Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The Indiana Supreme Court has established a 23-member Commission on Indiana’s Legal Future, poised to address the attorney shortage across the state and make recommendations to the court.
“We currently have a critical shortage of lawyers, which is impacting access to justice in each of our 92 counties,” said Indiana Chief Justice Loretta Rush. “It’s imperative that we address this issue now and act. But we must do so diligently and holistically. I am confident that this new commission will thoroughly examine potential solutions and come back to us with meaningful, transformative recommendations.”
According to the 2023 American Bar Association Profile of the Legal Profession, Indiana has the 44th lowest number of attorneys per capita, at only 2.3 per 1,000 residents. The lowest number reported among the states is 2.1 lawyers per 1,000 in Idaho, Arizona and South Carolina.
But the shortage is much more severe in some rural counties, especially as a steady stream of baby boomers retire.
In southeastern Indiana, for example, the number of attorneys in Dearborn County is 95% below the national average–the lowest in the state. Fast-growing Hamilton County in the Indianapolis suburbs ranks the highest at 62% above the national average.
The new commission examining the statewide shortage is led by Court of Appeals Judge Nancy Vaidik and Supreme Court Chief Administrative Officer Justin Forkner. The group includes members from each branch of government, judges, lawyers, leaders from the state’s legal education institutions and experts from the Office of Judicial Administration.
The commission is also launching five work groups that will focus on specific areas of expertise:
- Business & Licensure Models
- Pathways to Admission & Education
- Incentivizing Rural Practice
- Incentivizing Public Service Work
- Technology Applications
A written report from the commission is expected to be given to the Supreme Court by July 1, 2025. Interim recommendations will be offered by Aug. 1, 2024.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
We have had too many attorneys for a long time.
A major contributing factor to the perception of a “shortage” of lawyers in rural counties is the fact that Indiana has more counties per square mile than any other state. In other words, Indiana has a lot of small counties and it is not practical to believe that these small rural should counties should have as many lawyers, hospitals, etc. per 1,000 people that the much larger counties have. This “problem” should be examined regionally, more in terms of how close is the nearest service. Most residents of rural counties are within a 30 minute drive to a larger neighboring community. That’s not too far to drive. I live in Noblesville and if I want to go see a lawyer in Indianapolis, it would be at least a 30 minute drive.
Another factor in why there are fewer lawyers in rural counties is that there’s often just not that much legal business to do. I recall speaking with a judge from a rural county several years ago at a bar association meeting. I recall being struck at just how light her docket was.
When are they going to “form a commission” to address Mark Stoner?
There are at least two “Commissions” to address the sentence handed down by Judge Stoner, which I presume is the subject of your comment. First is the Court of Appeals. The State can appeal that sentence, and have an appellate court opine. The second is the Judicial Qualifications Commission. Feel free to contact the Prosecutor and have advocate an appeal. Or file a Complaint with the Judicial Qualification Commission.
Or do nothing, in which case your privilege to post on the issue is revoked…
18 of the 23 members are government employees (and the others are virtual insiders). Albert Einstein: ‘We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.’
We have multiple reports about access to justice (the flip side of an “attorney shortage”) already. Each of the reports has been ignored. Practical solutions are neutered for political whims resulting in no traction. Then, we form a new task force to research and write another report. There are plenty of lawyers who have already worked through the issue and devised solutions – and each of those are being ignored. We do not need another committee. We need those in power to listen.
I sit in Indianapolis and represent clients all over the state. It is common for me to represent a client I never meet in person. Granted, it all depends on the nature of the representation, but the fact that some counties have few attorneys living there is not necessarily a crisis.