ILNews

Legislation to supplement IOLTA funds passes

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Effective July 1, a fee of $1 for every civil filing will be awarded to the Indiana Bar Foundation to augment funding for its pro bono districts.

The fee is welcome relief for the districts, whose budgets depend on interest on lawyer trust accounts. After reaching a record high in 2009, IOLTA funds have been dwindling.

“We are very pleased that the Indiana General Assembly passed the Pro Bono Filing Fee bill, which is expected to generate approximately $450,000 per year to support Indiana’s statewide pro bono network,” said Charles Dunlap, the foundation’s executive director.

Sens. Ron Grooms, R-Jeffersonville, and Brent Steele, R-Bedford, authored Senate Bill 235, which allowed for the assessment of the fee. But after the bill got stuck in the House Ways and Means Committee, Steele amended House Bill 1049 to include the filing fee provision. Originally, the amendment proposed a sunset date of July 1, 2020. In conference committee, lawmakers agreed to a sunset date of July 1, 2017.

The conference committee report passed the House 73-14 and the Senate 46-3.

“This legislation will enable thousands of low-income Hoosiers to continue to get the free legal help they desperately need,” Dunlap said. “We especially want to thank Sens. Ron Grooms and Brent Steele for authoring the filing fee bill and Sens. Bray and Long for all of their efforts in getting this extremely important piece of legislation passed.”

Sen. David Long, R-Fort Wayne, is president pro tempore of the Senate, and Sen. Richard Bray, R-Martinsville, has been a lawmaker since 1974 – first in the House, and in the Senate since 1992.


 

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT