ILNews

Indiana IOLTA expected to benefit from Bank of America settlement

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana’s Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Account program is expecting to receive a portion of the federal government’s historic multi-billion-dollar settlement with Bank of America, bringing a much-needed influx of funds to the program that has suffered dramatic declines in revenues as a result of the economic recession.

Charles Dunlap, executive director of the Indiana Bar Foundation which administers the state’s IOLTA program, said he is pleased with the additional resources but cautioned the financial help will not arrive immediately.

“It could take several years for the funds to be distributed so relief for people struggling with mortgage foreclosure could still be more than a year away,” he said.

Dunlap was recently elected president of the National Association of IOLTA programs. He has been a member of the national organization for 13 years.

The U.S. Department of Justice announced the $16.65 billion settlement Aug. 21 to resolve federal and state claims against Bank of America and its former and current subsidiaries, including Countrywide Financial Corp. and Merrill Lynch, for financial fraud leading to and during the Great Recession.

This is the largest civil settlement with a single entity in American history and will provide billions of dollars in relief to struggling homeowners.

Although the portion of the settlement slated to come to Indiana is unknown, Dunlap, said the amount will be significant.

“While $17 billion is certainly a big number, the portion that Indiana’s IOLTA program will receive is only a small portion of the overall amount and comes on the heels of over five years of unprecedented low revenues due to the historically low prevailing interest rate environment we have experienced,” Dunlap said. “We are extremely grateful for the increased ability we will have to help struggling Hoosiers with these settlement funds, but we have to be patient to see how all the details work out.”

 
 

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. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT