Project Gets Pro Bono Award for Website with Full Records of Actual Innocnce Cases

Posted on February 14, 2011 by richardzorza

The law firm of Winston & Strawn recently got the Law Technology News (LTN) Award for the Most Innovative Use of Technology in a Pro Bono Project. for its web project, InnocencRecord.org, which works with the Innocence Project to post files of exoneration cases, including transcripts.   The goal to provide resources to help figure out why erroneous convictions occur by making public the entire record of cases in which actual innocence has later been shown.

The firm estimates that there are 20,000 pro bono hours invested in the project.

Here is a video of an attorney from the firm describing the project.

It is a nice example of preventive rather than reactive use of law technology.  Can we think of more?

Posted in Pro Bono, Research and Evalation, Science, Technology | Tagged , | Comments Off on Project Gets Pro Bono Award for Website with Full Records of Actual Innocnce Cases

Whose Fault When Something Goes Wrong — Blaming the User/Litigant is the Road to Stasis

Posted on February 12, 2011 by richardzorza

When something goes wrong, there’s a strong instinct to blame the litigant, the client, the website user.  A recent example is this CNN story on unintended acceleration. (Its written in term of being the drivers fault).

An old friend once told me the story from almost two hundred years ago, when railroads were still new.  Apparently, head on collisions were categorized by railroads as “operator error” or “system error.”  There were lots of operator errors — the train operator going through the stop signal.

Then someone had the bright idea that having two tracks instead of one — one in each direction.  The result — many fewer “operator errors.”

The moral is obvious.  The only way you are going to get improvements is to assume that the error is “system error” and figure out how to change the system to prevent the error.

And sure enough, CNN does report ideas and attempts to do just that with unintended acceleration.

So please, whatever goes wrong, ask yourself how you can change the overall system so that even when people tend to make mistakes, the system prevents them doing harm.  Or put anther way, treat every bad outcome as a product of system error, and think about the design change that will prevent it.  That’s why air travel is so safe.  That’s been the philosophy of the system.

Comments?  How does this apply to the court context?

Posted in Research and Evalation, Technology | Comments Off on Whose Fault When Something Goes Wrong — Blaming the User/Litigant is the Road to Stasis

New Mexico Legislative Analysis of Benefits of E-Filing

Posted on February 11, 2011 by richardzorza

There is pending in the New Mexico legislature a proposal that would have the effect of shutting down e-filing.

A state legislative analyst concludes in this analysis that a shutdown would have negative financial impacts.

Some points made:

  • Courts that have deployed systems are handling more cases with lower total budgets.  That is not the case with other courts
  • Attorneys are likely to reap savings
  • There are less errors
  • There is back-up of data.

Interestingly, however, most of the arguments depend on parallel modernization of the case management and document management systems.

The analysis is obviously particularly powerful, coming as it does from a legislative analyst, rather than an interested agency.

Bottom line conclusions:

  • “Elimination of e-filing, particularly after investing significant resources over several years, would be inefficient, wasteful, and would shackle courts to antiquated paper processes for years to come.” (page 3)
  • “Elimination of court e-filing in New Mexico will significantly reduce potential automation performance gains through elimination of wasteful, burdensome manual processes through automation.” (page 4)
  • “According to the AOC, the elimination of court e-filing, after so much has been invested, may discourage other New Mexico State agencies from implementing technical programs that will provide enhanced services and efficiencies to constituents by greatly increasing the risk of possible program failure as a result of legislation.” (page 4)

This document may well be useful to show those in other states engaged in fiscal analysis of electronic filing and court system upgrades.

Posted in Technology | Tagged , | Comments Off on New Mexico Legislative Analysis of Benefits of E-Filing

LSC TIG Request for Letters of Intent

Posted on February 10, 2011 by richardzorza

The LSC TIG request for Letters of Intent is now out.  The Letters of Intent (LOI) are due Monday March 7, 2011.  This Wed Feb 16 webinar (update — now available here) on the process would be particularly helpful for those programs that have not previously participated in the process — who should be encouraged to do so this year — there are replication and website enhancement categories that might be particularly relevant for this group.  It is my impression that LSC has always wanted to get broad coverage and program participation.

I will not summarize the solicitation, but do want to draw attention to some new opportunities this year.  As always, LSC places great value on cooperation with courts, bar, community, and other groups, and this cooperation can include payment of project costs borne by partners where appropriate.  As always, there is an “open” category, so nothing is excluded, provided it relates to technology.  All in all, as you will see, it is a highly innovative Solicitation, and the TIG team and the Corporation are to be congratulated on their creatively in a not-always easy time. Continue reading →

Posted in Document Assembly, Forms, Funding, Law Schools, LEP, Libraries, Mobile Technology, Pro Bono, Self-Help Services, Technology | Tagged , | Comments Off on LSC TIG Request for Letters of Intent

Stabilizing IOLTA Funding — Long Term Strategy

Posted on February 9, 2011 by richardzorza

Bloomberg and others are reporting on administration proposals to reduce the burden on the states of the huge accumulated UI debt to the feds that many states are now carrying.

This set me thinking about how one long term strategy for stabilize IOLTA funding would be to develop a federal government program that would give a grant calculated as small percentage of federal UI loans to the state IOLTA programs.  The point is that this would be super-counter cyclical, triggering only when a state was in a very bad economic situation.

This is obviously only one example of such a counter-cyclical transfer, and perhaps the best.  But the point is that we need to think of ways of making sure that more money comes to access to justice when it is most needed — rather than the reverse, which is, of course, now the situation with current IOLTA funding.

Another such strategy would be to focus on filing fees in areas that are counter-cyclical, like foreclosure, eviction, consumer credit collection.

Ideas?  Thoughts for political strategy?

Posted in Access to Justice Generally, Funding, IOLTA, Systematic Change | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Outreach Tool for Earned Income Tax Credit Program to Libraries. Why Not More Such Direct Service and Outreach?

Posted on February 8, 2011 by richardzorza

Everyone on this list should know about the Legal Aid Society of Orange County program to help people file for the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Total refunds this year already over $72,000,000.  This must be the most cost-effective use of LSC dollars for getting money to low income folks who are entitled to it.

Its a good moment to look at their Library Partner site, designed to help libraries provide access to this service.

If only we had more of this kind of national service delivery and partner outreach in the access to justice world!  How about health benefits, bankruptcy and immigration (as appropriate)?  How about health centers, community centers, faith-based organizations, etc., as outreach partners?

And a shoutout to the libraries.  We need you.

Posted in Access to Justice Generally | 1 Comment

Great Partnering — MassLegalHelp and Law Libraries — Ask a Law Librarian

Posted on February 7, 2011 by richardzorza

Thanks to great partnering with MassLegalHelp, Mass folks can get legal information answers from law libraries by online chat during library hours.

There are lots of resources on library partnerships in the Public Library folder of selfhelpsupport.org.  This includes ethics training on what librarians can do in terms of answering questions.

Also a draft model Agenda for Public Libraries and Access to Justice.

Posted in Access to Justice Generally | 2 Comments

Idea: Jointly-Sponsored Justice System Efficiency and Accessability Awards

Posted on February 7, 2011 by richardzorza

Here is an idea:  We should establish jointly sponsored awards for innovations that increase both efficiency and accessibility in the justice system.

To win an award, you would have to demonstrate that a) the innovation saves money, and b) that is increases access.

We could have two kinds of awards, one for an idea not yet deployed, and one for ideas already deployed and meeting the awards goals.

Innovations in courts, the bar, and legal aid, would be eligible — maybe national groups in these three areas might co-sponsor the awards.  The three kinds of organization getting behind an innovation would send a powerful message, and would encourage cooperation at the national, state and local level in facilitating adoption.

I would hope that such awards would encourage people to look at cost savings and access improvements together — and frankly, innovations that produce both are the only kind that are going to get broadly deployed in the current environment.

After a period of time, a list of such award winning innovations, that met the criteria, might become Best Practices that would be more formally encouraged by funders.

Of course there are already lots of awards in the justice system, but none of the them are focused on the broad integrated goals of accessibility and efficiency, or have have kind of co-sponsorship suggested here.  Moreover, most are made to individuals rather than ideas or innovations.  Compare the more general National Association for Court Management Justice System Awards (innovations), the many highly focused ABA awards, the more legal aid/public defender oriented NLADA Awards, and the more general NCSC-administered Rehnquist Awards, all mainly for individuals or organizations.

Readers are invited to suggest how a system of such awards might work — and even particular innovations that might quality for an award.   And, please spread this idea around to those who might be supportive.

Posted in Access to Justice Generally, Systematic Change | Tagged | 1 Comment

LSC to Invite Letters of Intent for TIG Grants This Coming Week of Feb 7 — Likely Due in about a Few Weeks — Some Ideas

Posted on February 5, 2011 by richardzorza

LSC has posted to LS-Tech that it plans to announce its invitation to submit letters of intent (LOI) for TIG Grants this coming week (i.e the week of Feb 7).  Last year the LOI phase was open for four weeks.

For courts, and other potential partners, the thing to remember is that while grants can only be made to existing field program grantees of LSC, the funder is very open to projects that include extensive partnerships with access to justice partners, including courts, and including payments to those partners for appropriate participation.  You are strongly urged to contact local legal aid programs about any potential such projects.  To get a sense of the possibilities, see the Report of all 2009 cycle grants.

Here are some ideas that LSC grantees and potential partners might consider:

  • Self-Represented bankruptcy, foreclosure, and consumer credit online tools, including online court pleading document assembly.
  • Online intake and referral systems.
  • Programs to ensure that court e-filing systems are open to the self-represented.
  • Programs that help people figure out what they can do on their own, and what they need help with in their cases.
  • Technology focused on those with LEP issues, including multi-lingual website and document assembly capacity.

These are just a few of the many possible approaches — the best idea is the one that no one else has thought of.

See my prior blog post on the digital courtroom idea.

See also a more general post on future ideas including Mobile, Broadband, Data Mining, etc.

Posted in Document Assembly, Funding, Technology | Comments Off on LSC to Invite Letters of Intent for TIG Grants This Coming Week of Feb 7 — Likely Due in about a Few Weeks — Some Ideas

Model Revised State APA Fails to Recognize Needs of the Self-Represented — ABA Response Being Debated

Posted on February 4, 2011 by richardzorza

Some of you may have been following the somewhat surprising story of the Model Revised State Administrative Procedure Act approved in late 2010 by the Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.

That enactment, meant as a model for the states, fails to recognize the right of self-representation (although an earlier draft had done so), includes no recommendations or requirements as to how judges should make sure that the self-represented are heard, and, perhaps most seriously from the point of view of the administrative law judiciary, fails to recognize the need for institutional independence of administrative judges. Continue reading →

Posted in Access to Justice Generally, Administative Proecdure, Judicial Ethics | Comments Off on Model Revised State APA Fails to Recognize Needs of the Self-Represented — ABA Response Being Debated

SC ATJ Commission Self-Help Center Strategy — Low Cost Pilot and Guidelines

Posted on February 4, 2011 by richardzorza

The SC Access to Justice Commission has announced the approval by the Supreme Court of its soon-to-open pilot self-help center.

I’d particularly draw attention to the strategy of having the pilot be a project of the Commission.  This helps bring in all the stakeholders and provides a platform for replication based on the experience of the pilot.  It also helps position the Commission long-term as the home of a variety of concrete initiatives across the continuum of services.

Particularly important here are the Guidelines for the Operation of Self-Help Centers in the South Carolina Courts, also formally approved by the Supreme Court. These Guidelines, which I understand from Commission staffer Robin Wheeler drew significantly from the California Guidelines, are well thought out, deal very well with issues of neutrality and integration with court management, and lay the groundwork for expansion when the time comes.  I would encourage any states that are considering opening centers, or have opened centers but do not have such guidelines, to think about whether such Guidelines might be helpful to you.

SC is also timely in its low cost approach.   Services are to be provided volunteer lawyers, and lots of partnering is to go on.

Posted in Legal Ethics, Self-Help Services | Tagged | Comments Off on SC ATJ Commission Self-Help Center Strategy — Low Cost Pilot and Guidelines

NYT Highlights Self-Represented in Foreclosures — Also Some Resources

Posted on February 3, 2011 by richardzorza

Front page of business section of today’s NYT:  Foreclosed Homeowners Go to Court on Their Own.  An important article that folks can use to advocate for a wide variety of services and programs.  Read it yourselves, but here are some highlights: Continue reading →

Posted in Foreclosure, Self-Help Services | Comments Off on NYT Highlights Self-Represented in Foreclosures — Also Some Resources

Two Year Law Degree — UK Experiment and Questions for US Legal Education

Posted on February 2, 2011 by richardzorza

Richard Moorhead, in his LawyerWatch blog discusses the new UK two year law degree offered by the College of Law, which was originally founded by the law society (bar association).  Most of the UK discussion seems to be about the practicability (annual cost of about $15K for these two years without, after this year, government loans, and no time to work.)

As I understand it, this degree would be earned after the equivalent of high school, meaning you could get to practice with two years of this education after high school, plus a year for a professional degree, plus a year or two of practice, for a total of four of five years, compared with the seven years in the US.  However that four or five year total includes at least one year of supervised practice (clerkship) — which of course is not required in the US..

Without getting into all the details, it really does raise the question whether we need the full three years of law school after college, and what the cost of all that time does to the price of legal services, particularly for middle income communities, given the loan burdens that accumulate for most students.

If we do keep a three year program, shouldn’t people graduate law school knowing far more than they do about how to actually service clients.  See my prior blog on the transition from law school to middle income practice.  See also the fascinating and suggestive history of Harvard’s Legal Services Center, originally set up as a third year of intensive legal aid clinical practice and learning.  It was a great program that lasted only one year two years!  At the time it was thought that the model of an intense clinical year might be adapted to legal education for other kinds of practice, including even corporate.  Those ideas have really been lost and legal education innovation feels to me to have stagnated.

Posted in Law Schools | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

LSC Board Hears Briefing on Technology and Innovation

Posted on February 1, 2011 by richardzorza

Last Thursday, I was part of a group that briefed the LSC Board on Technology and Innovation at an open briefing prior to its formal meeting later in the week.  Incoming LSC President Jim Sandman was present, as were four members of the staff of the new Access to Justice Initiative of the Department of Justice.  Board Chair John Levi made a point of having those individuals identify themselves, and welcoming them warmly to the briefing.

The full panel was a follows:

  • Scott Bravi, Chief Information Officer, Arnold and Porter
  • Bonnie Hough, Managing Attorney, California Administrative Office of the Courts
  • Mark O’Brien, Executive Director, Pro Bono Net
  • Alison Paul, Executive Director, Montana Legal Services Association
  • Richard Zorza, Consultant

Here is the outline of the briefing:

I.          Brief Introduction

II.        Overview and Themes

III.       History and Status of Legal Aid Technology Innovation

IV.       Court Perspectives

V.        Private Sector Perspectives

VI.       Some Options for Next Steps in Technology Innovation

VII       Broader Innovation Thoughts

Those of us on the panel were struck by the engagement and enthusiasm of the Board and new President Jim Sandman.

In particular we were struck by comments from individual Board members that seemed strongly responsive to the following themes:

  • The power of technology to increase access to justice, both through increasing efficiency and providing new generation direct access tools,
  • The importance of using innovations to support self-help so that advocate resources could be focused on those cases in which it was most required,
  • The value of collaboration with the courts, the bar and federal agencies in order to enhance such innovations,
  • The potential of engaging the technology industry as a partner in these innovations,
  • The role that LSC could play as a convener with these groups, including through a possible second Summit on Technology and Access to Justice (LSC organized the first such Summit in 1998, and it is generally regarded as having been the foundation for the creation of the TIG program and for the establishment of initial collaborative relationships with the courts.)
  • The critical role of research and the establishment of a scholarly structure to support our understanding of how to provide access to justice.

Almost all of the Board members present not only participated, but made concrete suggestions.  All in all, we were greatly encouraged, not just by the responsiveness to ideas about technology and innovation, but by seeing such an engaged, committed, and focused and responsive Board thinking about developing a strategy and approach.   All very good news indeed for LSC, for access to justice, and for the collaborations that can make it possible.

For a link to the PPT of the presentation, click here.  (Note: this is on www. selfhelpsupport.org, a free membership site.)

Posted in Funding, Legal Aid, Technology | Tagged | Comments Off on LSC Board Hears Briefing on Technology and Innovation

Interesting LEP DV and Access to Justice Opportunity

Posted on January 31, 2011 by richardzorza

The Violence Against Women Grants Program has a solicitation out for grants to existing LEP programs. This might, it seems to me, be used to fund programs in which such services were provided in courts and self-help programs. Due date for letter of intent is March 1. Solicitation here.

 

Posted in Access to Justice Generally | Comments Off on Interesting LEP DV and Access to Justice Opportunity