ILNews

IBA Editorial: Court Funding in Critical Condition Nationwide

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

IBA-hebenstreitOne of the corner stones of our American system of jurisprudence is free and open access to the trial courts and judicial system. The ability of businesses to solve their disputes in an orderly fashion and the predictability of outcomes encourages business to be conducted in our country. The ability of our prosecutors to charge, and our system to try those accused of crimes, helps insure the pubic safety. It is a concept dating back to the Founding Fathers. But that system is in jeopardy throughout our country.

There has never been an overabundance of cash to fund the Courts, but the system has been dramatically worsened as a result of the recession and the resulting decrease in tax revenues. Without adequate sources of funding, it is easy for legislatures to cut the budgets of the judicial branch of the government—the branch that cannot raise taxes.

According to a report of the ABA, a fully funded court system receives 1 to 2% of state or local budgets. Not a significant line item, but one frequently cut. Unfortunately, unlike many other state or local agencies, the largest expense of the judicial system is the cost of personnel. To cut personnel typically translates to reduced services or a longer delay in providing the same services. In order to cope with the loss of revenue, courts around the country have adopted dramatic measures. Some courts in Iowa have closed their clerk’s office one day per week. A recent article about the San Francisco Superior Courts reported that some 40% of employees were going to suffer layoffs and 25 of 63 courtrooms were to be shuttered. Many states have delayed filling judicial vacancies and others have frozen judicial income for inordinately long periods. Others have furloughed clerical staff and others have cut the ability to have a timely jury trial.

The Courts in Georgia have seen a 25% reduction in funding over the last two years. Their current funding represents only 0.89% of the state’s overall budget. That has resulted in criminal cases taking over a year to be resolved and a reduction in court time for civil cases.

Unfortunately, the budget cuts have also come at a time when there has been an increase in need. As a result of the recession, the number of foreclosures, debt collections, and divorce/family law cases has increased dramatically. Florida has seen more than its share of foreclosure cases and has experienced quite long delays in the foreclosure process. This has resulted in many abandoned properties becoming eyesores and further deteriorating the economic value of neighborhoods. The ABA estimated that in Florida alone there had been a $10 billion dollar loss due to quantifiable costs and expenses attributed solely to court delays.

Another factor contributing to the domino effect is the rise in pro se litigants. As the need for legal services increases and the ability to pay for legal services decreases, more parties are choosing to go it alone. This also creates more pressure on the court staff and the judicial system. Funds for the Legal Services Organization have been slashed by Congress this year with the future looking even bleaker. In Indiana, the IOLTA funds have historically been helpful in funding pro bono and indigent legal service providers. Due to the lower interest rates, the funds that used to flow into the coffers from all of our trust accounts has virtually gone away—at a time when the need has risen tremendously. The Indiana Pro Bono Commission is currently weighing its options to deal with the situation on a statewide basis. The only thing for certain is that with fewer funds, the ability to serve the needs of Hoosiers will necessarily be reduced.

Until the current budget for the City of Indianapolis was recently published, it was feared that the Marion County Superior Courts would suffer significant cuts. The Executive Committee of the Superior Courts had been reviewing options how to deal with a smaller budget. Fortunately, according to two members of the Executive Committee, Judges John Hanley and Marc Rothenberg, the budget for the Courts as currently proposed is a flat line—no major reductions, but no more money. This is certainly good news and we applaud the efforts of our leaders from both parties. However with the increased need for services coupled with the increased cost of providing the same level of service, a flat line approach does amount to a budget reduction. Let’s hope that in the process of passing a budget, the City County Council does not negatively modify the flat line approach. I urge the legal community to stay informed and to communicate to our county leadership the importance of access to the courts for both civil and criminal matters.•

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT