ILNews

IBF receives $100k; shares 2011 budget

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

Following the unexpected gift from the Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum’s governing board of $100,000 to the Indiana Bar Foundation on Oct. 15, leadership for IBF said it is unlikely the foundation will give all of that money to the pro bono districts.

That same day, plan administrators of the 14 pro bono districts in Indiana met with IBF Executive Director Chuck Dunlap and Indiana Pro Bono Commission Executive Director Monica Fennell to discuss available funds for the districts from Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts. As of June 2010, there was $670,000 in available IOLTA funds, less than half of the $1.5 million available from IOLTA funds as of June 2009. That amount was about half of the approximately $3 million available in June 2008.

The amount of IOLTA funds at the end of June of one year is then distributed in January of the following year. Funds for the 2011 budgets were determined at the end of June 2010.

Of the $670,000 in IOLTA funds, $427,693 of that will be distributed starting in early 2011, plus 25 percent of the reserve, or $489,304. Typically, the IBF cannot request more than 20 percent of the reserve, but the Indiana Supreme Court granted their one-time request for 25 percent Oct. 13.

The amount from the reserve would make the total available $916,997, a shortage of $175,281 from the commission group leaders’ recommended amount of approximately $1.1 million in grants, a 30 percent decrease from the districts’ budgets for 2010.

The pro bono districts final 2011 budget requests are due Dec. 1, and districts will start receiving funding in January. However, districts that have carry-over funding from 2010 will be required to use those funds before receiving 2011 funds, which will be allocated on a quarterly basis.

The Indiana Pro Bono Commission has also requested that in June or July 2011, the Supreme Court and IBF consider an additional use of the reserve to cover the $175,281 shortfall if the economy improves to the point that interest rates rise again.

As for the $100,000 gift from ICLEF, the IBF had yet to decide how it would use it.

One possibility includes funding for the Justice Richard M. Givan Loan Repayment Assistance Program that, depending on how much is raised by Nov. 1, 2011, the Indiana Supreme Court will match up to $175,000.

Another possibility the IBF could consider is funding for the civics education program. Earlier this year, IBF announced that as of the end of 2010, it would cut three existing staff positions in that program to be replaced by one newly created position. Volunteers will now be expected to have a larger role, similar to what they did before the IBF started the three full-time civics education positions a few years ago.

Dunlap said the IBF wouldn’t make any announcements until its board meeting in December.
 

Rehearing "Predicting IOLTA fund revenues" IL May 26-June 8, 2010

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. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  2. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  3. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  4. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT