International Academy of Trial Lawyers Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
770017150
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Roseville, MN, USA
Phone
9525462364
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,639,571
Expenses
$449,533
Assets
$10,306,374
Liabilities
$19

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROMAN SILBERFELD (PRESIDENT)
  • A CLIFFORD EDWARDS (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JANEL KUEBKER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • ROMAN SILBERFELD (PRESIDENT)
  • A CLIFFORD EDWARDS (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JANE MICHAELS (SECRETARY/TREASURER)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of the foundation is to engage in charitable and educational activities relating to the law and legal education in the united states and throughout the international legal community. In furtherance of this mission, the foundation supports nonprofit organizations and initiatives focused on:1. Cultivating the rule of law and the science of jurisprudence2. Promoting reforms to improve the administration and quality of justice3. Elevating standards of integrity, honor, and professionalism within the legal profession4. Promoting public awareness of the essential services performed by legal professionals in protecting and preserving legal rights

What it reported doing in 2025

Promotion of reforms to improve the administration and quality of justice: the foundation supports this program through grants to nonprofit organizations that promote fair, effective, and independent justice systems. Grant support includes programs funded through organizations such as the nita foundation, which provide judicial and trial advocacy education focused on ethical decisionmaking, professional excellence, and the effective administration of justice. The foundation also supports initiatives addressing systemic reform, including efforts focused on wrongful convictions and the abolition of the death penalty, to promote fairness and public confidence in the justice system.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 83% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 92
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 37.2%; rating input score 37
  • Program expense ratio: 65.6%; rating input score 66
  • Fundraising efficiency: $45.77 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Pass
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.1%; rating input score 98; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 72.6%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 22.93; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.1% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 37.2% of revenue deployed · 65.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $295K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes foreign activity and grants
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 10 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 37/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.