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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT