ILNews

IBA: Lawyer Referral Service to Reduce Fees and Upgrade Services

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Last week the Indianapolis Bar Association’s Board of Directors approved a plan that provides for a reduction in Lawyer Referral Service member fees while increasing marketing efforts and adding online reporting of referrals made. Believing that the Lawyer Referral Service provides the highest return on investment of any practice development tool available, effort is being directed at making the service more accessible to today’s attorney.

Effective immediately, those attorneys participating in the service will pay a flat rate of $250 compared to the average fee of $267 previously paid. Attorneys in practice less than three years will only pay $175. Participation in the service requires proof of $1 million in professional liability insurance and membership in the Indianapolis Bar.

Each year an average of 18,000 central Indiana residents are provided with an attorney referral through the Indianapolis Bar Association. Much about the process of promoting the services and the methods used to provide referral information has remained unchanged for over 15 years. That’s also about to change.

The Legal Services Advisory Committee that oversees the operation of the LRS is in discussion to begin television advertisements to promote the service. “We are excited to begin a new era of the Lawyer Referral Service. Our upcoming advertising campaign promises to increase call volume and quality. Our hope is that this service will provide our Panel members with an extremely economical means to gain new clients and build their practice,” said Jeff Meunier, chair of the committee.

New webpages are in development to guide online users, and the Bar is reviewing other methods for improving the quality of referrals made.

Make no mistake. These changes are not being made because LRS use is declining. On the contrary, in 2009 the number of referrals made slightly higher than the previous year, LRS attorney membership remained steady, and those participating generated nearly $1.4 million in total income from cases referred.

Keep an eye on the LRS. Good things are happening.•

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. 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