ILNews

Hebenstreit: Too Many Clients?

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

IBA-hebenstreitDo you have too many clients? If so, you can probably skip this article; but, if not please read on.

For many years, the IndyBar has been in the lawyer referral business. Each year, the staff fields more than 40,000 calls from the general public and those calls result in new business for the members who take advantage of the Lawyer Referral Service. For the nominal fee of $250 per year, any member can participate. Our members can also determine if they want to participate in the Modest Means service and/or the Legal Advice Hotline at no additional expense.

Attorneys designate what practice areas in which they are interested in receiving calls. There is no limit of practice areas, but most participants try to only accept calls in the areas in which they feel comfortable. The Modest Means panel is designed to assist lower income clients engage an attorney for a reduced fee. Finally the Legal Advice Hotline is a product that allows a client to speak with an attorney over the telephone. The call is limited to 20 minutes. It is popular because it allows a prospective client to determine if they even have a legal problem or one that can be resolved quickly. Both the Modest Means and Legal Advice Hotline are great additional options for newer lawyers trying to build a basic practice.

All calls are routed through the IndyBar staff who are trained to pre screen the calls to determine if they have merit and what areas of the law are involved. Approximately 16,000 referrals are made each year. Calls are forwarded on a rotating basis to the LRS participants who are interested in cases in the area of interest to the caller. The callers are also able to request referrals to an attorney in a given geographical area if they choose to do so. In addition to the annual fee, the participating lawyers self report fees they earn on LRS cases and pay a modest percentage of those fees back to the IndyBar. More than $2.37 million was earned by the panelists between January 2010 and August 2011. That is an average return of over $2700 per case which is more that a 10% return on the investment of the annual fee.In case there is any question whether or not the expense if worthwhile, the average panelist earned over $11,500 in 2010 with 2 panelists earning over $120,000 and one attorney who earned $300,000 on a referred case. The success of the program is attributed to a number of factors, but generally, who should the public better rely on in seeking a legal referral than the IndyBar.

For over a year, the Legal Services Advisory Committee under the leadership of Jeff Meunier has been fine-tuning a new and additional referral service. Although many clients prefer to call for a referral, many are now using the Internet to search for legal referrals. The Indy LawyerFinder is the answer. This web based product will feature IndyBar lawyers who are interested in showcasing their areas of practice. We have engaged a web developer to create the platform. Although there will be a general template of information each participating attorney will feature, the program will allow creativity for the attorneys. In addition to allowing the attorney to promote their individual expertise, a good deal of time and money is being invested in order to achieve search engine optimization so our site will attract a large number of hits. We want the clients to find our product before looking for others. The Lawyer Referral Service will continue to work exactly the way it has in the past, but the Indy LawyerFinder will be yet another service for our members.

We are hopeful that the Indy Lawyer Finder will be launched and fully operational before the end of the year. Its success will depend on the number of qualified attorneys who participate. Chris Hickey is leading the team soliciting our members to participate. If she calls you, please take the time to listen—unless you have more clients than you want.

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. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

  2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

  3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT