foundation meeting - arkansas access to justice · 2017-05-02 · arkansas access to justice...

Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation Board of Directors Meeting

March 13, 2015 11:30 a.m.

Board of Directors:

Toby Atkinson Lori Chumbler Tamra Cochran

Nate Coulter Dick Downing Angela Duran Zina Frazier

J.D. Gingerich Dr. Alice Hines

Ron Lanoue John Monroe

Reverend Vic Nixon Frank Sewall

Jim Sprott Bill Waddell

Staff: Amy Johnson Erin Jacobson

Agenda

1. Welcome and Introductions – Mr. Waddell

2. Approval of Minutes of November 20, 2014 Meeting, pp. 2-6 – Mr. Waddell

3. Report of Officers & Staff a. President’s Report – Mr. Waddell b. Treasurer’s Report, pp. 7-13 – Mr. Gingerich c. Resource Development Report, pp. 14-21 – Ms. Roberts d. Report on NAIP Midyear Meeting – Mr. Sprott e. Executive Director’s Report, pp. 22-69 – Ms. Johnson

4. Report of Committees

a. Executive Committee Report, p. 70 b. Grant Committee Report, pp. 71-90– Mr. Sewall c. Arkansas Access to Justice Commission, pp. 91-97 – Mr. Waddell

5. Old Business

6. New Business

a. Conflict of Interest Policy Review, pp. 98-101 b. Election of Board Members and Officers

7. Adjourn

Foundation Meeting Justice Building, Room 101, 625 Marshall St., Little Rock, AR 72201

Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation Board of Directors Meeting

November 20, 2014 11:30 a.m.

Arkansas Bar Center 2224 Cottondale Lane Little Rock, AR 72202

Attending Toby Atkinson (phone) Lori Chumbler (phone)

Tamra Cochran Nate Coulter

Dick Downing Zina Frazier

Dr. Alice Hines (phone) Ron Lanoue

John Monroe Frank Sewall

Jim Sprott (phone) Bill Waddell

Absent Angela Duran J.D. Gingerich

Reverend Vic Nixon

Guest Karen Hutchins

Staff Amy Johnson Erin Jacobson

Meeting Minutes (DRAFT)

Welcome and Introductions

Mr. Waddell called the meeting to order at 11:46 p.m. All present and on the phone gave their own introductions.

Approval of Minutes of August 21, 2014 Meeting

Mr. Waddell asked for a review of the minutes and if any corrections or additions were required. None were raised. Mr. Sewall made the motion to approve the meeting minutes and Mr. Lanoue seconded the motion. All members approved the motion.

Report of Officers & Staff

President’s Report

Mr. Waddell began his report by speaking about the October 2nd reception at Mitchell Williams sponsored by Walmart and Tyson. He mentioned that despite the tornadic weather there was a good group of attendees, including two of the Clinton School students who did another great job of presenting the economic impact study. He reported that there were good questions which generated discussion, followed by food and drinks during the reception portion. He remarked that the idea with this type of reception is to branch out to a wider, regional audience. Tyson brought quite a few folks, including many from their legal department. He asked for Ms. Cochran’s and Ms. Chumbler’s opinions regarding the event.

Ms. Cochran agreed that there had been a great group and presentation. Ms. Chumbler was touched by the emotional response many attendees had. Mr. Waddell thanked Ms. Chumbler for

Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation Meeting

2

her and Walmart’s support in helping to make the event possible. Mr. Waddell stated that he would like to do more of these receptions and would like to do one or two more in 2015.

Several attendees also volunteered at the VA MLP event in Fayetteville. He reported seeing strong transformational moments with several of the volunteers. He concluded his report by stating that the Commission meeting at Tyson followed the pro bono service event.

Treasurer’s Report

Ms. Johnson gave report in Mr. Gingerich’s stead. The balance sheet shows that a majority of its assets are restricted funds from the 2012 housing foreclosure settlement. The financials reflect deficit spending attributable to the payout of those funds in the form of grants. When the settlement grant distributions are excluded, the financials show a modest increase in the bottom line.

The Foundation’s $25,000 unrestricted CD with Arvest matured in October and was moved to Southern Bancorp. Southern Bancorp has been a good community partner and has also paid higher rates on IOLTA accounts.

On the income side, the primary variance is due to lower-than-projected donations. IOLTA Program income will likely take in just under $100,000 in remittance revenue. Ms. Johnson added that donations are also now picking up as the official annual fundraising campaign has begun.

Operating expenses are coming in about where expected; the only major variance due to fundraising contractor being engaged late in the year. Historically, the IOLTA Foundation has underwritten funds for executive assistant. Now the Bar of Arkansas Fund will absorb that whole expense and therefore free up about $50,000 annually beginning in 2015.

Ms. Johnson reported having acted on a recommendation of the finance committee that $250,000 be transferred from the Stephens money market account to the Community First money market account, which earns higher interest.

Mr. Waddell asked for a motion to approve the Treasurer’s Report. Mr. Monroe moved to approve the report and Ms. Frazier seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Executive Director’s Report

Ms. Johnson briefly went over the reports on IOLTA program performance, the statistical analysis report, bank analysis report, and top 50 law firms ranked by amounts remitted. The top 50 law firms represent 47% of IOLTA revenues for 2014 to date. She mentioned that staff are asking for rate sheets from banks if any changes are noted from one month to the next. Bank of America dropped its two lowest interest tiers, which may impact revenues by a couple hundred dollars each month.

She then reported on completion of the economic impact study, which was conducted in partnership with the Clinton School of Public Service. The study has yielded useful information that can be used to show policymakers and funders a quantifiable positive impact.

Next, she reported on the seven pro bono events held during October, when the Foundation, Commission, and legal aid celebrated Pro Bono Month. The events resulted in help to more than 250 clients.

There will be two more service events held in February, including a “Super Saturday” event in Helena with Southern Bancorp and a Leadership Academy clinic as part of the Mid-Year Meeting.

3

Mr. Downing asked about the status of the ABA project and the release of the divorce with children resource. Ms. Johnson relayed the project’s status update including the development of a toolkit for attorneys, the establishment of a self-help desk in the Pulaski County Courthouse, and the actual development of the resource itself.

Ms. Johnson reported on the Commission’s action at its October meeting to rescind the previous decision to remove the Commission’s name from the document header of certain self-help forms on the Arkansas Legal Services Partnership website—a decision that had the potential to impact the ABA pilot project, as that project includes a self-help resource. The Commission decided to form a committee to study the issue and make a recommendation so that any action would be taken after broader input and consideration of the impact of the action on other initiatives. The Commission has asked for the involvement of a couple of representatives from the Association in studying the issue; Ms. Johnson will follow up with Ms. Hutchins regarding these appointments.

Ms. Johnson stated that the pilot project will serve as a test for the overall project. As the project progresses, the Commission will share the results, both outcomes and process observations, with the Association and judges.

Report of Committees

Grant Committee Report

Mr. Sewall reported that the committee met on Monday to determine grants of housing settlement funds for the coming year. Housing foreclosure case data was reviewed for CALS and LAA for the year. For the last two grant cycles, these funds have been divided so that CALS receives 55% of the statewide total and LAA receives 45%. At the committee’s request, staff did follow-up research to provide unlawful detainer filing statistics. The committee will be meeting immediately after this board meeting to evaluate the additional information and make a final decision. He invited all members to stay for that meeting.

Mr. Sewall stated that the committee is beginning work on revising its grant policy left over from the original IOLTA Foundation. The committee’s goal is to finish the revisions in the spring so that the Foundation would be poised to request grant applications for consideration next fall.

Mr. Waddell asked if grants would be limited as to who can receive them. Mr. Sewall indicated that, as a practical matter, the vast majority of grant funds have gone to legal aid in past years. More recently, the two legal aid organizations have been the only grantees because of the limited availability of funds. He added that the committee will likely recommend adoption of more clear priorities that reflect the past practice and that incorporate language that tracks the merged foundation’s mission and priorities as stated in its Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation.

Resource Development Committee Report

Mr. Coulter reported that the committee met in early October. Members reviewed and approved the overall campaign timeline developed by fundraising consultant Lesley Roberts. Staff have already completed the renewal phase of the campaign and now will be pursuing the bar acquisition campaign. The committee is also working to raise visibility with media for fundraising as well as getting high profile recognition in general for access to justice issues.

Mr. Waddell stated that even though the Northwest Arkansas reception was more of a “Friend-raising” event versus a fundraising one, it would be helpful to have the capability of accepting donations on the spot.

4

Ms. Johnson mentioned that Giving Tuesday is coming up and that we also have an AmazonSmile account, which allows individuals who make purchases on Amazon to designate the Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation to receive a percentage of proceeds. The Foundation has a Square card reader and account that can be used to take on-the-spot donations for future events.

Finance Committee Report Mr. Monroe gave the report for the Finance Committee. He spoke about the development of a general financial policy as well as an investment policy. The Committee will have drafts for the full board to review by the next full board meeting. He highlighted several items of research and focus that had been identified while in the process of developing these policies. He stated that the committee is also looking to create guidelines for investment managers that the Foundation selects to manage the Foundation’s portfolio. He continued, stating that one goal of the Finance Committee is to take some responsibility off of Ms. Johnson as the executive director. She has worked directly with financial advisors, but would like the committee to have more responsibility as a matter of guidance, ownership and accountability. Ms. Johnson agreed that the board should be actively involved in periodically reviewing the Foundation’s investments and offering guidance as needed. Mr. Waddell supported this concept as good corporate governance.

2015 Proposed Budget

Ms. Johnson presented the proposed budget for 2015. She reviewed the projections for revenues and expenses, noting that projected revenues are $30,000 less than what the proposed budget was last year. This is reflected in reductions to project grants and donations, as last year’s projections were too high. She stated that she is positive that revenues will increase now that we are working with a fundraising consultant. She mentioned that the events sponsorship donation line item has been added on the revenue side. We are looking to have more corporate partners like Walmart who have given this past year in support of Pro Bono Month. The Federal Reserve has indicated that it will be late 2015 at the earliest before interest rates may increase, so IOLTA revenue projections will remain the same for the coming year. On the expense side, Ms. Johnson projects a decrease of about $50,000 from last year’s budget. This change is the result of moving the expense for Ms. Jacobson’s position entirely to the Commission budget and a decrease in project expenses, as no project grants are currently planned for the coming year. She would like to keep $50,000 in the budget for Ms. Roberts. On the contract labor line, Ms. Oakes is working about 15-20 hours per week. She is now so efficient that Ms. Johnson believes the budget can now be reduced. A new line item has been added to include designated donation distributions gifts that are earmarked for a particular legal aid organization. Mr. Downing asked what plans were for issuing an RFP for the Foundation’s 2015 audit and Form 990 preparation. Ms. Johnson indicated that a short Form 990 will need to be filed for the pre-merger Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation to reflect transfer of its assets effective January 1. An RFP can be issued for the merged Foundation audit and Form 990. The Governance Committee will oversee the RFP process and selection. Mr. Downing asked if there has been a goal provided by the fundraiser, essentially asking for metrics which can help judge a fundraising consultant’s work. Ms. Johnson referenced page 51 of the meeting packet for the outline goals of the 2014-2015 fundraising campaign. He also asked about the new Bank of America settlement, wondering when that might occur. Ms. Johnson stated that she is not sure when the funds will filter down, as there are still discussions at the national level. The Justice Department person involved is expected to work with national leaders, including herself, to have a conversation about the direction of disbursing the settlement. Each IOLTA program will receive a minimum of $200,000, but more funds may be

5

distributed based on poverty population distribution. Mr. Downing asked about restrictions. Ms. Johnson stated that she believes there will be similar restrictions to the AG settlement funds. Mr. Coulter asked about Campaign for Legal Aid projections compared to the $75,000 listed on the proposed 2015 budget. He also asked if any of the $96,000 projected from IOLTA revenues will be spent on the legal aid programs. Ms. Johnson indicated that the Grant Committee has discussed the potential for grants to be made from the now-freed-up $50,000 from the Executive Assistant position. The Foundation currently has $200,000 available in unrestricted funds, including a $25,000 certificate of deposit. Ms. Frazier supported being strong in what we are doing even in the light of potential further budget cuts coming down the pike. We cannot let these actions dissuade the work that still needs to occur. Mr. Coulter moved to approve the budget and Mr. Lanoue seconded the motion. All members voted in favor of the motion. New Business

30th Anniversary of Arkansas IOLTA Program

Ms. Johnson stated that 2015 represents the 30th Anniversary of the Arkansas IOLTA Program. She added that she found a treasure trove of old photos, grant information, old reports, etc. during the merger process. She stated that she would like to use this opportunity to highlight what the program has done in the last 30 years, especially as it relates to legal aid. She mentioned that she has spoken to Anna Hubbard about someone writing an article for the Arkansas Lawyer.

Members agreed to appoint a committee for an event and that it would be necessary to generate some publicity. Ms. Frazier and Mr. Coulter offered to be on the committee. Mr. Lanoue suggested “Who Are They and Where Are They Now” as the title of a feature for pictures used in the article. Mr. Waddell asked that anyone who is interested in serving on the committee email Ms. Johnson. The group discussed approaching key people to write essays.

Mr. Lanoue reported the Jewish Federation of Arkansas’s plans to honor Justice Tuck at its annual Tikkun Olam Award dinner on February 21, 2015 at the Arkansas Arts Center. He mentioned Mr. Coulter’s involvement, adding that Ms. Johnson will also be working with him to reach out to members to put some tables together; wondered if it would be able to use Foundation funds. Mr. Waddell and Mr. Lanoue offered potential sponsorships.

2015 Meeting Dates

March 13, 2015 at 11:30 a.m. June 10, 2015 (Wednesday of Arkansas Bar Annual Meeting) at 11:30 a.m. September 11, 2015 at 11:30 a.m. December 11, 2015 at 11:30 a.m.

Adjournment

Mr. Coulter moved to adjourn the meeting and Mr. Monroe seconded. The meeting ended at 2:00 p.m.

6

ASSETS Unrestricted Temporarily Restricted Combined

37,081.94$ -$ 37,081.94$ 39,652.54$ -$ 39,652.54$

-$ 149,695.05 149,695.05$ 102,129.61$ 1,500.00$ 103,629.61$

TOTAL: 178,864.09$ 151,195.05$ 330,059.14$

-$ 483,895.88$ 483,895.88$ Southern Bancorp 25,000.00$

-$ 282,458.36$ 282,458.36$ TOTAL: 25,000.00$ 766,354.24$ 766,354.24$

COMBINED TOTAL: 203,864.09$ 917,549.29$ 1,096,413.38$

RECONCILIATION

Previous Balance 214,136.47$ 896,945.20$ 1,111,081.67$ EXCESS (DEFICIT) FOR PERIOD 10,331.71$ 10,331.71$

TOTAL PRESENT BALANCE 224,468.18$ 896,945.20$ 1,121,413.38$

Community First

Stephens, Inc.

CASH & CASH EQUIVALENTS:Simmons Operating AccountRegions Money Market AccountCommunity First Money MarketSimmons Campaign Account

INVESTMENTS & CDs:

7

ASSETS Unrestricted Temporarily Restricted Combined

41,459.35$ -$ 41,459.35$ 42,599.47$ -$ 42,599.47$

-$ 93,548.03$ 93,548.03$ 105,742.84$ 105,742.84$

TOTAL: 189,801.66$ 93,548.03$ 283,349.69$

-$ 483,895.88$ 483,895.88$ 25,000.00$ -$ 25,000.00$

-$ 510,808.27$ 510,808.27$ TOTAL: 25,000.00$ 994,704.15$ 1,019,704.15$

COMBINED TOTAL: 214,801.66$ 1,088,252.18$ 1,303,053.84$

RECONCILIATION

Previous Balance 224,468.18$ 896,945.20$ 1,121,413.38$ EXCESS (DEFICIT) FOR PERIOD 9,800.18$ (56,250.00)$ (46,449.82)$

TOTAL PRESENT BALANCE 234,268.36$ 840,695.20$ 1,074,963.56$

Community FirstNBAStephens, Inc.

CASH & CASH EQUIVALENTS:Simmons Operating AccountRegions Money Market AccountCommunity First Money MarketSimmons Campaign Account

INVESTMENTS & CDs:

11

ATJF Resource Development Steering Committee Meeting February 23, 2015

2:00 p.m. Phone Conference

Attending: Jean Carter -‐ CALS, Lori Chumbler – LAA, Nate Coulter -‐ ATJC, Jim Hathaway – VOCALS , Amy Johnson -‐ATJF, Lee Richardson – LAA, Lesley Roberts – ATJF consultant and Jim Sprott – ATJF.

Absent: Causley Edwards – CALS

Meeting Minutes

Meeting began just after 2:00 p.m.

Ms. Roberts began by discussing the campaign results as of 2/19. Since July 1, 2014, a little more than $250,000 has been raised. Mr. Sprott had question about LAA’s corporate campaign, and we discussed the $75,000 gift from Walmart’s legal department. There was also discussion of the annual gift from FedEx Freight typically given to LAA. Mr. Sprott volunteered to follow up on a solicitation if one had been made. Ms. Johnson and Mr. Richardson will continue working to make sure we don’t duplicate solicitation efforts. Tyson’s past giving was also discussed, and Ms. Johnson is currently working with Rod Nagel on their giving for this year.

A proposed development calendar for 2015 was presented and is included in the meeting materials packet. Ms. Johnson is hopeful that having an annual calendar of solicitations will allow our efforts to be more focused and planned in advance. Many of the items on the development calendar are listed for further discussion.

Ms. Roberts discussed the addition of a friends and family campaign. The meeting packet contains two sample letters that could be mailed. Each committee member could send a solicitation to five to ten people as a way to expand our donor base. Committee members agreed this is a good addition to the campaign. Staff will keep a list of those being contacted to make sure duplicate solicitations are not mailed. Committee members will have the choice of staff sending the letter on organization letterhead, or members can use their personal letterhead. More information will be sent including the letter drafts as a Word document in the coming weeks. We will have a May 15 deadline for the names and addresses to be submitted.

The next discussion item was the IOLTA program’s 30th Anniversary and the possibility of an endowment campaign to help celebrate. The initial idea was to secure a $15,000 matching gift and raise the remaining $15,000 to begin an endowment. Mr. Richardson mentioned that both LAA and CALS are coming up on their 50th Anniversaries and suggested considering a larger effort and campaign. He

Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation

14

mentioned the idea of a large event with a prominent speaker, such as Hillary Clinton. Ms. Johnson agreed this could be a good approach. LAA will celebrate their 50th anniversary in 2017, and Ms. Carter confirmed CALS is celebrating in 2015. CALS has not started planning any type of celebration, but it open to the idea. Regarding an endowment, Ms. Johnson stated the money would be used to make grants to both legal aid programs. Mr. Coulter expressed concern of balancing different types of campaigns. We want to avoid donor fatigue and not divert needed donations from one area to an endowment that would take years to grow. Ms. Roberts mentioned that some foundations and donors prefer to give to established endowments versus operating programs. Mr. Richardson will discuss the 50th anniversary plans with his board designated committee and report back.

Vines Media has submitted recommendation for advertisements. This topic was discussed at an earlier steering meeting, and everyone agreed that print ads would be good for raising our profile and for donor recognitions. Vines Media’s plan is what they believe is the best use of the $5,000 budget. They also included additional opportunities should other funds become available. Consideration was given to areas of the state outside of central AR. We discussed that some of the budget is used in Jonesboro and will coordinate with Mr. Richardson to compliment efforts with Law Day 10K which is Saturday, May 2.

The committee also discussed prospecting and “moves management” for larger donors. A list of all donors that have given more than $400 was included in the meeting packet along with a moves management sample. The moves management document is the calendar that assigns actions to specific months. Those actions include stewardship, cultivation and solicitation of donors. It is the plan for how money is raised and how donors are thanked systematically. Mr. Sprott mentioned the gift from the U of A Law School Student Bar Association and asked in UALR had a similar bar association. All agreed working to engage that group would be a good idea, and the idea of a competition between the two might be helpful.

Mr. Coulter noted that it would be helpful on the top donor list to also have amount and date of most recent gift. Ms. Roberts will distribute that list. Ms. Johnson asked to feedback on this list to be included on our action item list. She also mentioned that board members would be thanking donors for the their gifts in the next board meeting, and at Mr. Coutler’s suggestion that we might also ask the donors if they know others that would also be willing to give. A couple of other helpful lists for comparison were discussed: list of businesses with in-‐house counsel in Arkansas, list of bar association members by county, government lawyer section of the bar, etc.

ACTION ITEMS:

• Review updated donor gift list and provide feedback by March 13• Begin thinking about who to solicit for friends and family campaign. Information will follow, and

the deadline will be May 15.• Mr. Richardson and Ms. Carter will talk with their boards to determine interest in joint

anniversary celebrations

Meeting adjourned at 3:15 p.m.

15

Name City State/Province Largest Gift Date Most Recent Gift Date

Alan Lewis Rogers AR 500 12/1/10 250 1/30/12Alice Lightle Little Rock AR 500 1/3/14 500 1/3/14Andrew Fulkerson Paragould AR 500 11/23/10 500 11/23/10Angela Duran Little Rock AR 500 12/16/14 500 12/16/14Annabelle Imber Tuck Little Rock AR 2,000 11/2/12 1000 12/31/14Arkansas Blue Cross Blue Shield Little Rock AR 1,000 2/6/15 1000 12/6/15Baim Law Firm Pine Bluff AR 900 12/4/12 900 12/14/12Baxter Sharp Brinkley AR 500 12/29/11 500 12/29/11Blue Ocean Innovative Solutions Bentonville AR 1000 11/18/10 1000 11/18/10Care Foundation, Inc. Springdale AR 500 11/5/14 500 11/5/14Chuck Goldner Little Rock AR 1500 10/26/12 500 12/4/14Danyelle J. Walker Little Rock AR 5000 11/21/11 400 10/8/14David H. Arrington Oil & Gas Midland TX 5000 11/28/11 5000 11/28/11David J. Manley Little Rock AR 500 10/20/14 500 10/20/14David J. Sachar Little Rock AR 1000 11/15/10 1000 11/15/10David Solomon Helena AR 500 10/15/10 200 12/11/12Deanna "Suzie" Evans Summit AR 500 2/13/13 200 12/29/14Dillard's, Inc. Little Rock AR 6000 12/20/11 6000 12/20/11Disability Rights Center of Arkansas Little Rock AR 500 4/30/12 500 4/30/12Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Arkansas, Inc. Little Rock AR 5000 12/14/12 5000 1/10/14Frank B. Sewall Little Rock AR 1000 12/29/14 10000 12/19/14Friday, Eldredge & Clark LLP Little Rock AR 2000 5/7/12 2000 5/7/12Hamilton, Colbert & Scurlock, LLP Paragould AR 500 11/16/10 500 10/16/10Howard Keith Morrison Fayetteville AR 460 10/28/10 460 10/28/10Howard Brill Fayetteville AR 500 11/18/14 500 11/18/14James & Terry Barnes Little Rock AR 500 12/7/10 500 12/7/10James D. Sprott Harrison AR 1200 12/15/14 100 2/24/15Janet A. Flaccus Fayetteville AR 550 11/30/14 550 11/30/14Jefferson Regional Medical Center Pine Bluff AR 500 11/28/11 500 2/3/12Jim Julian North Little Rock AR 500 4/19/10 500 4/19/10John DiPippa Little Rock AR 500 4/25/10 500 4/25/10Jon Comstock Rogers AR 3000 1/6/11 1000 1/12/12Josh Wisley Fayetteville AR 500 12/27/10 400 12/28/12Kathryn W. Roberts Little Rock AR 1000 1/6/15 1000 1/6/15

16

Kyle Heffley Rogers AR 500 12/1/10 500 12/1/10Law Offices Of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz Memphis TN 500 12/11/14 500 12/11/14Lori A. Chumbler Bentonville AR 1000 7/26/13 750 11/20/14M K Distributors Pine Bluff AR 500 5/7/13 500 5/7/13Marshall S. Ney Rogers AR 500 12/1/10 250 1/30/12Mike Millar Searcy AR 500 11/18/11 500 11/19/14Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, P.L.L.C. Little Rock AR 500 5/23/12 500 5/23/12Mr. Earl B. Chadick Fayetteville AR 500 12/29/11 500 12/29/11Nabholz Construction Services Conway AR 500 12/4/10 250 11/24/10Nate Coulter Little Rock AR 2000 10/8/10 1000 12/5/14PAM Transport Tontitown AR 1000 12/17/10 1000 12/17/10Price Marshall Jonesboro AR 500 10/9/14 100 12/12/14Ramsay, Bridgforth, Robinson & Raley, LLP Pine Bluff AR 500 11/8/11 500 11/8/11Redman and Associates, LLC Bentonville AR 1000 11/18/10 1000 11/18/10Regions Insurance Little Rock AR 500 12/13/10 500 12/13/10Robert F. Thompson III Paragould AR 500 11/23/10 500 11/23/10Robert Fussell Little Rock AR 1100 5/13/10 100 1/7/15Robert S. Shafer Little Rock AR 1000 9/19/13 400 10/20/14Rodney & Jennifer Myers Little Rock AR 1000 1/31/11 1000 1/31/11Rodney Nagel Springdale AR 1000 12/30/14 1000 12/30/14Rosalind M. Mouser Pine Bluff AR 500 2/7/14 500 2/7/14Second Presbyterian Church Little Rock AR 4000 11/24/14 4000 11/24/14Simmons First Bank Pine Bluff AR 1000 12/13/11 1000 12/13/11St. Francis County Bar Association Forrest City AR 1000 12/12/11 1000 12/12/11The Dolores F. and Thomas A. Bruce Endowment of the Arkansas Community FoundationLittle Rock AR 1000 5/17/13 1000 5/17/13Turner Holdings, LLC d/b/a Hiland Dairy Little Rock AR 500 3/13/13 500 11/21/14Tyson Foods, Inc. Springdale AR 8000 6/5/14 8000 6/5/14University of Arkansas Student Bar Assn Fayetteviille AR 4200 10/6/14 4200 10/6/14USAble Life Little Rock AR 1500 1/5/11 500 10/28/11Victor Nixon Little Rock AR 500 12/2/11 50 12/8/14Walmart Stores, Inc. Bentonville AR 75000 8/11/14 10000 10/8/14William A. Waddell, Jr. Little Rock AR 6500 2/9/12 5000 12/19/14William Jackson Butt II Fayetteville AR 500 12/6/12 500 11/15/14Wright, Lindsey & Jennings LLP Little Rock AR 1000 5/7/12 1000 5/7/12

17

Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation

Friends and Family Campaign

What is it?

The Friends and Family Campaign is a flexible and custom approach to asking

those close to you to join you in your support of AAJF.

Our Goals:

Introduce more people to the work we are doing to support civil legal aid

and its importance

Connect with people outside of the law community that may have an

interest in our work

Gain new advocates, donors and volunteers

How does it work?

Everyone has a different comfort level when it comes to asking for support, and

for that reason, there are four options for participation. You choose the one that

best suits your personality and available time. For each option, please submit a

list of names and addresses so that staff can provide feedback on any past

donations and make sure duplicate solicitations are not made

Option 1 – Staff will send a letter from Amy on AAJF letterhead that references

your name as a board member. A sample letter is provided, and you are

welcome to edit and customize the letter.

Option 2 – Staff will prepare a letter on AAJF letterhead for your signature. A

sample letter is provided, and you are welcome to edit and customize the letter.

Option 3 – Use your own letterhead and signature for the letter. Staff will provide

a sample letter in a Word document for you to edit and customize.

Option 4 – You may choose to make phone calls or emails soliciting support.

Staff will follow up with a letter or email to those indicating to you their desire to

get involved or donate. A sample letter is provided, and you are welcome to

edit and customize the letter.

What is expected of me?

We would appreciate all foundation board members and board development

steering committee members participation in this campaign! Please provide

names and addresses of at least five people and which of the above options

you would like to use to ask for their support by May 15th. Thank you so much!

18

Email Follow Up

Thank you again for saying yes when NAME HERE asked you to support the

Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation with a gift. I know it will be used wisely

and will help others gain access to the justice system to protect their rights, their

freedom, their homes, their livelihoods and their families. You can read more

about us online at http://www.arkansasjustice.org.

One in four Arkansans live at or below 125% of the federal poverty level and are

eligible to receive free civil legal services. Yet every year, nearly half of qualified

Arkansans who contact a legal aid provider for help with civil legal issues are

turned away due to a lack of sufficient resources. As you can imagine, lack of

access to justice often has an immediate negative impact on individuals – loss of

housing, denial of benefits, lack of protection for women and children. Many of

these issues have lasting repercussions and contribute to cycles of poverty. The

mission of the Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation is to coordinate statewide

efforts to ensure that all Arkansans have a fair opportunity to be heard in court in

civil matters, not just those who can afford legal representation.

We hope you’ll visit our website and “like” us on Facebook to stay informed and

learn about volunteer opportunities. Thanks again for talking with NAME HERE

about civil legal aid and what not having it means to thousands in our state. We

appreciate you joining with him/her in support of justice for all.

Sincerely,

Amy Johnson

NOTE – online donation link and link to facebook page will be prominent in

signature block

19

http://www.arkansasjustice.org/

Letter Follow Up

Dear Salutation,

Thank you for saying yes when NAME HERE asked you to support the Arkansas

Access to Justice Foundation with a gift. I know it will be used wisely and will

help others gain access to the justice system to protect their rights, their freedom,

their homes, their livelihoods and their families. Access to justice, or lack of, is a

serious issue facing many in our state, and we are working to increase awareness

so that more people know that:

Unlike low-income Arkansans facing criminal prosecution who are

guaranteed an attorney by the constitution, no such right exists for the

same individuals facing life-altering civil legal problems.

Domestic violence, child custody and housing foreclosures are a few of

the serious civil issues that indigent Arkansans face.

Our state has two nonprofit organizations that provide high-quality free

legal aid for financially eligible Arkansans facing critical, civil issues – The

Center for Arkansas Legal Services and Legal Aid of Arkansas. The

Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation works to provide support to both.

One in four Arkansans live at or below 125% of the federal poverty level and are

eligible to receive free civil legal services. Yet every year, nearly half of qualified

Arkansans who contact a legal aid provider for help with civil legal issues are

turned away due to a lack of sufficient resources. As you can imagine, lack of

access to justice often has an immediate negative impact on individuals – loss of

housing, denial of benefits, lack of protection for women and children. Many of

these issues have lasting repercussions and contribute to cycles of poverty. The

mission of the Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation is to coordinate statewide

efforts to ensure that all Arkansans have a fair opportunity to be heard in court in

civil matters, not just those who can afford legal representation.

For more information, visit our website and “like” us on Facebook to stay

informed and learn about volunteer opportunities. Thanks again for talking with

NAME HERE about civil legal aid and what not having it means to thousands in

our state. We appreciate you joining with him/her in support of justice for all.

Sincerely,

Name

Title

20

Arkansas Access to Justice2015 Media Recommendation

Ad Cost per Total Total Publication Circulation Size Insertion Insertions CostArkansas Business 8,000 1/4 page $1,755.00 1 $1,755.00MondaysLaw Issue - 6/8Banking & Finance - 7/27Banking & Finance - 10/26Arkansas Times 25,000 1/4 page $558.84 1 $558.84ThursdaysBest Lawyers Issue - 11/5AY 35,000 1/6 page $1,260.00 1 $1,260.00MonthlyPowerful Women Issue - MarchJonesboro Sun 22,000 1/4 page $355.89 2 $711.78Daily

Print Total: $4,285.62

Ad Cost per Total Total Website Circulation Size Week Insertions Costarktimes.com 50,000 300 x 250 $229.42 3 $688.26

impressions/week weeks

Online Total: $688.26

Campaign Total: $4,973.88

Client Approval Date

ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIESAd Cost per Total Total

Publication Circulation Size Insertion Insertions Costarkansasbusiness.com 26,000 300 x 600 $398.13 5 $1,990.65Daily Report eNewsletterAY 35,000 1/3 page $1,484.00 1 $1,484.00MonthlyBest Lawyers Issue - JuneCelebrate 15,000 1/4 page $747.08 1 $747.08MonthlyLegal PROfiles Issue - AugustJonesboro Occasions 10,000 1/3 page $576.49 1 $576.49MonthlyNorthwest Arkansas Business Journa 2,500 1/4 page $1,841.22 1 $1,841.22Bi-weekly

21

Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation Executive Director’s Report

March 14, 2015

Program Updates

• IOLTA Program Analysis Reports (attached) for 2014 show interest rates and deposits forparticipating banks to be generally holding steady. Our average rate for 2014 was .103%, andour average yield was .101%. As of January 2015, the lowest interest rate is .01%, paid byIntegrity Bank; the highest interest rate is 0.81%, paid by Community First Bank. A list ofthe top 50 law firms is also attached, rank by net amount of interest remitted; these firmsaccount for 47% of our IOLTA program revenues for 2014. A total of 2315 firms participatein IOLTA.

• In January, we completed an annual update to the website’s list of all banks that participate inthe IOLTA program, including banks that pay competitive interest rates (currently, more than0.25%), and confirmed the list with the Office of Professional Conduct, as required bySection 28 of the Procedures Regulating the Professional Conduct of Attorneys.

• Simmons Bank has brought all of its previously independent charters under the single PineBluff charter. Bank of the Ozarks has acquired Summit Bank, First Federal Bank changed itsname to Bear State Bank, and its parent company has acquired three First National Bankcharters. River Bank has acquired Corning Savings and Loan.

• I am attaching a draft issue brief prepared by a team at UC Davis that assisted ourCommission in doing a study to attempt to understand why it is so difficult to attractattorneys to rural areas of the state. One very notable takeaway from participating in thisstudy is that our IOLTA program is best situated to quantify and monitor the number ofattorneys in private practice based on those who report that they have IOLTA accounts. Thisis not something that states have made a priority, and I think our state’s numbers reveal apretty shocking and growing problem. I will soon have an analysis that takes a county-by-county look at the number of practitioners with IOLTA accounts.

Resource Development

• Attached is the latest information on the forthcoming Bank of America settlementdistribution.

22

• A settlement with Standard & Poor’s over its inflated financial ratings practices has resultedin a $21.5 million distribution to Arkansas. An article from the Arkansas Times is attached,along with a copy of a 2013 bill that caps the amount that the AG’s office can hold in itsConsumer Protection and Education Fund at $1 million. That bill also provides that consumersettlement funds may be distributed in part to state agencies having a nexus to the underlyinglitigation. I think we can make an excellent case that the Arkansas Access to JusticeCommission is such an agency. Bill Wadell, Chuck Goldner, and I are scheduled to meetwith Attorney General Leslie Rutledge on March 23.

• Attached is email correspondence with Stark Ligon regarding the status of efforts to developa proposed administrative order or rule change to deal with unclaimed/unidentifiable IOLTAfunds; this is an area that I believe we should make a priority in the coming months. I amattaching a recently article from the ABA Dialogue on the topic.

• Attached is information about legislation that Oregon recently enacted that allocates a certainpercentage of cy pres funds to that state’s IOLTA program.

• The Georgia Bar Foundation applied for and received a grant that seeks to raise the profile ofIOLTA Programs and legal aid by paying the membership fees for IOLTA programs thatqualify geographically for membership in the Southeastern Council on Foundations. Wereceived a mini-grant to cover our membership fees, and this has generated some interestfrom the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation in assisting us to raise our profile among otherfunders.

• Attached is email correspondence with Glenn Nishimura, who is a consultant that WinthropRockefeller Foundation uses for strategic planning. WRF has offered to provide Glenn toassist us in conducting a strategic planning processes, with the idea that this may allow ourFoundation and WRF to discern the “fit” for our organization to pursue a program grant. Itmay be desirable to designate a person or appoint the Governance Committee or other bodyto participate in these initial discussions.

• Nate Coulter recently connected us with local attorney and author Mark Nichols, whoorganized and sponsored a Jeffersonian Dinner discussion about the lack of sufficient payingwork for recent law school graduates and the overwhelming demand for civil legal services.Participants included an Arkansas Supreme Court Justice, Court of Appeals Judge, circuitjudge, two recent law school graduates, a banker, an accountant, a law school dean, andArkansas Bar YLS chair. A copy of the “minutes” from that discussion are attached. Thisdiscussion format is one that we might consider as a platform for cultivating philanthropyoriented toward our mission. For more information, you may want to consider reading TheGenerosity Network by Jeffrey C. Walker.

• I have joined a local philanthropy roundtable facilitated by Arkansas CommunityFoundation. This roundtable has already resulted in fruitful connections. I will be meetingwith Drew Pack, Senior Community Development Specialist with the Federal Reserve, todiscuss how they might be able to offer CRA credit to banks that go above and beyond(either by paying higher interest rates or making donations). He has a good working

23

relationship with his counterpart at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and could facilitate contact with them for discussions about the banks they regulate.

Financial Matters

• We have distributed an RFP to 21 accounting firms seeking their services for our 2014 auditand form 990. Yoakum Lovell will complete the necessary Form 990 that must be filed forthe pre-merger Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation for its January 1, 2014 activity.

• We are still in the process of getting our financials transitioned to Quickbooks forNonprofits.

• Additional space has come upon at 2100 Riverfront, which is where the Office ofProfessional Programs and Office of Professional Conduct are housed. If we so desire, wecan consider moving Access to Justice to that space, which would give us more room togrow. The downside is that we would lose our proximity and shared resource with legal aidand we’d have to terminate our lease agreement, which is locked in at $14.50 per square footthrough June 2019.

Upcoming Dates of Note:

• The National Association of IOLTA Programs Annual Meeting will be held in conjunctionwith the ABA Annual meeting July 30-31, in Chicago. Registration information should beavailable in May. Travel stipends are normally available; this meeting would be an excellentopportunity for a member of the board to meet staff and trustees from IOLTA programs andhear about approaches to revenue enhancement and innovations in access to justice.

• Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation Board Meetings – June 10, 2015, Hot Springs,AR; September 11, 2015, Little Rock, AR; December 11, 2015, Little Rock, AR

24

ARKANSAS ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOUNDATION, INC.Statistical Analysis Earnings Period From : 01/01/2014 through 12/31/2014Run Date : Tuesday March 3 2015

Remittance Analysis by Earnings Period within Month and Year (%G is Percent of Gross)

Dates Avg. Rate Yield Gross Maint=%G activity=%G Handl=%G Waived Net Prin. Bal

2014-01 0.1032% 0.1015% $ 8,114.46 $ 0.00=0.000% $ 0.00=0.000% $ 4,475.33=55.153% $ 4,342.61 $ 7,981.74 $ 92,607,616.60

2014-02 0.1052% 0.1033% $ 7,243.39 $ 0.00=0.000% $ 0.00=0.000% $ 4,362.43=60.226% $ 4,232.61 $ 7,113.57 $ 89,864,519.21

2014-03 0.1054% 0.1036% $ 8,535.16 $ 0.00=0.000% $ 0.00=0.000% $ 4,558.79=53.412% $ 4,412.18 $ 8,388.55 $ 95,626,305.80

2014-04 0.0964% 0.0952% $ 9,595.50 $ 0.00=0.000% $ 0.00=0.000% $ 4,732.06=49.315% $ 4,605.34 $ 9,468.78 $ 121,059,712.58

2014-05 0.1067% 0.1050% $ 8,045.10 $ 0.00=0.000% $ 0.00=0.000% $ 4,167.59=51.803% $ 4,032.48 $ 7,909.99 $ 90,379,539.47

2014-06 0.1008% 0.0991% $ 8,042.38 $ 0.00=0.000% $ 0.00=0.000% $ 4,279.19=53.208% $ 4,139.09 $ 7,902.28 $ 97,045,814.35

2014-07 0.1034% 0.1019% $ 8,470.57 $ 0.00=0.000% $ 0.00=0.000% $ 4,471.94=52.794% $ 4,344.45 $ 8,343.08 $ 96,422,663.48

2014-08 0.1019% 0.1004% $ 8,395.28 $ 0.00=0.000% $ 0.00=0.000% $ 4,294.61=51.155% $ 4,166.11 $ 8,266.78 $ 98,306,535.07

2014-09 0.1022% 0.1009% $ 7,689.99 $ 0.00=0.000% $ 0.00=0.000% $ 4,213.41=54.791% $ 4,119.88 $ 7,596.46 $ 91,499,243.50

2014-10 0.1051% 0.1039% $ 8,456.01 $ 0.00=0.000% $ 0.00=0.000% $ 4,344.24=51.375% $ 4,245.72 $ 8,357.49 $ 94,599,055.12

2014-11 0.0976% 0.0964% $ 8,285.90 $ 0.00=0.000% $ 0.00=0.000% $ 4,188.27=50.547% $ 4,086.64 $ 8,184.27 $ 103,963,653.12

2014-12 0.1070% 0.1058% $ 9,667.98 $ 0.00=0.000% $ 0.00=0.000% $ 4,420.34=45.721% $ 4,309.69 $ 9,557.33 $ 106,143,666.31

Final Totals 0.1029% 0.1014% $ 100,541.72 $ 0.00=0.000% $ 0.00=0.000% $ 52,508.20=52.225% $ 51,036.80 $ 99,070.32 $1,177,518,324.61

CountsActive Closed Total

Firms 3077 803 3880

Financial Institutions

120 185 305

Trust Accounts 2691 2973 5664

AttorneysTotal At Active Firm Not Participating Percent Part.

9513 2586 0 100

Status A AB. D F I J M N X n

How Many 4382=46.0633% 2968=31.1994% 1=0.0105% 4=0.0420% 1=0.0105% 54=0.5676% 9=0.0946% 1=0.0105% 2087=21.9384% 2=0.0210% 4=0.0420%

25

ARKANSAS ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOUNDATION, INC.Bank Analysis - Top 10 Deposit Dates From : 01/01/2014 through 12/31/2014Run Date : Tuesday March 3 2015

Ordered by Weighted Average YieldBank

#Bank Name # of

Accounts# of

Trans.Earn Start Earn End Avg. Rate Yield Gross Maint Actvty Handling Waived Net %Net to

TotalAvg Prin. Bal Total Prin. Bal %Tot PrBal to

Total

304 COMMUNITY FIRST BANK

17 184 12/01/2013 11/30/2014 0.80995% 0.80995% $ 4,254.12 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 4,254.12 4.4007% $ 34,308.40 $ 6,312,745.46 0.5503%

111 1ST BANK 4 52 12/01/2013 11/30/2014 0.65000% 0.65000% $ 486.31 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 486.31 0.5031% $ 17,516.72 $ 910,869.29 0.0794%

196 SMACKOVER STATE BANK

1 18 12/01/2013 11/30/2014 0.40000% 0.40000% $ 28.04 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 28.04 0.0290% $ 4,710.88 $ 84,795.85 0.0074%

69 SOUTHERN BANCORP

9 116 12/01/2013 11/30/2014 0.39000% 0.39000% $ 2,083.30 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 2,083.30 2.1551% $ 55,281.43 $ 6,412,645.59 0.5590%

329 HERITAGE BANK

10 112 12/01/2013 11/30/2014 0.35388% 0.35388% $ 2,413.47 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 2,413.47 2.4966% $ 73,780.65 $ 8,263,432.78 0.7203%

143 FIRST STATE BANK

2 24 12/01/2013 11/30/2014 0.35000% 0.35000% $ 344.80 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 344.80 0.3567% $ 49,508.30 $ 1,188,199.21 0.1036%

24 BANK OF LITTLE ROCK

29 349 08/01/2008 11/30/2014 0.26082% 0.26082% $ 3,005.16 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 3,005.16 3.1087% $ 39,769.45 $ 13,879,536.84 1.2098%

154 HELENA NATIONAL

BANK

6 70 12/01/2013 11/30/2014 0.25126% 0.25126% $ 230.82 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 230.82 0.2388% $ 15,782.95 $ 1,104,806.48 0.0963%

94 FIRST FINANCIAL

BANK

5 61 12/01/2013 11/30/2014 0.25000% 0.25000% $ 99.70 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 99.70 0.1031% $ 7,825.83 $ 477,375.85 0.0416%

144 FIRST STATE BANK OF DEQUEEN

3 36 12/01/2013 11/30/2014 0.25000% 0.25000% $ 23.01 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 23.01 0.0238% $ 3,069.68 $ 110,508.33 0.0096%

26


Ordered by Weighted Average RateBank

#Bank Name # of

Accounts# of


TotalAvg Prin. Bal Total Prin. Bal %Tot PrBal to

Total


17 184 12/01/2013 11/30/2014 0.80995% 0.80995% $ 4,254.12 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 4,254.12 4.4007% $ 34,308.40 $ 6,312,745.46 0.5503%

111 1ST BANK 4 52 12/01/2013 11/30/2014 0.65000% 0.65000% $ 486.31 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 486.31 0.5031% $ 17,516.72 $ 910,869.29 0.0794%

196 SMACKOVER STATE BANK

1 18 12/01/2013 11/30/2014 0.40000% 0.40000% $ 28.04 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 28.04 0.0290% $ 4,710.88 $ 84,795.85 0.0074%

69 SOUTHERN BANCORP

9 116 12/01/2013 11/30/2014 0.39000% 0.39000% $ 2,083.30 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 2,083.30 2.1551% $ 55,281.43 $ 6,412,645.59 0.5590%

329 HERITAGE BANK

10 112 12/01/2013 11/30/2014 0.35388% 0.35388% $ 2,413.47 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 2,413.47 2.4966% $ 73,780.65 $ 8,263,432.78 0.7203%

143 FIRST STATE BANK

2 24 12/01/2013 11/30/2014 0.35000% 0.35000% $ 344.80 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 344.80 0.3567% $ 49,508.30 $ 1,188,199.21 0.1036%


29 349 08/01/2008 11/30/2014 0.26082% 0.26082% $ 3,005.16 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 3,005.16 3.1087% $ 39,769.45 $ 13,879,536.84 1.2098%

154 HELENA NATIONAL

BANK

6 70 12/01/2013 11/30/2014 0.25126% 0.25126% $ 230.82 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 230.82 0.2388% $ 15,782.95 $ 1,104,806.48 0.0963%

94 FIRST FINANCIAL

BANK

5 61 12/01/2013 11/30/2014 0.25000% 0.25000% $ 99.70 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 99.70 0.1031% $ 7,825.83 $ 477,375.85 0.0416%

144 FIRST STATE BANK OF DEQUEEN

3 36 12/01/2013 11/30/2014 0.25000% 0.25000% $ 23.01 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 23.01 0.0238% $ 3,069.68 $ 110,508.33 0.0096%

27


Ordered by Number of Trust AccountsBank

#Bank Name # of

Accounts# of


TotalAvg Prin.

BalTotal Prin. Bal %Tot PrBal

to Total

86 REGIONS BANK 475 3935 12/01/2013 11/30/2014 0.09997% 0.09997% $ 11,423.35

$ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 11,423.35

11.8170% $ 34,798.28

$ 136,931,242.68

11.9356%

44 ARVEST CENTRAL BANK

428 4592 12/01/2013 11/30/2014 0.04259% 0.04259% $ 4,683.65 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 50,285.02

$ 50,285.02

$ 4,683.65 4.8450% $ 28,733.17

$ 131,942,720.58

11.5008%

194 SIMMONS FIRST NATIONAL BANK

195 2488 12/01/2013 11/30/2014 0.10130% 0.10130% $ 7,397.32 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 7,397.32 7.6522% $ 35,356.86

$ 87,967,859.25 7.6677%

327 CENTENNIAL BANK

160 1544 01/01/2004 11/30/2014 0.10006% 0.10006% $ 5,066.80 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 5,066.80 5.2414% $ 38,986.62

$ 60,195,339.22 5.2469%

232 BANK OF THE OZARKS

137 1718 12/01/2013 11/30/2014 0.09587% 0.09587% $ 8,633.27 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 8,633.27 8.9308% $ 63,913.04

$ 109,802,604.90

9.5710%

322 BANK OF AMERICA

134 2176 12/01/2013 12/31/2014 0.16950% 0.14036% $ 8,126.43 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 1,401.77 $ 5.00 $ 6,729.66 6.9615% $ 26,409.16

$ 57,466,333.06 5.0091%

139 FIRST SECURITY BANK

123 1486 12/01/2013 11/30/2014 0.12000% 0.12000% $ 7,010.34 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 7,010.34 7.2519% $ 47,324.50

$ 70,324,199.99 6.1298%

286 BANCORPSOUTH 113 1079 11/30/2013 11/28/2014 0.02859% 0.02859% $ 880.72 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 880.72 0.9111% $ 34,707.02

$ 37,448,869.65 3.2642%

187 IBERIABANK 109 1405 12/01/2013 11/30/2014 0.04868% 0.04868% $ 2,461.56 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 2,461.56 2.5464% $ 43,287.22

$ 60,818,544.21 5.3013%

205 U.S. Bank 70 829 12/01/2013 11/30/2014 0.13040% 0.13040% $ 1,928.57 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 1,928.57 1.9950% $ 21,390.36

$ 17,732,608.41 1.5457%

28


Ordered by Total Principal BalanceBank

#Bank Name # of

Accounts# of


TotalAvg Prin.


to Total

86 REGIONS BANK 475 3935 12/01/2013 11/30/2014 0.09997% 0.09997% $ 11,423.35

$ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 11,423.35

11.8170% $ 34,798.28

$ 136,931,242.68

11.9356%

44 ARVEST CENTRAL BANK

428 4592 12/01/2013 11/30/2014 0.04259% 0.04259% $ 4,683.65 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 50,285.02

$ 50,285.02

$ 4,683.65 4.8450% $ 28,733.17

$ 131,942,720.58

11.5008%


137 1718 12/01/2013 11/30/2014 0.09587% 0.09587% $ 8,633.27 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 8,633.27 8.9308% $ 63,913.04

$ 109,802,604.90

9.5710%

194 SIMMONS FIRST NATIONAL BANK

195 2488 12/01/2013 11/30/2014 0.10130% 0.10130% $ 7,397.32 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 7,397.32 7.6522% $ 35,356.86

$ 87,967,859.25 7.6677%

139 FIRST SECURITY BANK

123 1486 12/01/2013 11/30/2014 0.12000% 0.12000% $ 7,010.34 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 7,010.34 7.2519% $ 47,324.50

$ 70,324,199.99 6.1298%

187 IBERIABANK 109 1405 12/01/2013 11/30/2014 0.04868% 0.04868% $ 2,461.56 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 2,461.56 2.5464% $ 43,287.22

$ 60,818,544.21 5.3013%

327 CENTENNIAL BANK

160 1544 01/01/2004 11/30/2014 0.10006% 0.10006% $ 5,066.80 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 5,066.80 5.2414% $ 38,986.62

$ 60,195,339.22 5.2469%

322 BANK OF AMERICA

134 2176 12/01/2013 12/31/2014 0.16950% 0.14036% $ 8,126.43 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 1,401.77 $ 5.00 $ 6,729.66 6.9615% $ 26,409.16

$ 57,466,333.06 5.0091%

286 BANCORPSOUTH 113 1079 11/30/2013 11/28/2014 0.02859% 0.02859% $ 880.72 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 880.72 0.9111% $ 34,707.02

$ 37,448,869.65 3.2642%

108 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF FORT

SMITH

56 712 12/01/2013 11/30/2014 0.05000% 0.05000% $ 1,380.09 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 1,380.09 1.4276% $ 46,650.72

$ 33,215,315.39 2.8952%

29


Ordered by Net RemittedBank

#Bank Name # of

Accounts# of


TotalAvg Prin.


to Total

86 REGIONS BANK

475 3935 12/01/2013 11/30/2014 0.09997% 0.09997% $ 11,423.35

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 11,423.35

11.8170% $ 34,798.28

$ 136,931,242.68

11.9356%


137 1718 12/01/2013 11/30/2014 0.09587% 0.09587% $ 8,633.27 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 8,633.27 8.9308% $ 63,913.04

$ 109,802,604.90

9.5710%

194 SIMMONS FIRST

NATIONAL BANK

195 2488 12/01/2013 11/30/2014 0.10130% 0.10130% $ 7,397.32 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 7,397.32 7.6522% $ 35,356.86

$ 87,967,859.25 7.6677%

139 FIRST SECURITY

BANK

123 1486 12/01/2013 11/30/2014 0.12000% 0.12000% $ 7,010.34 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 7,010.34 7.2519% $ 47,324.50

$ 70,324,199.99 6.1298%

322 BANK OF AMERICA

134 2176 12/01/2013 12/31/2014 0.16950% 0.14036% $ 8,126.43 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 1,401.77 $ 5.00 $ 6,729.66 6.9615% $ 26,409.16

$ 57,466,333.06 5.0091%

327 CENTENNIAL BANK

160 1544 01/01/2004 11/30/2014 0.10006% 0.10006% $ 5,066.80 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 5,066.80 5.2414% $ 38,986.62

$ 60,195,339.22 5.2469%

44 ARVEST CENTRAL

BANK

428 4592 12/01/2013 11/30/2014 0.04259% 0.04259% $ 4,683.65 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 50,285.02

$ 50,285.02

$ 4,683.65 4.8450% $ 28,733.17

$ 131,942,720.58

11.5008%


17 184 12/01/2013 11/30/2014 0.80995% 0.80995% $ 4,254.12 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 4,254.12 4.4007% $ 34,308.40

$ 6,312,745.46 0.5503%


29 349 08/01/2008 11/30/2014 0.26082% 0.26082% $ 3,005.16 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 3,005.16 3.1087% $ 39,769.45

$ 13,879,536.84 1.2098%

80 FIDELITY NATIONAL

BANK

14 179 12/01/2013 11/30/2014 0.18246% 0.18246% $ 2,589.43 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 2,589.43 2.6787% $ 95,137.71

$ 17,029,650.94 1.4844%

30

Firm Contribution Rank ReportDeposit Dates From : 01/01/2014 through 12/31/2014Run Date : Tuesday March 3 2015Rank Firm # Firm Name Total Contribution

1 1377 WILSON & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 2,913.632 739 John NALLEY 2,521.923 746 NICHOLS LAW OFFICE 1,828.954 3151 RAINWATER HOLT & SEXTON 1,682.545 1107 BARETZ LAW OFFICE 1,634.756 818 REID, BURGE, PREVALLET & COLEMAN 1,599.607 390 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 1,588.298 2782 SCHWANDER LAW FIRM 1,511.189 583 TAYLOR KING & ASSOCIATES 1,382.26

10 143 BARRETT-DEACON LAW FIRM 1,339.2311 2280 GLOVER LAW OFFICE 1,308.0512 3407 HOPKINS LAW FIRM 1,233.5813 2304 QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS, TULL & BURROW LAW OFFICE 1,204.9014 506 HODGES & HODGES 1,172.7715 1046 WRIGHT, BERRY, HUGHES & MOORE 1,162.9616 1837 SHAVER & SMITH 1,162.4117 1048 WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 1,116.1918 683 MCMATH LAW FIRM 954.2719 716 MOODY LAW OFFICE 915.4220 1139 MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES & WOODYARD 879.2121 2406 DAVIS LAW FIRM 809.922 2978 HALE, HOLITIK & YOUNG 805.7423 659 MAYES LAW OFFICE 655.6424 354 EDDY LAW OFFICE 652.9125 3470 DUPWE LAW FIRM 620.4726 1231 DANIEL LAW OFFICE 604.9527 3180 WILKES & MCHUGH, P.A. 598.728 3635 Brian D. Reddick 584.8829 2022 BENSON LAW FIRM 575.630 2609 CHANEY LAW OFFICE 572.0231 1021 WILLIAMS & ANDERSON 567.6832 1710 VIRNIG LAW OFFICE 565.0533 540 JACKSON LAW OFFICE 561.8634 2920 GRIFFIN LAW FIRM 532.9835 1034 WOMACK, LANDIS, PHELPS, MCNEILL & MCDANIEL 531.3636 2733 TAYLOR LAW FIRM 514.7437 452 HALEY, CLAYCOMB, ROPER & ANDERSON 485.2638 313 DEININGER & WINGFIELD LAW OFFICE 482.3139 844 ROSENZWEIG LAW OFFICE 480.0440 3779 Coplin, Hardy & Stotts, PLLC 471.0741 753 ODOM & ELLIOTT 470.3242 3302 BALL & STUART LAW FIRM 466.9843 472 HARPER LAW OFFICE 458.22

31

44 879 WALKER LAW FIRM 441.2945 1106 RAMSAY, BRIDGFORTH, HARRELSON & STARLING 441.2246 1475 WALKER LAW OFFICE 440.947 189 BOSWELL LAW FIRM 439.2748 1685 BOYD & BUIE 432.2749 2380 WATKINS LAW OFFICE 408.8250 577 KEMP LAW OFFICE 400.99

45,185.55

96,669.02$

32

(c) Lisa R. Pruitt & Juliana Fehrenbacher 2015

Residents of rural Arkansas face a looming crisis in access to legal representation. Without the help of a lawyer, families with critical legal problems—even those affecting basic human needs like housing—are left to flounder on their own. The national per capita average of attorneys is 4.11 per 1,000 residents. Among the states surrounding Arkansas, the average is 3.28 per 1,000. Arkansas’s average is 2.04 per 1,000. Among the twenty-five most sparsely counties in Arkansas (the "Rural Counties") in 2013, the average was just 0.72 lawyers per 1,000 residents, and many of these lawyers are not in private practice. By 2015, this decreased to .64 lawyers per 1,000 residents; and when looking at only lawyers in private practice actually taking clients (i.e., excluding judges and prosecutors), the average in 2010 was only .44 lawyers per 1,000 residents. At least one Arkansas county has no lawyers at all.

On average, the attorneys in the Rural Counties are older than the general population, and they also tend to be older than the average Arkansas attorney. The rate of new attorneys locating in the Rural Counties is very low, with only fourteen attorneys locating to any of the Rural Counties between 2008 and 2013, and an overall net decrease in rural attorneys between 2013 and 2015. 7 of the Rural Counties have no attorneys who were licensed in this millennium.

Arkansas’s two law schools and the Arkansas Access to Justice Commission (AAJC) are jointly proposing five complementary programs that together will increase the presence of lawyers in rural Arkansas: (1) A loan repayment program for attorneys who locate in Rural Counties; (2) A judicial clerkship program to benefit circuit judges and courts in Rural Counties; (3) A fellowship program for Legal Aid attorneys in Rural Counties; (4) A distance incubator program that emphasizes skills needed to successfully establish practices in in Rural Counties; and (5) the addition of two Legal Aid staff attorney positions in Rural Counties.

In order to probe the likely effectiveness of these programs, AAJC commissioned surveys of Arkansas’s law students and lawyers. One aim of the surveys was to determine attitudes toward practicing law in rural areas. Respondents were also asked directly whether they would take advantage of particular programs to place law students and lawyers in rural practice settings. In addition, the survey sought information on respondents’ geographic backgrounds to determine exposure to rural living, and it sought to determine what factors encourage or discourage a respondent from working in a rural location. They survey also probed

general career interests and demographic information. For practicing attorneys, it also

Access to Justice in Rural Arkansas

Law Student Exposure to Rural Life In order to determine whether law students’ attitudes toward rural living were informed by experience, the survey explored

whether respondents had lived in a rural place. While only 5.5% of UAF respondents and 5.6% of UALR/Bowen respondents identified as having grown up in a county with a population of less than 15,000 people, the survey also elicited information on whether students had spent at least a year in a county with a population of less than 50,000 and, if so, whether they had spent time in a county with a population of 15,000 or less. We focused on the 15,000 population threshold because this is roughly the population cutoff for the state’s 25 most rural counties. UALR/Bowen students had slightly more exposure to rural life than UAF students.

• UAF:o 26.32 % had spent at least a year in a county with a population < 50,000o 11.5 % had spent at least one year in a county with a population < 15,000

Of those who had spent at least one year in a county with a population < 15,000:• 31.25 %would very seriously consider working in a county with a population < 15,000; • 18.75% would seriously consider it• 25% said they would somewhat seriously consider it;• 25% said they would consider it in passing;• None indicated that they would not consider it at all.

• UALR/Bowen:o 28.83 % had spent at least one year in a county with a population < 50,000o 19.8 % spent at least one year in a county with a population < 15,000

• Of those who had spent at least one year in a county with a population < 15,000, 85 % saidthey would consider practicing in a county with a population < 15,000.

This set of surveys were commissioned by AAJC, and designed and executed by Prof. Lisa R. Pruitt at UC Davis School of Law. Each of the surveys used skip logic, which channeled respondents to a set of questions based on their prior responses. For instance, if a respondent indicated that she had grown up in a Rural County or had lived for at least a year in a county with a population less than 15,000, that respondent was asked about the factors that encouraged her to practice in a rural place? The questions asked of law student respondents were largely similar between UA Fayetteville and UALR/Bowen; and the questions administered to practitioners were tailored to their experience practicing.

The UAF survey ran between November 18, 2014, and December 2, 2014, and received a response rate of about 38.5 % (146 of 370 students). The UALR/Bowen survey ran from January 20, 2015, and January 30, 2015, and received a response rate of about 58% (232 of 400 students). The Arkansas lawyer survey ran concurrently with the UALR/Bowen survey, receiving 595 responses, or about 10% of the state’s [5???] practicing lawyers. 33

Post-Graduate Plans and Interest in Rural Fellowships The majority of students at both from UALR/Bowen (60.56%) and UAF (74.55%) plan to practice in Arkansas after graduation.

Students were asked how interested they would be in a program to fund a Legal Aid Fellowship, which would require a Fellow to make a two-year commitment of at least 50% of his/her time providing services in a rural county where the attorney population is sparse and/or aging. Each Fellow would work under supervision and mentorship of a senior staff member of an Arkansas legal aid provider. The Fellows would be guaranteed part-time income and flexibility to spend time creating a paying client base. From UAF, 28.21% said such a proposal would be very attractive, 35.90% said it would be moderately attractive, 30.77% said it would be somewhat attractive, and 5.13% said it would not be attractive at all. At UALR/Bowen, 28.57% said it would be very attractive, 29.59% said it would be moderately attractive, 23.47 % said it would be somewhat attractive, 9.18% said it would not be attractive at all, and 9.18% said they would need more information.

UAF UALR/Bowen

Predictably, students are much more interested in interning in a rural county if the position is paid. When first- and second-year law students from both schools were asked about their interest in summer intern positions in rural counties, the most common response – with close to half of students – was “not interested at all” if the positions were unpaid. On the other hand, close to half of the student respondents said that they would be “very interested” if the position were paid. For paid positions, the second most common response was “moderately interested.” Very few students, 14.42% from UALR/Bowen and 6.41% from UAF, said they were “not interested at all” in the paid opportunity.

Rural Practice “Inheritance”

A large portion of first- and second-year law students said they would be very interested in taking over a retiring lawyer’s practice in a rural county if the retiring lawyer provided training/mentoring during a transition process:

• UAF o Very interested – 31.53%o Moderately interested – 37.31% o Somewhat interested – 28.36%o Not interested at all – 13.43%

Discouraging and Encouraging Factors to Working in Rural Areas

Students were asked to weigh a variety of factors in terms of how encouraging they are in relation to practicing in a rural area. At UAF, the top encouraging factors were: (1) ability to have one’s own practice, (2) ability to develop and maintain a localized clientele, and (3) perception of greater job stability. At UALR/Bowen the top encouraging factors were: (1) perception that legal need is greater in rural areas, (2) opportunity to become community leader, and (3) ability to have and maintain own clientele. Students were given the opportunity to include feedback on “other” encouraging factors to working in a rural community. This included being able to provide access to justice and serve an indigent population; and being able to own a larger piece of property; being able to serve the rural community where they grew up.

Incentives for Practicing in Rural Counties

• UALR/Bowen o Very interested – 31.53%o Moderately interested – 31.53%o Somewhat interested – 26.60%o Not interested at all – 10.34%

Loan Repayment Assistance Programs and Paid Summer Positions

Students were asked, “If Arkansas were to implement a loan repayment program whereby an attorney participating in an underserved rural county would receive some tuition reimbursement, what would be the minimum amount of loan repayment (per year) that you would seriously consider as an incentive for working in such a rural area?” The majority of students from both schools said $5,000 to $9,999 is the minimum amount of loan repayment assistance per year. “At least $10,000” was ranked second by both schools as the annual minimum amount they would consider, followed by $2,500 to $4,999 per year. Less than $2,499 ranked last, with less than 5 % of respondents.

Interest in Rural Fellowships

35

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Other

Do not intend to practice law

Perception that rural workforces and communities are moretraditional

Threat of malpractice lawsuits if I were practicing on my own

Cost of online legal research tools (e.g., Westlaw, Lexis)

Perception of lack of availability of legal mentors

Perception that opportunities for minor children are less richin rural areas

Spouse’s job or other commitments in a non-rural place

Distance from nearest city

Perception that rural areas offer fewer career and economicopportunities

Perception that I would earn a lower income

UAF - ranked from most to least discouraging

Students were also asked to weigh a variety of factors in terms of how discouraging they are in relation to practicing in a rural county. At UAF the top three most discouraging factors were: (1) the perception of earning a lower income, (2) the perception that rural locations have fewer career and economic opportunities, and (3) the distance from the nearest city. A number of UAF students wrote in comments about the lack of restaurants, entertainment, and other amenities, so we added this as an option to the UALR/Bowen survey. We also added “Perceived difficulty in finding a romantic/life partner.” UALR/Bowen ranked the following three as most discouraging: (1) perception of earning a lower income, (2) perceived inability to find clients and perceived lack of career and economic opportunities, and (3) relative lack of entertainment, restaurants, and other similar amenities associated with city life. Students were also given the opportunity to provide their own comments on discouraging factors. This included the perception that gossip would be prevalent in the community; “good ole boy” system; daily commute; being an outsider; and lack of acceptance as an ethnic minority or member of the LGBT community.

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Other

Job opportunity for my spouse or significant other in rural area

Proximity to extended family and friends

Perception of a less competitive job market

Perception that rural areas provide a safe and nurturingenvironment in which to raise minor children

Perception of greater job stability

Greater opportunity to be elected or appointed to a publicoffice in the legal field, e.g., prosecuting attorney or judicial…

Ability to have one’s own practice and maintain localized clientele

Greater opportunity to become a community leader

Perception that legal need is greater in rural areas

UALR/Bowen - ranked from most to least encouraging

UAF DEMOGRAPHICS (146 RESPONDENTS) UALR/BOWEN DEMOGRAPHICS (232 RESPONDENTS)

68% are from Arkansas. 70% are from Arkansas.

32% are under the age of 25, and 40% are between 25 and 30. 64% are in married or committed relationships; and 23% have minor children.

57% are male, 41% are female, and 2% declined to state. 52% are male, 47% identified as female, and 1% declined to state.

25% are first generation to graduate college, and 36% are first generation to attend professional or graduate school.

54% are first generation to graduate college, and 51% are first generation to attend or graduate professional school.

.5%, or 8 respondents, are from a rural county, measured by population of 15,000 or less.

5.6%, or 13 out of 232 respondents, are from a rural county, measured by a population of 15,000 or less.

58% are under the age of 25, and 18% are between 25 and 30 years old. 47% are in a married or committed relationship; and 11% have minor children.

87% of respondents identified as Caucasian, 4% Hispanic, and 3% identified as American Indian.

85% are Caucasian, 1% is Hispanic, and 7% are African American.

UAF and UALR/Bowen Demographics Overall, UALR/Bowen students tend to be older, more likely to be in a committed relationship, more likely to have kids, and slightly more

diverse in terms of race and ethnicity. Additionally, UALR/Bowen had a higher proportion of students from Arkansas, and UALR/Bowen students tended to be first-generation college or first-generation graduate school. Both law schools had a very small population of students from rural counties—just about 5 %.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Do not intend to practice law

Other

Job opportunity for my spouse or signignificatn other in ruralarea

Greater opportunity to run for public office, e.g., prosecutingattorney, circuit judge


Greater opportunity to become a civic leader

Perception that rural areas provide a safe and nurturingenvironment in which to raise minor children



Ability to develop and maintain localized clientele

Ability to have one’s own practice and be one’s own boss

UAF – ranked from most to least encouraging

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Perceived difficulty in finding a romantic/life partner amidst asmaller population

Perception that rural communities are more traditional


Other

Perception that opportunities for minor children are less rich inrural areas

Perceived inability to specialize in a particular legal field

Perception of lack of availability of legal mentors

Cost of online legal research tools (e.g., Westlaw, Lexis)


Relative lack of entertainment, restaurant, and other similaramenities associated with cities

Perceived inability to find clients/perceived lack of career andeconomic opportunities


*weighted for averages

UALR/Bowen – ranked from most to least discouraging

36

Practicing Attorneys in Arkansas

Rural Practitioners versus Non-Rural Practitioners

Only 2.7 % of respondents live in a rural county, but the number of respondents who practice in a rural county is slightly higher: 7.69% (41 respondents). Thus, more than 4% of respondents who practice in a rural county commute from a county that is non-rural. Moreover, a majority of attorneys, whether rural (61.54%) or urban (66.67%), opined that their market has good practice opportunities for young lawyers.

Do you believe that your market (town, city or county) has good practice opportunities for young lawyers?

While rural practitioners tended to be willing to mentor a young lawyer in their community (89.47 %), only 43.59% said they would you be willing to hire a young lawyer to practice in their law firm or to work part time while they sought other work on his or her own time. On the other hand, compared to rural lawyers, non-rural lawyers are both less likely to be willing to mentor a young lawyer (76.91 %), and also less likely to be willing to hire a young lawyer to practice in their firm or work part time while the young lawyer sought other work on their own time (33.26 %).

Respondents who said they practiced in a county with a population of 15,000 or less ranked the following factors as encouraging in their decision to practice in a rural county (from most influencing to least encouraging):

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Spouse’s job opportunity in a rural area


Greater opportunity to be elected or appointed to a public office in thelegal field, i.e. prosecuting attorney or judicial office

Perception that legal need is greater in rural areas


Perception that rural areas provide a safe and nurturing environment inwhich to raise minor children

Greater opportunity to become a community leader

Ability to have one’s own practice and maintain localized clientele


Factors encouraging rural lawyers to practice in a rural county (37 respondents)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

Perceived difficulty in finding a romantic partner amidst a smallerpopulation

Perception that rural communities are more traditional


Cost of online legal research tools (e.g.,Westlaw, Lexis)

Perceived inability to specialize in a particular field

Perception of lack of availability of mentors

Perception that opportunities for minor children are less rich in rural areas


Relative lack of entertainment, restaurants, and other similar amenitiesassociated with cities


Perceived inability to find clients/Perceived lack of career and economicopportunities

Factors discouraging non-rural lawyers from practicing in a rural county (453 respondents)

The following results were collected through a survey administered to Arkansas State Bar members between January 20, 2015, and January 30, 2015. The survey garnered 595 responses.

Respondents who said they practiced in a county with a population greater than 15,000 ranked the following factors as discouraging when considering practicing in a rural county (from most influencing to least influencing):

37

o Location 92% live in the state of Arkansas 2.7% (16) of respondents live in a rural county (pop.

<15K) 5.3% declined to state

o Age 21% under age of 34 22% between 35-44 years of age 19% between 45-54 years of age 23% between 55-64 years of age 15% over the age of 65

o Familial status 87% married or in committed relationship 39% have minor children

o Gender 64% male 35% female 1% decline to state

o Ethnicity 90% Caucasian 4% African American 1% Hispanic/Latino 1% Native American 4% declined to state

o Familial Education Background 31% first generation to graduate college 56% first generation to attend graduate/professional school

o Outside income 28% receive an income unrelated to law 41% of respondents’ outside income is < 10% of annual income

Practicing Attorney Pro-Bono Hours Based on response percentages, there does not seem to be a striking difference in the amount of no-fee pro bono work rural and non-rural lawyers do.1 When rural lawyers were asked how many hours of no-fee pro bono work they do, the top three responses were 25.64% completing 10-24 hours in 2014, 17.95% completing 50-74 hours, and 15.38% completing 0 hours in 2014. On the other hand, 20.63% of non-rural lawyers completed 10-24 hours of no-fee pro bono work in 2014, 19.58% completed 0 hours, and 19.53% completed 25-49 hours.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0 hours1-9 hours

10-24 hours25-49 hours50-74 hours75-99 hours

100-149 hours150-199 hours

200+ hours

Percentage of Respondents

No-Fee Pro Bono Hours

Non-rural lawyers

Rural Lawyers

Furthermore, there also does not seem to be a striking difference in the amount of reduced-fee pro bono hours done by rural and non-rural lawyers in 2014. When rural lawyers were asked how many hours of reduced-fee pro bono work they did in 2014, the top responses were 23.68% completing 25-49 hours, 21.05% completing 0 hours, and 13.16% completing both 10- 24 hours and 50-74 hours. On the other hand, 20.63% of non-rural lawyers completed 10-24 hours, 19.58% completed 0 hours, and 19.38% completed 25-49 hours.

0 5 10 15 20 25

0 hours1-9 hours

10-24 hours25-49 hours50-74 hours75-99 hours

100-149 hours150-199 hours

200+ hours

Percentage of Respondents

Reduced-Fee Pro Bono Hours

Non-rural lawyers

Rural Lawyers

Practicing Attorney Demographics

38

1

Amy Johnson

From: Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts <[email protected]> on behalf of Groudine, Beverly <[email protected]>

Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 10:30 AMTo: [email protected]: Follow-Up - Bank of America Settlement Conference CallAttachments: LSC Poverty Population-FY2014 Allocation.xlsx

I hope that many of you were able to join the call yesterday with Karen Lash and Bob Bullock of the DOJ Access to Justice Office. While I know that many questions remain unanswered, I do believe that some valuable information was provided. As I mentioned on the call, DOJ attorneys have put one of Bank of America’s attorneys in contact with me, and I want to recap what I discussed on the call about that conversation, along with one other piece of information.

1. When will the settlement funds be distributed? When I asked the attorney this question, his response was: “I think the bottom line is that the Bank intends to make the donations as soon as it has all relevant approvals to do so, which it intends to seek expeditiously.” My sense from the conversation is that you will be seeing the funds sooner rather than later.

2. How many programs will receive the initially $200,000?

In my discussions with the Bank of America attorney, it was clear that B of A will need to do more research before this question can be answered, particularly regarding the Territories. This is the case because if there is no IOLTA program in a jurisdiction, the settlement agreement provides that settlement funds can go to other “statewide bar association affiliated intermediaries” that provide funds to legal aid organizations. Whether such entities exist in those jurisdictions that do not have IOLTA programs will need to be researched. Another issue that B of A will need to decide is whether both programs in Alabama receive the $200,000 or if that amount is to be divided between them. Thus, there is no answer yet as to how many entities will receive funds.

3. Based on information from the U.S. Census, what will be the percentage of the remainder of the “IOLTA

Donation” portion of the settlement funds received by each program/jurisdiction?

As I think most of you know, the settlement agreement states that the remainder, after the $200,000 is distributed to each program/jurisdiction, will be distributed as follows: “…pro rata among all jurisdictions based on poverty population data, in the manner employed for funding distribution by the Legal Services Corporation based on data collected by the U.S Census Bureau.” We need an answer to question #3 above before we will know what the remainder is, to which programs/jurisdictions it will be distributed and thus what the exact percentage of the poverty population will be for each of those jurisdictions. That being said, I did request from Jim Sandman information on the percentage of the LSC Basic Field grant that is received by each state, Territory and D.C., based on the U.S. Census data. I have attached the chart that he provided to me; I have also provided it to the B of A attorney. However, the B of A attorney made clear to me that B of A will engage in its own analysis of the poverty population data available through the U.S. Census Bureau once it has all the other information it needs. As a result, and given all the variables that still exist, no one should depend on the attached chart to determine the actual percentage or amount of the remaining funds (after the initial $200,000 per

39

2

program/jurisdiction is subtracted) that will be distributed to each program/jurisdiction. Nevertheless, that chart may provide you with some general sense of what those percentages may look like.

4. E‐Mail from Bank of America Foundation

Finally, you may recall that I previously reported that I had heard from a few IOLTA directors that they hadreceived an e‐mail from the Bank of America Foundation, requesting an “update of records.” As it turns out,that request had nothing to do with the settlement. Instead, it was only sent to those programs that previouslyreceived funding from the B of A Foundation to, in fact, update the Foundation’s records.

I know that many questions regarding the settlement remain, but I think we need to be patient and keep in mind how fortunate we are that more funds are being made available for distribution by IOLTA programs for much needed legal assistance. As soon as I have any additional information from Bank of America’s counsel, I will certainly let you know.

Bev

Bev Groudine Staff Counsel, Commission on IOLTA Associate Counsel, Standing Committee on Legal Aid & Indigent Defendants American Bar Association 321 N. Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654

T: 312/988-5771 F: 312/932-6425 [email protected]

http://www.americanbar.org

From: Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Caitlin Davis Carlson Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 1:28 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Bank of America Conference Call

Hi IOLTA colleagues,

When the initial national foreclosure settlement occurred two years ago, the Legal Foundation of Washington applied to our state attorney general for funds to do a multi‐year foreclosure project. I am attaching a copy of our grant application just in case it is helpful to you as you think about strategies for using the BOA settlement funds in your own states. Feel free to email me if you have questions.

Caitlin

Caitlin Davis Carlson Executive Director Legal Foundation of Washington

40

3

It's not justice if it's not equal

From: Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Groudine, Beverly Sent: Wednesday, October 1, 2014 2:08 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Bank of America Conference Call

Below is the call‐in information for the conference call scheduled for Thursday, October 2nd at 1 pm CENTRAL TIME with representatives of the Department of Justice Access to Justice Initiatives Office regarding the Bank of America settlement:

To join the call, please dial 866/646-6488. When asked for the code, dial 108-626-7850, and as instructed, follow that number with the # sign.

Please note that you will need to individually mute your line by hitting *6 (“star” 6) after you dial into the call. The call will only work if everyone except the speakers are on mute.

Karen Lash and Bob Bullock will be addressing some general questions regarding distribution of funds and related scope issues. They will not take any other questions during the call, but are open to holding another call in the future, as more questions arise. The call cannot be recorded, so I strongly recommend that each U.S. IOLTA program has a representative listening in on the call.

We are very fortunate that Karen and Bob are willing to provide technical assistance to the community on this important issue. I am and I know that you are looking forward to hearing from them on Thursday.

Bev

Bev Groudine Staff Counsel, Commission on IOLTA Associate Counsel, Standing Committee on Legal Aid & Indigent Defendants American Bar Association 321 N. Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654

T: 312/988-5771 F: 312/932-6425 [email protected]

http://www.americanbar.org

______________________________________ Thank you for your continued interest in this list. A summary of your discussion list subscriptions, including IOLTA-LIST, can be found at http://apps.americanbar.org/elistserv/home.cfm . This new List Subscription Page allows you to manage your lists - unsubscribe from existing or join others.

If you have any issues you may either contact the list owner via email: [email protected] , or the ABA Service Center at phone: 1-800-285-2221 or email:

41

4

[email protected] . ______________________________________


If you have any issues you may either contact the list owner via email: [email protected] , or the ABA Service Center at phone: 1-800-285-2221 or email: [email protected] . ______________________________________


If you have any issues you may either contact the list owner via email: [email protected] , or the ABA Service Center at phone: 1-800-285-2221 or email: [email protected] . ______________________________________

42

3/8/2015 Rutledge to abide by 2013 limit on use of $21.5 million lawsuit win; so where will windfall go? | Arkansas Blog | Arkansas news, politics, opinion, restauran…

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2015/03/02/rutledgetoabideby2013limitonuseof215millionlawsuitwinsowherewillwindfallgo#more 1/3

LOG IN TO COMMENT / CREATE ACCOUNTDIGITAL MEMBERSHIP ACTIVE

ARKANSAS COURTS / ARKANSAS POLITICS

0 Tweet Share

Thanks for being aDigital Member!

« Artist claims scandal reference in… | Pay raises for politicians: Two jus… »

Arkansas BlogArchives | RSS

Rutledge to abide by 2013 limit on use of $21.5 million lawsuit win; so wherewill windfall go?Posted By Max Brantley on Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:25 AM

Attorney General Leslie Rutledge took office just in time to be in charge when the state of Arkansas completed a long-running piece of litigationagainst Standard and Poor's over inflated financial ratings, a case that produced a $21.5 million windfall for Arkansas in a multistate class action lawsuit.

When the outcome was announced, the office said the winnings would go to the Consumer Protection and Education Fund. But I was reminded recentlythat the 2013 legislature moved to rein in Attorney General Dustin McDaniel's free-spending ways with that slush fund. It limited the fund balance to $1million and limited its use to litigation support, expert witness fees, court filing fees, process server fees, witness fees, court costs, court reporter fees,attorney and staff training, travel expenses, consumer education and office expenses and improvements.

The S&P money is to be paid within 30 days of receiving "written processing instructions" from the state of Arkansas. It also says it is to be paid to theAttorney General's Consumer Education and Enforcement Account to be used "in accordance" with Act 763 of 2013.

I asked the attorney general's office about plans for the money, in that it exceeded by more than $20 million the amount available to the office to spend inthe consumer account. This was the response from spokesman Judd Deere:

Attorney General Rutledge will follow the law and guidelines set forth in Act 763 of 2013. Although the State has not received the fundsyet, the Attorney General has been consulting with the Governor as well as the Leaders of the House and Senate regarding the settlementdollars.

$20 million, though one-time money, could come in handy in any number of areas of Gov. Asa Hutchinson's budget. Where? I'm trying to find out.

The settlement was entered Feb. 5. The money is expected March 9.

Here's an idea: How about pre-K?

Tags: Leslie Rutledge, Consumer Protection Division, Standard and Poor's, Dustin McDaniel, Asa Hutchinson, Arkansas Courts, Arkansas Politics

Speaking of...Opposition organizes to school outsourcing billMarch 8, 2015

by Max BrantleyLittle Rock residents aren't happy about news of plan to to turnover the school district, its facilities and its tax base to private management companies forcharter schools. /more/

Justin Harris: Former legislator sympathetic to criticism of DHSMarch 8, 2015

by Max BrantleyFormer Sen. Jimmy Jeffress says he sympathizes with Rep. Justin Harris' criticism of the Department of Human Services based on his own experience on adifferent issue. /more/

Foster family disputes key statements from Justin HarrisMarch 7, 2015

by Benjamin HardyCraig and Cheryl Hart were the foster parents of the two sisters who were adopted by Rep. Justin Harris and his wife Marsha and later "rehomed." The

0Like Share

43

http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/Rss.xml?category=869847

http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/ArticleArchives?author=3018956

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2015/03/07/foster-family-disputes-key-staments-from-justin-harris

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2015/03/08/opposition-organizes-to-school-outsourcing-bill

http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/ArticleArchives?tag=Leslie%20Rutledge

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/arkansas-courts/

http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2013/2013R/Acts/Act763.pdf

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2015/02/03/arkansas-wins-215-million-in-suit-against-standard-and-poors

http://www.arktimes.com/

http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/ArkansasBlog/blogs/Archives

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2015/03/02/artist-claims-scandal-reference-in-clinton-portrait

http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/ArkansasBlog/

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2015/03/08/justin-harris-former-legislator-sympathetic-to-criticism-of-dhs

https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/imaging/IMAGES/DMS/CK_Image.Present2?DMS_ID=8TNJZA52NMYL3RWBHJWCVURK7WK4DU


http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=300&pubid=ra-4ea1bef85170328c

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/arkansas-politics/


http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/ArticleArchives?tag=Dustin%20McDaniel

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2015/03/08/justin-harris-former-legislator-sympathetic-to-criticism-of-dhs

http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/ArticleArchives?tag=Arkansas%20Politics

http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/ArticleArchives?tag=Consumer%20Protection%20Division

http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/ArticleArchives?tag=Arkansas%20Courts

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2015/03/08/opposition-organizes-to-school-outsourcing-bill

http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/ArticleArchives?tag=Asa%20Hutchinson


http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/ArticleArchives?tag=Standard%20and%20Poor%27s

http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/DigitalMembershipFAQ/Page

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2015/03/02/pay-raises-for-politicians-two-justices-complain-they-need-even-more

Stricken language would be deleted from and underlined language would be added to present law.

Act 763 of the Regular Session

*BPG391* 03-09-2013 10:56:23 BPG391

State of Arkansas As Engrossed: H3/14/13 1

89th General Assembly A Bill2

Regular Session, 2013 HOUSE BILL 2083 3

4

By: Representative Lea 5

6

For An Act To Be Entitled 7

AN ACT REGARDING SETTLEMENT DISPOSITION IN CONSUMER 8

PROTECTION LAWSUITS BROUGHT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; 9

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 10

11

12

Subtitle 13

REGARDING SETTLEMENT DISPOSITION IN 14

CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWSUITS BROUGHT BY 15

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. 16

17

18

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS: 19

20

SECTION 1. Arkansas Code § 4-88-105(e), regarding a consumer 21

protection investigation account managed by the Consumer Protection Division 22

of the Office of the Attorney General, is amended to read as follows: 23

(e) The expenses of the division shall be paid from funds provided for 24

that purpose by law;, including, without limiting the generality of the 25

foregoing, limitation: 26

(1) funds made available by the state or by the United States, 27

or by political subdivisions or agencies thereof. Funds made available by the 28

state, a state agency, or a state political subdivision; 29

(2) Funds made available by the United States Government or a 30

federal agency; or 31

(3)(A) Funds deposited into a Consumer Education and Enforcement 32

Account, managed by the division, from settlements or judgments in favor of 33

the state related to a lawsuit or assurance of voluntary compliance in which 34

the state was a party. 35

(B) The Consumer Education and Enforcement Account shall 36

44

As Engrossed: H3/14/13 HB2083

2 03-09-2013 10:56:23 BPG391

not carry a balance greater than one million dollars($1,000,000), and the 1

funds in the account shall be used in a manner determined by the Office of 2

the Attorney General, including without limitation: 3

(i) Litigation support; 4

(ii) Expert witness fees; 5

(iii) Court filing fees; 6

(iv) Process server fees; 7

(v) Witness fees; 8

(vi) Court costs; 9

(vii) Court reporter fees; 10

(viii) Attorney and staff training; 11

(ix) Travel expenses; 12

(x) Consumer education; 13

(xi) Office expenses and improvements; and 14

(xii) Investigation expenses. 15

16

SECTION 2. Arkansas Code § 4-88-105, concerning the Consumer 17

Protection Division of the Office of the Attorney General, is amended to add 18

an additional subsection to read as follows: 19

(f)(1) As used in this section, "state agency" includes without 20

limitation: 21

(A) A state agency, office, or department; 22

(B) A board or commission; and 23

(C) A public college or university. 24

(2) When a settlement is agreed to or a judgment is entered in a 25

lawsuit in which the state is a party receiving all or part of the settlement 26

or judgment, the Attorney General shall distribute the funds in the following 27

manner: 28

(A) Restitution to Arkansas consumers or state agencies, 29

or for other purposes, as designated by the court order or settlement 30

agreement; 31

(B) Designation of cash funds to a state agency having a 32

nexus to the underlying litigation; 33

(C) Payment of attorney's fees or civil penalties under § 34

4-88-113(a)(1), § 4-88-113(c), or § 4-88-113(e); or 35

(D) Payment into the Consumer Education and Enforcement 36

45


3 03-09-2013 10:56:23 BPG391

Account, as authorized by § 4-88-105. 1

(3)(A) Funds to be distributed as described in subdivisions 2

(f)(2)(B)—(D) shall be distributed in the manner prescribed by this section 3

within one hundred twenty (120) days of the receipt of the funds. 4

(B) Restitution funds shall be distributed to Arkansas 5

consumers as soon as is practicable and in accordance with any applicable 6

court order. 7

(4)(A) The Office of the Attorney General shall on a quarterly 8

basis provide to the Legislative Council or Joint Budget Committee a report 9

of all cash funds received from court orders or settlement agreements. 10

(B) The report shall include: 11

(i) The case name of the court order or settlement 12

agreement; 13

(ii) The amount of funds received by the Office of 14

the Attorney General for each court order or settlement agreement; and 15

(iii)(a) A plan for disbursement of the funds. 16

(b) If cash funds received from a court order 17

or settlement agreement are expended for any purpose, including consumer 18

education and enforcement activities, the report must itemize specific 19

activities subject to the exclusions provided in §§ 4-88-111 and 25-1-20

403(1)(B). 21

(c) The report shall also itemize the specific 22

consumer education and enforcement activities funded for the Office of the 23

Attorney General. 24

(C) If funds received from a court order or settlement 25

agreement are given to a specific entity by the Office of Attorney General 26

the report must include: 27

(i) If the court order or settlement agreement 28

directed monies to be given to a specific entity. 29

(ii) If the court order or settlement agreement 30

directs funds to a specific entity, the Office of the Attorney General shall 31

provide a summary of input regarding the drafting of the court order or 32

settlement agreement. 33

(iii) If the Office of the Attorney General receives 34

funds from a court order or settlement agreement that does not require 35

disbursement of funds to a specific entity, the Office of the Attorney 36

46


4 03-09-2013 10:56:23 BPG391

General shall report a rationale for disbursing funds to a specific entity. 1

(iv) A report of current balances of all 2

unappropriated cash fund holdings received by court order or settlement 3

agreement by the Office of the Attorney General. 4

(D) The quarterly reports shall be provided no later than 5

the fifteenth day of the month immediately following the end of each quarter. 6

7

/s/Lea 8

9

10

APPROVED: 04/04/2013 11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

47

1

Amy Johnson

From: Stark Ligon <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 10:19 AMTo: Amy JohnsonCc: Stark LigonSubject: RE: Proposal for unclaimed IOLTA Funds

I would think yes. I will check later this week when I return from a trip to Fayetteville. May I mention this subject to Justice Goodson when she and I meet at noon today to go over pending OPC‐CPC matters?

Stark Ligon Executive Director & Chief Disciplinary Counsel Arkansas Supreme Court Office of Professional Conduct 2100 Riverfront Drive, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72202‐1747 Tel 501‐376‐0313, 1‐800‐506‐6631, Fax 501‐376‐3438

Cell 501‐590‐0122, [email protected]

From: Amy Johnson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 10:15 AM To: Stark Ligon Subject: RE: Proposal for unclaimed IOLTA Funds

It went to the back burner last year while we were focusing on getting our two foundations merged. We are now picking this back up and have the benefit of information from other states that are looking at doing this. We’d like to move forward with this with the goal of perhaps getting something adopted before the end of the year. Is this something that your Committee is still interested in/supportive of?

From: Stark Ligon [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 10:13 AM To: Amy Johnson Cc: Stark Ligon Subject: RE: Proposal for unclaimed IOLTA Funds

Amy, whatever happened to this proposal for a new Admin Order on unclaimed IOLTA account funds? Thanks, Stark

Stark Ligon Executive Director & Chief Disciplinary Counsel Arkansas Supreme Court Office of Professional Conduct 2100 Riverfront Drive, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72202‐1747 Tel 501‐376‐0313, 1‐800‐506‐6631, Fax 501‐376‐3438

Cell 501‐590‐0122, [email protected]

48

2

From: Amy Johnson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 4:07 PM To: Stark Ligon Subject: Proposal for unclaimed IOLTA Funds

Stark,

I wanted to share with you a proposal that the IOLTA Foundation Board has reviewed and tentatively approved. I know you and I discussed this a while back, and you mentioned that there was a court committee looking at this specific issue. The proposed language would be an added section to Rule 1.15:

(d) Unclaimed or Unidentifiable Trust Account Funds.

(1) When a lawyer or law firm cannot identify or locate the owner of funds in its IOLTA or non-IOLTA trust account for a period of five (5) years, it shall pay the funds to the Arkansas IOLTA Foundation. At the time such funds are remitted, the lawyer shall submit to the Arkansas IOLTA Foundation and the Office of the Committee on Professional Conduct the name and last known address of each person appearing from the lawyer’s or law firm’s records to be entitled to the funds, if known, along with the amount of any unclaimed or unidentified funds.

(2) If, within two (2) years of making a payment of unclaimed or unidentified funds to the Arkansas IOLTA Foundation, the lawyer or law firm identifies and locates the owner of funds paid, the Arkansas IOLTA Foundation shall refund the sum to the lawyer or law firm. The Arkansas IOLTA Foundation shall maintain sufficient reserves to pay all claims for such funds.

Please feel free to share this with anyone you think may be interested in weighing in, and certainly let me know if you have any suggestions or concerns.

Thanks! Amy

Amy Dunn Johnson Executive Director Arkansas Access to Justice Commission Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation Arkansas IOLTA Foundation 303 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 210 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 975-3772 (direct dial) (501) 376-3664 (facsimile) http://www.arkansasjustice.org Access to Justice? There's an app for that. Download iProBono here.

49

3/8/2015 IOLTA Fall 2014/Winter 2015

http://www.americanbar.org/publications/dialogue_home/dialogue_archive/ls_dial_fa14wi15_home/ls_dial_iolta1.html 1/5

Claiming Unclaimed Property in IOLTA Accounts forLegal Aid: The Oregon Experience

By Judith Baker

Oregon is the only state in which unclaimed or abandoned clientfunds held in lawyer trust accounts are used to fund legal aidprograms. This became effective January 1, 2010, as a result ofthe 2009 Oregon Legislature's amendment to the UniformDisposition of Unclaimed Property Act (ORS 98.302 to 98.436). Thestatutory changes have had the positive impact of providingfunding for legal aid while not burdening the Oregon State Bar withthe responsibility of developing a new system for unclaimed fundsforwarded from lawyers' trust accounts.

Legislative History

In 2009, at the urging of an Oregon lawyer, the Oregon State BarBoard of Governors made Senate Bill (SB) 687 part of itslegislative agenda. If passed, SB 687 would amend the UniformDisposition of Unclaimed Property Act to requireunclaimed/abandoned (unclaimed) client money in lawyer trustaccounts to be used to fund the Oregon State Bar's Legal ServicesProgram (OSB LSP). The OSB LSP is charged with managing thestate funds appropriated to legal aid and providing ongoingoversight and evaluation to ensure compliance and further theprogram's goals.

Prior to the passage of SB 687 the unclaimed client money held inlawyer trust accounts went to the Oregon Department of StateLands (DSL). The DSL puts all unclaimed property it receives in theCommon School Fund which has a number of sources of money.The Common School Fund is managed by the Land Board with theproceeds from the Fund used to support Oregon's K12 publicschool system. The Land Board is composed of the Governor,Secretary of State, and State Treasurer.

A major factor in the passage of SB 687 was the fact that Oregon's

Dialogue Vol. 18Issue 1 Home

Dialogue HomeDialogue Archives

Home > Publications > Dialogue Home > Dialogue Archive > Fall 2014/Winter 2015 > IOLTA Fall2014/Winter 2015

50

http://www.americanbar.org/content/aba/publications/dialogue_home.html

http://www.linkedin.com/company/american-bar-association

http://www.americanbar.org/content/aba/publications/dialogue_home/dialogue_archive/ls_dial_fa14wi15_home.html

https://www.facebook.com/AmericanBarAssociation

http://www.americanbar.org/content/aba/publications.html

http://www.americanbar.org/content/aba.html

http://www.americanbar.org/content/aba/publications/dialogue_home/dialogue_archive/ls_dial_fa14wi15_home.html

http://apps.americanbar.org/legalservices/dialogue/dialarchive.html

http://www.americanbar.org/content/aba/publications/dialogue_home/dialogue_archive.html

https://twitter.com/abaesq

http://www.americanbar.org/content/aba/publications/dialogue_home.html

http://www.americanbar.org/content/aba/publications/dialogue_home/dialogue_archive/ls_dial_fa14wi15_home/ls_dial_iolta1.html



Governor, Secretary of State and Treasurer were highly supportiveof legal aid and wanted to see the bill pass. Because they all sit onthe Land Board, they were able to minimize DSL's opposition to thebill. DSL argued that carving out an exception and havingunclaimed client properties go for a different purpose was aslippery slope and others would want an exception. The Bar'sposition was that this exception was valid because there is a closenexus between supporting families through adequately fundedschools and supporting families through legal aid advocacy. Inaddition, the amount of unclaimed client funds in lawyer trustaccounts forwarded to the OSB LSP would not have an impact onthe principle in the Common School Fund that would result in ameasureable decrease in the Fund's return on investment andability to support Oregon's schools.

The Resulting System

The amendments to the Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed PropertyAct made the OSB LSP a proxy of the DSL with the unclaimedproperty system essentially staying the same for unclaimed clientfunds forwarded from lawyer trust accounts. Lawyers still use theDSL forms to forward unclaimed client funds. The DSL maintainsthe website searchable by the owner (person or entity to which theproperty belongs) and the owner still contacts the DSL whenmaking a claim. The only changes to the DSL system are that: (1)lawyers now forward the unclaimed client funds to the OSB LSPwith copies of the DSL submission forms (DSL receives theoriginals): and (2) the DSL forwards owner claims to the OSB LSPto review and process.

An advantage to not developing a new system is that the DSLmaintains the responsibility for making an effort to reunite theclients with their funds. They use advertising, public events, andstaff presentations to notify the public about their unclaimedproperty.

Challenge of Disbursing Funds to Legal Aid

After SB 687 passed, the OSB LSP became the custodian for thereported client funds. Pursuant to the Uniform Disposition ofUnclaimed Property Act, the funds have to be held in safekeepingfor perpetuity. This created a dilemma concerning how to disbursethe principle so that legal aid received funding but the OSB did nottake on undue risk. After much deliberation a distribution methodand reserve policy was approved by the OSB Board of Governors.Under the policy, the OSB LSP holds $100,000 in reserve to coverpotential claims and distributes the revenue that arrives each yearabove that amount. The amount of funds disbursed changes fromyear to year depending on the unclaimed funds received andclaims made each year. The OSB also entered into an agreementwith the legal aid providers in which the legal aid providers agreed

51



AnnualUnclaimedPropertyFund

FarmersClassActionFund

Total PropertyReceived to Date $ 454,221 $518,900

Claims Made byOwners $(31,118) $(6,363)

Total Distributions toPrograms $(323,103) $(191,347)

Funds in Reserve $100,000 $321,190

Total Disbursed toLegal Aid from bothFunds $514,450

Number ofProperties Received 1138 476

Number ofProperties Claimed 16 7

to reimburse the OSB if the allotted reserve gets diminished ordepleted; to date, the legal aid providers have not had to provideany reimbursement. This disbursement method and reserve policyis reviewed each year to ensure that the policy is still valid giventhe current circumstances of the fund.

Revenue Received and Distributed

One of the biggest surprises concerning this funding source is howmuch money it has generated for legal aid. Since 2010 the OSBLSP has collected $454,221 in unclaimed client property in theannual reporting cycle and $518,900 in unclaimed funds from aclass action filed in state court, for a total of $973,121. Since theclass action funds are onetime money, they have a differentdistribution method from the annual cycle and will be disbursed tolegal aid over three consecutive years. When adding both theannual funds and class action funds together, the OSB LSP hasdisbursed a total of $514,450 in unclaimed client funds to legal aidsince 2010. See chart below.

Statute vs. Court Rule

Some states are considering a court rule instead of implementing astatutory change as was undertaken in Oregon. There are factorsthat should be taken into consideration when deciding to proceedwith a court rule. All states, including the District of Columbia,

52



have unclaimedproperty laws which declare money, property, andother assets to be abandoned after a period of inactivity. Since1954 there have been several uniform property acts that havebeen adopted in various forms by the different states. The intentof these acts is to create uniformity for entities that conductbusiness in various states, and to give the states rather than thebusinesses the benefit of retention of the unclaimed property.It iscommon for an entity to be located in one state but be required tocomply with the unclaimed property laws of several states. In aneffort to eliminate disputes between states concerning which statereceives the unclaimed money, the United States Supreme Court inTexas vs. New Jersey, 379 US 674, 85 S Ct 626, 13 L Ed 2d 596(1965) set two basic rules of priority. The primary rule is thatunclaimed property goes to the state of the owner's last knownaddress and the secondary rule is if no address is known, it isreturned to the state in which the business holding the funds islocated.

The OSB LSP became aware of the primary priority rule whenunclaimed client funds from out of state lawyer trust accounts wereforwarded to the OSB LSP because the client's last known addresswas in Oregon. In the alternative, Oregon lawyers must send anyunclaimed client funds to the state of the client's last knownaddress. If a state implements a court rule, this interrupts the flowof unclaimed property pursuant to the uniform statutes andSupreme Court decision. It may be argued that the courts havejurisdiction over lawyers, but state laws also have jurisdiction overlawyers because lawyers are conducting business in the state.Another important factor is that there is generally no statute oflimitation concerning when an owner can claim property understate uniform statutes. Thus, court rules that place a limit on whenan owner can claim his or her property are inconsistent with theuniform unclaimed property statutes that currently exist.

Aside from Oregon, New York and New Jersey are the only twostates in which the unclaimed client funds in lawyer trust accountsdo not go directly to the state entity that receives other unclaimedproperty. Both states have done this by court rule. In New York,the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection holds the unclaimed clientfunds and staff attempt to locate missing clients to return thedeposits. In New Jersey, the unclaimed client funds are depositedwith the Superior Court Trust Fund. The Superior Court TrustFund grants priority to the New Jersey Lawyers' Fund for ClientProtection for those unclaimed funds that are unidentifiable.

Conclusion

Oregon has found that there is money for legal aid programs inlawyer trust accounts. The way Oregon has taken advantage of thisfact is by amending the appropriate statute and not by

1

2

3

4

53



implementing a court rule. The statutory changes have had thepositive impact of providing funding for legal aid while notburdening the OSB LSP with the responsibility of developing a newsystem or creating a system that is inconsistent with state statuteor a United States Supreme Court ruling.

Judith Baker has been the Director of the Legal Services Programfor the Oregon State Bar and Executive Director of the Oregon LawFoundation since 2005 and was previously a legal aid staffattorney.

Endnotes:

1 State Unclaimed Property Laws, James K. Richmond2 The Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection of the State of New York,Annual Report of the Board of Trustees for Calendar Year 2013

3 N.J. Ct. R. 1:216

4 N.J. Ct. R. 1:2023 (e)

54

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

78th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2015 Regular Session

House Bill 2700Sponsored by Representatives READ, WILLIAMSON (Presession filed.)

SUMMARY

The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the body thereof subjectto consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor’s brief statement of the essential features of themeasure as introduced.

Authorizes court, as part of settlement or judgment in class action, to approve process for pay-ment of damages. Directs court to order that at least 50 percent of amount awarded as damages andnot paid to class members be paid to Oregon State Bar for funding Legal Services Program. Directscourt to order that remainder of amount not paid to class members be paid to entity for purposesrelated to class action or benefiting interests of class members.

Declares emergency, effective on passage.

A BILL FOR AN ACT

Relating to lawsuits; creating new provisions; amending ORCP 32 F and 32 L; and declaring an

emergency.

Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:

SECTION 1. ORCP 32 F is amended to read:

F Notice and exclusion.

F(1) When ordering that an action be maintained as a class action under this rule, the court

shall direct that notice be given to some or all members of the class under subsection E(2) of this

rule, shall determine when and how this notice should be given and shall determine whether, when,

how, and under what conditions putative members may elect to be excluded from the class. The

matters pertinent to these determinations ordinarily include: (a) the nature of the controversy and

the relief sought; (b) the extent and nature of any member’s injury or liability; (c) the interest of the

party opposing the class in securing a final resolution of the matters in controversy; (d) the ineffi-

ciency or impracticality of separately maintained actions to resolve the controversy; (e) the cost of

notifying the members of the class; and (f) the possible prejudice to members to whom notice is not

directed. When appropriate, exclusion may be conditioned on a prohibition against institution or

maintenance of a separate action on some or all of the matters in controversy in the class action

or a prohibition against use in a separately maintained action of any judgment rendered in favor

of the class from which exclusion is sought.

[F(2)(i) Prior to the entry of a judgment against a defendant the court shall request members of the

class who may be entitled to individual monetary recovery to submit a statement in a form prescribed

by the court requesting affirmative relief which may also, where appropriate, require information re-

garding the nature of the loss, injury, claim, transactional relationship, or damage.]

[F(2)(ii) The form of the statement shall be designed to meet the ends of justice. In determining the

language and form of the documents to be sent class members under subsection F(2)(i) or (iii), the court

shall consider at least: (a) the nature of the acts of the defendant; (b) the amount of knowledge a class

member would have about the extent of such member’s damages; (c) the nature of the class including

the probable degree of sophistication of its members and any special needs created by class members’

disabilities; (d) whether it is appropriate for the statement to be prepared in alternative formats, such

NOTE: Matter in boldfaced type in an amended section is new; matter [italic and bracketed] is existing law to be omitted.

New sections are in boldfaced type.

LC 1730

55

HB 2700

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

as large type, Braille, or in languages in addition to English; and (e) the availability of relevant in-

formation from sources other than the individual class members.]

[F(2)(iii) When the names and addresses of the class members can reasonably be determined from

the defendant’s business records and individual monetary recoveries are capable of calculation without

the need for individualized adjudications, the court, instead of requiring the statement referred to in

subsection F(2)(i), may direct the defendant to send each class member notice of (a) the amount of the

monetary recovery that has been calculated for that person and (b) that person’s right to request ex-

clusion from the class. All class members who do not request exclusion within the time specified by the

court shall be deemed to have requested affirmative relief in the calculated amount.]

[F(2)(iv) The amount of damages assessed against the defendant shall not exceed the total amount

of damages determined to be allowable by the court for all individual class members who have filed the

statement required by the court under subsection F(2)(i) or who are deemed to have requested affirma-

tive relief under subsection F(2)(iii), assessable court costs, and an award of attorney fees, if any, as

determined by the court.]

[F(2)(v) If the parties agree and the court approves, any of the procedures set forth in subsection

F(2)(i) to subsection F(2)(iv) may be waived in a particular case.]

[F(3) If a class member fails to file the statement required by the court under subsection F(2)(i) or

if a class member requests exclusion under subsection F(2)(iii) within the time specified by the court,

that person’s claim for monetary recovery shall be dismissed without prejudice to the right to maintain

an individual, but not a class, action for such claim.]

[F(4) Nothing in subsections F(2) or F(3) is intended to allow the court to award any monetary

recovery that is not claimed either because a class member failed to file the statement required by the

court under subsection F(2)(i), or because a class member requested exclusion under subsection F(2)(iii)

within the time specified by the court.]

[F(5)] F(2) Plaintiffs shall bear costs of any notice ordered prior to a determination of liability.

The court may, however, order that defendant bear all or a specified part of the costs of any notice

included with a regular mailing by defendant to its current customers or employees. The court may

hold a hearing to determine how the costs of such notice shall be apportioned.

[F(6)] F(3) No duty of compliance with due process notice requirements is imposed on a de-

fendant by reason of the defendant including notice with a regular mailing by the defendant to

current customers or employees of the defendant under this section.

[F(7)] F(4) As used in this section, “customer” includes a person, including but not limited to

a student, who has purchased services or goods from a defendant.

SECTION 2. ORCP 32 L is amended to read:

L Form of judgment. The judgment in an action ordered maintained as a class action, whether

or not favorable to the class, must generally describe the members of the class and must spe-

cifically identify any persons who requested exclusion from the class and are not bound by

the judgment. [shall specify or describe those found to be members of the class or who, as a condition

of exclusion, have agreed to be bound by the judgment. If a judgment that includes a money award

is entered in favor of a class, the judgment must, when possible, identify by name each member of the

class and the amount to be recovered thereby.]

SECTION 3. ORCP 32 is amended by adding a new section O to read:

O Payment of damages. As part of the settlement or judgment in a class action, the

court may approve a process for the payment of damages. The process may include the use

of claim forms. If any amount awarded as damages is not claimed within the time specified

[2]56

HB 2700

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

by the court, or if the court finds that payment of all or part of the damages to class mem-

bers is not practicable, the court shall order that:

(1) At least 50 percent of the amount not paid to class members be paid or delivered to

the Oregon State Bar for the funding of legal services provided through the Legal Services

Program established under ORS 9.572; and

(2) The remainder of the amount not paid to class members be paid to any entity for

purposes that the court determines are directly related to the class action or directly bene-

ficial to the interests of class members.

SECTION 4. All amounts paid or delivered to the Oregon State Bar under section 3 of

this 2015 Act are continuously appropriated to the Oregon State Bar, and may be used only

for the funding of legal services provided through the Legal Services Program established

under ORS 9.572.

SECTION 5. (1) Section 3 of this 2015 Act and the amendments to ORCP 32 F and 32 L

by sections 1 and 2 of this 2015 Act apply only to class actions in which a final judgment has

not been entered before the effective date of this 2015 Act.

(2) As used in this section, “final judgment” means a judgment for which the time to

appeal has expired without any party filing an appeal or that is not subject to further appeal

or review.

SECTION 6. This 2015 Act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public

peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this 2015 Act takes effect

on its passage.

[3]57

1

Amy Johnson

From: Amy JohnsonSent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 10:29 AMTo: 'Len Horton'Subject: FW: Free Membership for Arkansas in SECF ... from Len Horton's GA NAIP GrantAttachments: SECF Application_Arkansas ATJ.pdf

Len,

Thank you again for sharing this opportunity with us. I’ve attached our completed application and all attachments. Sorry it took me a little longer than planned to get to it; if you have questions or need anything else, please let me know.

Amy

Amy Dunn Johnson Executive Director Arkansas Access to Justice Commission, Room 110 Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation, Room 113 1300 West 6th Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 492-7172 (direct dial) (501) 682-9415 (facsimile) Sign up for our e-newsletter

From: Erin Jacobson Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 5:17 PM To: Amy Johnson Subject: FW: Free Membership for Arkansas in SECF ... from Len Horton's GA NAIP Grant

Just got this:

From: C. Len Horton [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 5:08 PM To: Erin Jacobson Subject: Free Membership for Arkansas in SECF ... from Len Horton's GA NAIP Grant

Ms. Amy Dunn Johnson Executive Director Arkansas IOLTA Foundation. Inc. 1300 West 6th Street Room 110 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201

58

2

Dear Amy:

As you probably already know, earlier this year, the Georgia Bar Foundation was awarded a mini-grant by the NAIP Foundation Leadership Project Committee to expand foundation support for civil indigent legal aid. Per the attached grant proposal, the Georgia Bar Foundation has applied for membership in the Southeastern Council of Foundations and been accepted as a member. Our approved grant includes funds for paying your bar foundation’s $500 membership fee in SECF. You can check out SECF at http://www.secf.org/.

Last week, the Georgia Bar Foundation's consultant on this project, Guy Lescault, and I met with the President of SECF, Janine Lee, and Jaci Bertrand, Director of Membership, to discuss this project and membership for the other bar foundations in the southeast.

