ILNews

Bill would increase funds for pro bono districts

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Two Indiana lawmakers have introduced a bill that may offer hope to financially strapped pro bono districts.

Sens. Ron Grooms, R-Jeffersonville, and Brent Steele, R-Bedford, authored Senate Bill 235, which would funnel $1 from each civil filing fee to the Indiana Bar Foundation to augment funding for the state’s 12 pro bono districts. The districts are funded by interest on lawyer trust accounts, and with interest rates currently below one percent, pro bono plan administrators have been searching for new funding sources.

If the bill passes, it could result in about $500,000 in annual support for pro bono providers. That’s roughly twice the amount of the $253,865 in total IOLTA funds awarded for 2012.

Finding funds

Charles Dunlap, the IBF executive director, said Steele approached him with the idea for SB235.

“It’s not often that you have a senator take an interest in something and contact you,” Dunlap said. But Steele is a lawyer who has volunteered his time for pro bono work over the years, and he’s seen the economy put a strain on providers.

“Until interest rates come back up in this county, we’re going have to add some fuel to the fire – some funding – and this is the only thing I could think of,” Steele said.
 

pro bono Sens. Ron Grooms (left) and Brent Steele co-authored a bill to augment IOLTA funding. (IL Photo/ Eric Learned)

Dunlap said he and Steele discussed how much money would be needed to prop up the districts. Arriving at a figure of $500,000, Steele then approached the Legislative Services Agency and asked for staff to come up with a funding model.

“We worked backward and tried to get LSA to estimate the number of civil filings a year – if we’d had enough civil filings, it could’ve been 10 cents per filing,” Steele said. “We didn’t raise any more money than what we needed.”

Grooms appreciated the opportunity to carry the legislation by Steele, who signed-on as co-author on Jan. 9.

“To be able to have an opportunity to introduce this I thought was a good decision to make, to show the residents of the state of Indiana that we do care about your ability to seek legal service and that we care about providing legal service to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay,” Grooms said.

Diane Walker, plan administrator for Pro Bono District H, based in Bloomington, said Steele and his siblings – Byron Steele and Darlene Steele McSoley – are known for their pro bono volunteerism, often logging the most pro bono hours in Lawrence County.

“We’ve been giving awards since 2007, and every year one of them wins it,” Walker said.

Grooms, who is a pharmacist, said that the desire to give back is not unique to the legal community. He said that independent, locally owned pharmacies often find ways to help people of modest means.

“You ask them how many prescriptions they give away per year, and you would be amazed,” Grooms said. “You have an obligation to your community to not let some child get sick because of some $5 or $10 prescription.”

Success in other states

In Pennsylvania, similar legislation has resulted in a significant increase in funding for legal services. The Pennsylvania IOLTA Board released a report in 2009 announcing results of the Access to Justice Act. Enacted in 2002, the legislation changed state statute to establish a $2 surcharge on filings in state courts. In 2006 and 2011, the legislature extended the act, which now has a sunset date of Dec. 21, 2014.

Between 2004 and 2008, the AJA produced $36.5 million in funding for the Pennsylvania’s IOLTA-supported pro bono providers. In that timeframe, more than 138,000 people directly benefited from that funding.

Many other states have earmarked filing fees for civil legal aid programs, according to the American Bar Association.

SB 235 initially did not have a sunset date for the new funding model, but Grooms said he plans to amend the bill to include one.

Indiana has not done as much as some other states to support legal aid, Dunlap said, and the proposed legislation was a welcome departure from that tradition.

Steele said that sharing authorship of the bill with Grooms is a natural fit.

“That’s what I think makes the citizen legislature what it is. You get a lawyer and a pharmacist working together – go figure that,” Steele said. “It is a matter of personal relationships and professional responsibility that we each have. He’s a professional in his line of work, and me in mine, but you’re all trying to get the same end product.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • good
    when i started practicing law I thought it was bad that they took the interest off these accounts but with experience I have come to believe that IBF supporting pro bono districts is not only totally important to the public good but also practically speaking a big headache relief for other lawyers that there is any kind of help out there for the indigent. I totally support it now -- and I think this new bills is a very very good one-- and I encourage voluntary gifts for IBF from us all as well.

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 appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT