ILNews

Task force: Keep pro bono hours anonymous

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Every year, the attorneys in the southern Indiana counties that comprise the state’s Pro Bono District 10 receive a survey asking how much legal help they have volunteered.

Diane Walker, District 10 coordinator, described the survey as unscientific and the response as hit and miss, but the goal is to get an idea of how many hours attorneys are working pro bono.

One remarkable trend the survey has spotlighted is the amount of pro bono work being done under the radar. The cases are self-generated, perhaps by an individual walking into the attorney’s office and asking for help, and are not being given to the attorneys by a legal aid agency.

“I think there’s a lot of underreporting,” Walker said of the survey. “I can’t put a number to it, but every year we get people who I didn’t know were doing pro bono.”
 

Dickson Dickson

The Indiana Supreme Court is considering a proposal that would likely put more light on underreporting and enable the state to get a better idea of how many hours attorneys across the state are giving to pro bono work. Indiana Chief Justice Brent Dickson is promoting the mandate as a way to incentivize lawyers to represent individuals who need help but cannot afford it.

The initiative would require Indiana attorneys to annually report the number of hours of free legal service they provided in a given year. Attorneys who did not donate time to pro bono work would be obligated to report zero hours.

Some in the legal community have pushed back against the proposal. They are concerned about potential ramifications if the hours are made publicly available. Others are worried that mandatory reporting will eventually lead to a mandate to do pro bono work.

Still, the Indiana State Bar Association’s House of Delegates gave a thumbs-up to the proposal at its meeting in October 2013. Then-ISBA President Dan Vinovich called the initiative “a noble vision.”

A task force formed by the Pro Bono Commission at the request of the Supreme Court made recommendations on how to implement mandatory reporting and submitted its report to the Supreme Court. The group was led by Indiana Tax Judge Martha Blood Wentworth.


wentworth-martha-2014mug Wentworth

“We are very proud of our work,” Wentworth said of the task force. “This has been a very active and thoughtful group.”

The committee looked at whether continuing legal education credit should be given for pro bono legal service; how the hours would be disclosed publicly; what constitutes pro bono work; what would be contained in the new reporting provision in the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct; and the method for reporting hours.

“We are recommenders, we are not deciders,” Wentworth said, explaining the role of the task force. “We have been asked to recommend only.”

Two sides of the issue

Bloomington attorney Matthew Schulz incorporates pro bono work into his regular practice. He always has one active pro bono case on his desk at all times.

“I don’t look at it as a burden,” Schulz said. “I just do it because it’s the right thing to do.”

A native of Bedford, Schulz served in the military then went to Indiana University Maurer School on Law on the GI Bill. He worked in the Monroe County Prosecutor’s Office for three years before opening his own law office less than a year ago.

He is familiar with the mandatory reporting proposal and has heard a lot of discussion about it. He has not taken a position because he can see both the pros and cons of the issue.

Like Schulz, solo practitioner Stephen Griebel finds benefits and harms in mandating attorneys report pro bono hours. Griebel, based in Churubusco, accepts many pro bono cases from the Volunteer Lawyers Program of Northeast Indiana, and he offers assistance because he wants to help where he can.

While Griebel can understand that mandatory reporting would help to quantify the size of the need in Indiana and could inspire some attorneys to begin pro bono work, he said the implementation of the program will have to be done carefully.
probono-facts.jpg Some attorneys, he said, want to volunteer anonymously, but a reporting requirement might eliminate their ability to remain unidentified. Conversely, other attorneys may do the pro bono work solely for the recognition, seeing the service as a way to help themselves rather than as a way to help others.

Walker said her office conducts the survey to show grantors the type of pro bono work being done and to identify attorneys who might be able to take cases in the future.

“I think it’s all a part of making people know pro bono is important and that somebody is paying attention,” she said of the survey. “Plus, whenever I talk to people, they appreciate that somebody asked.”

Mandatory reporting would emphasize the importance of volunteering legal services, Walker said. Moreover, she added, submitting hours is not as onerous as some may think.

Needing more attorneys

Brian Drummy, attorney at Bunger & Robertson in Bloomington, agreed with Walker that mandatory reporting will underscore the need for pro bono work.

As far as the fears that mandatory reporting will lead to mandatory volunteering, Drummy said he did not have an answer. But he noted those worries should be eased if the Supreme Court offers an assurance that will not happen.

“Obviously we’re lawyers and we think critically,” Drummy said. “Our job is to know what ill effects can come from a decision so it’s natural to see the worst-case scenario.”
In a speech during the Allen County Volunteer Lawyers Recognition Luncheon, Dickson highlighted the growing number of litigants who cannot afford legal representation. He called pro se litigation a cancer and outlined the problems unrepresented individuals cause, including clogging court dockets and obstructing the judicial process because they are not familiar with the law and legal procedures.

The best remedy, Dickson said, is to encourage, incentivize and enable all Indiana lawyers to volunteer for pro bono legal service.

For many years, Allen County attorney John Cowan of Tourkow Crell Rosenblatt & Johnston LLP has taken pro bono assignments from the VLP of Northeast Indiana. In fact, he only accepts cases through the agency because the VLP screens the clients and keeps track of the cases as well as his hours.

Cowan’s experience points to how much legal aid organizations can help attorneys doing pro bono work. The assistance makes the service less burdensome, he said, and without VLP keeping track of his hours, he would have no idea how many he volunteered.

In total, attorneys provided 6,500 hours of pro bono service to VLP of Northeast Indiana in 2013. However, that does not meet the need.

According to Cyndi Gavin, client services coordinator, the program receives 12,000 to 15,000 requests for assistance each year and the clients who are accepted will likely have a four- to six-month wait before they see an attorney.

“We definitely need more attorneys,” Gavin said. “That’s a definite.”•

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. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

  2. A high ranking bureaucrat with Ind sup court is heading up an organization celebrating the formal N word!!! She must resign and denounce! http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

  3. ND2019, don't try to confuse the Left with facts. Their ideologies trump facts, trump due process, trump court rules, even trump federal statutes. I hold the proof if interested. Facts matter only to those who are not on an agenda-first mission.

  4. OK so I'll make this as short as I can. I got a call that my daughter was smoking in the bathroom only her and one other girl was questioned mind you four others left before them anyways they proceeded to interrogate my daughter about smoking and all this time I nor my parents got a phone call,they proceeded to go through her belongings and also pretty much striped searched my daughter including from what my mother said they looked at her Brest without my consent. I am furious also a couple months ago my son hurt his foot and I was never called and it got worse during the day but the way some of the teachers have been treating my kids they are not comfortable going to them because they feel like they are mean or don't care. This is unacceptable in my mind i should be able to send my kids to school without worry but now I worry how the adults there are treating them. I have a lot more but I wanted to know do I have any attempt at a lawsuit because like I said there is more that's just some of what my kids are going through. Please respond. Sincerely concerned single parent

  5. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13) Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety. The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America. The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx? ID=247350 The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483 Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates. The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483 These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30) The full report is available online at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) (page 38) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 1.8% The full report is available online at. http://www.google.com/url?sa= t&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.cdcr.ca.gov%2FAdult_ Research_Branch%2FResearch_ documents%2FOutcome_ evaluation_Report_2013.pdf&ei= C9dSVePNF8HfoATX-IBo&usg=AFQjCNE9I6ueHz-o2mZUnuxLPTyiRdjDsQ Bureau of Justice Statistics 5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE WASHINGTON, D.C. Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013 Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy. A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7% Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009. The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05% Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so. Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do. From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M. For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf. Attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth. Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country. I think the media or other organizations need to do a in depth investigation into the false assumptions and false data that has been used to further these laws and to research all the collateral damages being caused by these laws and the unconstitutional injustices that are occurring across the country. They should include these injustices in their report so the public can be better informed on what is truly happening in this country on this subject. Thank you for your time.

ADVERTISEMENT