Free Technical Assisance and Travel Grants Available From NCSC Public Welfare Foundation Grant

Posted on January 23, 2014 by richardzorza

Here is a timely reminder.  There is still money available in the access to justice court technical assistance and travel pool established at the National Center for State Courts by a grant from the Public Welfare Foundation.  But any grant from the pool must be spent by the end of March of this year.  The application materials are simple.  Grants can be used to hire a consultant to provide technical assistance, or for travel to a site in order to learn about an innovation that a court is interested in adopting, or similarly to pay the travel for an expert from an innovation site to travel to the potential adoption location.

Here are some possible ideas for how a court might use such a grant.

  • Visit California to talk about use of IV-D money to establish Self-help programs.  California has been the national leader in using IV-D money as the foundation of statewide self-help program;
  •  Visit Los Angeles to see Justice Corps in action. Justice Corps brings in college students, using AmeriCorps money, to help litigants with forms and court preparation.  The AOC is also very helpful;
  •  Visit the New York City attorney of the day program in housing court.  This program uses unbundling and pro bono approaches and is very successful;
  •  Visit Austin Texas to look at law library-based self-help services.  The Law Library even provides “reference attorneys” who are present in the courtroom to provide information to litigants;
  •  Go to Minneapolis to see statewide self-help hotline in operation.  Such a statewide model is cost effective, and well integrated with online information and tools;
  •  Visit NYC to learn about on-line forms deployment.  There was already been one very successful visit from a different state;
  • Learn about the Alaska Court System’s Early Resolution Program wherein volunteer attorneys and court mediators help self-represented litigants resolve newly filed contested divorce and custody cases in one hearing.  The self-help center reviews files and identifies cases that have the potential to settle, but need a little unbundled attorney or mediator help;
  •  Get technical assistance for quick assessment for and already existing self-help program.  This can be very helpful in showing the impact of the program, and expanding ideas for the future;
  •  Get TA for assessment of integration of language access services into self-help program.  Often self-help programs are not at the top of the list for language access.
  •  Consultation for possible expansion of agenda of Access Commission. There are now a huge variety of innovations being supported by Commissions.  This would be an opportunity to analyze what the most productive agenda focus might be;
  •  Help with thinking through funding options to expand access programs.
  •  TA for taking curriculum modules for judicial education on self-represented cases, and customizing for your state.

This, of course, is not an exhaustive list, merely some suggestions.  But, act fast.  Operators are standing by!

Posted in Court Management, Funding, Self-Help Services | Comments Off on Free Technical Assisance and Travel Grants Available From NCSC Public Welfare Foundation Grant

New Innovation Platform and Tribute to TIG in Apppropriation to LSC for Pro Bono

Posted on January 23, 2014 by richardzorza

Here is another tipping point.

The 2014 Omnibus Budget includes a special $2.5 million line for LSC, a Pro Bono Innovation Fund.  (http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20140113/CPRT-113-HPRT-RU00-h3547-hamdt2samdt_xml.pdf at p.143).  It is nice that the final number is actually the higher House number — see http://www.lsc.gov/congress/funding/lsc-fy-2014-funding. The program is described as follows in the 2014 LSC Budget request.  For additional comments see below the extract from the budget request.

Purpose. The Innovation Fund will use competitive grants to invest in projects that identify and promote replicable innovations in pro bono for the benefit of the eligible poverty population. Projects funded under this fund will develop, test, and replicate innovative pro bono efforts that can enable LSC grantees to expand clients’ access to high quality legal assistance. The grant criteria would require both innovation (new ideas or new applications of existing best practices) and replicability (likelihood that the innovation, if successful, could be implemented by other legal aid programs).

LSC will allow innovation grants to be used to improve, or to implement in new locations, successful projects developed using previous Innovation Fund grants. LSC expects that each approved project will either serve as a model for other legal services providers to follow or effectively replicate a prior innovation.

An innovation grant award is not meant to substitute for, or be credited against, the longstanding requirement that LSC grantees spend an amount equivalent to 12.5% of their basic field grant funding to involve private attorneys in the delivery of legal assistance to eligible clients.

Eligible Applicants. Eligible applicants for the Innovation Fund would be existing LSC grant recipients.

Eligible Activities. The following activities are illustrative of projects that would be eligible for funding under the proposed Innovation Fund.

  • Developing pro bono programs to serve rural and other hard-to-reach communities;
  • Providing pro bono opportunities that engage all segments of the bar—solo practitioners, in-house corporate counsel, firm lawyers, law schools, non-profit and government attorneys, and other pro bono providers;
  • Developing accessible, tested, user-friendly curricula and training programs for pro bono attorneys;
  • Expanding collaborations and resource-sharing among pro bono programs in a city, state or region;
  • Targeting pro bono projects to practitioners in specific areas of law, with appropriate training, mentoring, and other support for volunteers;
  • Developing pro bono programs with specialized bar associations that relate to the association’s expertise and interests; and
  • Forming cohorts of lawyers to expand volunteerism by leveraging shared interests and experiences.

Partnerships. Applicants would be encouraged to work in partnerships with key stakeholders in their communities. Potential stakeholders could include, among others, court systems, bar associations, client groups, government agencies, and other non-profit organizations.

Additional Funds from Other Organizations. Applicants would be strongly encouraged to seek additional sup- port for projects by partnering with other LSC grantees as well as other organizations.

Evaluation. Evaluation is an important project planning and management tool. Applicants would need to identify the methods and data they plan to use to assess progress toward the project objectives. A final grant payment would not be provided until an approved final grant report was submitted; that report would include evaluation data about a project’s activities, accomplishments, and effectiveness.

Award Period. The grant award period would be between 18 and 24 months.

Management and Administration. Five percent of the total funding for the Innovation Fund would be retained by LSC for management and administrative purposes associated with the Fund.

It seems clear that the program is to be administered in the same way as the TIG program — i.e. as a competitive discretionary grant program.  This is wonderful news, because it provides an opportunity to create a pro bono innovation culture and structure that will parallel the one that TIG has created in the technology area.

Some of the thoughts that have occurred to me:

  • Using grants to replicate innovative ideas such as the New York unbunblded attorney of the day program.
  • Doing the same thing with the Alaska Court System’s Early Resolution Program wherein volunteer attorneys and court mediators help self-represented litigants resolve newly filed contested divorce and custody cases in one hearing.
  • Replicating programs in which volunteer attorneys work with the courts to provide free consultations in cases too complex for self-help centers to address appropriately.
  • Financing quick evaluations of programs such as these, to help make the case for replication
  • Setting up pilot programs in which pro bono attorneys do triage (and collect data on need, to help generate much analysis of what 100% access would cost.)

It is obviously important to generate quick results, that can then be used to argue for a continuation and expansion of the program.

Great job, and great opportunity, LSC.

 

Posted in Funding, LSC, Pro Bono, Unbundling | Comments Off on New Innovation Platform and Tribute to TIG in Apppropriation to LSC for Pro Bono

Planning for the Professional, Client, Technology Triangle

Posted on January 18, 2014 by richardzorza

Two recent different news stories point out our need to think more about what we can do to optimize the triage between professional, client and technology.  As technology enters the medical consulting room and the legal advocates interview room, there is more focus on what happens when the professional is required to spend extensive time and attention on recording medical or legal information.

The New York Times recently ran “A Busy Doctor’s Right Hand, Ever Ready to Type” on the new job of scribe, who just records the interaction.  The point is to allow the doctor to focus on the patient, rather than on the computer.

The significance of this is is underlined by a recent study, reported on NPR, on how rarely doctors do simple communication and trust building things like introduce themselves, or sit down next to the patient’s bed.

In a recent study, Johns Hopkins researchers followed two groups of medical interns for a month and found they sat down at the bedside only 9 percent of the time.

Sitting down, which would seem like one of the simplest things to do, is the least practiced of five communication skills for doctors that Lenore would have endorsed and that research has shown can make a big difference in patient satisfaction.

The others include introducing oneself to the patient and explaining your role in the patient’s care. Touching the patient — whether it’s a handshake, a gesture of comfort or part of a physical exam — makes a difference, too.

And the old art of good conversation never goes out of style: Ask open-ended questions, like, “How are you feeling today?”

The hospital where I get much of my care, one of the world’s great research hospitals, has recently been extending its medical record system which is now directly used by the providing professionals to input information. This has given me the opportunity to observe and discuss with some of my doctors the impact of these record keeping requirements.  One told me of having had to stay till late at night to complete transcribing notes into the computer, until that doctor decided to give in and turn away from the patient to the computer during the interview.  That doctor, I should note, did the right and transparent thing, and explained and apologized to me.)  Another acknowledged how awkward it felt to have to turn away from me to the computer all the time.

The hospital, while installing computers in every consulting space, has apparently given little thought to where to place computers and desks.  It would surely help to put doctor, patient, and computer into a physically triangular relationship, rather than require the doctor to turn to the wall, and away from the patient, but this is obviously only a partial solution.  I am told that one of my doctors got so interested by the discussion about the medical record system that it ended up reported in the notes on my visit.

In the long term voice recognition and maybe intelligent software that will know what needs to be recorded and what does not may help solve the problem — personally I would love to be given a link to video of the interviews with my doctors (more for the NSA to chew over) to help me understand what the doctor has been saying.

But in the short term we have to do all we can to use the data system to enhance rather than undercut our relationships with our patients/clients, depending on the profession. Showing the client/patient what is on the screen will help, and placing the computer so that doing so is easy facilitates part of the solution.

More ideas, anyone?

Posted in Technology, Transparency | 2 Comments

Webinar on Judicial Education for Self-Represented Cases

Posted on January 9, 2014 by richardzorza

On Thursday Jan 16th, at 2 PM Eastern, there will be a webinar on judicial education on self-represented cases.

The registration/login is here.

As described by NCSC Center on Court Access to Justice for All (I am a consultant and worked on the curricula described below):

This webinar will discuss the updated Ensuring the Right to Be heard for Self-Represented Litigants: Judicial Curriculum modules.  Judge Karen Adam of the Arizona Superior Court in Pima County and Justice Laurie Zelon of the California Court of Appeal will be presenting. The 2013 curriculum is based on a 2008 judicial curriculum, developed by the Self-Represented Litigation Network with funding from the State Justice Institute and launched at a Conference at Harvard Law School. It integrates the Presentation, Bench Guide, Handbook of Resource Materials and Handbook of Optional Activities. The 2013 version, developed by the National Center for State Courts’ Center for Court Access to Justice for All with funding from the Public Welfare Foundation, includes updated information, case law and an updated list of resources and is divided into easy to use modules. Both versions of the curriculum are grounded in courtroom research and utilize the experiences of hundreds of judges who have shared their perspectives, ideas, and suggestions.

With so much changing, including Turner v. Rogers, the CCJ Resolution, and many state changes, this is a good time to hear the latest thinking from two highly respected and very reflective judges.

You may also access the audio portion with details below:
Dial-In Number(s):
U.S. & Canada: 800.503.2899
Access Code: 5057873

 

Posted in Judicial Ethics | Comments Off on Webinar on Judicial Education for Self-Represented Cases

E-Filling Best Practices Document Available — Please Help with the Evaluation

Posted on January 8, 2014 by richardzorza

Central Minnesota Legal Services has now formally announced the completion of the Principles and Best Practices For Access-Friendly Court Electronic Filing.  As the Press Release says:

Central Minnesota Legal Services (CMLS), Pro Bono Net and Legal Services Corporation (LSC) recently released Principles and Best Practices for Access-Friendly Court Electronic Filing (The Best Practices), a guide intended to ensure that electronic filing of court documents is deployed nationally in a way that removes barriers to access to justice.

The Best Practices was developed by Richard Zorza, an attorney and independent consultant who, for the past fifteen years, has worked on issues of access to justice. Funding from the Legal Services Corporation through a Technology Initiative Grant (TIG) enabled CMLS to develop a national model for access-friendly, e-filing solutions for self-represented litigants.  In addition to the Best Practices the Minnesota Judicial Branch, Legal Services State Support, and Pro Bono Net, are partners in the project. .  .  .

Jim Sandman, President of the Legal Services Corporation, said, “The Best Practices is an important and very practical guide to improving access to justice, crafted by the nation’s leading expert on self-represented litigants.  LSC will encourage broad distribution and widespread use of the guide’s recommendations.”

The Core Principles in the document are as follows:

Properly deployed, e- filing systems have the potential dramatically to improve access to justice.

Such systems should be deployed with a view to the minimization of barriers to access to the justice system, and to the maximization of all aspects of access to the system.

Access should be optimized for all, regardless of income, technological capacity, or linguistic or other personal capacity.

Optimization of such access will improve the overall functioning, efficiency, fairness and accuracy of the legal system.

Such optimization should be ongoing.

Each of the topic sections listed below includes discussion of the underlying issue, General Principles, Practices to Put the Principles Into Effect, Commentary, and Examples and Alternatives:

I.            Core Principles

II.            Electronic Identification and Verification During E-Filing

III.            Supplemental Fee/Waiver for E-filing and Associated Services

IV.            Fee Waiver Processing

V.            Payment Process If Due

VI.            Case Initiation and Service Of Process

VII.            Ongoing Service and Communication

VIII.             Comprehensibility and Usability

IX.            Pleadings and Data: Approach, Quality and Assembly

X.            Access to Internet and Support

XI.            System Interoperability and Communication

XII.            Opt-Out, Exemption and Discrete Task Representation Issues

XIII.          Relationship to Public Access to the Electronic Court Record

XIV.            Training

XV.            Management and Governance

XVI.            Collaboration

XVII.            Assessment of Accessibility

Meanwhile, can you please help us by evaluating the document.  You might want to use this as a way to get it out to constituencies.  We would like as many as possible to just review and fill in the super short survey.

Posted in Access to Justice Generally | Comments Off on E-Filling Best Practices Document Available — Please Help with the Evaluation

Poor Suffer From Bad Websites — What Is To Be Done?

Posted on January 7, 2014 by richardzorza

One good side effect of the health care web site story is that it is bringing attention to the broader and longer term problem of the costs inflicted on the less fortunate by bad government technology.  The New York Times has a timely article here, focusing mainly on unemployment systems (not that this too is program that benefits multiple income levels.)

While the nation’s attention was focused on the troubled rollout of the federal health care site under the Affordable Care Act, the problems with the unemployment sites have pointed to something much broader: how a lack of funding in many states and a shortage of information technology specialists in public service jobs routinely lead to higher costs, botched systems and infuriating technical problems that fall hardest on the poor, the jobless and the neediest.

As a result, the old stereotype of applicants standing in long lines to speak to surly civil servants at government unemployment offices is quickly being replaced. Now those seeking work or government assistance are often spending countless hours in front of buggy websites, then getting a busy signal when they try to get through by phone.

I have long felt that the legal aid movement, while doing hopefully cutting edge work on using technology ourselves, has failed at the arguably just as important job of monitoring the quality and impact of the use of technology by the institutions that govern the lives of the poor.  This includes, of course, government benefit websites, but also corporate websites that might bury within their algorithms price and other discrimination against the poor.  (See my paper on this for the first LSC Technology Summit.)

This is complex stuff.  Addressing it properly requires high level technology understanding, knowledge of the substantive rules and institutional cultures of the agencies involved, as well as traditional advocacy and intervention skills.  But it is critical if we are ensure at least some fairness for all.  (Note that this helps middle income people too, and playing an active role in improving these agencies operations can be used to show the value of legal aid to a broad range of constituencies.)

Here are some ways that different players might help address this need.

  • LSC, with its beefed-up technology capacity, might assign some to building a network of those in programs who have the skill to monitor these issues and mount challenges — a good role for TIG and EJC sessions.  This might become a TIG priority, if carefully crafted.
  • Individual state Access Commissions might either engage substantively, or at least review whether their plans make sure that someone has responsibility for carrying this agenda.
  • The ABA Network of Commissions might think about doing communications on this, and about starting an interest group for those on Commissions.
  • IOLTA programs with discretionary grant-making ability might think about making this a value.
  • Individual legal aid programs and boars should be asking how this fits into their priorities.
  • Funders and national advocacy groups might be considering how capacity might be built up to provide support and the national level.

Above all, lets at least get this added to the conversation.

P.S. Steve Grumm points out this valuable op-ed, also from the Times, making the same general case.

Posted in Access to Justice Boards, Administative Proecdure, IOLTA, Legal Aid, LSC, Software Developers, Technology | 1 Comment

“Gideon Voucher” Experiment Offers Client Choice

Posted on January 5, 2014 by richardzorza

Adam Liptak has a fascinating piece in today’s New York Times that includes discussion of an experimental “Gideon Voucher” system to be tried in Comal County, Tex with funding from the Texas Indigent Defense Commission. The article contrasts it to the remedy orders for a county in Washington State ordered by a Federal judge after a finding of constitutional violation in defense representation. (The Comal County project is based on an idea first described in an article in 1999.

The voucher idea, revolutionary in the US, but standard practice in most other industrialized common law countries, is that criminal defendants without means get to choose their own lawyers, who are then paid by the state.  The project is described in more detail than in the article in the Minutes of the County Commissioners Court.   The project appears to have the support of the bar, the judiciary and the prosecution.  The voucher payments will continue to be a range for a case,with the ability of the lawyer to request more in particular cases.  Research, at least at the time of the meeting (May 23, 2012) was to include the usual satisfaction surveys and interviews, as well as formal outcome metrics and jail population over time.

Any anxiety about the project should be dispelled by the fact that long-time defense expert Norman Lefstein is one of the project’s advisers.

Some of us have long found an irony is the US rejection of client choice for indigent defendants.  It will be absolutely fascinating to study whether attorney client relationships are different in such a system, whether it changes the plea rate, and/or in what kinds of cases, as well as the appeal and collateral attack on convictions rate.  It will also be interesting to see if the system results in more lawyers being part of the indigent defense system (they will still have to meet certain requirements, including accepting the surely relatively low payment), and whether that in turn changes the political environment with respect to funding these services.

Given how new this is in the US, and what a unique research opportunity this provides, lets hope that the resources can be found to get as much data as we can about what happens.  This could be a historical moment, for both criminal and civil access to justice services.

 

 

 

Posted in Defender Programs, Funding, Mixed Model, Public Defender, Systematic Change | 1 Comment

Access to Justice Technology Gets Recognition — a Springboard for the Future

Posted on January 3, 2014 by richardzorza

Robert Ambrogi publishes an award winning blog that tracks inriguing law sites for the legal profession.  On Monday he posted his listing of the The 10 Most Important Legal Technology Developments of 2013.

Guess what?  One of those listed is  Technology helped fill the shortfall in access to justice.

The full text of that entry is below:

Over the last few years, programs that deliver legal assistance to the poor and that enhance access to justice have been hard hit by IOLTA shortfalls and slashed budgets. Increasingly, technology has come to play an important role in helping to make up for these shortfalls. Across the United States, legal services providers and have turned to technology to help fill the gap in direct legal services. Likewise, courts have increasingly turned to technology to help service dramatically increasing numbers of pro se litigants. During 2013, one of the most vocal advocates for innovations in legal technology to facilitate the delivery of legal services was Legal Services Corporation President Jim Sandman. Local legal aid programs all across the country have similarly pursued technology initiatives. You can get a good sense of what’s going on in this area by perusing the agenda for the LSC’s Technology Initiative Grant conference that will take place Jan. 15-17 in Florida.

This is important not only because its nice to get recognition, but because it helps put the access to justice technology community in a better position to argue for partnerships and resources, and most important of all, a commitment to innovation.

Jim Sandman has long talked about the need for LSC and Legal Aid to be seen as in the forefront of legal technology, not bringing up the rear, and this news suggests that Jim is beginning to get this message out.  He sees this as a potential overall source of credibility for the movement.

Lets makes sure that we do all we can to spread the word about the Technology Summit Report, and its potential as a collaboration incentivizing spur.  I would encourage ATJ Commissions, courts, and legal aid programs to find ways to link this honor and the Report to the specifics of their own ongoing innovations, so that they can show how much they are part of an emerging wave.

In addition, the endorsement in the 2013 list of several other related developments should be of use.  These include the importance of mobile, developments in legal education, analytics, and visual law.

Its a new day as well as a new year.

Posted in LSC, Technology | 1 Comment

Some Thoughts on the LSC Technology Summit Report

Posted on January 2, 2014 by richardzorza

LSC has now formally released its Technology Summit Report.  While I have previously blogged on the careful and inclusive process here, and here and here and here and here, I thought it would be most useful to make general comments rather than summarize this very important Report, which has the potential to shape access and collaboration strategy and investments for the next decade.  I will focus on the implementation and funding strategies for the already quite well known components, as well as for the initiative as a whole.  (Disclosure, I have been part of the planning process and steering committee for the Summit, and it must therefore be emphasized that I very much speak only for myself in my response to the Summit Report.)

Implementation of the Triaging Portal

The Triaging Portal concept is very ambitious, assuming connection to all service agencies, full information, tools, triage, self-correcting algorithms, etc.  The plan is to develop work cooperatively with courts and others to secure funding to support three statewide pilots, to be selected competitively.  The vision is far more ambitious that the websites currently required by LSC for its grantee networks.  Key issues: finding states with a sufficient level of collaboration and integration between legal aid, courts, the bar, and ideally social service agencies to commit to this cooperative approach, particularly in the context of differing institutional roles; getting national funders committed to the same pilots; developing the pilots so that the technology can be deployed nationally, but without dumbing-down to a lowest common denominator; getting consensus on triage protocols; leveraging TIG money without running into opposition from the existing structure.

Implementing Document Assembly

As the Report points out, this is a relatively mature technology, to which perhaps the principal bar to full deployment is the lack of full systems of standardized forms in all too many states (a problem treated as beyond the scope of the report.)  The main implementation strategy here appears to be encouraging funders to support fully adoption and integration of document assembly data into other aspects of the delivery system through development of standards, tags, etc.  The approach urged would be to condition funding upon commitments to an integrated vision, to a collaborative system that would ensure full court and legal aid use, to rules mandating acceptance of the products, and to a broad input process.  (While the language of the Report does not support this, I would go further and condition all access funding on such an efficient approach; tolerance of the status quo is unacceptably wasteful. In any event failure to meet such a standard should disqualify states from consideration as pilot projects.)

Implementation of Mobile Strategy

The mobile strategy lists a number of possible applications and application areas, recommends seeking funding for converting current websites, replicating existing applications, and developing the listed possible applications, encourages use of hackathons and developer engagement systems, and recommends a campaign to have telecom companies exclude access to justice usage from billed totals.

The challenge here is to build a far stronger capacity within the access community.  While access to justice organizations were very early to market with use of the world wide web, we have been far slower in the mobile area, and we need both capacity and mindset.  We have to think far more about how to be proactive in the far wider use of the far larger range of information that can be accumulated and used by a mobile device.  Making at least minimal information available over mobile devices should be required of grantees, to help ensure that broader capacity is developed.

Implementing Business Process Analysis

I think it is safe to say that the area of the Report that goes furthest in expanding the prior debate is that dealing with business process analysis, a concept that has been largely absent from the public sector discussion.  As the Report puts it: Business process analysis involves the disciplined “mapping” of how a task or function is performed, using standard conventions for depicting different aspects of the process. This can lead to standardization, efficiency, division of labor between organizations, etc.  It represents a major change from the “craft” orientation of much of our delivery system, in which the lawyer or advocate builds everything from scratch every time, and often does not learn from the experience of colleagues.

The strategy is to obtain pro bono consulting support from the private sector for pilot projects, and thereby develop an internal group with the skill to provide ongoing help from within.

However, the development of the strategy will need to address the real resistance within the delivery system, at all levels.  Components of the strategy may need to include specific funding incentives for adoption of the process, status rewards, investment in sophisticated research and evaluation (itself requiring agreement upon outcome measures), major promotional and educational efforts, and possible use of the LSC grant process.

Implementing Expert Systems

For the expert systems/checklist strategy, the Report recommends the development of a tool that can enable knowledge to be coded into an application to create customized information for client and advocate.

It may be that it will be helpful to develop additional focus in the identification of possible products and methods.  Moreover, exploring the relationship to both triage and document assembly (both of which use such logic, and need tools to do so) might result in a significant saving of resources.

Overall implementation.

I quote in full the first section on overall implementation, since the new group it envisions is crucial to success in this ambitious multi-organizational agenda.

Create a Steering Committee to Provide Leadership for Achieving the Integrated System

LSC will reconvene the group that planned the Summit to discuss how to achieve the goals identified in this document. It is anticipated that this group will present the vision for an integrated system to other national organizations supporting access-to-justice entities, urging their endorsement and asking for their support and guidance. (Underline added)

Activities for the steering committee may include designating:

• A small group to provide day-to-day direction to the initiative

• An appropriate supporting entity that can receive and administer funding raised to support the effort

• A more detailed action plan and timeline for the initiative revised on at least an annual basis

• A plan for generating and dispensing the funding that will be necessary to implement the initiative

The Report also generally addresses issues of outreach, potential funders, replication, and communication.

Establishing a group of the kind described above would represent a major innovation in access coordination and integration — in some, but only some, ways a national technology-focused analog to the highly successful state level access to justice commissions — and would have huge implications for the future.

A thousand congratulations to LSC for its vision and commitment.

Posted in LSC, Systematic Change, Technology | 2 Comments

Alan Turing Receives Royal (UK) Pardon

Posted on December 24, 2013 by richardzorza

Several of my readers have pointed out that Alan Turing has just received a pardon of his conviction for “gross indecency,” a conviction that is generally regarded to have led to his death by apparent suicide.  I blogged about Turing’s massive impact on the world about a year ago.  The Guardian story is more complete than at least most of the US coverage.

Turing was considered to be the father of modern computer science and was most famous for his work in helping to create the “bombe” that cracked messages enciphered with the German Enigma machines. He was convicted of gross indecency in 1952 after admitting a sexual relationship with a man.

He was given experimental chemical castration as a “treatment”. His criminal record resulted in the loss of his security clearance and meant he was no longer able to work for Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), where he had been employed following service at Bletchley Park during the war. He died of cyanide poisoning in 1954, aged 41.

Announcing the pardon, Grayling said: “Dr Alan Turing was an exceptional man with a brilliant mind. His brilliance was put into practice at Bletchley Park during the second world war, where he was pivotal to breaking the Enigma code, helping to end the war and save thousands of lives.

“His later life was overshadowed by his conviction for homosexual activity, a sentence we would now consider unjust and discriminatory and which has now been repealed.“

Maybe I am missing something, but I find it a little disturbing that some folks do not see the point, regarding this as a “rule of law” issue — although the quotes below make some interesting points for the future.

There was mixed reaction to the announcement. Iain Standen, chief executive of the Bletchley Park Trust, said Turing was “a visionary mathematician and genius whose work contributed enormously both to the outcome of the war and the computer age”.

He added: “The pardon gives further recognition for his outstanding contribution not only to second world war codebreaking but also the development of computing.”

Dr Andrew Hodges, tutorial fellow in mathematics at Wadham College, Oxford, and author of the acclaimed biography Alan Turing: The Enigma, said: “Alan Turing suffered appalling treatment 60 years ago and there has been a very well intended and deeply felt campaign to remedy it in some way. Unfortunately, I cannot feel that such a ‘pardon’ embodies any good legal principle. If anything, it suggests that a sufficiently valuable individual should be above the law which applies to everyone else.

“It’s far more important that in the 30 years since I brought the story to public attention, LGBT rights movements have succeeded with a complete change in the law – for all. So, for me, this symbolic action adds nothing.

“A more substantial action would be the release of files on Turing’s secret work for GCHQ in the cold war. Loss of security clearance, state distrust and surveillance may have been crucial factors in the two years leading up to his death in 1954.”

P.S.  If the point sought to be made above was that all such convictions should be expurgated, I agree.

Posted in Technology | 2 Comments

“The Doctor Will See All 8 of You Now” — But What About the Lawyer?

Posted on December 24, 2013 by richardzorza

A recent fascinating New York Times article and blog discusses experiments in which doctors provide group rather than individual consultations to pregnant women. The goal, other than efficiency, is to help create supportive communities.

Group visits are useful for any condition in which the patient’s participation matters. That’s nearly every condition, but it’s especially important for chronic diseases such as diabetes. In a two-hour meeting, a doctor can see (and bill for) the same eight patients she would see individually. But instead of a rushed 15-minute consultation, patients get two hours to ask the doctor questions. And most important, they get the benefits of regular meetings with other patients going through the same thing.

The concept, which includes extensive restructuring the prenatal check-up process,  is supported by randomized study.

 A randomized controlled trial of more than 1,000 mothers found that participants were 33 percent less likely to have a premature birth than women in traditional prenatal care. The effect was even greater for black women – a 41 percent drop. This is important as more than 17 percent of births to African-American mothers are pre-term — a rate 50 percent higher than that of white women. And African-American women are four times more likely than white women to delivery extremely prematurely — at 20 to 28 weeks. (Some of the reason is demographics, but much of it is a mystery; a married, college-educated black woman is more likely to have a preterm delivery than a white, unmarried high-school dropout, and no one knows why.) Women in the Centering program also had fewer C-sections and breast-fed more. They had more knowledge about their pregnancies, were more satisfied with their care and felt better prepared.

So, should we, and could we try the same thing in law?  It would seem to make sense that  building a support group and sharing knowledge would be a good thing, and there is a long history of legal aid clinics and now court clinics in which training is done in a group context, but is limited to informational assistance.

Up till now, whenever I have wondered about the possibility of testing group consultations, I have come to a dead end because I felt that there were would be no privilege when several people were given a group consultation.

But, maybe I have been cutting off the thought too fast.  Maybe even under existing law, a group consultation process could be designed to provide the protection of the privilege.  If all the participants agreed to keep all communications secret, and if all agreed that the participation of the group was necessary for the mode of consultation wanted and needed, then perhaps communications might be protected.

In any event, perhaps an appropriate regulatory body could be persuaded issue a document providing a safe harbor for a pilot experiment for such an understanding of the privilege.

People who had been in the same group would be able to support themselves, and perhaps even find a role in the courtroom.

It is surely worth a try.

P.S.  Bonnie Hough adds:

Interestingly, this is exactly what court based self help centers do in workshops.  They provide group settings, answer questions, diagnose problems, etc.  The Los Angeles court self help centers have found that people are much more apt to follow up and finish their divorce if they have participated in a workshop setting.  I was really impressed by the camaraderie of the group that I observed earlier this year – they were very supportive of each other, gave each other legal tips and were all going to go out to lunch to celebrate.  They wanted the Justicecorps student who was their teacher to be their club president.  The self-help center at the central courthouse in Los Angeles runs over 100 workshops per month and serves more than 200 people per day with very high quality services using workshops where much of the paperwork is completed using Hotdocs programs so that the time in the workshop is focused on addressing legal issues rather than “put your name here, address there …)   The SHARP program serves Butte, Glenn and now Lake Counties – all rural counties in California.  Many of their services are provided by videoconferenced workshops with an attorney in one location and litigants at different self-help centers where they had a paralegal making sure that they were following along and asking any questions.  The Bet Tzedek program in Los Angeles is offering workshops to help parents of developmentally disabled persons get limited conservatorships when their children turn 18.  They have found that it is a really efficient way to provide services, that they are able to answer many questions and that the parents share all kinds of resources with each other.  It helps to normalize the experience so that people don’t feel as if they are in it by themselves.  Obviously, there will be some people that need other levels of service depending on their legal issue or ability to follow along.  But the proliferation of workshops in languages in addition to English suggests that language capacity should not be a barrier.  This can be a really efficient way to provide services in other languages.

Posted in Attorney-Client, Medical System Comparision, Systematic Change | 4 Comments

The Story of “Call for Justice” — Leveraging Online Legal Information, the 211 System and Beyond

Posted on December 15, 2013 by richardzorza

A few months ago, I was particularly excited to hear about a Minnesota initiative that leveraged the power of 211 systems with the legal help resources developed by that state’s access community to achieve a huge increase in usage of those access resources. I invited the Executive Director of Call for Justice, to write for this blog about how the project came to be.  I am proud to publish her response here.  Every state should be doing things like this, and the national network should be linking with national informational networks like that of the 211 operators.

Something Out of Nothing: Leveraging Ideas to Open Access

By Ellen Krug

A little more than two years ago, I (Ellen) walked into a completely empty conference room in the building that houses United Way’s headquarters in Minneapolis.  It was to be the office of a brand new nonprofit, Call for Justice, LLC. My charge:  create from the ground up a program aimed at opening civil legal access in the Twin Cities by training United Way 2-1-1 Information & Referral Specialists (the persons who answer, “May I help you?” when anyone dials “2-1-1”) on how to make better civil legal referrals.

Historically, the local United Way 2-1-1 receives 35,000 legal needs calls a year, making it the largest legal referral agent in the Twin Cities. However, many of its referrals were off target or made time and again to the same places, like Legal Aid or a volunteer lawyers organization. The goal was to spread out the referrals so that callers got to the right place the first time (e.g. a caller with immigration needs gets referred to a nonprofit immigrant law provider).

With nearly thirty years’ experience as a trial lawyer, who formed a law firm in the mid-1990s before embarking on a second career as nonprofit executive director, I set about to do my work.

Four months later, the entire Call for Justice staff (consisting of just two people—myself and a program content manager) began training  twenty-five United Way 2-1-1 Information & Referral Specialists and their managers on how to make better targeted referrals to Twin Cities nonprofit legal providers. The training materials were completely organic; lacking a template, I began a training manual with “Session 1: Basics of the Civil Legal System.”

And basics it was—the difference between a civil and criminal matter, the role of Legal Aid, and the importance of the Federal Poverty Guidelines in determining program eligibility. Soon, we reached out to speakers from various nonprofit legal providers, social service agencies, and law firms, who trained on topics ranging from “Landlord-Tenant Law 101” to “Sticky Family Law Issues” and immigration law basics. Every training session focused on the Twin Cities legal resources to which referrals should be made.

As our network and awareness of resources broadened, the training topics expanded. A session on community mediation services proved eye-opening for both the 2-1-1 folks and our staff because it offered a completely different referral avenue for callers facing neighbor or vendor disputes.  Another session, “Tips on Efficient and Caring Interviewing Techniques,” taught by domestic violence counselors, instructed on how to keep 2-1-1 callers focused while still empathizing with their situations.

Within several months, call taxonomy revealed that 2-1-1 legal referrals were spreading out, and becoming more varied. Legal resources that were previously overlooked suddenly started receiving many referrals. Some results were outright dramatic, like a near 800% increase in referrals to LawHelpMN.org, the web-based resource site for Legal Aid in Minnesota

Along the way, my imagination was sparked.

I wondered, “What if other social service agencies were exposed to legal programming information? Would it be possible to better connect nonprofit legal providers and social service agencies to open civil access?”

With the consent of an open-minded board of directors, Call for Justice became a convener of agencies and people. By mid-2012, we launched the “Legal Liaison Program,” which brings together representatives of more than fifty legal and social services providers, with the primary goal of communicating in person.  Thus, a key component of our thrice-yearly Legal Liaison meetings is “speed networking,” where people network in eight minute increments and then switch conversation partners. Our imagination has extended to creating the first list of pro bono (no fee) interpreters and translators in Minnesota (23 persons representing 13 languages), which came about when a Legal Liaison organization asked if we could assist with an interpreting need.

Call for Justice then leveraged the Legal Liaison Program to take on the role of facilitator for collaborations that increase civil legal access. We identified the Jeremiah Program, which works to elevate approximately eighty women and nearly 100 children from intergenerational poverty, as lacking any on-going legal provider relationship. With visioning, persistence, and a bit of wrangling, we facilitated Jeremiah’s “adoption” by two major Minneapolis law firms. Now, attorneys go to Jeremiah’s two Twin Cities campuses to provide pro bono advice and representation on family law, personal safety (orders for protection), debt protection, and other needs. The “Jeremiah Collaboration” has become a model for other potential Twin Cities collaborations.

We’ve since facilitated more collaborations, including a soon-to-be announced community law firm that two Twin Cities law schools will sponsor. The law firm will employ new law graduates and serve the working poor—families and individuals caught in the “justice gap” between 200% and 325% FPG.

We have also leveraged our United Way 2-1-1 training materials by posting them on our website. This includes videos we make of each training session. Incredibly, views of the videos are growing at the rate of approximately 30 percent a month!

Most recently, Call for Justice hosted a seminar/CLE titled, “’I Didn’t Know That!’ Relatively Unknown Twin Cities Legal Resources.” Nearly  100 legal and social services representatives listened to panelists from United Way 2-1-1, court self-help centers, bar association low bono programs, law libraries, and an upcoming on-line legal advice program.  Attendees were provided a sixteen page “Legal Resources Cheat Sheet,” which we created from our United Way 2-1-1 training materials—another example of leveraging.

How can others replicate the work of Call for Justice?

The keys are imagination and collaboration.

Call for Justice came about when our founders—a group of determined legal professionals—imagined an organization that could systemically connect people in legal need with legal providers.  Since we don’t represent clients directly, our time is devoted to assessing the delivery of legal services, where we can spot gaps or duplication, and envision improvements.  We then persistently work to make the system more open, one collaborative project at a time.

And yes, it takes money: twenty-nine law firms, two Bar foundations and two local foundations pledged $500,000 to fund Call for Justice for three years. (That funding will expire next year and we are now independently fundraising.)

Still, increasing civil legal access doesn’t require a half million dollars. United Way 2-1-1 operations cover 90 percent of the country.  A bar association delivery of legal services committee could easily make training the local United Way 2-1-1 on legal referrals a priority and begin coordinating speakers and materials. Additionally, attorneys, bar executives, and social service leaders are all aware of various programs that involve legal needs. It costs nothing other than time to approach a law firm with the idea of “adopting” a social services program to provide on-going pro bono services. If the “adoption” comes to fruition, the payoffs can be immense—one affinity group assisting another affinity group.

What about the “I Didn’t Know That!” seminar/CLE which Call for Justice originated? That too, can be easily duplicated. A coordinator need only to identify court, bar association, and library resources that are relatively unknown to the community at large.  Yes, there’s time and effort involved in putting on such a seminar, but any CLE requires time and effort. Relatively few are the kind like this—which spans the divide between legal and social service providers.

In the past few months, I’ve talked to a number of agencies about Call for Justice and its work. I’m happy to discuss our model with anyone and provide materials we’ve created to get others started.

Remember, it’s about leveraging from one idea to another and another.  The starting point is using one’s imagination!

Ellen (Ellie) Krug can be contacted at ellen.krug@callforjustice.org or 612-333-4000. Visit the Call for Justice website at www.callforjustice.org

Posted in Access to Justice Generally, Self-Help Services, Systematic Change, Technology | 2 Comments

Jeanne Charn to Receive 2014 AALS William Pincus Award Reflecting Decades of Acheivement and Contribution

Posted on December 11, 2013 by richardzorza

Jeanne, in my opinion, is long overdue for this award.  I asked her colleagues Luz Herrera and Jeff Selbin to draft this blog and am proud to share it.  I add that I think this is a particularly appropriate time to honor Jeanne — and by extension Gary her untimely deceased husband and long-time co-conspirator.  As the incubator movement takes off, we owe it to remember that it was all foreseen in the original vision of the Harvard clinical program described below, and intended to assist in the transition to practice through a comprehensive third year.  At the time it was suggested that this vision might be applied in other sectors beyond legal aid.  (Disclosure: I worked as a law student on setting up the program, my wife was there as student, librarian and lawyer, and I have also been the primary consultant to the Bellow-Sacks program described here.  They were transformative experiences.)

**************************************

On Tuesday, December 10, 2013, the AALS Section on Clinical Legal Education announced Jeanne Charn as the recipient of the William Pincus Award, its highest honor. William Pincus was a Ford Foundation officer who played a major role in developing clinical education in the United States. More than 60 law professors and former students signed letters supporting Jeanne for this important award. We cannot think of anyone who better exemplifies the spirit of the award.

This recognition of Jeanne Charn is long overdue. Her unique and enduring commitment to increasing access to justice, and training future generations of social justice lawyers, spans more than four decades.

Jeanne began her legal career as a student practitioner at the federally funded Community Legal Assistance Office (“CLAO”) in Boston from 1968 to 1970.  She continued with CLAO for another year as a staff attorney and became their law student supervisor. Before starting her academic career, she also worked as a staff attorney at the Mass Law Reform Institute.

In 1973, Jeanne was hired as the Assistant Dean for Clinical Programs at Harvard Law School.  In her role, Jeanne and her late husband, Gary Bellow, conceived of and founded the Legal Services Institute (“LSI”). While LSI’s initial focus was to prepare legal services attorneys, LSI also placed client service at the heart of the program. The decision to base LSI in Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts in 1979, facilitated the provision of legal services to some of the most disenfranchised members of the Boston community. Over time, LSI evolved into a more general community-based clinical offering for Harvard Law School students. LSI was the precursor to what is now the WilmerHale Legal Services Center at Harvard Law School. The program has gone through a couple of names but students affectionately refer to it as “the Center”.

As co-founder and director of the Center, Jeanne managed Harvard’s largest clinical offering in a community-based setting. The program provided clinical experiences to more than 100 students and hundreds of clients every year. As director, Jeanne designed and implemented important quality assurance measures in a field where few existed. She actively engaged with the private bar and the courts as partners in service and education. Under her leadership, the Center developed the first AIDS law clinic, the first medical-legal partnership, an early predatory lending clinic, and the first education law clinic focused on childhood trauma. Jeanne’s commitment to experimentation made the Center the first program in the country to incorporate a fee for service component to help close the justice gap for the near-poor and local community organizations that were priced out of free legal services.

In addition to offering strong clinical programs and extensive service, the Center served as a training center for clinical faculty and public service leaders.  Today, dozens of clinicians and legal services leaders around the country can trace their passion for teaching and service to their experiences at the Center. The program built by Jeanne, Gary and the many attorneys who continue to work at the Center, inspired a passion for helping and learning. Jeanne continues to spend innumerable hours advising, educating, and mentoring students, attorneys, clinicians, and policy makers. She writes recommendations, gives feedback on papers, provides ideas, and unselfishly opens her extensive network to individuals interested in advancing a progressive clinical legal education and access to justice agenda. Although Jeanne stepped down as the Center’s director in 2006, her passion for mentoring, innovating and improving, continues.

In addition to her contributions to clinical legal education and civil legal services, Jeanne is a thought leader. Since 1999, Jeanne has directed the Bellow-Sacks Access to Civil Legal Services Project. The Bellow-Sacks Project leads research and policy initiatives to expand access to civil legal advice and assistance for low and moderate-income households.  As the director of the Bellow-Sacks project Jeanne works with judges, court administrators, policy makers, academics and practitioners to research and advocate on legal services delivery, the legal and financial needs of low and moderate income households, professional skills and social welfare law and policy.  She has contributed her important insights on legal service delivery to various national organizations including the ABA Standing Committee for Legal Services, the American Bar Foundation Access to Justice Research Initiative and the International Legal Aid Group.

Currently, Jeanne is a Senior Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School. She teaches courses on the legal profession, the delivery of legal services and social welfare law and policy. She continues her engagement in direct legal service delivery by working on bankruptcy cases with students and attorneys at the Greater Boston Legal Services. When she is not providing feedback, mentoring, writing articles and volunteering, she spends times with her good friends from the Center and her family in Boston – sons David and Douglas, granddaughters Grace and Calleigh, grandson Emmett, and daughter-in-law Kate Lowenstein.

We, like hundreds of others, owe Jeanne a great deal of gratitude for carving a space in legal education to look for, in her words “new ways to achieve long-sought ends.” Congratulations to the AALS Section on Clinical Legal Education for the honor of recognizing Jeanne Charn’s achievements.

Luz E Herrera, Associate Professor, Thomas Jefferson School of Law

Jeffrey Selbin, Clinical Professor of Law, UC Berkeley School of Law

Posted in Incubators, Law Schools | Comments Off on Jeanne Charn to Receive 2014 AALS William Pincus Award Reflecting Decades of Acheivement and Contribution

Claudia Johnson on NLADA

Posted on December 3, 2013 by richardzorza

I (Claudia) went to my 13th or 14th NLADA this year, excited to go to Los Angeles. Yelp—showed many local places of interest-and top of my list was visiting the LA public library after workshop hours (of course!)—they are open until 8 pm.

I never made it to the library-there was too many conversations to listen to and join, however, I came back more excited and rejuvenated from this NLADA than I did from the prior two. This is why:

Civil Legal Services in the US is here, we are alive and doing good work—it is a mix of “the kids are all right” to “alive and kicking” and a keep on keeping on. In prior years, as in this year, we have been dealing with lay offs, cuts, reductions in funding. All that is still happening and it is hard and exhausting. However, I noticed that we are overcoming the state of shock or anger, and moving now to the pro-active, solution seeking, and pro active stage. The recognition of Rebecca Vallas fellow NLAANder and nurtured by CLS’ Sharon Dietrich and Cathy Carr, and the many other newer attorneys who are bringing their energy to our field, and the remaks of Ramon Arias on his receiving the Dorsey Award—all ring true and give me lots of hope. There is a pipeline of talent and new ideas coming into legal aid and this newer group of advocates (some of them who are not lawyers) will find new ways to deal with new and challenging issues. The fact that there are programs out there finding this new talent, growing it, and letting it bloom is awesome. There will be new and more challenging issues ahead of us and for our clients. But we are going to be capable of dealing with them. Of that I am assured.

The public supports legal aid! The Civil Caucus shared wonderful research on public opinion toward funding civil legal aid. The Public Welfare Foundation and Kresge Foundation sponsored this survey. The results were at times surprising, but definitely a must read for staff at any legal non-profit, to understand how and why and when the public is willing to support the work we do, and how to communicate effectively to broad audiences. The presentation shared 2 minute elevator speech examples and 9 second sound bites.  Now the 2 minute sound bite was music to my ears—since it mentioned forms and online forms  which is the raison de eitre of LawHelp Interactive and my daily live.  Here is the two minute sound bite—learn it, love it, share it, and repeat! Richard has blogged about this in this blog here—worth reading and integrating into your communication strategy!

Civil Legal Aid assures fairness for all in the justice system, regardless of how much money you have. It provides access to legal help for people to protect their livelihoods, their health, and their families. Civil Legal Aid makes it easier to access information—whether through easy-to-understand forms, including online forms; legal assistance or representation; and legal self-help centers—so people can know their rights. Civil Legal Aid also helps streamline the court system and cuts down on court costs. When we say the Pledge of Allegiance we close with “justice for all.” We need programs like Civil Legal Aid to ensure that the very principle our founding fathers envisioned remains alive: justice for all, not the few who can afford it.

Technology, race equity, and access to Limited English proficient communities—are all gaining traction and were very much parts of the conversation. Technology is also part of a broader data conversation taking place in the funding and research community. All the data sessions were fantastic, and many smaller side discussions focused on data, ethics of data mining by legal aid and other service providers, data tools (Tableu).

Aside from the Race Equity Track (Bill Kennedy and Camille Holmes) and Language Access (Joan Lee and the NLAAN network) putting together a very strong tracks—these issues came up in many other panels not affiliated with the track. Maybe it is that we are finally understanding that a) money will be scarce for years to come—so technology is key and b) the demographics of our country are wonderful opportunities and demand from us creativity and innovation—old tools won’t hunt and c) we continue to deal with serious civil rights issues in 2013 and these give us an opportunity to be smart, pro active lawyers. I was happy to see that the use of technology to support and enhance service delivery, planning, and analysis of services was a thread in many conversations.

So the gestalt for NLADA this year is overall A+. There were many other good and exciting discussions taking place, like the pro bono celebration week that we just ended, the good work with veterans, the data discussions, the pipeline discussions for women and attorneys of colors, too many to excellent conversations, ideas to mention. Thank you all who volunteered your time to create this NLADA and make it such a great experience. I did not make it to the Grammy Museum or the Library—but I did get to learn and share with my community—the civil legal aid community and their partner courts and libraries and researchers.

 

Posted in Legal Aid, LEP, Meetings, Technology | 3 Comments

Judge Kevin Burke to Present Important Webinar on Procedural Fairness

Posted on December 3, 2013 by richardzorza

As you know, much of our work on access, including particularly our judicial ethics work, is predicated on the research into public perceptions of procedural fairness.  Judge Burke has long been a leader in analyzing and presenting the implications of this work.

The upcoming webinar, featuring Judge Burke and hosted by the NCSC Center on Court Access to Justice for All (with which I am associated) will be a treat.  It is described as follows:

Judge Kevin Burke, a Minneapolis trial judge since 1984 and a national leader in court reform will be presenting. He coauthored the American Judges Association’s white paper on procedural fairness in 2007 and has been a regular speaker on the topic.  Studies on procedural fairness point to the fact that litigant satisfaction is more closely correlated to the perception of being treated fairly and understanding the process than the actual outcome of the case. This is a particularly important concept for the self-represented litigant.  Similarly, compliance with court orders is dependant in large part upon the litigant actually understanding the order.  Judge Burke will describe the basic components of procedural fairness and the importance of using these techniques when handling cases with self-represented litigants.

The webinar will be on Wed Dec 11 at 2 PM Eastern.  Registration info is here.

 

Posted in Judicial Ethics | 3 Comments