ILNews

Pro Bono Commission receives cy pres award

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Pro Bono Commission has received an award for the benefit of its districts that comes from a class-action lawsuit.

The cy pres award is a result of the Indiana Supreme Court modifying Rule 23(F) of Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure to allow groups assisting low-income Indiana residents with legal needs to access residual class-action funds. The pro bono commission announced June 8 that it received $1,560 from a class-action suit in Marion County. Indiana Legal Services received $4,680.

Under Rule 23, “residual funds” are funds that remain after the payment of all class-member claims, expenses, litigation costs, attorneys’ fees, and other court-approved disbursements. Under the doctrine of cy pres, judges and counsel can recommend that residual funds be put to their “next best” use for the aggregate, indirect, or prospective benefit of the class members.

The underlying mission of pro bono programs is consistent with the purpose of Rule 23, which recognizes the need to protect the legal rights of those who, because of their economic position, would otherwise be unrepresented.

A 2009 Indiana study of the legal needs of the poor, “Unequal Access to Justice: A Comprehensive Study of the Civil Legal Needs of the Poor in Indiana,” found that the greatest needs were in the area of consumer finance, family law, housing, public entitlements, and health.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Pro Bono/ Child support
    Where can I find free legal advice or a pro bono lawer, regarding child support and sub contractors?

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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT