or hearing, the court shall consider the feasibility of resorting to the several methods of recording testimony permitted by Civil Rule 30(B) and authorized for use by Civil Rule 32(A)(3). (B) Conflict of Trial Date Assignments (1) When a continuance is requested for the reasons that counsel is scheduled to appear in another case assigned for trial on the same date in the same or another trial court of this state, the case which was first set for trial shall have priority and shall be tried on the date assigned. Criminal cases assigned for trial have priority over civil cases assigned for trial. The court should not consider any motion for a continuance due to a conflict of trial assignment dates unless a copy of the conflicting assignment is attached to the motion and the motion is filed not less than thirty days prior to trial. (2) Except as provided in division (B)(3) of this rule, a continuance shall be granted, upon request, under either of the following circumstances: (a) A party, counsel, or witness under subpoena is scheduled to appear on the same date at a hearing before the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme Court as a member of the Board, as a party, as counsel for a party, or as a witness under subpoena for the hearing; (b) Counsel requesting the continuance will be unavailable to participate in the judicial proceeding because counsel is a member of the General Assembly whose attendance is required at a scheduled voting session or committee meeting of the General Assembly. (3) In considering a continuance requested pursuant to division (B)(2)(b) of this rule, the court may require counsel to obtain the consent of the client and provide notice to all other parties to the action. The court may deny the requested continuance if either or both of the following apply: (a) Counsel has been granted prior continuances in the same case based on attendance at scheduled voting sessions or committee meetings of the General Assembly; (b) prejudice to a party. The court determines that further delay in the proceeding would result in substantial (C) Engaged counsel. If a designated trial attorney has a number of cases assigned for trial in courts of this state that causes undue delay in the disposition of the cases, the administrative judge may summon the trial attorney who persistently requests continuances and extensions to warn the attorney of the possibility of sanctions and to encourage the attorney to make necessary adjustments in the management of his or her practice. Where such measures fail, the administrative judge may impose restrictions on the number of cases in which the attorney may participate at any one time. (D) Continuances; reporting. Trial continuances shall be reported on a monthly basis to the administrative judge. Where a judge is persistently and unreasonably indulgent in granting continuances or extensions, the administrative judge shall investigate the reasons for the excessive continuances and take appropriate corrective action at the local level. If corrective action at the local level is unsuccessful, the administrative judge shall report that fact to the Case Management Section of the Supreme Court. If it comes to the attention of the Case Management Section that the judge of a single-judge division is persistently and unreasonably indulgent in granting continuances, it shall report the information to the Chief Justice, who shall take appropriate corrective action. Commentary (July 1, 1997)