A Perspective on Interpreting for Monolingual Anglo-Phones

Posted on March 17, 2011 by richardzorza

An somwhat unusual byproduct of the Japan nuke disaster is the opportunity to watch the Japanese public TV station English Language service over the Internet (for all I know it may always be available if you know where to look, but now there are links all over.)

jibtv.com (most consistently available)

New York Times

CNN (Link on left)

Sometimes they are on the air with very skilled English speaking announcers.  Sometimes that are carrying what I assume is the Japanese channel, but voice over simultaneous translation.

I have to say, without meaning to offend, that listening to this makes me realize just how hard it is to do this interpreting job while accurately conveying the words, the meaning, and other atmospherics — and to create in the listener confidence in the accuracy.

I encourage folks to listen a bit and think about what it would be like to be in court with your freedom or family status being determined, and this being the level of information you are getting about the proceedings.

Posted in LEP | 1 Comment

Missouri Supreme Court Judge’s Tool Kit on Pro Bono — Perspectives on Court Use of Pro Bono

Posted on March 16, 2011 by richardzorza

A useful tool and model on pro bono for judges from the Missouri Supreme Court.

Here is an introductory letter from a Judge on the Court, Mary R. Russell, together with the Toolkit

Topics include:

  • A summary of the research as to the need.
  • Discussion of ethical guidelines and duties for judges and lawyers.
  • Information on existing pro bono programs.
  • Practical tips on promoting pro bono involvement including:
  • how to recruit volunteers,
  • how judges can accommodate pro bono practice,
  • how to collaborate with existing providers,
  • how to reduce expenses of pro bono attorneys,
  • how to fund programs,
  • ways of recognizing volunteer attorneys for their contribution.
  • Free malpractice protection for pro bono attorneys.
  • Use of limited scope representation to make pro bono work more time and cost efficient.
  • Focus on the special needs of rural areas.

Click here to visit the Table of Contents.

The Tool Kit was developed for the Missouri Supreme Court by its Committee on Access to Family Courts (CAFC), and particularly its subgroup on pro bono.  They invite suggestions to improve and further develop the Tool Kit.  Questions and suggestions can be addressed to Lou Defeo by email at LegalCare@midmosamaritan.org, or to the CAFC at cafc@mo.courts.gov cafc@courts.mo.gov.

Here is the California Courts Pro Bono Toolkit.

One interesting question is what is the best use of pro bono from the point of view of a court.  One good perspective is that pro bono should be used to make sure that there is access for those with the most complex cases, those that can not be helped by self-help center or court staff.  However, it is also true that there are many potential pro bono lawyers who would be much more involved if their obligations could be strictly limited in time, as are those of those who volunteer at self-help programs.  This may be particularly appealing to senior lawyers, or others who must restrict time commitments for family reasons.

Posted in Pro Bono, Self-Help Services | Tagged | Comments Off on Missouri Supreme Court Judge’s Tool Kit on Pro Bono — Perspectives on Court Use of Pro Bono

California Judicial Developments

Posted on March 15, 2011 by richardzorza

It’s hard for me to estimate the likely long term impact of the unhappiness among some California judges, as reported here in the LA Times.

At issue is whether the court system should continue to be run centrally by the chief justice and his or her appointees, or whether elected judges and the trial courts should call more of the shots, including on how money is spent.

The Alliance of California Judges pits itself against the Administrative Office of the Courts, the bureaucracy in San Francisco that runs the judicial branch under the supervision of the Judicial Council, the governing and policy-setting body headed and run by the chief justice.

“It has deliberately and recklessly advocated for its own parochial interests … while trial court operations have suffered from furloughs, courthouse closures and layoffs,” alliance directors wrote to “fellow judges” in a January letter.

The alliance claims about 350 of the state’s 1,700 judges are members, but says many want their names kept secret because they fear reprisals — a perception that the state’s chief justice, Tani Cantil-Sakauye, says mystifies her.

While the rebellion has many elements, and has gotten more attention because of a recent audit of the states centralized case management system (NYT article), the core problem seems to me to be related to professional anxiety.  It is hard for judges, just as it is for other professionals, to recognize that organizational structures change with technology and with an increased understanding of the need of coherent institutional reforms.

In my various consultant work and other collaborations with the California courts I have again and again seen the value of statewide leadership.  Would we have the Shriver counsel project, the wonderful self-help website, the network of self-help centers, or many other innovations without a strong and effective AOC?

We live in the twenty-first century, and must have appropriate management structures for these times.

Posted in Access to Counsel, Self-Help Services, Systematic Change, Technology | Comments Off on California Judicial Developments

Risks and Consequences — Implications for Access Advocacy

Posted on March 14, 2011 by richardzorza

With all eyes fixed on Japan, it seems like a good time to reflect on risks and consequences.  (Actually, its hard for me to think about anything else, and it is fascinating how much traffic to this blog has dropped since the crisis began, presumably because people are spending their time on other sites.)

The thing that has always been so creepy about nuclear power — and the thing that policy makers have seemed unable to grasp — is not that there is a risk, or even that the AVERAGE risk of nuclear power is high.  Indeed, there is an arguably  good position that the average at least short term risk is low, compared to other sources such as coal.  It is rather that IF something serious goes wrong THEN the consequences will be devastating, widespread, and irreversible.

The public (as opposed to many scientific policy makers) see this instinctively, which is why there is such public skepticism about nuclear power, and why even “minor” problems can cause such skepticism to escalate quickly.

Maybe we have the opposite problem with access to justice.  Cuts in access programs are (maybe) seen as just adding up to background noise, not having dramatic, widespread, or irreversible impacts on society as a whole.  It may be that the intentionally non-analytic “story telling” approach that access advocates have taken to raise money for access to justice plays into this weakness.

Perhaps we need a more analytic approach that shows not just the individual impact, but the broader impact of failing to provide access.  Examples that might resonate:

  • The foreclosure crisis occurred in part because banks and security packagers were able to get away with bad practices because they were never challenged in individual cases.
  • Failure to reduce evictions not only hurts the individuals who lose their homes, but drives whole neighborhoods into downward spirals.
  • Allowing employers to get away with illegal employment practices hurts not only the individuals, but the entire labor market, which becomes corrupted.
  • Not bringing dead marriages to an end distorts the labor and housing markets.

Note that these all argue for an understanding of aggregation of effects, which is much harder than showing the damage of a dramatic incident.

Then there is the dramatic incident theory — like nuclear meltdown at least at first apparently statistically unlikely, but dramatic in its effect:

  • The frustrated litigant who shoots up the court or the workplace
  • The abusive parent, who is not held to account, and takes on the classroom full of kids
  • The person who does not get health care and unknowingly spreads a drug resistant infection far and wide.

Maybe its time to build these into our mathematical models for the consequences on inaction on access.  As experts on public opinion study the impact of the nuclear crisis in Japan on attitudes to risk, they may have something to teach us in this area.

Posted in Access to Justice Generally, Domestic Violence, Foreclosure, Research and Evalation, This Blog | Tagged | 1 Comment

“The Happynomics of Life” — Measuring Broadest Impact of Access to Justice

Posted on March 13, 2011 by richardzorza

Read Roger Cohen in Sunday’s NY Times on the The Happynomics of Life.

He looks at the recent initiative in the UK to develop a measure of happiness of the public.   The  idea has been much derided as at attempt by the Cameron government to deflect attention from the economic misery it is about to impose.

But Cohen points out that in a world of relative surplus (at least for the industrialized world, and at least relative to historic expectations) broader measures than GNP will become more and more important.

Just what goes into well-being is confounding. Many of the variables — like love and friendship and family relations — are hard to pin down. But British research has suggested that money itself does not confer happiness, although wealthier people tend to be happier; that employment is critical to self-esteem; that women tend to be happier than men; and that people need something beyond the material for fulfillment.

Starting next month, the government will pose the following questions and ask people to respond on a scale of zero to 10: How happy did you feel yesterday? How anxious did you feel yesterday? How satisfied are you with your life nowadays? To what extent do you feel the things you do in your life are worthwhile?

