Proposed Rule Change Would Allow Expanded Support for Pro Bono Clients
The Indiana Supreme Court is considering an amendment to Professional Conduct Rule 1.8 that would permit attorneys providing pro bono legal services to offer limited, modest financial assistance to their clients. Specifically, lawyers would be allowed to provide small gifts of transportation, lodging, meals, or clothing when doing so would help their clients participate in or access pro bono legal representation.
Under the proposal, this assistance must be narrowly tailored and directly connected to the client’s legal needs. The support is not intended to be general financial aid or ongoing support, but rather practical, short-term help that removes immediate barriers to representation.
For example, permissible assistance could include:
- Paying for gas, bus fare, or rideshare so a client can attend a court hearing or legal meeting;
- Covering a night of lodging if overnight travel is required or less expensive than paying for additional transportation;
- Providing a meal during long legal appointments or court days; or
- Supplying basic clothing, such as appropriate attire for a court appearance.
The rule emphasizes that such assistance would be allowed only when it facilitates the lawyer’s ability to represent the client effectively. It is not meant to influence the client’s decisions or create conflicts of interest, but rather to support the integrity and accessibility of the legal process.
Thinking about responding? Some questions for you to consider:
- Do you support adoption of the proposed amendment as written? Why/why not?
- What revisions, if any, would improve clarity, usability, or impact?
-
Are the specified types of assistance appropriate, too broad, or too limited?
-
Is more guidance needed on what qualifies as a “small” or “modest” gift? Why/why not?
- Are additional safeguards needed to prevent misuse or misunderstandings?
- Do you think the requirement that assistance be “modest” and tied to facilitating representation clear and workable? Why/why not?
-
-
How would this proposed amendment affect your ability, or the ability of your firm or employer, to represent pro bono clients effectively?
-
Would this change meaningfully increase, decrease, or have no effect on participation in pro bono programs?
- What potential unintended consequences should the Court consider before finalizing the rule?
- Do you see any unintended ethical risks for attorneys? If so, how might they be mitigated?
-
What types of internal policies, training, or guidance would be needed to implement these amendments effectively?
Comments must be submitted by 12:00 pm (EDT) on Wednesday, July 15, 2026.