We agreed to coordinate the membership application process to make it easier for you to obtain your free membership. I have attached a SECF membership application (It’s really easy to fill out.) and ask that you please fill it out and return it to me. Please attach a PDF of your 990, your last audit and a description of your grants program with a list of your most recent annual grants. I will collect all the applications for SECF and pay your membership fee from our grant funds. The membership will start in November 2014 and continue through the end of November 2015.

Please contact me if you have any questions. I need your application by the middle of next week to avoid the $100 dues increase going into effect on November 1.

Thanks, Amy.

Len

Len Horton Executive Director Georgia Bar Foundation 104 Marietta Street Suite 610 Atlanta, GA 30303 404-588-2239 Direct 404-588-9840 FAX 404-296-6391 (H) 404-229-6676 Cell [email protected]

P.S. - I found this general email address and hope that this email reaches you.

59

1

Amy Johnson

From: Amy JohnsonSent: Saturday, March 07, 2015 10:18 AMTo: Glenn NishimuraSubject: RE: Arkansas Access to Justice

9 a.m. coffee at Community Bakery on Monday, March 16 would be perfect.

We have a fair bit of info up on our website that I think will be helpful to see. I'll be interested in hearing your perspective on how clearly we are communicating our vision, mission, and structure to the public.

By way of a little bit of additional background, Access to Justice consists of two separate entities: a Commission created by the Arkansas Supreme Court, which established what the Commission's function and objectives should be in the order creating the Commission. You can read more about that here: http://www.arkansasjustice.org/commission. Our Commission has what is now an outdated set of strategic priorities: http://www.arkansasjustice.org/strategicpriorities. However, we have more recently developed a document that I think lays out what we are now treating as our highest priority project--it is the Statewide Strategy for Addressing the Needs of Self-Represented Litigants, which can be found here: http://www.arkansasjustice.org/research

The sister nonprofit to the Commission, the Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation, also has some pretty general objectives laid out in a court order that approved the merger of this entity with yet another nonprofit at the beginning of 2014. You can read more about that here: http://www.arkansasjustice.org/node/260. We also engaged a consultant in 2013 to develop a comprehensive resource development/fundraising plan, which I can share with you if you think it would be helpful to review.

Thank you again for your willingness to help us discern how best to go about creating a more comprehensive, overarching strategy for achieving our goals. I look forward to seeing you on the 16th.

Amy

Amy Dunn Johnson Executive Director Arkansas Access to Justice 1300 West 6th Street, Room 110 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 492-7172 (direct dial) ________________________________________ From: Glenn Nishimura [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 4:05 PM To: Amy Johnson Subject: Re: Arkansas Access to Justice

Monday, the 16th, is best for me. How about coffee at 9 at Community Bakery - 12th and Main. Or, we can meet at a time and place more convenient to you.

Yes, please send me whatever you think would be helpful. I'll be looking through the information on your website before we meet. Feel free to point me to anything there that you think is significant for our discussion.

Glenn

60

2

________________________________ From: Amy Johnson <[email protected]> To: Glenn Nishimura <[email protected]> Cc: Regan Moffitt <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2015 1:31 PM Subject: RE: Arkansas Access to Justice

Thank you so much for your email—I very much look forward to visiting. Our board meets next week, and I expect to be playing catch up if snow closes everything down tomorrow as expected. Would March 16, 19, or 20 work for you? And would it be helpful for me to send you anything that we currently have in place that is strategic-planning-ish in nature?

Appreciate it! Amy

From: Glenn Nishimura [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 9:05 AM To: Amy Johnson Cc: Regan Moffitt Subject: Re: Arkansas Access to Justice

Hi Amy,

Let's get together after the snow melts. Next week Monday and Wednesday are best for me. I can go to your office or we can meet for coffee. Let me know what works for you.

Glenn

________________________________ From: Regan Moffitt <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> To: Amy Johnson <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Glenn Nishimura <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 5:06 PM Subject: Arkansas Access to Justice

Amy and Glenn,

By way of this email, I wanted to connect the two of you. I have reached out to each of you individually about the possibility of Glenn helping AATJ think through what an organizational strategic planning process might entail. I encourage the two of you to connect directly to talk more about this. At this point, the plan is to have a series of clarifying conversations to determine the scale, scope, and goals of what a strategic planning process would look like for AATJ.

Let me know if you have questions or if there are other ways I can be supportive.

Best,

Regan

61

I want to thank everyone for coming, especially, the out-of-towners who had to drive back in the fog. I hope everyone made it back without too much difficulty. A few locals stayed around and briefly continued the discussion

As became apparent early in the discussion, money is the main problem but the group seemed to give short shrift to the possibility of any funding from the legislature. With direct legislature funding considered unlikely, funding through the Judiciary, the Bar Association or the Law Schools for pilot programs may be more likely. Secondly, it was equally as clear that present pro bono efforts are significantly insufficient to meet the needs of underserved Arkansans.

The first task may well be to quantify the unmet demand for services that is presently unmet. I’ve reflected on Judge Pierce’s discussion of civil commitments and wondered how many other areas are held together by twine and spit. Public and private monies may be available to for polling or survey work to quantify the amount and types of legal services or assistance needed throughout the state.

The discussion concerning the supply of legal services was interesting: the problems arising from oversupply of lawyers in Pulaski, Washington, Craighead and Benton Counties; while the rural areas don’t have enough young lawyers. Dean Schwartz noted that UALR law students will now have to participate in legal clinics or participate in an externship in order to graduate. The school has also started a legal clinic in the Delta which is being overseen by five professors. These efforts could be augmented or leveraged if CLE credit was available to bar members who assist the clinic or mentor recently-licensed who participate in the clinics.

A second mentoring idea is one where recently-retired lawyers are incented to actively mentor recently-licensed lawyers. These young lawyers would be required to commit to taking underserved clients as a condition of receiving this assistance.

I think Billy Jack Gibson mentioned a loan or grant program used in North Carolina where students received funding but had to agree to take, I believe, a significant number of criminal cases upon graduation.

Finally, there was a little discussion about using technology to meet the unmet needs of the public who can’t afford a lawyer throughout a routine or simple legal matter. One idea was to create a form system in competition with out of state vendors like Legal Zoom: essentially, selling forms to laymen allowing them to solve simple legal tasks with strategic input from a lawyer or lawyer’s staff.

As I mentioned, I want this to be a one page summation, so let me conclude with my thanks for your participation at the dinner and I hope you will continue to contribute by commenting on this summary.

62

Proposed RFP Audit List

Firm Notes

Yoakum, Lovell & Co. Used for 2013 ATJF audit Certified Public Accountants 1106 Military Road Benton, AR 72015 (501) 778-0495

Mr. Chris Patterson Used for 2013 IOLTA audit Mallory & Associates 7 Shackleford Plaza Little Rock, AR 72211 (501) 224-3037

JPMS Cox, PLLC Previously used auditor Certified Public Accountants (circa 2004) 11300 Cantrell Road, Suite 301 Little Rock, AR 72212 (501) 227-5800

BKD, LLP Have at least two partners who Certified Public Accountants appear to work with nonprofits 400 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 2500 P.O. Box 3667 Little Rock, AR 72203-3667 (72201) (501) 372-1040

EGP, PLLC Certified Public Accountants & Consultants Appear to have at least one 611 Main Street partner with nonprofit auditing North Little Rock, AR 72114 experience (501) 374-2910

Erwin & Company, PA Left message with CPA Certified Public Accountants Danny Fisher on 3/2/15 to inquiry 6311 Ranch Drive about the firm’s nonprofit auditing Little Rock, AR 72223 experience (501) 868-7486

Frost, PLLC Offer nonprofit auditing services Certified Public Accountants 425 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 3300 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-9541

63

McIlroy.Keen.Goodman (MKG), LLP Offer nonprofit auditing services Mr. Rocky Goodman 2102 Riverfront Drive, Suite 100 Little Rock, AR 72202 (501) 280-0222

HoganTaylor Offer nonprofit auditing services Certified Public Accountatns 8028 Cantrell Road, Suite 101 Little Rock, AR 72227 (501) 227-4343

Rasco Winter Abston Moore & Associates, LLP Certified Public Accountants Offer nonprofit auditing services 400 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 1624 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 375-8500

Bell Foster Johnson & Watkins (BFJW), LLP Offer nonprofit auditing services Certified Public Accountants 5420 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72205 (501) 663-0990

Thomas & Thomas Offer nonprofit auditing services 201 E. Markham Street, Suite 500 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 375-2025

Miller & Company Offer nonprofit auditing services 900 S. Shackleford, Suite 100 Little Rock, AR 72211 (501) 221-3343

Priddy & Holifield Offer nonprofit auditing services Certified Public Accountants 615 Main Street North Little Rock, AR 72114-5397 (501) 374-9241

Leek & Associates, PLLC Offer nonprofit auditing services Certified Public Accountants 11815 Hinson Road Little Rock, AR 72212 (501) 223-9336

64

Lisa Stephens & Company Offer nonprofit auditing services Certified Public Accountant 715 Front Street Conway, AR 72032 (501) 327-2834

Craft, Veach & Company Offer nonprofit auditing services 8410 Counts Massie Road North Little Rock, AR 72113 P.O. Box 13986 Maumelle, AR, 72113 (501) 753-0808

Brown, Rogers & Co., PA Offer nonprofit auditing services 1 Executive Center Court Little Rock, AR 72211 (501) 225-3641

Hudson Cisne & Co., LLP Recommended by Jennifer 11025 Anderson Drive, Suite 300 Ferguson Little Rock, AR 72212 (501) 221-1000

Thessing & Associates 9772 Maumelle Blvd. North Little Rock, AR 72113 (501) 537-1010

Mr. James W. Morris Certified Public Accountant 1218 W. 6th Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-1876

65

Direct 501-978-4972 Main 501-663-5400

Fax 501-663-5408 Cell 501-529-4972

John Hathaway | [email protected]

Coldwell Banker Commercial Hathaway Group

FOR MORE DETAILS CONTACT:

2100 Riverdale, Suite 100

Little Rock, AR 72202

www.hathawaygroup.com File # 1556

Coldwell Banker Commercial Hathaway Group is the agent of the owner of the property described on this information sheet.

Coldwell Banker Commercial and Coldwell Banker Commercial Logo are registered service marks licensed to Coldwell Banker

Commercial Affiliates. Each Office is Independently Owned and Operated. All information contained herein has been obtained from

sources deemed reliable. However, no warranty or guarantee is made as to the accuracy of this information.

HATHAWAY GROUP

2100 Riverfront Drive, Suite 100, Little Rock, AR 72202 FOR LEASE

PROPERTY OVERVIEW Efficient full service office suite available in the Riverdale area. Great layout for

medium sized professional services firm. Easy access to Little Rock’s River Trail,

shopping and restaurants.

PROPERTY DETAILS:

SIZE: 2,503 RSF

PRICE: $16.50/RSF — Full Service

LAYOUT: - Reception

- Large conference room

- Copy/Admin area

- 5 private offices

- File/Copy/Storage

- Private shower

- Data closet

- Galley kitchen

66

2100 RIVERFRONT BOTTOM FLOOR

TOTAL FLOOR = 5,950 SQUARE FEET

SUITE 100 = 2,503 RENTABLE SQUARE FEET

COMMON AREA = 639 SQUARE FEET

67

2100 RiverFRONT

(Subject Premises outlined in blue. Total of 33 ± parking

spaces as shown in blue area available for the Subject

Premises.) Area highlighted in yellow is entire complex

owned by Landlord. Cross access and parking agreements

in place.

69

February 12, 2015 9:00 a.m.

Conference Call

The Executive Committee of the Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation met on Monday, February 12, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. to discuss a request from AY Magazine to purchase ad space congratulating Ms. Johnson on her selection for recognition in its “Powerful Women” edition. Mr. Waddell forwarded the committee the proposal on February 11 with a suggestion that committee consider purchase of a 1/6 page ad at an approximate cost of $1575, plus costs for ad production, less a 20% discount. Participating were committee members Bill Waddell, Dick Downing, and J.D. Gingerich, as well as Executive Director Amy Johnson.

After a brief discussion, the committee agreed to authorize Ms. Johnson to purchase the ad. With no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 a.m.

Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation Executive Committee Meeting

70

Arkansas IOLTA Foundation Grants Committee Meeting

November 17, 2014 1:30 p.m.

Attending: Lori Chumbler (phone), Tamra Cochran, Alice Hines (phone), Frank Sewall, Amy Johnson, Erin Jacobson

Ms. Johnson asked committee members if they had a moment to review the email and attachments she sent earlier in the day, apologizing for its delay. Grantees’ final reports deadlines fell last week and this committee is meeting to touch base before the upcoming meeting on November 20th.

Ms. Johnson reviewed last year’s grants made and the highlights from the previous year. All grants made out of AG settlement funds; no general grants made. This past year marks two years of the four years intended for the funds to be granted. Have divided by poverty percentages and have used data from Realty Trac to determine foreclosure rates in counties as well as case closure rates and statistics.

Last year renewed for CALS and LAA along a 55/45 percent split. Funds resulted in total of $275,000 granted to CALS and $225,000 to LAA.

Ms. Johnson stated that she believes that the MOU as it stands should be fine to continue with, requiring no changes. Only changes last year were to reflect the merger name of the Foundation. Also required grantees to report on recoveries realized. She had no recommendations for changes to Grant Assurance Agreements.

Mr. Sewall asked for any questions or concerns to be relayed to him to report to the full board during the upcoming meeting. He asked Ms. Johnson to confirm that there is just over one million dollars left to make grants from; she confirmed that some money had been earned and we have slightly more than one million dollars left.

About $120,000 in unspent funds from CALS carried forward. Gave stipulations to spend down. Have spent $290,527. Now have $105,000 left, which we may permit them to carryover. CALS has hired a bankruptcy attorney, identifying as primary way to keep families in their homes.

Expenditures for LAA were $253,025.25 for the total grant year. They ended up spending more and did not supply indirect costs, however made up the difference with other sources of funding. Final report shows where LAA pulled in other funding sources to offset these overage costs.

Staff did analysis of cases that were closed using these grant funds. Analysis broken out by case types that were attributed to the funding code for the AG settlement funds. Also included a breakdown of cases closed at the counsel/advice/brief services level and the extended services level.

Committee members discussed continuing the 55/45 split per the two programs. During discussion it was noted that LAA is handling more cases at the extended services level. Also that

71

65% of statewide foreclosures happened in the CALS service area and about 35% in the LAA service area.

Mr. Sewall pointed out that LAA carries over 65% of the complex cases. However, this may not constitute enough evidence to support any changes to the percentages.

Ms. Chumbler asked if we should look beyond foreclosure statistics, as many of the sample cases reported in the grantees’ anecdotal sections were cases that did not always entail foreclosures.

Ms. Johnson added that she recently gained access to statewide unlawful detainer filings, stating that staff can pull together these stats soon if they might be helpful.

Ms. Johnson reported that will likely have more funds coming down the pike from the Bank of America settlement. She added that Arkansas is being looked at for the way we have used the housing settlement funds versus merely plugging budget holes like many other states.

Mr. Sewall asked that Ms. Johnson and Ms. Jacobson compile the statistics mentioned. Members confirmed that no decisions need to be made just yet to relay during the full board meeting. Mr. Sewall added that he would like to have an additional conference call once the additional information has been provided.

Ms. Johnson agreed that the full board could authorize the committee to make grants once all information has been evaluated. He added that the full board would need to ratify the committee’s decision. Ms. Johnson stated that she will post the full grantee reports to website, cautioning that there is a lot of information to review. She added that the committee may need to consider different types of reporting, and perhaps adding unlawful detainers to the list of cases for each grantee to begin reporting.

Mr. Sewall suggested asking staff to put together full reports, consult MOU, and see if we need to consider something other than foreclosures in determining funding levels.

Ms. Johnson thought providing the complexity of cases taken on by the programs would also be helpful to consider. Mr. Sewall asked if the standard of service levels is the same for both programs and Ms. Johnson confirmed that the standard is set by LSC. Ms. Johnson will do a high-level one-page report reflecting each programs total expenditures for the year.

Mr. Sewall stated that he would like to have the proper numbers to back up any decision that this committee will make in order to justify any potential changes. Ms. Johnson agreed that staff will prepare statistics and relay to committee before the Thursday board meeting. All members agreed to meet immediately after the Thursday board meeting to discuss this additional piece of consideration.

Ms. Johnson added that the committee also needs to consider an ongoing matter involving the overall granting policy and procedures. She had included a copy of the current policies and procedures in the meeting materials, along with her own comments and suggestions of changes.

She stated that she believes there is presently $200,000 in completely unrestricted funds available. Operating expenses will be lower in part due to a grant that had been underwritten to the Bar of Arkansas Fund for Ms. Jacobson’s position, but that is now being fully coved by the

72

Bar Fund. This therefore has freed up $50,000 that does not even affect the Foundation’s bottom line. She suggested potentially soliciting proposals for that amount.

Mr. Sewall suggested getting the policies and procedures in place before asking for solicitations.

Ms. Chumbler suggested Ms. Johnson and Ms. Jacobson suggest language for the changes Ms. Johnson has suggested. Ms. Johnson stated that she has solicited examples from other states and is happy to work on and to provide an updated copy with integrated language into a first draft.

Ms. Chumbler offered to look into section regarding emergency and hardship loans, per her experience with Walmart’s similar loans/grants. She acknowledged that there are special stipulations from the IRS on those types of funds.

Mr. Sewall and Ms. Chumbler agreed that the committee may need to revisit the Foundation’s priorities. May need to reorder and potentially do away with some of the older priorities, and may need to make funding to the legal aid programs the primary goal. Ms. Johnson suggested still needing to have some latitude in making grants to programs that are part of the Commission’s larger mission, including rural access projects, etc. This includes a potential loan repayment or assistance program. She added that other states’ IOLTA programs commonly making these types of loans. She added that another issue is having limited resources for the statewide website and self-help forms that are proving to be subject to sustainability concerns. Ms. Chumbler supported needing to ensure these projects continue to be sustained.

Mr. Sewall stated that we need to determine the best timeline for funds and grant schedule.

Ms. Chumbler made the motion to have revised policies ready in the spring and then to go forward with soliciting for RFPs.

Group agreed to reconvene Thursday after the full board meeting.

Meeting adjourned at 2:24 p.m.

Action Steps:

Ms. Johnson and Ms. Jacobson to condense statistics for unlawful detainers

73

Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation Grant Committee Meeting

January 12, 2015

10:00 a.m.

Attending: Lori Chumbler (phone), Tamra Cochran (phone), Alice Hines (phone), Frank Sewall, Amy Johnson

Mr. Sewall opened the meeting at 10:05 a.m. He asked if there were any changes to the minutes from the two previous meetings in November; hearing none, he noted the minutes stood approved. Next, the committee discussed the draft changes that Ms. Johnson had begun making to the old IOLTA grant policy. There was a discussion about the need for categories and priorities to be more clearly organized and laid out; “general support” should be more clearly defined. Committee members agreed that it should be the committee’s goal to finalize this policy in the spring and distribute applications in July, with grant decisions to be made in the fall. Mr. Sewall raised the issue of whether the decision about the amount of grant awards would be in the Committee’s discretion or based on the amount available as determined by the Finance Committee. The consensus was that there would need to be a finance-committee-level or even board-level decision about a total dollar amount to be designated for grants, with the Grant Committee recommending how those funds should be allocated to applicants. Ms. Johnson will make revisions to the grant policy to more clearly spell out grant categories and priorities and distribute the latest version of the Grant Application for the Committee’s review. The next call will be on Monday, February 2, at 10:00 a.m.

74

Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation Grants Committee Meeting March 9, 2015 at 1:00 AM

CALS Boardroom and via phone

Attending: Frank Sewall, Alice Hines (phone), Amy Johnson, and Erin Jacobson Unable to participate: Lori Chumbler, Tamra Cochran, and Bill Waddell Mr. Sewall asked if any changes were required to the meeting minutes from the January 12, 2015 meeting of the committee. There were not changes, so the meeting minutes stood as approved. Mr. Sewall asked Ms. Johnson to go through her March 6th draft of the Grants Policy. Ms. Johnson mentioned that she updated the grant purposes to reflect the language used in the organizing documents of the merged Foundation. She reviewed each section and any applicable changes made or comments shared. Ms. Johnson mentioned that Section II clarifies that grants can be made out of IOLTA funds as well as other revenues, so long as they are not otherwise restricted and such that sufficient funds exist to make grants. The full Foundation Board of Directors holds the final power to make grant determinations based on available funding. She touched on the three broad grant categories covered in Section III, including civil legal aid, programs that promote the administration of justice, and student loans and scholarships. Priority grant-making has historically been general support grants to the state’s legal aid programs that receive LSC funding. She added that she further defined civil legal aid to the poor and updated the policy to exclude criminal legal aid. Based funding availability, a provision regarding giving up to 100% of funds to the highest priority category has been included. She briefly reviewed the types of grants that can be made to support the priority of civil legal aid to the poor, including the direct delivery of legal services, the delivery of pro bono or “low bono” services, and the development and sustainability of resources for advocates and the self-help public provided through the statewide legal aid website. Ms. Johnson mentioned receiving good feedback from Ms. Chumbler on the student loan and scholarship section. The section also authorizes a student loan repayment program for attorneys who commit to working in an underserved community or for legal aid. As a committee, we have the latitude to develop guidelines as this type of funding becomes a possibility again when revenues increase. Ms. Johnson touched on the Additional Considerations covered in Section IV. The committee agreed that they look fine as-is. The criteria covered in the Additional Considerations section will be especially important in evaluating project-specific grant applications, but will not affect the poverty-population division provided for with General Support grants. Ms. Johnson moved on to review the Grantee Eligibility Criteria highlighted in Section VI, mentioning that it has been revised to include government entities charged by law with functions that relate to the administration of justice or legal education. She stated that the prohibited activity section is standard and already followed by both programs. She narrowed down the details of the previous policy regarding the application process section and cited the importance of milestones.

75

Mr. Sewall wondered if it should be the full Board’s duty to approve grants suggested by Grants Committee. The group discussed historically reviewing grant applications during the fall meeting and having previously had fall retreats. Ms. Johnson noted that other programs that process a large number of applications often have a committee-level review first, but that given the small number of eligible grantees, it might make sense for this to be something that the full board decides. The committee agreed that this issue should be discussed when the policy is presented at the upcoming board meeting. Ms. Johnson referenced the Foundation’s past practice of conducting site visits to monitor and evaluate of grantees’ work, and she stated she believes it might need to reinstitute these visits. Mr. Sewall agreed. Ms. Johnson also noted some edits she has made to the grant reporting requirements. She believes that we need to balance making the process one that does not duplicate the reporting that the programs already do for LSC, but that captures readily available data on performance, such as case outcomes and financial recoveries/avoidances. Mr. Sewall and Dr. Hines agreed that these aspects of monitoring and evaluation would be beneficial. Mr. Sewall suggested preparing an agenda before such evaluation site visits. The committee agreed that it would be useful to solicit the input of CALS and LAA on the updated grant policy, as well as the application process. Ms. Johnson stated that the next step will be a revamp of the grant application. The application currently tracks what the old policy outlined, but needs to be edited to reflect the new policy, as well as any suggestions from CALS and LAA that may streamline it. The meeting adjourned at 1:33 p.m.

76

ARKANSAS ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOUNDATION GRANT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

I. Grant Purposes. The purposes of the Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation’s Grant

Policies and Procedures is to provide for funding priorities for grants consistent with the Foundation’s organizational purposes, the directives of the Supreme Court related to the Foundation, and applicable law; to establish qualifications for eligible grantees; and to set grant application requirements. Funds designated by the Foundation for grantmaking shall be limited to programs

• that promote and support access to the justice system by persons in Arkansas who cannot afford a lawyer and for whom the law does not provide a right to counsel;

• that educate the public regarding the needs of Arkansans related to meaningful access to the civil justice system;

• that provide student loans and scholarships for the education of lawyers;

• that improve the administration of justice in the State of Arkansas;

• that assist in support activities of institutions and organizations which improve the administration of justice, including, but not limited to, the Arkansas Access to Justice Commission, the Center for Arkansas Legal Services, Inc., and Legal Aid of Arkansas, Inc., to fulfill their missions of providing access to justice and legal aid to Arkansans who cannot afford a lawyer and who qualify for legal services; and

• that carry out other purposes that may be approved from time to time by the Arkansas Supreme Court.

II. Applicability; Availability of Funds. This Policy shall apply to funds of the Foundation

that are not otherwise restricted by the donor, grantor, or payor, and generally include IOLTA Program revenues and donations. Grants made under this Policy are subject to the availability of sufficient funds, as determined by the Board, to meet the Foundation’s own operating requirements and to pay grant awards in full.

III. Grant Categories. These categories are listed in order of priority. The Foundation may, in its discretion, allocate up to 100% of funds available for grants in any given year to the highest priority category.

A. Civil Legal Aid to the Poor. Grants in this category are made to Arkansas nonprofit

civil legal aid providers that receive funding from the Legal Services Corporation. Such grants may include, but are not limited to, the following purposes:

1. Direct delivery of legal services;

77

2. Delivery of services through private attorneys who volunteer through a legal aid pro bono or “low bono” panel; and

3. Development and sustainability of resources for advocates and the self-help public provided through the statewide website for legal aid (www.arlegalservices.org) or other platform;

B. Administration of Justice. Grants in this category are made to programs that promote

public understanding of and support for civil legal aid; that support delivery of civil legal assistance to individuals who do not qualify for legal aid; that encourage innovation by the court system and the private bar in meeting the civil legal needs of the public; that improve the operation and management of the justice system; that educate the public and improve public understanding about the law; that promote and support the full range of dispute resolution techniques and alternatives.

C. Student Loans and Scholarships; Loan Repayment Assistance. Student loans and scholarships are only available to students enrolled in an Arkansas law school. Selection criteria are, in descending order of importance: need, merit, and statewide geographical distribution. Loan repayment assistance may be made available to any law school graduate who works full-time in Arkansas for a legal aid organization or who primarily practices in an underserved community, and who makes a minimum commitment of at least three (3) years to work for legal aid or in the underserved community. Student loans, scholarships, and loan repayment assistance may be subject to the terms and conditions of any additional policies or guidelines developed by the Foundation. [Amy’s suggestion: For purposes of this policy, an “underserved community” is a county where the ratio of practicing attorneys is less than one attorney per 1,000 residents.]

IV. Additional Considerations. The Foundation may, in determining the size and distribution

of grants for a given cycle, give priority to applications: • Submitted by current or past grantees that have a demonstrated track record of

satisfying grant requirements and producing expected outcomes; • That leverage grant funds with other sources of funding; • That advance innovation in delivery of assistance to Arkansans of limited or modest

means; or • That improve access among underserved communities or populations.

V. Division of Funds

A. General Support. General Support grants may be used by grantees for general

operating needs. Grants for general support are only available under the Civil Legal Aid to the Poor category. The distribution of such funds shall be based upon each legal aid program’s percentage of the statewide poverty population as determined by Legal Services Corporation. All other grant categories are, for purposes of this policy, considered Special Projects.

78

http://www.arlegalservices.org/

B. Special Projects. Applicants in all Grant Categories may apply for Special Project Funding. The Foundation may make grants for Special Projects out of funding sources other than IOLTA revenues or donations, such as court settlements or subgrants. Special Project funding may be used for one-time needs, seed money for new start-up initiatives, research related to the delivery of legal services, and other projects related to access to the civil justice system by all Arkansans.

VI. Grantee Eligibility Criteria. To be eligible to receive funds from the Foundation, an

applicant must (1) be an organization that qualifies as an exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code or a government entity charged by law with functions that relate to the administration of justice or legal education; (2) be in good standing with the State of Arkansas; (3) timely submit a complete application; (4) have adequate internal accounting controls that are capable of tracking grant-related expenditures; and (5) provide a signed Grant Assurances Agreement within thirty (30) days of notification of a grant award.

VII. Prohibited Activities. Lobbying. Foundation grant funds may not be used for lobbying activities of any kind, including direct lobbying and grassroots lobbying. “Direct Lobbying” is a communication (letter, email, phone call, personal visit, etc.) with a legislator, legislative staff member, or other legislative official that refers to and reflects a view on specific legislation or a legislative proposal. “Direct Lobbying” also includes communications to the public that reflect a view on a ballot measure or referendum. “Grassroots Lobbying” is a communication with the general public that refers to and reflects a view on specific legislation or a legislative proposal and encourages the public to take action.

VIII. Grant Application and Review Process

A. Timetable. Most grant awards will be for a January 1 to December 31 cycle, although the Foundation may deviate from this cycle for Special Project grants. The general timetable for grant applications, reviews, and award announcements is as follows:

1. Application Publication. Applications will be made available to prospective grantees by July 1.

2. Application Deadline. Applications shall be received by 5:00 p.m. on the last business day of August. The application deadline will be established by the executive director and published in the grant applications. Grant applications will not be accepted after the deadline.

3. Application Review. The Grants Committee will conduct the initial review of

grant applications and send any follow-up questions or requests to grant applicants by September 25. The Grants Committee will meet by October 25 to make recommendations to the full board for grant awards to be made. Grant award amounts will be made based upon amounts approved by the Finance Committee or full board for grants for the coming year.

79

4. Announcement of Awards. Grant awards will be announced by November 30.

The announcement date will be established by the executive director and published in the grant application.

IX. Applications. The Grants Committee will annually review and approve the form and substance of grant applications prior to the July 1 application publication date.

A. Grant applications may request the following information for grants in the Civil Legal

Aid to the Poor and Administration of Justice categories: 1. The category within which the project qualifies. 2. Vital statistics regarding the applicant. 3. A description of the entity’s purposes; a nonprofit entity shall attach a copy of its

IRS determination letter. 4. A description of the organization, its history, and its purposes. 5. A description of the geographical area to be served, the number of people to be

assisted, and the methods used to derive this information. 6. A description of the methods used to identify clients qualified to receive services

under the grant, if applicable. 7. A description of other sources of funding that have been obtained or that are being

sought for the program or project. 8. A description of community involvement and support for the program or project. 9. A current budget for the organization, a projected budget for the proposed grant

project or program, and the actual amount of income received in the previous calendar year.

B. Project Grant Applications. For Project Grants, the application may request the

following additional information:

1. An explanation of how the project qualifies for grant funds, its goals, planned activities, and timetable for completion.

2. Identification of other similar projects within the same geographical area. 3. An explanation of how the project is innovative, replicable, and sustainable. 4. Any other requirements specified by the Grants Committee or Foundation Board

prior to the request for applications. X. Monitoring and Evaluation. The Foundation may monitor and conduct evaluations of

grantee performance under the grant as follows:

A. Grantee Reports. The Foundation will require written reports from grantees at least annually. Such reports may include an accounting of all grant-related expenditures; audited financial statements; case statistical reports; case outcomes; recoveries and avoidances; client satisfaction data; and client stories. For Project Grants, the grantee shall submit any materials or reports developed using grant funds.

80

B. Audits. The Foundation may audit or cause an audit to be conducted of the Grant Funds.

C. Site Visits. The Foundation may, at its expense, conduct site visits by representatives of the Foundation to observe the grant recipient’s program, procedures, and operations; discussions of the program with the grant recipient’s personnel and board members; and review of client satisfaction surveys.

81

ARKANSAS IOLTA FOUNDATION Description of the IOLTA Program 2012 The Arkansas IOLTA Foundation has worked successfully with Arkansas lawyers and financial institutions to establish the Interest on Lawyer's Trust Accounts (IOLTA) program. Client trust funds that are nominal in amount or held for a short period of time are held in interest-bearing accounts in financial institutions throughout the state. The interest on these accounts is sent to the Arkansas IOLTA Foundation to be used for law-related, charitable purposes established by the Arkansas Supreme Court. By Arkansas Supreme Court order dated September 17, 1984, Arkansas IOLTA program funds have been designated for use only as follows: 1. Legal aid to the poor, 2. Law student loans and scholarships, 3. Projects to improve the administration of justice, or 4. Other such purposes as the court may from time to time

approve. Mission Statement The Arkansas IOLTA Foundation's mission is to increase access to justice by funding programs which target low-income populations that are currently unserved or underserved, and by encouraging projects that improve the administration of justice. The Arkansas IOLTA Foundation is particularly interested in proposals from Legal Services programs, law schools for scholarships, and other entities for special projects addressing any of the purposes listed above. Grant Considerations The Arkansas IOLTA Foundation Board of Directors has not earmarked certain percentages of IOLTA revenue for any specific project; however, all, or a substantial majority, of IOLTA funds may be earmarked each grant cycle for programs that provide civil legal services to poor Arkansans. Proposals for seed money to begin projects that will be self-supporting or concluded within the grant period are preferred. With the exception of proposals submitted by Legal Services programs, proposals that request funds for special projects will be preferred over those proposals that request general operational funds. Procedures and priorities may change in the future as revenues grow or decline and as resources and needs change. All grants funded by the Arkansas IOLTA Foundation are wholly discretionary and do not imply that a program will receive funds for the next grant cycle.

Eligibility Criteria To be eligible to receive funds from the IOLTA program, an applicant must: (1) submit a written proposal by the deadline; (2) respond adequately to questions in the grant proposal

format; (3) respond adequately to further requests for information; (4) agree to carry out the program for which funds were

requested and report to the Board on progress and results, in accordance with the Grant Assurances Agreement executed upon notification of a grant award; and

(5) be within one of the following categories approved by the Arkansas Supreme Court.

Specific eligibility criteria for each category are: 1. Legal aid to the poor: Grants are awarded to projects

delivering civil legal services to the poor, including public service projects which provide legal benefits to the community.

2. Student loans and scholarships: Funding is limited to the Arkansas law schools. Scholarship recipients will be selected by the grantee according to, in descending order of importance: need, merit, and statewide geographical distribution.

3. Projects to improve the administration of justice: No specific criterion has been set for this category.

4. Other: Applications to fund projects which, in the opinion of the Foundation’s Board of Directors, do not qualify for one of the three categories approved by the Arkansas Supreme Court will be reviewed for the merits of the proposals. The Foundation will either deny an application or recommend it for approval. Applications recommended for approval will be characterized as pending during the current grant cycle. The Foundation will notify the applicant of its pending status and why the project cannot be immediately approved. The applicant must then petition the Arkansas Supreme Court within thirty days to specifically approve the applicant's proposal for use of IOLTA funds. The applicant's grant proposal will be automatically funded upon approval by the Arkansas Supreme Court.

Applications must be received by the Arkansas IOLTA Foundation no later than 4:30 p.m. on Monday, October 17, 2012. It is anticipated that grant awards will be announced on or before November 1, 2012. Approved applicants will be required to submit an executed Grant Assurances Agreement within fourteen (14) days of receiving notification of a grant award. The grant application and Grant Assurances Agreement are available in Microsoft Word.

82

ARKANSAS IOLTA FOUNDATION Grant Application 2012 Please indicate the category under which you are applying for IOLTA grant funds:

Legal aid to the poor

Projects to improve the administration of justice

Other

IOLTA funds are requested for:

General Support

Specific Project

You are:

First-time applicant

Previous applicant, not currently a grantee

Current Grantee

Name of Organization/Applicant Address

Telephone Number _ Fax Number ___________________________________ Project Name (if applicable) ________ Tax Identification Number _______ Amount requested Program Director ________ Contact Person ________ Email Address Please answer the following questions using only the space provided. Please do not attach any document that was not specifically requested. If necessary, the Foundation will request additional information by a separate document. If you think a question is clearly not applicable to your application, indicate so by writing N/A in the answer space provided. 1. Briefly describe your organization, the date it was organized, and its history and purpose. 83

Grant Application Page Two 2. Describe specifically why you need IOLTA funds, how the funds will be used to further legal aid to the poor, improve the administration

of justice, or further another purpose which you anticipate the Court will approve. Also, describe the expected benefits. At a minimum, include your goals, planned activities, and a timetable for completion.

3. Describe the geographical area to be served, the number of people to be assisted, and your methods used to derive this information. 84

Grant Application Page Three 4. Describe community involvement and support for this program/project. 5. Identify other organizations or projects within your geographic service area that provide the same or similar service, and describe any

cooperative work between you. 6. If you propose to provide legal aid to the poor, describe your plan for identifying and screening these clients, and the income criteria to

be used. 7. Describe your efforts to obtain other funding. 8. Describe the potential impact if IOLTA funds are not made available to you. 85

Grant Application Page Four 9. Attach a list of the members of your board of directors, bar committee, or other governing entity, and their employers. 10. Are you exempt from income taxation? If so, attach a copy of your IRS exemption letter. If not, describe your charitable,

educational, or law-related purposes. 11. Attach a completed Financial Budget Form. The budget should prioritize each specific use for IOLTA funds. The Foundation may not

be able to grant your entire request for funds, and we need to know which items you consider most necessary for funding. 12. Briefly describe any additional information that you think we should have.

86

ARKANSAS IOLTA FOUNDATION Financial Budget Form 2012 Please provide your projected budget for January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012 (see page 2 for explanations). IOLTA FUNDS TOTAL BUDGET REQUESTED (Excluding IOLTA Funds) Professional Staff (No.) ____ Support Staff (No.) _____ Others (No.) _____ Salary Subtotal Employee Benefits Total Personnel Costs Space Equipment Rental Supplies Telephone Travel Training Library Insurance Dues and Fees Audit Litigation Capital Additions Contract Services Other Total Non-Personnel Costs TOTAL

87

Financial Budget Form Page Two PROFESSIONAL STAFF: This category should include all salaries and wages paid to program attorneys, administrators, and managers, whether employed directly or supervised by the program (e.g., VISTA volunteers) and whether part-time, full-time or temporary. SUPPORT STAFF: This category should include salaries and wages paid to program receptionists, secretaries, and clerks whether employed directly or supervised by the program (e.g., VISTA volunteers, CETA workers, etc.,) and whether part-time, full-time, or temporary. OTHER STAFF: This category should include salaries and wages paid to all other program staff, whether employed directly or supervised by the program and (e.g., VISTA volunteers), whether paralegals, law clerks, social workers, or others, and whether full-time, part-time, or temporary. EMPLOYEE BENEFITS: This category should include all those commonly accepted fringe benefits paid on behalf of employees, such as retirement, FICA, health and life insurance, workers compensation, unemployment insurance, and other payroll-related costs approved by the program's board of directors. SPACE: This category includes estimated rent, utility payments, and maintenance or janitorial expenses. EQUIPMENT RENTAL: This category includes lease or rental expenses for office furniture, fixtures, and equipment (except telephone). It also includes an estimate of maintenance costs for that equipment whether pursuant to a service contract or an estimate of individual repair bills. OFFICE SUPPLIES AND EXPENSES: This category includes all basic office accessories and supplies, including material used in copiers. Printing and postage, which may be recorded in special accounts, are included in this category. All equipment purchases under $100 may be placed under this line item. TELEPHONE: This category includes estimates for the rent of telephone equipment and long distance calls. Similar and related expenses such as telegraph or other telecommunications should be included as well. PROGRAM TRAVEL: This category includes travel expenses directly related to specific client matters, circuit calls, administration of the program, etc. While most travel placed in this category will be local or intra-state, some inter-state travel should also be included here. TRAINING: This category includes all non-personnel costs to be paid for with regular program funds, including costs associated with the training or continuing education of staff members. Examples include travel to/from training events, per diem, conference registration fees or tuition, purchase of training materials, rent for facilities used in a training event, training materials, etc. Materials or equipment purchased for training with a value in excess of $100 should be reported under "Capital Additions." No program personnel costs should be included here. LIBRARY: This category includes expenses for the maintenance and normal expansion of office libraries, including subscriptions to periodicals, books, reference materials, multiple volume sets of law books, and computer research materials. Capital additions to the library holdings over $100 should be included under "Capital Additions." INSURANCE: This category includes professional liability insurance, bonding, property insurance (fire and theft), and liability insurance for property and automobiles. DUES AND FEES: This category includes amounts paid for the organization or individual employee memberships in bar associations, for state or federal licenses, or costs incurred by associating with any other organization. AUDIT: This category includes expenses for auditors. LITIGATION: This category includes court costs, witness fees, expert witness expenses, sheriff fees, courthouse copying fees, and other expenses incurred but not recovered in litigation on behalf of eligible clients. CAPITAL ADDITIONS: This category includes equipment and library purchases over $100 per item and other major expenses that occur infrequently (e.g., major renovations). Items included should be certain expenditures (e.g., report "office equipment" rather than "computers, dictating equipment, adding machines," etc.). However, please provide a separate footnote for any purchase in excess of $500. CONTRACT SERVICES: This category includes two sections: one for all payments to private attorneys who provided legal services to clients and the other for service to the program, such as legal counsel for program operations, consultant fees, exclusive of those paid for training, use of a computer service bureau, bookkeeping or other accounting services, etc. If the total in this category is over $2,000, please itemize those individual costs in excess of $250 in a brief footnote. OTHER: This category includes all program expenses not included above.

88

Financial Budget Form Page Three Please list your sources of public or private funds for this calendar year, from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011. Government (all public funds from city, county, state, or federal agencies)

United Way (all funds from United Way or other community fund) Foundations (funds from private, local, regional, state, national organizations)

Bar (from local bar associations & related organizations)

Att'y Fees

Individual Contributions (Private contributions)

Total Contributions

89

Please submit an electronic copy of this application and all attachments to the following email address:

Amy Johnson, [email protected] Arkansas IOLTA Foundation, Inc.

Applications must be received by 4:30 p.m. on Monday, October 17, 2012. The Foundation’s Board of Directors has adopted a policy that applications received after the due date and time will not be considered regardless of the source of the application or its merits.

I certify that the materials submitted in and with this application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

Signature of Applicant Representative

Name and Title of Applicant Representative ________

Date

Telephone Number __________________________________________________________________________________

Email Address

90

February 5, 2015 12:30 p.m.

Attending Members:

Rose Adams Rep. Mary Broadaway Jean Carter (ex offico) Prof. Chuck Goldner Judge Vic Harper

Samantha Leflar (phone) Mark Mayfield Judge Robert McCallum Prof. Kelly Olson (ex officio) Lee Richardson (ex officio)

Kerri Sernel (phone) Justice Annabelle Tuck, Chair Andrea Walker Justice Robin Wynne

Absent Members:

Judge Robin Green Prof. Tim Tarvin (ex officio)

Sen. Robert Thompson Glenn Vasser

Rep. John Vines Bill Waddell (ex officio)

Staff:

Amy Johnson, Erin Jacobson, Kim Marshall, Vince Morris

Guests:

Nate Coulter David Ivanov, UC Davis (via

Skype) Tyler Maffia (via Skype) Danyelle Walker

Janan Honeysuckle, Entergy attorney

Dustin Duke Walter Kroptavich John Greacen

J.D. Gingerich Chief Justice Jim Hannah Justice Paul Danielson Justice Karen Baker Justice Jo Hart

MEETING MINUTES

Newer Member Orientation – 10:00 a.m.

Justice Tuck welcomed new Commissioners including Mr. Mark Mayfield and Judge Robert McCallum. Missing new members included Rep. Mary Broadaway, Justice Robin Wynne, and Mr. Glenn Vasser. Ms. Johnson conducted the orientation program for the new members present.

Commission Meeting – Lunch at 12:00, Business Meeting at 12:30

As members and guests assembled and settled in to eat lunch, Ms. Johnson played a video from the Commission’s early years with an introduction from Justice Tuck and which featured vignettes of legal aid attorneys discussing cases and their respective clients reflecting on the services they received through legal aid.

Following the video, Prof. Goldner recognized outgoing Commissioners and presented awards to Ms. Kim Marshall, Mr. Nate Coulter, and Ms. Danyelle Walker.

Welcome & Introductions

Justice Tuck asked all Commissioners present to introduce themselves, beginning with new Commissioners Rep. Broadaway, Mr. Mayfield, and Judge McCallum. Justice Tuck mentioned that Mr. Vasser, who was unable to attend, is a new Arkansas Bar Association appointee from Prescott. She added that Rep. John Vines also could not attend, and that we are awaiting a new senator appointment. Sen. Jon Woods is likely to be the new appointed legislative appointee. Mr. Coulter and Ms. Walker asked to be excused. Members and guests introduced themselves. Rep. Broadaway asked to be excused to attend the afternoon session of the House of Representatives.

Commission Meeting | Justice Building, 625 Marshall St. | Little Rock, Arkansas

91

Approval of Minutes from October 3, 2014 Commission Meeting

Justice Tuck asked for a motion to approve the minutes of the October 3, 2014 Commission meeting. Ms. Adams moved to approve the meeting minutes. Mr. Nagel seconded the motion. Mr. Mayfield noted that “Woodrow” County on page 3 should be changed to “Woodruff” County. All members voted in favor of approving the minutes with this proposed correction.

Project and Partner Organization Discussions and Reports

Report on Rural Access Proposal and UC Davis Study

Justice Tuck introduced Mr. David Ivanov and Mr. Tyler Maffia via Skype. Ms. Johnson stated that the Commission had teamed up with UC Davis students and Prof. Lisa Pruitt. The students conducted a study and survey of current law students attending the University of Arkansas and UALR Bowen schools of law, and their attitudes toward rural access and toward practicing in rural areas in Arkansas. She added that the survey recently closed and that they are presenting their preliminary results.

Mr. Ivanov reiterated that the study’s goal was to gauge attitudes from Arkansas’s young lawyers about working in rural areas. He showed a Power Point presentation, and began by describing their methodology, including skip logic and the functionality of Survey Monkey. He discussed the response rate and other factors, comparing the two schools; 58% from UALR and 38.5% U of A. He presented the demographic breakdown between the schools; total of 21 respondents from rural counties, which were qualified as having less than 10,000 people. They also asked respondents a variety of other lifestyle based questions, including having them report student loan debt after graduation, exposure to rural living, if they planned to practice in Arkansas, or in a rural county. A huge factor many respondents mentioned as a barrier and which would affect their decision to live and practice in a rural area was the potential limitation of finding a romantic partner. Mr. Ivanov continued, stating that they included a comment section. He reviewed the comments they received, including many comments about not wanting to practice because of “a good old boy system”, being a minority, or lack of entertainment options in rural areas. They asked what would encourage students to work in a rural area and comments included: job opportunity for spouse, proximity to family, and a less competitive environment. Other questions centered on loan repayment, a Rural Practice “Inheritance” concept with training, and a possible summer internship program.

A survey was also sent out to the Arkansas Bar Association, with about 600 people responding to the survey. Of the respondents, about 2.7% actually reported living in a rural area. Similar to the student survey, they gauged attitudes of practicing attorneys about factors that might discourage working in a rural area, as well as factors that would encourage them to practice in rural areas. Mr. Ivanov reported receiving similar responses to those given by the law students. Attorneys were asked about outside income, and if they would be interested in mentorship.

Justice Tuck asked about data in regard to the fellowship program and proposal. Mr. Ivanov stated that attitudes seemed in favor, but the data is still being aggregated. She added that she is looking forward to seeing their final numbers. Ms. Johnson agreed and expressed gratitude for their work on this project. The Skype call was concluded.

Following the Rural Access Report, Commissioners divided into small groups that rotated tables and discussed projects including: the Rural Access Proposal and UC Davis Study, the Housing Law & Consumer Protection Program, the CourtHelp and Limited Scope Pilot projects, the Legal Aid Modest Means Panel, and the Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation’s resource development efforts. Each group met and discussed their given topic for approximately 15 minutes. After three rotations, each group’s facilitator gave a brief report to the full Commission.

Rural Access Initiative

Justice Tuck presented for the Rural Access group. She mentioned that the proposal has been provided to Sen. Jeremy Hutchinson, and has several components including a loan repayment program. She added that she learned

92

from the survey that students appear to be open to receiving less money. The other components of the proposal include a judicial clerkship program, a legal aid fellowship program in rural counties, and distance legal incubators.

Mr. Nagel suggesting approaching larger firms about supporting the placement of new attorneys in rural areas for a short-term commitment, potentially two years.

Housing Law & Consumer Protection Program

Ms. Carter presented for the Housing and Consumer Protection Program group. She mentioned the statewide legal aid work groups, and increasing staff in the areas of housing and consumer law. The foreclosure crisis seems to have begun to abate, but landlord tenant and debt collection cases continue to be of high concern. The next step is to determine how to sustain the work and programs that have emerged from these groups. Sustainability will require replacing current funding with outside funding once the housing settlement funds are depleted. She posited that additional funds could be raised through bar dues, or perhaps by educating businesses with charitable giving programs about legal aid using the recent economic benefits study to help with this. She concluded stating that the group also discussed mediation for landlord-tenant programs, but this may require further pilot projects.

CourtHelp and Limited Scope Pilot

Mr. Morris presented for the group, stating that ALSP and Commission staff are now providing face-to-face services at Pulaski County Courthouse. He added that he would like to speak with Mr. Richardson more about his program’s help desk in Northwest Arkansas. Prof. Olson agreed that law students can get involved, especially if only giving legal information. Mr. Morris expressed concern for the sustainability of these programs. He concluded that ALSP has secured over 21 technology grants over the years to fund justice technology projects, but that this is not sustainable either. The Commission should consider ways to sustain this work, which is a core part of its mission.

Legal Aid Modest Means Panel

Mr. Richardson began by thanking Ms. Adams for her help in securing money to help the Northwest Arkansas help desk to continue. He continued, mentioning the American Bar Association study from 2008 or 2009 on modest means panels. The goal of these panels is to extend access to justice for people that fall into the income gap; legal aid cannot help because do not fall in income guidelines. He added that attorneys have signed up for the panel with a sliding fee schedule, referrals are done on a rotating basis, and that they are trying to determine if best to pilot in certain areas of the state or statewide. They are also considering what substantive areas of the law should be of focus; mostly see domestic relations, but this would be similar to the Judicare program of the past. Mr. Richardson concluded stating that the panel will be a good way for young attorneys to get experience and get their names out there.

Ms. Leflar had a question regarding if an attorney would not want to charge fees on this panel if they could. Mr. Richardson agreed that it would be possible.

Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation Report

Ms. Johnson began by speaking about the IOLTA program. The program brought in less money this past year than it has during the entire history of the program. Sustained, record law interest rates have been the primary culprit. She continued, stating that the Foundation is ramping up a deliberate statewide fundraising approach. Mr. Mayfield mentioned helping with fundraising for Arkansas Children’s Hospital, and the effectiveness of letters and follow up phone calls. The Foundation is also looking to tap into resources from corporate partners. The IOLTA Program also has opportunity to tap into resources from bank partners. She will soon be meeting with a representative of the Federal Reserve to discuss the Community Reinvestment Act, which may serve as a mechanism for attracting more bank support.

93

The Arkansas IOLTA program is celebrating its thirtieth anniversary this year and to help emphasize this meaningful event, the Foundation is looking to do an endowment campaign with an initial goal of $30,000 to be raised. She will be writing an article about the anniversary to be submitted to the Arkansas Lawyer. To add to the celebration and to help create a presence and hype, staff members have also been putting up “Throwback Thursday” pictures on the Access to Justice Facebook page from a collective archive of pictures found during the IOLTA office move. She continued, stating that the Foundation is also exploring the possibility of proposing a rule for unclaimed funds. As the Unclaimed Funds Act under state law that is relatively difficult to navigate, and we receive frequent calls regarding the issue, she stated she would like for the Foundation to be the entity inquiring attorneys can remit funds to because they often would like to do so. Committee and Task Force Reports and Recommendations Governance Committee Justice Tuck referenced and reviewed the draft operating rules developed by the Governance Committee, requiring the full Commission’s approval for adoption. Once adopted by the Commission, we will send the operating rules to the Supreme Court for review and approval. She asked for further discussion. Ms. Carter asked if self-adopted operating rules and suggested having a statement of purpose. Judge Harper moved to approve the operating rules. Ms. Adams seconded the motion. Prof. Goldner asked for clarification on including a friendly amendment for a clarifying statement of purpose. All members voted in favor of the motion with the friendly amendment. Self-Represented Litigant Task Force Prof. Goldner reported that all three of the Self-Represented Litigant Task Force’s committees have been active, and have made several recommendations, including a draft administrative order and rule changes that require the full Commission’s approval before moving to the Arkansas Bar Association and the Supreme Court to also approve. He referenced the first proposal on page 119 of the meeting packet, a draft of proposed Administrative Order Number 22: a Policy Regarding Provision of Legal Information to the Public. He added that this proposed administrative order is for non-lawyers and specifies what they can say that will not cause them to exercise the unauthorized practice of law. He reviewed the definitions on page 120, including “Self-Help Patron” and “Self-Help Personnel”. He further explained Section III and the role of self-help personnel. Justice Tuck asked for a motion to approve the draft of Administrative Order No. 22 with the understanding that this approval will go to the other entities for input, which will include the Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission, Arkansas Bar Association’s Board of Governors and House of Delegates, and ultimately the Supreme Court. She specified that the approval is for the version dated January, 26, 2015. Mr. Nagel moved for approval of the draft of Administrative Order No. 22. Mr. Mayfield seconded the motion. All members voted in favor of the motion and it was unanimously approved. Prof. Goldner continued, asking members to turn to page 125 of the meeting packet regarding the Draft of Suggested Revision to the Revised Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.2. He reviewed the recommendation of moving one of the current comments to become part of the rule and specifying that it permits accommodations all litigants, including self-represented litigants. The proposed revision also gives specific examples of what a judge may do while still maintaining neutrality. Justice Tuck asked for a motion to approve these suggestion revisions to the current rule so that they can be sent to the Judicial Discipline and Disability Committee for further review. She specified that the version dated September 24, 2014 is the version being approved. Judge Harper moved to approve the suggested revisions to the current rule. Ms. Adams seconded the motion. All members voted in favor of the motion.

94

Next, Prof. Goldner referenced page 127 of the meeting packet regarding the proposal and amendment to Rule 11 and the corresponding Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically the “Signing of Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Sanctions.” Prof. Goldner noted that these revisions were important for ensuring that attorneys may permissibly “ghostwrite” pleadings, without being obligated to sign them, as part of a limited scope engagement. Such changes need to be made in order for unbundled services to work. On page 127, he reviewed the language and purpose of Section (b)(2), which permits an attorney who provides drafting assistance to rely on the client’s representation of the facts. Rule 11 will go to Supreme Court’s Committee on Civil Practice Committee, along with proposed Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 87, for review and approval. Justice Tuck asked for a motion to approve the version of Rule 11 dated September 26, 2015. Mr. Mayfield moved to approve Rule 11 and Judge Harper seconded the motion. Next, Prof. Goldner referenced draft Rule of Civil Procedure 87 on page 132, which is intended to explicitly authorize limited scope representation as a matter of civil procedure and require that the scope of limited agreement be recognized where notice is properly given. Judge McCallum moved to approve Rule 87 and Ms. A. Walker seconded the motion. All voted in favor of the motion. Prof. Goldner backtracked to page 129 and Rule 1.2 on Scope of Representation. The rule covers informed consent and limited scope, as well as when informed consent is required in writing. He reviewed changes and recommendations regarding Rule 1.2. While going over the rule provisions, Prof. Goldner wondered whether additional clarification is needed in subsection (c)(2) to include permissible agreements not reduced to writing. He suggested replacing “in writing signed by the client” with “as required by this rule,” and this was the consensus of Commission members. The Commission also reached agreement that the language in subsections (A) and (B) referencing a “writing” should be replaced with “as agreed upon.” Justice Tuck stated that this rule will go to Professional Conduct as well as the Board of Governors and the House of Delegates for review and approval. She then asked for a motion to approve Rule 1.2 with the suggested amendments. Mr. Mayfield moved to approve Rule 1.2 and Judge Harper seconded the motion. All members voted in favor of the motion. Prof. Goldner moved on to page 130 and Rule 4.2 regarding communication with person represented by counsel. He stated that this rule formerly had no subparts, but now will have parts A and B and touches on partially limited scope represented person. Mr. Mayfield moved to approve and Ms. Adams seconded. All approved. Prof. Goldner reviewed the final rule on page 131; Rule 4.3 dealing with an unrepresented person. An opposing party must follow subpart A. He also discussed the matter of binding an opposing lawyer. Prof. Olson asked for clarification regarding whose responsibility it is to notify the other party, whether it would be the responsibility of the attorney or client. Ms. Johnson clarified it would be the attorney’s responsibility. Judge McCallum moved to approve the motion and Ms. Walker seconded the motion. Election of Officers Justice Tuck referenced page 134 of the meeting packet regarding the Governance Committee’s nominations under the new operating rules. She reviewed that Prof. Goldner has been recommended for Chair, Judge Harper for Vice Chair, and Ms. Adams for Secretary. She asked for nominations from the floor. No additional nominations were raised. All members approved the suggested slate of officers. Prof. Goldner recognized Justice Tuck’s immense contributions to the Commission, adding that as his first action as new Commission Chair he is appointing Justice Tuck as the chair of the Self-Represented Litigant Task Force. He then read a commendation he had prepared to Justice Tuck and presented her with honoraria. Committee and Task Force Appointments As the newly appointed Chair, Prof. Goldner mentioned that nearly everyone has responded but still waiting on a few responses. Looks like all appointments will work out to what respondents wanted. He or Ms. Johnson will send

95

official word in the next few weeks and may approach others about willingness to serve as chair of the various committees. Report of Executive Director Ms. Johnson reported that additional funds are likely to come to the Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation from the Bank of America settlement that will likely be used to bolster funding for legal aid’s housing and consumer groups. The amount is expected to be about $200,000, but terms of settlement may allow for more funds to be given. She referenced page 145 of the meeting packet regarding Title IV-D Funding, which is a source of federal funding that have been successfully used to fund court-based help centers. She suggested that we study this funding as a Commission. Self-help programs regarding child support are not a threat to child enforcement agencies, and may help increase compliance with orders. She deferred to Mr. Greacen for additional comments. Ms. Johnson continued, stating that the SJI project has been completed, which resulted in the report that Mr. Greacen prepared. She added that the final grant report is in packet, and that the last bit of funds were used to help with implementation of the project. She continued her report, stating that in the meeting packet she included a copy of the draft bill for changing and addressing the implied warrant of habitability issue. She prefaced that the draft bill is only informational at this time. Rep. Broadaway and Rep. Leding will be sponsoring this bill. She further clarified that this bill will not mirror last year’s bill, as it addresses minimum standards for what landlords should be doing and what good landlords already do despite having no such present standards.

New Business Open Discussion No new business was raised.

Old Business

Future Meetings April 24, 2015, 11:30 a.m., Clarendon, Arkansas – Clarendon Community Room July 24, 2015, 11:30 a.m., location TBA (potentially Texarkana) October 30, 2015, 11:30 a.m., location TBA

Adjourn Mr. Mayfield made a motion to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.

96

ARKANSAS ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOUNDATION, INC.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY

ARTICLE I

PURPOSE

The purpose of this Conflict of Interest Policy is to protect the interest of the Arkansas

Access to Justice Foundation (the “Foundation”) when it is contemplating entering into a

transaction or arrangement that might benefit the private interest of an officer or director of the

Foundation or might result in a possible excess benefit transaction. This Policy is intended to

supplement, but not replace any applicable state and federal laws governing conflict of interest

applicable to nonprofit and charitable organizations.

ARTICLE II

DEFINITIONS

1. Interested Person. Any director, principal officer or member of a committee with

governing board-delegated powers, who has a direct or indirect financial interest, as defined

below, is an interested person.

2. Financial Interest. A person has a financial interest if the person has, directly or

indirectly, through business, investment or family:

a. An ownership or investment interest in any entity with which the

Foundation has a transaction or arrangement;

b. A compensation arrangement with the Foundation or with any entity or

individual with which the Foundation has a transaction or arrangement; or

c. A potential ownership or investment interest in, or compensation

arrangement with, any entity or individual with which the Foundation is negotiating a

transaction or arrangement.

Compensation includes direct and indirect remuneration, as well as gifts or favors that are

not insubstantial.

The opening or holding of an IOLTA account by any person subject to this policy shall

not be considered a “financial interest” requiring application of the procedures in Article III of

this policy.

A financial interest is not necessarily a conflict of interest. Under Article III, Section 2, a

person who has a financial interest may have a conflict of interest only if the appropriate

governing board or committee decides that a conflict of interest exists.

97

2

ARTICLE III

PROCEDURES

1. Duty to Disclose. In connection with any actual or possible conflict of interest, an

interested person must disclose the existence of the financial interest and be given the

opportunity to disclose all material facts to the directors and members of committees with

governing board-delegated powers considering the proposed transaction or arrangement.

2. Determining Whether a Conflict of Interest Exists. After disclosure of the

financial interest and all material facts, and after any discussion with the interested person,

he/she shall leave the governing board or committee meeting while the determination of a

conflict of interest is discussed and voted upon. The remaining board or committee members

shall decide if a conflict of interest exists.

3. Procedures for Addressing the Conflict of Interest.

a. An interested person may make a presentation at the governing board or

committee meeting, but after the presentation, he/she shall leave the meeting during the

discussion of, and the vote on the transaction or arrangement involving the possible

conflict of interest.

b. The chairperson of the governing board or committee shall, if appropriate,

appoint a disinterested person or committee to investigate alternatives to the proposed

transaction or arrangement.

c. After exercising due diligence, the governing board or committee shall

determine whether the Foundation can obtain with reasonable efforts a more

advantageous transaction or arrangement from a person or entity that would not give rise

to a conflict of interest.

d. If a more advantageous transaction or arrangement is not reasonably

possible under circumstances not producing a conflict of interest, the governing board or

committee shall determine by a majority vote of the disinterested directors whether the

transaction or arrangement is in the Foundation’s best interest, for its own benefit, and

whether it is fair and reasonable. In conformity with the above determination, it shall

make its decision as to whether to enter into the transaction or arrangement

4. Violations of the Conflicts of Interest Policy.

a. If the governing board or committee has reasonable cause to believe a

member has failed to disclose actual or possible conflicts of interest, it shall inform the

member of the basis for such belief and afford the member an opportunity to explain the

alleged failure to disclose.

b. If, after hearing the member’s response and after making further

investigation as warranted by the circumstances, the governing board or committee

determines the member has failed to disclose an actual or possible conflict of interest, it

shall take appropriate disciplinary and corrective action.

98

3

ARTICLE IV

RECORDS OF PROCEEDINGS

The minutes of the governing board and all committees with board-delegated powers

shall contain:

1. The names of the persons who disclosed or otherwise were found to have

a financial interest in connection with an actual or possible conflict of interest, the nature

of the financial interest, any action taken to determine whether a conflict of interest was

present, and the governing board’s or committee’s decision as to whether a conflict of

interest in fact existed.

2. The names of the persons who were present for discussions and votes

relating to the transaction or arrangement, the content of the discussion, including any

alternatives to the proposed transaction or arrangement, and a record of any votes taken

in connection with the proceedings.

ARTICLE V

COMPENSATION

1. A voting member of the governing board who receives compensation, directly or

indirectly, from the Foundation for services is precluded from voting on matters pertaining to

that member’s compensation.

2. A voting member of any committee whose jurisdiction includes compensation

matters and who receives compensation, directly or indirectly, from the Foundation for services

is precluded from voting on matters pertaining to that member’s compensation.

3. No voting member of the governing board or any committee whose jurisdiction

includes compensation matters and who receives compensation, directly or indirectly, from the

Foundation, either individually or collectively, is prohibited from providing information to any

committee regarding compensation.

ARTICLE VI

ANNUAL STATEMENTS

Each director, principal officer and member of a committee with governing board

delegated powers shall annually sign a statement which affirms such person:

1. Has received a copy of the Conflict of Interest Policy;

2. Has read and understands the Policy;

3. Has agreed to comply with the Policy; and

4. Understands the Foundation is charitable and in order to maintain its federal tax

exemption, it must engage primarily in activities which accomplish one or more of its tax-

exempt purposes.

99

4

ARTICLE VII

PERIODIC REVIEWS

To ensure the Foundation operates in a manner consistent with charitable purposes and

does not engage in activities that could jeopardize its tax-exempt status, periodic reviews shall be

conducted. The periodic reviews shall, at a minimum, include the following subjects:

1. Whether compensation arrangements and benefits are reasonable, based on

competent survey information and the result of arm’s length bargaining.

2. Whether partnerships, joint ventures and arrangements with management

organizations conform to the Foundation’s written policies, are properly recorded, reflect

reasonable investment or payments for goods and services, further charitable purposes and do not

result in inurement, impermissible private benefit or an excess benefit transaction.

ARTICLE VIII

USE OF OUTSIDE EXPERTS

When conducting the periodic reviews, as provided for in Article VII, the Foundation

may, but need not, use outside advisors. If outside experts are used, their use shall not relieve the

governing board of its responsibility for ensuring periodic reviews are conducted.

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that I am the duly elected and acting Secretary of the Arkansas Access to

Justice Foundation, Inc., and that the foregoing Conflict of Interest Policy was unanimously

adopted by the unanimous consent of the Board of Directors of the Arkansas Access to Justice

Foundation this ____ day of ______________, 2015:

By:

Secretary

100

ARKANSAS ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOUNDATION

ANNUAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

I, the undersigned Director, as a duly elected member of the Board of Directors of the

Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation (“Foundation”), do hereby affirm that I have received,

read, and understand the Foundation’s Conflict of Interest Policy, and I agree to comply with that

policy.

I understand that the Foundation is a nonprofit corporation organized for charitable

purposes, and in order for the Foundation to maintain its federal tax exemption, it must engage

primarily in activities which accomplish one or more of its tax-exempt purposes.

In addition, I verify that the following statements are true and correct to the best of my

knowledge and belief. The definitions contained in the Policy are incorporated into this Annual

Conflict of Interest Statement by this reference to them.

1. Do you have a financial interest in any transaction with the Foundation which is currently

pending or which has occurred during the past twelve (12) months?

Yes ___ No ___

If yes, please explain:

2. With regard to the transactions identified in Paragraph 1 above, the total amounts which I

or my family or affiliated entities have received during the past twelve (12) months is:

.

3. Are you aware of any other circumstances which potentially create a conflict between

your personal or business interests and the interests of the Foundation?

Yes ___ No ___

If yes, please explain:

4. Please list the name of every other organization (nonprofit or for-profit) for which you

serve on the governing board.

Signature Date

Printed Name

101

foundation meeting - arkansas access to justice · 2017-05-02 · arkansas access to justice...

Documents