The point for the access to justice world is this:    Being able to move forward after a marriage fragments, getting to stay in an apartment, having the government protect you for an abusive former boyfriend, feeling that you have a remedy when the plumber leaves the leak leaking, all these increase happiness, with maybe no impact on GNP.

In the last few years, we have tried to estimate and collect data on the impact on people’s economic well-being, but not thought about how to meaure broader impacts.

Lets start experimenting with questions that might do that.  Some ideas:

  • Did using this software make your more confident about your abilities to manage life’s crises?
  • Did the self-hep center help you resolve a family problem? If so, how long had the problem been unaddressed?
  • Has this service improved your confidence that the government will listen to you?
  • Have you been sleeping better since the court case ended?

Please make suggestions.

Posted in Research and Evalation, Self-Help Services | Comments Off on “The Happynomics of Life” — Measuring Broadest Impact of Access to Justice

Self-Represented Litigation Network Pre-Conference May 18, 2011

Posted on March 11, 2011 by richardzorza

The Self-Represented Litigation Network Pre-Conference  will be May 18, 2011, before the Equal Justice Conference in Las Vegas.

The draft Agenda is here. (selfhelpsupport.org membership required.)

Registration link here.  Early registration deadline is March 28, 2011.

Among the topics planned to be covered: unbundling and pro bono, triage and relationship to right to counsel, E-filing and access.  There will be a visit to a local self-help center, and “problem solving time.”

Posted in Meetings | 1 Comment

Foreclosure Counselling — Financial Value — Model for Statistical Analysis

Posted on March 9, 2011 by richardzorza

The Urban Institute has completed a study of the financial value of foreclosure counselling, in this case provided by NeighborWorks America

The NFMC [National Foreclosure Mitigation Counseling] program recognizes three distinct levels of counseling services. In Level 1 counseling, the NFMC Grantee or Subgrantee conducts a client intake process and develops a budget and a written action plan for the client. After Level 1 counseling is completed, it is up to the client to follow through with any activities on the action plan. In Level 2 counseling, the Grantee or Subgrantee verifies the client’s budget and takes additional steps to obtain solutions outlined by the action plan. Level 3 counseling is when Level 1 and Level 2 counseling are completed in succession by the same Grantee or Subgrantee. Since an individual homeowner may receive both Level 1 and Level 2 counseling, these sessions are counted and referred to as separate unit of counseling. (at page 5)

The overall impact?

Speaks for itself. In addition:

The positive program effect on foreclosure cures was about the same regardless of the level of treatment received by a client. Recipients of Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3 counseling services all had relative odds of curing a foreclosure in any given month that were 1.6 to 1.8 times greater than persons who received no counseling. The differences in the effect of Level 1 counseling, which involves only an initial session with the client but no follow-up, were smaller and statistically significant from the effect of Level 2 and 3 counseling, in which the counselor provides additional assistance in implementing the client’s proposed solution. (at page 36)

And, the more intervention, the more impact:

We also modeled the effects of different levels of counseling on payment reductions. The results from the NFMC vs. non-NFMC model showed that all three levels of counseling service provided benefits to counseled homeowners, with average additional payment reductions increasing from an average of $214 for Level 1 to $265 for Level 2 and $335 for Level 3 counseling, when compared to non-NFMC modifications. These findings suggest that more extensive counseling (Level 2 or Level 3) resulted in loan modifications with larger payment reductions when compared to clients who received Level 1 counseling. The results based on the percentage of the monthly payment also showed a larger effect for counseling Level 3, indicating that the result was not solely a function of the pre-modification monthly payment size for persons who received higher levels of counseling. (at page 39).

This three level analysis is particularly helpful as a model, because in access to justice we often now also have systems that provide assistance of different levels.  It makes sense that the greater the intervention, the greater the impact, but the more complex question is when is that the right overall choice.  If foreclosure cures are more or less the same, regardless of level of intervention, and if there is limited money for this work (not very unlikely!!), then the best social policy decision (to avoid homelessness) may be to provide lower levels of help to more people.  Alternatively people could “buy up” to get level two assistance, possibly only to be paid if they reap a benefit.

This may be kind of choice we may come to face in access to justice.

What do folks think?

Posted in Foreclosure, Research and Evalation | 1 Comment

Lawyers Replaced by Computers — NYT Article — Lets Focus on New Capacities

Posted on March 8, 2011 by richardzorza

The NY Times article, Armies of Expensive Lawyers, Replaced by Cheaper Software, has aroused a lot of comment, e.g. here (Strategic Legal Technology).

Of course, much of the comment is about the “replacement” angle (although not the Strategic Legal Technology blog), including glee and anxiety, but perhaps more interesting is the analytic capacity that such software brings that individual lawyers could never bring.  Examples that I particularly like in the article dealt with automated analysis of e-mails to identify when conversations were taken away from e-mail (arguably to avoid the trail) or when the tone changed from informal to formal (indicating a conscious-of-guilt case with words).

Given how hard it has been to bring “pattern and practice” law suits showing systemic, but not formally authorized, misconduct by government agencies and corporations, this kind of technology can only make it easier to achieve transparency.

Another advantage may be that the invasion of privacy may be less when performed by a computer — unless relevant potential wrongdoing is found, of course.

p.s.  Richard Moorhead’s Blog has a more comprehensive summary of the article, and some useful links.

Posted in Technology | Tagged | Comments Off on Lawyers Replaced by Computers — NYT Article — Lets Focus on New Capacities

Mass Charges Fee to Challenge Moving Violation — State Supreme Ct Challenge — Indigent Court Costs Statute

Posted on March 7, 2011 by richardzorza

That’s right.  In venerable Massachusetts, you have to pay a fee to challenge a traffic ticket (Boston Globe story).

A challenge is now pending in the SJC (Supreme Judicial Court — Docket entries and briefs here).  The statistics appear to support the claim that the fess have reduced the challenge rate (quoted from above Globe story):

For the year beginning July 2009, when a $25 fee was added to appeal a moving violation to a clerk magistrate, 217,197 drivers challenged their tickets — almost 10 percent fewer than the previous fiscal year. During the same period, when they had to pay another $50 to contest a clerk’s decision, 15,466 drivers appealed to a district court judge — almost 35 percent fewer than the previous fiscal year.

Note that you have to pay the first fee to challenge the moving violation, i.e. to get the first neutral determination from a clerk-magistrate, and then another one to appeal that decision to a full judge.

Note also, however, that Massachusetts has a strong Indigent Court Costs statute, Mass General Laws, Chapter 261, Section 27A, et seq., that covers such payments for the indigent.  (The statute bears careful reading by those interested in broader waiver and payment systems.  For example, waivers of fees are presumptive upon affidavit.  “If the affidavit appears regular and complete on its face and indicates that the affiant is indigent, as defined in section twenty-seven A, and requests a waiver, substitution or payment by the commonwealth, of normal fees and costs, the clerk shall grant such request forthwith without hearing and without the necessity of appearance of any party or counsel.” Section 27 C. Moreover, the statute provides for payment by the government of “Extra fees and costs”, “the fees and costs, in addition to those a party is normally required to pay in order to prosecute or defend his case, which result when a party employs or responds to a procedure not necessarily required in the particular type of proceeding in which he is involved. They shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the cost of transcribing a deposition, expert assistance and appeal bonds and appeal bond premiums.”  Section 27A

This law was drafted and pushed through by one of my first law student supervisors, and ongoing mentors Ernest “Tony” Winsor, who only recently retired from Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, the statewide legal services backup program, and a bulwark for justice (It seems like I spent most of law school there).  While Tony’s work has touched millions, the Indigent Court Costs Statute may be his greatest legacy.

Back to this case:  the idea that the non-indigent have to pay to obtain the initial neutral determination as to the lawfulness of a government claim that the law has been broken sticks in the throat.

It will be interesting if the Court decides the case on technical grounds, uses the opportunity to assert broad access to justice principles, or is swayed by the claim that the courts need the money.

Posted in Access to Justice Generally, Court Fees and Costs, Legal Aid, Middle Income | Tagged | Comments Off on Mass Charges Fee to Challenge Moving Violation — State Supreme Ct Challenge — Indigent Court Costs Statute

Quantitiative Boot Camp on Access to Justice?

Posted on March 6, 2011 by richardzorza

The recent post on the law professor’s quantitative boot camp got me thinking about the need for something similar for access to justice professionals. (see the mention in my post introducing the Empirical Legal Studies Blog.

We need to find a way to enhance the statistical and data analysis skills in the access to justice practitioner community.  This would help us do our own studies, help us participate in a more informed way in the increasing debates about the meanings of studies conducted by academics and others.  (One obvious example of such debates is the one triggered by the paper by Jim Greiner and Cassandra Wolos Pattanayak.  (e.g Concurring Opinions blog, as well as others previously cited in this blog).

How might such a “boot camp” be organized?  Here are some ideas:

  • As a pre-conference to the Equal Justice Conference
  • As a pre-conference to the LSC TIG Conference
  • In association with a National Association for Court Management Conference

In particular, I would like to see Civil Gideon and Self-Represented Innovation experts cooperate on such a process.  As both groups engage more, I think we are moving to a more common integrated world view.

In any event, I would hope that various organizations such as SJI, LSC, NAIP, NCSC, NACM, ABA, NLADA would be interested in giving life to this.  It would be a great project for a law school to take on.

There is at least one tool already developed by the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver and the National Center for State Courts:  A Roadmap for Reform: Measuring Innovation.

This introduces general approaches to measurement, including the kinds of questions that might be asked about innovation, the kinds of data that might be collected, and how it might be collected.

p.s.  The Anne E. Casey Foundation has funded something similar for child welfare administrators.

Posted in Law Schools, Research and Evalation | Comments Off on Quantitiative Boot Camp on Access to Justice?

UK Considers Possible Negative Impact on Court Operations of Legal Aid Cuts. Discussion of “Polluter Pays”

Posted on March 5, 2011 by richardzorza

As you may know, UK legal aid is facing massive budget cuts.  Since even the civil system is an entitlement one (in dramatic contrast to the US), the means the new government (Conservative and Liberal Democratic, both took more than a shellacking at a by election last week) are cutting the case eligibility criteria.  This article points out that the approximately $500 million cuts are less harmful than once thought, because of exemptions, including domestic violence and child protection (meaning that for a significant percentage of the population there is still an entitlement to legal aid in DV cases and those where a child may be taken into what is euphemistically called “care”), and asylum (yes really).

But the cuts are still severe.  So Richard Moorhead, blogger at Lawyer Watch, has raised the question of the impact upon court proceedings of depriving litigants of counsel.

My reading of that is that there has been no assessment of the costs that extra litigants in person [what the US calls the self-represented/pro per/ or pro se] will make to the system. Perhaps I am wrong. It is to be hoped the Ministry of Justice is asked to provide its workings. The Minister mentioned an IT system and a process of demystification to render courts capable of coping with litigants in person. Both those things have costs attached to them: what are they? In any event, it is important to emphasise the dubious efficacy of those things alone – Californian courts for instance have varied programmes of support for unrepresented litigants. What is HMCS planning?

Richard Moorhead goes on to discuss the need for a “polluter pays” model.  I.e. that those making bad decisions should be forced to pay for the cost.  This is, of course, part of the justification for the Equal Access to Justice Act, now facing zeroing out in the House budget.  But the theory could be applied in many other ways, including at the state level.  Richard’s comment follows:

The final point which struck me as interesting was the Minister’s response to the idea that the legal aid scheme ends up picking up the cost of problems created by other governmental bodies. The Chairman, Sir Alan Beith, made the telling point that if the government is serious about behavioural change they should introduce stronger ‘polluter pays’ requirements into government budgets. The Minister’s response was to suggest that the Government is doing this through some recoupment of tribunal costs. I’d be interested to learn more about this, but it seemed to me that this was confined to part only of related tribunal costs and I could not see how this related to advice costs. He also only ever spoke of the problems created by the DWP. Is there a broader polluter pays project? What about the UK Border Agency for instance? If the polluter pays principle has been established, why not make it stronger and encourage real behavioural change on the organisation most responsible for driving legal need: the Government? The Minister suggested that polluter pays is simply robbing Peter to pay Paul. There is some truth in that, but only if incentives do not produce behavioural change. Government departments not required to pay for their mistakes have weaker incentives to not make mistakes. If the government is serious about behavioural change it should apply some of the incentives medicine to itself.

Maybe there are some research opportunities in the UK to study the impact of the cuts (there have been some interesting threshold study of the financial impact of cuts in self-represented court services in the US [linked study includes new and closed programs]).  They have a much better research infrastructure there.  Just look at the website for their Legal Services Research Center (and then, US folks, try not to cry with jealousy.)  Closing thought — why do we not learn more in our US access to justice community about this intellectual investment.

Posted in Budget Issues, Funding, Research and Evalation | Tagged | Comments Off on UK Considers Possible Negative Impact on Court Operations of Legal Aid Cuts. Discussion of “Polluter Pays”

Intellectual Property Case About Forms: Montana Supreme Court Commission on Self-Represented Litigants v. Legal Aid Administration, LLC et al

Posted on March 4, 2011 by richardzorza

The Montana Supreme Court Commission on Self-Represented Litigants has sued an organization called “Legal Aid Administration, LLC” (referred to in the extract of the Complaint below as “LAA”.  According to the Complaint, LAA is a limited liability company.)  The case is in the United States District Court for the District of Montana, Missoula Division.  The docket number is CV 11-30-M-DWM.

Here is the complaint. (www.selfhelpsupport.org membership needed.)

Here is some of the key language from the complaint:

8.    The Plaintiff is the copyright owner of the Introduction to Family Law
in Montana (hereinafter “Copyrighted Materials”).  A true and accurate copy of the
Plaintiff s copyright registration for these materials, as issued by the United States
Copyright Office and dated August 31, 2005, is attached hereto at Exhibit “A.”

9. The Plaintiff has labeled the base of each page of its Copyright Materials with a statement providing “© 2007 Montana Supreme Court Commission on Self-Represented Litigants and Montana Legal Services Association. Use of this form is restricted for not-for-profit purposes.”

10.    On or about March 30, 2010, LAA contracted with a citizen and
resident of Montana (hereinafter “Montana Citizen”) in a document entitled
“Service Agreement” (hereinafter “LAA Agreement”).  A copy of the LAA
Agreement with the Montana Citizen, with the name, initials, address, and other
personal information of the Montana Citizen redacted, is attached hereto at Exhibit “B.”

11.    Pursuant to the LAA Agreement, the Montana Citizen was required to pay a total of $389.00 for certain services, which included preparing documents pursuant to the information provided by its client to LAA.

12.   Pursuant to the LAA Agreement with the Montana Citizen, LAA provided to her legal documents substantially similar (if not identical to) the Plaintiff ‘s Copyrighted Materials.

13.    The materials provided by LAA to the Montana Citizen included the statement at the base of each page, with a copyright notice, as described in Paragraph Number 9 above.

14.    LAA’s distribution, sale, and reproduction of the Copyrighted Materials was undertaken without consent from the Plaintiff.

15.    Based on information and belief, LAA has marketed, reproduced, distributed, and sold the Plaintiff s Copyrighted Materials to other parties, currently unknown.

The case seeks damages, injunction relief, attorneys fees and costs.

Additional papers filed in the case may be tracked here, subject to fees  and cautions etc on that site.

For additional information, contact Judy Meadows at the Montana State Law Library.

Posted in Access to Justice Generally | 3 Comments

Pew Study on Relationship of Perception of Community Openness to Civic Satisfaction

Posted on March 3, 2011 by richardzorza

Pew has released a nice study on the relationship of perception of community openness to civic satisfaction.  Press release here.  Study here. Gov20,govfresh blog here.

