Crowdfunding for court costs

Dave Stafford
June 28, 2017
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
crowdfund-screenshot-062817-15col.jpg Common Cause Indiana used crowdfunding to support its and the NAACP’s legal challenge to early voting in Marion County. (IL screenshot)

Need to raise money to defend your criminal case, seek a custody modification or fight for a community or social justice cause? There’s an app for that.

Crowdfunding websites such as and others are rife with fundraising campaigns for various legal matters, from neighbors fighting to stop approval of a “factory” hog farm in northern Indiana to a federal case in which the NAACP and others seek to expand early voting in Marion County.

Common Cause Indiana is a partner with NAACP and other plaintiffs in the early voting case and established a public fundraiser for the suit on The site, which originated in the United Kingdom before expanding to the U.S., specializes in fundraising campaigns for rights and public interest issues.

Julia Vaughn, policy director at the nonpartisan Common Cause Indiana, said the case marked the first time the organization has used crowdfunding. Two threshold goals were set to fund the early voting suit — $5,000 to retain experts, and $10,000 to fund all litigation in the case.

“We were very pleased to have success the first time out of the gate,” she said. In less than 30 days, donations of $10,160 were pledged by 234 people — an average of about $43 per donor.

Vaughn said the case was a natural for crowdfunding because potential donors could see the basic inequity argument: Marion County provided just one early voting precinct for all of Indianapolis in 2016, while smaller neighboring counties opened multiple locations.

“We weren’t trying to explain any really convoluted legal arguments,” she said. “I do think we had an issue that was well-suited for crowdfunding, but again, we certainly worked it hard. … This money isn’t going to raise itself.”

For nonprofits thinking about the possibility of litigation, Vaughn said crowdfunding is undeniably effective. “It’s as easy a fundraising effort as I ever had to participate in,” she said.

Passing the digital hat

Whitham Hebenstreit & Zubek LLP partner S. Gregory Zubek had no idea clients he represented in an Indianapolis land-use lawsuit had used a GoFundMe campaign to raise thousands of dollars to fight a proposed development, though he said he wasn’t necessarily surprised.

Zubek represented neighborhood groups in the Traders Point area that fought a city hall ruling and won. A Marion Superior judge revoked a zoning permit for a gas station proposed on the northwest side at 86th Street and Lafayette Road. The developer appealed, and the case is currently being briefed before the Court of Appeals in Three Mile Properties, Inc. v. Traders Point Association of Neighborhoods, 49A04-1703-PL-00554.

Zubek said in 40 years as an attorney, he’s had occasion to represent neighborhood groups in various matters, and it’s not uncommon they would band together to raise money for remonstrances or litigation against projects they oppose.

“Instead of going door to door, one could say they used a different methodology,” he said upon learning of the online fundraiser. The group’s GoFundMe page has collected just shy of $17,000 from 83 people in the past 25 months.

“We wanted to make it as easy as possible for individuals to contribute,” said Greg Magnuson, who founded the GoFundMe campaign. He said it collected 300 percent more in contributions than were collected in checks. Average online donations were typically smaller, he said, but there were far more of them.

“If it wasn’t for crowdfunding and partnering with a local nonprofit, we wouldn’t have raised nearly as much money for our cause to cover our legal expenses,” he said. “The support of our community, through crowdfunding, has been key to what we have been able to accomplish.”

Kip Wainscott, head of legal and external relations for CrowdJustice, said crowdfunding marks not so much a change but an evolution in how litigation is funded. “The approach isn’t totally dissimilar from the way individuals have long looked to neighbors and families as a way to fund their legal matter,” he said.

Wainscott said CrowdJustice has successfully funded more than 200 public-interest campaigns in the U.K. and the U.S., raising more than $3.5 million for those causes.

“There is a democratization aspect to this approach that can be especially resonant,” he said. Courts can bring great change, and individuals who haven’t always had access can level the field through crowdfunding. “We think it can be really powerful,” he said.

Who and how?

GoFundMe is among the largest general fundraising websites. Alongside efforts seeking cash for weddings, charities, class field trips and myriad other purposes are hundreds of pages for campaigns involving Indiana legal matters. These run the gamut from family law disputes to a fundraising page for Indiana University informatics professor L. Jean Camp, whose research explored possible internet communications during the presidential campaign between a Russian bank and the Trump Organization.

The page for Camp says that while IU is prepared to defend the professor and her research, funds raised on the site would be used to defend her after Russia’s Alfa Bank sent letters threatening potential prosecution under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

The page established in late March quickly surpassed its goal, collecting more than $5,200 that’s being used to reimburse leading cyber attorneys who’ve sent reply letters to the bank on Camp’s behalf. One response from her lawyers describes the bank’s letter as “an attempt to intimidate critics who have voiced opinions that your client doesn’t like and infringe upon Dr. Camp’s academic freedom.”

In addition to GoFundMe and similar domains, sites such as and are strictly limited to fundraising for legal matters. CrowdJustice goes a step further. It first requires people seeking fundraising pages to be represented by counsel. If a funding goal is met, the money is directed to the attorney’s trust account, which provides more accountability, Wainscott said.

“It’s a platform specifically for the purpose of raising funds and supporting communities in their pursuit of justice,” he said. “As lawyers, we understand there are professional responsibilities that attach” when funds are distributed to a law firm for litigation.

Other crowdfunding sites are far less restrictive and may have little or no control over how funds are directed or when they can be withdrawn. Crowdfunding sites typically collect administrative and operational fees totaling about 8 to 10 percent of amounts donated. Magnuson said people who are considering creating a crowdfunding page for a legal matter should be aware of all these factors at the outset.

But Magnuson said there may be a more basic consideration. “I believe it helped that we are focused on a specific issue that many in the community feel very strongly about,” he said.

There are no ethical constraints for parties soliciting financial support for litigation costs, but Indiana Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathryn Dolan said in an email that lawyers do have a consideration when crowdfunding is involved. “Lawyers cannot surrender their obligation to their client by following the money. Their independence to their client cannot be compromised by the interest of a donor or donors,” she said, noting attorneys cannot allow donors, rather than clients, to dictate representation or strategy.•


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He TIL team,please zap this comment too since it was merely marking a scammer and not reflecting on the story. Thanks, happy Monday, keep up the fine work.

  2. You just need my social security number sent to your Gmail account to process then loan, right? Beware scammers indeed.

  3. 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: Here are the two research papers: 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.