Category Archives: Systematic Change

Good News From the ABA — Regulatory Objectives Adopted

Posted on February 9, 2016 by richardzorza

Today on what the American Lawyer (limited-free link here) reports was ultimately a voice vote, the ABA House of Delegates approved the Model Regulatory Objectives proposed in Resolution 105, previously discussed and listed here and here. The full Resolution, as … Continue reading →

Posted in 100% Access Strategy and Campaign, ABA, Attorney-Client, Bar Associations, Non-Lawyer Practice, Systematic Change | 1 Comment

Another Important Piece of the Justice for All Strategy Falls Into Place — Resources and Funding for Strategic Planning

Posted on February 5, 2016 by richardzorza

As every reader of this blog knows, the Access Resolution passed by the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators is important not only because of its endorsement of the “aspirational goal” of 100% access to … Continue reading →

Posted in 100% Access Strategy and Campaign, Access to Justice Boards, Access to Justice Generally, Funding, Systematic Change | Comments Off on Another Important Piece of the Justice for All Strategy Falls Into Place — Resources and Funding for Strategic Planning

Moving to 100% Access Strategic Plans – The LSC TIG Program as Opportunity and Harbinger

Posted on January 30, 2016 by richardzorza

The 2016 Legal Services Corporation Technology grant solicitation,due Feb 29, suggests one of the ways that the Chefs 100% Resolution can move towards true implementation. It creates as its first listed specific area of interest, “Achieving 100% Access,” which it … Continue reading →

Posted in 100% Access Strategy and Campaign, Access to Justice Boards, Access to Justice Generally, Funding, IOLTA, Legal Aid, LSC, Outcome Measures, Systematic Change, Technology | Comments Off on Moving to 100% Access Strategic Plans – The LSC TIG Program as Opportunity and Harbinger

Five Transformative Bar Reform Ideas To Get to 100% to Justice — Paper Abstract

Posted on January 5, 2016 by richardzorza

A few months ago, the Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics invited me to submit a paper on the relationship between access to justice, commercialization of the legal practice, and judicial ethics.  The paper will be published in the summer of … Continue reading →

Posted in Attorney-Client, Bar Associations, Funding, Legal Aid, LSC, Middle Income, Mixed Model, Non-Lawyer Practice, Outcome Measures, Political Support, Systematic Change, Tax Policy, Technology, Triage, Unbundling | 2 Comments

Asking About the Role of Pro Bono in Responding to the Challenge of the Chiefs’ 100% Resolution Could Help Pro Bono Regain Momentum

Posted on January 1, 2016 by richardzorza

There has been some good news on pro bono in the last couple of years: the LSC Pro Bono Grant Program has been launched and LSC has revised its PAI 12.5% set-aside rules.  However, beyond this, it has been a … Continue reading →

Posted in 100% Access Strategy and Campaign, Access to Justice Generally, Pro Bono, Systematic Change, Triage, Unbundling | Comments Off on Asking About the Role of Pro Bono in Responding to the Challenge of the Chiefs’ 100% Resolution Could Help Pro Bono Regain Momentum

The Need for Economic and Regulatory Incentives for Access to Justice

Posted on January 1, 2016 by richardzorza

I find it remarkable that there so few regulatory and economic incentives towards access to justice built into our system. It is now true that you have to do a certain number of pro bono hours to get to be … Continue reading →

Posted in Access to Justice Generally, Court Management, Outcome Measures, Research and Evalation, Systematic Change | 4 Comments

Add Access to Justice As A Criteria for “Just Companies” An Idea Urged By Paul Tudor Jones II, hedge-fund billionaire

Posted on December 21, 2015 by richardzorza

Under the wonderful headline, A Plan to Rank ‘Just’ Companies Aims to Close the Wealth Gap, Alexandra Stanley has a great article in today’s New York Times. Like all the best ideas, this one is simple: Paul Tudor Jones II, … Continue reading →

Posted in Access to Justice Generally, Consumer Rights, Federal Courts, Rules Reform, Supreme Court, Systematic Change | 1 Comment

A Review of Possible Elements of Deregulation of Law, Gleaned From Current Conversations

Posted on December 9, 2015 by richardzorza

As the legal profession discusses the possibility of deregulation, it might be useful to think about the regulatory areas that are most frequently cited as barriers to increasing accesses.  Such a listing may help us decide if the kinds of … Continue reading →

Posted in Bar Associations, Judicial Ethics, Rules Reform, Systematic Change, Technology | 2 Comments

Could We Get to 100% Access Without As Many New Resources As We Now Assume, a Very Rough Analysis?

Posted on November 13, 2015 by richardzorza

It’s a truism and an article of faith in the access to justice community that the only way to get to 100% access to justice is a massive infusion of money. It might well be true, but try this mental … Continue reading →

Posted in Access to Counsel, Access to Justice Generally, Budget Issues, Court Management, Legal Aid, Research and Evalation, Rules Reform, Self-Help Services, Simplification, Systematic Change | 5 Comments

Deregulation of Nonprofit Legal Practice — An ATJ Breakthrough?

Posted on October 13, 2015 by richardzorza

Here is an idea that might be a breakthrough for access to justice, while enhancing the role and reputation of community based nonprofit legal aid programs. How about almost complete deregulation of nonprofit legal practice.  True nonprofits (defined not only … Continue reading →

Posted in Access to Justice Generally, Attorney-Client, Incubators, Legal Aid, Legal Ethics, Non-Lawyer Practice, Systematic Change, Technology | 3 Comments

The Risks of a Narrow Definition of Access to Justice

Posted on September 8, 2015 by richardzorza

There is up at the ABA.com “Rebel Lawyers” an article titled “Lawyers need to move beyond ‘access to justice’ to close the legal services gap.”  It is by Dan Lear, currently director of industry relations for Avvo. What it actually … Continue reading →

Posted in Access to Justice Generally, Document Assembly, Forms, Legal Aid, Middle Income, Mixed Model, Systematic Change, Technology, Unbundling | 1 Comment

The Pope Joins the Simplification Movement

Posted on September 8, 2015 by richardzorza

In the slow-moving Vatican bureaucracy, it’s big news, as reported in the Washington Post, when the annulment procedures are made easier.  Or, as Katherine Alteneder put it:  “The Pope joins the simplification movement.” Specifically: The changes will eliminate a requirement … Continue reading →

Posted in Document Assembly, Simplification, Systematic Change | Comments Off on The Pope Joins the Simplification Movement

LSC’s Jim Sandman Interview Shows Pace of Change in Access to Justice

Posted on September 7, 2015 by richardzorza

A recent interview that LSC’s Jim Sandman gave to Bloomberg/BDA underlines how fast things are changing in access to justice.  Among the nuggets: Among the reasons Jim gives for the access crisis is  “A regulatory system that stultifies innovation and … Continue reading →

Posted in Access to Justice Boards, Access to Justice Generally, Legal Aid, LSC, Non-Lawyer Practice, Simplification, Systematic Change, Technology | Comments Off on LSC’s Jim Sandman Interview Shows Pace of Change in Access to Justice

Reflections on Two Comments on 100% Access to Justice Definition

Posted on September 6, 2015 by richardzorza

The proposed definition of 100% access to justice has received near record comments — and hopefully there will be more.  I want to comment on two here, although all are worth consideration and debate. Jim Greiner points out that the … Continue reading →

Posted in Access to Justice Boards, Access to Justice Generally, Administative Proecdure, Bar Associations, Budget Issues, Commentators, Consumer Rights, Court Management, Guest Bloggers, Research and Evalation, Simplification, Systematic Change, Triage | Comments Off on Reflections on Two Comments on 100% Access to Justice Definition

Towards a Definition of “One Hundred Percent Access to Civil Justice”

Posted on September 3, 2015 by richardzorza

With the setting by the Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ), and the Conference of State Court Administrators  (COSCA) by Resolution of 100% access to justice as an “aspirational goal,” the question of just what that term means becomes more and … Continue reading →

Posted in Access to Justice Boards, Administative Proecdure, Bar Associations, Court Management, Judicial Ethics, Legal Aid, Planning, Research and Evalation, Systematic Change, Triage | 8 Comments