ILNews

Pro Bono Commission chair sees dramatic drop in funding during term

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The outgoing chair of the Indiana Pro Bono Commission said she hopes Indiana takes more steps to encourage attorneys to provide free legal service as programs statewide continue to struggle with declines in funding.

“I’d like to see more law firms getting involved in helping to fund some of the programs,” said Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Melissa May, who presided over her final meeting as commission chair in May. The judge, whose term officially expires June 30, reflected on the challenges of keeping the state’s 12 pro bono districts afloat in a tough economy.

il-melissa-may03-15col.jpg Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Melissa May discussed her extended tenure as chair of the Indiana Pro Bono Commission, which included seeing the state’s pro bono districts through a consolidation period. (IL photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

“One of the most heartbreaking decisions I’ve ever had to take was when funds got cut and we had to cut district funding dramatically,” May said.

She remembers spreading the funding requests from each district across her desk and wondering how a burgeoning need for legal assistance could be met with a dwindling pool of money.

“I spent a solid week trying to figure out how to keep them open,” she said of the pro bono district plan administrators. Some economized by closing their doors and moving into offices of a law firm to reduce expenses.

“It has not been easy,” she said.

It was a crisis that May, the commission’s first female chair, said she couldn’t

walk away from. Her second three-year term was coming to an end last year, but it was extended by one year because state districts were being consolidated from 14 to 12.

“I basically volunteered to stay on because I knew it was going to be a tough time,” she said.

The Pro Bono Commission distributes money to the districts based on revenue from Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts. From 2007 until 2009, IOLTA revenue allowed the commission to distribute an average of more than $1.3 million per year and build a program reserve of almost $2.2 million.

Then the economy tanked and interest rates went flat. IOTLA revenue decreased 84 percent, and money distributed statewide plummeted this year to its lowest point – just $253,865, according to the Indiana Bar Foundation. Almost twice that amount was distributed from the reserve to make up some of the shortfall, but total statewide funding this year is less than half the amount at the peak of funding in 2009.

Districts got $554,880 less than they requested, and the reserve has dwindled to just over $800,000.

Through it all, colleagues said May’s selflessness and volunteer spirit made her ideally suited for the work. Colleagues said May has been a booster and cheerleader as times got tough. She went to ballgames, dinners and other events in districts across the state to honor the work of pro bono attorneys and volunteers.

pro bono“I can’t imagine how many miles she’s put on her car,” said Sue Ann Hartig, former executive director of the Legal Aid Society of Evansville who now works as a staff attorney for the organization. Hartig served two terms on the commission with May.

While pro bono work most frequently deals with family law, Hartig and May served when unprecedented numbers of Hoosiers faced foreclosure. Hartig said May was deeply involved in training more than 1,000 Indiana attorneys in foreclosure law when the housing market collapsed in 2009. Indiana trained more lawyers in foreclosure law than any other state, said commission executive director Monica Fennell.

That kind of commitment is in May’s character, Hartig said.

“Judge May practiced in Evansville before she joined the court, and she’s a product of the Evansville Bar and its commitment to legal aid,” Hartig said. “She was committed to it long before we had a Pro Bono Commission.”

“Her organizational and networking skills create energy and make things happen,” said commission member Sarah (Sally) Holterhoff, an associate professor of law librarianship at Valparaiso University Law School.

May “has been a very hands-on leader, demonstrating to the rest of the commission really what it means to be involved in pro bono,” said Allen Superior Judge David J. Avery, who also serves on the commission with May.

Fennell said May’s commission leadership was on a list of trailblazing accomplishments.

May “has paved the way for many women lawyers in Indiana by being the first female lawyer and partner at the firm of Fine & Hatfield and one of the first to regularly try jury trials,” Fennell said.

“Judge May does not hesitate to challenge assumptions and to speak up for what she believes is right,” she said.

May became involved in pro bono work in private practice, where she handled insurance defense and personal injury cases. Her rationale for taking pro bono cases: “I can, I’m a lawyer, and I just want to help,” she said.

pro bonoShe praised districts that have developed creative ways to use limited pro bono resources. Some have “unbundled” services, so that various attorneys may work on different aspects of the same case. Some have developed “self-help” centers for pro se litigants. Some have set aside designated times to provide free legal counseling.

Pro bono providers might have to continue finding creative ways to stretch their budgets.

May said that until interest rates improve, IOLTA money will be tight for the state’s pro bono programs. To make up some of the shortfall, Indiana Bar Foundation Executive Director Chuck Dunlap said Gov. Mitch Daniels signed a law designating a $1 filing fee for the next five years on most civil cases. The fee is expected to bring in about $450,000 a year.

“We’ll still have to use the reserve, but not to the extent we were,” Dunlap said.

In the meantime, May said she hopes Indiana will consider rule changes that have encouraged pro bono service in other states. She said New York now requires attorneys in training to document 50 hours of pro bono work as a condition for licensing. Other states require annual reporting of pro bono service. May said a commission task force is considering such possible rule changes.

But May said she’d like to see more lawyers taking the initiative to work pro bono.

“In listening to attorneys who do pro bono cases, some of them tell me these are some of the most rewarding cases they’ve handled, because the people are so grateful to have assistance,” she said.

May’s successor will be selected by the Indiana Supreme Court, but those who know her by her commitment to pro bono work say she’ll be tough to replace.

“Hopefully, whoever succeeds her will see better economic times, but whether they do or not, they’re going to have big shoes to fill,” Hartig said.•

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. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT