One bar’s rates going down

February 11, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The current economy can make businesses cut fees in hopes of attracting more customers or raise fees to cover increasing costs and hope it doesn’t drive people away.

The American Bar Association took the first approach this week and voted to retool their dues structure in order to make it more affordable for all types of attorneys to join or continue to be members.

Solo practitioners will see their dues drop up to 50 percent; government lawyers, judges, and attorneys working for nonprofit legal services, who already receive a discount, will have their dues slashed by up to 25 percent.

The ABA will also bill lawyers in installments instead of needing the years’ worth of dues in one lump sum. A release from the ABA says it understood there wasn’t a one-size fits all approach for attorneys who practice law.

It’s not cheap for attorneys or the law firms/offices that pay for their attorneys to join various bar associations and sections. It’s nice to see the ABA recognizes that many lawyers are struggling in this economy and is trying to address the situation to allow people to maintain memberships or join at lower costs. But for smaller bar associations, it may not be economically possible to lower rates for everyone, or even just some members.

The Indiana State Bar Association voted in November to increase rates by more than 20 percent, the first rate hike in eight years. Those increases take effect in May.

Because of the ISBA’s decision and the economy, the St. Joseph County Bar Association decided to delay the 2010 rate increase, said executive director Amy McGuire. Last year, members saw a $25 increase in SJCBA dues; rates were supposed to increase another $25 dollars this year.

Some bar associations, like the Allen County or the Evansville Bar associations, have not changed dues in the last couple of years.
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
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT