Utah Passes Law Library Self-Help Center Bill

Posted on May 3, 2012 by richardzorza

Here is the key language in the description of the bill passed by the Legislature:

This bill:

  • creates a self-help center within a court’s law library;
  • requires that the self-help center be staffed by licensed attorneys;
  •  allows the self-help center staff to assist court patrons in obtaining and filling out
  • documents; and
  • provides that self-help center staff are to: answer questions regarding the court process, law, and options; provide information, but not give legal advice; and offer resources regarding the law library and other avenues for legal assistance.

I understand that funding is effective July 1.

Congratulations, Utah

Posted in Libraries, Self-Help Services | Tagged | 1 Comment

Court Leadership

Posted on May 2, 2012 by richardzorza

New York’s Chief Justice Jonathan Lippman has gotten great coverage for his new pro bono requirement for new NY bar applicants.  Here is is speech, and here is the NYT coverage.

Aside from the access value of the idea itself, the news provides yet another example of how a Chief can use his leverage and “bully pulpit” to put and keep access to justice on the public agenda.

How does the CJ do it?  He takes very specific actions, like getting money for legal aid, imposing requirements on foreclosure plaintiffs, or now, imposing pro bono requirements.  He does so with the public support of important stakeholders, such as the Attorney General, banks, hospitals, etc.  He makes sure that the media gets the word out, and he places the steps in a broad context of the urgency of the need.

Some Chiefs are nervous about seeking the limelight, or being too “political.”  CJ Lippman seems to have avoided these problems by focusing directly on the courts and on access to justice.  He brings to his agenda a long history in the courts, in many roles, during which time he has developed many relationships that have surely been helpful in this more public role.  It as also not hurt that he is operating in a relatively progressive political environment.  But it is also noteworthy that Chiefs in different environments, such as the one faced by Texas Chief Wallace Jefferson, have been able to make similar progress using similar techniques.

It should also be noted that CJs Lippman and Jefferson, and indeed others, are merely part of an emerging new generation of Chiefs more willing to be more assertive in their roles.  Particular credit must be given to retired CJ John Broderick of New Hampshire, who has long explicitly urged such roles on his former colleagues.

Posted in Access to Justice Generally | Tagged | 4 Comments

Potential Issues With Requiring Unbundling Counsel to Disclose What Not To Be Done

Posted on April 30, 2012 by richardzorza

I recently blogged on Laura Abel’s interesting idea about requiring counsel to disclose what they are not going to be doing.  I pointed out that this might assist in a Turner approach to ensuring that what needs to be done for access is done.

It has been pointed out to me, however, that there are some real potential downsides with this approach.

Firstly, it might well discourage attorneys from agreeing to provide unbundled services if they feared that their division of labor might be subject to review — and indeed potentially critical review — by judges, who might, as many want, to force the expanding of the scope of services.  Indeed, in many jurisdictions, some disclosure of the division of labor is already required, if only so that opposing counsel and the court can know who is to be contacted about what.

Secondly, there is a risk that such a colloquy would degenerate into an inquiry that would run into attorney-client privilege issues, and risk forcing the disclosure of the litigants strategic or tactical choices.  (Indeed, some of us have taken the view that prohibiting undisclosed ghost-writing would impinge on the privilege.)

Finally, since self-representation is a right, so should self-representation be.

So, while I like the idea that attorneys who are appointed to provide full representation, but who in fact plan to limit their assistance should make such disclosure, I am much less sure about requiring such disclosure in the situation in which the client and lawyer have agreed upon a division of labor, as is the clients, to repeat the client’s right.

Of course, nothing here would prohibit an attorney, with the full agreement of the client, and in accordance with the clent’s own underlying wishes, rather than those of the lawyer, explaining to the court that a division of labor has been agreed, based on ability to pay, but that in the professional opinion of counsel, this division of labor is inadequate, and that under Turner, additional subsidized services are necessary to ensure access to justice.  It would indeed be a sympathetic situation in which the client was making every reasonable effort — but I fear that all too many judges would respond by pressuring the lawyer to provide additional services pro bono, again building more disincentives to future unbundling.

Posted in Unbundling | Comments Off on Potential Issues With Requiring Unbundling Counsel to Disclose What Not To Be Done

New Report on Evolving Role of Law Libraries in the 21st Century

Posted on April 30, 2012 by richardzorza

I have just issued a press release about a Report I have issued about the changing role of law libraries.  Here is the text of the release (link here).

Washington, DC – Law libraries can continue to play an integral role in the courts and justice system in the 21st Century, but only if they change their orientation towards helping the public access the legal system.  A new report released by Zorza & Associates today, titled “The Sustainable 21st Century Law Library: Vision, Deployment and Assessment for Access to Justice,” notes the vast changes to the law library landscape over the past twenty years and the potentially critical new role they can play as an access to justice resource for people without lawyers.

The Report was commissioned by a number of bar and legal groups from around the country, with the assistance of the American Bar Association Resource Center on Access to Justice and input from staff at the U.S. Department of Justice Access of Justice Initiative.

The Report acknowledges law libraries’ changing demographics: the number of lawyers and court staff visiting law libraries is decreasing at the same time that an increasing number of people are approaching law libraries for help.  As the number of people without lawyers coming to law libraries increases, law libraries must adjust the delivery and availability of their services, and the Report identifies the broad potential of law libraries to make the judicial system more user-friendly and accessible for people without lawyers and makes a series of recommendations.

“Law libraries are a huge untapped resource with massive potential to increase access to legal information and assistance for people without lawyers,” said Richard Zorza, who researched and authored the report for the report’s cosponsors.  “Because they have a long tradition of providing reference information to patrons, those law libraries that adapt to play a more significant role in access to justice efforts will find themselves at the core of a vibrant and critical system. Those that fail to rise to the challenge may find themselves doomed to irrelevance by changes in technology, constituencies, funding pressures and the law and its institutions.”

There are many examples of law libraries across the country that have already embraced this role, and now make a major contribution to access to justice.  The Report identifies best practices from those law libraries, and makes a series of recommendations for law libraries making this transition.

Cosponsors of the Report include: the Arkansas Access to Justice Commission, the California Commission on Access to Justice, The Chicago Bar Foundation, the Connecticut Judicial Branch Access to Justice Commission, the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa William S. Richardson School of Law, the Massachusetts Access to Justice Commission, the Washington Access to Justice Commission, and the Wisconsin Access to Justice Commission

The full text of the report is available at www.zorza.net/LawLibrary.pdf

-####-

Posted in Libraries | 6 Comments

Montana Supreme Court Takes Lead on SRL Discovery Issues

Posted on April 29, 2012 by richardzorza

The pitfalls of discovery procedure are one of the barriers to access for the self-represented.  So it is particularly good to see the Montana Supreme Court taking a commonsense approach to the technicalities.

In Arlington v. Miller’s Trucking, the Court was faced with a situation in which a lower court had affirmed a state administrative agency’s decision against a wages and hours claimant although the  claimant had sought additional evidence by requesting the agency to issue a subpoena (which the agency did not do), but failed to follow up by motion to compel.

The key language, reversing the lower court and the administrative agency:

Given that Arlington made concerted efforts within the discovery rules to secure the documents to support his case, we conclude that refusing him relief because he failed to file a motion to compel constitutes an overly rigid application of the rules of discovery. (at para #25)

The opinion can obviously be broadly cited for the proposition that overly technical requirements can not be allowed to get in the way of the fat finder having the evidence that is needed to determine the case.

While the current Montana Supreme Court deserves great credit for this unanimous, sensible and indeed groundbreaking decision, this is also a good moment to acknowledge the role that former Chief Judge Karla Gray has played in sensitizing her state’s legal system — and indeed national judicial leadership, on this issue.

Posted in Administative Proecdure, Judicial Ethics | Tagged | Comments Off on Montana Supreme Court Takes Lead on SRL Discovery Issues

SJI Announces Six Self-Represented Litigation Grants

Posted on April 27, 2012 by richardzorza

The latest issue of SJI E-News announces that the Board has approved six SRL related grants.

Here is the text of the announcement:

During the 2nd quarter Board meeting, 6 SIG grants were awarded totaling $275,158. These projects address one of SJI’s new Priority Investment Areas: Self-Represented Litigation and the State Courts. SIG grants were made to the: 1) Judicial Council of California to train bilingual JusticeCorps volunteers to provide enhanced services for self-represented litigants (SRLs); 2)Indiana Administrative Office of the Courts to train volunteer college and law students to serve statewide pro se clinic clients; 3) National Center for State Courts (NCSC) to develop a standard set of definitions and counting rules for cases involving one or more SRLs; 4) Self- Represented Litigation Network (SRLN) and NCSC to develop formal case triage protocols for assistance to SRLs; 5) SRLN to faicilitate state court reimbursement under Title IV-D, and promote awareness of this resource; and 6) South Carolina Access to Justice Commission for delivery of legal information to SRLs in underserved areas of South Carolina.

I will be working on the protocol and IV-D grants, and perhaps unsurprisingly regard all six of these grants as very good news indeed.  It is great to see SJI recognizing the importance of this issue, and making such investments.  Let’s hope SJI’s grants will show the way to other funders, particularly since there were so many other good  but as yet unfunded ideas submitted in response to the solicitation.

I hope to be reporting on the progress of all of these grants on this blog.

Posted in Funding, LEP, Research and Evalation, Triage | Tagged , , | Comments Off on SJI Announces Six Self-Represented Litigation Grants

Unbundling and Judicial Engagement — Proposal from Laura Abel

Posted on April 27, 2012 by richardzorza

As part of a very interesting article in the Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law Policy, and now on SSRN, Laura Abel discusses the potential for courts to require attorneys to disclose what tasks they are not performing for their clients, so that the judge can then take steps to ensure that needed services are provided.  As she puts it:

What would happen if attorneys were required to notify the court whenever they were unable to perform a certain function? At the very least, the judge would have an opportunity to take action.  In response to an attorney’s statement that he is unable to carry out specific tasks expected of him, judges have a number of tools they can use, including trying to remove fiscal or other constraints preventing an attorney from providing full representation, removing the need for anyone to carry out certain tasks, and shifting responsibility for performing certain tasks. A full explication of the instances in which judges should intervene or refrain from doing so, and which tools they should use when, is beyond the scope of this Article. But at the very least, judges should try to choose the method that would best accomplish the tribunal’s goals, including fair and accurate determinations of fact and application of law, citizen engagement, countering undue government power, and cost efficiency.

In the criminal context such a system would require a far greater degree of candor about the failures of assigned counsel, but in the civil context, it might help move towards a Turner view in which the judge can assess what is actually needed to provide access.

Posted in Triage, Unbundling | 1 Comment

Free Sue Talia CLE Program on Unbundling Now Online Thanks to PLI

Posted on April 26, 2012 by richardzorza

Its called Expanding Your Practice Using Limited Scope Representation and is online here.

It’s free (thanks to the generosity of Sue and PLI) and CLE credit is available for most states.  You can’t beat that deal, particularly with the super high quality of all of Sue’s work.

Here is the outline of the three hour program:

  • Program Overview and Introductions
  • Limited Scope Representation: Ethical, Malpractice, Insurance and Regulatory Issues
  • Risk Management: Your Ticket to a Good Night’s Sleep
  • National Trends: The Evolving Nature of the Practice of Law
Posted in Unbundling | 2 Comments

Mediation and the Self-Represented — Towards a New Paradigm

Posted on April 25, 2012 by richardzorza

The mediation world seems to be starting seriously to engage the issue of self-represented litigants. Indeed, last week at the ABA Conference of the Section on Dispute Resolution, I was on a panel on the subject with Heather Scheiwe Kulp, Bonnie Powell, and Stacey Tutt, all of whom are powerfully engaging the issue in their very different work situations.

The issue is really important, because for many of the self-represented, the only professional they encounter in the resolution of their case will be the mediator.  If the mediator does not provide information, the party will be “flying blind,” and their ignorance may cause them to accept an inappropriate agreement.  They may leave the mediation room apparently accepting, but if they ever find out their error, it is unlikely to build trust in either mediation or the legal system.

However, traditionally there seems to have been very real reluctance in the mediation world to take on an engaged informational role.  Indeed, many mediators seem to feel that the provision of information about law and process is prohibited by the Standards governing the profession.  While, of course, state-specific rules may be different, there is in fact a strong case to be made that the national Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators, far from prohibiting such a role, authorize it.

My own analysis starts with Standard VI. A 5: Continue reading →

Posted in Judicial Ethics, Mediation, Supreme Court | 5 Comments

Wonderful Medical Education Innovation Idea — Challenge to Legal Education

Posted on April 24, 2012 by richardzorza

The New York Times has a great article on a curriculum experiment at Harvard Med.  In an attempt to break through the dehumanizing impact of the traditional third year of medical school, Harvard has tried assigning students to individual patients for the whole year.

Since 2004, the Harvard Medical School-Cambridge Integrated Clerkship has assigned every third-year medical student to a “panel” of up to 100 patients to care for over the course of the year. Students see their patients in the clinics of the Cambridge Health Alliance health system where the program is based, but also follow and assist with any outside consultations, admissions to the hospital, operations and even home visits. During the year, students are also required to shadow several assigned preceptors, senior physicians from the major specialties, in their clinics every week.

Guess what?  It works.

After offering this innovative third-year program for a few years, the organizers assessed the skills and experiences of the first students. They found that these students had more rewarding and humanizing learning experiences than their peers on traditional block rotations. And the positive effects continued to influence the students’ work even after they returned to the traditional track for the fourth year of medical school.

On standardized exams of knowledge and skills, most students from the new track performed as well as or better than traditional students, and many felt better prepared for clinical practice. On tests assessing important elements of care, these students were also better prepared to involve patients and their families in decisions, act in a caring way and deal with ethical issues.

What about a 6 month section of law school in which you got a client — rather than a case — and were responsible for all that client’s problems, starting with a proper diagnosis process.  Much harder work and much more of a challenge for supervisors, but a much better preparation for practice, particularly low and middle income practice.

Or, perhaps even better:  when you start law school, you get a client, joining and second and third year student on a team.  You stay with that client and team through the three years, figuring out what you need to learn to help them.  Maybe you even stay involved on a pro bono basis after graduation.  Now that would be a legal education, and one that did a much better job of preparing to transition to real practice!

Posted in Law Schools, Medical System Comparision, Pro Bono | 3 Comments

More Information on SRLN Pre-Conference May 16, Jacksonville Fl

Posted on April 23, 2012 by richardzorza

Here is a preliminary agenda for the SRLN Pre-Confernce, held in association with the ABA/NLADA Equal Justice Conference in Jacksonville Florida.

Self-Represented Litigation Network

2012 Pre-Conference at the Equal Justice Conference

Jacksonville Florida, May 16, 2012, Hyatt Regency Riverfront

City Terrace 4

Outline

8:30      Introductions and Brief Reports/Requests

9:00      National Report

9:30      Justice Corps:  Status and Expansion Possibilities

10:00      Possible Use of Federal IV-D Child Support Money for Self-Help

10:30      Triage: Concepts, Progress and Possible Projects

11:15        Research Agenda:  Report, Feedback and Brainstorm

No sustained research capacity addressing civil access to justice concerns has existed since the Legal Services Corporation’s Research Institute lost funding in the early 1980s.  Beginning a few years ago, several different institutions simultaneously sought to rekindle interest in a sustained focus on civil access to justice research, including empirical research, where the dearth of information has always been most notable.  Three (there are probably others) institutions have been most public on this effort:  the Stanford Law School’s Levin Center for Public Service and Public Interest Law; the Access to Justice Initiative within the United States Department of Justice; and the American Bar Foundation.  Although each institution and effort has limits, the overall desire is strong.  Effectuating this desire requires a robust and ongoing conversation between researchers and persons on the front lines of access to justice: court administrators, judges, legal services providers of all kinds, self-help center employees, and all others involved in the effort.  One fundamental set of questions can begin the conversation:  what do you (in the field) wish you knew that you currently do not know?  What would help you plan to make your program better?  What would help you understand problems that you face?  What would help you understand need and clients better.  We hope to initiate a conversation at the session with these questions.

12:45      Lunch

1:15      Limited English Proficiency and SRL Issues

2:00      Federal Court Report and Strategy Discussion

2:30      E-filing and Forms:

3:15      Law Libraries Report and Potential

3:30   Public Welfare Foundation Grants For Access

4:00      Special Topics and Problem Solving Time

5:00      Discussion of Strategic Ideas for SRLN

5:30       Close

Agenda subject to change

For additional information, contact Richard Zorza, richard@zorza.net

While we strongly encourage folks to register for, and attend, the whole Conference, you can register for the Pre-Conference alone.

Here is registration information:

To register for the Self-Represented Litigants Networking Educational Program 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, please register online by visiting http://www.americanbar.org/calendar/2012/05/equal_justice_conference/registration.html

Posted in Meetings, Self-Help Services | 2 Comments

Claudia Johnson on “A Tale of Two Bars”

Posted on April 23, 2012 by richardzorza

So, this blog has shared information on the debate that ensued in Texas, when the Supreme Court moved to simplified family law forms. https://accesstojustice.net/2012/01/25/texas-supreme-court-moves-forward-on-forms/. The State Bar has tried to change  the Court’s decision to move towards simplifing the forms in its role as the administrator of justice.  The opposition of the Bar created ripples and was picked up by national media.  https://accesstojustice.net/2012/02/24/wall-street-journal-has-video-report-on-texas-forms-fight/; https://accesstojustice.net/2012/02/29/collection-of-srl-data/

Reading this piece by Richard Zitrin, http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/tmc-2012—7-on-line—lack-of-court-funding-hampers-access-120413.pdf  led me to ponder the differences between these Bar Associations.

In San Francisco, this week  4/18/2012,  there was a rally organized by the San Francisco Bar Association, with participation from legal aid leaders, law schools, big firms, prominent plaintiff firms, the State Bar, coming together to  support the courts and protest  the closing of courts and  self help centers and courts due to lack of funding.  Here is a report on the rally: http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202549475928&Rally_for_Court_Funding_Draws_Hundreds_in_San_Francisco

The array of speaker was impressive—a list of who is who in the legal community across the state. http://www.sfbar.org/calendar/eventdetail.aspx?id=X120036/X120036.

Other local Bar Associations also joined the effort, including Contra Costa Bar Association http://www.cccba.org/attorney/news/press-20120315.php and the Santa Clara Bar Association. https://m360.sccba.com/event.aspx?eventID=49135&instance=0 .  So this rally cannot be dismissed as a San Francisco event only—San Francisco being well known to take first time positions in many issues. And private firms  are also supporting the rally. http://lieffcabraser.com/media/pnc/5/media.1255.pdf and http://rftmlaw.com/?email-campaign=rally-to-support-court-funding-april-18-2012-in-san-francisco

This is orthogonal to the developments in Texas. In CA, the groups that work with this overlapping population are joining together to support the courts and protest the effect the cuts are having on access to justice, signified by the closing of courts and reduction in self help services. As they write in CA,  “justice delayed is justice denied”. Joining to support the court and protest the cuts in particular the cuts to self help services, may signify a deeper understanding that in effect all of these groups are affected by the non-abating recession and the initiatives courts take to assist those without lawyers are valuable and have a legitimate place in the administration of justice and in the continuum of legal services.

These are times of change. There is no end in sight for the impact of this recession—it started in 2008 and it will go on for an uncertain number of months if not years. I hope that all of the courts and Access to Justice Commissions that are looking at the developments in Texas, also take a look at this rally in CA —and that they are not chilled in moving away from legal processes and forms rooted in the past. The satire of the British legal system by Charles Dickens “Jarndyce v Jarndyce” in Bleak House (1852) could well apply in 2012 in the US in a majority of jurisdictions. I hope all those who work with the courts can agree that there is no use in preserving a system that is slow, arcane, frustrating to the litigants, and costly to courts and all of those who interact with it. As much as the law is based on precedent, it is time to rethink the processes and tools and come with a more American model—based on fairness, due process, equality for all,  and American ideals of fair play and accountability to all of it users, not just expert users. Courts that are being proactive to improve things for those in most need deserve everyone’s support. Let the San Francisco rally be a model for other legal communities .

Posted in Forms, Funding | 4 Comments

Excellent Idea

Posted on April 22, 2012 by richardzorza

I pass on a great idea from Glenn Rawdon.  He suggests as a general matter that we need a Siri-like app that gets people to the right online access to justice information for their problem.  As the Apple site puts it:  “Ask Siri to do things just by talking the way you talk. Siri understands what you say, knows what you mean, and even talks back.”

Glenn points out that people get caught in phone trees and hotline help queues, or have difficulty finding the right web information.  A voice system (see prior post on IBM intelligent medical software, not using voice recognition) would mean that the information we generate would be used much more.

Such an app would surely help with preventive law, encouraging people to get basic legal information before entering a transaction dealing with a system.  It would also help raise the visibility of access to justice organizations, demonstrating their usefulness to all, not just the poor.

Posted in Mobile Technology, Self-Help Services, Technology | 1 Comment

On Impact of Blogging — Plan to Permit Search Engine Indexing of This Blog, Policy on Comments

Posted on April 21, 2012 by richardzorza

When I launched this blog almost a year and a half ago, I cautiously set it so that posts and comments would not be indexed on search engines.  I made this decision to minimize the risk of the blog generating endless off-point political back and forth comments, and to encourage thoughtful participation in the comments section.

Looking back, I have realized that I may have exaggerated both the risk of such back and forth, and the extent to which indexing might have discouraged commenting.  It also appears to me that my writing on the blog is already reaching a broader audience that my articles in traditional media.

So, effective April 29, I plan to turn on indexing for search engines.  If, as seems unlikely to me, anyone would prefer that I remove any comment or material that came from them on this blog before then, I will be happy to do so.

I do, of course, reserve the right to reverse this decision if we find that there are more problems than anticipated.  I will continue to monitor all comments before they are posted, and will enforce a policy against gratuitous, repetitive or conclusory posting that is not on point to the focus of this blog, access to justice.

It will be interesting to see what happens, and I will report on it.

Posted in This Blog | Comments Off on On Impact of Blogging — Plan to Permit Search Engine Indexing of This Blog, Policy on Comments

Carl Reynolds Retires from Texas Administrative Office of Courts

Posted on April 20, 2012 by richardzorza

Carl Reynolds, Director of the Texas Administrative Office of the Courts, is retiring.  Here is his biography, as distributed at the January 2012 Shared Solutions Summit:

Carl Reynolds is an attorney with extensive experience in all three branches of Texas state government. He is currently the Director of the Office of Court Administration in the judicial branch. From 1997 to 2005, he was General Counsel for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), the executive branch agency responsible for prisons, probation, and parole. From 1993 to 1997, he was General Counsel to the Texas Board of Criminal Justice, which is the governing body for TDCJ. Prior to 1993, he was the Executive Director of the Texas Punishment Standards Commission (a blue-ribbon legislative agency charged with reforming the State’s sentencing laws and corrections resources), General Counsel to the Texas Senate Committee on Criminal Justice, Director of the Senate’s redistricting staff, and a briefing attorney for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Mr. Reynolds maintains a number of involvements with state and national organizations in the justice arena, including active involvement (either current or past) with the following organizations: National Center for State Courts; Conference of State Court Administrators; Permanent Judicial Commission for Children, Youth & Families; American Bar Association Sentencing Committee; ABA Task Force on the Legal Status of Prisoners; Council of State Governments Justice Center; National Institute of Corrections; American Correctional Association; Vera Institute of Justice; Center for Criminology and Criminal Justice Research, University of Texas at Austin; Edna McConnell Clark Foundation; National Association of Sentencing Commissions; National Conference of State Legislatures; and Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Austin. Mr. Reynolds holds a J.D. with honors from the University of Texas School of Law, a master’s degree from the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, and a B.A. with honors from the University of Cincinnati.

Carl’s blog at the Texas Courts includes his retirement post.

Having worked with Carl on both national and Texas issues, I can attest to his dedication and intelligence.  I think of him as a model public servant.  He has both a strong vision and a clear commitment to respecting the views of a broad and diverse public.  We need more like him.

Posted in Court Management | Tagged | Comments Off on Carl Reynolds Retires from Texas Administrative Office of Courts