Coup for the National Center for Access to Justice at Cardozo

Posted on November 29, 2011 by richardzorza

David Udell and the National Center for Access to Justice have scored a coup in recruiting Laura Abel as their Deputy Director.  As their announcement puts it:

Laura brings directly relevant vision and experience to the Center.  She is a founder of the National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel and a leader of the national movement for language access in the nation’s courts. Her access to justice scholarship has been published in leading law journals.  For the past year, she served as Acting Co-director of the Justice Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, having also helped to build and lead that program since 1999.  In her early career she litigated civil rights cases as a Public Interest Fellow at Gibbons P.C., served as a staff attorney fellow with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, and clerked for Judge Robert Carter of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  She received her J.D. from Yale Law School.

Laura combines a commitment to the cause of expanding the right to counsel, with an understanding that such rights are only going to be created in the context of a much more comprehehnsive set of solutions, and with an ability to rigorously analyze the relationship between the elements of that set.

I believe that the creation of the National Center is an important step in building the institutional structure needed to advocate fr and build a comprehensive multi-faceted access system.  Again the Center (not yet widely enough known) sums it up:

The National Center for Access to Justice is the single academically affiliated non-partisan law and policy organization dedicated exclusively to achieving reform on behalf of vulnerable people in the civil and criminal justice systems.  The Center works closely with community based organizations, the courts and the bar, allied national organizations, officials across government, social scientists and other academics. Its work features research, litigation, public advocacy, and reliance on new technologies.  It draws strength from its partnership with the students, faculty, and staff of Cardozo Law School.  In current projects, the Center is creating The Justice Index, a web-based system for evaluating the quality of justice delivered by our legal system, and is also conducting a project on Law Student Pro Bono, examining the degree to which law students engaged in volunteer activities can make a difference for people in need.

Posted in Access to Justice Generally | Tagged | 1 Comment

NewsMaker Interview — Rebecca Sandefur on Her ABF Study of Access to Justice And Follow-Up

Posted on November 29, 2011 by richardzorza

Today’s NewsMaker Interview is with Rebecca Sandefur, one of the co-authors of the recent American Bar Foundation study of access to justice.  Becky has changed the whole debate, with a long-overdue collection of data that forces us to confront the unfairness and lack of coordination in the whole system.  This is my favorite take away quote:  “At the national level and within most states, civil legal assistance is organized much like a body without a brain.”  As well as describing the just published study and its implications, Becky describes the next stage of her work, a Community needs and Services Study.

But the work raises many questions.  So here goes:

Zorza:  Can you tell us a little of how this study came to be, and how the ABF got involved?

Sandefur:  The study grew out of conversations between leadership of the Legal Services Corporation, staff from the Access to Justice program at the Department of Justice, and the American Bar Foundation.  DOJ and LSC recognized that there is a great deal of useful, helpful, essential information about the workings of the US civil justice system that we just don’t have. They consulted the ABF for ideas about types of information to look for and how.  The ABF has a long tradition of research on access to justice, and was seeking to reinvigorate it. Last year, the ABF started a new research initiative on access to justice, which they brought me in from Stanford to lead.  The Access Across America report is the first project of that new research initiative.

Zorza: I note that LSC and Friends of LSC also provided funding.  What was their interest?

Sandefur:   I think they were interested in facilitating a non-partisan, constructive, big-picture look at how civil legal assistance is provided in the United States, and how the LSC fits in. The LSC is obviously a central player in civil legal assistance in the US. It is a major funder, supporting programs in every state, and it models practices that affect the field as a whole.

Zorza:  You have data on types of service delivery used, funding systems, coordination, eligibility, and unbundled regulation.  How did you manage to collect such a broad range of data?

Sandefur:  The short answer is that we looked everywhere. Various committees of the ABA and the NLADA had produced reports about discrete parts of the broader access picture – for example, reports on the founding of access commissions, or the state of unbundling rules, or the existence of organized civil pro bono programs.  Projects researching clinical legal education had collected information about clients served in law school clinics. Scholars had written dissertations and articles about the regulation of non-lawyer legal services providers.  Programs that support innovations in civil legal assistance had put together directories and listings of specific types of providers, like advice hotlines or court-based self-help centers.  And programs describe themselves and their work in various publications on the internet and in print. We drew on all of these sources of information about what is happening in civil legal assistance in the US today, and we supplemented it with surveys of key informants in the states – people who worked for state administrative offices of the courts, staff at IOLTA programs, and staff on access to justice commissions.

Continue reading →

Posted in Access to Justice Boards, Metrics, Newsmaker Interview, Research and Evalation | 1 Comment

Ten-fold Increase in Usage of Retail Health Clinics in Two Years — Implications for Legal Delivery

Posted on November 28, 2011 by richardzorza

Is this the future of legal  help too?  A tenfold increase in visits to retail store based health clinics in just two years, as reported by the Washington Post, based on a recent RAND study.  The data is based on those covered by commercial insurance, so presumably excludes most medicare and medicaid participants.  As the Post summarized the study:

The RAND study breaks down who actually comes to these clinics. The biggest determinant is distance: People who live within one mile of a retail clinic were 7.5 times more likely to visit one than people who lived 20 miles away. Retail clinic patients also tend to have slightly higher incomes and to be female.

The RAND press release adds:

How this trend will affect the rising cost of health care is unclear. Care initiated at retail clinics is 30 percent to 40 percent less expensive than similar care provided at a physician’s office, and 80 percent less expensive than such care provided in an emergency room.

Obviously short term legal matters are less time sensitive than medical ones, and the service can more frequently be delivered remotely, but this data does suggest the possible appeal and disruptive potential of the store-based access system being pioneered in the UK — see prior blog post here.

Posted in Medical System Comparision, Mixed Model, Systematic Change | Tagged | 1 Comment

Management Information Exchange Journal Publishes My Article on Implications for Legal Aid of the Emerging Access to Jusice Consensus

Posted on November 28, 2011 by richardzorza

I am happy to announce that Management Information Exchange Journal has now published an article by me aimed particularly at a legal aid audience on the implications for Legal Aid of the emerging consensus on access to justice.  It is now posted on my website here.  This new article is based on a longer one published earlier in the year in Judicature.  The link to that first article is here: Emerging Consensus on Access to Justice.

Since the new article was adapted from the Judicature version after the Turner decision came down, the new article reflects the additional leverage given access arguments by that decision, as well as a greater focus on Legal Aid issues.

To give a flavor of the piece, here are two extracts.  First the introduction:

An emerging consensus about how to solve the access to justice problem is laying the groundwork for dramatic progress in the next few years. The four key
elements of the consensus — court simplification and services, bar flexibility, legal aid efficiency and availability, and systems of triage and assignment, have developed from the practical challenges that the constituencies face in doing their jobs.

The second extract is from the final section that discusses open questions for Legal Aid leadership:

D. Where Is the Funding to Come From?
While the overall subject of access to justice funding is beyond the scope of this paper, some general points may be useful:

1.    The current incremental strategy has not met the
challenge of need.

2.    The funding issue remains the Achilles heel of the
“civil Gideon” movement. State courts are deeply reluctant to mandate expenditures on counsel, and have been refusing the opportunity to do so.

3.    Funding components must be counter-cyclical, rather than cyclical with changes in the economy. In this sense, IOLTA is the opposite of what it should be.

4.    The only way to get funding is through a compre- hensive approach that changes the politics of the whole access issue, and brings in a far broader alliance.

5.    In such a grand bargain, the interests of the private bar as well as middle-income people cannot be forgotten.

6.    In such a bargain, cost savings are as important as new sources of revenue. The political system will only make resources available if it is convinced of the system’s cost effectiveness.

7.    Management and budget structures must be designed to incentivize efficiency. In the current structure, courts do not reap the benefit when they institute changes that mean that people can proceed without lawyers, or cut the cost to legal aid. If access to counsel budgets came through the courts, that would change.

 MIE Journal provides unique access to an important audience that shapes Legal Aid on the ground, and I particularly want to thank them for providing this opportunity to speak to that audience. I hope the topics raised in the article will be the focus of debate at the upcoming NLADA Conference and beyond.

Posted in Access to Justice Generally, Legal Aid, Supreme Court | Comments Off on Management Information Exchange Journal Publishes My Article on Implications for Legal Aid of the Emerging Access to Jusice Consensus

A Great Idea from Colorado — Law School Experienced Lawyer Pro Bono Representation Center

Posted on November 27, 2011 by richardzorza

Jim Peters is a private lawyer who is a member of the Colorado Access to Justice Commission.  At the recent Rothgerber Conference in Denver he came up with a really new idea — to link senior attorneys interested in pro bono with a law school clinic like structure.  Here are some thoughts he offered in elaboration.

The suggestion that I offered was the creation of law school pro bono representation centers that would utilize the experience of seasoned attorneys who are nearing retirement age and looking for a meaningful way to stay active and to utilize their legal experience on behalf of the community.   Law schools have traditionally focused on training and utilizing law students in legal aid/legal clinic programs.   Upon graduation, those students naturally become engaged in the full time practice of law, marriage, and raising  young families.   In essence, young lawyers have so many additional priorities placed on their time that they are often unable to continue their pro bono representation.  

Seasoned lawyers, on the other hand, come to a stage where they are looking for ways to wind down from the demands of a full time legal practice and yet want to remain active and engaged.  These veteran lawyers who have lived a life of billable hours are now looking for a way to give back to their community in a way that is meaningful and  makes a significant difference.   

Law schools would be a good match for this renewed purposeful energy that seasoned lawyers often experience.  Law schools have the credibility and teaching tools available to transfer a seasoned attorney’s knowledge and experience from the private practice of law to the areas of law commonly identified with pro bono representation, e.g. housing, employment, domestic violence, financial assistance, veteran benefits, etc.  Such a Center would be a natural partner with various other indigent legal service entities and also provide the opportunity to pair transactional lawyers who don’t feel comfortable handling cases in a courtroom setting with those attorneys who’s prior experience involved courtroom work.   In addition, law schools are increasingly looking for ways to engage their alumni and the local community–this is an excellent opportunity to accomplish both!

My suggestion is borne out of my personal experience and background.   I currently conduct parole revocation hearings as an Administrative Hearing Officer for the Colorado Parole Board.  In that role I am able to appoint an attorney to represent a parolee who qualifies for Board appointed legal representation.   Prior to that I was the two-term elected District Attorney (1997-2005) in Colorado’s 18th Judicial District which encompasses Arapahoe, Douglas, Elbert, and Lincoln Counties.  The 18th Judicial District has a very substantial caseload and also has the highest population of any judicial district in Colorado.  Prior to my election I was a trial prosecutor in that same office for nearly 22 years. I have personally handled thousands of misdemeanor, juvenile and felony cases and was able to see the clear value and benefit provided by court ordered legal representation in criminal cases.

After leaving my career at the DA’s Office I also began looking for other meaningful things to get involved in.  So, in addition to my time contracting with the Parole Board, I currently serve on a number of non-profit boards and commissions including Colorado’s Access to Justice Commission,  the Sky-Cliff Stroke and Adult Day Care Center, Explorer Scouting, and the Excelsior Youth Center which is a national residential treatment and education campus for adolescents.

The program might be described as an Encore Center for Pro Bono Legal Representation.   

This really seems to me like a win-win-win.  Senior pro bono is an idea that lots of people like, but hosting it in a law school seems to me a breakthrough idea that can help get it off the ground.  For law schools it is an ideal way to reconnect with alumni who might ultimately consider giving in thanks.

My instinct is that the place to test the idea is a small state  with one law school, where everybody knows everyone, and the common interest in a programs sucess will be obvious.

Other ideas for how to make senior pro bono really work would be much appreciated.

Posted in Law Schools, Pro Bono | Tagged | Comments Off on A Great Idea from Colorado — Law School Experienced Lawyer Pro Bono Representation Center

UK Judge on the State of Access to Justice

Posted on November 25, 2011 by richardzorza

Lord Justice Moses is a British Appellate Court Judge.

He recently gave an astonishingly powerful and blunt speech to the Public Law Project.

Thanks to the fine international Access to Justice Blog for the catch.

For those of us in the US the speech might raise questions about the scope of appropriate public comment by the judiciary on political matters (it starts with an implied jibe at PM Cameron), but on the relationship between access and broader issues it is unique.

Posted in Access to Justice Generally | Tagged | Comments Off on UK Judge on the State of Access to Justice

Claudia Johnson Guest Blogs on Machine Translation—First in Medicine, then in Law?

Posted on November 21, 2011 by richardzorza

Thanks again to Claudie Johnson for her latest post:

Many of us who track technology innovations get very excited about the possibilities that open up when we hear or read that that machine translation tools are becoming more and more common. In the health care field, the understanding  of translation/interpretation  as a required part of quality patient are is more advanced than it is in the legal realm.

I came across this translation tool in the medical field called “MediBabble”. When looking into it, I came across this article by two medical interpreters that provides some insight from that perspective and that we should keep handy if and when a similar tool is announced in the legal realm. http://www.ncihc.org/mc/page.do;jsessionid=315862D9068E35D1144F42591D2B1ADD.mc0?sitePageId=50909

I have been asked many times the question about a court system or a public webpage that is read by large groups of people if that could be cheaply and easily be translated using some sort of free online machine translation tools.  As I told my friend who recently asked me about using a free machine translation (MT) tool to translate a webpage: “ if you are using the cheap/free/easy online tool when you travel abroad to read the signs or webpages, it is up to you  if you get the wrong info. Only you and your  kids will have to deal with the consequences. You are free to take risks for yourself and your family. But when you are using it in a way that could affect fundamental rights of full communities, thread w/caution, you are taking a big leap and assuming a lots of risks on behalf of very vulnerable and disenfranchised communities. Be aware of that.”

In 2009, I co-authored an article tackling this same issue for the legal services realm. http://www.probono.net/library/item.317793-How_Effective_is_Machine_Translation_of_Legal_Information

I don’t think the world has changed much in this realm since 2009. MT tools are moving to handheld devices, and new cool widgets, but the core is not progressing as fast as we hope or wish for. MT has been around for a long time, yet it is results are  not yet ready to fully replace a trained translator.  The best approach to incorporating MT in the legal non-profit realm, is  a presentation that  Dennis Rios from ILAO did on a TIG grant where they are merging machine translation with his many years of education and training as a translator. In other words, they use MT and a very competent human, trained both as an interpreter, translator, attorney, to expedite the creation of online content in Spanish. MT does not replace the professional translator, rather the translator enhances what the MT produces, edits, refines, makes it better for the target audience.  http://lsntap.org/node/3953. Another part of the equation here is that they have a very good and robust content management tool .

Has anyone else seen or come across any good machine translation/human translation projects in the access to justice context that they may want to share?  I am a big fan of the TED translation project as a collaborative approach to translation. Any courts looking to replicate or create collaborative translation models out there? http://www.ted.com/OpenTranslationProject

Please chime in!

Posted in LEP, Technology | 2 Comments

NYT Reports Dramatic Numbers of “Near Poor” — Access Implications

Posted on November 19, 2011 by richardzorza

In response to a request from the Times, the Census Bureau ran the numbers on the “near poor” defined as 150% of the poverty rate, and using its newer more accurate poverty measure.

Perhaps the most startling differences between the old measure and the new involves data the government has not yet published, showing 51 million people with incomes less than 50 percent above the poverty line. That number of Americans is 76 percent higher than the official account, published in September. All told, that places 100 million people — one in three Americans — either in poverty or in the fretful zone just above it.

It usually hard to surprise the Census, but look at this:

The size of the near-poor population took even the bureau’s number crunchers by surprise.

“These numbers are higher than we anticipated,” said Trudi J. Renwick, the bureau’s chief poverty statistician. “There are more people struggling than the official numbers show.”

Some bottom lines with policy implications (noting particularly that this 150% of poverty is closer to, but not fully aligned with traditional legal aid eligibility):

  • Of the 50 million “near poor”, 20%, or 10 million, were lifted from poverty by benefits ignored in the traditional count — think of that as the anti-poverty impact of legal aid the programs it has championed and facilitated over the years.
  • Twenty eight percent work full time — think of the implications of legal aid current caseload priorities — something Alan Houseman has been arguing for decades.
  • Thirty four percent of elderly are poor or near poor (although they may own their homes and have savings) — again so much for the stereotype that poverty is a children’s problem.
  • As  the examples in the article show, these near poor are at constant risk of one crisis — of the kind that the comfortable can easily manage, like one really big bill, pushing them into poverty and a cycle from which it will be hard to recover.

Regardless of what we call this group (the Tines has a Heritage Foundation analyst opining that “I don’t have any objection to this measure if you use the term ‘low-income’.  .  .  .  But the emotionally charged terms ‘poor’ or ‘near poor’ clearly suggest to most people a level of material hardship that doesn’t exist. It is deliberately used to mislead people.”) we obviously need to pay more attention to their needs and characteristics, as well as to the potential impact on the debate about access to justice.

  • Renewed attention to eligibly calculations
  • Renewed attention to priority area decisions
  • Attempts to quantify impact (of courts as well as legal aid) on reducing numbers of those pushed down into poverty
  • Closer focus by commissions on innovative approaches to serving near poor/middle income areas, including by increasing the supply of middle income serving lawyers.
  • Courts thinking about the hugely disruptive impacts on the working poor of the lack of evening court access for this population

I hope that the shock of the LSC funding cut, while obviously needing attention, will not divert from these longer term and broader strategic priorities.  Please share thoughts on other such implications and strategies.

Posted in Middle Income, Poverty | Comments Off on NYT Reports Dramatic Numbers of “Near Poor” — Access Implications

Chuck Greenfield NewsMaker Interview

Posted on November 17, 2011 by richardzorza

This blog is happy to welcome Chuck Greenfield, newly appointed Chief Counsel for Civil Programs at NLADA for a NewsMaker Interview.

Zorza:  So, first of all, congratulations.  You obviously come well prepared with your long background at LSC and in a variety of positions in the field.  Could you start by telling us how you see the access to justice environment as having changed in the last few years?

Greenfield: Thank you Richard. I appreciate your kind words. My sense is that the access to justice environment has significantly changed over the last five years in three major areas: (1) the continued emergence of ATJ Commissions, now in 26 states, with the involvement of a broader base of people and entities working on expanding access to justice. In many states, justices from the highest state courts, bar officials, private attorneys, corporate counsel, pro bono attorneys, legislators, human services officials and others are jointly working to improve access; (2) the painful realization that it is absolutely essential that there be more stable and broader diversification of funding sources for legal services. Relying on variable interest rates and yearly Congressional votes does not create the type of solid foundation that is needed to expand access to justice in this country; and (3) the awareness that something needs to be done about the incredible number of self-represented people, particularly in state courts, that has spurned self-help representation projects, including courthouse-based efforts, limited-scope representation, community education, etc.

Continue reading →

Posted in Legal Aid, LSC, Newsmaker Interview, Research and Evalation, Technology | 1 Comment

We Welcome Guest Blogger Claudia Johnson Blogging on ATJ Tablet Ideas

Posted on November 17, 2011 by richardzorza

Our first guest blogger is Claudia Colindres Johnson who will be adding her perspectives on access to justice here for the next month or so.  I am particularly pleased to welcome Claudia (already a frequent commenter on the blog) because she brings a strong “out of the box” innovation perspective, with a particularly powerful and helpful perspective on matters of technology and of language access.  She always communicates her unexpected and thoughtful ideas with passion and caring — welcome Claudia.  A short bio is at the bottom of her post.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I saw this presentation in the public library realm. http://www.onlinecollege.org/2011/09/05/20-coolest-ipad-ideas-for-your-library/. It came in the monthly email from Web Junction, a public library training resources that I highly recommend to those working on public information. http://www.webjunction.org/1 This month, Web Junction is looking at the “gadget eco system”.

It really excited me to see these short and sweet 20 ideas of what public libraries are doing/could do with Ipads. I started to think about what the ideas would be for our community. I came up with a few but not 20, not even 10. Now that mobile devices are gaining traction in the legal non profit/access to justice arena—we should start thinking about what would be the top 20 applications of handheld devices (tablets, ipads, mobile phones). The legal aid community is starting to take first steps in this realm, some of them very encouraging. Here are some ideas I thought up:

1.     Legal Self Help Ipad (tablet) workstations—load into a handhelp device the state specific LSC approved legal information website, along w/any court self help webpages, and in it, create a simple to use self help “kiosk” where the person can “click to dial” into a legal hotline, request a web chat, do an online intake, do self triage, or assemble, print and email an online form.

2.     The Pro Bono tablet—pre load a handheld device with the advocate statewide website, resource webpages (both local and federal), and to site training podcasts, videos, specific to that area of law. With this table, the pro bono lawyer can go to any clinic, and have in the tablet everything they need for that event and in that area of law—including access to remote resources, online forms, and connectivity to a printer.

 3.     The court self help LEP tablet—preload a tablet with court resources specific to a language and high self represented volume dockets. Use software that would allow the LEP court user to see a map, guide to the court house in their language, along with hours, locations, and languages served. This site could include “how to “ work flow 2 or 3 minute videos of that court room in that language type tutorial. Add the public self help webpages of that local/state court to the tablet. In there connect to online forms in other languages etc, and web chat to support the LEP court users remotely. Also add any relevant “click to call” resources to request interpretation while at court.  The tablets would be very helpful when there is not a lot of multilingual signage or instructions in that language or personal at public information desks,triage desks, etc.

What else comes to your mind? Could we get to 20 different eco gadget ideas in the access to justice realm?

Update:  Here is an article “Smart Pads on the Wireless Web” by Marc Lauritsen on the same subject.

About Claudia:

Claudia has been a public interest lawyer since she graduate from Penn Law in 1997. She started her career as a Skadden Fellow in Philadelphia PA. Over the course of her legal career, she has work in leadership positions with excellent programs including LSC funded groups, non-LSC funded groups, and a  model pro bono Project (VSLP in SF).  For the past 3 ½ years she has been working on the national document assembly initiative for the access to justice communities, LawHelp Interactive with Pro Bono Net. She has started many projects that have changed the delivery systems in various regions and have been replicated in other cities and states, including starting the Language Access Project at Community Legal Services, doing the initial work in the SF Superior LLT court pro bono project, creating a model volunteer interpreter project at VLSP, and centralizing and creating a strong and well respected centralized intake unit at Bay Area Legal Aid, Oakland. Prior to law school, Claudia worked for a Congressional Commission in Washington DC, doing policy analysis in Medicare Part A. Here she learned how Federal Rules are made and her work led to some published changes aimed at increasing the quality of the system for Medicare beneficiaries. Her experience at Pro PAC led her to attend law school to become an advocate for the poor and unrepresented groups. She is a graduate from the University of Pennsylvania Law School, the Goldman School of Public Policy (UC Berkeley), the Graduate School of Public Health (UC Berkeley) and holds her BA from the same university. Over the course of her life she has lived in 15 cities and 5 countries. She is fluent in English and German. Her family immigrated from El Salvador to Puerto Rico during the civil war in the 1980s. She currently resides in Eastern WA and enjoys the company of family, her theoretical pet dogote, and a Boston Terrier

Posted in Guest Bloggers, Libraries, Mobile Technology, Technology, This Blog | Tagged | 4 Comments

European Union Adopts Standardized “Miranda” Type Notice to Include Right to Interpreter

Posted on November 16, 2011 by richardzorza

Its interesting that the EU has agreed on a standardized “Miranda” type warning.  As described in the EU press release:

The Letter of Rights will contain practical details about accused persons’ rights:

  • to a lawyer;
  • to be informed of the charge and, where appropriate, to have access to the case-file;
  • to interpretation and translation for those who do not understand the language of the proceedings;
  • to be brought promptly before a court following arrest.

LEP advocates will be pleased to see interpretation rights included in this basic information.

Thanks to the International Access to Justice Blog.  I have not yet been able to locate the full text of the notice, which is supposed to have been provided to EU member governments.

 

Posted in International Models | Tagged , | 1 Comment

LSC Budget News — Not Good

Posted on November 15, 2011 by richardzorza

NLDA Legal Aid News sends out the bad news:

Last night House and Senate conferees agreed to a spending package that would fund the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) at $348,000,000 for FY 2012.  This figure represents a reduction in overall funding for LSC of $56,190,000, or 13.9 percent.  The entire cut comes from funding for basic field programs, amounting to 14.8 percent of the critical funding used by LSC grantees to provide access to justice in the United States.  The figure represents a split in half of the difference between the level the Senate appropriated for FY 2012 of $396.1 million and the House level of $300 million.  .  .   .   .

The package is expected to pass the House and Senate this week.  The Conference Report containing the agreements is not open to amendment on either the House or Senate floor.  Thus, the LSC figure contained with the Report is likely to be the final spending figure for FY 2012. (bold added)

Frankly, this is worse than I expected.  For states that rely mainly on LSC money, this means an almost 15% reduction in funding.  For those states with heavy non-LSC money, it means an additional cut on top of the collapse in IOLTA funding.

Beyond the immediate sadness of potential staff cuts and unserved clients in need, the worst impact may be that these cuts will force programs into an even more cost-focused mode, rather than one that looks at the overall efficiency of delivery itself, and how to deploy resources creatively to expand access.  The mid-90s were in part a time of creativity — most of the access commissions owe their existence at least in part to the steps that were taken then.  The hope is that the community (now a far broader one), will find a similar creative energy.  Moreover, the pressures on the bar and on the courts mean that the incentives are aligned for all players to have interests in simplification and improving access by changing the underling operations of the courts themselves.  In the case of the courts, this is even further advanced by Turner, and the opportunity it provides for states to review the accessibility of their procedures.

Let me also urge the access community to find funding mechanisms that are counter-cyclical — that go up when the economy goes down, rather than vice versa.

While its hard to think creatively when blows like this come, it is even more important now.

Posted in Access to Justice Boards, Funding, IOLTA, LSC | 2 Comments

Bringing New Lawyers into Pro Bono

Posted on November 15, 2011 by richardzorza

It’s a natural match, worth duplicating in most states.  New lawyers, often without jobs, and needing experience and MCLE credits, and litigants desperate for attorney help.

Kudos to the NY Courts and Deputy Chief Administrative Judge Fern Fisher, an innovate, perceptive and strategic leader, for thinking of “Bridge the Gap.”  New lawyers take a program and get all their new lawyer CLE requirements for the year met, and in return they agree to participate in a 50 hour pro bono supervised practicum.

As the press release puts it

Over 130 recent law school graduates and newly admitted attorneys have signed up for this pilot initiative, closing registration and creating a waiting list weeks before the program begins.  “We are delighted that there is so much interest in pro bono service among new lawyers.  The fact that this program was over-subscribed so quickly indicates that there is an untapped and valuable resource among this group. Our hope is that involving attorneys in pro bono service early in their careers will encourage long-term commitment to public service within the profession.  All participants in the program will gain invaluable experience while helping some of New York’s most disadvantaged civil litigants obtain access to justice.” said Administrative Judge Fisher. 

Its obviously important that the practicum be supervised, and this is another example of how building up a comprehensive pro bono infrastructure can play large ongoing dividends.  Its about much more than referral, but having a system of training and finding the right slots customized to the volunteers needs.

Posted in Pro Bono | Tagged | Comments Off on Bringing New Lawyers into Pro Bono

How the Law Could Advance Driverless Cars — Questions for Access

Posted on November 14, 2011 by richardzorza

There’s been much attention, most recently in a great NYT article on Google’s X, their secret lab, on driverless cars.  The consensus is that the main barriers are political and social, not technical — see Nevada law.

Here’s a thought.  If driverless cars work and are safe, surely it violates the ADA for states to prohibit them for those who can not drive.  (Maybe there is language in federal law that impliedly bans them, but maybe not, after all, it was not a concept at the top of the minds of those who wrote the Federal highway laws — and if Nevada can allow them, presumably they are not bared by Federal law.)

Moreover, once driverless cars are seen to be working for those protected by the ADA, everyone will want them.  I know I will.

More generally, it will not be the first time that protections for minorities have led to progress for all.  We should be thinking about ways that the ADA can be used to remove state barriers to the use of technology for access to justice — e.g. signature issues, physical presence requirements. Other far out ideas, folks?

Posted in Technology | Comments Off on How the Law Could Advance Driverless Cars — Questions for Access

Some Interesting TIG Grants, and the Upcoming TIG Conference

Posted on November 14, 2011 by richardzorza

With the announcement of the 2012 TIG Conference to be held in January in Albuquerque (draft Agenda here), it occurs to me that we have not paid enough attention to the wide range of grants LSC has awarded to enhance technology for access and court partnerships.  Remember that registration for the Conferred is open, and that there will be people there from each of the new grantees.

Here are some of those grants:

  • Web-based screening and training tools for bankruptcy (Colorodo Legal Services)
  • Mobile technology medical-legal partnership assessment tool (Legal Aid Society)
  • Touch screen monitor project to ease senior access to information (Acadiana Legal Service Corporation)
  • National model e-filing solution and best practices (Central Minnesota Legal Services, Inc.)
  • Court integration e-filing grant for domestic violence orders (Legal Aid Society of Orange County)
  • Spanish portal for LawHelp.org (Legal Aid Society of Northeastern New York, Inc.)
  • A unprecedented variety of tech-supported intake systems
  • Disaster readiness (Legal Action of Wisconsin, Inc.)
  • Website with tools for understanding federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (Legal Aid of Nebraska)

This in addition to a range of document assembly projects, support for platforms, EITC, and NTAP, and continued collaborations with the courts, particularly in the self-represented litigant area.  Full descriptions of all the grants are here.

Congratulations again to LSC for sustaining this critically importantprorgram.

Posted in Funding, Legal Aid, LSC, Meetings, Technology | Comments Off on Some Interesting TIG Grants, and the Upcoming TIG Conference