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 practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT