ILNews

Task force makes recommendations for pro bono reporting

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

As the Indiana Supreme Court continues to consider mandating all Indiana attorneys report the number of pro bono hours they work, a task force has proposed that the donated hours be disclosed publicly only in an aggregate form rather than identifying the number of pro bono hours performed by an individual or a firm..

The disclosure proposal was one of five recommendations made by the Indiana Pro Bono Commission’s Pro Bono Reporting Task Force. The Supreme Court asked the Commission to appoint an ad hoc task force to make suggestions on how a mandatory reporting requirement would be implemented.

Indiana Tax Court Judge Martha Blood Wentworth, chair of the commission and leader of the task force, emphasized that the task force has only offered proposals. How any reporting requirement would be implemented has not been determined.

“We are recommenders, we are not deciders,” Wentworth said. “We have been asked to recommend only.”

The Supreme Court also underscored that the recommendations have not been adopted. At this point, the justices have not discussed the report and the court is not expressing any opinion on any of the recommendations.

Task force members were unanimous on the public disclosure recommendation. The task force concluded giving the total number of pro bono hours worked instead of listing hours by attorneys would still serve the purpose of the reporting rule to more accurately determine how many pro bono hours are provided annually in Indiana.

In addition, opposition to publicizing the hours by attorney has been strong. The task force believed an aggregate approach would ease fears that the reporting rule was the first step toward auditing reported hours, disciplining noncompliance or mandating pro bono service.  

The five recommendations made by the task force are as follows:

1)    CLE: Do not waive continuing legal education requirements in exchange for pro bono legal service. Forgiving CLE hours for pro bono work could send the wrong message that donating legal services is more important than keeping abreast of practice techniques and changing laws.
2)    Public Disclosure: Publicly report the pro bono hours only in an aggregate manner. Do not identify the number of hours donated by individual or by firm.
3)    Definition of Pro Bono: Do not change the definition of “pro bono publico service” in the Professional Rule of Conduct 6.1. Although attorneys had requested the meaning of “pro bono” be clarified and broadened, the task force recommended against a rewrite because pro bono programs have been developed with the current definition in mind. However, the task force proposed a Frequently Asked Questions supplement should be widely available to give real world examples and guidance on the distinction between “pro bono” activities under Rule 6.1 and reportable “pro bono” activities under the proposed Rule 6.7.
4)    Draft Rule 6.7: Identify which pro bono legal services are reportable in the proposed Pro Bono Reporting Rule (Professional Rule of Conduct 6.7). Allow attorneys to make a financial contribution to a qualified entity as an alternative to providing pro bono service.
5)    Implementation: Add a field to the annual online attorney registration for Indiana attorneys to report their pro bono hours and/or a financial contribution. Noncompliance would be impossible. Each attorney would have to enter a number for either pro bono hours or financial contribution in order to proceed. Entering zeros would technically comply with the reporting rule.

The Indiana State Bar Association and the Indiana Pro Bono Commission are accepting comments on the proposals through Aug. 8. Attorneys can contact the ISBA at 317-639-5465 for further information. Attorneys can submit written comments to the Indiana Pro Bono Commission at 615. N. Alabama Street, #122, Indianapolis, IN 46204.

All comments will be forwarded to the Supreme Court administrator.  

Attorneys can access the report through the ISBA website by clicking here.
 

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

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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT