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. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT