All posts by Chris Buckley

New Indiana Public Intoxication Law Goes into Effect July 1, 2012

As of May 25, 2012, Governor Mitch Daniels has signed the new Public Intoxication law into effect. The new law will go into effect July 1, 2012. The intent of the new law, among other things, is to discourage potential drunk drivers from operating a motor vehicle, by not penalizing them by imposing criminal liability for getting home by other means. Also, the legislature sought to limit the authority of police officers in utilizing this offense in other, less appropriate situations.

Previous to the passage of Indiana Senate Enrolled Act 97 (2012), law enforcement officers would often use the current public intoxication statute to impose criminal penalties upon individuals when they did not have the necessary reasonable suspicion to charge them with other crimes. In other words, the law often served as a “catch all” for law enforcement officers when they couldn’t establish that the suspect violated any other laws.

In my experience, often times officers would charge drivers of motor vehicles with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of less than 0.08 with public intoxication, since intoxication under the old law was up to the individual officer’s discretion. In other words, a person could be charged with public intoxication solely because the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe the person(s) were intoxicated, regardless of an actual blood alcohol concentration. Another common situation used to occur when the driver of a motor vehicle was taken into custody for driving under the influence (DUI) or operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) and the passenger also admitted to drinking or where the officer smelled alcohol on the person’s breath or in the vehicle.

As of July 1, 2012, this is no longer the case. The new law reads:

SECTION 1. IC 7.1-5-1-3, AS AMENDED BY SEA 274-2012, SECTION 2, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2012]: Sec. 3. (a) Subject to section 6.5 of this chapter, it is a Class B misdemeanor for a person to be in a public place or a place of public resort in a state of intoxication caused by the person’s use of alcohol or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9), if the person:
(1) endangers the person’s life;
(2) endangers the life of another person;
(3) breaches the peace or is in imminent danger of breaching the peace; or
(4) harasses, annoys, or alarms another person.
(b) A person may not initiate or maintain an action against a law enforcement officer based on the officer’s failure to enforce this section.
SECTION 2. IC 7.1-5-1-6, AS AMENDED BY SEA 274-2012, SECTION 3, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2012]: Sec. 6. (a) Subject to section 6.5 of this chapter, it is a Class B misdemeanor for a person to be, or to become, intoxicated as a result of the person’s use of alcohol or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9) in or upon a vehicle commonly used for the public transportation of passengers, or in or upon a common carrier, or in or about a depot, station, airport, ticket office, waiting room or platform, if the person:
(1) endangers the person’s life;
(2) endangers the life of another person;
(3) breaches the peace or is in imminent danger of breaching the peace; or
(4) harasses, annoys, or alarms another person.
(b) A person may not initiate or maintain an action against a law enforcement officer based on the officer’s failure to enforce this section. (emphasis added).

Under the new law, law enforcement must demonstrate reasonable suspicion that the person or persons endangered themselves, endangered others, or breached the peace. In other words, as of July 1, 2012, it will be lawful for a person to peaceably walk home from a party or an establishment after drinking. Several versions of this bill were debated, and the final version weakened the original position somewhat, adding the “breach of peace” element.

In my opinion, the new law still leaves the door open to give law enforcement officers discretion in deciding who to arrest. Making a determination such as a “breach of the peace” is inherently subjective; all subjective determinations are up to law enforcement. We will see how the new law plays out…

If you have been charged with public intoxication in Indiana and need advice from a lawyer. One of the criminal defense lawyers at SFT Lawyers can help! CALL FOR A FREE CONSULTATION TODAY! (219) 841-5683.

Injecting Common Sense into the Porter County Jail Overcrowding Problem

Jail overcrowding has been a longstanding problem in Porter County over recent years. Most recently, the Sheriff, David Lain, pleads with the County to open, and consequently fund, the third pod of our 3-pod jail facility. (See Northwest Indiana Times article, “Porter County Sherriff Again Urging Response to Jail Overcrowding” 2 May 2012; Post-Tribune article, “Sheriff: Porter County Jail Overcrowded, Understaffed, 2 May 2012; Chesterton Tribune article, “Sheriff Lain Warns of Unsafe Overcrowding and Liability at Jail”, 2 May 2012.

First of all, this problem is extremely complex, and no single solution will provide a complete fix. But one aspect of the overcrowding problem that is not being discussed is the fact that we are unnecessarily incarcerating too many people. Only where people pose a threat to society (or paying their debt to society) should they be held in custody. Common examples include possession of marijuana, underage drinking, public intoxication, disorderly conduct, and the like. These people, while not always the most desirable sort, do not pose a significant risk to the society of Porter County at large. In my experience, defendants in these cases are often held for thirty (30) days or more before 1) either posting a cash bond (which most in that situation do not have access to), or 2) getting before a judge to reduce the cash bond requirement.

Even a larger problem is defendants who are held without bond by judges for their failure to appear. I have encountered numerous defendants in Porter County held fifteen (15) days or more–WITHOUT BOND–for their failure to appear. Offenses range from the more serious crimes, all the way to driving while suspended (nearly always the result of failing to appear for traffic infractions). While I understand that the courts must be taken seriously, and I understand that we do need some incentive for making appearances when ordered, being held without bond for fifteen (15) –and in a few cases in excess of forty five (45) days–is excessive. In fact, I have argued on repeated occasions that this is a violation of the defendant’s Eighth Amendment Right against cruel and unusual punishment.

I think releasing non-violent offenders, reducing sentences for non-violent offenders, lowering bonds, and ceasing holds on failures to appear will reduce the overcrowding significantly. I am not saying here, however, that this will completely solve the problem. In my opinion, it could relieve some of the burden upon the county to prevent unnecessary monies being spent and resources being expended.

What do you think, Porter County?

Obtaining an Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Permit/License

Does your establishment qualify to serve alcoholic beverages? If it does, the selling of alcohol could substantially raise your revenues!

The Indiana Alcohol & Tobacco Commission (“IATC”) regulates the use of alcoholic beverages and the Indiana State Excise Police enforces the laws and rules of the IATC.

Obtaining an alcoholic beverage permit through the IATC can be difficult. Not only the difficulty of interpreting the rules and regulations of the IATC, but also the availability of the type of permit you want. There are over seventy (70) permit types available in the State of Indiana! Permits are characterized as one or two or three way permits, meaning your business may sell beer only, or beer and wine only, or beer, wine, and liquor. A permit could be obtained for a retailer restaurant/bar, liquor package store, grocery store, race track, social club, hotel, and more. Each permit type is different in what kind of alcohol you would like to serve, the nature of your business, and if your business is located within or outside city/town corporate limits.

Ways to obtain a permit includes through the State of Indiana if the quota for that type of permit is available, purchasing a permit from another permit owner by transferring the permit or through auction held by the Commission yearly or the census auction held every ten (10) years.

Starting a business that sells alcohol requires you to prepare several weeks ahead of opening day. The process of obtaining a permit from application to the approval of the permit could take up to twelve (12) weeks! Also, there is the responsibility of preparing your employees and servers. One of these steps is ensuring the proper service of alcoholic beverages by attending a certified server training program. This is important when you have employees the age of 19 and 20 years old as they must obtain a restricted permit and attend the training program in order to serve.

From beginning to end, the process of obtaining a alcoholic beverage permit begins with properly filing the correct application, including the attachment of several important documents, a public notice in the newspaper of the hearing date before the local board, appearance at the local board to explain your type of establishment, the local board will then approve or deny your permit application.

In addition to obtaining an alcoholic beverage permit is the creation of your entity with the Indiana Secretary of State and applying for tax identification numbers with the Indiana Department of Revenue. We would be happy to assist with these additional requirements in order to achieve the best entity type for your business.

If you currently have a permit, we can help you with any renewals, transfers, appearances at local board hearings, management agreements, petition for interventions, employee permits and server training, and/or possible deferment of violations issued by the Indiana State Excise Police.

If you need representation to obtain or maintain an alcoholic beverage permit for your business, the experienced attorneys at SFT Lawyers, LLP can help! Contact us today!

Real Estate Investment in Today’s Market: A Little Homework, Large Dividends

To stay in the real estate development game today is a challenge that few would have imagined 5 years ago. Demand for new commercial and residential construction was high, financing was readily available, and small and large businesses alike were making deals and making money. What a difference a few years can make. With a worldwide economic downturn and fury aimed at the real estate market, the likelihood of success today is a substantial challenge. Impossible? No, but without a clear vision and focus, success is hard to come by. A possible secret to finding this success? Agility. Real estate developers of any size and shape must be able to quickly adapt to any change: market demands, financing availability, other economic impacts. Change is inevitable, and the changes we see today may be totally different tomorrow.

So, how can change of this magnitude be a positive for residential real estate developers? The need for greater agility has culled out much of the competition. Many smaller, part time real estate investors and builders have fled to other, safer harbors. Fewer small builders are competing for the demand that does exist. New construction starts are improving, but pale in comparison to where they were before. But there are niches where opportunity awaits. Many options exist for remodeling older homes in established neighborhoods. The market for good neighborhoods remains strong, and the lower priced homes, or those in need of upgrade, can be purchased. Also, new home construction is a viable option in established neighborhoods where vacant lots remain. Rather than trying to make a new market in a large undeveloped tract, purchasing a lot in a desirable neighborhood is a much better bet. Simple upgrades to homes can be an option if you want to rent smaller, more affordable homes. Are there benefits to the homebuyers? You bet. With the more limited new construction, the best sub-contractors are getting the bulk of the work, so the quality of the new homes may be better than ever. Combining this with the new information we have regarding the use of sustainable building practices and materials and you get an even better home than you would have 5 years ago. Also, if your appetite is for rental income, the demand for rental properties is growing daily. So many homes can be remodeled and rented. Better construction contractors, better materials, better locations, better choices. All wins for the homebuyer or renter.

Residential real estate developers still need to manage expenses and financing well. The risk of speculating is too great in many areas. Staying away from too good to be true prices for land (unless you intend to land bank for several years) is another agile strategy. Stay nimble, think smaller and be reactive to changes as they appear. Focusing on maximizing quality locations, utilizing quality labor and building quality homes for purchase or rent is a best bet for staying in the residential real estate game.

About the Author: Attorney Tom Godfrey’s primary practice focus is on real estate and land development matters, environmental law and compliance, sustainable, green and organic business initiatives and advising, labor and employment law, the forming of corporate entities, commercial and industrial real estate investments and transactions, non-profit entity creation and administration, technology businesses, landlord-tenant, publishing, golf course club management, municipal law and general business management consulting.

If you would like to learn more about this article and how we can help you with your real estate and business needs, please contact Attorney Tom Godfrey at SFT Lawyers, LLP, (219) 841-5683.

Indiana General Assembly Passes Law Designed to Renew Right of Self-Defense

In the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting, the issue of “self-defense” is now capturing nationwide attention. However, it was already a fairly hot topic in the Indiana legal community following the 2011 case of Barnes v. State. In that case, the Indiana Supreme Court held that citizens no longer have a right to reasonably resist unlawful attempts by police officers to enter homes. (Read more here in articles by Attorney Christopher Buckley.) The decision outraged many in the legal community and apparently the Indiana General Assembly as well.

On March 20th, Governor Mitch Daniels signed a new bill into law which restores the right to use reasonable force against a public servant when such force is necessary to:

(1) protect the person or a third person from unlawful force;
(2) prevent or terminate the public servant’s unlawful entry into the person’s dwelling; or
(3) prevent or terminate the public servant’s criminal interference with property lawfully in the person’s possession.

Senate Enrolled Act 01 will go into effect on July 1, 2012. The bill, which was co-sponsored by State Senator Ed Charbonneau, R-Valparaiso, does provide some exceptions. For example, a person is not allowed to use force when the person is escaping following commission of a crime or when the person acts as the initial aggressor. Overall though, the bill certainly should help restore the common law right of self-defense in Indiana. (Read a more detailed summary of the new law here or see the bill in its entirety.)

New Indiana Law Allows Reduction of Class D Felonies

In a February Article, we wrote that a new felony reduction bill had passed in the Indiana House. The bill moved on to the Senate, and after some modifications it was signed into law by the Governor on March 15th.

As expected, the statute allows courts to reduce non-violent, non-sexual Class D Felony convictions to Class A Misdemeanors after three years so long as:
(1) the person has not been convicted of perjury or official misconduct;
(2) the person has not been convicted of a new felony; and
(3) no criminal charges are pending against the person.

The final version of the bill also provides additional protection for those who have had records sealed or been arrested without a conviction. It defines “Criminal History Providers” and limits what information they can release. It also imposes punishments on employers who ask whether individuals have had old conviction records sealed. (Read a more detailed summary here.)

The new statute will become effective in July of this year and could have a drastic impact on those with old convictions or arrests. So if you are in such a situation and want to know whether this law might help you, give us a call and the attorneys at SFT Lawyers, LLP will be happy to help!

New Indiana Alcohol Law Offers a More Reasonable Perspective

For the longest time, Indiana has provided an arcane system of overly broad and ambiguously defined alcohol laws. (See SFTlaw Article, Indiana Senate Votes to Restrict Public Intoxication Law by Attorney Jacob Blackstone.) Unfortunately, the law in question did not pass the Indiana General Assembly. What did pass, however, has been coined as the “Lifeline Act”, an act that provides immunity from underage drinking or public intoxication where a person delivers another to medical services for treatment. The law takes effect July 1, 2012. (See Northwest Indiana Times article, Prom, Graduation Drinkers Not Covered by New Indiana Alcohol Immunity Law, 15 Apr 2012.

This was an issue of common sense, and was long overdue. Who ever devised the idea that the criminal offense of a minor’s consumption of alcohol was more serious than seeking medical attention? Wasn’t it poor policy in the first place to enforce and prosecute minors who deliver their friends to medical care? The excessive consumption of alcohol by minors is certainly a concern that we, as a society should address and not overlook. However, this is heavily outweighed in promoting medical care for minors when they consume alcohol (in which state many “accidents” tend to occur).

In addition, Indiana Senate Bill No. 188 (2012) would have redefined the statute to include an “endangerment” clause, but this measure did not pass the Indiana House. What this Bill would have done to the statute is to limit enforcement and prosecution for public intoxication unless the person posed a danger to him/herself, to another person, or the general public. This would have prevented the scenarios in which enforcement comports with common sense and sound public policy.

Currently, law enforcement officers often use the prosecution of these statutes as a “catch all”. What I mean by this is that when law enforcement officers make a traffic stop, or detained a person on the street for questioning, the officers often use the public intoxication or underage drinking statutes to arrest individuals that they couldn’t prove committed any offense. A good example is a person detained walking home from a party at Valparaiso University who is underage. The person does not pose a danger to him/herself, or to the general public, but the officer approaches because he noticed the student leaving the party (and knew that the party was one which was serving alcohol). The officer’s main goal or suspicion could have been to break up the party, cease or prevent the students from using marijuana, or generally to preserve the peace of the neighborhood for its older residents. Unfortunately for the officer, however, the student was not violating any laws, save the fact that he was underage and under the influence of alcohol in public. So the officer detains the “suspect” in an effort to get him to turn on his friends or classmates in breaking up the party the officer feels is a nuisance.

Another missed opportunity in my opinion was the Indiana General Assembly’s failed attempt at passing a statute that exempted DUI passengers from enforcement and prosecution. This is based upon a scenario where a driver is detained or arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence, and where his/her passenger is also intoxicated. It was commonplace that the intoxicated person is also arrested for public intoxication. I strongly feel that the passenger should not be penalized for the driver’s actions, and that this yields a result that the public intoxication statute was not intended to produce.

Perhaps sometime in the near future Indiana will stop spending taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars enforcing statutes that do not protect the public. If these so called “offenders” pose a threat to Hoosiers, they would also violate other statutes. It is time that we start making our law enforcement officers do their jobs and protect our people from legitimate threats to their health, safety, and general welfare.

What do you think about alcohol laws in Indiana? Let us know your thoughts by leaving a comment below.

If you have been prosecuted for an alcohol offense, give one of our experienced criminal defense attorneys a call. SFT Lawyers can help! CALL FOR A FREE CONSULTATION TODAY. (219) 841-5683.

The Trayvon Martin Shooting and the Uncertain Future of ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws

It is well known (and quite frankly flooding the media lately) about the tragic shooting of Trayvon Martin. People most often discuss the racial tensions surrounding the shooting of Trayvon Martin by the [white] self-appointed neighborhood watchman, George Zimmerman. What I would like to briefly discuss, however, are the implications of the law that could lead to the (some would say improper) acquittal of George Zimmerman in Florida, and what this may mean for other states that employ “Stand Your Ground” type laws. Also, since this is an Indiana law blog, I will briefly discuss the similarities between the Florida law and the current laws on the books in the State of Indiana.

There are at least a few legal concepts that are at work here. The first is a common law doctrine known as the “Castle Doctrine.” The “Castle Doctrine” was first established by common law (judicial precedents) in the Nineteenth Century. What the “Castle Doctrine” stands for is the notion that “a man’s home is his castle”. Under the Doctrine, a person is not criminally liable for criminal acts in defense of one’s person or home. Under this doctrine, the defender, if charged with a crime such as murder or battery for instance, must plead the doctrine as an affirmative defense. In other words, the defendant must prove the defense by a preponderance of the evidence in order to defeat charges actually being filed against him or her.

The second legal concept at play here is the right to defend yourself or another person by using “reasonable force” to prevent or stop an attack. Just like the first concept, self defense or defense of others is an affirmative defense that must be asserted and proven by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence.

Unlike these concepts, Florida (and Indiana) have what have been referred to as “Stand Your Ground” laws. These are usually statutes enacted by the state’s legislature which expand or change the procedure by which defenses arise. In this particular instance, the Florida law (and the Indiana law) both shift the burden of proof from the defendant to the prosecution. This means that, instead of the defendant himself having to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he committed the crime(s) in self defense or defense of others, the prosecution must instead prove–beyond any reasonable doubt–that the defendant DID NOT commit the crime(s) in question in self defense or in the defense of others.

Also, in both states the respective “Stand Your Ground” laws create much broader protections than the “Castle Doctrine” or the self defense affirmative defense ever did. Under Indiana as well as Florida law, one falls within the protections while in the curtilage of one’s home, in one’s automobile, or out in the open when the person reasonably believes that the attacker presents a threat to the person. (The curtilage is an important legal term to define the land immediately surrounding a house or dwelling, including any closely associated buildings and structures, but excluding any associated ‘open fields beyond’. It defines the boundary within which a home owner can have a reasonable expectation of privacy and where ‘intimate home activities’ take place. The most common example of a curtilage is a garage.)

Where the reasonably believes the attacker may cause death or serious bodily injury, the person can legally utilize deadly force. Without the threat of death or serious bodily injury the person can defend only utilizing “reasonable force”.

These statutes, while conceived with good intentions, can lead to strange or erroneous results as we have seen (or may likely see) in the Trayvon Martin case. In Florida as well as in Indiana, a person is even justified in using “reasonable force” to protect personal property. Some legal scholars even claim that under certain circumstances a person could be justified in battery or homicide purely in defense of property under the statute(s).

But regardless of the implications in what some may say is overreaching in the law, it is unclear at this point whether George Zimmerman was within the protections afforded by the Florida Statute. Some evidence indicates he chased Trayvon Martin after being repeatedly cautioned to cease his pursuit while other evidence seems to suggest that Zimmerman broke off his surveillance and was returning to his truck when he was confronted by Trayvon on the sidewalk. The outcome will depend solely on which scenario can be proven. It would be difficult at best to argue that Zimmerman was within the protections of a defense statute if he, in fact, was the aggressor. What do you think? Feel free to post comments below.

If you have a criminal question and would like an Indiana attorney to explain Indiana criminal law, call us at SFT Lawyers for an answer. We have attorneys with a wide array of experience in a variety of legal practice areas. CALL FOR A FREE CONSULTATION TODAY. (219) 841-5683.

New Indiana Law Allows Termination of Child Support When Child Turns 19

According to the Post-Tribune article posted yesterday, “Indiana Lowers Cutoff Age to 19 for Receiving Child Support” 10 Apr 2012, the Indiana General Assembly has lowered the age from 21 to 19 for emancipation, which cuts off a father or mother’s obligation to pay child support when the child reaches the reduced age.

Indiana had always been in the minority when it comes to this cutoff age. An overwhelming majority of states have already set the age to 18 or 19. The reason that the Indiana General Assembly chose the age of 19 for the new law is because it wanted to ensure that children would receive support up to and including K-12 education.

Unfortunately for those paying child support, Indiana is still among the states that does not automatically terminate child support. A petition must be filed to legally terminate the child support obligation. Also, many Income Withholding Orders (IWO’s) will remain in effect unless they are modified or terminated pursuant to a court order. (An IWO is a form used to automatically withhold child support from a parent’s income.) The new law goes into effect July 1, 2012.

If you are paying child support and your child is or will be turning nineteen (19) years old in the near future, you should contact an attorney. We at SFT Lawyers have a wide breadth of experience in this area, and we can help. CALL FOR A FREE CONSULTATION TODAY. (219) 841-5683.

Why Lawyers Charge So Damn Much: Fee Types and Misnomers About Legal Fees

The single most important question on a potential client’s mind when a client enters a lawyer’s office is–HOW MUCH IS THIS GOING TO COST!? And rightly so. Believe it or not, this anxiety affects lawyers as well as clients, and can make for tense interactions between lawyer and client. It is difficult to talk to clients about money, but without requiring fees (often up front) any law office would be forced out of practice. It is the lawyer’s (as well as his support staff’s) sole livelihood, and his compensation is probably more modest than one might think. With the sheer amount of new lawyers joining the field each and every day, competition is fierce and salaries of lawyers in general are on the gradual decline. Some lawyers are paid very well at the end of the day, but these lawyers are in the top percent of earners. The average lawyer in a local or small firm in the first ten (10) years of practice makes between fifty thousand ($50,000) and seventy thousand ($70,000) per year, contrary to popular belief.

While this may seem like a substantial income to some people–and it admittedly can provide a comfortable living–there are many expenses that a lawyer must pay. Most lawyers have substantial student loan debt. Many lawyers have college and school loans totaling $100,000 or more. This is greater than or equal to mortgage payments on a starter house for most people! In addition, there are many societies, groups, licensing, and continuing education costs the lawyer must continually pay–just for the privilege of practicing law. Before the lawyer even receives this compensation however, he must first compensate his office staff, pay for all supplies, pay for subscriptions, legal research databases, malpractice insurance, office supplies, and rent, to name just a few.

These days, and especially in small to medium-sized firms, young lawyers are generally compensated based upon the revenue they generate. Firms cannot afford to take the risk of entrepreneurial loss in the lawyer’s first few years of practice. (Very few young lawyers can generate enough business in their first few years of practice to justify even a modest salary.) In tough economic times, law firms will instead ask the young lawyer for a contribution based upon provided space and advertising, usually a percentage of the revenue that the lawyer brings in the door (e.g. – 40% of the lawyer’s earned fees in a given month).

Now that we understand that the seemingly exorbitant fees paid to a lawyer are not going directly into his or her pocket, we can address the types of fees and when they are appropriate. The first of these (and the easiest to understand) is the flat fee. A flat fee is something similar to how a mechanic or a physician might charge. It is a single price for a particular service performed. It includes all fees due and owing, but does not include costs paid on the client’s behalf (e.g. filing fees or depositions, etc.). Flat fees are generally due and owing to the lawyer before the work begins, and technically belong to the lawyer or his/her firm immediately upon receipt. Flat fees are particularly appropriate in criminal cases and cases where the amount of work, from start to completion, is readily ascertainable.

The next type of common fee is a contingency fee. A contingency fee is desirable to clients, because no fees are paid up front (except for any fees or costs incurred on the client’s behalf). The client’s fee instead relies upon a successful recovery or judgment against a defendant, and the lawyer will typically deduct his fee from the final settlement or judgment prior to compensating the client for his/her portion. No fees whatsoever are due to the lawyer if the lawyer does not recover a settlement/judgment from the other party. This type of fee generally encourages the lawyer to be most aggressive, and can only be afforded to plaintiffs in civil cases. These are only appropriate in cases involving money judgments, and they are absolutely prohibited in criminal and family cases.

The third and most common type of fee is an hourly fee. This fee is usually accompanied by a payment commonly referred to as a “retainer”. What is most often meant by “retainer” is a “special retainer”, an advance payment made as a deposit against future legal work performed. Work is usually billed on a periodic basis, e.g. monthly, and the deposited funds remain as the client’s until they are billed as the work is performed, and clients must be sent invoices reflecting their balance(s) on the same basis. In this case, if representation is terminated by the lawyer or the client, the client is entitled to a refund of whatever funds remain in the lawyer‘s trust, i.e. the balance after all billed time spent on the client’s behalf has been deducted. Each lawyer or firm has its own policy with hourly minimums and minimum special retainers. You should check your lawyer’s firm policy on billing prior to initiating a lawyer-client relationship. Also, some lawyers will charge for initial consultations, and some do not. Again, check to see what your lawyer‘s policy is before setting up an appointment.

If you have any questions about lawyer billing or legal fees, please give us a call. We at SFT Lawyers do not charge for initial consultations, and we have no hourly billing minimums. Call for a FREE CONSULTATION today! (219) 841-5683.