ILNews

Local law firm reaps $6.3M in fees from BMV class-action suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A local law firm will receive $6.3 million as part of a class-action lawsuit that accused the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles of overcharging for driver’s licenses.

Cohen & Malad LLP’s fee represents 21 percent of the $30 million awarded to Hoosier motorists as part of a settlement approved by Marion Superior Court Judge Heather Welch on Nov. 12.

A BMV spokesman said in an email that it will abide by the terms and conditions of the settlement.

The overcharges were discovered after Indianapolis attorney Irwin Levin filed suit in March against the BMV, accusing it of overcharging drivers for licenses. Gov. Mike Pence then directed the BMV to conduct an independent review of the more than 300 fees the agency administers. That review found more cases of overcharging.

In response, the BMV cut fees in June for standard operator's licenses by $3.50. The new fees range from $17.50 for a six-year license to $14.50 for a four-year license—a maximum reduction of about 19 percent.

Levin, of Indianapolis-based Cohen & Malad, said the firm, which specializes in class-action suits, negotiated its fee with the state. The fee was lower than the 33-percent charge it typically commands in class actions.

“It wasn’t our job to uncover this; it was the state’s job,” he said. “I’m not going to apologize for taking the risk.”

About 4.5 million Indiana drivers may be eligible to receive a refund, Levin said. The class of plaintiffs includes anyone who paid a fee to the BMV between March 2007 and June 2013.

Amounts awarded to individuals should range from $3.50 to $15, Levin said.

Those eligible for a refund can get a credit while transacting business at a license branch or they can fill out a form that will be available on the BMV website in about a month and receive a check in the mail. The BMV will mail checks to everyone else entitled to a refund.

Levin said he is “extremely satisfied” with the settlement and particularly proud that firm lawyers uncovered the overcharges.

“People don’t have any choice, they have to deal with the BMV,” he said. “If you want to drive legally in Indiana, you’ve got to do business with the BMV.”

Meanwhile, Gov. Mike Pence on Tuesday named Kent Schroder interim commissioner of the BMV.

Schroder had been the BMV chief of staff since June 1 after serving as its chief information officer since 2005.

He replaces Scott Waddell, who announced his resignation as BMV commissioner last month after three years at the job. He will step down Dec. 2.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Overcharges?
    Not quite sure how this was price gouging, since the $3.50 paid in by the poor hapless victims merely went to the government to run the license bureau. Seems to me the only clear winner here was Mr. Levin, who seems to want a mindboggling windfall for what I am not sure (correcting some state accounting that was not actual fraud or embezzlement) AND also our heartfelt thanks? Sorry Attorney Levin, you will have to be content with the lucre. Not that actions of a patriot as those I hang with view it.

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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT