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

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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT