LSC Adds “Outside” VP for Grants Management With Extensive Public-Private Partnership Experience

Posted on September 21, 2012 by richardzorza

LSC’s appointment of  new VP for Grants Management has been reported before.

But it is still probably worth underlining what a significant and welcome departure it is to bring in someone who has perspectives way beyond the legal aid world, and who understands both broader Federal government perspectives and the building and sustaining of pubic-private partnerships.

Here is her bio, as appearing on the website of the CollaborativeXchange, of which she is listed as being on the Board:

Ms. Jennings is the Principal at Jennings Solutions, LLC, where she provides a broad range of management and strategic consulting services to private- and government-sector clients, including expert advice and guidance on policy development, program implementation, relationship building and stakeholder outreach, leadership training, business development and organizational issues.  She has negotiated 3.5 million in weatherization grants on behalf of the National Community Aciton Foundation and ExxonMobil, and worked with the Target Corporation to develop a strategic approach for fostering public/private partnerships at the state, local and federal levels.  She formerly served as Interim President and CEO, Executive Vice President and Vice President for Strategic Initiatives at the Council for Excellent in Government.  She is a veteran of the White House Office of Presidential Personnel and the U.S. Agency for International Development, and was a staff aide in the U.S. House of Representatives.

This surely represents not only a major addition to the LSC management team, but a commitment to implement the Strategic Plan (link is to my comments on blog on draft), with its commitment to a more assertive and mission-oriented grants management approach.

Posted in Legal Aid, LSC | Comments Off on LSC Adds “Outside” VP for Grants Management With Extensive Public-Private Partnership Experience

West Wing Revisited — Cast Shoots Ad in Support of Voting on Non-Partisan Judicial Elections — and One Particular Michigan Supreme Court Candidate

Posted on September 20, 2012 by richardzorza

This is pretty newsworthy, regardless of who you might support in a judicial election.

The West Wing cast reunites to shoot an ad (here — just shown on the MS-NBC program “The Last Word)” in support of the idea that voters must be careful to specifically vote in non-partisan judicial elections.  If you just check one party or the other, assuming you are then done, you will in fact not have voted in any non-partisan judicial elections on the ballot.

The ad uses as an example the Michigan Supreme Court candidacy of the sister of one of the actors.  Its an ad for her, but for much more.

Its an important general message about the importance of judicial elections — and a great moment for West Wing fans.

Posted in Judicial Ethics | 1 Comment

New York Bar Application Pro Bono Requirment Gets Attention

Posted on September 20, 2012 by richardzorza

The New York Courts have finalized the bar applicant mandatory pro bono rules.  The National Center for Access to Justice blogs with the details and links here.

But the bigger picture news is how much attention this has gotten.  Look at this Google Search result.

Its another example of how leadership means being in front of the crowd, rather than with it.  When first announced by the New York Chief, the proposal was controversial.  Now it seems like an obvious deal, and that is bound to have a major impact nationally.

At the risk of being repetitious, the lesson for me is that the judicial leaders can take public stands that are potentially controversial provided they relate directly to the core mission of the courts, and provided that they grounded in universal values (like access).  (Of course, there is always the worry that some issues, like a direct assertion of a civil Gideon claim, might come before a court in a litigation context, with implications for possible need for recusal when a direct on-point opinion has been stated.)

Posted in Access to Counsel, Pro Bono | Tagged | 1 Comment

Thougths on Outcomes in a Research Agenda

Posted on September 19, 2012 by richardzorza

Recently, I blogged about the planned NSF-funded Workshop on a research agenda for access to justice.  I thought perhaps a few more thoughts are in order, this time on outcomes.

Lurking in justice system research is always the basic question — what outcomes do we care about.  Even to say we care about results, efficiency and effectiveness really begs the question, since all assume a yardstick.  Deciding that we want to increase how many clients win makes legal aid research easier, but it does nothing to help courts decide how they should invest in innovation.  A win for the person who should not win, is hardly a win for society.  And, how do you decide who “should” win?

Let me suggest a number of ways of thinking about this.

  1. Optimization of outcomes for individuals.  This is the classic advocacy idea, make sure each party has the best possible chance.  For legal aid, this provides an acceptable outcome measure.  For courts only if you feel confident you can measure that each person’s chance is optimized, relative to other service models, not that the actual outcome is optimized (which could be done, after all, by reducing services to the opponent).
  2. Avoidance of a miscarriage of justice.  I have called this the”Oh My God” standard, and advocated it as a measure of for courts.  The idea is that there is a bad on appropriate outcomes, that most experts would agree about in any case, and that it is reasonably easy, from file review, to estimate whether the outcome meets that standard.  Only testing can let us determine if we need to go back to the parties, or even investigate independently, to decide if the standard is met.
  3. Was court given opportunity to decide case on the merits?  This is a measure that both courts and legal aid might agree on.  It assesses the presentation of the case by both sides, and whether the decision-maker was given (or got through active engagement) the facts and law before them.  It also assesses the extent to which prcedural barriers prevented a decision on the merits.
  4. Did the court decide the case on the facts and law?  This is an extension of the above test, but also looks at the outcome, and does not necessarily score down procedural barriers, although many of us think it should.  (It is a tighter test than the miscarriage of justice standard above, but easier than the one below.)
  5. Fairest outcome.  This standard is unlike the one above, since it requires an assessment of the underlying fairness of the law.  Courts are unlikely to want to participate in this process, although some access to justice commissions might find it within their purview.
  6. Fairness of social outcome.  This is like the above, but includes the impact upon broader social measures of fairness, beyond the individual case.

It is hard, but important to sort these through.

Most of the access agenda assumes the fairness and appropriateness of at least substantive law (although not necessarily procedural) and that suggests that numbers 5 and 6 might not be consistent with that agenda for many players.  How to articulate the broader agenda in terms acceptable to all players is a challenge for another day.

Posted in Meetings, Research and Evalation | Comments Off on Thougths on Outcomes in a Research Agenda

Prosecutors Undercut their Legitimacy and Thus the Rule of Law

Posted on September 18, 2012 by richardzorza

In a wonderfully understated story, last Sunday’s New York Times reports on the hard-to-believe practice of DAs allowing collection agencies to use their letterhead in collection efforts without the DAs making any effort to verify the asserted debt.

The [letters] bear the seal and signature of the local district attorney’s office. But there is a catch: the letters are from debt-collection companies, which the prosecutors allow to use their letterhead. In return, the companies try to collect not only the unpaid check, but also high fees from debtors for a class on budgeting and financial responsibility, some of which goes back to the district attorneys’ offices.

According to the Times, more than 300 prosecutors offices participate in the practice.  And:

Consumer lawyers have challenged the debt collectors in courts across the United States, claiming that they lack the authority to threaten prosecution or to ask for fees for classes when no district attorney has reviewed the facts of the cases. The district attorneys are essentially renting out their stationery, the lawyers say, allowing the companies to give the impression that failure to respond could lead to charges, when it rarely does.

“This is guilty until proven innocent,” said Paul Arons, a consumer lawyer in Friday Harbor, Wash., about two hours north of Seattle.

The partnerships have proliferated from Los Angeles to Baltimore to Detroit, according to the National District Attorneys Association, as the stagnant economy leaves city and state officials grappling with budget shortfalls. Lawyers for the check writers estimate that more than 1 million of them are targeted a year. The two main debt collectors — California-based CorrectiveSolutions and BounceBack of Missouri — return millions of dollars each year to retailers including Safeway, Target and Walmart.

And, if this is accurate, it is an even more astonishing comment on prosecutorial culture:

Gale Krieg, a vice president at BounceBack, said he has turned down business from prosecutors who won’t agree to at least have all copies of the checks sent to their offices, where prosecutors can determine if a crime has been committed. Mr. Krieg, who said the company has contracts in 38 states, acknowledges the limitations: “Whether they exert oversight isn’t something that we can control.”

In other words, there are prosecutors who will only participate if they do not have to provide even an illusion of review.  I assume that the company wants the fig leaf of sending the material to the prosecutors to provide some cover, or rather to provide an argument that responsibility has shifted to the DA.

The prosecutors are taking a bigger risk than they may realize.

  • Ever letter is upsetting a potential cooperating witness in a far more important case
  • Every letter is upsetting a potential juror, who may not reveal the matter in voir dire
  • In any court case in which the practice of the DA were challenged for thoroughness, the sloppiness of the participation in the collection practices might be open to exploration
  • The elected prosecutor is running a risk of an individualized expose — debt collectors are not popular
  • The prosecutor, and perhaps the assistants involved, may be subject to attorney  complaint, for permitting this misleading use of the institution’s name.

At an absolute minimum such prosecutors can not be surprised if they start to lose the trust of many communities — and not just poor communities.

Posted in Consumer Rights | Tagged | 1 Comment

Transformative Fact Sheet from Laura Abel, National Center for Access to Justice, in Economic Benefits of Legal Aid

Posted on September 17, 2012 by richardzorza

I almost never use the phrase “must see,” but here is the exception that proves the rule.

Laura Abel has prepared a documented two-pager on Economic Benefits of Civil Legal Aid.

Headlines (all documented):

  • Civil legal aid saves public money by reducing domestic violence
  • Civil legal aid saves public money by helping children leave foster care more quickly.
  • Civil legal aid saves public money by reducing evictions
  • Civil legal aid saves public money by protecting patients health
  • Civil legal aid helps low income people participate in safety net programs

The fact sheet is described in more detail in the Center’s posting here.  Its a good companion to the Mary McClymont video I blogged about recently.

More generally, lets hope the NSF- funded research agenda process includes cost-benefit analysis, and indeed its relationship to the triage process.

Posted in Funding, Legal Aid | Comments Off on Transformative Fact Sheet from Laura Abel, National Center for Access to Justice, in Economic Benefits of Legal Aid

How Should We Define the Non-Advocacy Services Provided by Courts and Others — Canda Moves to Expand the Wording

Posted on September 16, 2012 by richardzorza

While there is broad agreement that there should be a clear verbal distinction between he adversarial/advocacy services provided by lawyers, and the neutral services provided by courts and others to assist litigants navigate the system, there is less complete agreement about what the best words to make that distinction are.

As a general matter, the usual distinction made is between information and advice, but some of us find both that the word information may be needlessly limiting, and that the use of the word “advice” to describe what cannot be done may have too restrictive an impact.

I have previously suggested the “not-malpractice” test, “If two lawyers can give you different answers to a question, and both are right, and neither is committing malpractice, that is the practice of law.”  It’s a fun formulation, but has been criticized for suggesting that you have to be a lawyer to understand what lawyers can do — a fine principle if you want to frighten everyone but lawyers away from the border areas, but a terrible one if you want to encourage court staff to help.  The core idea is that it is not non-neutral to tell someone a fact — provided you make that fact available to all.

So we are left with the question of what words to use — and what goals they should reflect.

The Association of Canadian Court Administrators, in their recent report, Addressing the Needs of Self-Represented Litigants in the Canadian Justice System, takes a new and potentially very helpful approach.

The legal information/advice distinction upon which court staff have traditionally relied when dealing with SRLs should be rejected in favour of a more service-oriented approach based on the notion of “meaningful legal assistance.” Principles and guidance should be developed and provided to court staff in order to empower the provision of legal assistance to SRLs.  While this recommendation is designed to empower court staff to provide more meaningful and immediate assistance to SRLs, it does not suggest that court staff should become advocates or provide legal “advice” which are important services reserved for lawyers (and potentially other legally trained professionals.)

At pages 30 to 40, the Report goes into detail about various guidelines and supports a multi-option triage model modified from John Greacen’s Fifty State Report.

I very much like the phrase “legal assistance,” as it provides more flexibility.  I think I might be even more comfortable with the phrase “neutral legal assistance,” since it combines the idea of help with the point that the help is not in the interest of one side over the other, but of the process working for all.

Interestingly, I do not see much difference between the specific examples suggested in the Appendix to the Report and those often used in the US under the information/advice distinction.

Here are some things, all of which I personally think should be considered appropriate, and which might be considered “neutral legal assistance,” but not advice.

  • Explaining to a litigant what is in a court file.
  • Explaining why a case is not moving, and what has to be done to get it moving.
  • Calling a different court to find out what is happening in a case, and to get a document sent to the requesting court.
  • Explaining what kinds of things a judge is looking for in the answer to a particular question in a form (preferably citing to the law, reading from it, or from a previously developed information sheet.
  • Explaining what form should be used in a particular situation (assuming that is, that there are no tactical or strategic judgements involved, which would be inappropriate for a neutral role.)
  • Describing the factors that a judge will consider in making a judgement (again preferably by reading from, or pointing to, a statute, or previously drafted instruction sheet
  • Giving people examples of how others have completed forms, or presented facts to the court, provided the same examples are given in all broadly general situations. (I.e. not making or suggesting a personal judgement about how to present a particular case.
  • Pointing out when something that is written is unclear or ambiguous, or when it is not responsive to the question. (But only if that is done for everybody not only for certain favored litigants.)

No everyone might agree about these examples.  I offer them not as a statement of law in any jurisdiction, but as my own view as to what we should be included in the words we choose.  And, of course, none of the above should be done by people who do not know what they are doing.  Training is crucial.

Of course, I welcome discussion both about the words we use, and these and other possible examples.

Posted in Court Management, Self-Help Services | Comments Off on How Should We Define the Non-Advocacy Services Provided by Courts and Others — Canda Moves to Expand the Wording

On the Value of Webinars and Cross-Silo Outreach

Posted on September 15, 2012 by richardzorza

As you may know, last week there was a webinar on the potential of libraries for access to justice.  I can now share some of the comments from the evaluations.  The comments show just how valuable this kind of cross-silo outreach is.  (I do not often do this, but the message was so strong here).  Here are some of the comments — note also that 166 people listened in, and a total of 223 registered and will get the materials.

The question was:  “Do you feel you better understand the role of libraries in providing legal information to low income and vulnerable Americans, and the agencies that serve them? Why or why not?”

  • Yes! I didn’t know about LSC before, nor about public access to courthouse law libraries. Collaborations and partnerships among the various stakeholders, in particular, offer great opportunities to extend access to all.
  • Yes, I do feel that I understand libraries’ role in this matter better. I was not aware of the number of resources available online, and I had not thought of libraries as a place that fosters self-help before this webinar.
  • Yes, there is a synergy building between the A2J expansion into the community via community based organizations such as public libraries
  • Yes. Info about public libraries that I did not know.
  • Yes! Libraries are an access point to provide information. It is great that we can help low income families get all their resources.
  • Yes. I am familiar with the needs of our patrons but it hadn’t occurred to me that e-filing will soon be mandatory for all and there are many without computers or printers or email.
  • Yes. We are a small library and it is nice to know actual websites we can use for helping our patrons when they are sent to us for forms.
  • It never occurred to me that public libraries were such a good fit for the needs of low income patrons seeking legal information.
  • I understanding much better! I live in a poor county with high unemployment and I see the need for this every day!
  • Yes. We don’t get a lot of questions for legal information, but that may be because we don’t advertise that we can help people find this information. We need signs, handouts and publicity. I was not familiar with the LSC or Access to Justice.
  • I work in a public law library that is located outside of a courthouse building. Our hours are limited, however. While listening about the availability of hours at the general public vs. courthouse library discussion, it gave me the idea that perhaps our staff might be able to assist some evenings in the other library – or conduct training that highlights our resources and services more to the general public library staff.

Above all, these responses show how big the potential for additional outreach is — it is great that there are going to be more webinars in the series.  Please spread the word in your silos and beyond!

Posted in Libraries, Technology | Comments Off on On the Value of Webinars and Cross-Silo Outreach

Important Video on Why Grantmakers Should Support Legal Aid

Posted on September 14, 2012 by richardzorza

As you may know, the Public Welfare Foundation has been making access to justice grants.  The President of PWF, Mary McClymont has also been making a major effort to talk to her funder colleagues about the importance of supporting legal aid.

This video, aimed at the funder community, talks not only about the urgency of the need, but also about the “silver lining” in the wide range of innovations, including technology, self-help centers, and access to justice commissions.

She urges funders to consider provide supporting legal aid as part of their grantmaking strategy in substantive areas.  She points out that such funding is “a great strategy” to enhance, leverage, and sustain investments in other areas, such as housing or education.

The video might be useful to show to your funders, or to use for talking points before talking to a funder or funder group.

Note that the video was produced by the Washington Regional Association of Grantmakers (RAG).  These local groups exist throughout the country, and might be seen as useful allies and communication channels, particularly when you already have one private grantmaking ally who is a participant in the local RAG.  Here is the list of such local groupings.

Posted in Funding | 1 Comment

Call for Submissions for “Future Trends in State Courts”

Posted on September 14, 2012 by richardzorza

The National Center for State Courts has put out a Call for Submissions for its Future Trends in State Courts publication.

This book (which is also available online) is widely read and influential in the court world.  It has often had useful articles on access issues.

So folks might want to think about offering submissions.  The call is below.

Future Trends in State Courts is an annual, peer-reviewed publication that highlights innovative practices in critical areas that are of interest to courts, and often serves as a guide for developing new initiatives and programs, and informing and supporting policy decisions.  Future Trends in State Courts is the only publication of its kind and enjoys a wide circulation among the state court community. It is distributed in hard copy and electronically.

Submissions for the 2013 edition are now being accepted. Please email abstracts of no more than 500 words to Carol Flango at cflango(at)ncsc.org. Visit the Future Trends in State Courts website at http://www.ncsc.org/trends  for more information.

The current issue is here.

Prior issues are here.

 

Posted in Court Management | Comments Off on Call for Submissions for “Future Trends in State Courts”

Washington Post Article Asks if Facebook History Can be Used in Dream Applications

Posted on September 14, 2012 by richardzorza

Its a question that underlines how our views of evidence are going to change with our views of privacy.  Link here.

To qualify, Cabrera-Matute must prove that he has lived in the United States since graduating last year from Friendly High School in Fort Washington. He has no official records to cover the whole 16-month period, but, on his girlfriend’s suggestion, he brought in printouts documenting his casual habit of “checking in” on his Facebook page — from the mall, from Olive Garden. “It just lets all my friends know what I’m doing, in case they want to join.”

As more and more of our activity moves to the cloud — and as we lose the ability to modify it after the event, from EasyPass records to data from GPS in our devices, from blogs to Facebook, to other social media and connection tools, lots of cases, perhaps particularly family law cases, are going to look very different.  Do definitions of business records and hearsay need reconsideration?

The main point of the Post article is different — that the advocacy community is urging that what is appropriate for consideration be clarified.  I would have assumed that the current phrase allowing submission of any “other document you believe is relevant,” would be helpful, but I suspect that the fear that is those processing the cases will in fact find such submissions non-relevant, unless required to consider them.

In any event, this is just part of the new world.

Posted in Technology | Tagged | Comments Off on Washington Post Article Asks if Facebook History Can be Used in Dream Applications

Thursday Webinar on Libraries and Access to Justice

Posted on September 11, 2012 by richardzorza

This is the first of the series of Pro Bono Net webinars on libaries and access to justice, coming up next Thursday.  It obviously helps move forward an important part of the agenda.  I understand that lots of people are already signed up, which is good sign for the energy that can go into this area of innovation.

Lets get a record turnout and a great launch for this promising series.

As the announcement says.

This webinar will provide an overview of legal information needs among low-income and vulnerable Americans, the nonprofit legal aid, court and community groups that serve them, and why public and public law libraries are essential partners in meeting these information needs. This webinar will also discuss the type of assistance non-attorney, public librarians are able to provide to patrons seeking legal help, and the complementary role of public and public law libraries.

The session will be at 1 PM Eastern. Register here.

More information about the series here.

Posted in Libraries | 2 Comments

National Science Foundation Funds Workshop on “Access to Civil Justice — Reenvisoning and Reinvigorating Research”

Posted on September 5, 2012 by richardzorza

This is a very major step forward.

On December 7 and 8, in Chicago, the American Bar Foundation, with NSF funding, will be conducting a two day event on research into access to justice. The scheduling is planed to facilitate attendance by those going to the NLADA Conference.

On Friday December 7, in the afternoon, there will be an open event — a poster session and town hall meeting, bringing together researchers and practitioners to explore issues of research into access to justice.

On Saturday Dec 8, there will be an all day invitational meeting to explore the possibilities further and move the agenda ahead.

Moreover, while the Saturday meeting is by invitation, it is possible to apply to be asked.  The application to attend is here.  The application is due Sept 28, 2012.  Additional information is available from A2JWorkshop(at)abfn.org.

This presents an excellent opportunity not only to discuss the range of ideas emerging — randomized research, mapping of capacity, relationship of triage, outcome measures, opportunity that technology offers to provide troves of data, etc, but also to explore how these can be integrated into a comprehensive agenda, and how we might create an institutionalized capacity to explore these questions in a rigorous and coherently funded way.

The participation of NSF represents a fundamental departure and opportunity after literally decades of drought and relative inattention to this area.  I look forward to blogging more in the future about this general process — and strongly encourage those interested, practitioners as well as researcher — to apply to attend.  It will be very exciting and likely pivotal.  Thanks to all those who have been working quietly on this initiative.  Reasonable travel and hotel will be covered for those invited to attend.

 

Posted in Meetings, Research and Evalation | 5 Comments

Claudia Johnson Guest Blogs on Information About LEP Services

Posted on September 1, 2012 by richardzorza

I (Claudia) recently hosted a webinar on technology to assist self represented litigants as part of the LSNTAP webinar series.

In preparing for the webinar it was evident that videos and visual tools are one of the strongest emerging trends. Here are some video examples related to informing the public at large about LEP services by federally funded agencies and also training staff on how to work with interpreters and what LEP policies might be—all a good set of materials for any organization interested in improving their services to all of their client communities.

Government Agency describing their LEP policy—Fayetteville

Example of how to ascertain language spoken in the medical context

Legal Services of New Jersey—how to work with an interpreter

Here is a good summary of the LSNTAP Webinar.

The materials and video of the webinar are posted here.

I encourage anyone who is developing online tools, be it webpages, virtual self help centers, videos, tutorials, etc to watch the video—as all of the speakers gave really good tips and shared really good examples of how to approach and design SRL tools for online use.

I encourage courts and legal aid groups to share similar resources—some of these videos are very good and I encourage people developing LEP policies to watch them. All of them are short—that is a good practice.

Posted in LEP, Self-Help Services | Comments Off on Claudia Johnson Guest Blogs on Information About LEP Services

Discharging Student Loans — Self-Represented Effectiveness

Posted on August 31, 2012 by richardzorza

The NY Times has an interesting article on how few student loans are discharged in bankruptcy — actually an additional procedure with different standards is needed.  There’s a debate about whether the problem is lack of attempts, or the admittedly difficult standard that a debtor has to meet.  The article includes an interesting titbit about self-representation.

Jason Iuliano, a Harvard Law School graduate who is now in a Ph.D. program in politics at Princeton, examined 207 proceedings that unfolded across the country. He found that 39 percent received full or partial discharges.

His assessment of E.C.M.C.’s view of the rarity of success? “I think that’s wrong,” he said. While his sample size was small and he agrees that it’s not easy to prove undue hardship and personal hopelessness, his assessment of bankruptcy data suggests that as many as 69,000 more people each year ought to try to make a case. And they don’t necessarily need to pay lawyers to argue for them, as he found no statistical difference between the outcomes of people who hired lawyers and those who represented themselves. (Bold added.)

In the actual paper, Iuliano writes:

The second misconception is that lawyers are necessary. Surprisingly, they are not. In fact, in my sample, pro se debtors were actually more likely to receive discharges than their counterparts who were represented by counsel (43% vs. 38%).

The writer adds:

A second reason that people may choose not to pursue discharges is that they do not have money to pay an attorney. Because the adversary proceeding is essentially a trial, debtors may believe that they need an attorney in order to win. Quite reasonably, they do not think they will be able to represent themselves against a large company such as Sallie Mae or Wells Fargo. My study, however, shows that a debtor can be successful without an attorney. In fact, after controlling for other factors, I found that there was no statistical difference in outcome between pro se debtors and debtors represented by an attorney.

Obviously one can no more jump to the conclusion from this study that lawyers make no difference, than one could from a non-randomized study showing the opposite — as so many do.  It may be that those who represent themselves are a unique population — or indeed that those who find lawyers are an even more unique population.

Or it could indeed be that when the standard to be met is so very high, the ones that get relief have such strong cases that they speak for themselves.  Or, it could be that when someone has a lawyer it is hard to think of them as as badly off as the requires the debtor to be.

Iuliano thinks more people should file for discharge.  If there were any systematic effort to encourage this, it would be good to combine it with some randomized research.

Posted in Consumer Rights, Research and Evalation | Comments Off on Discharging Student Loans — Self-Represented Effectiveness