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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT