Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: THURSDAY, February 24, 1994                   TAG: 9403100021
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A8   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: G. DAVID NIXON
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

VIRGINIANS SHOULDN'T BE FORCED TO GIVE TO LAWYERS' PET CAUSES

This is the program where lawyers are required to put their trust money (clients' money) in an interest-bearing checking account with the interest going to the Virginia Law Foundation. Prior to the institution of mandatory IOLTA last fall, lawyers were allowed to voluntarily participate in this program.

In all the media accounts I've seen, the issue is depicted as the banks vs. the Legal Aid Society. The media have completely missed the point, or have swallowed the Virginia Bar Association's political angle on this matter.

Many people beyond the involved banks oppose mandatory IOLTA for a lot of reasons.

The media have misconstrued who's the rightful ``owner'' of this interest. It's not the banks, nor the bar, but the depositors. When I deposit my money into an interest-bearing account, it's my interest since it's earned on my money.

Therefore, interest earned on an attorney's trust account is his client's, since it's earned on his client's money. Mandatory IOLTA is nothing more than a confiscation of clients' money for causes that many of them wouldn't voluntarily contribute to.

A poll was taken by Virginia Lawyers Weekly last fall prior to the institution of mandatory IOLTA. Eighty-three percent of respondents opposed making IOLTA mandatory. Even 53 percent of the lawyers who voluntarily participated in IOLTA opposed making it mandatory. Why would this be so if Virginia Law Foundation is such a good charity?

Philosophically, I believe most people oppose the idea that other people be made to contribute to a charity. This becomes even more important when many people oppose that charity's aims. The Virginia Law Foundation funds a lot of liberal causes. A large portion of the money from the IOLTA interest goes to Legal Aid Societies that represent the poor without charge. While I agree that the poor need to be represented, I'm very much opposed to forcing people to contribute to that cause.

In addition to Legal Aid Societies, the Virginia Law Foundation also gives grants to other organizations, some of which are very regionalized or liberal in their aims.

In 1992, the Virginia Law Foundation gave money to two projects - $18,000 to the Community Advocate Volunteer Program and $20,000 to the CAVORP Juvenile Project - both of which served the Richmond area only. Apparently, one of the favorite causes of the Virginia Law Foundation is convicted criminals.

Besides the two above-mentioned programs that involved the criminal-justice system, the Virginia Law Foundation also gave a grant to the Virginia Post Conviction Assistance Project, whose purpose was to provide training for attorneys in representing defendants in post-conviction death-penalty litigation.

Although I'm a criminal-defense lawyer myself and agree that defendants in these cases deserve competent representation, it's projects such as this that support the never-ending appeals that are such a problem in our criminal-justice system.

Additionally, there was a $17,000 grant given to the Families of Prisoners Transportation Project that promoted ``strong family ties'' by providing free visitation-day transportation to families with loved ones in state prisons.

Although there are arguments that every one of the projects of the Virginia Law Foundation are needed from one's viewpoint or another, there's also much controversy in some of the projects it chooses to fund. The people, whose money is now going to fund these projects, have absolutely no say over how it's spent.

I'd think that a large percentage of those whose money is now being used to support these projects would disagree with one or more of the grants given by the Virginia Law Foundation. I believe this is the reason that a huge majority of lawyers in this state oppose making IOLTA mandatory.

I hope in the future the media will present this issue from all sides. It is not merely a matter of Virginia banks vs. the Legal Aid Society.

G. David Nixon is a lawyer in Roanoke.