Mississippi considers mandatory pro bono or fee - should Indiana follow?

October 1, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

This blog was written by IL reporter Rebecca Berfanger.

Attorneys in Mississippi have until today to respond to a proposed rule change that would require them to either give 20 hours of pro bono service or pay a $500 fee. There would be some exceptions, such as government and judicial employees, those who already work for legal services, and “lawyers who are restricted from practicing law outside their specific employment.”

Currently, attorneys in that state, the poorest in the country according to a recent report from the Mississippi Access to Justice Commission, are strongly encouraged but not required to give at least 20 hours per year or pay a voluntary fee of $200.

Indiana’s Rule 6.1, which, like the Mississippi rule, is based on the American Bar Association’s Model Rule 6.1. The ABA suggests an aspirational goal of 50 hours of pro bono service per year, but doesn’t mention any fines, voluntary or otherwise. Mandatory pro bono and/or a fine is also not currently on the table in Indiana, unless that is how one views the Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts Fund that grants money to the pro bono districts around the state.

On average, the Mississippi report found just over 4,000 attorneys – or a little less than half of that state’s bar - reported they had performed an average of 45 hours of pro bono service.

In addition, through the voluntary fine system, “the Bar received $155,107 in contributions in lieu of pro bono service from 1,013 attorneys. The average of $153 was below the $200 called for in the current rules,” according to the Aug. 23 notice seeking public comment.

The idea of mandatory pro bono is a sticky one. Having talked with plan administrators of various pro bono districts around Indiana, and those who work with them, the idea of mandatory pro bono always gets mixed reviews because of the idea attorneys feel forced to do pro bono.

Plan administrators want as many attorneys to do as much pro bono as possible and help as many people as possible, but they also don’t want attorneys who feel obligated to get the required hours to just phone it in and possibly offer below-par legal service to those who may need it most.

But maybe the idea of a voluntary fine or fee is one solution. For many attorneys, the current amount in Mississippi of $200 is at or less than what many attorneys charge for one billable hour. (And for all the attorneys who couldn’t afford $200 because they are unemployed or underemployed, they could get an exemption).

According to the ABA’s website that compares each state’s pro bono rules, this idea is pretty rare. The District of Columbia, Florida, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming have suggested financial contributions quantified in their rules regarding goals for pro bono, which is not mandatory in any state. The amounts start at $200, and four of those states require $500. Virginia and Kentucky also encourage financial support, even though they don’t give a specific amount.

In fact, a few states have even rejected the idea of mandatory reporting, according to the ABA’s site.

Monica Fennell, executive director of the Indiana Pro Bono Commission, said she was unaware of any proposal in Indiana for mandatory pro bono service, and added that in states that require reporting, attorneys can still report zero hours without a penalty.

While it may seem like a crazy idea to some, my guess is the Indiana Pro Bono Commission and Indiana Bar Foundation would appreciate some extra funds to help offset the loss of funding for pro bono programming thanks to the ever shrinking interest rates and available IOLTA funds. At around $700,000 to be distributed later this year for districts to apply to their 2011 budgets – 55 percent less than the amount distributed in late 2009 for use in 2010 – every little bit helps.

Then again, I’m also guessing a number of attorneys already contribute to their local legal aid organizations, whether that’s a local legal aid society, legal aid clinic, and even their local pro bono districts without a suggested voluntary fine included in Rule 6.1.

Do you think Indiana could follow the example of Mississippi and the states that already suggest pro bono or a suggested, voluntary fee? Or do you think the way it is – where attorneys who want to perform pro bono or support organizations that provide legal aid to the poor with contributions – is the way to go?
 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • mandatory pro bono
    The Indiana Constitution rightfully prohibits taking goods or services without compensation. It is no more the responsibility of the bar to provide free legal representation than it is of groceries to provide free food, or car dealers to provide free transportation. My experience representing pro bono clients is that they are demanding, uncooperative and ungrateful. I don't do it anymore.
  • the Indiana Constitution prohibits it
    I'd argue that Article I, section 21 of the state constitution prohibits mandatory pro bono work: No person's particular services shall be demanded, without just compensation.

    I have no problem with encouraging pro bono work and even attempting to shame attorneys into performing it, but requiring it is simply inimical to our constitution.
  • Pro Bono
    Not only do I echo the comments of the previous posters, but I find the whole idea insulting, insofar as it implies that lawyers are getting rich practicing law, so they need to "give back" to society. As a sole practitioner who is still paying on law school loans 20 years after graduation, competing against unemployed new law school graduates who are willing to work for food, and spending most of the money I make to pay ever increasing expenses, I not only am not getting rich, I am barely making a decent living at the practice of law, and certainly don't have extra time and/or money to give out to people for free.

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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT