ILNews

Lawyer registration fee increase to cover program shortfalls, aid pro bono districts

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Attorney registration fees set to increase nearly 25 percent will cover shortfalls in the judiciary programs they fund and give a temporary emergency boost to the state’s pro bono districts.

Effective Aug. 1, the registration fee for active attorneys will increase from $145 to $180, and fees for lawyers whose status is inactive will rise from $72.50 to $90. The fees were increased by a June 30 order from the Indiana Supreme Court. The annual registration period opens Aug. 1, and fees are due by Oct. 1.

Indiana Chief Justice Brent Dickson said the fee increase, the third in five years, is calculated to meet needs in coming years as “opposed to punting it down the road” so that additional increases won’t be necessary.

Court officials stressed that even with the increase, Indiana’s registration fees will remain among the lowest in the nation.

Lawyer registration fees pay for operations of the Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission, the Commission on Continuing Legal Education and the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program. Now, a portion of the increased fee also will provide revenue for the pro bono districts funded through the Indiana State Bar Foundation.

Chuck Dunlap, executive director of the foundation, said the Supreme Court hasn’t yet decided on the exact distribution, but the foundation asked for $14 to $16 of each $35 increase in the active attorney registration fee. He said the program might have ceased to exist without an infusion of revenue.

The Indiana Pro Bono Commission funds its programs largely from interest on lawyer trust account revenue, but the collapse in interest rates in recent years led to a funding drought. “It’s been devastating not just in Indiana, but nationally,” Dunlap said.

“The program is really in a crisis,” Dickson said. Money from the fee increase can provide a temporary fix for a couple of years, until interest rates rebound or another source of funding is identified for the program that assists civil litigants from a dozen regional offices around the state.

“We’re seeing the courts inundated more and more with pro se litigants. It’s bad for the litigants and it’s bad for the courts,” Dickson said. “This is an important program to us.”
Dunlap said the districts split about $750,000 last year, substantially less than half the money they received in the peak year of 2009. Since then, the foundation has been funding programs largely from more than $2 million in reserves accrued in better economic times.

“The reserve is just about to be exhausted,” he said.

The money the foundation receives from registration fees should raise $300,000 to $350,000 annually for pro bono districts, Dunlap said. Coupled with a $1 filing fee increase passed by the General Assembly in 2012, the money will keep funding close to the current level.

“We’re trying to keep it alive, essentially,” Dunlap said.

Shortfalls, surpluses fees-map-chart
The Disciplinary Commission absorbs more money than any other program funded predominantly by registration fees.

According to financial information provided by the Supreme Court, the commission spent $2,332,918 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2013. That was over $121,000 more than it took in, but the commission also reported a closing balance of just under $1.5 million.

The commission’s expenses rose 11.6 percent in the 2012-2013 fiscal year compared to the prior year, according to budget information.
Registration fees also fund the CLE Commission, which had expenses of $749,646 in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2013, and a budget year surplus of just over $29,000. The CLE Commission spent 10 percent more than in the prior fiscal year and closed the 2012-2013 fiscal year with just over $600,000 in the bank.

JLAP operated in the 2012-2013 fiscal year with a budget year surplus of more than $108,000, spending $497,716. The program concluded with a closing balance of more than $420,000 after spending 12 percent more than in the prior fiscal year.

Without a fee increase, each of those programs had been projected to operate at a deficit in coming years, according to the data, with the prospect of a combined budgetary shortfall of about $500,000 next fiscal year.

Dickson said program costs aren’t the only factor – revenue also was projected to decline because the number of active attorneys is decreasing. The advent of online registration has also reduced the number of lawyers paying late fees, which also are set to increase.

Delinquent fees will increase by $35 for those who register after the Oct. 1 deadline. The penalty will rise from $95 to $130 for those who pay by Oct. 15; from $145 to $180 for those who register from Oct. 15 to Dec. 31; and from $295 to $330 for those who register after Dec. 31.

“We hope this change presents only a minor challenge for lawyers,” Dickson said of the fee increases.

What other states do

Dunlap said other states that have relied on IOLTA to fund pro bono work have turned to registration fees to bridge the gap. Illinois in 2012, for instance, raised attorney registration fees from $289 to $342, with the entire increase replenishing that lost revenue.

But most states – 32 of 50 – also require a portion of the registration fee to be shared with their state bars, according to a survey of attorney licensing fees compiled by the Office of Attorney Ethics of New Jersey.

Among other findings in that survey:
highest.jpg • Half of states earmark a particular sum for attorney discipline, ranging from $25 to $235. Among states that apportion part of the fee for discipline, the average is about $123.

• More than half – 34 states – tag part of the attorney registration fee for client protection. The share ranges from $3 to $75.

The Supreme Court relied on the July 2013 New Jersey survey that showed Indiana’s fees ranked 50th compared to the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Maryland’s fee of $130 was lowest; Oregon’s fee of $3,722 – which includes a mandatory malpractice insurance fee – was highest.

Indiana State Bar Association President Jim Dimos said increases are never popular, but the registration dues remain low compared to states that don’t include mandatory bar fees.

“From our experience at the state bar, the court seems to administer things relatively modestly,” Dimos said. “While no one’s happy about paying more fees, we’re confident the court thought long and hard about this and believes they need these resources to continue to provide services to lawyers in the state of Indiana.”

In 2011, registration fees went up $15 after increasing by a like amount the prior year. The 2011 increase coincided with introduction of the online registration portal, http://appealsclerk.IN.gov.•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • More money for witch hunts?
    The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

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. OK, take notice. Those wondering just how corrupt the Indiana system is can see the picture in this post. Attorney Donald James did not criticize any judges, he merely, it would seem, caused some clients to file against him and then ignored his own defense. James thus disrespected the system via ignoring all and was also ordered to reimburse the commission $525.88 for the costs of prosecuting the first case against him. Yes, nearly $526 for all the costs, the state having proved it all. Ouch, right? Now consider whistleblower and constitutionalist and citizen journalist Paul Ogden who criticized a judge, defended himself in such a professional fashion as to have half the case against him thrown out by the ISC and was then handed a career ending $10,000 bill as "half the costs" of the state crucifying him. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/ogden-quitting-law-citing-high-disciplinary-fine/PARAMS/article/35323 THE TAKEAWAY MESSAGE for any who have ears to hear ... resist Star Chamber and pay with your career ... welcome to the Indiana system of (cough) justice.

  2. GMA Ranger, I, too, was warned against posting on how the Ind govt was attempting to destroy me professionally, and visit great costs and even destitution upon my family through their processing. No doubt the discussion in Indy today is likely how to ban me from this site (I expect I soon will be), just as they have banned me from emailing them at the BLE and Office of Bar Admission and ADA coordinator -- or, if that fails, whether they can file a complaint against my Kansas or SCOTUS law license for telling just how they operate and offering all of my files over the past decade to any of good will. The elitist insiders running the Hoosier social control mechanisms realize that knowledge and a unified response will be the end of their unjust reign. They fear exposure and accountability. I was banned for life from the Indiana bar for questioning government processing, that is, for being a whistleblower. Hoosier whistleblowers suffer much. I have no doubt, Gma Ranger, of what you report. They fear us, but realize as long as they keep us in fear of them, they can control us. Kinda like the kids' show Ants. Tyrannical governments the world over are being shaken by empowered citizens. Hoosiers dealing with The Capitol are often dealing with tyranny. Time to rise up: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/17/governments-struggling-to-retain-trust-of-citizens-global-survey-finds Back to the Founders! MAGA!

  3. Science is showing us the root of addiction is the lack of connection (with people). Criminalizing people who are lonely is a gross misinterpretation of what data is revealing and the approach we must take to combat mental health. Harsher crimes from drug dealers? where there is a demand there is a market, so make it legal and encourage these citizens to be functioning members of a society with competitive market opportunities. Legalize are "drugs" and quit wasting tax payer dollars on frivolous incarceration. The system is destroying lives and doing it in the name of privatized profits. To demonize loneliness and destroy lives in the land of opportunity is not freedom.

  4. Good luck, but as I have documented in three Hail Mary's to the SCOTUS, two applications (2007 & 2013),a civil rights suit and my own kicked-to-the-curb prayer for mandamus. all supported in detailed affidavits with full legal briefing (never considered), the ISC knows that the BLE operates "above the law" (i.e. unconstitutionally) and does not give a damn. In fact, that is how it was designed to control the lawyers. IU Law Prof. Patrick Baude blew the whistle while he was Ind Bar Examiner President back in 1993, even he was shut down. It is a masonic system that blackballs those whom the elite disdain. Here is the basic thrust:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackballing When I asked why I was initially denied, the court's foremost jester wrote back that the ten examiners all voted, and I did not gain the needed votes for approval (whatever that is, probably ten) and thus I was not in .. nothing written, no explanation, just go away or appeal ... and if you appeal and disagree with their system .. proof positive you lack character and fitness. It is both arbitrary and capricious by its very design. The Hoosier legal elites are monarchical minded, and rejected me for life for ostensibly failing to sufficiently respect man's law (due to my stated regard for God's law -- which they questioned me on, after remanding me for a psych eval for holding such Higher Law beliefs) while breaking their own rules, breaking federal statutory law, and violating federal and state constitutions and ancient due process standards .. all well documented as they "processed me" over many years.... yes years ... they have few standards that they will not bulldoze to get to the end desired. And the ISC knows this, and they keep it in play. So sad, And the fed courts refuse to do anything, and so the blackballing show goes on ... it is the Indy way. My final experience here: https://www.scribd.com/document/299040062/Brown-ind-Bar-memo-Pet-cert I will open my files to anyone interested in seeing justice dawn over Indy. My cases are an open book, just ask.

  5. Looks like 2017 will be another notable year for these cases. I have a Grandson involved in a CHINS case that should never have been. He and the whole family are being held hostage by CPS and the 'current mood' of the CPS caseworker. If the parents disagree with a decision, they are penalized. I, along with other were posting on Jasper County Online News, but all were quickly warned to remove posts. I totally understand that some children need these services, but in this case, it was mistakes, covered by coorcement of father to sign papers, lies and cover-ups. The most astonishing thing was within 2 weeks of this child being placed with CPS, a private adoption agency was asking questions regarding child's family in the area. I believe a photo that was taken by CPS manager at the very onset during the CHINS co-ocerment and the intent was to make money. I have even been warned not to post or speak to anyone regarding this case. Parents have completed all requirements, met foster parents, get visitation 2 days a week, and still the next court date is all the way out till May 1, which gives them(CPS) plenty of to time make further demands (which I expect) No trust of these 'seasoned' case managers, as I have already learned too much about their dirty little tricks. If they discover that I have posted here, I expect they will not be happy and penalized parents again. Still a Hostage.

ADVERTISEMENT