ILNews

Bills would make changes to pro bono funding, court costs, early voting

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana’s 2012 legislative session promises to be a busy one, with hundreds of bills already filed and a short session deadline of March 14. Following are some of the bills Indiana Lawyer is watching:

The Senate Committee on Judiciary is expected to hear a bill that would create additional funding for pro bono districts. Senate Bill 235, introduced by Sen. Ron Grooms, R-Jeffersonville, would distribute $1 from certain small claims and civil court filing fees to the Indiana Bar Foundation for the purpose of supplementing funding to Indiana’s pro bono districts. Charles Dunlap, executive director of the bar foundation, said the bill could result in about $500,000 in annual funding for the pro bono districts, which have struggled with budget shortfalls resulting from a decrease in interest on lawyer trust accounts.

House Bill 1049, authored by Rep. Eric Koch, R-Bedford, would remove a $400 cap on fees for participation in problem-solving courts. Under the revisions made by the bill, reasonable fees for education or treatment and rehabilitative services would not be included in the participation fee. The bill is slated to be heard by the House Committee on Judiciary.

Democratic Sens. Jean Breaux of Indianapolis, Jim Arnold of LaPorte, and John Broden of South Bend have introduced a bill that would allow county election boards to establish early satellite voting centers with only a majority vote. Currently, a unanimous vote is required to establish early satellite voting centers. The legislation – Senate Bill 6 – has been referred to the Senate Committee on Elections. If passed, the law would be effective before November’s presidential election.

 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT