Moving Tribute to My Wife, Joan Zorza

Posted on July 24, 2013 by richardzorza

Many of you know that my wife, Joan Zorza, has dedicated her life to the victims of violence, most intensely to those impacted by domestic and sexual violence.  She is now in the process of retiring (although those of you who know her will understand why I have my doubts).  The National Bulletin on Domestic Violence Prevention has just published a, to me at least, deeply moving tribute.

Here is how the article, written by Barbara Hart, a legendary advocate in her own right, begins, talking about Joan’s work:

Joan Zorza has advocated for battered women and their children for more than forty years.  She is perhaps the most prodigious legal writer on domestic violence and sexual assault in the United States.  Joan is the founding editor of both Sexual Assault Report and Domestic Violence Report, shepherding these bi-monthly newsletters for 11 and 17 years, respectively.  Joan engaged experts from a rich diversity of scholarship and practice in writing about legal developments, innovative programs, survivor support initiatives, forensic strategies, health treatment advances, and research on domestic violence and sexual assault law, practice and prevention.  She edited Violence Against Women in three volumes (2002, 2004, and 2006), and authored the Guide to Interstate Custody: A Manual for Domestic Violence Advocates (1992, 1995).  Beyond these, Joan wrote articles for legal journals and “practice” publications on defending battered mothers charged with parental kidnapping, gender bias in the legal system, marital rape, vicarious trauma of advocates, female genital mutilation, consumer rights for survivors, prostitution and the invisibility of harm, animal abuse as a tactic of control, drug facilitated rape, problems with mediation, suing the police after Castlerock, sexual harassment in the military, workplace domestic violence, the costs of sexual and domestic violence, and the right of children to testify, among scores of other diverse topics.

However, this is my favorite paragraph — probably because it connects so strongly my personal day-to-day experience of Joan with her broader impact in the world.

Joan is a consummate knitter.  Needles and yarn accompanied her to the highest reaches of government, as well as meetings with survivors.  Multi-tasking, perhaps.  Seemingly working the detail and complexity of her legal analysis into each line.  Surely knitting her passion into each stitch.  We honor and thank you, Joan, for your extraordinary productivity and unequaled passion for survivors and wish you well in your retirement.

Posted in Domestic Violence, Vocation | 5 Comments

Thoughts on Jury Orientation

Posted on July 23, 2013 by richardzorza

I sat through jury orientation and (non) selection yesterday.

One observation:

While there was frequent mention of attorneys doing things, there was absolutely no mention of the possibility that a litigant might be self-represented.  This might have the unintended effect of discouraging those who do not have the resources for a lawyer to feel that they can not move a case forward.

While I would assume that a judge in a self-represented jury case would frame careful appropriate instructions on that situation, the fact that the video previously shown the jurors assumed only cases with lawyers might make that task harder.  (See here for an article that discuses possible instructions to a jury in a self-represented case.)

I encourage courts to take a look at their videos and think about whether there might be a way of mentioning self-representation without seeming to push it.  Suggestions will be shared here.

 

Posted in Court Management | Comments Off on Thoughts on Jury Orientation

National Law Journal Article on Court Watching in SRL Cases

Posted on July 22, 2013 by richardzorza

This is a great model, with the opportunity dramatically to focus attention on the quality of access for the self-represented in the courtroom.  A partnership of the National Center for Access to Justice, Pfizer’s Legal Alliance, 15 law firms, and the Brooklyn Family Court.  The consultant is John Greacen.

Here is the key para from the National Law Journal article:

The 15-minute hearing was just like hundreds of matters that Kings County, N.Y., family court judges hear every day, except it was being observed and recorded by two aspiring lawyers. University of Michigan Law School student Sara Winik and Georgetown University Law Center student Adam Lovell sat in the rear of the courtroom clutching clipboards and spreadsheets. They noted whether the magistrate explained the reason for the hearing and the courtroom process or exhibited irrigation with litigants. Afterward, Winik and Lovell ducked into the hallway to conduct brief one-on-one interviews with litigants, gauging whether they felt the proceeding was fair and whether they understood what happened in the courtroom and why.

This is the opportunity for courts to really take a look at what’s actually going on in courtrooms, and specifically the extent to which access-friendly practices are being followed in the court and their impact on litigant perceptions.  See, e.g., the SRLN memo on such practices being incorporated into the comments to state codes of judicial conduct.

I very much hope that this will be a rapidly spreading national model.

More info on David Udell’s blog.

Posted in Court Management, Judicial Ethics | 2 Comments

Touro Law School Launches International Justice Center for Post-Graduate Development

Posted on July 20, 2013 by richardzorza

The incubator movement gets a big boost with Touro’s launch of its new International Justice Center for Post-Graduate Development, to be directed by Fred Rooney.

As put in the Center’s description, it’s components will include:

  • Collaboration with the ABA Standing Committee on the Delivery of Legal Services– The Center will work closely with the ABA to support existing incubator and residency programs for lawyers, to conceptualize new models that address the ever-changing unmet legal needs of people around the globe and support access-to-justice initiatives both at home and abroad.
  • International Conference on Post-Graduate Legal Education, Spring 2014– The Center will cosponsor a conference with the ABA and other law schools to discuss recent trends in post-graduate legal education and to provide technical training and support to interested law schools, bar associations or other organizations interested in developing incubators or residency programs.
  • International Support Center – The Center will solicit funding from United States government agencies  (State and Justice Departments, USAID, etc.), international foundations and bar associations to provide international students/professors/bar leaders and members of the judiciary with the training they need to successfully create post-graduate programs designed to increase access to justice.
  • Expanded Clearinghouse Services and International Listserv– In conjunction with the ABA, the Center will compile and house reports, law review articles, books, articles and other materials that can be used by law schools in the process of developing their own post-graduate programming. A listserv that promotes the free flow of information among its subscribers will substantially enhance communication from institutions around the world.
  • National Training Center– The Center will develop a national training component to provide technical support for domestic law schools/bar associations/state justice commissions and other organizations planning post-graduate programs designed to increase access to justice.
  • Creation of an Incubator for Touro Law Graduates- Launching the Touro Law incubator to assist 8 – 10 Touro Law graduates over an 18-month period as they deal with the professional and financial challenges of establishing solo or small community-based firm or not-for-profit organizations. Ongoing Continuing Legal Education (CLE) classes geared to the needs of solo and small-firm practitioners will be offered.

The description document linked to above puts in the Center in the history of legal education innovation and the current needs of the legal system.

Given the energy with which Fred has helped spread this movement, it is surely likely that the Center will have a major impact in re-orienting legal education into a system that actually prepares law students and recent graduates for what is needed, rather than what will give them a tiny shot at an insecure financial jackpot.

It is particularly impressive to see the international focus — one that is surely growing in all areas of access to justice.

Posted in Incubators, International Cooperation | Comments Off on Touro Law School Launches International Justice Center for Post-Graduate Development

Hitler’s Children is a Magnificent Film About Getting Beyond Your Backgroud

Posted on July 17, 2013 by richardzorza

I have been telling everyone about this wonderful film, Hitler’s Children.  It is on Netflicks streaming.

An Israeli filmmaker has tracked down descendants of some of the worst war criminals, such as Himmler, Goering, Frank (a Nazi lawyer (yes!) who ran all the Polish territories for Hitler) and the commandants of Auschwitz and Plaszow (the camp featured in Shindler’s list.)

The descendants interviewed have all come to terms with the evil in their backgrounds and largely dealt positively with it.

Its deeply moving to experience their courage and clarify.  For me one of the best sequences is when the granddaughter of Frank tells her father that by researching and wring about her grandfather, he, the father ,has protected her from the grandfather.  “You are my fortress,” is how I recall the quote.

Another highlight is when the daughter of the Plaszow commandant tells a friend of hers that who has been in the camp that her father was its commandant.

Yet another when the grandson of the Auschwitz camp, whose father actually grew up in a fine house that was right at the camp, goes back there, sees the gate between house and camp, and meets with Israeli young people.  They are both blunt and forgiving.  He is at least somewhat liberated.

Nothing about the Holocaust is easy, but this film is not about the horrors but about the descendants.  The courage is empowering.  Talk about justice.

Posted in Access to Justice Generally | Comments Off on Hitler’s Children is a Magnificent Film About Getting Beyond Your Backgroud

How ADR May Promote Stability in Weakly Governed States

Posted on July 15, 2013 by richardzorza

This paper abstract by Christopher Blattman, Alexandra Hartman and Robert Blair, raises some interesting possibilities, as well as being methodologically suggestive.

Dispute resolution institutions help reach agreements and preserve the peace whenever property rights are imperfect. In weak states, strengthening formal institutions can take decades, and so state and aid interventions also try to shape informal practices and norms governing disputes. Their goal is to improve bargaining and commitment, thus limiting disputes and violence. Mass education campaigns that promote alternative dispute resolution (ADR) are common examples. We study short-term impacts of one such campaign in Liberia, where property disputes are endemic. From 246 towns, 86 randomly received training in ADR practices and norms, training 15% of adults. One year later, treated towns have higher resolution of land disputes and lower violence. Impacts spill over to untrained residents. We also see unintended consequences: more extrajudicial punishment and (weakly) more non-violent disagreements. Results imply mass education can change high-stakes behaviors, and improving informal bargaining and enforcement behavior can promote order in weak states.

There was a finding of increased traditional “resolutions” such as witch hunts and trial by ordeal.  One would hope that a tweak in the training might minimize or remove this effect.  Of course, as with much ADR research, the focus was on the fact of a resolution, rather than its ultimate fairness.  It is interesting that were were (weakly) more non-violent disagreements.  Maybe disagreements were more acceptable when there are good paths to resolution.  Indeed, to quote from the study:

Finally, while we did not collect explicit qualitative data on the unintended consequences we see in the quantitative results, we did observe that the workshop inflamed disputes between youth and elders. Discussions of equal rights in the community gave a space for traditionally low-powered groups, such as youth, to speak up and make complaints about the status quo with support from the workshop facilitators. These opportunities led to passionate and sometimes un- resolved debates about whether new ideas about “human rights” and sharing power were suited to the community.

Those of us who were around in the 60’s may recognize an echo!  This study observation might suggest a more transformative long term effect in terms of empowering those who want more fundamental change.

The concept of training a high (15%) of the population is suggestive — in the US we tend to focus on the impact of an institutional innovation, rather than of changing public perceptions of possibilities.  And, so course, even in “strong” states, there are significant portions of the population that are reluctant to bring in the forces of law and order.

 

Posted in Access to Justice Generally, Systematic Change | Comments Off on How ADR May Promote Stability in Weakly Governed States

NCSC Trends Publication Solicits Proposals for Articles

Posted on July 9, 2013 by richardzorza

The NCSC publication Court Trends is an important source of information about changes occurring in the state courts.

It is now soliciting proposals for articles for its next issue.

I would encourage those who want to spread the word about innovations to consider making a submission (500 words, due Oct 15.)

Posted in Court Management | Comments Off on NCSC Trends Publication Solicits Proposals for Articles

SRLN Memo on Options for State Codes of Judicial Conduct

Posted on July 7, 2013 by richardzorza

Last year, the Conference of Chief Justices and COSCA passed a joint resolution urging consideration of alternative model langague for Rule 2.2 of the Model Code of Judicial Conduct, with an expanded focus on the self-represented.  The resolution also urged consideration of the development of state comment langauge.

The Self-Represented Litigation Network has now released this linked Memo, which reviews how several states have responded to this need, and suggests various approaches.

This memorandum, prepared by the Self-Represented Litigation Network, is offered to the states in support of the approach recommended in the second part of the Resolution. 

It gives examples of language adopted by the states, provides some alternatives for consideration, and suggests ways that states might consider what language to develop and adopt.  Appendices provide the full text of the CCJ/COSCA Resolution, the texts of already adopted state alternative language, options for access-facilitative steps not listed in that language, and a listing of resources.

Below, from the Memo, is the list of access-oriented steps already listed in various state codes:

  • Construing pleadings to facilitate consideration of the issues raised (CO
  •  Providing brief information about the proceeding and evidentiary and foundational requirements (LA, OH, DC, CO, IA) See also ME (explain the requirements of applicable rules and statutes so that a person appearing before the judge understands the process to be employed.)
  •  Attempting to make legal concepts understandable (CO)
  •  Asking neutral questions to elicit or clarify information (LA, DC)
  •  Modifying the traditional order of taking evidence (OH, DC, CO, IA)
  •  Refraining from using legal jargon (LA, OH, DC, IA)
  •  Explaining the basis for a ruling (LA, OH, DC, CO, IA
  •  Making referrals to any resources available to assist the litigant in the preparation of the case (LA, OH, DC, CO, IA) .  See also ME (inform[ing] unrepresented persons of free legal aid and similar assistance that is available in the courthouse or otherwise.)

The Network hopes that the Memo will be helpful to the states.  It also welcomes suggestions and reports of developments.

Please help by spreading the Memo around.

Posted in Judicial Ethics | 7 Comments

Disconcerting Blog Post on Bar Reactions to Recent Canadian Study of the Self-Represented

Posted on July 4, 2013 by richardzorza

Dr. Julie MacFarlane, who recently completed a study of the experiences of the self-represented in the Canadian courts, has posted a fascinating blog on the reactions from the legal profession to the study.  It is uncomfortable, but important, reading.

Efforts to discuss the study’s findings in both formal professional and informal social settings have been regularly met with one or both of the following responses from lawyers (1) “the SRL’s in your study were all crazy, angry people” (a wholly inaccurate characterization of the research sample) and / or (2)  ”you’re just lawyer-bashing”. This defensiveness casts lawyers as the victims of SRL’s, and SRL’s as the aggressors. This is a (re)framing by the (relatively) powerful that we should be familiar with from other social issues.

I know that the legal profession and the judiciary includes many amazing people who are committed to enhancing their services. Some members of the legal profession – and in particular, some important leaders – are looking carefully at the research and considering how the profession should respond. Many of these individuals – and their colleagues on the Bench – would agree that lawyers must be part of change. But they face the resistance of those who are so defensiveness about public criticism.

Discounting or rubbishing the research – and all research has its flaws – is neither an adequate nor a responsible response to the crisis of public confidence in the justice system. Efforts to stifle legitimate public concerns about legal services with cries of lawyer-bashing, or disparaging the struggles of ordinary people facing the justice system without counsel, will be completely counter-productive. It serves only to reinforce the critique – that parts of the legal profession do not care about ordinary people and are largely unaccountabie to the public.

It should be noted that the overall perspective that she brings is highly nuanced, and thus provides no justification for these criticisms.  As she puts it:

My own view – stated publicly many times now – is that the experiences of SRL’s are reflections of a system problem, rather than the “fault” of any particular justice system actors – judges, lawyers, court staff, or the SRL’s themselves. The real problem is that we have a legal system that assumes that people will be represented by lawyers. Declines in family and civil legal aid have left litigants with the choice of hiring a lawyer at $350 an hour, and many cannot afford to do so. Or they run out of funds before the end of their case (over half my sample) and find themselves alone in the courtroom.

On first blush it makes me feel good that we have really not experienced anything like this in the States — except, of course, for some rather special situations.  I would like to think that this is because our bar has made a major commitment to access to justice, and is able to face up to the realities of the system.

But before we blow our own horns, we must acknowledge that while some of the US states have gathered input into court planning, and others have conducted focus groups and talked to the self-represented, we have never done anything as systematic at Dr. MacFarlane’s study.  Maybe if we did, it might elicit some of the same reactions.

Of this however I am confident: the more we bring the bar into the research, analysis, planning and innovation process for access, the more successful we will be, not only at avoiding the kind of reaction reported by Dr. MacFarlane, but more critically, in solving the underlying access issue.

I particularly look forward to hearing how the debate moves forward — knowing as I do from recent participation at an excellent  session organized by the Canadian Bar Association that there is indeed very strong interest in access in the Bar, and a lot of creativity and commitment.

Lets hope that what Dr. MacFarlane is reporting is coming only from a small minority.

Posted in Access to Justice Generally, International Models, Systematic Change | 2 Comments

Guest Blogger Esther Lardent Responds to Recent Blog On Large Firm Changes

Posted on July 2, 2013 by richardzorza

I am pleased to post this blog post, in which Esther Lardent of the Pro Bono Institute responds, taking a much appreciated and more optimistic take, to my recent post on the implications of changes in large firms.

Richard Zorza’s June 26 blog post – “Implications for the Access to Justice Coalition of Large Firm Trends” – makes an important point:  lawyers in certain practice settings – smaller firms and solos, for example – have been far less active in the access to justice movement than their colleagues in major law firms.  In fact, some of these smaller practitioners have led the opposition to delivery innovations designed to make personal legal services more affordable and tailored to client needs and access to the courts and other tribunals simpler and more comprehensible.  The vast majority of lawyers in the US are employed in smaller practice settings, and it is essential that they understand that the work being done to enhance access to justice is not a threat to their livelihood or professional role; rather, it  is among the most critical ethical obligations of all lawyers AND it actually offers promising new sources of clients and legal work.

To make his point, however, Zorza makes a long leap, assuming that large firms’ focus on generating upscale legal work and revenues  – in other words, becoming more “business-like” – threatens the credibility of large firms (and perhaps their enthusiasm) for supporting access to justice.  As someone who has worked with these firms for many years, I do not agree.

Zorza’s blog post stems from a New York Times op-ed piece decrying the recent decision by Weil, Gotschal & Manges to layoff close to 200 attorneys and staff.  I do not presume to make any judgment about the appropriateness or wisdom of that decision, nor to predict whether other firms will follow that practice by “right-sizing” their practices to reflect a changing legal market.  It is certainly the case that large law firms are committed to being as business-like as possible in the face of an uneven recovery from the Great Recession, lessened client demand, and an intensely competitive marketplace.   In my experience, however, that is not new: large firms have been growing increasingly business-like for the past two decades.

Will the attention to revenues by large firms decrease their lawyers’ involvement with access to justice – or make them less credible spokepersons for our cause?  No.  The strong commitment to access to justice among large law firms, and their concrete demonstration of that commitment through millions of hours of pro bono service and substantial financial contributions annually has become more vibrant, visible, and institutionalized over the past two decades, while firms have also become more business-like in their practices.  Large law firms are giving their money – and, even more important, their time – to support access to justice, and they will continue to do so.  While it seems counter-intuitive, law firms can be – and are- both profit-motivated and deeply committed to the public good.   What is particularly notable is that, increasingly, large businesses are also expanding their good citizenship activities while retaining a laser-like focus on revenues and profits.

Corporate social responsibility (sometimes referred to as the “triple bottom line” is a growing concern and focus for the largest corporations in the US and the world.  The recognition that revenues alone do not define or ensure a successful enterprise – that environmental sustainability and service to others – is growing among these mega-companies.  The Pro Bono Institute’s Corporate Pro Bono project, in partnership with the Association of Corporate Counsel, has seen the number of in-house corporate legal departments with formal pro bono programs grow from just three at in 2000 to hundreds today. Outside of the legal profession, these corporations have publicly committed billions of hours of skill-based volunteer service to their communities.  Maybe, just maybe, we are in an era where the definition of “business-like” behavior is changing to mean more than simply profits.  Certainly, as long as legal aid and public interest programs continue to welcome large firm lawyers into their work and their world, they will continue to be among the most passionate and effective supporters of access to justice.

Posted in Pro Bono | 1 Comment

Implications for the Access to Justice Coalition of Large Firm Trends

Posted on June 26, 2013 by richardzorza

There is an excellent and deeply provocative op-ed in today’s New York Times about the recent compensation and staffing trends in large firms.  The op-ed points out that the recent terminations and partner compensation changes at Weil, Gotshal & Manges are not about a shrinking market. Rather they are about a desire to maximize key partner compensation — with partner compensation already at an average exceeding $2.2 million a year.

Most big firms are now following the leads of their corporate clients, which run businesses with one eye on the current stock price while maximizing quarterly earnings. But that can be an unforgiving world. Weil’s enormous reported profits for 2012 included a downward arrow because they represented an 8 percent drop from 2011, in part because of expensive hires. However unjustified, even a single year of relatively minor decline can create concerns. Cutting costs through layoffs and getting more billable hours out of the survivors has become a typical, businesslike response.

The article goes on to explain the business dynamics, and to bemoan the message to law students, whom, it concludes, have little choice.

My fear is different.  The access to justice coalition has long been sustained in part by an alliance between the larger firms and poverty advocates.  The “in the middle” private bar is often left out of that equation — and the very limited bar opposition to some innovations has come from those serving other than the very rich.

But, as the large firms are seen more and more as pursuing an income maximization strategy — and at stratospheric levels — at a minimum their advocacy for access for the poor is likely to be seen as less and less legitimate.

The support of the middle income bar for access to justice will therefore become more and more important, and it is now even more critical that we structure innovations that can earn support from a very broad spectrum of the profession.

Posted in Access to Justice Generally | 2 Comments

Australia Starts Study “Productivity” Study on ATJ Generally

Posted on June 24, 2013 by richardzorza

Today seems to be a day for hearing about new angles on access to justice.  Steve Grumm at the ABA has just tipped me off to the fascinating news that the Australian government has asked its productivity Commission “to undertake a 15-month inquiry into Australia’s system of civil dispute resolution, with a focus on constraining costs and promoting access to justice and equality before the law.”

Given the breadth of the study, it surely has potentially transformative impact;

In particular, the Commission should have regard to:

  • real costs of legal representation and trends over time
  • level of demand for legal services
  • factors that contribute to the cost of legal representation in Australia
  • whether the costs charged for accessing justice services and for legal representation are generally proportionate to the issues in dispute
  • the impact of the costs of accessing justice services, and securing legal representation, on the effectiveness of these services
  • economic and social impact of the costs of accessing justice services, and securing legal representation
  • impact of the structures and processes of legal institutions on the costs of accessing and utilising these institutions, including analysis of discovery and case management processes
  • alternative mechanisms to improve equity and access to justice and achieve lower cost civil dispute resolution, in both metropolitan areas and regional and remote communities, and the costs and benefits of these
  • reforms in Australian jurisdictions and overseas which have been effective at lowering the costs of accessing justice services, securing legal representation and promoting equality in the justice system
  • data collection across the justice system that would enable better measurement and evaluation of cost drivers and the effectiveness of measures to contain these

Of course, what is most exciting is that the study looks at the costs for all — rather than treating poor people’s problems as different from the general problems of the system, including the costs of counsel for all.

The full “Terms of Reference” are here.  Particularity interesting is this expansion of the heading governing “the factors that contribute to the cost of legal representation in Australia,”

  • the supply of law graduates and barriers to entering the legal services market
  • information asymmetry
  • other issues of market failure
  • the structure of the legal profession in State and Territory jurisdictions
  • legal professional rules and practices
  • court practices and procedures
  • models of billing practices
  • the application of taxation laws to legal services expenditure, and
  • other features of the legal services market which drive costs

 

Posted in Access to Justice Generally, International Models, Systematic Change | 1 Comment

Should We Think of Legal Insurance as a Health Care Benefit

Posted on June 24, 2013 by richardzorza

The recently published randomized research on the impact of having health insurance raises a fascinating question about whether we should start to think about we might think of legal insurance as a health benefit.

The research itself, very well summarized by Leon Neyfakh in the Boston Globe, comes to the surprising conclusion that health insurance does not improve general health levels, but that it very significantly improves mental health.  In other words, reducing uncertainty about access to health care improves mental health.  According to this description of the research, which randomly assigned people in Oregon to medicaid, “people with access to Medicaid were a whopping 30 percent less likely than their counterparts to screen positive for depression.”

As the article goes on:

For Gruber and Chandra, the Oregon findings point to a striking conclusion: The coverage itself was what made the difference. In other words, the individuals in the Medicaid group—whose risk of catastrophic medical expenses was almost entirely eliminated—were less depressed simply because they had insurance.

“People who are uninsured live under constant daily stress,” said Gruber. “They’re worried about getting sick, and they’re worried about paying the bills if they get sick. And I think that manifests [itself] in many aspects of life, including…depression.”

Gruber’s belief is supported by a large body of research showing that stress in general, and financial hardship in particular, frequently lead to the onset of mental health problems. In 2010, Sidra Goldman-Mellor, a postdoctoral fellow at the Center for Developmental Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, systematically surveyed the medical literature and reported that “dozens of studies have found statistically significant associations between negative economic transitions and depression.” One of the studies cited was a survey of Mexican-Americans, which found that the odds of experiencing an episode of clinical depression for the first time ever were five times higher for people who had lost their jobs during the 7 to 12 months before the survey.

Financial crises like bankruptcy and mortgage difficulties are linked to stress and depression as well. A study by Kenneth Kendler, a psychiatry professor at Virginia Commonwealth University, found that individuals who had experienced a major financial setback were almost seven times more likely to experience the onset of depression during the subsequent month. Kendler also found that unlike other traumatic events—the death of a loved one, for instance—financial catastrophes tend to be continuous, not discrete events, and thus can cause depression several months down the line.

So the obvious question is: would reducing the risk of these other forms of crises — or more accurately reducing the risks of overwhelming consequences from those crises — by providing legal insurance have a similar impact.

If there were a “civil Gideon” that would be equivalent to such insurance.  But because it is always a struggle for a poor person to get legal aid now, of course, our current system does not provide such a potential benefit for anyone.

There is, of course, a whole market for legal insurance (often called pre-paid plans) with some unions the UAW offering the benefit.

While a randomized study of the impact of legal insurance would be very expensive, there are surely ways to do some initial research into the extent to which fear of financial disaster triggered by legal problems might be contributing to depression.

That might provide a new way of looking at the benefits of, and argument for, legal insurance, particularly as part of employment and job-training packages.

Posted in Access to Counsel, Medical System Comparision, Research and Evalation | 2 Comments

David Udell Blogs on New York City Bar Report on Non-Lawyer Practice

Posted on June 21, 2013 by richardzorza

David Udell, drawing on the blog from the New York City Bar,  blogs at the National Center for Access to Justice on the just-released New York City Bar Association Report on the potential of non-lawyer practice to help fill the justice gap.  David is the chair of the Subcommittee on Access to Justice of the Bar Association’s Committee on Professional Responsibility.

The Committee recommends adoption of the following approaches:

Allow a nonlawyer in the role of “courtroom aide” to assist litigants in proceedings before selected courts and agencies, subject to varying degrees of regulation and oversight. In some settings, friends or relatives should be allowed to provide moral support and other assistance without formal training or regulation, subject to approval and oversight by the presiding judge or administrator, as long as the nonlawyer does so without financial compensation. The Committee also suggests considering whether, in a more limited range of cases, it may be appropriate for nonlawyers to render assistance for a fee, subject to formal regulation.  Assistance by a courtroom aide “can be expected to facilitate proceedings in ways that benefit the litigant, the tribunal, and the justice system as a whole,” the report states. “For individuals with educational, language, or cognitive limitations, the courtroom aide can be especially helpful, not only as a source of information and emotional and administrative support, but also as an advocate.”

Allow trained and licensed nonlawyers, pursuant to a regulatory scheme to be developed, to provide for a fee certain specified services – e.g., explaining procedures, gathering facts and documents, and assisting in the completion of court forms – but not to participate in judicial and administrative hearings. This “legal technician” concept has already been adopted by the Supreme Court of Washington State.  Absent a system for managing nonlawyer practice, the report notes, other, less desirable services inevitably arise to meet the unmet need. “It is often fulfilled – inadequately – by notarios and others who operate in the shadows of our legal system, without training or competency requirements. The legal technician model offers an opportunity to bring that activity out of the shadows and expose it to regulation.”

Consider additional roles beyond that of Courtroom Aides and Legal Technicians for nonlawyers, in order to significantly close the justice gap.

Given the influence that bar associations have historically had in these matters, and particularly given the high respect accorded the New York City Bar, this may well turn out to be a very important step.

I very much encourage folks to read the Report, which is very thoughtful, and includes comprehensive data on existing practices — which turn out to be far broader than many realize.

Posted in Non-Lawyer Practice | 1 Comment

AP Running Access to Justice Innovation Story

Posted on June 21, 2013 by richardzorza

The AP, and ABC, are running a story on an access inititive that uses faith based organizations to get the word about pro bono help out.

Tennessee’s faith-based initiative is unusual compared to most legal aid programs across the country because it recognizes that many people who could use an attorney’s help would never go to a legal aid clinic even if it were held at their house of worship. That’s because they don’t recognize their problem as a legal one.

“People show up every day at churches and synagogues and mosques, and they may not ask for legal help. They may need food assistance. But often there is an underlying legal problem,” said Tennessee Supreme Court Justice Connie Clark, who helped the faith-based initiative get off the ground. “We realized we can help more people by going to where they are already going for help.”

The article quotes me generally about the value and spread of such innovations.  It also talks about the spread of commissions.

Posted in Access to Justice Boards, Pro Bono | Comments Off on AP Running Access to Justice Innovation Story