From the Introduction:

  • Those who think local government does well in sharing information are also more likely to be satisfied with other parts of civic life such as the overall quality of their community and the performance of government and other institutions, as well as the ability of the entire information environment in their community to give them the information that matters.
  • Broadband users are sometimes less satisfied than others with community life . That raises the possibility that upgrades in a local information system might produce more critical, activist citizens.
  • Social media like Facebook and Twitter are emerging as key parts of the civic landscape and mobile connectivity is beginning to affect people’s interactions with civic life . Some 32% of the internet users across the three communities get local news from social networking site; 19% from blogs; 7% from Twitter. And 32% post updates and local news on their social networking sites.
  • If citizens feel empowered, communities get benefits in both directions. Those who believe they can impact their community are more likely to be engaged in civic activities and are more likely to be satisfied with their towns.

The implications for courts are obvious.  As a general matter engagement and satisfaction are inter-related.  This supports the public trust and confidence mantra.  It also should highlight that other government institutions should be willing to maintain financing levels for courts so that they can remain transparent.  At the same time, transparency will ultimately require efficiency.

Here is more on the perhaps counter-intuitive finding on broadband penetration:

Broadband users are sometimes less satisfied than others with community life. That raises the possibility that upgrades in a local information system might produce more critical, activist citizens: Perhaps the most surprising finding in the surveys was that in some circumstances, broadband users are more likely to be critical of elements of their local information ecosystem and less likely to feel that the local information system could produce information they might need.

Information does not always correlate with satisfaction — nor should it.  Think about the impact of the information revolution upon the Middle East.  This is all only just beginning, and all we can do is the best we can to open up our institutions, share information, raise expectations, and do our best to fulfill them.

Posted in Access to Justice Generally, Media, Technology | Tagged , | Comments Off on Pew Study on Relationship of Perception of Community Openness to Civic Satisfaction

Supreme Court Decision on Failure to Meet Administrative Agency Time Limits (VA)

Posted on March 2, 2011 by richardzorza

As many will recall, in 2007, in an opinion that may felt was harsh and unrealistic, the Supreme Court ruled that when a habeas petitioner failed to file within a statutorily required period, even though the court had granted a longer extension, the appeal was untimely.  Bowles v. Russel, 551 U. S. 205 (2007).

Yesterday, the Court, in Henderson v. Sheniki, per Justice Alito,  without of course overruling Bowles in any way, crafted a more flexible rule for determining its future determinations as to whether a particular rule was jurisdictional.  Unlike in the prior case, which might be read to say that all statutory time lines are  jurisdictional, yesterday’s opinion allows for a process of reading legislative intent.  In this case, and perhaps more generally, the fact that this was an administrative agency, intended to be navigated veterans, caused in the Court to treat this as non-jurisdictional.  (The court is not explicit about the likelihood of the absence of counsel, but this is surely implicit in the situation and analysis.)

This portion of the sylabus summarizing the standard itself is useful to read in full.

(a) Branding a procedural rule as going to a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction alters the normal operation of the adversarial system. Federal courts have an independent obligation to ensure that they do not exceed the scope of their subject-matter jurisdiction and thus must raise and decide jurisdictional questions that the parties either overlook or elect not to press. Jurisdictional rules may also cause a waste of judicial resources and may unfairly prejudice litigants, since objections may be raised at any time, even after trial. Because of these drastic consequences, this Court has urged that a rule should not be referred to as jurisdictional unless it governs a court’s adjudicatory capacity, i.e., its subject-matter or personal jurisdiction. E.g., Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick , 559 U. S. ___, ___. Among the rules that should not be described as jurisdictional are “claim-processing rules,” which seek to promote the orderly progress of litigation by requiring parties to take certain procedural steps at specified times. Although filing deadlines are quintessential claim-processing rules, Congress is free to attach jurisdictional consequences to such rules. Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp. , 546 U. S. 500 , applied a “readily administrable bright line” rule to determine whether Congress has done so: There must be a “clear” indication that Congress wanted the rule to be “jurisdictional.” Id., at 515–516. “[C]ontext, including this Court’s interpretation of similar provisions in many years past, is relevant,” Reed Elsevier , supra , at ___, to whether Congress has spoken clearly on this point. Pp. 4–6.

For the future, this case might be cited for the following:

  • Need for flexibility in interpreting administrative agency rules, including those involving time lines.
  • Need for congress (and arguably by extension, state legislatures) to be explicit if it wants a deadline to be jurisdictional and not waivable.
  • Need to take into account, at least in administrative agency situations, who is intended to be helped/served, by agency.

Other readings or ideas?

Posted in Access to Justice Generally, Administative Proecdure, Supreme Court | Comments Off on Supreme Court Decision on Failure to Meet Administrative Agency Time Limits (VA)

My Aunt’s Holocaust Survival and Reunion Memoir now available in English on Amazon

Posted on February 26, 2011 by richardzorza

Some of you may have heard me talk publicly or privately about my amazing Polish aunt, Rut Wermuth Burak (Wikipedia link), who survived the Holocaust, spent 18 years looking for my father, and finally found us in 1994, 53 years after last seeing her brother, my father.

Her deeply moving and inspiring narrative (to me at least), Leap for Life, is now available in English on Amazon.  (The title refers to her jump from the cattle car on the train transporting her and my grand parents to the gas chamber.)  The book has  been published already in Poland and Germany, and indeed, has won the David Ben Gurion prize (link to her acceptance remarks) in Poland, awarded by the town of Plonsk.

Here is my aunt describing the first phone call from her brother, my father, in June 1994:

Through the static and clicking a man’s voice started to come through. He spoke Polish with an accent that still spoke to my heart, the sing-song intonation of the Eastern borderlands.

“Is that Rut Burak speaking?” the voice asked.

I suddenly tensed. That voice? That accent, so similar to my own?

“Speaking, Rut Burak, born Wermuth,” I answered.

To this day I cannot tell you how I knew to answer on that day in that way. I had never before introduced myself with my old and now never-used Jewish name. I never had need or reason.

There was hesitation in the man’s voice. He did not seem to know what to say next, or how to say it.

“Do you know who is calling?” the question came at last.

Of course I did not know. How could I know? But I was getting a little more excited. Recently I had been corresponding with a man who had, long ago, been a school friend of my dead brother. That man’s accent could maybe sound like that.

Is this “Besio? Dov Noy from Israel?” I asked doubtfully.

“No. I am ringing from England.”

Then it hit me. Somehow I knew, before any name was said. I knew no one in England. Who else could expect me to know who he was?

My heart started to pound. For the first and only time in my life my hair really did stand on end.

“SALEK.” I screamed at the receiver.

“Salek, dearest brother, you are alive!”

In those few words there were so many emotions. Joy, overwhelming joy. Inexpressible joy. Love. Wonder. Sadness for what had been lost. But also still a little fear, fear that this voice, both familiar and unfamiliar at the same time, would not be able to confirm my desperate hope.

“Yes, it’s me, my little sister.” The man answered as his voice broke into a heart-rending sob.

The operator came on, worried. “Hello, hello, what’s happened? Are you there? Are you there?”

Yes, I was there, and no, nothing much had happened.

Only that after 53 years a brother and a sister had found each other. He was convinced that she had been killed in the war, and she was sure that the same had happened to him.

No, nothing at all!

(Extract from Leap for Life, Copyright: 2010 Rut Burak)

For me, the timing on this really shows how everything is connected.  I got the e-mail that the book was now available on Amazon while I was finishing up yesterday’s post about Ben Kaplan and the Nuremberg trials.

Here is the cover.

And, here are the two of us, in a photo taken by my wife Joan Zorza, working on the translation (i.e., me cleaning up her English).

Actually we were working on the paragraph describing her sitting in the plane on the way to England for the first time, worrying about whether she would be accepted by the maybe “unemotional” English family.  I think her anxiety on that score has since dissolved!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments Off on My Aunt’s Holocaust Survival and Reunion Memoir now available in English on Amazon