JUSTICE ACTION GROUP

STATEWIDE PLANNING RETREAT

 Group Discussion

Group 1, Reducing the Need for Crisis Intervention

v      Courts can’t process crisis motions efficiently.   (Clients often wait for weeks) (the courts are overburdened)

v      PFA system is being asked to perform tasks it was not designed for

v      Lack of transportation over long distances impeded intervention

v      Intervention may occur trough the unauthorized practice of law, b/c of the lack of resources

v      Crisis intervention can happen in other areas, to reduce its need in the courts (interdisciplinary work is helpful, but may create ethical conflicts)

v      Integrated services in courthouses

v      Attorneys are often necessary to facilitate access (they must be present w/clients)

v      Courts’ interventions should be structured so as not to create new crisis

v      Community advocacy agencies need access to legal assistance before crisis escalates

 GOALS

Ø      A.  Look at the client as a whole & assess most basic needs

Ø      Provide a day in court where there’s a judge available (e.g. every Tuesday)

Ø      A.  Educate lawyers & everyone/service providers to identify problems & be aware of the resources available

Ø      Create a unified view of the role of the courts

Ø      Provide sufficient funding

Ø      Convince the public that poop people have value & must be provided access to justice

Ø      Provide intervention prior to the crisis

Ø      Address the mechanisms that create poverty & lack of access to health care, etc. (fundamental economic change)

Ø      Help clients develop tools to avoid recurrence of the same crisis

Ø      A.  Educate the public about the existing resources;  demystify the process;  seamless web of resources

Ø      Be realistic about the court’s ability to be accessible w/o an advocate

Ø      Create a more integrated court system;  e.g. provide case mgn’t officers in the courts;  make sure the judge has all relevant information (about outstanding orders, to avoid any conflict)

Ø      Consider the court’s role (legal problem-solver, or social problem-solver); courts must commit to serving their charge

Ø      A.  Broaden the focus from one event to the whole picture

Ø      Attorneys should be available and active in their communities

 Group 2A, Consumer Friendly System

 Goals

Ø      Broader definition – understanding of effect of Judicial decisions

Ø      Address what happens in courtroom – Bias

Ø      Initial direction of options to address situation

Ø      Address consumer fear – media

Ø      Funding affects how consumer friendly:  staffing/courtrooms/security

Ø      Legal system is much broader than courts

Ø      Information access – crucial to overcoming fear & powerlessness

Ø      Lost “majesty of the process”   Perception of Justice; Intimidated by system

Ø      Identify what is working well & encourage & expand

Ø      Reduce the need for legal services – address root causes

Ø      Clarity of & connection w/entry points to facilitate access

Ø      Recognize people receive info differently & provide access of info in various ways

Ø      Civic Education – normalize

Ø      Access to courtrooms & legislature – encourage participation

Ø      Problem:  Legal services are not valued – by funding

Ø      Civic engagement & cross-system pollenization – respect in civic engagement

Ø      Making services linguistically accessible & culturally sensitive

Ø      Consumer Expectations – understanding of

Ø      Component of individual responsibility

Ø      “Triage in the sky” to funnel people

Ø      Re-define role of courts in Society

Group 2B, Consumer Friendly System

 Goals/notes

 Ø      Need for communication – theme throughout discussion – between lawyers, resources, providers &        consumers

Ø      Institutions should work for benefit of individuals

Ø      Judiciary needs to work as part of society in addressing needs

Ø      Maine citizens assume there are enough resources/abilities [illegible] (until they have to interact w/system

Ø      Improve range & quality of pro se materials

Ø      Look also at Federal level (as part of looking systemically)

Ø      Utilize non-lawyers who may be more helpful & affordable

Ø      Maintain commitment to civility & ethics w/in this wide community

Ø      Appreciation of high level of dialogue taking place

Ø      Recognition that issues are bigger/broader than legal system

Ø      Move legal system back to place of respect.  Court system can be an example to community

Ø      Think about who can best provide the services & who should be doing this

Ø      Top ® down & bottom ® up approaches

 Ø      Think about what can be done locally

Ø      Multi-disciplinary approach

Ø      Education & funding – court appointed services restricted by lack of funds

Ø      Consumer friendly = treated respectfully, quickly & opportunity to be listened  to

Ø      Perception – need to improve perception of Justice

Ø      Can/should any one aspect of system be all things?

Ø      More resources toward education

Ø      Involve lawyers in education process with young people

Ø      Restore decorum

Ø      Systemic issues – think holistically

Ø      Many different ways to access Justice

Group 3, Promoting Innovation

 General

v      Innovation = what you do when you don’t have $

v      Challenging – wealth of ideas – no $ to implement

v      Legal issues that make it to courts does [sic]  not represent all issues people face – don’t get stuck in that box

v      Being proactive in trying to remedy issues instead of waiting for them to come up

v      Onus not just on the system – also on individuals to take responsibility for how things move forward

v      Collaboration & personal responsibility outside the system

v      Multi-disciplinary approach – interfacing of court system with community providers

v      “Preventive Lawyering”

v      Public outreach

v      Develop strategies to reduce the burden on the courts

v      GA – compliance with the law

v      * Strategy how to accomplish this, e.g. Kids Legal – problem-solving via use of the law (lawyers in hospitals)

v      Cmty education

v      Simple things can help break down intimidation factor for consumers

v      Use of technology, e.g. online forms, basic information to help frame issue & process

v      Technology caution – double-edged sword; assume we are educating everyone, not a substitute for a brief conversation with advocate

 GOALS:  What accomplish/change?

[Note on margin of sheet:  don’t lose sight of the larger goals in developing “patchwork” solutions]

Ø      *Be cautious in how technology is used to educate public & provide information (esp. pro se) tech. Not appropriate/available for all

Ø      *First Responders & social workers need to be a primary target of education efforts.

Ø      Engage other disciplines   Encourage networking among typically combatant parties  Cmty outreach ® where people access information – purposeful strategy & appropriate methods – de-mystify the law

Ø      Advocates – how do we define them?  How do we [sic]

Ø      *First state to adopt Civil Gideon, right to counsel at states expense if can’t afford and the case involves a fundamental civil issue (safety, family, home)

Ø      Every child has an Advocate

Ø      Currently tow systems of justice – for the wealthy & for the indigent

Ø      *Create a system that allows people to get to dispute resolution quickly –file a complaint & get to trial ® inexpensive access to justice in intermediate value cases

Ø      *A legal community that proactively connects back to the community (formally or informally)

Ø      Impact of cultural diversity on legal system (e.g. jury pools)

Ø      *Draw diverse communities into the system in positive way – training/peer educators create capacity within these communities rapport -- building cultures – build familiarity & trust

Ø      *Taking justice out t people in their environment (e.g. LSE Legal Clinics at health centers)

Ø      Generational issues to consider in developing innovations

Ø      *Access/involvement while laws are being created

Ø      *Connect cmty better to the legislature

Ø      *Build trust & confidence in the system

Group 4, Pro Se

GOALS

Ø      Need to minimize people proceeding pro se with inadequate training

Ø      Minimize proceedings that are based on expectation of representation

Ø      Make all ME citizens aware of legal info that is available

Ø      Educate people who need a lawyer not to try pro se – make informed choice

Ø      Make it possible for non-lawyers to provide advice in some appropriate areas

Ø      Clarify when legal info is not advice

Ø      Identify what need is:  areas where pro se is/is not approp.; extent of people going pro se & level of success = figure out how to fix [illegible word] & quantify cost of meeting it

Ø      Remove language barriers for pro se

Ø      Promote unbundled legal services

Ø      Rt to counsel in certain matters;  educate judiciary & legislature; establish right (pay for it)

Ø      Expand capacity to solve underlying economic problem so representation is not necessary

Ø      Expand capacity to enforce judgments pro se

Ø      Build knowledge base around problem & measure progress

Ø      Provide multiple strategies

Ø      Avoid 2 tier system

Group 5A, Making Institutional Changes to Enhance Access to Justice

GOALS

 Ø      Making terminology understandable to the public

Ø      Basic civic education

Ø      Maximizing awareness a way in which your problem can be addressed & where you can go for help

Ø      Access to middle class

Ø      Access info about other services, i.e. social services to address problems that touch legal problem but cannot be addressed by the legal system

Ø      Early crisis intervention in the lives of young people to avoid of lifetime [sic] of social problem

Ø      Transformation of Legislature’s mindset

Ø      More consumer involvement in Legislature, i.e. testifying & lobbying

Ø      Timeliness

Ø      Respect for judiciary

Ø      100% participation by lawyers

Ø      Under-represented or culturally isolated sustained outreach

Group 5B, Making Institutional Changes to Enhance Access to Justice

 QUESTIONS

v      What are institutional barriers?

ISSUE

v      Inequities in (access to justice) justice:  poverty, language, cost of attnys, salaries of legal svcs attnys vs. private bar, no $ for appeals

v      Potential for case law being developed on decision fm [sic] pro se cases w/o legal arguments

v      Procedural problems:  filing, service of process on parties

v      Relief when parties have PTLA/VLP/service reps

 GOALS

Ø      Pro bono requirements

Ø      Assure representation * Representation for all litigants/parties

Ø      ­ access to rep

Ø      Can’t force someone to do pro bono work w/vigor.  Forced p. bono can equal poor representation; ethical mandates?

