Briefing Paper on Natural Alliance Between Legal Aid and Philanthropy

Posted on May 7, 2013 by richardzorza

The Public Welfare Foundation and the Kresge Foundation have released an excellent and useful briefing paper on the relationship between legal aid and philanthropy.

The core argument is simple:

Ultimately, civil legal aid is a powerful tool that can increase the impact of a funder’s support. At the same time, it empowers low-income people and communities to have an equal shot at the justice they deserve to meet their basic needs, promotes more dignity and stability in their lives, and creates pathways out of poverty.

The briefing paper discusses the core areas of legal aid work, including both individual advocacy and broader work, points out the impact of the funding crisis, and suggests ways that the two partners can work together.

I very much hope that it will have the impact that it deserves.  Please spread it around.

 

Posted in Access to Justice Generally, Funding, Legal Aid | Comments Off on Briefing Paper on Natural Alliance Between Legal Aid and Philanthropy

Thoughts from the Canadian Envisioning Equal Justice Summit — Parallel Paths to Innovation and Access

Posted on April 30, 2013 by richardzorza

I am just back from Vancouver and the Canadian Bar Association Envisioning Equal Justice Summit.  My main conclusion is that the Canadians and the US are now on very similar and potentially supportive paths.

The Summit was brought together to highlight and reflect upon several reports being generated on access issues. There is one on simplification (link not yet available), one on triage, one on legal aid, and one on family justice.  These reports were generated in response to a speech to the Canadian Bar in 2012 by their Chief Justice.

For me, the highlights were:

  • A wonderful poverty simulation, based on this one. (biggest memory for me: the participant who reported that he did well in the simulation because of “luck,” not skill.)  Apparently the simulation does not usually include a legal aid office — hmm –although they added it for this one.
  • The interest in developing access to justice Commission equivalents for the Canadian Provinces. (Steve Grumm, newly at the ABA, spoke at a plenary.)
  • The fact that triage, simplification, judicial education for self-represented cases are on the developing agenda.
  • Conceptions of triage that deal with services long before litigation, built in part on research on the breadth of legal need before litigation.
  • The clear support from the judiciary for access.
  • How similar the discussion about how to handle self-represented litigants in the court room is in the US and Canada.
  • That some Canadian courts are able to provide services similar to those in the US, but that the systems of referral and non-legal assistance seem more robust, given the strength of their social service system.
  • A debate on whether to advocate for a national system of “justice care,” analogous to their health care system.  While the political circumstances are very different, the lessons from this debate may help inform our emerging conversation about how to do more for middle income people excluded from the system.

I like to think that there may be opportunities for cross-border cooperation, particularly in areas of research, such as into judicial communication with the self-represented, networking among access commissions or equivalents, the development of new ideas for triage and simplification, and, of course, technology, which is always cheaper whens costs can be spread over a larger number of partners.

Posted in Access to Justice Generally, International Cooperation, Simplification, Technology, Triage | Tagged | 2 Comments

Interesting Simplifiation/Right to Counsel Argument from Justice Sotamayor in Immigration Case

Posted on April 24, 2013 by richardzorza

Yesterdays immigration opinion, MONCRIEFFE v. HOLDER, from the Supreme Court, holding possession of small amounts of marijuana outside the definition of “aggravated felony” ineligible for discretionary relief from deportation, contains an interesting nugget for possible citation in simplification and right to counsel cases.

Justice Sotamoyor, in her 7-2 opinion used the lack of counsel in the procedures to support her decision in favor of simplicity in the law and process.  This could be used to cite either for the proposition that the lack of counsel requires a simple process, or that the complexity requires counsel.  Some of the language is below.

Moreover, the procedure the Government envisians would require precisely the sort of post hoc investigation into the facts of predicate offenses that we have long deemed undesirable. The categorical approach serves “practical” purposes: It promotes judicial and administrative efficiency by precluding the relitigation of past convictions in minitrials conducted long after the fact. Cham- bers v. United States, 555 U. S. 122, 125 (2009); see also Mylius, 210 F., at 862–863. Yet the Government’s ap- proach would have our Nation’s overburdened immigra- tion courts entertain and weigh testimony from, for exam- ple, the friend of a noncitizen who may have shared a marijuana cigarette with him at a party, or the local police officer who recalls to the contrary that cash traded hands. And, as a result, two noncitizens, each “convicted of ” the same offense, might obtain different aggravated felony determinations depending on what evidence remains available or how it is perceived by an individual immigra- tion judge. The categorical approach was designed to avoid this “potential unfairness.” Taylor, 495 U. S., at 601; see also Mylius, 210 F., at 863.

Furthermore, the minitrials the Government proposes would be possible only if the noncitizen could locate witnesses years after the fact, notwithstanding that during removal proceedings noncitizens are not guaranteed legal representation and are often subject to mandatory detention, §1226(c)(1)(B), where they have little ability to collect evidence. See Katzmann, The Legal Profession and the Unmet Needs of the Immigrant Poor, 21 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 3, 5–10 (2008); Brief for National Immigrant Justice Center et al. as Amici Curiae 5–18; Brief for Immigra- tion Law Professors as Amici Curiae 27–32. A noncitizen in removal proceedings is not at all similarly situated to a defendant in a federal criminal prosecution. The Govern- ment’s suggestion that the CSA’s procedures could readily be replicated in immigration proceedings is therefore misplaced. Cf. Carachuri-Rosendo, 560 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 14–15) (rejecting the Government’s argument that procedures governing determination of the recidivism sentencing factor could “be satisfied during the immigration proceeding”). (Bold added) (Slip Opinion at 15-16).

Lets hope this language is a precursor, and lets make it one by citing it.

 

Posted in Access to Counsel, Immigration, Simplification, Supreme Court | Comments Off on Interesting Simplifiation/Right to Counsel Argument from Justice Sotamayor in Immigration Case

Paul Krugman Nails the “Excel Depression” — And Reminds Us of the Risks of Errors When You Rely on Data

Posted on April 21, 2013 by richardzorza

Paul Krugman has a brilliant and sobering column on what he calls the Excel Depression.

Core idea.  The austerity policies adopted worldwide were driven by academic work about the benefits of such policies.

But:

Finally, Ms. Reinhart and Mr. Rogoff allowed researchers at the University of Massachusetts to look at their original spreadsheet — and the mystery of the irreproducible results was solved. First, they omitted some data; second, they used unusual and highly questionable statistical procedures; and finally, yes, they made an Excel coding error. Correct these oddities and errors, and you get what other researchers have found: some correlation between high debt and slow growth, with no indication of which is causing which, but no sign at all of that 90 percent “threshold [claimed in the earlier work].” [Bold added.]

In response, Ms. Reinhart and Mr. Rogoff have acknowledged the coding error, defended their other decisions and claimed that they never asserted that debt necessarily causes slow growth. That’s a bit disingenuous because they repeatedly insinuated that proposition even if they avoided saying it outright. But, in any case, what really matters isn’t what they meant to say, it’s how their work was read: Austerity enthusiasts trumpeted that supposed 90 percent tipping point as a proven fact and a reason to slash government spending even in the face of mass unemployment.

Its scarey — and should lead all of us to check and check — particularly when our data is used in policy debates.  It should also lead us to be careful to rebut it when some make excessive claims from ambiguous or uncertain data.

Moreover, as we move to dynamic triage and other more complex systems, the risks become greater and harder to monitor.  We need to build in a wide variety of checking mechanisms.  At the same time, we must remember that current systems are making errors all the time, and not become paralyzed.

Posted in Research and Evalation, Technology | 2 Comments

What a Day at the White House!

Posted on April 17, 2013 by richardzorza

Yesterday, Tuesday, was a White House Forum on Increasing Access to Justice in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.  LSC and the White House were the co-hosts.  Some of the highlights for me — all showing what a different time this is, both in terms of support from national leadership, and the innovation-orientation of the access community:

Hearing Vice President Biden describe how he left a large firm to become a public defender after winning a case against a worker — something like “I told them that I was on the wrong side of this business.”

Hearing Attorney General Eric Holder talk with strength about his commitment to the Access to Justice Initiative at DOJ, and the value of the work they do, including the inter-agency roundtable.

Hearing Texas Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson talk about the value of including all points of view in access to justice commissions, and his appointing a conservative justice  — deeply committed to access — as the Court’s ex-officio member of the state access Commission.

Hearing New York Chief Justice Jonathan Lippman describe his commitment to early pilots in non-lawyer practice, his belief that the idea represents no threat to the organized bar, and his reporting finding much support for the concept.

Hearing Laurel Bellows, ABA President, respond positively in terms of her belief that there are many non-legal skills that can help clients, and that there have to be solutions to cost and access issues.

Hearing Jim Sandman, LSC President, say that in some ways legal aid technology was ahead of the private bar.

Hearing Robert Grey, LSC Board Member and co-chair of the LSC Pro Bono Report Implementation Committee, talk about the plans to gather and distribute a Best Practices Toolkit for pro bono.

Hearing Steven Croley, Deputy Counsel to the President, draw together some conclusions from the afternoon, including the need to tailor services to need, the need to develop practical assistance mechanisms, the need to develop new kinds of capacities, and the importance of uniformity in rules, forms, all facilitating economies of scale for access.  Finally, and perhaps most importantly, he encouraged the idea of new court procedures, analogous to, but beyond small claims and summary jury trials.

This was more than a show and tell.  There is some important signaling going on here — innovation is on the march, and it has the support of national and judicial leadership.

 

 

Posted in Access to Justice Generally, Dept. of Justice | 1 Comment

Great New Video on FEMA Appeal App

Posted on April 15, 2013 by richardzorza

Pro Bono Net has an online tool to help with FEMA appeals.

NY-1, the New York all-news station, has a nice video on it. (warning, slow link.)

As local cable all-news stations proliferate, it might be a good idea to reach out to them with possible content.  They often like items that are practical and helpful.  When someone is shot, it tends to get played repeatedly.

 

Posted in Document Assembly, Media | Comments Off on Great New Video on FEMA Appeal App

Access to Justice in Rural Areas — an Opportunity?

Posted on April 12, 2013 by richardzorza

The New York Times has a fascinating article on how South Dakota is offering a subsidy to lawyers to serve rural areas.

The new law, which will go into effect in June, requires a five-year commitment from the applicant and sets up a pilot program of up to 16 participants. They will receive an annual subsidy of $12,000, 90 percent of the cost of a year at the University of South Dakota Law School.

Here is my thought.  Why not condition that subsidy on providing services to low income people at reduced cost.  This might be a model for increasing access to justice at very low cost, at least in rural areas.

 

Posted in Access to Justice Generally | Comments Off on Access to Justice in Rural Areas — an Opportunity?

Great Article in Chronicle of Philanthropy on Levaraging Access to Justice for Substantive Areas

Posted on April 5, 2013 by richardzorza

The Chronicle on Philanthropy has an excellent article by Mary McClymont of the Public Welfare Foundation on the usefulness of issue-oriented grant-maker strategies including a legal aid/access to justice component.  I am pasting below much of the article:

Philanthropy, which has not yet paid much attention to th[e legal aid crisis], should take on a larger and deeper role.

By embracing this priority, grant makers have an opportunity not just to help advance equal access to justice but also to make progress on other issues, such as affordable housing, access to health care, education reform, economic development, income security, domestic violence, and help for children and families.

We should recognize that civil legal aid can serve as a significant grant-making tool, similar to community organizing, advocacy, or research. It adds value to the work grant makers already undertake.

Opportunities abound. In recent years, legal-aid lawyers have joined forces and moved ahead with thoughtful and innovative solutions that make it possible to serve more people. These innovations could be expanded exponentially with more investment.

A prime example: medical-legal partnerships, which integrate lawyers into health-care teams to ensure that needy people are safe and get housing, food, government benefits, and other help that would keep them from getting sick. And powerful allies like state chief justices are emerging to advocate for legal aid.

Grant makers committed to services for low-income people should see civil legal aid as one of the most effective ways to improve people’s lives.

Foundations that want to influence public policy or make sure government and business follow through on their promises should enlist civil legal aid groups as partners. These groups see problems faced by low-income people every day, and they use that knowledge to create broader advocacy strategies that advance the goals so many philanthropies care about.

Civil legal aid can also help us make sure our dollars are being used wisely. It can prevent people from losing the affordable housing that a grant maker has already provided funds to preserve.

And private support of innovative legal-aid projects can complement or attract federal or state money in public-private partnerships.

Philanthropies such as the California Endowment, the Kresge Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and the Eugene and Agnes Meyer Foundation, to name a few, have recognized the importance of civil legal aid to bolster key components of their work. And we at the Public Welfare Foundation are also supporting efforts to strengthen and expand civil legal aid opportunities.

As you may know, the Public Welfare Foundation is making some significant grants in its Civil Legal Aid Initiative.

But, more important is the broad message that grant-makers generally should be deeply interested in the access to justice crisis, and understand that relatively minor investments can be greatly leveraged through ensuring that legal services and help are available to ensure that those impacted by “their issues” are heard.

I would encourage programs to use this article, perhaps to work with local associations of grant-makers (RAGs — list here) to have local convenings on the power of legal aid investments and/or get articles such as this in their local RAG newsletters.  The DOJ Access Initiative must be highly commended for making the same leveraging argument within the Federal Government.

Posted in Funding | Comments Off on Great Article in Chronicle of Philanthropy on Levaraging Access to Justice for Substantive Areas

Self-Represented Litigation Network Announces Details of PreConference at Equal Justice Conference — May 8, 2013, St Louis

Posted on April 3, 2013 by richardzorza

The Self-Represented Litigation Network (SRLN) will be conducting its annual PreConference on May 8, 2013 before the main Equal Justice Conference at the Hyatt Regency St Louis at the Arch, in St Louis.

The topics to be covered are planned to include:

  • National Picture
  • Law Library Developments
  • Federal Courts Issues
  • Forms Ignite Session and Discussion
  • Research Report and Discussion
  • Gamificaiton Exploration
  • Future of SRLN
  • LEP and the Courts
  • Law School Incubators
  • Unbundling Developments
  • Tech Summit Strategy
  • Non Lawyer Practice Developments
  • Problem Solving Time

While we strongly encourage participants to register for the entire Equal Justice Conference, it is possible to register just for the one day preconference on May 8, 2013.

To register for the Self-Represented Litigants Network Educational Program ONLY at $75, please complete the form, scan, and email to erin.wellin(at)americanbar.org. If paying by check, please send to:

Erin Wellin
Re: SRLN EJC Session
American Bar Association
321 N Clark St
Chicago, IL 60654

Indicate that you are only selecting the pre-conference and not the entire EJC registration rate.

If you are planning on attending the conference as well as this session (strongly encouraged), please register online by visiting this link:

Posted in Meetings | Comments Off on Self-Represented Litigation Network Announces Details of PreConference at Equal Justice Conference — May 8, 2013, St Louis

Thoughts on a Discouraging Post-Turner Decision from the GA Court of Appeals

Posted on April 1, 2013 by richardzorza

The Georgia Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court), in a complex, but none-the-less discouraging and hard to understand (in both senses of the phrase) decision has de-certified the class in a case designed to answer a question left open in Turner, whether those facing civil contempt incarceration sought by the state are entitled to counsel. (The named members of the class were all incarcerated.)  The case is Deal v. Miller.

As I understand the logic of the decision, the Court of Appeals found that, because the named members of the class had failed to request counsel below, they had not been “denied” counsel, and thus there was absence of all of actual injury, common question, typicality, or the same refusal to act with respect to members of the class.

Again, as I understand it, these conclusions all stem from the fact that in 1978 the Georgia Supreme Court rejected a claim that the courts had a duty to inquire as to the desire for counsel in this kind of case.

The logical defect is obvious, the Turner decision throws the 1978 decision into, at the very least doubt.  Indeed, in Turner, there was not request in the trial court for counsel, and the Supreme Court reached the issue.  (It must be admitted, however, that the South Carolina Supreme Court did reach the issue before US Supreme Court review.)  The Georgia Appeals Court tried to square the circle by asserting that “[t]o find otherwise — absent actual request for and denial of counsel — would be to decide the ultimate issue in the case, which is whether indigent child support obligors are entitled to counsel in civil contempt proceedings where the State is a party and has representation. The ultimate issue is not before us.”  It seems to me, by relying on the 1978 decision, it it in fact relying on an assumption about the ultimate decision.

In the end, however, I am less concerned with the rights and wrongs of this unfortunate decision, and more with the pattern that is starting to evolve.  With the Wyoming Supreme Court decision, there are now two states where the court has treated the post-Turner claim with logic that is hard (for me at least) to understand.  There may be a message in this for advocates: the judicial climate is not sympathetic in states that in the past have not provided counsel in these situations.

There may be a message her that the judicial  climate in states that have in the past not provided counsel in these situations is not sympathetic to these claims.  This surely reflects the reality that it is very hard, in the current environment, for judges to order the state to incur significant additional expenditures.

It may be that a more productive path in creating useful progeny for Turner may be not in focusing on the unanswered contempt question in the case (at least in states already hostile to the claim.)  Rather there may be more fertile ground in using the general tests of Turner to expand services, including a right to counsel, in those states that have shown their general sympathy to such claims by, for example, providing counsel to the Turner class.

Should a trial judge rule, in response to a pleading possibly prepared with the assistance of a self-help center or legal aid program, that the judge can not make the procedural adjustments needed to ensure access in a particular case, and that therefore counsel is needed, it would have to be a strong-minded appellate court to reject the claim on appeal.  Such a claim would be particularly likely to survive in a state in which the public defender statute had been structured to provide payment in all cases in which the law provides for counsel. (see, e.g. Massachusetts General Laws Ch 211D, Section 5 (“laws of the commonwealth or the rules of the supreme judicial court“).)

Thanks to the National Coalition for the Civil Right to Counsel for pointing out this case.

Posted in Access to Counsel, Child Support | Comments Off on Thoughts on a Discouraging Post-Turner Decision from the GA Court of Appeals

Equal Justice Works Acepting Proposals for Veterans Projects

Posted on March 31, 2013 by richardzorza

Here is a description of the Project (note that positions are contingent upon funding from Amercorps):

Equal Justice Works just released a Request for Proposals (RFP), seeking results-oriented host sites for the Veterans Legal Corps Fellowship Program, an exciting new initiative to change the lives of low-income and homeless veterans through high-quality, focused legal services.  The mission of Equal Justice Works is to create a just society by mobilizing the next generation of lawyers committed to equal justice. We provide a continuum of programs that begin with incoming law school students and extend into later careers in the public service field, and we are excited to launch this program to address the legal needs of veterans.
 
Contingent upon funding from the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), this AmeriCorps program will provide partial funding for up to four attorney Fellows and law students that are to serve at legal aid organizations across the country and provide legal services to low-income and homeless veterans. Fellows and law students will be given the chance to be part of a nationwide movement to close the justice gap for these veterans.

The application link is here.  Proposals are due April 23, 2013.  More information is here, or from  kgravely(at)equaljusticeworks.org.

Posted in Funding, Veterans | Comments Off on Equal Justice Works Acepting Proposals for Veterans Projects

Malpractice Insurance Provider Writes Sympathetically About Unbundling

Posted on March 31, 2013 by richardzorza

One anxiety that has held back expansion of unbundling is fear that malpractice carriers will be unhappy with their clients providing unbundled legal assistance.  While this fear is largely dissipating, it is nice to see that one insurer’s blog has a sympathetic posting on unbundling. The post is by Robert Minto, Jr., CEO of ALPS Corporation and ALPS RRG.

One of the big “takeaways” from the [2013 Western States Bar] conference came in the form of a realization that one way or another legal services as we know them will unbundle around us if we don’t engage in the process and at least attempt to provide some direction. Several Bars, Washington State taking the lead, have actually begun the process of authorizing it by establishing rules to define, restrict and regulate how lawyers can unbundle, provide for appropriate confidentiality, and deliver legal services for a piece, but not all, of a transaction.

This issue ties nicely into delivering legal services to those of modest means. Take for example a pro se litigant faced with a mandatory mediation. A lawyer might be asked to just advise the client (a couple of consultations) on the ins and outs of the mediation process, or even to a limited representation (attend the mediation only), but have no further involvement in the process. I agree that this is not the ideal situation and that the client will get much better service and likely results by hiring the lawyer to do the whole thing. Reality has already proven that a certain segment of the population, especially younger people, will utilize Internet resources and attempt the process themselves. They feel that they are able and that full legal representation will cost more than they can afford.

Posted in Unbundling | 1 Comment

Roundtable for Incubators at Equal Justice

Posted on March 30, 2013 by richardzorza

As you know, I am a huge fan of the incubator.  It is one of the “without-which” innovations that we have to put in place to get to 100% access to justice.  Among the obvious advantages: a path for law students for sustainable practice and a way of serving middle income folks at bearable rates.

I particularly encourage folks to attend the Roundtable on incubators planned for Friday May 10 at the Equal Justice Conference.  Here is the roundtable flier.

The program invites those who are . . .  planning and operating incubator and residency programs, law school administrators, faculty, bar leaders and others interested in fostering resources to support these programs.

See you there.

p.s. I will shortly be posting detailed information about the Self-Represented Litigation Network Pre-Confernce, to be held, also at the EJC on Wed May 8.

Posted in Incubators, Meetings | Comments Off on Roundtable for Incubators at Equal Justice

Report on Colorado Simplified Process Rule Option

Posted on March 29, 2013 by richardzorza

In 2004 Colorado put in place statewide a Rule 6.1 permitting the parties to use a simplified trial process in certain relatively low-stake cases.

A report on this experiment is now available here, and it is reported on in the most recent E-SJI News.

The Rule is voluntary — parties can opt out.  The rule applies only to cases with less than $100,000 at stake.  The main difference for cases going under the rule is the treatment of discovery.

This Rule requires early, full disclosure of persons, documents, damages, insurance and experts, and early, detailed disclosure of witnesses’ testimony, whose direct trial testimony is then generally limited to that which has been disclosed. Normally, no depositions, interrogatories, document requests or requests for admission are allowed, although examination under C.R.C.P. 34(a)(2) [inspection of real or personal property] and 35 [physical and mental examination of persons] is permitted.

While the Rule now applies statewide, between 2000 and 2004 it was piloted in certain cases assigned to one judge.  There were two datasets studied, those in the pilot, and those eligible generally and closed in 2010.

Since lawyers or parties were opting out, at their own choice, and there was no randomization, any conclusions are far from clear.

Some things can be concluded.

  • Statewide most of the cases under the rule involved the self-represented.
  • Statewide most of the cases under the rule involved failure to answer (and thus the rule had no impact on their process)
  • The option is used far more in collection cases than other cases.
  • In the pilot study, the Rule 16.1 cases had a shorter time to disposition, but statewide they did not.  (There was reduction in time to “final event” but not much is made of that.)
  • Both groups show significant reductions in number of motions filed — not surprising, given that so many motions are discovery related.
  • However there was only a significant reduction in court appearances in the Pilot study, not in the 2010 cases closed study.
  • Attorneys and lawyers (who volunteered to be interviewed, producing another area of potential error) reported little use of the approach — although this was not supported by the overall data.  The inconsistency may be explained by the fact that so few of the cases to to trial, or even involve an answer.

So, it is not clear that much can be made of this.

More may come out of a different project the Colorado Civil Rules Pilot Project.  The Project is explained in this PowerPoint.  The project includes early disclosure, resistance to continuances, the same judge throughout the case, limitation to one expert and requirement of expert report, and more aggressive caseflow management

Posted in Research and Evalation, Simplification | Comments Off on Report on Colorado Simplified Process Rule Option

Important Letter From NSF on Interest in Acces to Justice

Posted on March 23, 2013 by richardzorza

NSF has issued an important “dear colleague” letter “Stimulating Research Related to the Use and Functioning of the Civil Justice System” on the agency’s continuing interest in access-type research.  While this is not a new solicitation, the letter makes clear NSF’s interest in research related to “how people and organizations define legal claims, whether and how they mobilize the law on their behalf, and how legal institutions respond to questions about civil justice.”  The full text is below.

Date: March 15, 2013

Law and Social Sciences (LSS) scholars have a rich tradition of describing and explaining how people and organizations mobilize the law, and, in turn, how legal institutions respond to legal demands. In order to stimulate research concerning the use and functioning of the civil justice system, the Law & Social Sciences program announces its continuing interest in supporting research in this area.

LSS scholars have developed useful knowledge concerning how people understand the law, what they do about their legal concerns, and how organizations define, mediate and answer legal concerns. In turn, courts and other legal institutions shape and impact people’s family lives, their housing choices, and their business and employment options. These impacts are central both to theory-building concerning legal mobilization and decision making by institutions and to understanding where and how law structures people’s lives.

The Law & Social Sciences program invites research on how people and organizations define legal claims, whether and how they mobilize the law on their behalf, and how legal institutions respond to questions about civil justice.

Proposals concerning civil justice are invited to consider problems involving and not limited to the following:

Individual decisions to engage legal institutions and assistance, and the institutional, cultural, social and economic factors that shape those decisions;
Mediating institutions that define, mobilize or manage legal claims, and the differences they make in process and outcomes; and
The process and outcomes of decision-making in courts, both trial and appellate.
Appropriate methods can include all of those used within the social and behavioral sciences, including and not limited to collecting and analyzing documents, conducting lab and field experiments, conducting surveys and interviews, and engaging in ethnographic research. Comparative approaches in which scholars analyze change over time or compare across jurisdictions are welcome.

Successful proposals will be based on a theoretically driven research design incorporating appropriate methods to: (1) formulate appropriate research questions; (2) implement the collection and analysis of data; (3) interpret the resulting measures and findings generated by the study; and (4) outline steps for successful dissemination to and beyond the scholarly community.

This is not a special competition or new program. Scholars with appropriate proposals should submit to the existing Law & Social Sciences program. Successful proposals will meet NSF’s criteria in terms of both intellectual merit and broader impacts. Proposals will be evaluated through the standard review process.

Sincerely,

Dr. Myron Gutmann
Assistant Director, National Science Foundation
Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences

It would appear to me that this set of approaches draws heavily on research in other industrialized countries which, frankly, have a more robust tradition of such research.  (See. e.g. International Legal Aid Group website.)

It also appears that the interest has been greatly stimulated by the meeting last December on research in access to justice held in Chicago.  Indeed, this step underlines again the huge value of having a specific office and focus at DOJ on access issues.

I take the liberty of copying one para from my post on the Chicago meeting:

Personally, I was particularly interested in detailed discussion of research into particular innovations, such as legal aid brief service, document assembly, legal aid protocols, court self-help services, judicial education, etc.  I think there is a real chance that we will see much more research into these questions.  They are of course critical not only to decisions as to which innovations to deploy, but how to build triage systems that reflect real knowledge, not just program instincts.  Practitioner should note that the world really is full of researchers looking for topics to research — but, as was pointed out repeatedly, they need to become involved in planning and discussions before, not after, the data are collected.

There is, of course, a plan to develop a more formal network linking researchers and practitioners, but in the meantime, folks in both communities should reach out to people like me if they want ideas on how to connect.

As I understand it, the next due date for these proposals to NSF would be August 1  However, Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grants  are due Jan 15 of next year.

Posted in Funding, Research and Evalation | 5 Comments