ILNews

Bill: Legal aid services can assess indigency

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana lawmakers want the state's legal aid and pro bono programs to have one less hurdle to navigate through when representing indigent clients, agreeing that there's no need to always tie up court time in establishing indigency.

The unanimous House vote came Thursday on HB 1363, which is authored by Rep. Trent Van Haaften, D-Mt. Vernon, also an attorney with Bamberger Foreman Oswald and Hahn. The legislation provides that a clerk can waive any required fees or court costs on a civil action or petition for a guardian to be appointed, without a judge's approval, if that person is represented by a civil legal aid program or pro bono attorney that's already established indigency.

Designed to improve court efficiency by reducing the time spent on determining indigency, Van Haaften said courts generally waive filing fees even if they require a hearing for a plaintiff represented by Legal Services Inc. or a pro bono district. Those programs set their own standards and have comprehensive screening processes, and there is no need to duplicate the efforts or tie up court resources, he said.

Van Haaften said trial courts would have the option to step back in at any point and re-examine a person's indigency, if needed.

Fiscal research on the legislation notes that the number of people represented by a civil legal aid or pro bono attorney is not reported in the Indiana Judicial Report, though pro bono administrators and directors of legal assistance corporations report that the large majority of indigent plaintiffs are represented in divorce and child support cases. On average, the state's general fund receives fees between $104 in civil cases and $118 in probate cases, and local general funds receive between $32 in civil and $38 in probate, according to a fiscal impact statement.

The bill now moves to the Senate for consideration; Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford, and Sen. Greg Taylor, D-Indianapolis - both attorneys - have signed on as sponsors.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT