ILNews

Task force: Keep pro bono hours anonymous

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Every year, the attorneys in the southern Indiana counties that comprise the state’s Pro Bono District 10 receive a survey asking how much legal help they have volunteered.

Diane Walker, District 10 coordinator, described the survey as unscientific and the response as hit and miss, but the goal is to get an idea of how many hours attorneys are working pro bono.

One remarkable trend the survey has spotlighted is the amount of pro bono work being done under the radar. The cases are self-generated, perhaps by an individual walking into the attorney’s office and asking for help, and are not being given to the attorneys by a legal aid agency.

“I think there’s a lot of underreporting,” Walker said of the survey. “I can’t put a number to it, but every year we get people who I didn’t know were doing pro bono.”
 

Dickson Dickson

The Indiana Supreme Court is considering a proposal that would likely put more light on underreporting and enable the state to get a better idea of how many hours attorneys across the state are giving to pro bono work. Indiana Chief Justice Brent Dickson is promoting the mandate as a way to incentivize lawyers to represent individuals who need help but cannot afford it.

The initiative would require Indiana attorneys to annually report the number of hours of free legal service they provided in a given year. Attorneys who did not donate time to pro bono work would be obligated to report zero hours.

Some in the legal community have pushed back against the proposal. They are concerned about potential ramifications if the hours are made publicly available. Others are worried that mandatory reporting will eventually lead to a mandate to do pro bono work.

Still, the Indiana State Bar Association’s House of Delegates gave a thumbs-up to the proposal at its meeting in October 2013. Then-ISBA President Dan Vinovich called the initiative “a noble vision.”

A task force formed by the Pro Bono Commission at the request of the Supreme Court made recommendations on how to implement mandatory reporting and submitted its report to the Supreme Court. The group was led by Indiana Tax Judge Martha Blood Wentworth.


wentworth-martha-2014mug Wentworth

“We are very proud of our work,” Wentworth said of the task force. “This has been a very active and thoughtful group.”

The committee looked at whether continuing legal education credit should be given for pro bono legal service; how the hours would be disclosed publicly; what constitutes pro bono work; what would be contained in the new reporting provision in the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct; and the method for reporting hours.

“We are recommenders, we are not deciders,” Wentworth said, explaining the role of the task force. “We have been asked to recommend only.”

Two sides of the issue

Bloomington attorney Matthew Schulz incorporates pro bono work into his regular practice. He always has one active pro bono case on his desk at all times.

“I don’t look at it as a burden,” Schulz said. “I just do it because it’s the right thing to do.”

A native of Bedford, Schulz served in the military then went to Indiana University Maurer School on Law on the GI Bill. He worked in the Monroe County Prosecutor’s Office for three years before opening his own law office less than a year ago.

He is familiar with the mandatory reporting proposal and has heard a lot of discussion about it. He has not taken a position because he can see both the pros and cons of the issue.

Like Schulz, solo practitioner Stephen Griebel finds benefits and harms in mandating attorneys report pro bono hours. Griebel, based in Churubusco, accepts many pro bono cases from the Volunteer Lawyers Program of Northeast Indiana, and he offers assistance because he wants to help where he can.

While Griebel can understand that mandatory reporting would help to quantify the size of the need in Indiana and could inspire some attorneys to begin pro bono work, he said the implementation of the program will have to be done carefully.
probono-facts.jpg Some attorneys, he said, want to volunteer anonymously, but a reporting requirement might eliminate their ability to remain unidentified. Conversely, other attorneys may do the pro bono work solely for the recognition, seeing the service as a way to help themselves rather than as a way to help others.

Walker said her office conducts the survey to show grantors the type of pro bono work being done and to identify attorneys who might be able to take cases in the future.

“I think it’s all a part of making people know pro bono is important and that somebody is paying attention,” she said of the survey. “Plus, whenever I talk to people, they appreciate that somebody asked.”

Mandatory reporting would emphasize the importance of volunteering legal services, Walker said. Moreover, she added, submitting hours is not as onerous as some may think.

Needing more attorneys

Brian Drummy, attorney at Bunger & Robertson in Bloomington, agreed with Walker that mandatory reporting will underscore the need for pro bono work.

As far as the fears that mandatory reporting will lead to mandatory volunteering, Drummy said he did not have an answer. But he noted those worries should be eased if the Supreme Court offers an assurance that will not happen.

“Obviously we’re lawyers and we think critically,” Drummy said. “Our job is to know what ill effects can come from a decision so it’s natural to see the worst-case scenario.”
In a speech during the Allen County Volunteer Lawyers Recognition Luncheon, Dickson highlighted the growing number of litigants who cannot afford legal representation. He called pro se litigation a cancer and outlined the problems unrepresented individuals cause, including clogging court dockets and obstructing the judicial process because they are not familiar with the law and legal procedures.

The best remedy, Dickson said, is to encourage, incentivize and enable all Indiana lawyers to volunteer for pro bono legal service.

For many years, Allen County attorney John Cowan of Tourkow Crell Rosenblatt & Johnston LLP has taken pro bono assignments from the VLP of Northeast Indiana. In fact, he only accepts cases through the agency because the VLP screens the clients and keeps track of the cases as well as his hours.

Cowan’s experience points to how much legal aid organizations can help attorneys doing pro bono work. The assistance makes the service less burdensome, he said, and without VLP keeping track of his hours, he would have no idea how many he volunteered.

In total, attorneys provided 6,500 hours of pro bono service to VLP of Northeast Indiana in 2013. However, that does not meet the need.

According to Cyndi Gavin, client services coordinator, the program receives 12,000 to 15,000 requests for assistance each year and the clients who are accepted will likely have a four- to six-month wait before they see an attorney.

“We definitely need more attorneys,” Gavin said. “That’s a definite.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT