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. I grew up on a farm and live in the county and it's interesting that the big industrial farmers like Jeff Shoaf don't live next to their industrial operations...

  2. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  3. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  4. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  5. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

ADVERTISEMENT