Indiana - Unequal Access To Justice - A Comprehensive Study

8/7/2019 Indiana - Unequal Access To Justice - A Comprehensive Study

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/indiana-unequal-access-to-justice-a-comprehensive-study 1/112

Unequal Accessto Justice:A Comprehensive Study of the Civil Legal Needsof the Poor in Indiana

2008

A Report byndiana Legal Services, Inc.ndiana Bar Foundation

ndiana State Bar Association



Unequal Access to Justice 3

June 2009

This report, “Unequal Access to Justice: A Comprehensive Study of the CivilLegal Needs of the Poor in Indiana,” represents the culmination of a twoyear study jointly undertaken by Indiana Legal Services, Inc., the Indiana BarFoundation, and the Pro Bono Committee of the Indiana State Bar Association (collectively the “Sponsors”), and seeks both to document the variety of civil legal needs facing low income Indiana residents and to open discussionabout the best ways to respond to those needs.

The Sponsors gratefully acknowledge the many individuals and entities thathelped and made it possible for us to plan, produce, and complete “UnequalAccess to Justice: A Comprehensive Study of the CivilLegal Needs of the

Poor in Indiana.” Although we are unable to name everyone who deservesto be recognized, the following individuals deserve special recognition:

Beth Friedman Kirk, our independent consultant, for her exhaustive review and analysis of all the data collected and then, in consultation withus, drafting of this report. The quantity of time necessary to do this, andquality of her work, exceeded all expectations.

Nan Stager, Senior Lecturer at Indiana University’s School of Public andEnvironmental Affairs, for her hard work in organizing and conducting thefocus groups and providing support to the Conclave.

The Survey Research Center at IUPUI for its excellent service in contactingand surveying low income citizens, and analyzing the important information they provided for this study.

Judge David J. Avery from Allen Superior Court, for all his work in organizing the Conclave on the Delivery of Pro Bono Services in Indiana.

Student interns Jelling Lai, Laura Walda, Michele Komora and JordanSeeder for their careful work in compiling results of several of the component surveys.Various members of the support staff at Baker & Daniels, particularlyTrish Keener, Louise Bloemer and Bill Spellman, for their invaluable assistance and unflagging patience in the compilation and editing processes.Allof the many respondents to the various components of the Study for

their critical input to this process, including low income citizens interviewed by telephone; all the individuals who attended focus meetingsthroughout the state; and the judges, clerks, attorneys, pro bono planadministrators, social service providers, and Indiana Legal Services Boardmembers, staff, and clients who completed surveys.

We hope that each person who reads this report will join the Sponsors inseeking to address the challenges we have identified.

STUDY C OMMITTEE

NORMAN METZGERExecutive Director

Indiana Legal Services, Inc.

CATHERINEMEEKERBaker & Daniels, LLP

Co Chair, ISBAPro BonoCommittee

CHARLESR. DUNLAPExecutive Director

Indiana Bar Foundation

VICTORIADEAKAccess to JusticeProject Director

Indiana Legal Services, Inc.

LARRYCHAMPIONStewart & Irwin P.C.

Chair, Priorities CommitteeIndiana Legal Services, Inc.

AMY G. APPLEGATEIndiana University

Maurer School of LawCo Chair, ISBAPro Bono

Committee

Acknowledgements


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/indiana-unequal-access-to-justice-a-comprehensive-study 4/1124 Unequal Access to Justice




TABLEOF CONTENTS

I. EXECUTIVESUMMARY 8

II. SUMMARY OF THEEXISTINGSTRUCTUREOF EFFORTSTO MEET THELEGALNEEDSOF THEPOOR 14A. DEFINITIONOF PRO BONO AND GUIDANCEIN THERULESOF PROFESSIONALCONDUCT 14B. THE INDIANAPRO BONO COMMISSION 16C. THE INDIANABAR FOUNDATION 18D. INDIANASTATE BAR ASSOCIATION(ISBA)PRO BONO COMMITTEE 18E. INDIANASUPREME COURT INITIATIVESPROMOTING ACCESSTO JUSTICE 19F. EXISTINGCIVILLEGALSERVICEPROVIDERS 20

1. Legal Service as a Primary Mission 202. Legal Service as a Secondary Mission 21

3. Legal Service as a Tertiary Mission 22

III. SUMMARY OF LEGALNEEDSOF THEPOOR STUDYPROCESS 23A. GOALS 23B. PROCESS 23

1. Phase I – Telephone Survey 232. Phase II – Web Based Questionnaires 243. Phase III– Focus Groups 244. Phase IV– Final Report 255. Collaboration 25

IV. SUMMARY AND EVALUATIONOF THEDATA 26A. LEGALNEEDSOF THEPOOR FROM THECLIENTAND POTENTIALCLIENTPERSPECTIVE 26

1. Responses from Telephone Survey 26a. Demographics and Methodology 26b. Overall Responses (All Respondents) 29c. Responses by Poverty Category 34d. Responses by Geographic Categories 35

2. Responses from ILSClient Questionnaire 37B. LEGALNEEDS OF THEPOOR FROM THEPERSPECTIVEOF JUDGESAND CLERKS– RESPONSES

FROM JUDGESAND CLERKSOF COURT SURVEY(ISBA) 42

C. LEGALNEEDS OF THEPOOR FROM THEPERSPECTIVEOF ATTORNEYSSTATEWIDE – RESPONSESFROM ATTORNEYSURVEY(ISBA) 46

D. LEGALNEEDS OF THEPOOR FROM THEPERSPECTIVEOF PRO BONO PLANADMINISTRATORS

– RESPONSESFROM THEPRO BONO PLANADMINISTRATORSSURVEY– (ISBA) 51E. LEGALNEEDS OF THEPOOR FROM THEPERSPECTIVEOF ILSSTAFF – RESPONSESFROM ILS

STAFF Q UESTIONNAIRE(ILS) 53



F. LEGALNEEDSOF THEPOOR FROM THEPERSPECTIVEOF ILSBOARD– RESPONSESFROM

ILSBOARDOF DIRECTORSQ UESTIONNAIRES(ILS) 56G. LEGALNEEDSOF THEPOOR FROM THEPERSPECTIVEOF HUMAN SERVICEPROVIDERS

– RESPONSESFROM ILSHUMAN SERVICEPROVIDERQ UESTIONNAIRE(ILS) 59H. INFORMATION FROM FOCUS GROUPS 62I. INFORMATION FROM PRO BONO CONCLAVE 65

V. ANALYSIS 73A. CHANGESSINCEILS’“LEGALNEEDSSTUDYOF LOW INCOME HOOSIERS” WAS

UNDERTAKENIN 1999 73B. WHAT ARETHEMOST PRESSINGLEGALNEEDS OF INDIANA’S LOW INCOME POPULATION? 77

1. Comparison of Data/Synthesis 772. Current Greatest Legal Needs of the Poor—A Comprehensive View 80

a. Consumer Finance 80b. Family Law 81

c. Housing 82d. Public Entitlements 82e. Health Care 83

3. Fastest growing Legal Needs of the Poor—A Comprehensive View 83a. Consumer Finance 83b. Housing 83c. Family Law 84

4. Importance of Particular Legal Service Delivery Techniques 845. Additional Information That Is Needed 84

a. Immigrants 84b. Limited English Proficiency 85c. Farm Workers 85d. Domestic Violence 85

C. HOW WELLARE THESEMOST PRESSINGNEEDSCURRENTLYBEING ADDRESSED? 86D. TO THE EXTENTTHAT ANYOR ALLOF THESE NEEDSARE NOT BEING MET, WHY

AND IN WHAT WAYSARE THEYNOT BEING MET? 87E. MAJORBARRIERSTO INDIANA’S LOW INCOME POPULATIONRECEIVINGLEGALSERVICES 88

1. Insufficient Number of Attorneys Serving Low Income Population 882. Inadequate Funding 893. Need for Better Coordination 894. Waits for Legal Assistance 91

5. Insufficient Information/Knowledge 916. Conflicts of Interest 927. Delay in Seeking Help 938. Lack of Transportation 939. Lack of Telephone Service 9310. Immigration Status 9411. Limited English Proficiency 94




12. Getting Time Off from Work 9413. Difficulties with Forms, Contracts, and Other Paperwork 9414. Domestic Violence 9515. Income Slightly Too High – Near Poor 95

F. DIFFERENCESBASEDON GEOGRAPHY, DENSITYOF POPULATION, AND POVERTYLEVEL 95G. LEGALNEEDSOF SPECIALIZEDLOW INCOME POPULATIONS 96

1. Inmates and Former Inmates 962. Immigrants 963. People with LEP 974. Disabled People, Particularly the Mentally Ill and Developmentally Disabled 975. The Elderly 986. Victims of Domestic Violence 987. Farm Workers 988. Rural Residents 99

H. DISCUSSIONOF POSSIBLEMETHODSBETTERTO MEETTHELEGALNEEDSOF THEPOOR 99

1. Additional Funding 992. Pro Bono Culture Beginning in Law School 993. Mandatory Pro Bono Hours or Reporting of Pro Bono Hours 994. Incentives for Pro Bono Service 1005. Attorneys Mentoring Attorneys 1006. Education 1007. Improved Coordination 1018. Malpractice Coverage or Immunity from Liability for Pro Bono Service 1019. Interpretation/Translation/Multi lingual Staff 10210. Paralegal Services at Courthouse or Other Convenient Locations 10211. Traveling Attorney or Attorney at Courthouse 10212. Additional Drug Courts and Mental Health Courts 10213. Unbundled Services 10214. Increased Availability of Mediation and Other ADR 10315. Contract Attorneys in Rural Areas 103

VII. CONCLUSION 104

VIII.ENDNOTES 106



This report, “Unequal Access to Justice: A Comprehensive Study of the Civil Le-gal Needs of the Poor in Indiana (2008)” (hereinafter, the “Final Report”) repre-sents the culmination of the Legal Needs of the Poor Study (the “Study”) jointlyundertaken by Indiana Legal Services, Inc. (“ILS”), the Indiana Bar Foundation(“IBF”), and the Pro Bono Committee of the Indiana State Bar Association(“ISBA Pro Bono Committee”) (collectively the “Study Sponsors”) in 2007 and2008.

The Study demonstrates that the greatest legal needs of the poor are in the areas of consumer finance, family law, housing, public entitlements, and health. Despitethe variety of programs, services, and individuals providing legal services to low-income Hoosiers free of charge or at substantially reduced rates, the demand forthese services far exceeds the supply. This is particularly true in the area of fam-

ily law.The Study process included four phases. Phase I was a telephone survey, con-ducted by Survey Research Center (“SRC”) at IUPUI, of approximately 1,200low-income Hoosiers, i.e., individuals below 125% of federal poverty level

Executive Summary

The views expressed herein have not been approved by the House of Delegates or the Board of Governors of the Indiana State Bar Association or the Board of Directors of the Indiana Bar Foun-dation and, accordingly, should not be construed as representing the policy of either organization.

1

2



greatest legal needs of the poor are in the areas of consumer finance, family law,housing, public entitlements, and health. Almost every component of the Studypoints to the conclusion that consumer finance and family law are currently theprimary legal needs of the low-income population.

Similarly, the fastest-growing legal needs of the poor are in the areas of consumerfinance, housing, and family law. Given the current economic outlook, it seemslikely that these needs will continue to increase and that a great deal of legal assis-tance will be needed. Housing was rated the second fastest-growing problem bypro bono plan administrators, and the third fastest-growing problem by respondingattorneys. Responses indicate that evictions and foreclosures were already a majorproblem for low-income Hoosiers at the time of the survey, and all evidence indi-cates those problems have likely increased since. Every one of the pro bono ad-ministrators responding to the survey included family law in their list of the fivefastest-growing legal problems of the poor. Over 60% of judges and clerks, and

approximately 65% of attorneys, identified family law in their list of the five fast-est-growing legal problems of the poor; both groups ranked it second only to con-sumer finance.

In order to more fully understand the legal needs of the poor, additional datashould be collected about immigrants, people of Limited English Proficiency(“LEP”), farm workers, and victims of domestic violence. Although the legalneeds of these individuals were addressed in the Study, it was difficult to directlyreach these groups of individuals through surveys, questionnaires, or even focusgroups.

The most obvious reason that the legal needs of the poor are not being met is thatthere are not enough attorneys serving this population. The ratio of attorneys toHoosiers living below 125% of FPL is approximately one attorney per 8,850 po-tential clients . If Hoosiers with incomes between 125% of FPL and 200% of FPLare also considered, the ratio increases to approximately one attorney per 16,100potential clients . In contrast, the ratio of private attorneys providing paid civillegal services to the general Indiana population was found to be about one attorney

Information gathered from pro bono plan administrators and by ILSduring preparation of this Final Report . . . suggest[s] that as many as62% of those income eligible applicants applying to plan

administrators, and 75% of those income eligible applicants applyingto ILS,were unable to receive attorney representation necessary to fully meet their legal needs.

3




per 688 potential clients . Information gathered from pro bono plan administratorsand by ILS during preparation of this Final Report corroborates this discrepancy,suggesting that as many as 62% of those income-eligible applicants applying toplan administrators, and 75% of those income-eligible applicants applying to ILS,were unable to receive attorney representation necessary to fully meet their legalneeds. The insufficient number of pro bono and public service attorneys repre-senting the poor in comparison to the need for legal assistance was a themethroughout the responses to the various surveys, questionnaires, and focus groupsmaking up the Study. Attorney responses indicate that this is a particularly seriousproblem in the area of family law.

Information obtained during the Study suggests there are several reasons for therelatively small number of private sector attorneys who represent low-incomeHoosiers on a pro bono basis. Many attorneys struggle to maintain a profitablepractice (particularly in rural areas and small towns), are reluctant to take a caseoutside of their area of expertise, fear malpractice suits, fear involvement in never-ending cases (particularly in family law), and identify a general lack of incentivesto provide pro bono representation.

Other barriers to providing legal services to Indiana’s low-income population in-clude insufficient coordination between civil legal service providers and the probono districts, insufficient coordination between civil legal service providers andsocial service providers, lengthy waits for legal assistance, conflicts of interest cre-ated when there is an insufficient number of providers to handle the legal needs of low-income individuals in an area, and a number of client-related factors. Perhapsthe most important client-related factor identified by respondents is a lack of infor-mation; fully 60% of those contacted by telephone indicated they were unaware of free legal services programs in Indiana. Other client-related factors that respon-

Executive Summary



dents identified are insufficient knowledge and information, delays in seekinghelp, lack of transportation, lack of telephone service, immigration status, LEP,inability to take time off from work, difficulties with paperwork, domestic vio-lence, and having an income slightly too high to be eligible for legal aid and probono services.

As a result of the information obtained through this Study, the Sponsors recom-mend that Indiana should now undertake a strategic planning process, consideringthe information and data obtained in the Study and reported in this Final Report, todevelop a comprehensive set of detailed recommendations and statewide plan of action to better meet the needs of the poor. In connection with the strategic plan-ning process, the Sponsors further recommend the creation of a statewide Accessto Justice Commission which should include representatives from the judiciary,the executive branch, the legislative branch, the IBF, the Pro Bono Commission,the ISBA Pro Bono Committee, existing legal service providers, the private bar,

the law schools in Indiana, social service providers whose clients are low-income,and other interested parties. An Access to Justice Commission could function asan umbrella organization, uniting and coordinating the efforts of the various enti-ties working to address the legal needs of the poor. The Access to Justice Com-mission’s initial charge should include evaluating the current system and initiatinga strategic planning process to coordinate and thereby improve the efficacy of ourefforts to meet the legal needs of the poor. Because such a process will necessarilyinvolve a critical review of the existing patchwork of methods for meeting the le-gal needs of the poor, the Commission should involve all of the various stake-holders, but its composition and operation should demonstrate an independence

from any one entity within the existing system.

As a result of the information obtained through this Study, theSponsors recommend that Indiana should now undertake a strategic planning process . . . to develop a comprehensive set of detailed recommendations and statewide plan of action to better meet theneeds of the poor.




The Final Report is available on all of the Study Sponsors’ websites: Indiana Legal Services, Inc.,www.indianajustice.org; Indiana Bar Foundation, www.inbf.org; and the Indiana State Bar Asso-ciation, www.inbar.org.

The “legal” needs identified and discussed in the Final Report are not limited to those resultingfrom entanglement in the court system, as most individuals’ legal problems begin before the initia-tion of a court case. Virtually all of the issues identified in the Report, if not directly involving le-gal action, could eventually rise to involvement with the court system; many of these issues couldbe addressed earlier through preemptive counseling and assistance, or preventive education.

Additionally, “pro bono,” or legal assistance provided at no cost to a low-income person by a mem-ber of the private bar, is only one means of addressing the legal needs discussed in the Final Re-port. For example, staff attorneys at Indiana’s various civil legal service providers (including ILS)provide representation at no cost to low-income people, but because those attorneys are paid forthat work, they are not included in the traditional definition of “pro bono.” Similarly, in addition totraditional legal representation, the legal needs identified in the Final Report may also be addressedby programs that facilitate self-representation, preventive educational programs, and other innova-tive initiatives intended to help meet the legal needs of the poor.

These statistics were derived as follows: ILS currently has 51 staff attorneys statewide. Includingpublic interest attorneys from other civil legal service providers that directly represent low-incomeindividuals, there are almost certainly fewer than 75 attorneys statewide who are employed to rep-resent the poor free of charge on a full-time basis. In terms of pro bono work performed by theprivate bar, the total number of hours reported by pro bono districts to the Pro Bono Commissionfor 2007 was 33,101 hours. This number is almost certainly an underestimate; if it is increased by50% and converted to full-time attorney equivalents, the result is about 28 full-time pro bono attor-neys. Assuming that the legal assistance provided by the four Indiana law schools’ clinics to low-income clients equates to 10 full-time public interest attorneys, the total supply of free attorneysavailable to the poor in Indiana would be the equivalent of 113 full-time attorneys. We divided theapproximately 1,000,000 Hoosiers living below 125% of FPL by 113. We also added in the addi-tional Hoosiers living between 125% and 200% of FPL for the second statistic.

3

2

1

Executive Summary

Endnotes




table groups or organizations, by service in activities for improving thelaw, the legal system or the legal profession, and by financial supportfor organizations that provide legal services to persons of limitedmeans.

The Commentary to the Rule provides in part:

[1] The American Bar Association House of Delegates has formally acknowl-edged “the basic responsibility of each lawyer engaged in the practice of law toprovide public interest legal services” without fee, or at a substantially reducedfee, in one or more of the following areas: poverty law, civil rights law, publicrights law, charitable organization representation and the administration of jus-tice. The Indiana State Bar Association’s House of Delegates has declared that“all Indiana lawyers have an ethical and a social obligation to provide uncom-pensated legal assistance to poor persons” and adopted an aspirational goal of fifty hours a year, or an equivalent financial contribution, for each member of

the bar.During 2008, the Indiana Pro Bono Commission proposed that the Indiana Su-preme Court amend and clarify the commentary in Prof. Conduct Rule 6.1 to in-clude a definition of pro bono services and provide guidance for Indiana attorneysin meeting the aspirational goal of fifty pro bono hours each year. As of the publi-cation of this Final Report, the Indiana Supreme Court sought and is consideringpublic comment regarding the proposed additions to the Commentary to Rule 6.1:

“For the purposes of this paragraph:

a) Poverty law means legal representation of a client who does not have the

financial resources to compensate counsel.b) Civil rights (including civil liberties) law means legal representation involv-ing a right of an individual that society has a special interest in protecting.

c) Public rights law means legal representation involving an important rightbelonging to a significant segment of the public.

d) Charitable organization representation means legal representation of charita-

A lawyer should render public interest legal service. A lawyer may discharge this responsibility by providing professional services at no fee or a reduced fee to persons of limited means or to public service or charitable groups or organizations, by service in activitiesfor improving the law, the legal system or the legal profession, and by financial support for organizations that provide legal servicesto persons of limited means.

5




trict Committee. District Committees submitan annual report and plan that addresses theunmet legal needs in their community. Seeid . Each of the fourteen pro bono districts ismanaged by a pro bono plan administrator.The plan administrators refer pro bono casesto attorneys and coordinate, with other legalservice providers, the delivery of pro bonoand free legal services for low-income Hoo-siers in the counties in their districts.

The Indiana Pro Bono Commission’s missionstatement is as follows:

The Indiana Pro Bono Commission willstrive to promote equal access to justicefor all Indiana residents by facilitatingthe integration and coordination of exist-ing services; fostering the developmentof new pro bono programs; supportingand improving the quality of existing probono programs; fostering the growth of apublic service culture within the IndianaBar which values pro bono publico ser-vice; promoting the ongoing develop-

ment of financial and other resources forpro bono organizations in Indiana; andenabling Indiana attorneys to dischargetheir professional responsibility to pro-vide pro bono services.

Reprinted from the Commission’s web-site: www.in.gov/judiciary/probono/ about.html.

The Indiana IOLTA program funds the im-

plementation of the district plans and the ef-forts of the District Committees to improvedelivery of civil legal services to the lowerincome population in their districts. To date,the Indiana Pro Bono Commission has dis-bursed approximately $4,000,000 to the four-teen Indiana District Committees. Id.

The Commission was created after Rule 6.6of the Rules of Professional Conduct (thenRule 6.5) became effective in 1998. Com-mission Chairs have been Hon. L. Mark Bai-ley, First District Court of Appeals (through2002); J. Philip Burt, Esq. (2002-2006); Hon.William C. Lee, U.S. District Court, N.D.Indiana (2006-2008); and Hon. Melissa May(2008-present).

The Commission is administered by an Ex-ecutive Director. Recent Commission pro-jects have included:

Proposing and advocating mandatorysubmission of interest earned from attor-ney IOLTA accounts for pro bono efforts(thereby increasing IOLTA funds avail-able for distribution towards pro bonoefforts around the state);

Working with the IBF to encourage Indi-ana financial institutions to increase theinterest rates paid on IOLTA accounts(thereby increasing IOLTA funds avail-able for distribution towards pro bono

efforts around the state);Working with the pro bono plan adminis-trators to increase the number of attor-neys providing pro bono services aroundthe state;

Working with the pro bono plan adminis-trators to encourage all attorneys to pro-vide at least 50 hours of pro bono serviceeach year; and

Proposing the definition of pro bono ser-vice (see Section II.A.).



The IBF is a charitable foundation dedicatedto strengthening access to justice and appre-ciation for the rule of law in Indiana. To ac-complish its mission, the IBF gathers anddirects resources toward three main ar-eas: assisting people who have difficulty ac-cessing the justice system, providing law-related educational opportunities for all ages,and improving Indiana’s judicial system andthe legal profession. See www.inbf.org, theIBF’s website. IBF resources are provided

primarily by interest earned on IOLTA fundsin Indiana.

Among the many projects funded by the IBF,the following list includes a number of pro-jects designed to encourage and promote thedelivery of pro bono services:

Providing IOLTA funds to the fourteenDistrict Pro Bono Committees, after re-viewing Commission recommendations;

Law-related education programs;Law student scholarships;

Awards to Indiana lawyers, law firms,bar associations and law-related organi-zations making significant contributionsin law-related education and pro bonowork;

Law-related research projects;

Programs that enhance legal services andeducation for the poor;

Providing Loan Repayment AssistanceProgram (LRAP) funds each year to civillegal service attorneys throughout thestate; and

Pro bono training.

The mission of the ISBA Pro Bono Commit-tee is as follows:

The Pro Bono Committee (PBC) shallwork to identify the legal needs of thepoor in Indiana, to advocate for increasedresources to address the unmet legalneeds of the poor, to educate attorneysabout the need for and opportunities toengage in pro bono civil legal servicesand public service for the poor and forcommunities, groups, and organizationsthat assist the poor, to encourage attor-neys to engage in pro bono representa-tion and public service directed at thepoor, and to recognize and to honor attor-neys who exhibit commitment to probono representation of clients or the en-hancement of pro bono activities withinthe State of Indiana.

To address this mission, the ISBA Pro Bono

Committee set the following goals:1. Increase the involvement of the ISBA

committees and sections in and supportfor pro bono and public service for low-income persons and communities,groups and organizations that serve low-income persons.

2. Facilitate use of ISBA resources to sup-port and to promote pro bono legal and

public service by lawyers for low-income persons and communities,groups and organizations that serve low-income persons.

3. Support the work of the pro bono pro-viders, Judicial District Pro Bono Com-mittees, and Pro Bono Commission to

D. INDIANASTATE BAR ASSOCIATION

(ISBA)PRO BONO COMMITTEEC. THE INDIANA BAR FOUNDATION




increase, to enhance, and to improve probono legal services.

4. Increase the resources available to pro-vide pro bono legal and public service

by lawyers for low-income persons andcommunities, groups and organizationsthat serve low-income persons.

5. Increase the knowledge about the unmetneed for legal services, the legal servicesthat are provided, the types of legalproblems encountered by low-incomepeople in Indiana, the impact of legalassistance on the lives of low-incomepeople, and the manner in which legalresources can be devoted to assist in, toenhance, and to improve the lives of low-income people.

6. Increase the knowledge of Indiana attor-neys about pro bono needs and opportu-nities.

The ISBA Pro Bono Committee is an activecommittee that meets monthly by telephone.Current and recent projects include:

Talk To A Lawyer Day (annually onMartin Luther King, Jr. Day);

Legal Needs of the Poor Study;

Conclave on the Delivery of Pro BonoServices in Indiana;

Res Gestae columns about pro bono ef-forts;

Efforts in providing mortgage foreclosure

representation;Efforts in providing assistance to mem-bers of the military; and

Coordination with other ISBA sectionsand committees to coordinate and in-crease the delivery of pro bono services.

The Indiana Supreme Court has a variety of programs, projects, and initiatives that pro-mote access to justice for individuals seekingto utilize the court system.

The Civil Legal Aid Fund was created in1997 to solidify the continuity of services bylegal service providers. The Fund was estab-lished to not only provide more revenue forlegal service providers, but to support onlythe “private, nonprofit organization[s] incor-porated and operated exclusively in Indiana,[whose] primary function and purpose […] isto provide civil legal services without chargeto the indigent.” The legislature currentlyprovides $1.5 million dollars per year (upfrom $1 million dollars in prior years) to bedivided among the qualified legal serviceproviders. The 2008 data is still being com-piled, but in 2007, data shows that qualifiedlegal service providers offered legal assis-tance in more than 23,000 cases.

The Citizens Self Service Center on the Su-preme Court’s website allows self-represented individuals to access a variety of legal forms (including some translated intoSpanish) and other resources. Users can findinformation about how to prepare for court,names of registered mediators, and links toother sites with relevant information. TheSupreme Court website also provides freeonline access to the Indiana Code, the Ad-ministrative Code, and various state, local,and administrative rules. There are alsoguides for Small Claims, appellate practice,and Tax Court practice. Public court recordsfrom certain counties are already available at

E. INDIANASUPREME COURT INITIATIVES

PROMOTING ACCESSTO JUSTICE



http://mycase.in.gov, and the continuingstatewide Case Management System initia-tive will give individuals access to court in-formation more easily.

The Committee on Self Represented Liti-gants is tasked with studying and recom-mending improvement of the practices, pro-cedures and systems for serving self repre-sented litigants in Indiana’s courts. TheCommittee includes members of the Indianajudiciary, academia, bar, legal library staff,legal service representatives, county clerks,and other members of the community.

Most legal assistance rendered to Indiana’slow-income residents comes from staff attor-neys with the state’s civil legal service pro-viders. The Indiana Code defines a LegalService Provider as “a private, nonprofit or-

ganization incorporated and operated exclu-sively in Indiana, the primary function andpurpose of which is to provide civil legal ser-vices without charge to the indigent.” (Ind.Code § 33-24-12-3). The Indiana SupremeCourt uses this definition to determine recipi-ents of the Civil Legal Aid Funds discussedabove; during the 2008-2009 fiscal year, theCourt provided funding to twelve legal ser-vice providers. Supreme Court records indi-cate that 23,000 cases were handled by civillegal service providers in 2007. However, amyriad of organizations throughout Indianaactually offer legal assistance to low-incomeHoosiers. It is possible to think of the legalsupport as a primary, secondary or tertiarymission for the organization. For back-

F. EXISTINGCIVILLEGALSERVICE

PROVIDERS

7

ground purposes, a number of these provid-ers are described here:

1. Legal Service as a Primary Mission

Whether receiving Civil Legal Aid funds or

not, the majority of legal service programslimit their support to a specific geographicarea. The Legal Aid Society of Evansville,Inc., for example, provides legal representa-tion and advice to residents of VanderburghCounty. Hammond Legal Aid, similarly, fo-cuses support within its community. TheIndianapolis Legal Aid Society will acceptclients from Marion County and the sevencontiguous counties. The NeighborhoodChristian Legal Clinic provides legal assis-tance to residents of the greater Indianapolismetropolitan region and also currently pro-vides limited intake in Fort Wayne. TheCommunity Organizations Legal AssistanceProgram (COLAP) provides pro bono sup-port to not-for-profit organizations located incentral Indiana that assist the low-incomecommunity, but does not provide direct rep-

resentation to individual persons. Two legalprograms provide support throughout thestate: the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana (ACLU) and ILS. The ACLU doesnot use any type of income guideline andwill take a matter independent of the client’sincome status. ILS has income eligibilityguidelines based on one hundred twenty-fivepercent of the Federal Poverty Guidelinesand additional asset guidelines.

2. Legal Service as a Secondary Mission

While the number of purely ‘legal service’organizations is relatively small, a significantnumber of programs augment their primarymissions with related legal support. All fourof the Indiana law schools have discrete clin-

8




administrator or by direct contact with theCenter.Child Advocates provides representation onbehalf of abused and/or neglected children inMarion County. This organization has anumber of staff attorneys who represent staff social workers and volunteers at terminationof parental rights trials. Child Advocatesalso trains community volunteers to act asCourt-Appointed Special Advocates(CASAs) for the Marion County juvenilecourts and supports a mediation in lieu of hearing option for termination of parental/ child relationships. Attorney-volunteers sup-

port Child Advocates, but in the same capac-ity as non-attorney volunteers, primarilyserving as trained CASAs.

Some programs go beyond offering directlegal advice or assistance to a greater educa-tional role for the legal community. TheIndiana Coalition Against Domestic Vio-lence (ICADV) is an example of this typeof outreach. The ICADV maintains a LegalDirector who provides legal support andtechnical assistance statewide to sheltermembers, the judiciary, local bar associationsand the medical community, but does notprovide direct legal representation to domes-tic violence clients. Kids’ Voice of Indiana,which recruits, trains, and represents volun-teers who serve as Guardians ad Litem in theMarion County Courts, likewise provideslegal education, training and technical assis-

tance to individuals serving at-risk childrenand families and legal information servicesto the public through a free educational web-site and free responses to telephone inquiries.

12

13

14

11

ics which support an array of important is-sues to the low-income community includingcriminal law, civil law, disability law, juve-nile law, domestic violence, mediation, taxlaw, sports, consumer law, and housing law.The mission of the law school clinic is toprovide support to the community as well asoffer a professional and experiential learningexperience to law students.

In addition to the legal service programs andthe law school clinics, potential clients oftenfind assistance at social service organiza-tions. Although the primary mission of pro-grams such as The Julian Center is focusedon a specific social need, the staff is struc-tured to provide limited legal assistance aswell. The Julian Center maintains both fulland part-time legal support at their Indian-apolis offices. This is augmented by volun-teer attorneys, approximately twenty at thistime, who come to the Center directly orthrough the local pro bono districts. The le-gal assistance provided covers a variety of services from family law to immigration tobankruptcy.

This type of structure is mirrored at othersocial service organizations. The DamienCenter, located in Indianapolis, maintains afull-time attorney who is able to assist clientswith legal issues like estate planning, powersof attorney and social security appeals. Thestaff attorney offers legal advice and willmake referrals to local legal service programswhen a client requires additional legal repre-sentation. The Shalom Center of Bloom-ington maintains a number of law studentvolunteers who assist with a weekly legalintake program. Attorneys provide studentsupervision and volunteer support either co-ordinated through the local pro bono district

9

10



3. Legal Service as a Tertiary Mission

Finally, there are numerous organizationsthat provide assistance through attorneyboard members while not offering legal ser-

vices directly to their clients. It is commonfor an attorney board member to be madeaware of a client’s situation and agree to pro-vide legal assistance.




A. GOALS

The goals of the Legal Needs of the Poor Study were:

To survey significant segments of the Hoosier population to determine therelative importance of the specific legal needs of low-income citizens

To examine the legal services delivery system to determine the accessibilityof those services offered to hard-to-reach populations

To review the various legal services programs in Indiana to determine ways toimprove resource allocations among and collaboration between those pro-grams

To provide independent, reliable information to be used in long-term, strate-gic planning for the delivery of pro bono services in Indiana

B. PROCESS

The Study consisted of four phases, as described here.

1. Phase I – Telephone Survey

During November 2007 through January 2008, the SRC at IUPUI surveyed bytelephone in excess of 1,200 low-income citizens geographically distributed

III. SUMMARY OF LEGALNEEDSOF THEPOOR STUDYPROCESS

15




After completion of these meetings, Ms.Stager provided a final report about the focusgroups.

4. Phase IV – Final Report

In August 2008, the Study Sponsors retainedBeth Friedman Kirk, M.A., J.D., to preparethis Final Report. This Final Report com-bines and synthesizes the information fromthe telephone survey (Phase I), the web-based questionnaires (Phase II), the prioritysetting and focus groups (Phase III), and theresults of the Conclave, held on April 25,2008.

5. CollaborationIn order to complete this independent assess-ment, ILS, IBF, and ISBA each committedsubstantial time, resources, and funding tohire outside experts (SRC, Nan Stager, andBeth Friedman Kirk). Throughout the proc-ess, representatives of ILS, IBF, and ISBAworked together to ensure that the Studywould be an effective resource and tool forIndiana.



1. Responses from Telephone Survey

Phase I of the Study was the telephone survey, which assessed the legal needs of Hoosiers at or below 200% of FPL. The SRC conducted the survey from Novem-ber 2007 through January 2008, resulting in 1,203 completed interviews that weredeemed reliable.

a. Demographics and Methodology

SRC purchased a sample of 17,777 household telephone numbers of Hoosiersfrom a commercial provider of representative samples of landline telephone num-bers. The purchased telephone numbers were not restricted to households of any

particular income level. (At the time of purchase, the household incomes wereunknown.) The sample was stratified geographically across nine regions of Indi-ana to ensure that the proportion of respondents from each area of the state wouldreflect the actual proportion of homes under the FPL. This means that the numberof telephone numbers randomly selected from a particular geographic area wasproportional to the poverty rate in that area, so that the higher the poverty rate inan area, the more telephone numbers that were randomly selected. Because the

A. LEGALNEEDSOF THE POOR FROM THE CLIENTAND POTENTIALCLIENT

PERSPECTIVE

IV. SUMMARY AND EVALUATIONOF THEDATA




sample was designed to target counties with higher poverty levels, 32 of Indiana’s92 counties were not attempted.

Trained and supervised interviewers then attempted to call all 17,777 numbers, upto 15 times. Some of the interviewers were Spanish-speakers. Once an adult re-sponsible for running the household was on the phone and the interviewer had ex-plained the purpose of the survey, the interviewer inquired as to the number of people living in the household. The interviewer then quickly determined 125% of FPL and 200% of FPL for a household of that size, and asked whether the house-hold’s income last year was below 200% of FPL. If the response was affirmative,the interviewer then asked whether the income was less than 125% of FPL. If theincome was not less than 200% of FPL, the interviewer thanked the person, termi-nated the interview, and recorded the household as ineligible. If the income wasbelow 200% of FPL, then the interviewer proceeded to conduct the interview,starting by recording whether the income was also below 125% of FPL.

Interviews, which lasted on average 15.18 minutes each, included a series of de-tailed questions about problems that people in the household had experienced thatmight indicate a need for legal assistance. The questions were grouped into thefollowing categories: utilities, debt/consumer finance, health care, governmentbenefits, housing, family/marriage, children/education, and language/immigration.(There is inevitably some overlap between categories; for example, foreclosuresare both a consumer finance issue and a housing issue.) The questions were lim-ited to specified time periods; most questions asked whether the problem had oc-curred within the last year, while others used a five-year timeframe. Respondentswere also asked questions about their awareness of free legal service programs inIndiana and their household’s use of legal services, and demographic informationwas obtained.

Of the 17,777 numbers, 8,935 were determined to be ineligible (income too high,non-working telephone number, etc.). Three thousand, six hundred and two(3,602) of those households that were determined to be eligible refused or wereunable to do a complete interview. One thousand, two hundred fourteen (1,214)

The insufficient number of pro bono and public service attorneysrepresenting the poor in comparison to the need for legal assistance

was a theme throughout the responses to the various surveys,questionnaires, and focus groups making up the Study.



households that were determined to be eligi-ble completed interviews; eleven of thoseinterviews were not used because they wereconsidered unreliable. Three thousand, eighthundred fifty-eight (3,858) households were“of undetermined eligibility.” In computingresponse rates and other figures, a percentageof the households of undetermined eligibility

were treated as eligible. This percentage wascalculated in a manner designed to produce areasonable estimate of the number of house-holds of unknown eligibility that were likelyeligible, based on the information gatheredfrom households whose eligibility was actu-ally determined.

The response rate of the survey was approxi-mately 19.7%, which means that about19.7% of eligible households from the pur-chased phone numbers completed an inter-view. The cooperation rate was approxi-mately 26%. The refusal rate was approxi-mately 55.9%. The contact rate was ap-proximately 78.1%. The sample was chosen

in such a way that the error would not exceed+/-2.8% when using the entire sample.

The majority (71%) of respondents were fe-male. About two-thirds of respondents(66%) were white, almost one fourth (about24%) were African American, and the re-maining almost 10% were of other ethnici-

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Utilitie

s &Oth

er

Consumer

Finan

ce/D

ebt

Health

PublicEn

titlem

ents

Housing

Fam

ily

Childre

n/Educ

ation

Lang u

ag e/Im

mig rat

ion

21

Graph 1: Telephone Survey Respondents Reporting a Legal Problem by ProblemType

20

17

1918




ties. In terms of age, almost one fourth(about 24.5%) of respondents were over 65,about one third (33%) were between 45 and64 years of age, more than one third (about37%) were between 25 and 44 years of age,and fewer than 6% were under 25 years of age. In terms of income, the respondentswere divided about equally between thoseunder 125% of FPL and those between 125%and 200% of FPL. About 41% of respon-dents had children under eighteen.

There were no dramatic differences in genderor race by poverty level, but there were agedifferences across the two levels of poverty:the respondents with the lowest incomes(under 125% of FPL) tended to be youngerthan those between 125% and 200% of FPL.

b. Overall Responses (All Respondents)

About 78% of all respondents reported ex-periencing at least one problem that mightindicate the need for legal assistance. Graph1, on the previous page, shows for each prob-lem category, the percentage of respondentsthat reported experiencing at least one prob-lem in that category.

Utilities

Approximately 53% of all respondents re-ported experiencing at least one problem in-volving utilities. Most of the reported prob-lems involved the respondent’s inability topay the utility bills (41.5%) or the utility de-posit (18.5%). Almost 18% of respondentsreported having a dispute over a utilitycharge, and almost 16% reported having hadtheir utility service turned off in the pastyear.

Consumer Finance/Debt

Approximately 49% of respondents reported

at least one problem with debt. Approxi-mately 37% reported being threatened or har-assed by bill collectors and 14.6% reportedcontacting of their friends, family or em-ployer concerning their debts. About 18%stated that they had considered or declaredbankruptcy, and 11% reported denial of credit due to false information on a creditreport. Other reported problems includedhaving to appear multiple times in court forthe same bill, having wages withheld, prob-lems with used car dealers, and repossessionof a car or other property.

One interview question specifically askedrespondents about predatory lending.“Predatory lending” was described as “a de-ceptive lending practice in which lendersloan money using terms that are nearly im-possible for the purchaser to successfully re-pay . . . [but present the terms as reason-able.] . . .[which] can be for home mortgages,payday loans, overdraft loans and even sometypes of credit cards.” Based on that descrip-

tion, approximately one-third of the respon-dents felt that they had been the victim of predatory lending in the past five years.

Health

About 43% of respondents reported having aproblem with medical care. Twenty-sevenand one-tenth percent (27.1%) said that theyhad refrained from going to the doctor due tothe cost, and 22% reported inability to obtain

a prescribed medication. Other problemsidentified included refusal of insurance tocover treatment (9%), denial of admittance toa hospital (4.5%), and denial of admittance toa nursing home (0.2%).

Those respondents who reported having re-ceived Medicaid in the last year were asked



additional questions about Medicaid.Twenty percent (20%) of them said that theyhad been unable to get medical care at sometime in the past year due to Medicaid’s re-fusal to cover a service, and 10.6% cited in-ability to get medical care because no localdoctors accepted Medicaid.

Those respondents who reported having re-ceived Medicare or Medicaid in the last yearwere asked about any problems with dis-crimination or quality of care provided. Thequestions were broken down by type of care:hospital care, doctor’s services, home healthcare, nursing home care, mental health ser-vices, dental services, and other. The mostfrequently reported specific problem areawas dental services (6.5%).

Public Entitlements (Benefits)

Approximately 35% of respondents reportedat least one problem with benefits. Respon-dents were asked about any problems they ormembers of their household may have hadtrying to get specific benefits or services

from government agencies. The top threereported problem areas were Food Stamps(14.9% of respondents), Medicare (14.7%),and Social Security or SSI (11.3%). About7% of respondents reported problems gettingWorker’s Compensation, 6.5% reportedproblems getting Medicaid, 5.8% Poor Re-lief/Township Trustee assistance, and 5.2%TANF. Each of the remaining benefit areaswas identified as a problem area by three per-cent or fewer of respondents.

When asked what kind of benefit problemsthey had had, many respondents cited longwaits to obtain benefits, difficulties meetingthe documentation requirements, agencieslosing their documentation, having to visit

the same office many times, and difficultycontacting a person at an agency. Many re-spondents said that their Medicaid, FoodStamps, and Medicare had been terminatedrepeatedly, for reasons that they didn’t un-derstand, resulting in long waits before thebenefits were reinstated.

Many respondents reported that makingslightly too much money, even on an epi-sodic basis, caused them to be denied bene-fits or to lose benefits. A couple of respon-dents reported that being self-employed hadcaused eligibility problems. A number of respondents felt that they had been wrong-fully denied SSI. Some respondents reportedbeing denied benefits because they or some-one in their household had a criminal record.

Asked about benefits received during thepast year, about 41% of respondents said thattheir households had received Medicaid, andabout 36% Food Stamps. Almost 35% re-ported receiving Medicare; the figure forTANF was almost 7%.

Many respondents stated that they had beenrequired to participate in a job training or jobsearch program as part of the TANF or FoodStamps program. Some of them reportedthat they had not received assistance neededto complete the job training or job searchprogram. About fifteen percent (15.1%)stated that they had not received neededtransportation, and 10.3% reported not get-ting needed childcare assistance. Almost14% said that they needed but had not re-ceived education or training. About 17% of respondents who reported having receivedTANF or Food Stamps said that the benefithad been terminated or lowered due to thetime limit.




Housing

Approximately 24% of respondents reportedat least one problem with housing. About47% of respondents reported having rented a

place of residence in the past year, and about50% reported owning a place of residence inthe last year. Thirteen and a half percent(13.5%) of all respondents reported havingtrouble finding or keeping housing in the pastyear. Many of the cited problems involvedpoor credit, lack of money, the condition of the home, or some type of discrimination.

Of those respondents who reported renting,13% reported having a dispute with the land-lord or someone living in the building, andabout 19% reported experiencing unsafe orunhealthy living conditions. Reported dis-putes with landlords often involved either thecondition of the home, failure to pay rent, orboth (tenant withholds rent because of poorcondition of home, resulting in legal actionby landlord). About one-third of those re-spondents who said that they had experi-

enced unsafe or unhealthy living conditionssaid they had reported the problem(s) to agovernment agency; of those respondents,fewer than half said the agency had helped.Unsafe or unhealthy conditions identified byrespondents included electrical problems,leaks and mold, holes in floors, icy steps,poor outdoor lighting, gas leaks, termites,and roaches, among other things.

Slightly more than 9% of respondents feltthat they had been treated unfairly or dis-criminated against because of race, gender,or some other characteristic when attemptingto buy or rent a residence. The type of dis-crimination identified by the most respon-dents was racial or ethnic (around 33%). A

number of respondents alleged discrimina-tion based on disability or the presence of children in the household, particularly in sin-gle-parent households. Many respondentsfelt that landlords do not want to rent to low-income people. Over 80% of those respon-dents who reported the discrimination to agovernment agency said that they receivedno assistance from the agency.

Approximately 17% of respondents reportedthat they had tried to buy real estate in thepast five years. Asked whether they had ex-perienced specific legal difficulties when at-tempting to buy real estate, approximately30% reported experiencing a property taxproblem, 24% percent reported a disputewith the lender, 20.4% reported experiencingdeception by the lender with unfair mortgageor sales terms, and almost 18% reported ex-periencing foreclosure or the threat of fore-closure. Other reported problems includedproblems due to credit history, disputes withseller over condition of property and prob-lems with title insurance.

About one-tenth of the respondents reportedliving in a mobile home in the past year. Themost frequently reported mobile home-related problem was unreasonable increase inmonthly fees or rents: 25% of these respon-dents reported experiencing an unreasonablefee or rate increase. The next most fre-quently cited problem was unreasonablerules or restrictions (18.6%). The cost of, oraccess to, utilities was identified as a prob-lem by approximately 13% of those who hadlived in a mobile home in the past year.Other problems reported by more than tenpercent of these respondents included exclu-sion of older mobile homes and storm dam-age.



Slightly over three percent (3.3%) of respon-dents reported having needed legal help withmaking or changing a will in the past year.Almost three percent (2.8%) reported havingneeded help with executing a living will orpower of attorney in the past year.

Children and Education

Approximately 15% of respondents withchildren under eighteen reported at least oneproblem involving children and schools. Re-spondents with children under eighteen wereinterviewed about issues involving a child’seducation. The most commonly reportedproblems were suspension of a child(14.4%), inadequate resources (10.2%), un-fair school policies (9.9%), quality of educa-tion (9.1%), and difficulty getting specialeducation (8%).

Language/Immigration

The reported incidence of language and im-migration problems among survey respon-dents as a whole was low. (Approximately3% of all survey respondents reported at leastone problem with language or immigrationstatus.) Some people who may have prob-lems involving language were unable to par-ticipate in the survey, likely because theyspoke only a language other than English orSpanish. An additional 28 people were in thequeue but never completed the survey be-cause they and a Spanish-speaking inter-viewer were never available at the same time .

As discussed in Sections V.B.5. and V.G.later, due to various challenges and despitediligent efforts, people with language andimmigration-related problems may have beenunder-represented in the survey, with the re-sult that the actual extent of their need forlegal assistance may be greater than indicated

Of those respondents who reported living inor having tried to live in Section 8 housing,over one-half (56.5%) said they had been puton a long waiting list. About 17% reportedhaving their housing subsidy end, 12% re-ported being turned down due to their credithistory, 11.6% reported not having been al-lowed to apply, and about 5% reported beingturned down due to criminal history.

Family Law

Approximately 20% of respondents reportedat least one family law problem. The mostfrequently reported family law problems in-volved children. Not receiving child supportand parenting time (visitation) disputes werethe most frequently reported family law is-sues associated with children. Of the 488respondents who had children under eight-een, 132 (about 27%) reported not receivingchild support and 39 (about 8%) reported aparenting time dispute. Guardianship of achild (7.2%), custody disputes (4.7%), inabil-ity to pay child support (6.2%), threat of re-

moval of child by welfare department(2.7%), adoption of a child (1.6%), and childabuse (0.4%) were also reported. Over fourpercent (4.4 %) of respondents had gottendivorced during the past year, and 2.8% of respondents reported experiencing domesticviolence or abuse within the past year.

Of the 132 respondents who reported not re-ceiving child support in full, 107 (over 80%)reported that the person owing the child sup-port was not in jail and 63 (almost 48%) re-ported problems getting the state or county tohelp collect child support. Nine percent(9%) of respondents who reported inabilityto pay child support they were obligated topay reported being threatened with jail.

22




by the survey results.

Slightly less than ten percent (9.6%) of re-spondents reported that someone in theirhousehold usually speaks a language other

than English. Most often, the language wasSpanish. However, respondents identifiedmany other languages, including but not lim-ited to German, Italian, French, severalSlavic or Eastern-European languages, Swa-hili, Sign Language, several Asian lan-guages, a Nigerian language, and Cherokee.Nine and a half percent (9.5%) of these re-spondents stated that someone in their house-hold had problems defending their rights be-cause of difficulty with English, 7.8% re-ported difficulty with government agencies,and 8.6% reported not being allowed tospeak their native language. In the categoryof immigration-related problems, lack of valid identification such as a driver’s licenseor social security number was cited as aproblem by a number of respondents.

Nine respondents reported that someone in

their household had experienced legal prob-lems because of immigrant status. To makea reliable estimate of the extent of status-related legal problems in the immigrant com-munity, it would be necessary to know howmany respondent households in the surveyincluded at least one immigrant and to surveya sufficiently large number of such house-holds. It is unclear exactly how many re-spondent households included at least oneimmigrant. While it is likely that the sub-group of respondents with a primarily non-English speaker in the household (of whichthere were 116) overlaps with this group to alarge extent, it is not reasonable to assumethat the groups are identical. Six (two-thirds)of those nine respondents said that the person

was unable to get help with their legal prob-lem.

Employment

Twenty one and four-tenths percent (21.4%)

of respondents reported that they or someonein their household had had problems findingor keeping employment in the last year.Forty five and eight-tenths percent (45.8%)of respondents stated that nobody in theirhousehold was employed. The fact thatfewer respondents reported problems findingor keeping employment than reported that noone in their household was employed indi-cates that in some households no one wasseeking employment. This is not surprising,given that almost one-fourth of respondentswere over sixty-five. Both retirement anddisability are possible reasons for not seekingemployment.

Respondents who reported problems findingor keeping employment were asked an open-ended question about what problems hadbeen encountered. While some of the re-

sponses are difficult to characterize, at least17 appear to identify potential discriminationbased on race, age, sexual orientation orother immutable characteristic. A number of responses identify injuries or disabilities asan impediment to obtaining or keeping em-ployment.

Twenty-two respondents (1.8%) reportedhaving been employed as a farm worker

within the last two years. The small size of this sample subgroup calls into question thelikelihood that these respondents are repre-sentative of farm workers in Indiana. Threeof those 22 respondents (13.6%) reportedpoor working conditions and three (13.6%)reported being shorted on hours worked.



The following problems were reported bytwo (9.1%) of the 22 respondents: not get-ting promised wages, denial of healthcare,and unreasonable rules or restrictions relatedto employment or housing. One respondentreported unsafe or inadequate housing. Of the 16 respondents in this subgroup who hadchildren, two (12.5%) reported problemswith schooling or Headstart for children.

Awareness of Free Legal Services and Useof Legal Services

About 60% of respondents stated that theywere not aware of free legal services pro-grams in Indiana. About twenty percent of respondents reported having applied for freelegal services in Indiana. Of those respon-dents who reported applying, almost all of them (96.3%) said they had applied to legalaid or a legal services office. Approximately29% of those respondents reported applyingto a pro bono office. (Some respondents had

applied to more than one free legal serviceprovider.) Approximately 17% said they hadapplied to a public defender office.

Almost 16% of respondents said that some-

one in their household had needed legal helpfor a problem other than being accused of acrime, but had not been able to get help.Among follow-up responses, the area inwhich respondents most often cited inabilityto obtain help was, by far, family law. Thenext two most frequently identified areaswere consumer finance/bankruptcy and bene-fits (public entitlements). Several respon-dents identified medical malpractice as anarea in which they had needed legal help.c. Responses by Poverty Category

Not surprisingly, legal problems were morefrequently reported among the poorer respon-dents. Eighty-six percent (86%) of respon-dents with incomes below 125% of FPL re-

Graph 2: Telephone Survey Respondents Reporting a Legal Problem by Poverty

Level and Overall

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

<125% FPL* <200% FPL* All*Federal Poverty Level




ported at least one problem indicating a needfor legal assistance, whereas 70% of respon-dents with incomes between 125% and 200%of FPL reported at least one such problem.Graph 2, on the previous page, shows therates of reporting a legal problem by povertylevel and overall.

For every category of legal problem analyzedin the survey (except language/immigration,for which there is very little data), respon-dents with incomes below 125% of FPL weremore likely to report at least one problemthan respondents with incomes between125% and 200% of FPL. The differences areparticularly large in the categories of utilities,debt/consumer finance, healthcare, and bene-fits, indicating a cluster of inter-related prob-lems for low-income families.

In addition to the comparison by problemcategory, the SRC compared the reportedincidence of specific problems within thecategories. Most problems were reportedmore frequently by respondents with in-

comes below 125% of FPL than by respon-dents with incomes between 125% and 200%of FPL. In particular, those under 125% of FPL reported not receiving child support,suspension of a child from school, unfairschool policies, and problems with access toschool records significantly more often thanthose between 125% and 200% of FPL.

Notable exceptions to the trend of poorer re-spondents reporting more problems includedhaving property tax problems, foreclosure orthe threat of foreclosure, having a housingsubsidy end, not being allowed to apply forSection 8 housing, being turned down forSection 8 housing due to criminal history orcredit history, and perceiving a child’s schoolas dangerous.

d. Responses by Geographic Categories

SRC analyzed the data for geographic differ-ences in legal needs of the poor. Compari-sons were made among the eight districts of

ILS; among the North, Central, and Southernparts of the state; and among the four majormetropolitan areas of the state (and the judi-cial districts containing these metropolitanareas). Graph 3, on the next page, demon-strates the regional differences in rates of re-porting a legal problem.

The Central and North regions each made upabout 40 percent of the final sample, whileonly about 20 percent of the sample wasdrawn from the South region. The respon-dents drawn from the North and Central re-gions tended to be somewhat poorer on aver-age than those drawn from the South: 54%of the respondents from the South had in-comes between 125% and 200% of FPL,whereas the portions of the sample drawnfrom the North and Central regions werecloser to evenly split between the two pov-

erty levels.Overall, legal problems in general weresomewhat more prevalent among respon-dents from the North and Central regions, ascompared to the South (78% and 80% ascompared to 74%). However, there is apocket of a high incidence of reported legalproblems in the portion of Judicial District13 that surrounds Evansville (93.8%). More-over, some types of legal problems weremore prevalent in the Southern part of thestate.

Respondents in the North and Central re-gions were more likely to report debt-relatedproblems than respondents in the Southernregion (49% and 52% compared to 41%).

23



Respondents in the North and Central re-gions were also more likely to report prob-lems with utilities (54% in the North and55% in the Central region compared to 48%in the South). Rates of reporting problemswith utilities were particularly high in the

Gary metropolitan area (62%), the area of Judicial District 8 outside of Indianapolis(60%), and the Gary ILS district (59%).

Respondents in the North and Central re-gions were also more likely to report prob-lems with benefits (36% in the North and37% in the Central region, compared to 30%in the South). The large difference in ratesbetween the Bloomington ILS district (24%)as compared to the Gary and South Bend dis-tricts (39%) contributed to the regional dif-ferences.

Housing problems were more prevalent inthe South than in the North and Central re-gions. Twenty-seven percent (27%) of re-spondents in the South reported legal prob-

lems with housing; in the North the rate was22%, and in the Central region the rate was24%. The rate in the Evansville metropolitanarea was 32%; in the surrounding portion of Judicial District 13, it was 38%. The rate forthe Evansville ILS district was 33%, the

highest of all ILS districts.Family law problems were most frequentlyreported in the South region (23%), and leastfrequently reported in the North region(18%). However, the Lafayette ILS districthad the highest rate of reported family lawproblems of all ILS districts (27%). TheEvansville ILS district had a reported rate of 26%, and 31% of the respondents residing inJudicial District 13 outside Evansville re-ported family law problems.

There were no significant differences amongthe three regions of the state in reported ratesof problems with education of children. Allthree regions had rates very close to 15%, thereported rate for the state as a whole. How-

Graph 3: Telephone Survey Respondents Reporting a Legal Problem by Region

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

North Central South




ever, there were significant differences be-tween some ILS districts: only 10% of re-spondents residing in the Bloomington andLafayette ILS districts reported a probleminvolving education, while 20% of respon-dents in the Gary ILS district and 18% of therespondents in the Evansville ILS districtreported problems. The reported rate of edu-cational problems in the Indianapolis metro-politan area was also high (18%).

The number of respondents reporting issuesrelated to language or immigration was solow that meaningful geographic comparisonsare not possible.

Respondents in the Central and South re-gions were somewhat more likely to reportlegal problems with healthcare than those inthe North (45% each in Central and Southregion compared to 41% in the North). Ratesof such problems were comparatively low inthe South Bend (36%) and Bloomington(39%) ILS Districts and high in the Evans-ville (54%) and Fort Wayne (50%) districts.

2. Responses from ILSClient Questionnaire

ILS developed a questionnaire for its clientsand other people likely to be income-eligiblefor ILS services. ILS staff throughout the

state gave the questionnaire to existing cli-ents and individuals seeking services, anddistributed copies to social service providersto give to people likely to be income-eligiblefor ILS services. ILS received 369 question-naires, which were filled out between March26, 2008 and May 5, 2008. The average ageof the respondents was about 44 years, andabout 68% of the respondents were female.About 73% of respondents provided incomeinformation. The vast majority of the re-spondents that provided income informationhad incomes under 200% of FPL for the sizeof their households.

Graph 4, below, shows, for five problemcategories, the percentage of respondents thatreported experiencing at least one problem inthat category.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Utilities PublicEntitlements

Fami ly Cons umerFinance/Debt

Housing

Graph 4: ILSQuestionnaire Respondents Reporting Problems by Category



Housing

Fifty-one percent of respondents reported atleast one problem involving housing. Re-spondents were initially asked, “[h]ave you

ever rented or owned a home?” Responsechoices were “rent,” “own,” and “no.” (Weassume that respondents who had bothowned and rented chose the response repre-senting their current living situation.) About14.6% of respondents reported neither rent-ing nor owning a home. Based on the re-sponses, it appears that about 61% of respon-dents were renting at the time of the survey,and about 21.7% owned a home.

Respondents were asked about problems theymay have had when renting a residence. Thetop reported problem was unsafe or un-healthy living conditions: 47 of the 225 re-spondents who said they had rented (20.9%)reported having experienced unsafe or un-healthy living conditions. Approximately19% reported having had a dispute with alandlord. Sixteen and four tenths percent

(16.4%) reported having experienced aneviction or termination.

Respondents were asked about problems theymay have had when purchasing or owningtheir homes. The most frequently reportedproblem was foreclosure or threat of foreclo-sure: about 36.3% of respondents who saidthey had owned a home said they had experi-enced foreclosure or the threat of foreclosure.About 15% of respondents who said they hadowned a home identified a property tax prob-lem. Disputes with sellers over the conditionof the property, disputes with lenders, anddeception by lenders with unfair terms wereeach reported by between 5% and 10% of respondents who said they had owned ahome. Discrimination was rarely reported.

Ninety-four (about one-fourth) of all surveyrespondents said they had lived in a mobilehome. These respondents were askedwhether they had experienced eight specificproblems with their mobile home. The topfour problems, listed in decreasing order of reporting, were: unreasonable rules or re-strictions (20%), unreasonable increases inmonthly fees or rent (18%), change in own-ership of park (13.8%), and the cost of, oraccess to, utilities (12.8%).

One hundred and four respondents reportedhaving applied for, or lived in, Section 8 orother subsidized housing. Forty-four of these104 respondents (42.3%) stated that they hadbeen placed on a waiting list. The reportedincidence of other problems was much lower.Thirteen and a half percent (13.5%) of theserespondents reported having been turneddown due to credit history, 7.7% reportedthat their subsidy had ended, and other prob-lems were reported by fewer than 5% of re-spondents who had applied for, or lived in,subsidized housing.

Utilities

Approximately 35.5% of respondents re-ported at least one problem involving utili-ties. The three most frequently reportedproblems with utilities were inability to payutility bills (29.8%), disconnection of utilityservice (18.2%), and inability to pay utilitydeposits (14.9%). Almost 9% of respondentsidentified a dispute over utility charges as aproblem.


Overall, 55.3% of respondents reported atleast one problem with debt/consumer fi-nance. (If foreclosure or the threat of fore-closure is considered a debt/consumer fi-




nance problem, the figure increases to 59%.)Thirty-nine percent (39%) of respondentsreported harassment by bill collectors, and19.5% reported that their friends, family oremployer had been harassed (concerning re-spondent household’s debts). Thirty one andfour-tenths percent (31.4%) of respondentssaid they had considered or filed bankruptcy.

Fourteen and nine-tenths percent (14.9%) of respondents reported denial of credit becauseof erroneous information on a credit report.Slightly more than 13% of respondents re-ported having had a car or other property re-possessed, and 11.4% reported having hadwages garnished. Each of the followingproblems was reported by between 5% and7% of respondents: problems with used cardealers, repeated court attendance due to thesame debt, identity theft, and purchase of alemon car.

Ten and eight-tenths percent (10.8%) of re-spondents reported having experienced aproblem with taxes, 8.1% with auto insur-

ance, and 4.6% with life insurance.Employment

When asked whether anyone in the house-hold had experienced problems finding orkeeping employment in the past year, 34.1%of respondents answered “yes”; 54.5% an-swered “no”; and 11.4% of respondents de-clined to answer. (In a later portion of thequestionnaire collecting demographic infor-

mation, about 43% of respondents indicatedthat someone in their household was em-ployed, 49% indicated that no one in thehousehold was employed, and the remaining8% did not respond.) Those answering in theaffirmative were asked to identify the prob-lem(s) encountered in finding or keeping em-

ployment. The most frequently identifiedproblem was poor health or disability(including injuries, substance abuse, andmental health problems). Almost 20% of therespondents who said that someone in thehousehold had problems finding or keepingemployment identified a medical problem asone of the causes. Many respondents citedlayoffs, sale or closure of the company, orthe slow job market. About 8% identifiedlack of transportation as a factor, and about7% identified childcare issues. Almost 6%of these respondents mentioned a criminalrecord, and about 5% cited inadequate train-

ing, education, or skills.Eighteen respondents reported that they orsomeone in their household had been em-ployed as a farm worker. The most fre-quently cited problems related to employ-ment as a farm worker were denial of healthcare (6 out of 18, or 33.3%) and unreason-able rules or restrictions related to employ-ment or housing (also 33.3%). The follow-ing problems were reported by 2 of the 18respondents (11.1%): poor working condi-tions, being shorted on wages or piece work,being shorted on hours worked, and unsafeor inadequate housing. Because so few re-spondents had experience with employmentas a farm worker, this data cannot be consid-ered necessarily representative of farm work-ers statewide.

Health

Respondents were asked about nine specificproblems in accessing medical services. Themost widely reported problems were inabilityto afford prescribed medication (35.2%), in-ability to afford a doctor or hospital (33.1%),and using the emergency room due to a lack of money or insurance (27.1%).



Inability to obtain medical care due to Medi-caid’s refusal to cover the service was alsofrequently reported; 18.7% of all survey re-spondents reported having this problem, andsince it is likely that not all survey respon-dents had Medicaid, the true incidence of thisproblem (the percentage of respondents onMedicaid having the problem) would likelyhave been higher than 18.7%. Six and a half percent (6.5%) of all survey respondentscited an inability to get medical care becausethey could not find a doctor who acceptedMedicaid; again, the true incidence of thisproblem is likely higher.

Survey respondents were asked whether theyor anyone in their household had had prob-lems with discrimination or the quality of care in receiving various types of servicespaid for by Medicaid or Medicare. Thirty-five respondents (9.5% of all survey respon-dents) reported such problems in receivingdoctor’s services, and 35 respondents (9.5%of all survey respondents) cited problemswith dental services. After doctor’s servicesand dental services, the Medicaid or Medi-care-paid services with which the largestnumbers of respondents reported problemswere hospital care (5.4% of all survey re-spondents) and mental health services (4.6%of all survey respondents). Again, the per-centages given above are percentages of theentire number of survey respondents (not justthose who have sought or obtained Medicare

or Medicaid); therefore, the rates of theseproblems are probably higher than the ratesgiven above.

Public Entitlements

Problems involving public entitlements werefrequently reported. An examination of the

responses to the medical benefit-relatedquestions discussed in the Health section pre-viously, together with the responses to ques-tions involving benefits discussed in this sec-tion, reveals that 64.2% of all respondentsreported at least one problem involving pub-lic entitlements.

All respondents were asked whether they oranyone in their household had had problemstrying to get any of eleven listed governmen-tal benefits. The top four responses were So-cial Security Disability (23.8%), FoodStamps (21.7%), Medicaid (20.9%), andPoor Relief or Township Trustee Assistance(14.9%). Because we don’t know how manyrespondents applied for which benefits, thecalculated rates of reporting are percentagesof 369, the total number of survey respon-dents; thus, the actual rates are probablyhigher than the calculated rates. The follow-ing benefits had calculated problem rates be-tween 7% and 9%: TANF (8.7%), unem-ployment benefits (8.4%), Medicare (8.1%),and other Social Security benefits (7.0%).

Respondents were asked several questionsabout experience they may have had with ajob training/job search component in theTANF or Food Stamp program. Fifty-six outof 300 people responding to the question(18.7%) said that they had been required toparticipate in a job training or job search pro-gram as a condition of receiving TANF orFood Stamps. Respondents were then askedwhether, as a part of their TANF job trainingor job search program, they had receivedtransportation assistance, childcare assis-tance, or other assistance. Seventeen respon-dents (30.4% of those who said they hadbeen required to participate in a job trainingor job search program) reported having re-




ceived childcare assistance, and seven re-spondents reported having received transpor-tation assistance. Individual responses fromabout seven other individuals appear to indi-cate that they wanted, but did not receive,assistance.

Fifteen respondents (26.8% of those who hadbeen required to participate in such a pro-gram) stated that they had lost TANF bene-fits or Food Stamps for failing to participatein a training or job search program. Thirty-nine respondents stated that their TANFbenefits or Food Stamps had been lowered orstopped because they had reached their timelimit.One hundred thirty-one respondents reportedthat they had, at some time, applied forWorker’s Compensation or unemploymentinsurance. Fifty-three of these respondents(40.5%) reported problems being awarded orcollecting Worker’s Compensation or unem-ployment insurance.

Family Law

Family law problems were very prevalentamong the survey group: 64% of all respon-dents reported at least one family-relatedproblem. The questionnaire asked about theoccurrence of 14 specific family law issues.The six most frequently reported issues weredivorce (37.4%), child support (30.1%),spousal abuse or violence (25.7%), protectiveorder (17.9%), custody dispute (17.6%), and

parenting time/visitation dispute (15.2%).Some respondents with children answeredquestions about estate planning and livingwills. Twenty-nine respondents reportedhaving needed legal help with making orchanging a will and twenty-six respondents

with executing a living will or power of at-torney.

Children/Education

The most frequently reported problems with

children’s education were suspension of achild (7.6% of all survey respondents), ob-taining special education services (7.0% of all survey respondents), excessive punish-ment of a child (4.9% of all survey respon-dents), and unfair policies (4.1% of all sur-vey respondents). Because some survey re-spondents may not ever have had children intheir household, these rates may understatethe incidence of these problems among sur-vey respondents who have had children.

Legal Problems Associated withIncarceration

Eighty-three (83) respondents reported hav-ing a history of incarceration. When askedwhether they had needed a lawyer in a civilcase while incarcerated, twelve (14.5%) re-ported child support issues, eight (9.6%) re-ported divorce issues, six (7.2%) reportedchild custody issues, and five (6.02%) re-ported child visitation (parenting time) is-sues.

Fewer than half of respondents who had beenincarcerated answered a question about legalissues faced upon re-entry to society. How-ever, about one-fourth of the 38 responsesreceived described some type of domesticrelations or domestic violence problem. A

number of respondents reported having ex-perienced financial problems upon re-entry(lack of money, lack of job, inability to payprobation fees, court costs, or insurance). Acouple of respondents mentioned difficultyfinding housing and getting a driver’s li-cense.



Language and Immigration

Twenty-nine respondents reported that theyor someone in their household usually speaksa language other than English. Most of those

who answered the follow-up question identi-fied the language as Spanish; however, Ara-bic, French, Cambodian, Urdu, Chinese, Bul-garian, Russian, Swahili and Sign Languagewere also given as answers. When respon-dents were asked about problems with LEPexperienced by household members, themost frequently reported problem was failingto understand legal forms (4 respondents, or13.8% of the group of 29).

When asked whether anyone in their house-hold had any legal problems due to immi-grant status, 4 respondents answered “yes,”29 responded “no,” and the remaining 336didn’t respond. To find the rate of immigra-tion status-related legal problems among re-spondents for whom these types of problemsare possible, we would divide the number of affirmative responses by the number of re-

spondents who are non-citizens or live in ahousehold with a non-citizen. Because wedo not have this information, the best we cando is to calculate the rate of immigrationstatus-related legal problems among all sur-vey respondents and understand that it willbe much lower than the actual rate in therelevant subgroup. Four respondents is about1.1% of all survey respondents.

Awareness of Free Legal Services and Useof Legal Services

Over 31% of respondents stated that theywere not aware of the free legal services pro-grams in Indiana. Over half of all respon-dents indicated that they had actually appliedfor free legal services at some time; of this

group, the vast majority had applied to a le-gal aid or legal services office.

The survey directed to judges and clerks of court was administered in March 2008 aspart of Phase II of the Study. Judges andclerks across Indiana were given approxi-mately two weeks to respond online.

This survey elicited 49 responses. Judgesand clerks were first asked to estimate thenumber of low-income clients proceedingpro se in various subject areas. They re-ported the highest percentages of litigantsproceeding pro se in the areas of protectiveorders, small claims, and consumer financeor collections cases. The fewest pro se liti-gants were observed in the areas of personalinjury, business law, termination of parental

rights, criminal law, employment, and estateplanning.

Judges and clerks identified consumer fi-nance as the most troublesome area for low-income citizens in Indiana. Criminal law,family law, housing, and juvenile issues fol-lowed as the most problematic issues. SeeGraph 5 on the next page.

Consumer Finance

As noted, judges and clerks identified con-sumer finance as the biggest problem forlow-income individuals in Indiana. Withinthis area, respondents identified bankruptcyand credit card debt as the biggest problems,followed by debt collection and predatorylending. One judge stated,

26

B. LEGALNEEDSOF THEPOOR FROM THE

PERSPECTIVEOF JUDGES AND CLERKS–RESPONSESFROM JUDGES AND CLERKS

OF COURT SURVEY(ISBA)25

24




0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

ConsumerFinance

Criminal Law Family Law Hous ing Juveni le Law

“Litigants unrepresented by counsel incases such as these are unlikely to knowof violations of Fair Debt Collection Act,to know of the ability to settle for lessthan face value of debt, and are the mostlikely to suffer from predatory lendingpractices and buy-here-pay-here car lots’practice of open titling.”

These kinds of observations underscore theimportance of counsel for low-income per-sons.

Criminal Law

Respondents ranked criminal law issues asone of the two second biggest problems forlow-income individuals in Indiana. Sixty-four and one-tenth percent (64.1%) of judgesand clerks rated criminal law as among the

top five problems facing the low-incomepopulation. Judges and clerks, like attorneys,identify substance abuse as a major problemwithin criminal law. Many judges and clerksbelieve that the presence of public defendershas mitigated legal problems in the area of criminal law.

Education

Twenty and five-tenths percent (20.5%) of judges and clerks ranked education as one of the top five problems facing the low-incomepopulation of Indiana. Expulsion and sus-pension were the two issues that judges andclerks believed were the most important.(By contrast, attorneys identified special edu-cation as the most important issue.) Somejudges and clerks noted they had not encoun-tered any education-related cases in theircourt.

Employment

Thirty-five and nine-tenths percent (35.9%)of judges and clerks surveyed ranked em-ployment as among the top five problemsfacing the low-income population of Indiana.

Judges and clerks identified wrongful termi-nation as the biggest employment-relatedproblem.

Family Law

Judges and clerks in Indiana believe thatfamily law issues are the second biggest civil

Graph 5: Judges’ and Clerks’ Most Significant Problems for Low Income Citizens



legal problem for low-income individuals inIndiana. Sixty-four and one-tenth percent(64.1%) of respondents ranked family lawissues as a major problem for the low-incomepopulation. Within family law, judges andclerks identified dissolution, custody, pater-nity, lack of knowledge, and litigation ex-penses (custodial evaluations, mental healthevaluations, guardians ad litem, etc.) as ma-jor problems.

One respondent described the negative effectthat lack of knowledge can have on a familylaw proceeding:

“We have a fairly heavy pro se case load infamily law. Litigants can’t afford counselor think they can ‘do it themselves.’ It doeslead to difficulty in explaining to partieshow the procedures are supposed to work.It also leads the judge to question how farwe can go without violating the ethical ruleagainst advising litigants about the law.Often parties have more contested hearingsbecause they don’t have attorneys advising

them as to how situations should be re-solved.”

Health Law

Thirty-five and nine-tenths percent (35.9%)of judges and clerks identified health care asamong the top five legal issues for low-income clients. Many of the judge and clerk respondents had not observed problems withhealth care law in their courts or said this

category was not applicable to the low-income population of Indiana.

Housing

Forty-three and six-tenths percent (43.6%) of judges and clerks ranked housing among thetop five legal issues, as compared to 68.7%

of attorneys. Within the area of housing,judges and clerks identified mortgage fore-closures and landlord evictions as the twoprimary problems.

Public EntitlementsLikely reflecting jurisdictional issues, veryfew judges and clerks responding to the sur-vey had any experience with public entitle-ments, and most were unaware of the prob-lems in this area.

Fastest Growing Problem Areas

Judges and clerks identified the fastest-growing problem areas as consumer finance,

family law, and criminal law.Importance and Efficacy of Particular Typesof Assistance

Judges and clerks asked about the effective-ness of legal service delivery techniques forlow-income litigants ranked direct represen-tation by pro bono service provider staff at-torneys as the most effective pro bono legalservice, followed by direct representation by

a pro bono attorney, and full representationby attorneys at law school clinics. Judges andclerks ranked community education andcommunity outreach as the fourth and fifthmost effective techniques.

Factors Impacting the Ability of LowIncome Clients to Access Legal Services

Eighty-four and eight-tenths percent (84.8%)of the judges and clerks identified insuffi-

cient funds to pay for legal services as themost significant factor impacting the accessof low-income clients to legal services.Judges and clerks of court also ranked as sig-nificant clients’ inability to represent them-selves, lack of knowledge about the servicesavailable, lack of awareness that legal reme-




dies exist, and lack of transportation. Anumber of judges and clerks also ranked do-mestic violence as a significant factor in theability to obtain legal assistance. See Graph6 below.

More than half of the judges and clerks sur-veyed identified the lack of an attorney oradvocate available to accept a case as the sin-gle most significant legal service-related fac-tor impacting the delivery of pro bono legalservices. Judges and clerks identified proce-dural barriers to obtaining legal services, in-ability to contact legal service providers, andbeing over-income for free legal services asother significant barriers. Most respondentsdeemed the court-related factors listed to beinsignificant (those factors include the per-ception that courts are unwelcoming, com-plex court procedures, inability to find thecourt, inability to get clear information fromcourt employees, and inability to contact the

correct person at the courthouse), though51.6% acknowledged that the belief thatcourts are unwelcoming and unhelpful to us-ers could have a moderately significant im-pact on the ability of low-income citizens toreceive services.

Judges and clerks also cited the lack of pro seself-help clinics, transportation problems,and complications arising out of income eli-gibility as additional barriers to the ability of low-income clients to access pro bono legalservices. Asked for their suggestions to re-duce or eliminate barriers to the provision of legal services, clerks and judges suggestedincreasing the amount of general legal infor-mation disseminated in low-income commu-nities, establishing an ombudsman office ineach county to interview, triage, refer, ad-vise, and represent low-income individuals,and requiring every clerk of the court tomaintain a self-service kiosk with legal infor-

0%

10%

20%30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

InsufficientFunds

Inability toRepresent Self

Lack of Knowledge re:

Services

Lack of Awareness of

Legal Remendy

DomesticViolence

Graph 6: Judges’ and Clerks’ Most Significant Barriers to Low Income Citizens’

Access to Legal Services



mation in the courthouse for pro se litigants.

Linguistic Composition of the Low IncomeLitigants

Judges and clerks were asked how many of the low-income litigants they see speak Eng-lish only as a second language, or not at all.More clerks and judges (58%) than attorneys(43%) indicated that ten percent or more of the litigants they see speak English only as asecond language; similarly, 18% of clerksand judges (as compared to 12% of attor-neys) indicated that ten percent or more of the litigants they see speak no English at all.

Judges and clerks reported that languagesspoken by the client base, in addition to Eng-lish, most frequently include Spanish, Chi-nese, Korean, American Sign Language, andVietnamese. Polish, Romanian, Burmese,Somali and Ethiopian were each mentionedin one response. Judges and clerks reportedfairly ready access to translators, at leastthose speaking Spanish.

Connecting Low Income Litigants to ProBono Assistance

Judges and clerks reported practices that dif-fer widely from courthouse to courthouse interms of the information available to litigantsabout pro bono attorneys and in terms of howmany people they tell about pro bono ser-vices. Nearly a quarter of respondents indi-cated that no information about pro bono ser-vices was available at the courthouse; onerespondent even indicated he or she was pro-hibited from providing such information.Other courthouses post information outsidecourtrooms and provide pamphlets, onlineassistance and lists of attorneys. Asked howmany people they tell each year about probono legal services, respondents provided

answers ranging from none (3 of 26) to sev-eral thousand. Of the 26 respondents, eight-een indicated they tell fifty or fewer peopleper year about pro bono services.

The attorney survey, which was administeredin March 2008 as part of Phase II of theStudy, elicited 508 responses from Indianaattorneys who are involved in pro bonowork. Asked to identify the five most impor-tant problems faced by the low-income popu-lation, approximately three-fourths of theattorneys identified family law, with con-sumer finance second, housing third, healthfourth, and criminal law as the fifth biggestproblem. See Graph 7 on the next page.

Other areas of concern include employment,juvenile law and public entitlements. Con-

sumer finance was identified as one of thefive fastest-growing problem areas by thelargest percentage of respondents, with fam-ily law, housing, health, and criminal law asthe other fastest-growing problem areas inthe law.

Consumer Finance

According to the attorneys surveyed, con-sumer finance is a primary problem facing

the poor. When asked to name the top fiveproblems of low-income clients, 69.7% of attorneys included consumer finance, secondonly to family law. Within the area of con-sumer finance, attorneys identified the majorproblems as debt collection (26.3%), creditcard debt and bankruptcy (24.4% each), and

C. LEGALNEEDSOF THE POOR FROM THE

PERSPECTIVEOF ATTORNEYSSTATEWIDE

– RESPONSESFROM ATTORNEY

SURVEY(ISBA)27




predatory lending (12.6%).

A number of attorneys expressed concernsthat new bankruptcy laws could have nega-tive effects on low-income clients, because

of additional requirements of the debtor andstricter rules. One respondent stated: “Thenew bankruptcy laws impose additional work and liability on attorneys, which has driventhe price of a Chapter 7 beyond the means of the working poor. They have no choice but toendure the 25% garnishment on their wages,regardless of how little they make…or howmany dependents they have.”

Attorneys also mentioned unfair and decep-tive sales practices, rising property taxes,payday loans, and increasing mortgage pay-ments as other consumer finance problemsfor low-income clients.

Criminal Law

Criminal law issues were identified as amongthe five primary problems by nearly half (49.0%) of attorney respondents. Attorneys

identified a wide variety of problems forlow-income clients in the area of criminallaw, including substance abuse-related prob-lems, failure to obtain counsel, overworkedpublic defenders, lack of access to transla-tors, and not understanding rights. Many at-torneys felt that public defenders are doingan adequate job defending the low-incomepopulation of Indiana despite being over-worked.

Education

Like the judges and clerks, attorneys do notrank education issues among the primaryproblems of low-income clients. Twentypercent (20.0%) of attorneys (and 20.5% of judges and clerks) listed education as one of the top five problems. Within the educationarea, attorneys indicated that the biggestproblem is lack of special education (26.9%).Attorneys ranked expulsions as the second(21.0%), and suspensions as the third(18.3%) most significant problem in educa-tion. Many attorneys identified the lack of

Graph 7: Attorneys’ Most Important Problems for Low Income Citizens

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Family Law ConsumerFinance

HousingIssues

Health Issues Criminal Law



resources for schools in low-incomeneighborhoods as leading to educationalproblems for the low-income population of Indiana.

EmploymentThirty-eight and seven-tenths percent(38.7%) of attorneys rank employmentamong the most important problem areas forIndiana’s low-income population. Withinthe employment area, attorneys identified themost prevalent problems as receivingWorker’s Compensation/unemploymentcompensation and wrongful termination.Employment problems can lead to otherproblems for low-income individuals, as onerespondent noted:

“Many low-income individuals becomelow-income after loss of a job. Specifi-cally, many individuals who lose their job,concomitantly lose their health benefits,and quickly become indebted to medicalproviders. Without replacement employ-ment these individuals become indigent

and often file for bankruptcy.”Other employment-related problems identi-fied included job discrimination, wrongfultermination, and worker documentation.

Family Law

Attorneys believe that family law issues arethe biggest problem for the low-incomepopulation in Indiana. Seventy-four percent(74.0%) of attorney respondents identifiedfamily law as one of the top five problemsfacing the low-income population of Indiana.When asked to identify specific issues withinfamily law, 59.9% of attorneys named eitherchild support or child custody as a problem.Paternity was next, identified by 14.3% of

attorneys. One attorney responded:“Dissolution and custody are certainly nearthe top, child support is always a major is-sue, and unfortunately spousal abuse is still aproblem that doesn’t get enough attention.”Also, a number of attorneys believe the en-forcement of child support obligations is aproblem.

Health Law

Attorneys surveyed ranked health care as amore significant problem than did the judgesand clerks. Over half (52.3%) of attorneys(compared to 35.9% of judges and clerks)believe that health law is among the top fiveproblems for low-income clients. Inability topay/afford health care was the most commonhealth-related problem (28.0%) identified byattorneys. Attorneys ranked problems withMedicare and Medicaid second (19.7%) andproblems with health insurance third(14.5%). Complicated Medicare and Medi-caid application processes and procedurescan make it difficult for low-income indi-

viduals to get coverage, as sample responsesnote:

“Competition for Medicare wrap insur-ance has elderly totally confused. Insur-ance companies are taking advantage of their elderly clients’ lack of sophisticationby complicating the policy offerings.”

“I can’t imagine a lay person…wadingthrough the arcane new Medicaid applica-

tion procedures. This will result in in-creased nursing home discharge fre-quency.”

Other problems with health law included be-ing denied hospital or nursing home admis-sion, and problems bringing medical mal-practice suits.




Housing

Over two-thirds of attorneys (68.7%) believethat housing issues are a major problem forlow-income individuals in the State of Indi-ana. The primary housing-related problemidentified by the attorneys was landlord/ tenant eviction, identified by 29.3% of attor-neys. Attorneys believe that these problemsoften arise because tenants do not know theirrights. One attorney responded, “[m]ost ten-ants have no understanding of what their le-gal rights or responsibilities are and the smallclaims court cannot provide any legal advice,so most people have no source of informa-tion regarding landlord tenant issues.”

Housing includes a wide range of issues af-fecting the low-income population in Indi-ana. Foreclosures were identified by 23.4%of respondents. Some attorneys mentionedpredatory lending as a cause of high rates of foreclosure among the poor. Other problemsincluded difficulties getting subsidized hous-

ing, problems withmobile homes, andhaving utilities shutoff.

Public EntitlementsAbout one-third(33.3%) of attorneyslisted public entitle-ments among the topfive problems forlow-income Hoo-siers. Attorneysidentified problemswith Medicaid as themost common(22.8%), followedclosely by Social Se-

curity Disability (SSD and SSDI) (19.8%)and Social Security Insurance (SSI) (15.6%).Two of the most common complaints withthese entitlement programs are the lengthyand complicated application process to re-ceive benefits, and the prolonged appeals

process to reinstate benefits when they areremoved.

Fastest Growing Problem Areas

Attorneys (as did judges and clerks) identi-fied family law and consumer finance as thetwo fastest-growing problem areas. Attor-neys ranked housing as the third fastest-growing area. The responses also indicatedthat attorneys believe that consumer finance

is going to be an even more substantial prob-lem in the future than it is today.

Importance and Efficacy of Particular Typesof Assistance

Attorneys were first asked to rate the impor-tance of certain types of assistance to low-

Graph 8: Attorneys’ Most Important Types of Legal Assistance

34%

35%

36%

37%

38%

39%

40%

41%

42%

43%

44%

Full Representation Counsel & Advice Limited Assistance



tential clients to contact legal service provid-ers.

In general, attorneys felt that pro bono legalservices lack appropriate funding and staff-

ing, and lack sufficient support from thecourt system. Attorneys also identified a lack of incentive for attorneys to assist low-income citizens. Financial limitations andlanguage barriers in turn become barriers toaccessing pro bono legal services. In re-sponse to these problems, some attorneysproposed giving full immunity from liabilityto attorneys when they are representing low-income individuals, educating junior associ-ates about the need to provide pro bono legalservices, and providing billable hour caps onpro bono representations.

Attorneys also identified as a crucial issuethe necessity of addressing the needs of thosewho are unable to afford legal services butwho are above income eligibility require-ments for pro bono legal services. Severalrecommended a voucher system for these

clients, where the attorneys would submittheir time to a government agency and becompensated in full, or allowing these fees tobe tax-deductible for the attorney. Other re-spondents suggested requiring ISBA mem-bers to accept a certain number of pro bonocases each year or providing co-counsel ap-pointments as a means to provide more staff and ensure that new attorneys are engaged inthe delivery of pro bono legal services.

Linguistic Composition of the Low IncomeClient Base

Attorneys were asked how many of theirlow-income clients speak English only as asecond language, or not at all. Ninety-four(94) of 220 respondents (approximately

income citizens. Full representation(representation by an advocate or attorney),counsel and advice (providing basic informa-tion on a legal problem), and brief services(providing limited assistance with a simplelegal problem) were rated as the three mostimportant types of assistance by weightedaverage. See Graph 8 on the previous page.

Next, attorneys were asked to provide theiropinions regarding the effectiveness of par-ticular legal service delivery techniques forlow-income litigants. Responses indicatedthat direct representation by a private probono attorney was considered most effective,followed by direct representation by probono service provider staff attorneys. Fullrepresentation by attorneys at law schoolclinics ranked third most effective.

Impact of Particular Factors on Abilityto Receive Legal Assistance

Attorneys ranked insufficient funds to payfor legal services as the primary client-related factor affecting the ability to receivelegal services. They also identified clients’lack of knowledge about available services oragencies, their inability to represent them-selves, and a lack of awareness that legalremedies exist as other factors that impactprospective clients’ ability to receive legalservices. The capacity of legal providers(having no attorney or advocate available toaccept a case) was identified as the most sig-nificant legal provider-related factor affect-ing the provision of legal services to low-income citizens. Attorneys identified othersignificant provider-related issues as includ-ing reluctance to take cases outside of a prac-titioner’s legal expertise, delay in receivingservice or response, and the inability of po-




0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Fami ly La w Hous ing Publ i c

Entitlements

Consumer

Finance

Employment

43%) indicated that ten percent or more of their clients speak English only as a secondlanguage; 12% indicated that ten percent ormore of their clients speak no English at all.Languages spoken by the client base, in addi-tion to English, most frequently includeSpanish, Burmese, Vietnamese, German,French, and American Sign Language. Mostattorneys described their access to translatorsas good or fair.

Serving the Low Income Clients

Attorneys were asked how low-income cli-ents found them, and given a range of op-tions including referrals from the pro bonoplan administrators, the courts, and civil le-gal service providers, as well as independentphone calls or internet research. Thirty-onepercent reported that more than half their cli-ents came to them via referrals from their probono plan administrator; 29% reported thatmore than half their clients found them viaindependent telephone calls, and nineteenpercent reported that more than half their cli-ents came to them by way of referrals from

civil legal service providers or from thecourts. By contrast, only 3% of attorneysreported that more than 50% of their clientscame to them via the internet.

There are fourteen pro bono plan administra-tors in Indiana, one in each pro bono(judicial) district throughout the state. Nineof the plan administrators responded to thissurvey, which was administered in March2008 as part of Phase II of the Study.

The pro bono plan administrators surveyedidentified the five most pressing problem ar-eas for low-income clients in Indiana as fam-ily law, housing, public entitlements, con-sumer finance, and employment. See Graph9 on this page.

D. LEGALNEEDSOF THE POOR FROM THE

PERSPECTIVEOF PRO BONO PLAN

ADMINISTRATORS– RESPONSESFROM

THE PRO BONO PLANADMINISTRATORSSURVEY(ISBA)28

Graph 9: Pro Bono Plan Administrators’ Top Issues for Low Income Citizens



Generally, plan administrators focused on thesame three problems as judges, clerks, andattorneys: family law, housing, and consumerfinance. However, two-thirds of the plan ad-ministrators identified public entitlements asa major problem, on par with consumer fi-nance, whereas fewer than one-third of attor-neys and judges and clerks ranked public en-titlements among the five most pressingproblems facing the poor in Indiana.

Efficacy of Assistance

Eight of nine pro bono plan administratorsindicated that full representation by an advo-cate or attorney was a very important type of assistance to low-income citizens. Givingbrief services, such as assisting with a simplelegal problem; providing counsel and adviceon legal problems; providing limited scoperepresentation; and community outreachwere also ranked as relatively important.

Plan administrators regard direct representa-

tion by pro bono volunteers and direct repre-sentation by legal service provider staff attor-neys as the most effective tools for legal ser-vice delivery. Telephone hotlines, limitedscope representations, and self-help or groupsessions to assist with legal documents orhearing preparation were also ranked as rela-tively effective. A majority of respondentsalso felt that full representation by lawschool clinics was at least moderately effec-tive, though several respondents indicatedthey were unsure. See Graph 10 on this page.Open-ended responses focused on the needfor more pro bono lawyers, staffing for fam-

ily law cases, and support for pro se litigantsas unmet legal needs that need to be furtheraddressed.

Barriers to the Provision of Legal Services

Responses from plan administrators mirroredthose from judges and attorneys: all identi-fied the lack of sufficient funds to pay for

Graph 10: Pro Bono Plan Administrators’ Most Effective Legal Service Delivery

Techniques

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Direct Representationby a Pro Bono Attorney

Direct Representationby Staff Attorney from

Service Providers

Full Representationby Law Clinic




legal services as the most significant factoraffecting the ability of low-income clients toreceive legal services. Lack of knowledgeabout available services or agencies and aninability to represent oneself were also citedas major factors affecting the ability to re-ceive legal services. In addressing serviceprovider-related factors, all of the plan ad-ministrators cited the lack of an attorney oradvocate available to accept a case as themost significant factor; other factors notedincluded delay in receiving services or re-sponses, attorneys’ reluctance to accept casesoutside of their legal expertise, and clients

who are above income limits for free legalservices. Significant court-related factors af-fecting access included the perception thatcourts are not welcoming or helpful to users;the complexity of court procedures, rules andforms; and an inability to obtain complete orclear information when speaking to courtstaff.

Pro bono plan administrators also listed otherissues affecting the provision of legal ser-vices to the poor that were not suggested bythe survey, such as clients’ lack of follow-through, the need for more coordination be-tween legal service providers and servicegroups, conflicts of interest in smaller juris-dictions, limited access to legal services inrural areas, and clients’ ignorance about andunrealistic expectations of the legal systemand pro bono legal services. To address

some of these problems, plan administratorssuggested that legal service providers focustheir efforts on counties with small attorneypopulations, that courts be encouraged to bemore user-friendly, that attorneys be encour-aged to voluntarily provide pro bono legalservices, and that the legal community take a

preventative approach in pro se education.Some plan administrators believe Indianashould consider creating more alternativedispute resolution systems in which publicadvocates represent poor clients in an expe-dited process. Better integration among legalservice providers was also recommended.

ILS employees were given the opportunity torespond to a survey on the legal needs of cli-ents and potential clients in the spring. Be-tween March 13, 2008 and April 11, 2008,forty-two ILS staff members completed thequestionnaire.

Employees were asked what they saw as thethree most significant unmet civil legal needsof clients. Approximately 50% of respon-dents identified one or more family law is-sues. Several of these responses specifically

mentioned post-dissolution matters such ascustody modifications and enforcement of child support, custody, and parenting time.About 45% of responding staff membersidentified some type of consumer financeissue as one of the top three unmet civil legalneeds. Nine of these respondents referred tobankruptcy. One mentioned the inability toafford bankruptcy. Over 40% of staff re-spondents identified housing as one of thethree most significant unmet civil legal needsof clients.

One question prompted each responding staff member to identify up to three of the mostsignificant barriers to meeting clients’ unmetlegal needs. The most frequent responses

E. LEGALNEEDSOF THE POOR FROM THE

PERSPECTIVEOF ILSSTAFF – RESPONSES

FROM ILSSTAFF Q UESTIONNAIRE(ILS)



were insufficient staff (attorneys primarily)at ILS, insufficient funding for legal serviceprograms such as ILS, and lack of informa-tion, knowledge or literacy on the part of cli-ents and potential clients. At least six re-spondents identified or alluded to the smallportion of the private bar that does pro bonowork.

Several respondents mentioned restrictionson services that ILS can provide, both federalregulatory restrictions and internal restric-tions based on prioritization of needs. Onerespondent wrote, “Our office does not takecustody cases and the Volunteer Programcannot place them because each case requiresa tremendous amount of time and energy andat the end of the day any resolution is onlytemporary . . . Discrimination cases are ‘fee-generating’ but none of the few practitionerswho handle the cases will ac-cept these cases without aretainer in advance.”

Other barriers mentioned in-

cluded reluctance of judges toappoint attorneys without re-imbursement, mental illnessof potential clients, transpor-tation barriers both for theclient and for the attorney,litigation costs and fees thatclients cannot afford, the“reactive” nature of ILS, lan-guage barriers, changes in theMedicaid application process,and the need for continuingattorney training.

Staff members were asked toprovide suggestions to reduceor eliminate the barriers to

meeting the legal needs of clients, includingthose related to LEP. Many respondents be-lieved that increased funding and staffing of ILS are needed. Other suggestions includedexpanded hours (some evening and weekendhours) and additional locations for ILS, andstreamlining the application process. Severalrespondents suggested having attorneys orparalegals fluent in other languages, particu-larly Spanish. One recommended providingincentives for existing staff to learn secondor third languages. Improved collaborationwith other agencies serving the low-incomecommunity generally, and clients with LEP

specifically, was suggested.Some respondents made suggestions aimedat improving the experience of pro se liti-gants in court. These suggestions includedtraining for judges regarding pro se issues,

Area of LawVery

ImportantImportant

Very Importantor Important

Housing 36 (85.7%) 4 (9.5%) 40 (95.2%)

Health 30 (71.4%) 9 (21.4%) 39 (92.9%)

Consumer Finance 31 (73.8%) 7 (16.7%) 38 (90.5%)

Public Entitlements 28 (66.7%) 10 (23.8%) 38 (90.5%)

Family 35 (83.3%) 2 (4.8%) 37 (88.1%)

Employment 19 (45.2%) 12 (28.6%) 31 (73.8%)

Individual Rights(Immigration,

Civil Rights, etc.)11 (26.2%) 16 (38.1%) 27 (64.3%)

Juvenile

(CHINS,delinquency)12 (28.6%) 11(26.2%) 23 (54.8%)

Misc.(Small Claims,Civil,PI, etc.)

5 (11.9%) 18 (42.9%) 23 (54.8%)

Estate Planning 9 (21.4%) 13 (31.0%) 22 (52.4%)

Education 4 (9.5%) 14 (33.3%) 18 (42.9%)

Criminal Law 6 (14.3%) 10 (23.8%) 16 (38.1%)




presence in court of attorneys who wouldanswer questions of pro se litigants, and clin-ics that would teach low income people howto use pro se forms.

Other themes in recommendations for over-coming barriers were education and speciali-zation. Staff suggested using print, elec-tronic, telephone, video, town meetings, andclinics to disseminate information about legalrights and responsibilities and specific typesof available free legal assistance to the low-income community. Suggestions for spe-cialization included establishment of unitswithin ILS to handle specific types of matters(e.g., consumer laws or landlord-tenant),funding of clinics to help people with spe-cific types of legal problems (housing orMedicaid, for example), and facilitating moreopen forums concerning issues.

Asked for recommendations as to allocationof any additional resources potentially made

available to ILS, manyrespondents restated thesuggestions made in con-nection with overcomingbarriers. Most of the ad-ditional recommenda-tions involved investmentin staff and investment intechnology to help staff to work more efficiently.Increasing salary andbenefits to attract and re-tain experienced attor-neys, and increasing the

quality and quantity of support staff were recur-ring themes. One personsuggested hiring a super-visor for a clinic staffed

by law students, perhapsto handle Medicaid cases. The responsescalling for investments in technology mainlyinvolved updating computer systems; how-ever, phones and refurbished computers werealso mentioned.

The final open-ended question asked for upto three suggested actions to increase theawareness of potential eligible clients of theavailability of free legal services. Nine of the 42 staff respondents questioned or actu-ally disagreed with the idea that more out-reach is desirable, stating or implying thatresources should be used to increase service

provided to clients and applicants.As in response to the question about over-coming barriers, staff suggested using print,electronic, telephone, video, town meetings,and clinics to disseminate information aboutlegal rights and responsibilities and specifictypes of available free legal assistance to the

Legal ServiceDelivery Technique

VeryImportant

ImportantVery Important

or Important

Administrative AgencyRepresentation

34 (81.0%) 7 (16.7%) 41 (97.6%)

Court Representation 37 (88.1%) 2 (4.8%) 39 (92.9%)

Limited Action(brief service – e.g., letter

writing, prep. of simpledocuments)

23 (54.8%) 15 (35.7%) 38 (90.5%)

Extended Action(settlement negotiation without admin. or court advocacy)

32 (76.2%) 5 (11.9%) 37 (88.1%)

Counsel and Advice 23 (54.8%) 13 (31.0%) 36 (85.7%)

Community Legal Education(trainings, presentations,

workshops, brochures, etc.on legal topics)

19 (45.2%) 14 (33.3%) 33 (78.6%)

Community Outreach(information using media,PSAs, referral agreements,

and group rep.)

20 (47.6%) 10 (23.8%) 30 (71.4%)



low-income community. Locations recom-mended for outreach included county healthdepartments, clinics, hospitals, law enforce-ment jurisdictions (officers’ referral cards),unemployment offices, welfare offices, andhomeless shelters. Networking withneighborhood associations, houses of wor-ship, and local government officials whofield calls from constituents was suggested.One respondent recommended advertisingand conducting free “talk to an attorney”days, which would both provide legal serviceand increase awareness of free legal services.

Employees were asked to rate the importanceof twelve areas of legal need to clients. Eacharea of law was to be rated “very important,”“important,” “somewhat important,” or“unimportant.” The chart on page 54 givesthe number and percentage of respondentsthat rated each area as “very important” or“important.” The areas of law have beenranked based on combined number of “veryimportant” and “important ratings.” Whentwo areas of law had the same combinednumber of “very important” and “important”ratings, the area with more “very important”ratings was ranked higher.

The top five areas (in decreasing order of ranking) were housing, health, consumer fi-nance, public entitlements, and family law.

Staff were asked to rate the importance toclients of seven legal service delivery tech-niques, or types of assistance. As with theareas of law, each method of assistance wasto be rated “very important,” “important,”“somewhat important,” or “unimportant,”and the types of assistance have been rankedaccording to the responses. The chart onpage 55 gives the number and percentage of

respondents that rated each type of assistanceas “very important” or “important.”

The top five legal service delivery techniques(in decreasing order of ranking) were admin-

istrative agency representation, court repre-sentation, limited action, extended action,and counsel and advice. The results wereclose. More respondents rated court repre-sentation “very important” than rated admin-istrative agency representation “very impor-tant” (37 as compared to 34); however 41 outof 42 respondents rated administrativeagency representation “very important” or“important.” Most respondents believed thatall seven types of assistance were very im-portant or important. Even community out-reach, which ranked last, was rated “very im-portant” or “important” by 30 out of the 42respondents.

Between March 13, 2008 and May 5, 2008,members of the ILS Board of Directors weregiven the opportunity to take a survey con-cerning the legal needs of clients and poten-tial clients. Twelve Board members com-pleted the entire survey, and one additionalBoard member answered all short answerquestions.

When asked to state what the respondent sawas the three most significant unmet civil legalneeds of ILS clients, nine directors (75% of those who responded) specifically mentionedpredatory lending, mortgage foreclosures,and/or housing. Two of these Board mem-

F. LEGALNEEDSOF THE POOR FROM THE

PERSPECTIVEOF ILSBOARD –RESPONSESFROM ILSBOARD

OF DIRECTORSQ UESTIONNAIRES(ILS)




bers mentioned bankruptcy in their re-sponses. Seven directors identified one ormore family law issues in their response, andthree identified immigration issues. It is fairto say that, in the opinion of the majority of the Board of Directors, housing, consumerfinance, and family law are very significantunmet civil legal needs of ILS clients.

When asked about the three most significantbarriers to meeting those unmet needs, eightdirectors (two thirds of those who responded)cited inadequate funding and/or staffing.Four directors cited clients’ and potential cli-ents’ lack of information about available le-gal resources and/or lack of knowledge torecognize legal issues. One mentioned theworsening of legal problems when they arenot addressed early. Three directors believedlanguage barriers to be significant, and twodirectors cited a lack of pro bono service bythe private bar. Two directors mentioned

inadequate coordination between pro bonoprograms.

Board members were asked for suggestionsto reduce or eliminate barriers to meeting the

legal needs of clients, including barriers re-lated to LEP. Responses included seekingadditional funding, hiring more staff, encour-aging volunteer efforts (pro bono work byprivate bar), greater involvement by ILS inthe delivery of pro bono legal services, usingtranslators and hiring multilingual staff, andimproved education. A range of educationaloptions was suggested. Several respondentssuggested community legal education, in-cluding preventive law education and publi-cation of available legal resources. OneBoard member recommended better educa-tion in early grades and better access tohigher education, language classes, and train-ing in marketable skills. Helping the work-ing poor who don’t qualify for ILS assistanceto find affordable legal assistance was sug-

gested. One respondent sug-gested that ILS and the probono districts be combined.

Board members were asked toprovide up to three sugges-tions for ILS to increase theawareness of potential eligibleclients of the availability of free legal services. A numberof responses involved com-munication to and throughother programs and agenciesthat serve the same peopleabout what types of servicesILS offers. Other answersincluded public service an-nouncements on televisionand radio, public appearances

Area of Law Very Important ImportantVery Important

or Important

Consumer Finance 13 (100%) 0 13 (100%)

Housing 9 (69.2%) 4 (30.8%) 13 (100%)

Health 6 (46.2%) 6 (46.2%) 12 (92.3%)

Family 7 (53.8%) 4 (30.8%) 11 (84.6%)

Employment 4 (30.8%) 7 (53.8%) 11 (84.6%)


Juvenile(CHINS/Delinquency)

7 (53.8%) 3 (23.1%) 10 (76.9%)

Individual Rights

(Immigration,Civil Rights, etc.)

5 (38.5%) 5 (38.5%) 10 (76.9%)

Education 4 (30.8%) 6 (46.2%) 10 (76.9%)

Misc.(Small Claims,Civil,P.I., etc.)

2 (15.4%) 5 (38.5%) 7 (53.8%)

Estate Planning 1 (7.7%) 4 (30.8%) 5 (38.5%)

Criminal Law 2 (15.4%) 2 (15.4%) 4 (30.8%)



and visits to community centers and publicvenues, meetings or “bazaars” around thestate at which private attorneys, clients andILS representatives seek common ground forrespective goals, Yellow Pages advertising, aspeakers bureau, additional use of electronicmedia including changes to the website, andextensive months’ long advertising beforeself-help clinics. One Board member feltthat resources should first be applied to en-able ILS to service everyone who comes forassistance before spending money trying tofind new clients.

Board members were asked to rate the im-portance of twelve areas of legal need to cli-ents. Each area of law was to be rated “veryimportant,” “important,” “somewhat impor-

tant,” or “unimportant.” The chart on page57 gives the number and percentage of re-sponding directors that rated each area as“very important” or “important.” The areasof law have been ranked using the samemethod as was used to rank responses to theILS Staff Questionnaire.

The top three areas (in decreasing order of ranking) were consumer finance, housing,and health. Every respondent consideredconsumer finance to be “very important.”Family, employment, and public entitlementsalso ranked very high: eleven of the thirteenparticipating Board members rated each of these areas as either “very important” or“important.”

Finally, ILS Board members were asked torate the importance to clients of seven legalservice delivery techniques, or types of legalassistance. The types of legal assistance inthe chart on this page have been ranked usingthe same method as was used to rank re-sponses to the ILS Staff Questionnaire.

The top three legal service delivery tech-niques (in decreasing order of ranking) werecounsel and advice, extended action(settlement negotiation without administra-tive or court advocacy), and court representa-tion. Twelve of thirteen directors rated coun-sel and advice “very important,” and onerated it “important.” All responding direc-

Legal Service Delivery Technique Very Important ImportantVery Important

or Important

Counsel and Advice 12 (92.3%) 1 (7.7%) 13 (100%)

Extended Action(settlement negotiation

without admin. or court advocacy)

7 (53.8%) 6 (46.2%) 13 (100%)


Community Outreach(information using media, PSAs,

referral agreements, and group rep.)7 (53.8%) 3 (23.1%) 10 (76.9%)

Limited Action(brief service – e.g., letter writing,

prep. of simple documents)5 (38.5%) 5 (38.5%) 10 (76.9%)

Community Legal Education(trainings, presentations, workshops,

brochures, etc. on legal topics)7 (53.8%) 2 (15.4%) 9 (69.2%)

Administrative Agency Representation 5 (38.5%) 4 (30.8%) 9 (69.2%)




tors rated both counsel and advice and ex-tended action as either “very important” or“important.”

Human service providers around the statewere given the opportunity to take a surveyon the legal needs of clients and potentialclients in the spring. Between March 11,2008 and April 14, 2008, sixty-seven humanservice providers completed the question-naire. Providers of housing services, health-care services, family services, disabled ser-vices, domestic violence services, senior citi-zen services, youth programs, translation/ interpretation services, and immigrant ser-vices, among others, were included. Almosthalf of respondents said that their organiza-tion had income eligibility guidelines. Ap-proximately two-thirds of respondents re-ported that their organization serves peopleof LEP.

Human service providers were asked whatthey saw as the three most significant unmetcivil legal needs of their clients. By far themost prevalent area of responses was familylaw. Twenty-eight responses (approximately42%) cited a family law concern. Most of the family law issues identified involved dis-solution and post-dissolution matters. Sev-eral concerned enforcement of laws againstdomestic violence.

The second most frequently-raised unmetcivil legal need was housing. Sixteen re-

sponses (approximately 24%) included aconcern about housing. Within the categoryof housing, the primary concerns appeared tobe eviction or lock-out, mortgage foreclo-sure, or condition of housing.

Consumer finance and public benefits wereeach identified by approximately 16% of re-sponding human service providers as a topunmet civil legal need. Within the area of public benefits, Social Security Disabilityand Medicaid were the top concerns.

Ten respondents (approximately 15%) listedimmigration as one of the three most signifi-cant unmet civil legal needs of their clients.As discussed in more detail in sectionV.G.2., undocumented immigrants facedaunting challenges, including the inabilityto access some benefits and services avail-able to other low-income people, prejudice(particularly during recessions), vulnerabilityto unfair employment practices, and the in-ability to obtain a driver’s license and insur-ance, which can make it difficult to find and

keep employment. Some respondents re-ported that even legal immigrants have haddifficulty obtaining driver’s licenses andpublic benefits because government employ-ees were sometimes unwilling to accept theirdocumentation.

Human service providers were asked to listup to three of the most significant barriers tomeeting clients’ significant unmet legalneeds. Many respondents identified the cli-ents’ inability to pay for legal services, theinsufficient number of attorneys willing to dopro bono work, and the insufficiency of funding for programs providing free or lowcost legal assistance. The picture thatemerges is a high volume of need, together

G. LEGALNEEDSOF THE POOR FROM THEPERSPECTIVEOF HUMAN SERVICE

PROVIDERS– RESPONSESFROM ILSHUMAN SERVICEPROVIDER

Q UESTIONNAIRE(ILS)



with a limited number of available attorneyhours, creating long waiting lists for free rep-resentation. Access to services is reportedlyespecially limited in rural areas. Lack of transportation or inability to afford transpor-

tation was cited in many responses.Some respondents cited clients not beingproactive or timely in seeking assistance.This failure was attributed to various factorsincluding lack of knowledge as to what typeof situation requires an attorney, lack of transportation, lack of telephone service, lack of mobility due to disability, inability to gettime off work to meet with an attorney, andfear. Other barriers included LEP, immigra-tion status, difficulty filling out forms, inabil-ity to pay filing fees or court costs, lack of knowledge of services available, lack of edu-cation, “jurisdictional” issues, people withmultiple legal problems and “complicatedfacts,” and the fear of cost of legal assistance.

Human serviceproviders wereasked to providesuggestions to re-duce or eliminatethe barriers tomeeting the legalneeds of their cli-ents. Many of them called formore funding forlegal services pro-grams and/or re-cruitment of more

attorneys to do probono work. Onesuggested manda-tory pro bono ser-vice for attorneys.

Many responses included proposals to edu-cate both the low-income community andsocial service providers on basic legal issues(both substantive law and procedures). Prose clinics, hotlines, workshops ( e.g. ,“landlord-tenant 101”), legal “guidebooks”written in everyday language, self-servicepackets on substantive legal areas of highunmet need (child custody, for example), andinformational meetings targeted to specialpopulations such as the elderly and undocu-mented citizens were suggested. One re-spondent recommended offering a class toprepare pro se litigants for court-ordered me-

diation, and another suggested financialtraining including the lasting consequencesof poor financial decisions.

Responding human service providers alsosuggested improving coordination with non-profit social service agencies and outreach tothe low-income community. They felt that

Area of Law Very Important ImportantVery Important

or Important

Family 40 (59.7%) 18 (26.9%) 58 (86.6%)

Individual Rights(Immigration,

Civil Rights, etc.)

37 (55.2%) 17 (25.4%) 54 (80.6%)

Health 36 (53.7%) 18 (26.9%) 54 (80.6%)

Housing 36 (53.7%) 17 (25.4%) 53 (79.1%)


Consumer Finance 35 (52.2%) 15 (22.4%) 50 (74.6%)

Juvenile(CHINS,delinquency)

28 (41.8%)18 (26.9%)

46 (68.7%)

Criminal Law 23 (34.3%) 21 (31.3%) 44 (65.7%)

Employment 21 (31.3%) 23 (34.3%) 44 (65.7%)

Education 22 (32.8%) 19 (28.4%) 41 (61.2%)

Misc.(Small Claims, Civil,PI, etc.)

17 (25.4%) 16 (23.9%) 33 (49.3%)

Estate Planning 13 (19.4%) 14 (20.9%) 27 (40.3%)




more knowledgeon their part aboutwhich types of matters usuallyrequire legal rep-resentation andabout types of matters handledby specific legalservice providersin their areawould enablethem to makemore appropriate

referrals for theirclients. Outreachsuggestions in-cluded use of ra-dio, television,newspapers, and the ILS website, institutionof a 24-hour legal phone center by partneringwith Indiana 211, placement of informationalhandouts and posters in community areassuch as physician’s offices, houses of wor-ship, libraries, grocery stores, Medicaid of-fices, and bus stops. One person suggesteddoing more face-to-face outreach projects onparticular subjects, citing Bloomington’sTenant Assistance Project and ILS’ work onchild support and family issues in Lawrenceand Orange counties as examples of success-ful outreach projects.

Providing legal service with flexible hours

and at rural locations, providing bus tokensor reimbursing cab fares, and bilingual repre-sentation and more interpreters were sug-gested.

A couple of responses addressed law en-forcement. One person suggested strongerenforcement of laws already in existence,

likely referring to anti-discrimination lawsand fair employment laws. Another respon-dent suggested training for law enforcementofficers about people’s basic rights.

Some responses addressed the difficulty andintimidation some potential clients feel aboutfilling out forms and going to court. Onesuggested the creation of special positions,based in courthouses and attorneys’ offices,to assist clients with paperwork and prepara-tion for court, perhaps accompanying clientsto court.

Human service providers were asked to ratethe significance of twelve areas of legal needto clients. The chart on page 60 gives thenumber and percentage of respondents thatrated each area as “very important” or“important.” As shown in the chart, the topfive areas of law were family, individualrights, health, housing, and public entitle-ments. Consumer finance ranked sixth.

Legal ServiceDelivery Technique

Very Important ImportantVery Important

or Important

Counsel and Advice 49 (73.1%) 14 (20.9%) 63 (94.0%)


Community Legal Education(trainings, presentations,

workshops, brochures, etc.on legal topics)

27 (40.3%) 27 (40.3%) 54 (80.6%)

Limited Action(brief service – e.g., letter

writing, prep. of simpledocuments)

26 (38.8%) 25 (37.3%) 51 (76.1%)

Administrative AgencyRepresentation

24 (35.8%) 22 (32.8%) 46 (68.7%)

Community Outreach(information using media,PSAs, referral agreements,

and group rep.)

20 (29.9%) 26 (38.8%) 46 (68.7%)

Extended Action(settlement negotiationwithout admin. or court

advocacy)

30 (44.8%) 15 (22.4%) 45 (67.2%)



Human service providers were similarlyasked to rate the importance to clients of seven types of legal assistance, or legal ser-vice delivery techniques. The chart on page61 gives the number and percentage of re-spondents that rated each type of assistanceas “very important” or “important.” Respon-dents identified the top four legal service de-livery techniques as counsel and advice,court representation, community legal educa-tion, and limited action.

Phase III of the Study consisted of the focusgroups. The Study Sponsors hired NanStager as the focus group facilitator. Ms.Stager and representatives of the StudySponsors decided the following: there wouldbe eight focus groups from different geo-graphical regions of the state—four drawingparticipants from more rural locations andfour drawing participants from more urbanlocations; the meetings would be held in theevening so that more people could attend,and the suggested meeting time would be5:30 – 8:30 pm; and food at the meeting wasimportant, so funding for dinner would beprovided. The committee agreed that a brief presentation that provided an overview of thelegal needs of low-income people and thereasons for convening the focus groupswould be given at each meeting by ILS staff

attorney Victoria Deak. Ms. Deak wouldalso serve as the statewide coordinator of thefocus groups. She would arrange meetingdates with the district coordinators from eachsite and provide them with the basic informa-tion they needed in order to host the focusgroup.

The Study Sponsors agreed that the basic for-mat for the focus groups would be similar tothat of the Conclave (discussed in subsectionI): small group discussions with each groupreporting their results to the full group. Eachlocal coordinator would assign the partici-pants to groups of five to eight in an effort toensure a diversity of backgrounds in eachdiscussion group. The Study Sponsors alsoagreed that the small groups would focustheir discussion on five questions and that alleight focus groups would be asked the samequestions for the purpose of consistency.

The instructions involved having each tableselect a note-taker/recorder for their group,having all group members take responsibilityfor moderating at their table (that is, to inviteothers into the conversation and try not todominate), and having one person be thespokesperson for their table. They were alsoinformed of the timeline of approximatelyfifteen minutes discussion per question inorder to consider all questions before it wastime to report back.

The locations and dates were:

June 26 EvansvilleJuly 18 New CastleJuly 28 LafayetteJuly 29 BloomingtonJuly 31 ScottsburgAugust 12 Fort WayneAugust 25 Indianapolis

August 28 Gary

Meetings took place at restaurants, Ivy Techclassrooms, a hospital’s community room, achurch basement, a public library, and a gov-ernment building. A total of 212 people par-ticipated in the eight forums. On average,

30

29H. INFORMATION FROM FOCUS GROUPS




about 30% of those invited to the forums ac-tually attended. The participation rate variedamong locations and ranged between 25%-50%.

The following is a summary of the responsesof all focus groups to each question.

Summary of Question 1: What do you think are the most important legal needs of your community?

The top three legal needs identified by allfocus groups were: family issues (divorce,guardianships, and post-dissolution issuessuch as custody and child support); issues

concerning public benefits (applying forbenefits and appeals of denials); and con-sumer debt issues (bankruptcy, collections,foreclosure, evictions, wills and trusts, andmedical expenses). Some groups categorizedthe legal issues related to housing (such aslandlord/tenant, affordability and quality of rental housing, applying for Section 8 hous-ing, and the needs of the homeless) as sepa-rate from other consumer issues. Other legalneeds identified by most groups were theneeds of the mentally ill and the “workingpoor.” Some groups mentioned the legalneeds of non-English speakers, the elderly,and the rural poor. Many groups mentionedthat pro se litigants needed better assistance.A few groups mentioned the need for civillegal help in criminal matters. Rural focusgroups identified the lack of transportation as

an impediment to receiving legal services,and also reported more “gaps” in the accessi-bility of legal services.

Summary of Question 2: How are these legal needs currently being addressed?

There was consensus among all focus groupson this question: despite differing programs

to help the poor with their legal needs (andall focus groups came up with a long list of legal services in their area), there are still notenough resources to meet the demand. Inother words, the focus groups all agreed thatwhile there are programs in place in theircommunities that do a good job of providinglegal services to the poor, the need for legalservices far exceeds what these organizationsare able to do. There are simply not enoughpro bono and public interest attorneys tomeet the needs of the poor.

Legal services and programs varied by loca-tion. However, they typically fell into thefollowing categories: organizations whosemission is to provide legal services for thepoor (such as ILS, Legal Aid, and Pro BonoDistricts); private practice pro bono attor-neys; and social service agencies, mediationprograms, law school legal clinics, Ask-a-Lawyer programs, legal help phone lines,and on-line information (pro se forms andwebsites).

Summary of Question 3: What legal needsare not being met in your community?

The consensus of the groups was that the le-gal needs identified in response to questionone also could be repeated for this questionsince the demand is not met. However, a fewcommon themes emerged. One was thatthere was little help for post-dissolution fam-ily issues such as child support, custody, andvisitation. Almost all focus groups believedthat legal guardianships were a great needthat was largely unmet.

Another theme was that the “near poor” ( i.e. ,those who were just over the income guide-lines) and the mentally ill were not beingserved at all. Other populations identified as

31



under-served were the elderly, the disabled,and the rural poor. Some focus groups men-tioned that the legal needs of illegal immi-grants were unmet, and others mentioned thatthose who do not speak English are notserved well (if at all) due to the lack of trans-lators.

Many groups thought that the legal needs of pro se litigants were not met and that therewere not enough attorneys with expertise inbankruptcy to meet the demand. Somegroups pointed out the need for legal assis-tance prior to legal action. Too often law-suits could have been avoided if the clienthad sought legal advice earlier instead of waiting until the crisis ( i.e., eviction, foreclo-sure, bankruptcy, or arrest).

Several groups mentioned that those personswho had legal issues relating to criminal ac-tions (such as suspended driver’s license,failure to appear, failure to pay child support,violation of probation, etc.) were not beingserved and that legal help with some of these

issues could prevent arrests.The privatization of public benefits, with itsreliance on phone calls instead of face-to-face meetings with a local caseworker, hascreated a new dilemma. According to somefocus groups, the poor increasingly do nothave “land lines” and rely instead on pre-paid cell phones with a limited amount of minutes. They simply cannot afford to useup their minutes waiting on hold in order toget their benefits.

Lastly, several groups identified the need forlegal education and better legal referral asone that is not being met in their community.

Summary of Question 4: What additional alternative service models (i.e., mediation,advice hotline, community legal education,etc.) could be used to more efficiently and

effectively address your community’s legal needs?

The most common answer to this questionfocused on the need for expanded legal edu-cation for the poor and for those who work with the poor. Efforts to provide better coor-dination and improved referral of legal ser-vices were emphasized, such as better net-working among service providers and betterlegal education of referral sources so that thepoor would know what programs existed inthe community. Another idea along this linewas to have a legal resource center actuallylocated in the courthouse. Ideas for betteroutreach included a traveling volunteer law-yer, a “Legal Mobile,” and a “circuit rider”legal librarian. Groups also suggested hold-ing legal clinics in community locations suchas schools, churches, and trustee offices.

Also mentioned was the advertisement of available legal services on television and ra-dio, and improved marketing of the 211“Connect to Help” line and other legal helpphone lines. Expansion of the Talk To ALawyer program and legal clinics on perti-nent topics was frequently mentioned. A fewgroups also suggested increasing the use of legal volunteers and advocates. About half of the focus groups thought that an expansionof the use of mediation in various civil mat-ters would be helpful; the other half did notdiscuss mediation. Another common ideawas to help educate pro se clients throughlegal information kiosks in places such as thecourthouse, public library, or shopping mall.




Similarly, several groups suggested a volun-teer attorney, maybe called the “Lawyer forthe Day,” along with public computers at thecourthouse to specifically help pro se liti-gants. Various incentives (for example, freeCLE hours and student loan forgiveness) forattorneys to do pro bono work were also sug-gested. The practice of “unbundling” cases,where an attorney would volunteer to takejust one part of a case was recommended.Another idea to encourage attorneys to helpmeet the needs of the “near poor” was to im-plement a sliding fee scale.

Summary of Question 5: What do you think

needs to be done in your community in or der to better meet the needs of the poor?

The answers to this question all involved theword “more.” That is, the focus groupsstated that they needed more attorneys, moreincentives for attorneys to accept pro bonocases, more state funding for poverty lawattorneys, more legal education clinics forthe clients, more and improved outreach to

clients, and more networking among legaland social service providers.

The most common answer to this questioncentered on increasing legal education to cli-ents, referral sources, and the local legalcommunity. The groups believed that therewas a need to make legal information moreaccessible, especially to clients in rural areas.Since there is a need to increase human re-

sources, many felt that their communitiesshould make better use of non-lawyer profes-sionals such as mediators, advocates, legalvolunteers, social workers, and paralegals.Some groups felt that the courthouse shouldbe the physical location of a legal referralcenter. At the very least, many groups

agreed that courthouses should have a“kiosk-like” area with legal brochures andinformation, public computers, and volunteerstaff to help pro se litigants. More statefunding for legal service provider attorneyswas suggested often, but in most cases it wasnot the first thing mentioned. There wassome frustration expressed by the attorneysat the focus groups at how few attorneys intheir communities took pro bono cases; manysupported incentives and/or mandatory probono hours.

In October 2007, the ISBA Pro Bono Com-mittee, in conjunction with the Study, deter-mined to host a Conclave to address the de-livery of pro bono services in Indiana. TheConclave was seen as an opportunity to ex-amine the existing delivery system of freeand low-cost legal services in order to evalu-ate the positive aspects of the system and todiscuss what actions could be taken to im-prove the delivery of the services. It was feltthat this information, coupled with the find-ings from the Study, would be valuable inobtaining a realistic view of the existing probono legal system and would serve as thefoundation for assessing what changes maybe needed in order to ensure that the State of Indiana is maximizing the use of assets to

address the legal needs of those who cannotafford legal services.

The purpose of the Conclave was to bringtogether a group of selected individuals(legal service providers, attorneys, judges,district pro bono chairs, district plan admin-istrators, academics and individuals with an

I. INFORMATION FROM PRO BONO

CONCLAVE32



active interest in pro bono) from across Indi-ana, representing rural, suburban and urbanareas, in order to examine the existing probono efforts in Indiana for the purpose of:

1. Determining the need for pro bono ser-vices.

2. Determining the strength and weak-nesses of the present delivery of ser-vices.

3. Determining the present status of theintegration of existing pro bono servicesand whether a need exists for better inte-gration of services.

4. Establishing a plan for the education of the bench and the bar of existing probono efforts and whether there is a needto establish a more comprehensive sys-tem of services.

5. Planning for a means of recruiting vol-unteers for the pro bono effort.

The Conclave was conducted in Indianapolison April 25, 2008. Over 70 individuals at-

tended the Conclave, including Chief JusticeRandall T. Shepard and Douglas Church,then President of the ISBA Board of Gover-nors. The attendees were divided into eighttables and were assigned discussion topics.The topics were:

1. What about our current system of deliv-ery of pro bono services is workingwell? How can we improve our systemof delivery of pro bono services?

2. What are the obstacles and barriers fac-ing our clients and their families in pro-curing legal representation? How do weovercome these obstacles?

3. What do we know of other creative andinnovative pro bono programs? How

can we adapt these ideas to improve ourprograms?

4. How do we, or can we, best coordinateand integrate the administration and the

delivery of pro bono services at thestate, district and local level?

5. How can we best recruit, educate andretain attorneys to volunteer to do probono work?

6. How do we best educate and involve thecourts in ensuring that pro bono servicesare available?

During the Conclave, each table summarized

their discussions and each table reported tothe gathered assembly, which reports wererecorded. Following the Conclave, the Con-clave sub-committee distilled the reports intotopic points listed on the following pages.These topic points include areas of inquiryand recommendations from the participantsat the Conclave, and are not recommenda-tions from the Study Sponsors. Further, anumber of the recommendations have al-ready been implemented in and around thestate, and reflect that some participants werenot aware of ongoing state or local initia-tives.

Education:

Clients

Services available to clients

Use internet and develop website foruse by clients.

Preventative programming

Consumer issues

Debtor-Creditor

Lending practices




Small claim procedures. (Require plain-tiffs to attend seminar?)

Prepare videos or DVDs explaining vari-ous legal topics that would be available at

kiosks in courthouses, libraries, seniorcitizen centers, internet, etc.

Educate clients who are computer illiter-ate to use computers.

Educate clients as to how to contact/ communicate with volunteers. Prepare asimple pamphlet of dos and don’ts.

Courts or clerks offer pro se clinics.

Social service organizations

Educate social service providers as tolegal services that are provided by probono providers.

Exchange information between differentorganizations as to services offered.

Volunteers

Training in areas of law where there isgreat need for services but outside theusual expertise of the volunteer.

Make funding available to volunteers,plan administrators, district chairs, etc. toattend national pro bono conferences andto come back and conduct seminars onvarious ideas that may be useful in Indi-ana.

Offer cultural training for volunteers tobetter understand special client popula-tions and special need clients.

Judicial officers

Pro bono services available from provid-ers.

Funding for ADR programs through

court costs (HB 1034 plans) in domesticcases.

Educate judicial officers on best practicesin handling pro se and pro bono litigants.

(Sensitivity training?)Develop manual for district chairs andrequire attendance at training sessions.

Plenary session at annual Judicial Con-ference educating judicial officers ontheir pro bono responsibilities and the probono efforts throughout the state.

Court staff

Training as to the pro bono servicesavailable.

Training staff how to deal with pro bonoand pro se litigants.

Sensitivity training.

Contact Clerk of Court’s state associationto provide pro bono training at the state-wide gathering.

Legislators

Value of pro bono services for the citi-zens of Indiana.

Methodology

Improve the quality of pro bono CLE.Develop more interactive and entertain-ing training methodology. Use webinars,podcasts and on-line training.

Volunteers:

Recruitment

Start development of pro bono culture inlaw schools and law students.

Development of loan forgiveness pro-gram for young lawyers to encourage probono service.



Take advantage of the diverse legal ser-vices that members of the bar can offerfor diverse pro bono problems.

Encourage discounts by ICLEF and per-

haps the county bar associations acrossthe state for attorneys who volunteer toperform an agreed number of pro bonoservice hours.

Encourage involvement by corporate at-torneys.

Development of culture of pro bono ser-vice in law firms.

Review the current benchmarks and

discuss development of lower bench-marks or benchmarks of different lev-els with different rewards and recogni-tion.

Use pro bono coordinators in largerfirms who would assist pro bono pro-viders by seeking attorneys in a firm tohandle certain legal problems.

Firms should recognize pro bono ser-

vice as billable hours.Encourage local judicial officers to en-courage pro bono participation and togive recognition of pro bono efforts bythe bar.

ISBA and local bars should actively en-courage its members to meet an estab-lished benchmark.

ISBA should have a regular column in

the Res Gestae on pro bono service.ISBA should offer assistance to local barassociations to use its website to promotepro bono opportunities available in thelocal bar.

ISBA should have a program concerning

pro bono service at the Solo Practitionerand Small Firm Conference and at bench-bar meetings.

ICLEF should have a brief message at the

start of video replays that encourages probono service.

Solicit older attorneys to participate inpro bono service and/or mentoring of lessexperienced attorneys.

Make the reporting of pro bono servicemandatory and report the service on theSupreme Court website by individual at-torney and by firm; or make pro bono

service mandatory.Seek recommendations from volunteersfor the names of other attorneys whomight become volunteers.

Make available on a website a uniformapplication that a volunteer could com-plete to register for pro bono service.

Support services

Malpractice insurance

Research services

Paralegal assistance

Mentoring of new volunteers by seasonedpro bono attorneys.

Use of law students to conduct legal re-search (made available by internet).

Develop listserv for volunteers to obtainadvice from other practitioners. Put the

names and the contact info of attorneyswho are considered specialists in certaintopics who are willing to address queriesfrom volunteers on the listserv.

Improve the quality of pro bono CLE.Develop more interactive and entertain-




ing training methodology. Use webinars,podcasts and on-line training.

Conduct a survey of volunteers to deter-mine if there is more that could be done

to recruit and retain volunteers.Place the “Talk to a Lawyer” manualonline and make it interactive so queriescan be received and addressed.

Courts with calendar calls or open callsshould give priority in calling up probono cases.

Courts and clerk’s offices should coordi-nate fee waiver matters with pro bono

appearances.Use the Pro Bono Commission website toprovide volunteers with a list of socialservice agencies available in their county/ district.

Offer free or low cost CLE classes forvolunteers.

Recognition

Award dinners (invite family members of volunteers).

Recognize staff of volunteers.

Combine award dinner with another barfunction in order to encourage othermembers of the bar to volunteer.

Prizes for volunteers.

Trial court judges should recognize vol-unteers for their services in open court.

Supreme Court should give certificatesyearly to attorneys who complete a setamount of pro bono service in a year orsend letters to attorneys nominated bylocal trial judges for recognition for ser-vices. The Court should also recognizethe efforts of judicial officers that facili-

tate pro bono efforts.

Place ads in local papers giving recogni-tion to volunteers that perform a setamount of pro bono service in a year.

Waive CLE fees for attorneys that per-form an agreed amount of pro bono ser-vice.

Encourage alumni magazines from thevarious law schools to run articles featur-ing the service of alumni volunteers.

Use of Mediators

Promote the use of pro bono mediators.

Require all court appointed mediators toperform a set number of pro bono media-tions per year (the suggestion was 2).

Offer to subsidize the cost of training formediators in exchange for an agreednumber of pro bono mediations.

Non-attorney volunteers

Law students

Require mandatory pro bono service atlaw school.

Career fairs for students that empha-size pro bono service or governmentalservice.

Paralegals/non-attorney volunteers

Assist volunteer attorneys with clientintake, organize documents, andgather information.

Unbundle legal services

Educate volunteers and judicial officersas to the practice of “unbundled legal ser-vices.”

Establish guidelines for the use of unbun-dled legal services.



Develop advice-only panels of volunteers.

Access to services:

Urban

Need for translators for non-Englishspeaking clients and deaf clients.

Make Language Line available to probono districts.

Develop assistance for clients who havedifficulty reading.

Rural

Need to address problem of providing

transportation for access to legal services.Use community volunteers to providetransportation.

Establish “bookmobile” offering legalservices.

Need to address the lack of attorneys.

Need to address problems with conflictof interest issues in less populated coun-ties.

Need to address the lack of telephone ser-vice and computer service.

Make cell phones with limited minutesavailable for clients or provide pre-paid minutes for clients with cellphones.

Use of public facilities for telephoneand computer access, libraries, firestations, etc.

Need for translators for non-Englishspeaking clients and deaf clients.

Development of assistance for illiterateclients.

Have pro bono volunteer(s) available in

court on days when there are paternityhearings, eviction hearings, etc.

Develop “one stop” service centers for le-gal and other social services, i.e., kiosks inpublic buildings that would make the infor-mation available in several languages andusing forms and video instruction. Con-sider funding for a staff person or assign-ment of a staff person to work with pro selitigants. State Court Administration tele-phone number for pro bono assistance.

Increase availability of intake services.

Centralized call center for statewide use(211 call-in capability).

Use social service providers as points of referral to legal services, i.e. give medicalclinics information about legal service forabuse victims, legal service for tenants inunhealthy and dangerous environments.

Conduct pro se legal clinics or make DVDs

available to assist parties to complete legalforms or to educate as to legal processes.

Provide re-entry courts with pro bono legalservices to assist participants with legalissues concerning driver’s license, debtor/ creditor issues, and child support issues.

Legal services for military personnel pre-paring to be deployed.

Prepare contingent plans for pro bono legalservices as part of disaster relief efforts.

Contract with attorneys in rural or outlyingcounties to perform legal work on a re-duced fee basis.




Offer “Talk to a Lawyer” day on Law Dayin addition to Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.

Each courthouse should provide a com-

puter and printer available to the public toprovide access to Supreme Court forms.

Develop list of “contract attorneys” to han-dle cases for which it is difficult to findvolunteers. Use IOLTA funding or developother funding sources to pay for the con-tract attorneys.

Data gathering:

Need for statewide uniform definition of pro bono services

Reporting of services.

Develop method of evaluating the servicesthat are rendered and the effectiveness of various pro bono services.

Communication:

Need to improve communications betweensocial service providers and free or low-cost legal service providers

Regular meetings between social serviceproviders and free or low-cost legal ser-vice providers on a district wide basis.

Adapt Supreme Court forms to use basiclanguage at 4 th or 5 th grade level.

State funding for Language Line use bylegal service providers across the state.

Working poor:

Review definition of those who are finan-cially eligible.

Develop “reduced fee” services for those

who don’t meet the guidelines but are de-fined as the working poor.

Integration of pro bono services:

District Chairs and Plan Administratorsshould have regular periodic meetings of legal service providers with social serviceproviders to promote discussion of ser-vices, avoid duplication, coordinate fund-ing requests, facilitate referrals and coordi-nate recruiting efforts.

Pro Bono Commission should take a moreactive role in educating judicial officersabout pro bono.

Prepare pro bono bench book listing ser-vices available and contact informationfor free and low-cost legal service pro-viders.

Encourage Indiana Judicial Center to of-fer educational/informational programs atjudicial conferences.

Annual statewide meeting of legal service

providers.

Clarify the roles of the Pro Bono Commis-sion and the ISBA Pro Bono Committee.

Provide funding to districts to assist dis-tricts in organizing free and low-cost legalservices, i.e., software to assist in intakeand for reporting purposes.

Within each district and/or county, recruit-ment of volunteers should be undertakenby only one organization to avoid competi-tion for volunteers and confusion of volun-teers (judicial officers should not maintaina private panel of volunteers).

Indiana Pro Bono Director to lead state-



wide pro bono coordination and have ex-panded duties and authority. Provide ade-quate support staff to the director.

Indiana Supreme Court should establish a

Pro Bono/Pro Se Committee that coordi-nates with the Commission and pro bonocommittees so that there is not a duplica-tion of forms and services.

Should ILS districts match up with probono districts?

The Conclave sub-committee, now known as

the Pro Bono Planning Committee, a sub-committee of the ISBA Pro Bono Commit-tee, is in the process of preparing to share theinformation received from the Conclave andthe Study with the entities that are responsi-ble for overseeing and/or implementing thedelivery of pro bono legal services. ThisCommittee also views its work in part to as-sist in the implementation of the strategicplanning process recommended by the Study

Sponsors.



low-income Hoosiers (those already involvedwith or at least aware of social service agen-cies or ILS) .

Many of the questions asked in the 2008 tele-

phone survey were the same as, or similar to,questions asked in the 1999 telephone sur-vey. The 1999 telephone survey was con-ducted using methods very similar to thoseused by the SRC in conducting the 2008 tele-phone survey.

In order to assess changes from 1999 to2008, primary reliance will be placed oncomparison of the telephone survey resultsbecause they are the most similar in terms of methodology and they are random samplesurveys. We are interested in statistically sig-nificant changes – changes that are verylikely to demonstrate an actual change of therate of the problem in the low-income Hoo-sier population between 1999 and 2008. Wewill point out some increases or decreasesthat fall slightly short of being demonstrablystatistically significant using the margin of

error method, particularly where they appearto be part of a trend.

One factor to consider is that the Hoosierlow-income population increased between1999 and 2008. In 1999, there were approxi-mately 559,484 Hoosiers living below thepoverty level, and about 1,518,047 below200% of FPL (including the 559,484 below100% FPL). As of 2007, the Census Bureauestimates that 757,813 Hoosiers have in-comes below 100% FPL and 1,820,046 haveincomes below 200% FPL. Therefore, evenif the rate of a problem remained the same,the number of low-income people experienc-ing the problem will have increased. This istrue for all problems. If the available supply

of attorneys willing to help with the problemincreased at about the same rate as the num-ber of people needing assistance, then thesupply to demand ratio will have stayedabout the same. This is unlikely, given thatthe state’s low-income population grew at afaster pace than the state’s population as awhole. Therefore, it is probable that theamount of unmet need increased even forthose legal problems which remained atabout the same prevalence percentage-wise.

In addition to reporting rates of specificproblems, SRC calculated the percentage of respondents reporting at least one problem ineach category (for example, family) in the2008 survey. The latter is not available forthe 1999 data, so we will compare rates of specific problems within the categories.Changes in rates are discussed below,grouped together by category. Unless other-wise stated, rates are from the telephone sur-veys.

Graph 11, on the next page, illustrates some

of the most striking changes in rates of re-ported problems in 2008 as compared to1999.

Utilities

The data point definitively to an increase inthe prevalence of utility problems. From1999 to 2008, the rates of reporting inabilityto pay utility bills rose from 23.2% to 41.5%and the percentage of respondents who re-

ported disconnection of utilities increasedfrom 8% to 15.5%. Reported rates of dis-putes over utility charges increased from11.2% to 17.6% during the same time period.Each of these increases is statistically signifi-cant.

35




0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Inabili ty to PayUtility Bi l l s

PropertyTax Problem

Threatenedor Harassed

by BillCollector

Problemswith Medicare

Problemswith Food

Stamps

ProblemsFinding or

KeepingEmployment

1999

2008

Housing

The data indicate an increase in housing-related problems. The rate of home-

ownership among low-income Hoosiers asmeasured by the telephone surveys increasedfrom 44.2% in 1999 to 50% in 2008. Thereported rate of foreclosure or threat of fore-closure increased from 9.4% to 17.6%, andthe reported rate of property tax problemsjumped from 14.1% to 30.2%. The increasein the rate of reporting property tax problemsis statistically significant; the increases in thereported rates of home ownership and fore-closure or threat of foreclosure may or maynot be statistically significant.

Among mobile home residents, the reportedincidence of unreasonable increases inmonthly fees or rents rose from 15.8% to25.4%. Among respondents seeking Section

8 housing, the rate of reported long waitinglists increased from 42.7% in 1999 to 56.5%in 2008. The rate of renters reporting unsafe

or unhealthy living conditions increased from15.5% to 19% during the same period. Noneof these three rates can be considered statisti-cally significant using the margin of errormethod.

Almost 11% of telephone respondents in1999 reported problems finding or keepinghousing. That figure increased to 13.5% inthe 2008 telephone survey. The rate of dis-crimination in buying or renting a residence,as measured by the telephone surveys, in-creased from 6.8% in 1999 to 9.2% in 2008.Although these increases in rates are proba-bly not statistically significant, they do ap-pear to be part of an overall trend of in-creases in housing problems.

Graph 11: 2008 Telephone Survey Respondents, Compared to 1999 TelephoneSurvey Respondents, Reporting Specific Legal Problems




Almost every debt/consumer finance prob-lem examined in both telephone surveys in-creased in frequency of reporting from 1999

to 2008. Reported harassment by bill collec-tors increased from 23.8% to 36.9%, and thereported rate of one’s friends, family or em-ployer being contacted about one’s debts in-creased from 8% to 14.6%. These two in-creases are statistically significant. Approxi-mately 13.3% of 1999 telephone survey re-spondents reported having considered or de-clared bankruptcy, while the figure for 2008was 18.1%. A possible exception to thistrend is problems with used car dealers; thereported rate of this problem decreased from8.2% in 1999 to 6.8% in 2008, however thisdecrease is probably not statistically signifi-cant.

Family Law

In the area of family law, no clear trend isapparent. As measured by the telephone sur-veys, the reported rates of some family lawproblems increased, while the reported ratesof other family law problems decreased.There were more decreases than increases;however, most of the changes (increases anddecreases) were so small as not to be statisti-cally significant.

The rate of respondents who reported not re-ceiving child support increased from 25% to27.2%. The biggest changes in the reported

rates of family law problems were in custodydisputes (a decrease from 8% in 1999 to4.7% in 2008) and establishing paternity (adecrease from 6.3% in 1999 to 2% in 2008),and even these changes are within the marginof error and therefore probably not statisti-cally significant. The reported rate of parent-

ing time disputes decreased from 10.3% to8%. The rates of a number of other problemsalso increased or decreased by less than 2%.

The most likely conclusion is that the rates of

most family law problems stayed about thesame or decreased slightly. However, giventhe increase in the size of the low-incomepopulation and the likelihood that the supplyof attorneys willing to accept family lawcases on a pro bono basis is decreasing (seeSection V.B.2.b.), it appears that the unmetneed for family law assistance among low-income Hoosiers is increasing.

Public Entitlements

In the category of public entitlements, prob-lems with Medicare appear to be on the rise,perhaps in part as a result of complicated pre-scription program changes. Two and eight-tenths percent (2.8%) of respondents in 1999reported problems with Medicare, while14.6% in 2008 reported problems trying toget Medicare. This increase of 11.8% is sta-tistically significant. Another significant

change in the public entitlement category isthe increase in the rate of problems withFood Stamps from 6.8% in 1999 to 14.9% in2008. Despite information received in otherStudy components concerning the difficultiescaused by changes in application procedures,the rate of reported problems with Medicaidremained about the same from 1999 to 2008.

Employment

The surveys included questions about prob-lems related to employment, including prob-lems finding or keeping employment. Lossof a job (or inability to find employment) canlead to a number of legal problems, includingissues related to COBRA, unemploymentinsurance and other public entitlements, and

36




housing and consumer finance issues. Prob-lems finding or keeping employment in-creased from 12.8% in 1999 to 21.4% in2008.

1. Comparison of Data/Synthesis

The ILS Client Questionnaire (the“Questionnaire”) and the telephone surveyassessed similar but slightly different groupsof low-income Hoosiers. The telephone sur-vey respondents were randomly selectedHoosiers with landline telephones whosehousehold incomes were below 200% of FPL. The group of Questionnaire partici-pants was not randomly selected and wasmade up of low-income Hoosiers who werealready involved with or at least aware of social service agencies or ILS. Another dif-ference between the Questionnaire and the

telephone survey is that many questions inthe Questionnaire were unlimited with re-spect to time, while almost every telephonesurvey question asked the respondent toidentify only those legal problems occurringduring a specific “look back” period. As de-scribed below, each of the differences be-tween these two surveys of low-income Hoo-siers may cause differences in the reportedrates of a legal problem in the two surveys.Nevertheless, it is useful to compare reportedrates of problems assessed in both surveys.When the rates of a problem in the two sur-veys are fairly close, this may suggest thatthe rate of that particular problem is fairlyconsistent among low-income Hoosiers.

Random selection of a survey sample of asufficient size makes it likely that the sampletruly represents the population of interest.The fact that the people taking the Question-naire were selected by people exercising sub-jective judgment makes the sample unlikelyto be representative, even of the group of low-income Hoosiers seeking social services.The composition of the group of people tak-ing the Questionnaire probably affected theresponses to some of the questions. For ex-ample, the rate of domestic violence reportedin the Questionnaire responses was muchhigher than that of the 2008 telephone survey

and the 1999 surveys. If some Questionnairerespondents were seeking services for do-mestic violence (which may or may not bethe case), that could account in part for thedifference in reported rates. (As discussed insubsection 5.d., there is good reason to be-lieve that the rate of domestic violence re-ported in telephone surveys is lower than theactual rate in the population.) The telephonesurvey respondents were a large randomlyselected sample of low-income Hoosiers withlandlines. It is likely that this group was rep-resentative of low-income Hoosiers withlandlines statewide. The use of landlines ob-viously eliminated poor people without land-lines from consideration. This may have hadthe effect of decreasing to some extent therepresentation of young people and very poorpeople in the sample, but this is not clear.

In comparing reported rates of problems forwhich the telephone survey question in-cluded a timeframe and the Questionnairedid not, this difference could explain a higherreported rate of the problem in the Question-naire responses. For example, the telephonesurvey included the question, “ In the past

B. WHAT ARE THE MOST PRESSINGLEGAL

NEEDSOF INDIANA’S LOW INCOME

POPULATION?




tion of utility service were much closer:15.5% of survey respondents and 18.2% of Questionnaire respondents reported experi-encing this problem. Both of these surveysindicate that problems with utilities areprevalent among the poor in the state.

Family Law

Questionnaire respondents reported familylaw problems much more often than tele-phone survey respondents: 64% of Ques-tionnaire respondents reported a family prob-lem, while the corresponding figure was20.4% of telephone survey respondents. Thedifferences may be attributed in part to theunique composition of the Questionnairesample – Questionnaire respondents had ob-tained or sought assistance from ILS or a so-cial service agency, and family law is ILS’top area in terms of the number of cases han-dled. The fact that the telephone surveyquestions, but not those in the Questionnaire,were limited by time period may also havecontributed to the difference.

In the telephone survey, the most frequentlyreported family law problems involved chil-dren. Not receiving child support and dis-putes about parenting time (visitation) werethe most frequently reported family law is-sues associated with children. Of the 488respondents who had children under eighteenyears of age, 132 (about 27%) reported notreceiving child support and 39 (about 8%)reported parenting time disputes.

Housing

Housing-related problems overall were re-ported much more often by Questionnairerespondents than by telephone respondents:51% of Questionnaire respondents and ap-proximately 24% of telephone survey re-

spondents reported at least one housing-related problem. The higher reported rateamong Questionnaire respondents likely re-flects the large portion of ILS’ caseloadmade up of housing matters. Despite thelarge difference in overall rates of housingproblems, the rates of some of the specificproblems in the housing category were close.Among renters, about 19% of telephone sur-vey respondents and 21% of Questionnairerespondents reported having experienced un-safe or unhealthy living conditions. Therates of disputes with landlords or others inthe building were reasonably close. The

eviction rate among renters in the Question-naire was about 16%. There is no corre-sponding rate from the telephone survey.The rates of problems reported by homeown-ers were inconsistent between the two sur-veys. About 36% of Questionnaire respon-dents and 18% of telephone survey respon-dents reported having experienced foreclo-sure or the threat of foreclosure. Only 15%of Questionnaire respondents, as comparedto about 30% of telephone survey respon-dents, reported a property tax problem.

Medical Care

Comparison of the incidence of medicalproblems between the two survey groups isdifficult for a number of reasons, includingphrasing of questions and technical issuessuch as identification of the appropriate sub-group of the sample. However, some com-parisons can be made. Approximately 27%of telephone survey respondents reported nothaving gone to the doctor due to cost in thepast year, and approximately 33% of Ques-tionnaire respondents reported having experi-enced inability to afford a doctor or hospital.Twenty-two percent (22%) of telephone sur-



vey respondents reported being unable to ob-tain a prescribed medication within the pastyear, while about 35% of Questionnaire re-spondents reported having experienced in-ability to afford prescribed medication. Con-sidering that these Questionnaire questionswere unlimited as to time, these responserates are remarkably consistent.

Children/Education

Comparison of the prevalence of children’seducational problems is challenging becauseit is unclear how many Questionnaire respon-dents had children under eighteen in theirhouseholds, with the results that the calcu-lated problem rates in the education areaprobably understate the incidence of theproblems. However, it is probably signifi-cant that suspension of a child was the mostfrequently reported problem in both groups,with incidence of 14.4% of respondents withchildren under eighteen in the telephone sur-vey and 7.6% of all survey respondents in theQuestionnaire group. Unfair school policies

also made the top four among both groups.Difficulty getting special education was thefifth most prevalent problem in the telephonesurvey sample (8%), and second amongQuestionnaire respondents (7% of all respon-dents).

Language/Immigration

Comparison of the prevalence of problemsrelated to immigration status is not possible

because the rates of these problems amongthe relevant subgroup of each survey cannotbe calculated. Comparison of the prevalenceof language-related problems probablywould not be meaningful due to the smallsizes of the relevant subgroups and phrasingissues.

2. Current Greatest Legal Needs of thePoor – A Comprehensive View

a. Consumer Finance

Almost every component of the Study pointsto the conclusion that consumer finance iscurrently a primary legal need of the low-income population. Almost 60% of respond-ing judges and clerks reported that over 80%of low-income litigants in consumer financecases in their court appeared pro se. In thetelephone survey of low-income Hoosiers,the debt/consumer finance category was thesecond most frequently reported type of

problem. Consumer finance was the top-ranked problem area in both the ILS Boardof Directors Questionnaire and the ISBAJudges and Clerks Survey. The focusgroups, attorneys statewide, and ILS staff allranked consumer finance within the top threeareas of legal need, and pro bono plan ad-ministrators ranked it fourth out of a choiceof over ten areas. As to causes of excessivedebt, many responses pointed to poor under-

standing on the consumer’s part about finan-cial matters such as interest rates, the inabil-ity to understand the “fine print” in contracts,and a lack of understanding of what one canand cannot afford.

Within consumer finance, areas of particularconcern included predatory lending, creditcard debt, bankruptcy, and debt collection.Examples of predatory lending included pay-

day loans, some used car loans, and subprimemortgages. One attorney stated that mostpeople he sees who want to file Chapter 7bankruptcy have been the victim of predatorycollection practices. Approximately one-thirdof the low-income people participating in thetelephone survey felt that they had been a




victim of predatory lending in the past fiveyears. One response identified as problematicthe practice of credit card companies raisinginterest rates, even when a consumer is cur-rent on his or her account, based on the creditcard company’s determination that the con-sumer is “overextended.”

A number of attorney responses describedthe impact the bankruptcy law amendmentsof 2005 have had on the ability of low-income people to file for bankruptcy. Theconsensus was that the additional work andliability placed on attorneys has caused themto raise their fees for a Chapter 7 to the pointwhere the working poor cannot afford it. Asone potential client responded in the ILS Cli-ent Questionnaire, “If we had the moneyneeded to file bankruptcy, then we would notneed to file . . .” Another issue raised wasthat impact of the law’s requirement for pre-petition credit counseling. The implicationwas that many pro se debtors, unaware of this requirement, end up with their petitionsdismissed for failure to obtain the counsel-ing.

Attorneys identified a number of impropercollection practices, including out-of-statecollection agencies attempting to collect afterthe statute of limitations has run and repeatfilings in proceedings supplemental. Thirty-seven percent (37%) of telephone survey re-spondents reported having been threatened orharassed by bill collectors in the last year,and 14.6% reported that their friends, familyor employer had been contacted concerningtheir debts. As one judge pointed out in asurvey response, pro se litigants are unlikelyto be aware of violations of the Fair DebtCollection Act or the ability to settle for lessthan face value of a debt.

b. Family Law

Almost all components of the Study indicatethat family law is one of the areas of greatestlegal need of the poor. This is particularly

true for post-dissolution matters such as cus-tody modifications, parenting time modifica-tions, and child support issues. All focusgroups identified family law as a top need.Attorneys, pro bono plan administrators, andhuman service providers all ranked familylaw as the biggest problem for the low-income population in Indiana. Judges andclerks ranked family law as the second big-gest problem, and the ILS Board of Directorsalso ranked it high. ILS staff ranked it fifth(after housing, health, consumer finance, andpublic entitlements).

Sixty-four percent (64%) of ILS Client Ques-tionnaire respondents reported at least onefamily-related problem. In the telephone sur-vey, approximately 20% reported at least onefamily law problem, making family law thesixth most prevalent problem category out of

eight categories. These reported rates arenot inconsistent with family law being anarea of large unmet need because this is afunction of both demand and available sup-ply. The almost unanimous observation thatfamily law is one of the most significantproblems for the population of low-incomeHoosiers likely reflects the reluctance of most attorneys to take family law cases on apro bono basis. Survey responses indicatethat this reluctance may be due, in large part,to the potentially ongoing nature of dissolu-tion cases, with the court retaining jurisdic-tion over the case until the youngest childreaches the age of majority. An inadequatesupply of pro bono attorneys handling familylaw cases is a widespread problem, according

38



to a report issued by the ABA Center for ProBono in 2002. The report suggests severalreasons for the reluctance to take family lawcases, including vagueness of the “best inter-ests of the child” standard, the complexity of family law cases, the difficulty of obtainingan evaluation, and the “burnout factor.” Thepro bono program representatives participat-ing in the ABA study felt that the pool of at-torneys taking family law cases had dwin-dled over the years, while the number of family law cases had remained the same orincreased.

c. Housing

Housing was ranked the most important legalproblem area by ILS staff, and the secondmost important by the ILS Board of Direc-tors. Pro bono plan administrators rated itthe second most significant problem, and itwas among the top five problems identifiedby judges and clerks, human service provid-ers, and attorneys.

The surveys of low-income Hoosiers confirm

that housing problems are prevalent. In thetelephone survey, about 19% of renters re-ported experiencing unsafe or unhealthy liv-ing conditions. Of those respondents whohad tried to buy real estate in the precedingfive years, about 30% reported experiencinga property tax problem, about 20% reportedexperiencing deception by the lender, andalmost 18% reported experiencing foreclo-sure or the threat of foreclosure. In the ILSClient Questionnaire responses, about 21%of renters reported experiencing unsafe orunhealthy living conditions, and about 16%reported having experienced an eviction ortermination. Of homeowners responding tothe ILS Client Questionnaire, about 15% re-

ported experiencing a property tax problem,about 6% reported experiencing deception bythe lender, and about 36% reported experi-encing foreclosure or the threat of foreclo-sure.

Utility problems, which obviously affecthabitability of a home, were prevalent.About 53% of all telephone survey respon-dents experienced at least one problem in-volving utilities, and the corresponding ratefor the ILS Client Questionnaire was 35.5%.

Mobile home residents report many prob-lems. One quarter of mobile home residentsresponding to the telephone survey reportedunreasonable increases in monthly fees orrents.

The wait for Section 8 housing is often long.Over half of telephone survey respondentswho lived in or had tried to obtain Section 8housing reported being put on a long waitinglist.

The responses to the ISBA surveys and theILS Staff Questionnaire indicate that, in ad-dition to eviction and mortgage foreclosures,utility shut-off, failure to return security de-posits, and unsafe living conditions are sig-nificant problems. The information obtainedin the Study indicates that many people areprecariously housed.

d. Public Entitlements

The focus groups identified public entitle-ments as one of the top three legal needs of the poor, and pro bono administrators rankedpublic entitlements third. This category wasranked in the top five areas of legal need byILS staff and human service providers, andwas considered important by most respond-ing ILS Board members.

39




Very few responding judges and clerks hadhad any experience with public entitlements.Public entitlements did not rank in the topfive among attorneys as a group, althoughabout one third of responding attorneys ratedpublic entitlements in their top five.

Problems with public entitlements wereprevalent in both 2008 surveys of low-income Hoosiers. Approximately 35% of people taking the telephone survey, and ap-proximately 64% of people taking the ILSClient Questionnaire, reported at least oneproblem with public entitlements. The re-sponses of the groups surveyed, includinglow-income Hoosiers, support the conclusionthat public entitlements are one of the mostpressing legal needs of the poor in Indiana.

e. Health Care

Problems obtaining or paying for appropriatemedical care can lead to legal problems in-cluding a need to obtain public entitlements,filing for bankruptcy, and involvement withthe child welfare system. ILS staff ranked

health the second most important legal needof the poor: 92.9% of responding staff mem-bers rated health “very important” or“important.” Both ILS Board members andhuman service providers ranked health thethird most important legal need of the poor.Attorneys statewide ranked health the fourthmost important legal need of the poor, afterconsumer finance, family law, and housing.The telephone survey and ILS Client Ques-tionnaire responses demonstrate that healthcare problems are very prevalent among low-income Hoosiers.

3. Fastest growing Legal Needs of thePoor — A Comprehensive View

a. Consumer Finance

Both attorneys and judges and clerks rankedconsumer finance the fastest-growing legalproblem of low-income Hoosiers: over 72%of attorneys and 74% of judges and clerkslisted consumer finance among the five fast-est-growing problems. Pro bono administra-tors rated consumer finance the third fastest-growing legal problem of the poor.

As discussed in Section V.A., the incidenceof most consumer finance problems has in-

creased since 1999. Predatory lending prac-tices, including payday loans, rent-to-own,and some subprime and/or adjustable ratemortgages, appear to be on the rise. Theability of credit card companies to increaserates even if a customer’s account has beencurrent may also be a factor in the increasedincidence of consumer finance problems.The changes in the bankruptcy laws havemade Chapter 7 filing too expensive formany low-income people. Given the currenteconomic outlook, it seems likely that thetrend of increasing consumer finance needswill continue and that a great deal of legalassistance will be needed.

b. Housing

Approximately 63% of responding attorneysrated housing among the five fastest-growingproblems of the poor, with the result that at-torneys as a group ranked it the third fastest-growing problem. Pro bono plan administra-tors rated housing the second fastest-growingproblem; approximately 88.90% of them in-cluded it in their top five.

As discussed in subsection V.B.2.c., evic-



tions and foreclosures are a major problemfor low-income Hoosiers. Several surveyresponses suggest that it is not uncommonfor a tenant with legitimate reasons for with-holding rent to be unable to raise these issuesin court before an eviction is ordered

c. Family Law

All nine of the pro bono administrators re-sponding to the survey included family lawin their list of the five fastest-growing legalproblems of the poor. More than 60% of judges and clerks and approximately 65% of attorneys also identified family law, with theresult that both groups ranked family lawsecond.

4. Importance of Particular Legal ServiceDelivery Techniques

There was less agreement between differentgroups surveyed about the importance of par-ticular legal service delivery techniques thanabout legal practice areas of greatest need.For example, ILS staff rated administrativeagency representation the most importantlegal service delivery technique, while ILSBoard members rated administrative agencyrepresentation the least important technique.Nevertheless, there were some areas of agreement.

There was a consensus that court representa-tion is very important. Counsel and advicewas rated as “important” or “very important”by the majority of attorneys, ILS staff, ILS

Board members, and human service provid-ers; in fact, twelve out of thirteen respondingILS Board members rated counsel and advice“very important”, and the thirteenth rated it“important.” Most respondents felt that com-munity legal education was “important” or“very important.” When asked to rate the

effectiveness of community education,slightly fewer than half of responding judgesand clerks rated it “very effective” or“moderately effective.”

At least half of responding attorneys, probono plan administrators, ILS staff, ILSBoard members, and human service provid-ers rated limited scope representation/brief service “important” or “very important.” Al-though judges and clerks of court were notasked to rate the importance to clients of spe-cific types of service, they were given theopportunity to rate the effectiveness of typesof service. The majority of respondingjudges and clerks did not rate limited scoperepresentation/brief service as “effective” –most either felt it was ineffective or were un-sure or unaware that the service existed.

5. Additional Information That Is Needed

a. Immigrants

Both the telephone survey and the ILS ClientQuestionnaire provided useful informationabout legal problems affecting immigrants.However, neither survey determined whichrespondents were immigrants or members of households including immigrants. Withoutknowing which respondents fall into thiscategory, it is not possible to calculate therate of a problem among this subgroup. Pre-sumably for this reason, SRC calculated therate of problems related to immigrant statusamong the entire group of survey respon-

dents. The rate among all survey respon-dents (most of whom were probably not im-migrants) of problems related to immigrantstatus was slightly less than one percent.

Social service provider responses indicatethat many immigrants are reluctant to speak with people they don’t know for fear of com-

40

41




ing to the attention of Citizenship and Immi-gration Services or other law enforcement.For this reason and because some potentialrespondents were unable to take the tele-phone survey, among other reasons, immi-grants may have been under-represented inthe surveys.

The information that was obtained directlyfrom immigrants and members of theirhouseholds, as well as responses from humanservice providers, attorneys, and other pro-fessionals who work with immigrants, sug-gest that immigrants face unique and seriouslegal problems. (See the discussion of legalproblems of immigrants in Section V.G.2.)Further study to determine the extent of thelegal needs of immigrants is needed.

b. Limited English Proficiency

One hundred sixteen (116) of the 1,203 tele-phone survey respondents, and 29 ILS ClientQuestionnaire respondents reported thatsomeone in their household usually speaks alanguage other than English. Although many

people who usually speak a language otherthan English are people with LEP, some peo-ple speak two or more languages well. Dueto the combination of the small number of respondents in this category (116) and theimprecision of the correlation between usu-ally speaking a language other than Englishand being a person with LEP, further study isneeded to reliably estimate the rates of prob-lems among Hoosiers with LEP.

c. Farm Workers

Only 22 of the 1,203 telephone survey re-spondents reported that they, or someone intheir household, had been employed as afarm worker in the past two years. A sampleof 22 people is too small to be considered

representative of farm workers in Indiana;therefore, the rates of legal problems in thesample cannot be considered a reliable esti-mate of the rates of these problems amongfarm workers in the state. The comparablegroup of ILS Client Questionnaire respon-dents was even smaller.

d. Domestic Violence

The telephone survey asked whether therehad been family abuse or violence in the lastyear. Thirty-four of the 1,203 respondents(2.8%) responded affirmatively. Given thatdomestic violence is one of the most under-reported crimes, it appears unlikely that avictim of domestic violence would tell astranger on the telephone that he or she hadbeen abused, even if the perpetrator were nothome. If the perpetrator were at home andallowed the victim to speak on the telephone,the abuse almost certainly would not be re-ported. It is also unlikely that an abuserwould tell a caller that he or she had commit-ted acts of domestic violence. Given the so-

cial science research, it appears likely that2.8% is an underestimate of the extent of do-mestic violence in Indiana.

Over 25% of ILS Client Questionnaire re-spondents reported that there had been do-mestic violence in their home. This surveywas typically administered in a setting lesslikely to have a chilling effect on giving atruthful response than the telephone survey.However, the respondents to this survey werenot randomly chosen, as they were applyingfor, or already receiving, services from ILSor a social services agency. Therefore theprevalence of domestic violence in this groupmay also not be considered representative of

42



the rate of domestic violence in Indiana’slow-income population as a whole.

There are a number of programs, services,and individuals providing legal services tothe poor free of charge or at substantially re-duced rates. These include civil legal serviceproviders, pro bono districts, attorneys ac-cepting cases through the pro bono districts,legal service programs, attorneys performingpro bono service on their own, law schoolclinics, and various social service organiza-tions. Availability of services varies in dif-ferent geographic regions. Participants in theNew Castle focus group stated that Jay andHenry counties have virtually no free or low-cost legal services. Other areas, such asBloomington and Evansville, have multipleproviders of services.

Even in areas that have a relatively largeamount of legal resources for the poor, how-ever, there are still not enough resources tomeet the high demand. Some people havereported experiencing long waits for assis-tance, and some people have been unable toobtain assistance. Responses obtained dur-ing the Study lead to the conclusion that de-mand for services far exceeds the supply.

The SRC survey included a question directlyasking low-income people about unmet civillegal needs generally and a few questionsabout specific unmet civil legal needs.About 16% of respondents responded af-firmatively to the question asking whetherthey or someone in their household had

C. HOW WELLARE THESEMOST PRESSING

NEEDSCURRENTLYBEING ADDRESSED?

needed legal help for a noncriminal problembut been unable to get it. Responses fromattorneys and others who work with low-income Hoosiers indicate that a common bar-rier is failure to recognize a problem as a le-gal problem; therefore, the true rate of unmetlegal needs was likely higher than 16%.

In the survey directed to judges and clerksduring Phase II of the Study, judges andclerks were asked to estimate the percentageof low-income litigants appearing pro se invarious types of cases. These estimates sug-gest that many low-income people appearpro se, which indicates that they are unableto obtain legal representation. For example,almost 60% of judges and clerks respondingestimated that between 80 and 100% of low-income respondents in consumer financecases in their courts appeared pro se. Inhousing cases, the corresponding figure wasalmost 43%.

Information provided by ILS and Indiana’spro bono plan administrators in connection

with the preparation of this Final Report, cor-roborates the Study finding of a shortage of attorney representation for the poor. For theperiod from March 16, 2009, through May15, 2009, ILS conducted an actual count of poor people seeking assistance from ILS, andwhether or not full attorney representation orlimited legal services were provided to theseindividuals. For purposes of this Final Re-port, the first 39 of the total 45 workdayswere considered. During that time period,2,341 financially eligible applicants soughtlegal assistance from ILS. ILS was able toprovide full representation to 612 of those2,341 applicants; 490 received extended le-gal representation, and 122 received adviceor brief services that resolved the applicant’s




legal matter. ILS was unable to provide anyservices to 589 financially eligible appli-cants, and was unable to provide full servicesto 1,140 (i.e., ILS provided some limited le-gal assistance that did not fully resolve theapplicant’s legal issue). Viewing this data interms of percentages, ILS was unable to pro-vide full attorney representation to 75% of the applicants. The highest percentage of cases that ILS was unable to staff was in thefamily law area; 313 of the 589 cases thatILS was unable to serve at all, and 452 of the1,150 cases that ILS was unable to servefully were family law cases.

Reports from Indiana’s pro bono plan admin-istrators provide similar information: Onaverage among the pro bono districts, during2007, 62% of applicants for pro bono attor-neys did not receive full attorney representa-tion. To determine this statistic, each probono district was asked to provide fourpieces of information: 1) the number of ap-plicants requesting help in 2007 (limiting thisto actual intake done for individuals meetingincome eligibility guidelines and requestingassistance in civil matters and applicants toTalk To A Lawyer Today, an annual Indianaprogram in which limited legal services areprovided); 2) in response to 1) above, thenumber of applicants provided with legal ser-vices through volunteer attorney referral in2007; 3) in response to 1) above, the numberof applicants who were provided with assis-

tance organized by the plan administrator(e.g., limited legal services provided by planadministrator, his/her delegate, or a volunteerattorney) in 2007; and 4) the number of ap-plicants identified in 1) above who were fi-nancially eligible to receive pro bono assis-tance in a civil matter, but did not receive

any assistance in 2007. Not including lim-ited legal services, these reports indicate that,in at least eight districts, fewer than half of the potential clients requesting attorney rep-resentation actually received help during therelevant calendar year. In five districts, 79-95% of applicants did not receive attorneyrepresentation. Most of the plan administra-tors reacted to this reality by providing and/ or arranging limited legal services for appli-cants to help them meet pressing legal needs.

The primary reason that some of these needsare not being met is that there are not enoughattorneys doing this work. Insufficient fund-ing for civil legal service providers to hireattorneys and to retain experienced attorneysis a major cause of the inability of the supplyto satisfy the demand. Overall, responses in-dicated that the attorneys who do legal work for the poor do an excellent job. Several ILSclients made comments such as the follow-ing: “. . . I had no job and no money. Ineeded help and free legal services werethere to help me. I couldn’t thank themenough.” There simply are not enough attor-

neys doing this much-needed work. Therelatively small amount of pro bono work performed by the private bar as a whole isalso a significant factor. Survey responsesindicate that private attorneys are particularlyreluctant to handle family law cases on a pro

D. TO THE EXTENTTHAT ANY OR ALLOF

THESE

NEEDS

ARE

NOT

BEING

MET

,WHY AND IN WHAT WAYSARE THEY

NOT BEING MET?

43

44

45



bono basis, resulting in a particularly highlevel of unmet need in the family law area.

Other reasons that many legal needs of thepoor are not being met are identified in the

discussion of major barriers. These reasonsinclude insufficient coordination betweencivil legal service providers and pro bonodistricts. Although civil legal service provid-ers, the Pro Bono Commission and pro bonodistricts have been coordinating on a state-wide level and in some areas on a regionallevel, coordination could be improved. Withimproved coordination and streamlined in-take processes, the delivery of services couldbe improved.The substantive areas of greatest unmet needare family law, consumer finance, housing,public entitlements, and health. In terms of types of services, there is a large unmet needfor legal advice before an issue becomes amajor problem and for preventive legal edu-cation of the low-income community.

Study participants identified many factorsthat they felt were significant barriers to low-income Hoosiers receiving legal services.These barriers include the following:

1. Insufficient Number of Attorneys ServingLow Income Population

Many low-income people in Indiana cannotafford to pay for legal services. Many of these people can obtain the assistance of anattorney only if it is provided free of charge;

some may be able to afford legal assistanceat reduced fees compared to market rates.The United States Census Bureau estimatesthat, as of 2006, more than 1,820,000 Hoo-siers had household incomes below 200% of FPL and that about 1,000,000 of these indi-viduals lived in households with incomesbelow 125% FPL,www.factfinder.census.gov. There are people(the “near poor”) who are above 200% of FPL, yet still have trouble making ends meetand have little or no money available to payan attorney. Indiana’s low-income popula-tion has been increasing at a faster rate than

its overall population.ILS currently has 51 staff attorneys state-wide. Including public interest attorneysfrom other groups that directly representlow-income individuals, there are almost cer-tainly fewer than 75 attorneys statewide whoare employed to represent poor people at nocost on a full-time basis. The total numberof pro bono hours reported by pro bono dis-tricts to the Pro Bono Commission for 2007was 33,101 hours. This number is almostcertainly lower than the actual number of probono hours worked. If this number is in-creased by 50%, which probably gives anoverestimate, and converted to full-timeequivalents based on the assumption that afull-time attorney represents clients for 1,750hours in a year, the result is about 28 full-time pro bono attorneys. Assuming that the

legal assistance provided by law school clin-ics to low-income clients equates to 10 full-time public interest attorneys, the total sup-ply of free attorneys available to the poor inIndiana would be the equivalent of 113 full-time attorneys. Dividing the estimated num-ber of Hoosiers living below 125% of FPL

E. MAJOR BARRIERSTO INDIANA’S LOW

INCOME POPULATION RECEIVINGLEGAL

SERVICES 46




(1,000,000) by 113 gives a ratio of approxi-mately 8,850 potential clients per attorney.(If Hoosiers with incomes between 125%and 200% of FPL are considered, the ratio of potential clients per attorney increases to ap-proximately 16,100 .) In contrast, the ratio of private attorneys providing personal civil le-gal services to the general Indiana populationis approximately one attorney to every 688Hoosiers. Obviously, there is a substantialdisparity between these ratios, indicating thatthere are not enough pro bono and public in-terest attorneys to meet the needs of the poorwho cannot afford to pay an attorney.

The insufficient number of pro bono andpublic service attorneys representing the poorin comparison to the need for legal assistancewas a theme throughout the responses to thevarious surveys, questionnaires, and focusgroups making up the Study. Attorney re-sponses indicate that this is particularly truein the area of family law. And, while manyresponses to the open-ended questions in theILS Client Questionnaire expressed gratitudefor services received, some pointed to theneed for additional attorneys.

The information obtained during the Study,particularly from the ISBA attorney survey,suggests several reasons for the relativelysmall number of private sector attorneys whorepresent low-income Hoosiers on a probono basis. These reasons include attorneysstruggling to maintain a profitable practice(particularly in rural areas and small towns),reluctance to take a case outside of one’s areaof expertise, fear of malpractice suits, fear of involvement in never-ending cases(particularly in family law), and a generallack of incentives. The inadequate number of pro bono and public service attorneys is a

major barrier to Indiana’s low-income popu-lation receiving legal services.

2. Inadequate Funding

The information obtained from the focus

groups, the ILS Staff Questionnaire, ILSBoard of Directors Questionnaire, and ILSHuman Service Provider Questionnaire re-sponses, and the ISBA attorney survey sup-ports the need for additional funding for civillegal service providers. Clearly, there is arelationship between funding levels andstaffing levels; additional funding would en-able providers to hire additional attorneysand other staff. Money could also lessensome other barriers, including costs of litiga-tion (filing fees, deposition expenses, expertwitness fees, copying costs, custody evalua-tions, etc.) and attorney training.

3. Need for Better Coordination

Another recurring theme in responses wasthe need for better coordination. The coordi-nation issue arose in two contexts: (1) coor-dination between civil legal service providersand the pro bono districts, and (2) coordina-tion between the pro bono providers (civillegal service providers, pro bono districts,and other attorneys serving the poor) and so-cial service agencies.

ILS and the pro bono districts are set up andoperate very differently; yet, there is an ex-tensive area of overlap in their potential cli-ents and matters. The pro bono districts op-

erate under the supervision of the Indiana ProBono Commission and are funded withIOLTA money. Each pro bono district facili-tates the provision of services by local attor-neys to low-income residents of the districton a pro bono basis. The districts do not ingeneral employ staff attorneys to provide le-

47

48

49



gal services; instead, they recruit volunteerattorneys to take cases on behalf of low-income clients who have contacted the dis-trict office seeking assistance. There is nostatutorily established maximum incomelevel for eligibility for pro bono servicethrough the pro bono districts, though allhave income guidelines, and most of themfollow the ILS guidelines. The districts arealso limited in what types of cases or mattersthey can accept for referral, as they can onlytake civil cases, there are also eligibilityguidelines that go beyond income, and thereare also limitations contained within the Indi-

ana Rules and within grant agreements withthe districts.

ILS is funded in part by the Legal ServicesCorporation (“LSC”). As a LSC recipient,ILS may use LSC funding only to serve peo-ple meeting the income eligibility require-ments set forth at 45 CFR 1611. LSC regula-tions also preclude ILS from taking certaintypes of cases. For example, ILS may notrepresent prisoners, 45 CFR 1637; undersome circumstances may not represent non-citizens, 45 CFR 1626; and may not use LSCfunding to represent clients in fee generatingcases absent a specific demonstration thatother adequate representation is unavailable,45 CFR 1609.

Coordination between the Pro Bono Com-mission and districts and civil legal serviceproviders, including ILS, has been ongoingboth on the statewide level and, in some ar-eas, on the regional level. For example, theILS Evansville District Office and Pro BonoDistrict 13 jointly conduct case acceptance.Representatives of the two agencies meetweekly to review the week’s intakes and de-cide with whom the case can best be placed.

This system works very well. Further, thisStudy is a result of statewide collaborationbetween ILS, the IBF (parent organization of the Pro Bono Commission), and the ISBA’sPro Bono Committee.

However, many stakeholders suggested that,at least in some areas of the state, there isinadequate coordination between civil legalservice providers and the local pro bono dis-trict. Regular communication of the avail-ability, existing commitments, and intakes of each organization in a region (in terms of numbers and types of cases and areas of ex-pertise of attorneys) could result in potentialclients being helped sooner and experiencingless confusion and frustration. Focusing ef-forts on coordination is particularly appropri-ate given that the mandates of both the Indi-ana Pro Bono Commission and ILS in-clude integration and coordination of ser-vices. On the subject of coordination, onepro bono plan administrator recommendedthat ILS focus its efforts on the counties withsmall attorney populations where there is lit-tle or no ability to take pro bono cases.

One attorney commented, “clients [are] frus-trated [at] having to apply[,] then, if turneddown by legal service program, re-apply forpro bono services, only to potentially beturned down again. Given how late the cli-ents come to legal help to begin with, thiscan be problematic for a satisfactory result.”

In regard to coordination between attorneysand social service agencies, a number of ILSHuman Services Provider Questionnaire re-spondents expressed a desire for more infor-mation about what types of legal work aredone by which legal service providers and,more basically, about what matters require

50 51




legal representation. They pointed out thatthis type of coordination could lead to moreappropriate referrals, which would get theclient help sooner. This idea of educatingintermediaries who have daily contact withthe poor to help them make appropriate refer-rals to legal services also was raised by focusgroups.

On the need for coordination, one pro bonoplan administrator wrote, “More coordinationneeds to be [developed] between legal ser-vice providers and support groups so that atwo way system of client assistance is devel-oped to provide a more consistent safety netthat incorporates the benefits offered by botha legal service system and a social welfaresystem. Clients [who] come directly to legalservices many times need more than just le-gal help to fully participate in their legal af-fairs, parenting and interpersonal skills, forexample. And vice versa, persons who aregetting assistance on their social problemscould benefit from some good legal advice.Support networks also could help with morepro se, and general legal education thatwould assist clients in using better judgmentin making life decisions to prevent legalproblems.”

4. Waits for Legal Assistance

Some people have reported experiencinglong waits for assistance from legal serviceproviders. Long waits can make many legalproblems more complicated and difficult toresolve. Sometimes early advice, or a tele-phone call by an attorney to a potentially ad-verse party, can prevent the need for litiga-tion. A number of responses to the ISBAsurveys indicated that, in some parts of thestate, delayed legal representation is a fre-

quent and serious problem in CHINS anddelinquency cases. In CHINS cases, someunrepresented parents reportedly make ad-missions without a full understanding of theirrights, and some parents fail to participate inservices without understanding the potentialconsequences, sometimes leading to separa-tion of families that perhaps could have beenprevented. Responses indicate that, on thedelinquency side, some unrepresented fami-lies don’t understand the implications of waivers into adult court and the potential forjuvenile records to appear in adult pre-sentence investigation reports.

Long waits for legal assistance also act as abarrier by decreasing the likelihood thatsome potential clients follow through onceassistance becomes available. Responsesfrom social service providers indicate thatsome potential clients already feel skepticalthat they can be helped or that the legal sys-tem will treat them fairly. Faced with a longwait, some of these people may just give up.

The magnitude of the demand for free andlow-cost attorney time in comparison to thesupply is obviously a primary cause of longwaiting times. In some cases, insufficientcoordination between agencies may be a fac-tor.

5. Insufficient Information/Knowledge

Insufficient knowledge about the law and thelegal system presents a major barrier. Sub-

stantive law and legal procedures are compli-cated and can be overwhelming. Survey re-sponses indicate that low-income Hoosierswith problems often do not know whichproblems can potentially be resolved by thelegal system. Further, even if they correctlybelieve that a problem is a legal problem,



they may not know whether it is one they canhandle on their own or one that truly requiresthe assistance of an attorney. If they are torepresent themselves, either because the mat-ter does not require the assistance of an attor-ney or because no attorney is available andwilling to represent them, they may have noidea how to represent themselves. Over half of responding judges and clerks, over 55% of responding pro bono plan administrators, andalmost half of responding attorneys rated“inability to represent oneself” as a signifi-cant factor on the ability of low-income citi-zens to receive legal assistance. Judges and

clerks identified the lack of pro se self-helpclinics as a barrier, and other stakeholdersalso identified the need to educate low-income Hoosiers to represent themselves.

Responses indicate that many potential cli-ents do not understand the legal aspects of public entitlements. An ISBA attorney sur-vey respondent commented: “I can’t imag-ine a lay person, who owns land and modestbank accounts and life insurance policies,wading through the arcane new Medicaidapplication procedures. This will result inincreased nursing home discharge fre-quency.” According to a responding humanservice provider, some clients are unaware of the need to appeal denials from the SSA.Many respondents stated that changes result-ing from privatization of TANF, FoodStamps and Medicaid programs have created

confusion and difficulties.Responses suggest that potential clients areoften unaware that legal assistance is avail-able. Approximately 60% of telephone sur-vey respondents, and approximately 31% of ILS Client Questionnaire respondents, werenot aware of free legal services programs in

Indiana. The 60% figure is likely more rep-resentative of the entire population of Hoo-siers with incomes below 200% of FPL. TheILS Client Questionnaire respondents werealready in contact with, or at least aware of, asocial service program or ILS; the fact thatalmost one third of this group was unawareof free legal service programs may indicatethat some social service programs are miss-ing the opportunity to make clients aware of available legal services.

Sometimes potential clients know that freelegal assistance programs exist, but theydon’t know where to go for which type of legal problem. For example, some low-income people have received help from acivil legal service provider on matters before,and have been turned down by that provideron other matters of a type that provider does-n’t handle either because of eligibility regula-tions or priorities. Many people do not havea clear understanding of which types of mat-ters their civil legal service provider handlesand does not handle. For example, a humanservice provider wrote of the need for clearpolicies regarding immigrant eligibility forlegal services.

6. Conflicts of Interest

Another major barrier, identified primarily incounties with few free or low-cost attorneys,is conflicts of interest in family law cases.One attorney stated, “The biggest problem infamily law is conflict of interests. It makesno sense that because one attorney for ProBono or ILS is representing one spouse in adivorce just because he or she got there first,that the other spouse, who is probablyequally needy, cannot get help. There has tobe a way to fix this problem.”




7. Delay in Seeking Help

Delay in seeking legal assistance was identi-fied as a major barrier to Indiana’s low-income population receiving legal services.

A number of survey responses stated thatlow-income Hoosiers sometimes wait toolong to seek help. As discussed previously inconnection with long waits for legal assis-tance, delay can have adverse consequences.

Survey responses identified several reasonsthat potential clients may wait to seek legalassistance. The cited reasons include failureto recognize a legal issue, fear, hopelessness,being occupied getting basic needs met,pride, an unrealistic expectation of immedi-ate “emergency” help, and other barriers dis-cussed below.

Some people apply for assistance and thenfail to follow through. One pro bono districtcoordinator indicated that many applicantsfail to provide necessary information re-quested by the provider, while others work their way through the process long enough to

make an appointment with an attorney but donot show up for the appointment. This coor-dinator estimated that approximately 20% of the district’s applicants each year do not re-ceive services because of failure to followthrough.

8. Lack of Transportation

Lack of transportation was frequently identi-fied as a major barrier to obtaining represen-

tation, particularly in rural areas. A numberof ILS staff members cited transportationconcerns in relation to communities locatedfar from their ILS district office. The major-ity of responding attorneys, judges andclerks, and pro bono plan administratorsrated lack of transportation as either

“significant” or” moderately significant” tothe ability of low-income citizens to receivelegal assistance.

Rural focus groups identified lack of trans-

portation as a barrier to receiving legal ser-vices. Asked to identify the most significantbarriers as part of the ILS Human ServiceProvider Questionnaire, one respondent re-sponded: “Local access in rural communities– our agency serves low-income in 6 ruralcounties and there [are] no free or low-costlegal service attorneys available . . . have totravel to Ft. Wayne, Anderson, etc. Cost of gas just goes hand in hand as another bar-rier.” Sometimes the transportation problemarises because the person lacks a validdriver’s license due to immigrant status orcriminal history. A number of stakeholdersidentified the difficulty of obtaining hardshipdriver’s licenses and the level of Bureau of Motor Vehicle fees as barriers for poor peo-ple attempting to get their legal needs andbasic life needs met.

9. Lack of Telephone ServiceLack of telephone service or limited tele-phone service was identified as a barrier bothin terms of communicating with attorneysand in terms of obtaining and keeping publicbenefits. Without reliable telephone service,it is difficult to contact attorneys to obtainrepresentation in the first place. Even if theclient is able to find an attorney who willtake his or her case, it seems likely thattimely attorney-client communication duringrepresentation is difficult. In terms of publicentitlements, limited telephone service wasidentified as a major obstacle to obtainingand keeping public entitlements under thenew privatized welfare system that relies on



phone calls to a call center instead of meet-ings with caseworkers. Some of the focusgroups noted a trend for the poor to rely onpre-paid cell phones with a limited numberof minutes instead of having traditional land-line phones and pointed out that many peoplecannot afford to use up their minutes beingon hold to get benefits.

10. Immigration Status

Immigration status often acts as a barrier toobtaining legal assistance. By regulation,ILS can represent undocumented aliens onlyunder certain circumstances. See 45 CFR1626. According to one attorney response,the only legal organization providing freerepresentation to undocumented people whoare ineligible for civil legal service providerservices is NCLC. However, NCLC does nothandle divorces even if there is domestic vio-lence, and it has a limited service area. Itappears that some undocumented persons areunable to obtain legal assistance anywhere.Moreover, there is some confusion, even on

the part of attorneys, as to under what cir-cumstances undocumented people are eligi-ble for ILS services.

Even when legal assistance is available, re-spondents stated that some undocumentedpeople are reluctant to contact an attorney orappear in court due to their fear of coming tothe attention of immigration authorities.

11. Limited English Proficiency

LEP is a significant barrier for many non-English speakers. Nine and six-tenths per-cent (9.6%) of telephone survey respondents,and about 8% of ILS Client Questionnairerespondents reported that someone in theirhousehold usually speaks a language otherthan English. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of

responding judges and clerks reported that10% or more of the litigants they see speak English only as a second language, and 18%reported that 10% or more speak no Englishat all. Responses indicate that access to in-terpreters varies by geographic area. In someareas, the courts reportedly provide interpret-ers only at later stages of litigation. Even if the court provides interpreters in court, it canbe difficult to find an interpreter for clientcounseling sessions. Some attorneys re-ported that clients with LEP often bringfriends or family members (in some caseschildren) to provide interpreting services dur-

ing attorney-client meetings; it was not al-ways clear whether the interpretation thusprovided was adequate.

12. Getting Time Off from Work

For those low-income Hoosiers who havejobs, getting time off from work to meet withan attorney can be difficult or impossible.Even if they are excused from work to meetwith an attorney, they are likely to lose pay

for the hours missed. Some responses indi-cate that times to meet with public interest orpro bono hours are particularly limited in ru-ral areas.

13. Difficulties with Forms, Contracts, andOther Paperwork

Difficulties understanding forms and con-tracts and filling out paperwork emerged as atheme in the Study. It was identified as both

a cause of legal problems and a barrier togetting legal problems resolved efficiently.Signing contracts ( e.g. , leases, mortgagedocuments) without understanding theirterms can cause problems even if the contractis completely reasonable; it also makes peo-ple vulnerable to predatory practices. Diffi-




culty understanding and completing formswas frequently mentioned as an obstacle togetting and keeping public entitlements. Anumber of responses cited additional docu-mentation demands, including computerizedforms, associated with the recent privatiza-tion of benefit programs as a major barrier.

Difficulty with forms acts as a direct barrierto obtaining the assistance of an attorneywhen forms are part of the process of apply-ing for legal assistance. It seems evident thatrepresenting oneself in court would be ex-tremely difficult for people challenged bypaperwork. In some cases the difficulty withforms is likely a result of illiteracy or verylimited literacy.

14. Domestic Violence

Domestic violence is often a barrier to ob-taining legal assistance. Victims of domesticviolence may be unable to obtain assistancedue to fear of the abuser, isolation by theabuser, the abuser’s control of funds, and alow sense of self-worth, among other factors.

In order to overcome the financial barrieroften caused by domestic violence, somecivil legal service providers and pro bonodistricts give priority to domestic violencevictims in taking cases. If this were notdone, very few victims would obtain legalassistance. However, the need for services isgreat and more attorneys are needed to repre-sent victims of domestic violence. More-over, the non-monetary barriers such as fearand isolation remain.

15. Income Slightly Too High – Near Poor

Many people who cannot afford to pay anattorney are ineligible to receive servicesfrom civil legal service providers becausetheir income is slightly too high.

In terms of the prevalence of legal problems,the telephone survey results indicate thatthere are some regional differences and dif-ferences based on poverty level. It was notclear whether the prevalence of legal prob-lems varied by density of population; how-ever, it was clear that the availability of legalservices in rural areas is less than in moredensely populated areas.

In terms of poverty level, legal problemswere more prevalent among the poorer re-spondents (those with incomes below 125%of FPL). Eighty-six percent (86%) of therespondents with incomes below 125% of FPL reported at least one legal problem,while 70% of respondents with incomes be-tween 125% and 200% of FPL reported atleast one legal problem. The differenceswere particularly large in the categories of utilities, debt/consumer finance, health care,and public entitlements. In terms of specificproblems, the poorer respondents reportednot receiving child support, suspension of achild from school, and unfair school policiessignificantly more often than the respondentswith incomes between 125% and 200% of FPL.

Some problems, including property tax prob-lems, foreclosure or the threat of foreclosure,and some Section 8 housing-related problemswere more prevalent among the less poor re-spondents.

Comparison of legal problems by regionshows that overall, legal problems in generalwere somewhat more prevalent among re-

F. DIFFERENCESBASEDON GEOGRAPHY,DENSITYOF POPULATION, AND POVERTY

LEVEL

52



spondents in the North and Central regions of the state, as compared to the South: 78% of respondents from the North and 80% of re-spondents from the Central region, as com-pared to 74% of respondents from the South,reported at least one legal problem. How-ever, there is a pocket of high incidence of legal problems in the portion of Judicial Dis-trict 13 that surrounds Evansville. In thisarea, 93.8% of respondents reported at leastone legal problem. Moreover, family lawproblems and housing problems were mostprevalent in the Southern portion of the state,and healthcare problems were more prevalent

in the South and Central regions than in theNorth.

In rural areas, there tend to be few attorneysand little or no public transportation. Thenearest civil legal service provider office istypically not within walking distance. Trans-portation and attorney/legal service organiza-tion conflicts of interest are particularly sig-nificant barriers in rural areas.

Information obtained in connection with theStudy suggests that the following groupshave specialized legal needs: inmates andformer inmates, immigrants, people withLEP, the disabled (particularly the mentallyill and developmentally disabled), the eld-erly, rural residents, victims of domestic vio-lence, and farm workers.

1. Inmates and Former Inmates

The ILS Client Questionnaire included ques-tions about civil legal problems during incar-ceration and legal problems upon reentry to

society. During incarceration the mostprevalent problems were family law prob-lems. Eighty-three of the survey respondentshad a history of incarceration. Of this group,14.5% reported having had child support is-sues while incarcerated, 9.6% divorce, 7.2%child custody issues, and 6% parenting timeissues. Federal regulations prevent ILS fromrepresenting prisoners. See 45 CFR 1637. Aprisoner whose spouse files a dissolution orpost-dissolution action against him or hermay have few or no options for obtaininglegal assistance unless an attorney willing torepresent him or her on a pro bono basis can

be found.The question about problems experiencedupon reentry to society was open-ended, andfewer than half of the group responded.Among the responses received, recurring is-sues were domestic violence and other fam-ily law issues and financial problems(including difficulty obtaining employment).A couple of respondents mentioned difficultyfinding housing and getting a driver’s li-cense.

While the group of respondents who hadbeen incarcerated is too small to draw defini-tive conclusions about the rates of incarcera-tion-related civil legal problems in the low-income Hoosier population as a whole, theresponses are consistent with other informa-tion obtained (primarily attorney responses).

2. Immigrants

The information obtained in the study dem-onstrates that low-income immigrants haveunique legal needs. Even immigrants wholegally reside in the United States, such aspermanent residents, face problems. For ex-ample, respondents indicated that at times

G. LEGALNEEDSOF SPECIALIZEDLOW

INCOME POPULATIONS




government employees have been reluctantor even refused to accept valid documenta-tion of immigration status, in connectionwith driver’s license applications, benefitapplications, and law enforcement matters.According to attorneys and human serviceproviders, undocumented immigrants areparticularly vulnerable to abuses. An attor-ney gave the example of employers refusingto pay minimum wage to undocumentedworkers and threatening deportation if theworker complains.

A non-citizen who is the victim of domesticviolence at the hand of her U.S. citizenspouse may be able to apply for permanentresidence pursuant to the Violence AgainstWomen Act. There are issues of coordina-tion of the timing of the VAWA visa applica-tion in relation to the disposition of theabuser’s criminal case and initiating an ac-tion for dissolution. The complexity of is-sues in this type of matter makes it very diffi-cult for the victim (a non-citizen who maynot be familiar with even basic federal andstate law in the U.S.) to pursue relief withoutlegal assistance.

Many undocumented workers cannot obtaina driver’s license and insurance, which pre-vents them from driving legally and makes itdifficult to find employment.

3. People with LEP

LEP may create unique legal needs. Due to

difficulties understanding paperwork andoral communications without interpretationor translation services, individuals with LEPmay need legal assistance to obtain access tolanguage-appropriate government services.They may suffer discrimination based on

their language. Children of adults with LEPmay have difficulty obtaining an education.

In the telephone survey, 9.5% of respondentsreporting that they or someone in their

household usually spoke a language otherthan English stated that someone in theirhousehold had problems defending theirrights because of difficulty with English,7.8% reported difficulty with governmentagencies, and 8.6% reported not being al-lowed to speak their native language. Whilethese results are not definitive, they do con-firm that some people with LEP have uniquelegal needs.

4. Disabled People, Particularly theMentally Ill and Developmentally Disabled

People with disabilities often have legalneeds. They may experience employmentdiscrimination. They may need assistanceobtaining public entitlements. Many attor-neys described seemingly automatic denialsand routine waits of over two years for theirclients to receive Social Security Disability.For those disabled people whose disabilitiesare work-related, help obtaining Worker’sCompensation may be needed.

People with mental illnesses often have legalneeds. Mental health disorders can affectmany areas of life, including parenting andthe ability to obtain and maintain employ-ment. Many mentally ill individuals spendtime in jail or prison. Some survey respon-

dents felt that poor people in Indiana do notget consistent high quality mental healthcare, instead receiving temporary treatmentwith medications and being released only tobe hospitalized again once they run out of medication or stop taking the medication.



The developmentally disabled are particu-larly vulnerable to exploitation and abuse.They may need someone to advocate forthem. One human services provider statedthat Adult Protective Services in his or hergeographic area is reluctant to intervene onbehalf of adults with developmental disabili-ties even when there is evidence of physical,sexual or economic abuse, for the stated rea-son that the local prosecuting attorney wouldnot pursue the matter. The developmentallydisabled may need extra assistance to under-stand their legal rights and how the legal sys-tem operates.

Substance abuse was identified as the causeof many legal problems. In addition to po-tentially leading to criminal matters, sub-stance abuse often affects a person’s abilityto parent, keep a job, and keep a driver’s li-cense.

Some disabilities make it difficult to accessthe legal system. Certain physical disabili-ties may make travel to meet with an attor-

ney or attend court challenging.5. The Elderly

Many of the special legal needs of low-income elderly people involve ensuring thatthey get appropriate care to enjoy their re-maining years with as much self-determination as possible. These needs mayinclude assistance with powers of attorney,advance health care directives, Medicaid and/

or Medicare.Some elderly people are vulnerable to finan-cial or other exploitation by strangers or rela-tives. An elderly person may need help seek-ing or challenging the appropriateness of aguardianship. If he or she lives in a nursing

home or assisted living center, he/she mayneed assistance with patient rights issues.

6. Victims of Domestic Violence

Domestic violence victims often have spe-

cialized legal needs. Ideally, an attorney rep-resenting a domestic violence victim wouldhave an understanding of the dynamics of abuse, including the reluctance to seek helpthat some victims feel and the effects on chil-dren of witnessing abuse. When representinga domestic violence victim, considerationmay need to be given to safety issues.Screening may be necessary to determinewhether the victim can safely and comforta-bly be in the same room with the abuser formediation or a court hearing.

In litigation, it may be important to provideadmissible evidence about the dynamics andeffects of domestic violence, particularly incustody and parenting time matters. It is notuncommon for a domestic violence victim tomake a poor impression when testifying.Calling an expert witness to testify about the

effects on victims of domestic violence canmitigate this problem by explaining why thevictim acts as she or he does. Testimony onthe impact on children of seeing one parentbatter the other, even if the child is not physi-cally harmed, can also be important.

7. Farm Workers

Farm workers have specialized legal needs.On average, in the United States as a whole,

hired farm workers are younger, less edu-cated, more likely to be foreign-born, lesslikely to speak English, and less likely to beU.S. citizens or to have a legally authorizedwork permit than other U.S. workers. Agri-cultural work is among the most hazardousoccupations in the United States. Id . Hired

53




farm workers earn less than, and have higherunemployment rates than, other workers. Id.

Hired farm workers who migrate betweenlocations are particularly disadvantaged. The

seasonal nature of their work can operate as abarrier to obtaining benefits such as Medi-caid, because state agencies may calculateannual income based on the most recent paystub. Their children may be academicallydisadvantaged by the lack of continuity ineducation.

8. Rural Residents

There are few attorneys and no public trans-

portation in most rural areas of the state.Many low-income rural residents have noway to get to the nearest civil legal serviceprovider office or pro bono attorney. Theymay lack internet and telephone access andbe isolated .

Respondents, focus group participants, andother Study participants proposed many ideasfor enhancing legal services to the low-income community. The list in this section isa compilation of recommendations receivedin the Study and does not represent recom-mendations of the Study Sponsors. Some of these actions are already being implemented.

1. Additional FundingStudy participants pointed out that additionalfunding could be used to hire more civil legalservice attorneys and support staff, to in-crease compensation for civil legal serviceattorneys with longevity, to invest in better

technology to enable civil legal service pro-vider staff to work more efficiently, and tooperate civil legal service provider offices inrural areas. It was also suggested that addi-tional funding be used to pay for client trans-portation to meet with an attorney and attendcourt, as well as to pay litigation costs andexpenses that would otherwise preclude low-income people from taking their claims tocourt.

2. Pro Bono Culture Beginning in LawSchool

Ideally the commitment to pro bono serviceshould begin with pro bono experience inlaw school. All four Indiana law schoolsalready have clinics and pro bono programsthat serve low-income Hoosiers. One way toencourage this commitment to pro bono ser-vice would be for each of Indiana’s four lawschools to establish a mandatory poverty lawcourse and a requirement or aspirational goalof performing a specified number of hours of service to low-income people under supervi-

sion of a clinical instructor or other attorney.3. Mandatory Pro Bono Hours or Reportingof Pro Bono Hours

While the Pro Bono Commission and theISBA House of Delegates have establishedan aspirational goal of fifty pro bono hoursper attorney per year or an equivalent finan-cial contribution, there is currently no re-quirement that an Indiana attorney perform

pro bono work other than the ethical obliga-tion pursuant to Professional Conduct Rule6.1. Several attorneys and other profession-als taking part in the study advocated formandatory pro bono hours for Indiana attor-neys. Some respondents suggested that inlieu of pro bono service, attorneys could opt

H. DISCUSSIONOF POSSIBLEMETHODS

BETTERTO MEETTHELEGALNEEDS

OF THE POOR

54



to pay some amount of money, which couldbe put in a fund used to pay attorneys to rep-resent low-income people.

Some participants recommended that, instead

of mandatory pro bono service, attorneysshould be required to report their pro bonohours. Mandatory reporting, without manda-tory pro bono service, would aid in the track-ing of pro bono hours statewide and couldraise awareness of the need for pro bonowork. If attorneys’ reported pro bono hourswere made public, it seems likely that someattorneys would perform pro bono service toobtain favorable publicity.

4. Incentives for Pro Bono Service

Study participants identified many optionsfor incentives, including tuition-free CLE,awarding CLE credits for performing probono service, student loan forgiveness, andincome tax deductions. Tuition-free CLE isalready being used as an incentive in Indiana;an example is free attendance at training inexchange for service at Talk To A Lawyer

Today events on Martin Luther King, Jr.Day. Some states are giving limited numbersof CLE credits in exchange for pro bono ser-vice. Student loan forgiveness in exchangefor significant pro bono or public interestwork is another potential incentive.

5. Attorneys Mentoring Attorneys

One suggestion raised at the Conclave wasthat attorneys with expertise in an area of law

mentor less experienced attorneys in probono cases. This would make more attor-neys available for pro bono service in areasof high need and address attorney concernsabout potential malpractice liability resultingfor pro bono representation in areas out of their usual areas of expertise. It would also

benefit the mentored attorney by opening upnew areas for possible for-profit work.

6. Education

Basic legal education for citizens, including

low-income citizens, was suggested by Studyparticipants. Legal “guidebooks” could bewritten in everyday language on specific ar-eas of law such as landlord-tenant, familylaw, consumer law, and public entitlements.Respondents also recommended that self-service pro se packets including forms in ar-eas of high unmet need (child custody, forexample) be made available at courthouses,public libraries, and social service agencies,as well as online. Pro se clinics and work-shops were frequently recommended. Somepeople suggested that informational meetingsbe held periodically for special populationssuch as the elderly and undocumented citi-zens. Financial training was also proposed.It was suggested that these meetings andtrainings be advertised extensively.

It was suggested that legal education courses

targeted to social service providers be devel-oped, with the goal of teaching the basics of frequently encountered areas of law and cri-teria for determining whether the assistanceof an attorney is needed.

Education for law enforcement officers in theareas of appropriate handling of the mentallyill, immigrants, and domestic violence mat-ters was suggested, as was education of

judges and clerks of court on best practiceswith pro se litigants.

One respondent recommended education forpublic defenders on identification and refer-ral of civil legal problems of clients and asimilar type of training (geared to non-attorneys) as part of the transition for re-




cently released inmates.

7. Improved Coordination

Study participants observed that conductingjoint intake sessions between civil legal ser-

vice provider offices and pro bono districtoffices in the same geographical area wouldhave the potential to speed up and makemore efficient the process of assigning anattorney to represent a poor person. It couldeliminate a great deal of frustration and delayfor low-income people with legal problems.They would only have to apply once for legalassistance.

If joint intake sessions are not implementedin a geographical area, it would seem espe-cially important to keep social service work-ers and other intermediaries apprised of which agencies or attorneys are handlingwhat types of cases, as well as publicizingcurrent, accurate information on this topic inways likely to reach the low-income commu-nity directly.

One respondent suggested combining ILSand the pro bono districts in order to avoidconfusion, competition for the same attor-neys to take referrals, and duplication of re-sources. This would result in one large entitybound by LSC’s restrictions, which couldleave people falling in certain categories (the“near poor” and prisoners, for example) andpeople with certain types of cases(discrimination cases under some circum-

stances) with nowhere to turn for legal assis-tance. Some of these restrictions, includingprohibited representation of aliens and repre-sentation of prisoners, apply to work per-formed by an LSC recipient even when usingfunding from an independent source.

In order to avoid competition for volunteer

attorneys and confusion of volunteers, theConclave Report includes the recommenda-tion that within each pro bono district and/orcounty, recruitment of volunteers should beundertaken by only one organization. A rec-ommendation on the subject of coordinationfrom a pro bono plan administrator was forILS to focus its efforts on the counties withsmall attorney populations where there is lit-tle or no ability to take pro bono cases.

8. Malpractice Coverage or Immunity fromLiability for Pro Bono Service

Some attorneys proposed giving full immu-nity from liability to attorneys representinglow-income individuals on a pro bono basis;others discussed the need for malpractice in-surance for volunteer pro bono attorneys.Providing immunity for pro bono service isproblematic in a couple of ways. It at leastgives the appearance of discriminating on thebasis of financial means. Prof. Conduct Rule1.8(h)(1), prohibiting a lawyer from makingan agreement prospectively limiting the law-

yer’s liability to a client for malpracticeunless the client is independently representedin making the agreement, recognizes the im-portance of a client’s interest in retaining theoption of bringing a malpractice action. Al-though blanket immunity provided by lawwould not pose the risk of the attorney takingadvantage of the client in extracting theagreement, it would raise the same concernabout undermining competent and diligentrepresentation. Providing malpractice insur-ance for pro bono work arranged through thepro bono district, which all districts are re-quired to do, provides attorneys adequateprotection without sacrificing important in-terests of their clients.



9. Interpretation/Translation/Multi lingualStaff

Many Study participants recommended thatinterpreters and translators be provided state-

wide for non-English speaking clients anddeaf clients, not just in court but for meetingswith attorneys and paralegals. Other sugges-tions included increased hiring of multilin-gual staff, as well as provision of incentivesfor existing staff to learn additional lan-guages, on the part of providers of legal ser-vices to the low-income population.

Some respondents felt that it would be bene-ficial for civil legal service providers and thepro bono districts to obtain access to Lan-guage Line, and for written educational ma-terials to be made available in several lan-guages and translated to other languagesupon request.

10. Paralegal Services at Courthouse orOther Convenient Locations

One recurring idea in survey responses wasto staff courthouses and/or other locations(including rural locations) with paralegals tohelp people understand and fill out paper-work, including pro se forms and public enti-tlement applications, and to answer basic,frequently asked legal questions.

11. Traveling Attorney or Attorneyat Courthouse

Having an attorney, either a volunteer attor-ney or an attorney employed for this purpose,located at the courthouse or traveling to dif-ferent locations to answer unrepresented peo-ple’s basic legal questions and assist pro selitigants, was a theme in the Study. Somepeople also suggested a traveling legal librar-ian.

12. Additional Drug Courts and MentalHealth Courts

Establishment of drug courts and mentalhealth courts where they do not already exist

was suggested as a means of reducing theextent of legal problems caused by drug andmental health problems.

13. Unbundled Services

According to attorney responses, one reasonfor the reluctance of many attorneys to per-form pro bono service is the concern aboutgetting drawn into complicated long-lastingcases. The Indiana Rules of Professional

Conduct offer two avenues to overcome thisbarrier. Prof. Conduct Rule 1.2(c) providesfor limited representation agreements be-tween an attorney and a client, and Prof.Conduct Rule 6.5 provides for short-termlimited legal services under the auspices of anonprofit or court-sponsored program.

Rule 1.2(c) provides that a lawyer “may limitthe scope and objectives of the representationif the limitation is reasonable under the cir-cumstances and the client gives informedconsent.” An example of unreasonable limi-tation is a telephone consultation with insuf-ficient time allotted to yield advice uponwhich the client can rely. Rule 6.5, govern-ing nonprofit-sponsored and court-sponsoredprograms, also requires the lawyer to securethe client’s informed consent to the limitedscope of the representation. Recognizing

that these programs are normally operatedunder circumstances in which systematicchecking for conflicts of interest is not feasi-ble, the rule makes the conflict of interestprohibitions inapplicable during the short-term limited representation unless the lawyerknows of a conflict.




An example of a nonprofit-sponsored orcourt-sponsored program is the annual “Talk To A Lawyer Today” event on Martin LutherKing, Jr. Day, which has been extremely suc-cessful. These types of events offer the op-portunity to practice preventive law, which isa delivery technique Study participants rec-ommended be increased.

14. Increased Availability of Mediation andOther ADR

Stakeholders suggested that there is a greatneed for additional free or low-cost media-tion services for the poor. Subsidizing thecost of training for mediators in exchange foran agreed number of pro bono mediations orrequiring all mediators who are appointed bycourts to perform two pro mediations eachyear were proposed methods of increasingthe availability of pro bono mediation.

There was a suggestion that public advocatesrepresent the poor in mediation or other alter-native dispute resolution systems.

15. Contract Attorneys in Rural Areas

A common theme was the need to makemore attorneys available to represent low-income Hoosiers in rural areas. In addition toproviding transportation to rural Hoosiersand establishing civil legal service providersatellite offices in rural areas, the idea of paying private attorneys to perform legalwork on a reduced fee basis, using publicfunds or other funding earmarked for legal

services to the poor, was raised as an optionto meet the legal needs of low-income ruralresidents.



Indiana

Despite diligent efforts by legal service providers and the pro bono community,Indiana’s low-income citizens are not getting the legal representation they need fortheir problems. As a result of the information obtained through this Study, theSponsors recommend that Indiana should now undertake a strategic planning proc-ess, considering the information and data obtained in the Study and reported in thisFinal Report, to develop a comprehensive set of detailed recommendations andstatewide plan of action to better meet the needs of the poor. In connection withthe strategic planning process, the Sponsors further recommend the creation of astatewide Access to Justice Commission which should include representativesfrom the judiciary, the executive branch, the legislative branch, the IBF, the ProBono Commission, the ISBA Pro Bono Committee, existing legal service provid-ers, the private bar, the law schools in Indiana, social service providers whose cli-ents are low-income, and other interested parties. An Access to Justice Commis-sion could function as an umbrella organization, uniting and coordinating the ef-forts of the various entities working to address the legal needs of the poor. The

Access to Justice Commission’s initial charge should include evaluating the cur-rent system and initiating a strategic planning process to coordinate and therebyimprove the efficacy of our efforts to meet the legal needs of the poor. Becausesuch a process will necessarily involve a critical review of the existing patchwork of methods for meeting the legal needs of the poor, the Commission should in-volve all of the various stakeholders, but its composition and operation shoulddemonstrate an independence from any one entity within the existing system.

VII. CONCLUSION




If we are to keep democracy,there must be a commandment:

Thou shalt not ration justice.

Judge Learned Hand (1872 1961)



5

Endnotes 1 through 3 can be found on page 13 at the conclusion of the Executive Summary.

Sections A through D of this section are based on a document prepared by Amy G. Applegate inconnection with the Conclave on the Delivery of Pro Bono Services in Indiana, held on April25, 2008. In preparing this document, Ms. Applegate relied on information in public websiteswith substantial help from members of the pro bono community. Section E was prepared byCatherine Meeker from information provided by Camille T. Wiggins, Staff Attorney at the Indi-ana Supreme Court Division of State Court Administration. Section F was developed by Victo-ria Deak of Indiana Legal Services, relying on information from other providers and/or informa-tion contained in other provider websites.

The remainder of the existing commentary provides:[2] The rights and responsibilities of individuals and organizations in the United States are in-

creasingly defined in legal terms. As a consequence, legal assistance in coping with the web of statutes, rules and regulations is imperative for persons of modest and limited means, as well asfor the relatively well-to-do.

[3] The basic responsibility for providing legal services for those unable to pay ultimately restsupon the individual lawyer, and personal involvement in the problems of the disadvantaged canbe one of the most rewarding experiences in the life of a lawyer. Every lawyer, regardless of professional prominence or professional workload, should find time to participate in or other-wise support the provision of legal services to the disadvantaged. The provision of free legalservices to those unable to pay reasonable fees continues to be an obligation of each lawyer aswell as the profession generally, but the efforts of individual lawyers are often not enough tomeet the need. Thus, it has been necessary for the profession and government to institute addi-tional programs to provide legal services. Accordingly, legal service offices, lawyer referralservices and other related programs have been developed, and others will be developed by theprofession and government. Every lawyer should support all proper efforts to meet this need forlegal services.

Adopted Sep. 30, 2004, effective Jan. 1, 2005.

4

VIII. ENDNOTES




15

13

14

The proposed changes also include new paragraphs [3] and [4] in the Commentary.

Twelve programs received Civil Legal Aid Funds for the 2008-2009 fiscal year: BartholomewArea Legal Aid, Inc., Community Organizations Legal Assistance Program, Elkhart Legal AidService, Inc., Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Inc., Indiana Legal Services, Inc.,Indianapolis Legal Aid Society, Inc., Law School Legal Service, Inc., Legal Aid Corporationof Tippecanoe County, Legal Aid Society of Evansville, Inc., Legal Services of Maumee Val-ley, Inc. (this organization ceased operation in December 2008), Neighborhood Christian Le-gal Clinic, Inc., and Volunteer Lawyer Program of Northeast Indiana, Inc.

The Community Organizations Legal Assistance Project, Inc. (“COLAP”), doing business asthe Community Development Law Center (“CDLC”), is the only legal services organization inIndianapolis specifically formed to provide free or low-cost legal services to community or-ganizations.

“CDLC’s mission is to empower low-income people by providing high quality pro bonolegal and related services to new and existing Indiana nonprofit community organizationsthat serve low-income neighborhoods. CDLC clients battle against homelessness, inade-quate housing, unemployment, substance abuse, racial discord, crime, and a myriad of othersocial and economic problems.”

The posted mission statement: “The Julian Center is a nonprofit agency providing counseling,safe shelter, and education for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and other lifecrises. Through outreach and consultation, we also seek to educate the community about theissue of domestic violence and its impact on all our lives.”

“The mission of the Damien Center is to lead the fight to prevent the spread of HIV and to em-power persons in Central Indiana affected by HIV/AIDS to move forward each day with dig-nity. The Damien Center offers vital supportive services to those infected and affected by HIV/ AIDS so they may live abundant and productive lives. We also provide comprehensive HIVprevention services, including HIV testing, prevention counseling, education, and advocacy.We believe passionately in the dignity and worth of every person who seeks our services. Westrive to be a safe and welcoming place so that no barriers separate people from the servicesthey need to prolong and enhance their lives.”

“The Shalom Community Center is dedicated to relieving the plight of those experiencinghomelessness and poverty in South Central Indiana. Since access to food, housing, education,and health and human services are fundamental human rights, we seek to meet these basicneeds. As a non profit resource center, we deliver social services directly and in collaborationwith other agencies in a respectful and secure environment. We advocate for the most vulner-able among us and promote activities that empower people to develop their assets to the fullestextent possible.”

“The mission of Child Advocates is to protect the rights and well-being of abused and neglectedchildren in order to ensure that every child has a safe and permanent home.”

“ICADV is committed to the elimination of domestic violence through: providing public aware-ness and education; advocating for systemic and societal change; influencing public policy andallocation of resources; educating and strengthening coalition members; and, promoting theavailability of quality comprehensive services.”

According to the 2006-07 Annual Report, the sole mission of Kids’ Voice of Indiana “is to pro-mote and represent the best interest of children and to serve as an advocate for them and theirfamilies.” The Bette J. Dick GAL Program recruits, trains, and represents volunteer attorneys,law students, and community volunteers who serve as Guardians ad Litem in the Marion Supe-rior Courts, Civil and Probate Division, and Marion Circuit Court, Paternity Division. Judicialofficers assign Kids’ Voice to provide GAL services in contested dissolution, paternity, guardi-anship, and adoption cases where there are allegations in child abuse, neglect, or endangerment.

This section is based on materials written by Amy G. Applegate.

6

7

8

11

9

10

12



Some ILS clients and potential clients completed the survey on paper. Their responses werelater entered into the database.

The percentage was determined by dividing the number of households known to be eligible bythe number of phone numbers in the survey that were not of unknown eligibility. It was ap-proximately 35% for this survey.

The response rate was obtained by dividing the number of completed interviews by the sum of the following three numbers: the number of completed interviews, the number of known eligi-ble households that did not complete the interview, and 35% of the number of households of unknown eligibility. The 162 numbers that were still in the queue were ignored in the calcula-tion.

The cooperation rate is the number of completed interviews divided by the number of eligiblerespondents actually reached.

The refusal rate is the number of respondent interview refusals or breakoffs divided by the sumof the numbers of completed interviews, eligible households that refused or were unable tocomplete the interview, and the portion of unknown eligibility telephone numbers estimated tobe eligible.

The contact rate is the number of households in which some responsible member of the house-hold was reached divided by the sum of the number of households in which some responsiblemember of the household was reached and the portion of unknown eligibility numbers esti-mated to be eligible.

The disposition table for the SRC survey shows that 16 eligible people were “language unable”to complete the survey.

Graphs 2 and 3 are reproductions of graphs provided by SRC in its Report to the Sponsors.

Calculating this as a percentage of those who reported that they or someone in their householdusually speaks a language other than English assumes that that subgroup of the survey sample isthe same subgroup of people who have Limited English Proficiency.

This section is based on material provided by Catherine Meeker, who edited drafts originallywritten by IU interns Jelling Lai and Laura Walda.

The content for the judge and clerk, attorney, and pro bono plan administrator surveys camefrom many sources, including questionnaires and surveys used in Hawaii and Tennessee to de-termine whether their legal service structures were working and what steps could be taken tobetter their systems. After basing the initial survey structure and questions on those used inother states, members of ILS and the ISBA Pro Bono Committee, along with the interns, tai-lored questionnaires for specific constituent groups. With the assistance of many in the probono community and the technical expertise of William Spellman III of Baker & Daniels LLP,three final questionnaires (one for judges and clerks, one for attorneys, and one for pro bonoplan administrators) were developed and then sent out via an online survey mechanism (SurveyMonkey).



This section is based on materials provided by Nan Stager.

Originally, Terre Haute was chosen as one of the rural locations. However, the location waslater changed to Ellettsville. When a sufficiently large meeting place could not be located inEllettsville, the meeting was moved to Bloomington.

Summaries of the responses from each focus group are available for review upon request to theISBA Pro Bono Committee.

16

17

19

18

20

31

26

27

28

21

23

25

22

24

29

30




32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

The information in this section was prepared by Judge David Avery, the Chair of the Conclave.

ILS is the successor of Legal Services Organization of Indiana, Inc.

The name of the Public Opinion Laboratory was changed to Survey Research Center in 2005.

A margin of error table was used to determine the margin of error for each question. The mar-gin of error for a question depends on the sample size (which for most questions will be 600 for1999 and about 1200 for 2008) and the rate. Rates closer to 50% have higher margins of errorthan rates farther from 50%, given the same sample size. A change in a rate can be consideredstatistically significant if the lower of the two rates plus its margin of error is less than thehigher rate minus its margin of error; in other words, if the difference between the two ratesexceeds the sum of the two margins of error. If a change is smaller than the sum of margins of error, it may or may not be statistically significant. Other methods of determining statisticalsignificance are beyond the scope of this Final Report.

The phrasing of the questions was slightly different.

The two types of benefits that telephone survey respondents reported having difficulty obtainingat a higher rate than Questionnaire respondents were Medicare and Worker’s Compensation.The higher Medicare rate in the telephone survey group may reflect the ages of the respondents.Both differences could be a result of the uniqueness of the Questionnaire group.

One possible reason for the disparity between the 2008 telephone survey and the ILS ClientQuestionnaire is that the telephone survey asked about family law problems in the last year,whereas the ILS Client Questionnaire question is not limited in time. Further, family law isILS’ top practice area in terms of the number of cases handled.

Mary Ann Sarosi, “The Impact of Family Law Cases on Pro Bono Programs,” 2002,www.abanet.org/legalservices/probono/family_law_report.pdf.

The ISBA surveys did not use the term “court representation.” However, the groups takingISBA surveys rated “direct representation” or “full representation,” which would seem to in-clude court representation.

Although there may be a large overlap between the group of people who usually speak a lan-guage other than English and the group of people who are immigrants without citizenship, it is

not reasonable to assume that the two groups are identical.The larger margins of error assigned to smaller sample sizes on the margin of error table reflectthe problems with drawing conclusions based on data from small groups of people.

If limited legal services are considered, then ILS was unable to provide 25% of applicants withany legal services.

If limited legal services are considered, then on average, the pro bono plan administrators wereunable to provide 39% of applicants with any legal services.

As of the preparation of this Final Report, the most recent reports available for twelve of thefourteen pro bono districts were for the calendar year 2007; two districts were unable to providethe requested information.

Based on the pro bono reporting practice in the state, attorneys reported pro bono hours workedonly on cases closed in 2007, omitting hours spent in 2007 on cases that were still open at theend of the year, but including hours actually worked in prior years on these cases. Some probono districts included hours from other providers in their district, while others did not.



Nationally, the ratio of attorneys providing paid legal services to the United States populationwas found to be about one attorney per 525 people as of 2002. Documenting the Justice Gap inAmerica: The Current Unmet Civil Needs of Low-Income Americans, a Report of the LegalServices Corporation, 2 nd ed. June 2007, www.lsc.gov/justicegap.pdr. The Indiana ratio wasderived by dividing the 2008 population of the state by 9,061, the number of attorneys both li-censed and residing in Indiana who hold IOLTA accounts. The 9,061 number is a close but not

exact approximation of the number of attorneys who are in private practice, as there are someprivate practice attorneys who are exempt from IOLTA because their type of practice does notinvolve holding client trust funds. According to IBF records, there are a total of 17,171 lawyerslicensed in Indiana, and of those, 15,306 practice in Indiana. Among the 15,306, there are 9,061lawyers who have IOLTA accounts. Presumably, these 9,061 lawyers are engaged in privatepractice providing paid individual legal services to Hoosiers.

These comments included the following: “[Attorney] has helped me so much. Thank God wehave people like that,” and “I had [attorney’s] help with receiving SSI. She is a great lovingperson. God bless all of you for your help.”

These comments included the following: “[n]ot enough of them,” and “[t]he reply was, twice,“sorry, [they] do not have enough resources.’”

“A goal of the voluntary attorney pro bono plan is to improve the overall delivery of civil legal

services to persons of limited means by facilitating the integration and coordination of servicesprovided by pro bono organizations and other legal assistance organizations throughout theState of Indiana.” Prof. Conduct Rule 6.6(a)(2).

The “availability of another source of free or low-cost legal assistance in a particular categoryof cases or matters” is one of the factors LSC recipients consider in establishing priorities. 45CFR 1620.

These differences are discussed in more detail in Section IV.A.1.c. and IV.A.1.d..

Economic Research Service Report Summary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, July 2008.

Indiana University Maurer School of Law, IU School of Law – Indianapolis, Notre Dame LawSchool, and Valparaiso University School of Law are the four Indiana law schools.

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54



Indiana Legal Services, Inc.151 N. Delaware Street, Suite 1640

Indianapolis, IN 46204317 631 9410

www.indianajustice.org

Indiana - Unequal Access To Justice - A Comprehensive Study

Documents

Transcript of Indiana - Unequal Access To Justice - A Comprehensive Study