Mississippi Law Journal Symposium Issue on Access to Justice

The Mississippi Law Journal Symposium issue on access to justice is out.  All the articles are online.  Lots of useful citeable content.

Here is the Table of Contents:

Kristen Kyle-Castelli, Foreword: Poverty and Access to Justice Symposium

Hon. Jess H. Dickinson, Equal Justice

Benjamin P. Cooper, Regulatory Barriers to Justice in Mississippi

Brooks Holland, The Washington State Limited License Legal Technician Practice Rule: ANational First in Access to Justice

Deborah H. Bell, The Cost of Fault-Based Divorce

Hon. Denise S. Owens, The Reality of Pro Se Representation

Vincent Morris, Navigating Justice: Self-Help Resources, Access to Justice, And Whose Job is it Anyway?

Douglas A. Blaze & R. Brad Morgan, More Equal Access to Justice: The Unrealized Potential of Law Schools

Marni von Wilpert, Medical-Legal Partnerships in Mississippi: A Model to Improve Access to Justice

Hon. Donna M. Barnes, Bringing Access to Justice to the Local Community

Its good to see more law review attention to access to justice.

Advertisements

About richardzorza

I am deeply involved in access to justice and the patient voice movement.
This entry was posted in Access to Justice Generally. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Mississippi Law Journal Symposium Issue on Access to Justice

  1. Mary Ryan says:

    Its great to see that there are folks thinking about “citizens rights” albeit exclusive to those who remain in control of the “system.” “We the People” are a group of ragged hagged folks who developed this great country on the principles of the Constitution. We live in a Republic, with three branches of government for the purpose of keeping the checks and balances balanced and checked. In a lot of these pieces, there seems to be a continued invitation to judges, lawyers, law students, physician/lawyer partnerships, etc. The impression – that a citizen’s right to petition the Courts as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is lost. The focus seems to be on funding law students, doctor/lawyer partnerships, community based access to justice date analysis, but what seems to be missing is again, the pro se litigant or rather the citizen who chooses to exercise his/her rights without the intervention of an attorney, and in fact, and would prefer not to have an attorney. There seems to be a disconnect regarding the possibility that EVERY citizen has, by Constitutional mandate, the right to petition the court for grievances. Every citizen has a right to a jury trial. I haven’t seen any stipulation that these rights are controlled or subject to the “court’s” approval or whether there is adequate funding. Seems that we have gone far afield of the nature and intent of the First Amendment. The common and interchangeable use of the terms “pro se” and “self-represented” segregates citizens just by virtue of whether they can or cannot afford a mediator, or legal representative.
    Why is there not funding to educate citizens to have knowledge or civil procedure, proper access to forms, law centers or libraries? Law libraries are generally only open to the “public” during business hours, often at the same time that the general public is working. Again, the only individuals who would have access are the attorneys, judges, and a few exceptions. So, not only is the “justice system” not available to the general public, but there is also no access to the resources to gain access to understanding of the courts. There is no funding for education regarding accessing forms, rules, etc. Many attorneys have been recently chilled by the Court’s threat of the “Unauthorized Practice of Law” blocking yet another avenue for citizens access to justice. So, why don’t we fund an educational resource (which many of you have done) and make sure it is accessible to citizens without the fear of being punished. Why don’t we encourage funding to empower the citizens with knowledge of the law, procedure, etc. instead of mocking them and belittling them to justify the notion that a lawyer who represents himself is a fool. Just some thoughts. Hopeful

Comments are closed.