NYT Editorial on Supreme Court Case on Timeliness for the Self-Represented (Veteran)

Posted on December 14, 2010 by richardzorza

Today the NYT has an editorial on the Henderson case pending in the US Supreme Court.  The lower court has applied a facial interpretation of the statute governing certain veterans benefits to find an appeal out of time.  This is particularly harsh because the delay was caused by the very mental illness for which the vet was seeking treatment.  The Times concludes: In this case, the law is clear in setting a deadline. But it’s not a reasonable deadline, and the court can and must conclude that the law and precedent allow veterans like Mr. Henderson leeway. Otherwise, the neediest, most challenged veterans would be the least likely to obtain essential benefits, which is certainly not the purpose of the law, nor the nation.

For a somewhat out of date collection of cases in the state courts, see, Albrecht, Greacen, Hough and Zorza, Judicial Techniques in Cases Involving Self-Represented Litigants, 42 Judges Journal 17 (Winter 2003).

The transcript of the SC hearing is already posted.  The briefs can be found online here. Search for Henderson.

If you know of recent cases dealing with such timeliness issues, please share in the comments.

Posted in Judicial Ethics, Supreme Court | Tagged , | Comments Off on NYT Editorial on Supreme Court Case on Timeliness for the Self-Represented (Veteran)

West Virginia Outlaws Court Document Ghostwriting Unless Name of Lawyer Disclosed — ATJ Board Objects

Posted on December 13, 2010 by richardzorza

In what is probably an exception to the general direction, the West Virginia State Bar Lawyer Disciplinary Board has issued an opinion outlawing ghostwriting in documents that are to be filed in court, unless the name of the helping lawyer is disclosed. (Note: in an earlier version of this post, I did not make clear that all that was forbidden was the lack of disclosure of the help.)

This is the report in the West Virginia Record, a legal publication.

Note that the State Access to Justice Commission took a strong stand against the ruling:  According to the Record article: “The opinion ‘will damage the ability of many low- and middle-income West Virginians to obtain access to justice in West Virginia,’wrote Chairman Robert S. Baker in a June 9 letter to the LDB. He said it ‘places unusually strong limitations on the practice of ghostwriting.'”

ATJ Commission Chair Baker added, according to the Record:
“At a time when the American Bar Association and many state bars have voiced support for ghostwriting, the West Virginia Lawyer Disciplinary Board now seeks effectively to do away with the practice. This will injure both pro se litigants and our courts that serve substantial numbers of pro se litigants.”

Posted in Access to Justice Boards, Unbundling | Tagged | Comments Off on West Virginia Outlaws Court Document Ghostwriting Unless Name of Lawyer Disclosed — ATJ Board Objects

Washington Post Editorial on Professor Tribe leaving DOJ

Posted on December 12, 2010 by richardzorza

On Thursday Dec 9, the Washington Post ran an editorial on Professor Tribe leaving DOJ.

Key Line:

The Obama administration should build on this foundation by appointing another legal heavyweight to push ahead with the formidable challenges that remain.

As in prior coverage, the Post focuses on the criminal law access issues, and almost completely ignores the civil access issues.  Contrast Prof. Tribe’s speech to the Conference of Chief Justices.

Posted in Access to Justice Generally, Media | Tagged | 2 Comments

Introductory Description of This Blog

Posted on December 11, 2010 by richardzorza

This blog is about access to justice, and is designed for those in who in the field to obtain and discuss new ideas.  We define access to justice broadly to include innovations in courts, the bar, legal aid and community that make it easier for people to obtain access to justice institutions, and to just results within those institutions.  The blog may also contain material from unrelated fields that is thought relevant to our work in this area.

Opinions are those of the authors, and not necessarily of those of the organizations with which they may be associated.

Posted in Access to Justice Generally, Media, This Blog | Comments Off on Introductory Description of This Blog