Segment: Government
Opportunity: Law permitted only the State’s Attorney to pursue unpaid court fines.
Solution: Enact a law that allows outsourcing debt collection to third-parties.
Result: Better tracking and faster, increased collections.
Opportunity
Every county has tremendous budget challenges. More than just uncollected debts, the overhead and operational dollars needed to run the court systems are staggering. For example, every time someone walks through the doors of the court it costs $178 – regardless of what that person did, or why there are there.
To address this problem, some counties proposed that any offenders who miss their original court date be summoned again. However, this incurs additional expense that may not be recovered due to insufficient enforcement.
The State’s Attorney in each Illinois County is also the Chief Prosecutor. Specific responsibilities are to prosecute all offenses within their jurisdiction and represent the county in all civil matters—including the collection of unpaid, court-ordered fees and fines. Until early 2004, it was widely interpreted that only the State’s Attorney could legally pursue unpaid fees and fines. That’s when Harris & Harris saw an opportunity.
At the time, there were no consequences for not paying a fine. The State’s Attorney did not have enough staff to follow-up on every court-related debt, and prosecute all crimes being committed.
Solution
In response to this situation, Harris & Harris researched, drafted and lobbied a law to permit the hiring of third-party collectors. Harris & Harris conducted surveys that revealed an estimated $3 billion in unpaid court fines. In late 2004/early 2005, Jim Gilbert, Director of Government Affairs at Harris & Harris, drafted legislation that he thought would appropriately address this issue—with the support of a well-respected sponsor, Sen. Kirk Dillard, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the Illinois Senate. The bill's co-sponsor was Sen. Barack Obama.
Mr. Gilbert and Sen. Dillard met with key people from various jurisdictions to support the bill. Dorothy Brown, of the Circuit Court of Cook County (the largest circuit court in the world), Pam McGuire of Will County and Kyle Gillis (a DuPage County Board Member) were early supporters. A conference with the Illinois Administrative Office of the Courts and the Illinois States Attorney's Association followed to resolve potential constitutional issues with amendatory language.
When brought before the Senate, the bill already had statewide support of all stakeholders and it was approved unanimously in both houses. Effective January 2, 2005, counties may now use a third-party to collect on court debt.
Result
Any county in Illinois may hire any third-party collection agency/law firm to assist in the collection of court-imposed debts.
Through its leadership, Harris & Harris clearly defined its position as an industry expert—the company that drafted, championed and funded the lobbying effort to achieve enactment of this new law. In fact, while over $100,000 was spent on research and legal fees to get this bill before the Senate, it will deliver tens of millions of dollars back to the State.
The law has had a ripple effect across the nation. In fact, Iowa recently enacted a similar law—modeled after the Illinois law that Harris & Harris promulgated.
Download this as a PDFOpportunity: Law permitted only the State’s Attorney to pursue unpaid court fines.
Solution: Enact a law that allows outsourcing debt collection to third-parties.
Result: Better tracking and faster, increased collections.
Opportunity
Every county has tremendous budget challenges. More than just uncollected debts, the overhead and operational dollars needed to run the court systems are staggering. For example, every time someone walks through the doors of the court it costs $178 – regardless of what that person did, or why there are there.
To address this problem, some counties proposed that any offenders who miss their original court date be summoned again. However, this incurs additional expense that may not be recovered due to insufficient enforcement.
The State’s Attorney in each Illinois County is also the Chief Prosecutor. Specific responsibilities are to prosecute all offenses within their jurisdiction and represent the county in all civil matters—including the collection of unpaid, court-ordered fees and fines. Until early 2004, it was widely interpreted that only the State’s Attorney could legally pursue unpaid fees and fines. That’s when Harris & Harris saw an opportunity.
At the time, there were no consequences for not paying a fine. The State’s Attorney did not have enough staff to follow-up on every court-related debt, and prosecute all crimes being committed.
Solution
In response to this situation, Harris & Harris researched, drafted and lobbied a law to permit the hiring of third-party collectors. Harris & Harris conducted surveys that revealed an estimated $3 billion in unpaid court fines. In late 2004/early 2005, Jim Gilbert, Director of Government Affairs at Harris & Harris, drafted legislation that he thought would appropriately address this issue—with the support of a well-respected sponsor, Sen. Kirk Dillard, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the Illinois Senate. The bill's co-sponsor was Sen. Barack Obama.
Mr. Gilbert and Sen. Dillard met with key people from various jurisdictions to support the bill. Dorothy Brown, of the Circuit Court of Cook County (the largest circuit court in the world), Pam McGuire of Will County and Kyle Gillis (a DuPage County Board Member) were early supporters. A conference with the Illinois Administrative Office of the Courts and the Illinois States Attorney's Association followed to resolve potential constitutional issues with amendatory language.
When brought before the Senate, the bill already had statewide support of all stakeholders and it was approved unanimously in both houses. Effective January 2, 2005, counties may now use a third-party to collect on court debt.
Result
Any county in Illinois may hire any third-party collection agency/law firm to assist in the collection of court-imposed debts.
Through its leadership, Harris & Harris clearly defined its position as an industry expert—the company that drafted, championed and funded the lobbying effort to achieve enactment of this new law. In fact, while over $100,000 was spent on research and legal fees to get this bill before the Senate, it will deliver tens of millions of dollars back to the State.
The law has had a ripple effect across the nation. In fact, Iowa recently enacted a similar law—modeled after the Illinois law that Harris & Harris promulgated.
Formerly, state law did not allow third-party collectors to receive any portion of a fine. If the fine was $150, every penny was owed to the court. A fine is a specific court-ordered punishment that cannot be diminished by anyone. The only way to pay for the services of a collection agency was to create a new law whereby the violators themselves pay the cost of collection.
Harris & Harris spearheaded this effort on behalf of the counties and taxpayers who ultimately pay court-related costs in the event that fines go uncollected.
In the process, one of the prosecutors questioned if the technique was constitutional. The Ex Post Facto prohibition in the U.S. Constitution states that no law may be enacted making the punishment for an offense worse than when the offense was originally committed.
Harris & Harris conducted extensive research of State and Federal Supreme Court rulings using two prominent, national law firms and one specialty Illinois law firm. As a third party provides a ministerial service on behalf of the State, it was determined that the additional collection fee is not punitive in nature, but compensatory. Several legal precedents were identified to support this conclusion.
Law extensions
In 2005, only Illinois courts could assess this incremental fee to cover third-party costs.
In 2006, the Illinois Department of Revenue modeled a law after this that deemed any person with an unpaid tax liability or liability to a state agency responsible for any cost of collection.
In 2007, two new areas were added. One covered all municipalities, where debts could be collected with the obligor paying any costs associated with collecting that debt. All court-ordered judgment orders of forfeiture and restitution may now be collected in the same manner.
The proactive and thorough approach by Harris & Harris now allows more efficient collections in the government arena.
Harris & Harris spearheaded this effort on behalf of the counties and taxpayers who ultimately pay court-related costs in the event that fines go uncollected.
In the process, one of the prosecutors questioned if the technique was constitutional. The Ex Post Facto prohibition in the U.S. Constitution states that no law may be enacted making the punishment for an offense worse than when the offense was originally committed.
Harris & Harris conducted extensive research of State and Federal Supreme Court rulings using two prominent, national law firms and one specialty Illinois law firm. As a third party provides a ministerial service on behalf of the State, it was determined that the additional collection fee is not punitive in nature, but compensatory. Several legal precedents were identified to support this conclusion.
Law extensions
In 2005, only Illinois courts could assess this incremental fee to cover third-party costs.
In 2006, the Illinois Department of Revenue modeled a law after this that deemed any person with an unpaid tax liability or liability to a state agency responsible for any cost of collection.
In 2007, two new areas were added. One covered all municipalities, where debts could be collected with the obligor paying any costs associated with collecting that debt. All court-ordered judgment orders of forfeiture and restitution may now be collected in the same manner.
The proactive and thorough approach by Harris & Harris now allows more efficient collections in the government arena.
A number of years ago, laws permitted only the State’s Attorney to pursue fines imposed for failing to appear in court, as well as all parking tickets and other municipal fines.
Harris & Harris recognized the escalating problem of a crushing debt pool with limited resources for enforcement. They worked with lawmakers and local and state government entities to enact a law that allows outsourcing debt collection to third-party agencies. A higher capacity to handle collections and strict enforcement policies have resulted in better tracking and faster, increased collections.
Judgment order of forfeiture and restitution
A judgment order of forfeiture begins when an individual posts bail bond, or 10% of the bond, to be released from confinement. Failure to appear at a scheduled court appearance results in forfeiture.
The problem of people not coming to court—and not paying their bonds—left a debt pool of roughly $3 billion, identical to the amount of uncollected court fines. Fewer people have outstanding judgment orders of forfeiture than those owing traffic fines, but they generally owe more.
Crime victim restitution
Restitution payment is another growing problem. Most was going uncollected because individual victims don’t usually have the financial ability to get proper representation. With the enacting of this new law, the State’s Attorney can retain a firm like Harris & Harris to represent and collect debts for the victims who are the beneficiaries of orders of restitution.
Laws with unintended consequences
In many states, legislators write laws with substantial fines for violations. For example, a speeding ticket, or any money collected from your court appearance, is split among various organizations—35% to the arresting agency, 35% to county court, 30% to the state judicial system (with a portion going to MADD, Court Automation System or other organization). Every statue is written specifically to break out where this money goes. The result is hundreds of laws with different allocations. States spend more time thinking about where money should go, than about how to collect it. These are good intentions, but incomplete in their collection strategy.
No punishment for unpaid fines
Limited resources and growing responsibility are serious problems for Courts and Counties across the nation. Even as case volume grows exponentially with more people, roads and offenders, the courts do not get more funding. This law has made significant steps to help government fund services on which we rely.
General municipal debt
As a result of its involvement enacting these laws, Harris & Harris has been retained to collect outstanding debts by counties with a combined population of over 10 million persons. Counties with the largest population concentrations have the largest benefit. The bulk of these offenses are traffic-related, and therefore most collections occur in areas where the most traffic exists.
Harris & Harris recognized the escalating problem of a crushing debt pool with limited resources for enforcement. They worked with lawmakers and local and state government entities to enact a law that allows outsourcing debt collection to third-party agencies. A higher capacity to handle collections and strict enforcement policies have resulted in better tracking and faster, increased collections.
Judgment order of forfeiture and restitution
A judgment order of forfeiture begins when an individual posts bail bond, or 10% of the bond, to be released from confinement. Failure to appear at a scheduled court appearance results in forfeiture.
The problem of people not coming to court—and not paying their bonds—left a debt pool of roughly $3 billion, identical to the amount of uncollected court fines. Fewer people have outstanding judgment orders of forfeiture than those owing traffic fines, but they generally owe more.
Crime victim restitution
Restitution payment is another growing problem. Most was going uncollected because individual victims don’t usually have the financial ability to get proper representation. With the enacting of this new law, the State’s Attorney can retain a firm like Harris & Harris to represent and collect debts for the victims who are the beneficiaries of orders of restitution.
Laws with unintended consequences
In many states, legislators write laws with substantial fines for violations. For example, a speeding ticket, or any money collected from your court appearance, is split among various organizations—35% to the arresting agency, 35% to county court, 30% to the state judicial system (with a portion going to MADD, Court Automation System or other organization). Every statue is written specifically to break out where this money goes. The result is hundreds of laws with different allocations. States spend more time thinking about where money should go, than about how to collect it. These are good intentions, but incomplete in their collection strategy.
No punishment for unpaid fines
Limited resources and growing responsibility are serious problems for Courts and Counties across the nation. Even as case volume grows exponentially with more people, roads and offenders, the courts do not get more funding. This law has made significant steps to help government fund services on which we rely.
General municipal debt
As a result of its involvement enacting these laws, Harris & Harris has been retained to collect outstanding debts by counties with a combined population of over 10 million persons. Counties with the largest population concentrations have the largest benefit. The bulk of these offenses are traffic-related, and therefore most collections occur in areas where the most traffic exists.
Holistic approach
We maximize revenue on behalf of government clients through a holistic, global understanding. We realize that the benefit not only comes in the recovery of long overdue money, but improved compliance at the beginning of the process. Obligors are more willing to pay their debts and fines at the beginning of the process because they know there are laws in place that make it challenging to avoid. This results in significant cost savings for the jurisdiction, as they won’t have to see the same obligor multiple times.
Looking forward
As a special assistant corporation counsel, state’s attorney and special assistant attorney general, we are beginning to provide litigation services for our clients—after the collection process has proven unsuccessful. We are currently assisting three of the largest counties in the country as well as three states. This gives us the ability to go into court and litigate on behalf of our governmental clients. Through these appointments, we have the legal right to garnish wages, levy assets, file liens and forfeiture actions if the person has the demonstrated ability to pay and refuses to do so.
We offer a progressive partnership—focused not only on solving today’s problems, but anticipating those of tomorrow.
In the news
As a result of our efforts, elected officials across the country have received favorable media treatment and recognition surrounding new legislation we have advocated for their jurisdictions.
We maximize revenue on behalf of government clients through a holistic, global understanding. We realize that the benefit not only comes in the recovery of long overdue money, but improved compliance at the beginning of the process. Obligors are more willing to pay their debts and fines at the beginning of the process because they know there are laws in place that make it challenging to avoid. This results in significant cost savings for the jurisdiction, as they won’t have to see the same obligor multiple times.
Looking forward
As a special assistant corporation counsel, state’s attorney and special assistant attorney general, we are beginning to provide litigation services for our clients—after the collection process has proven unsuccessful. We are currently assisting three of the largest counties in the country as well as three states. This gives us the ability to go into court and litigate on behalf of our governmental clients. Through these appointments, we have the legal right to garnish wages, levy assets, file liens and forfeiture actions if the person has the demonstrated ability to pay and refuses to do so.
We offer a progressive partnership—focused not only on solving today’s problems, but anticipating those of tomorrow.
In the news
As a result of our efforts, elected officials across the country have received favorable media treatment and recognition surrounding new legislation we have advocated for their jurisdictions.