Ø      Being valued/respect:  attnys – treated poorly;  clients/litigants – treated poorly, -- judiciary, -- agency reps;  expectations are too high

Ø      Barriers (remove them):  cultural differences, poverty.  What do they mean?  Institutionalized values/victimization of people, our attitudes towards people, change should be on a lot of different levels

Ø      Representation for all parties at all levels of a matter, advocate or attorney

Ø      Develop non-=adversarial solutions

Ø      Strategy:  mandated trainings, go train @ law schools, etc.

disability, diversity

Group 6, Sustaining and Assuring Quality

v      Not just “reasonable” expectations

v      Toughest of all groups

v      Difficult to measure

v      Must start w/measurements that aren’t just subjective

v      Characteristics of quality:

·         Providing services needed/requested

·         Well-trained staff to deal w/all clients

·         Unhurried focus on your problem regardless of $ or no $

·         Timeliness of response to request for help (some clients expect immediate response)

·         Importance of ongoing communication w/client about case

·         Knowledge of legal provider

·         Be efficient so you can focus on quality

·         Advise of alternatives to lawsuit

·         Same level of service whether $ or no $

·         Assuring privacy & respect for legal service clients in a comfortable surrounding

v      Do low salaries, bad working conditions contribute to a different level of service (implicit/explicit messages about work) for clients w/out $

v      Is it a stigmatized service?

GOALS

 Ø      Serve more or serve better?

Ø      What draws atty’s to work in legal services?  Same passion but w/out the $ incentive;  look at salaries & see how they are doing

Ø      Also need to look at pro bono service & quality there

Ø      How do you know whether high cost lawyering was high quality?  Always 50% lose

Ø      Research project:  We should look at outcomes of case & see if outcome was different based on socio-economic, pro bono, legal aid, private bar

Ø      Need agreed standards of quality

Ø      Need also to look at racial/ethical/language of providers – if same as client, will feel better

Ø      Another measure of quality:  may not have resources for discovery;  disorganized presentation

Ø      No “court watch” projects in ME but used to have

Ø      Should outcome be same whether lawyer or not?

Ø      Process outcome is as important as actual outcome

Ø      Timeliness where interpreters are needed is problem, as is lack of quality controls for spoken interp.

Ø      Not sure how “competition in legal services” impacts on this, except via $ allocations.  Not a basis for $ decisions at MBF

Ø      Funder role in measuring q (MBF approach): provider reports; site visits are very * to assess quality

Group 7, Sustaining and Promoting Leadership for Justice

REACTIONS TO PLENARY SESSION

v      Issue of diversity – does legal system reflect changing face of ME. Impt to make sure leadership   reflects that diversity esp. because leaders speak for community.

v      Public doesn’t know how to get access

v      People have legal problem, but not only legal problems.  People don’t know how to access additional support.  Integrated support needed

v      Not good access for those from different cultures, different languages.  But not just language.  Cultural, religious barriers are major issues.   Lots of good there, but needs building on

v      Success begets education on availability of services

v      Education of legal community, consumers all impt. & will lead to dvpt. Of leadership on issues

v      Very impt. to educate students.  Get understanding of system & obligation to it from beginning.  We assume knowledge that doesn’t exist

v      Impt. To educate about legal system but also about “non-legal” social issues, i.e. landlord-tenant relationship/obligations

v      Not just resolving disputes but solving problems impt. To develop institutional relationships that will help solve problems before get to court.  How lawyers fit into broader solution to problem?

v      Developing good laws/policy builds leadership & helps build inter-institutional relationships

v      Cost of education/salaries prohibitive in encouraging new attorneys to enter field

v      Also lack of recognition of importance of legal services in legal education.  Bent is more how ­ property for those who already have it.  CLAC does a terrific job, but it’s not enough

v      Law school trying to integrate social & economic justice issues into all classes, curricula

v      ®Get institutions to be civic-minded & share our vision

v      ® Focus leadership development opportunities on skill-building – communication, conflict resolution

v      ® Consumer involvement on boards. PTLA does it

v      ® Encourage leadership development of non-attorneys/consumers – need to enable it – need someone to identify/recognize potential

v      Big price to not making it work, though there are challenges

v      ® Legal community leadership development important, particularly among new attorneys

v      ® Judicial system is portal for problem solving. But doesn’t have resources to do that

GOALS

Ø      Intersection b/t civil & economic justice.  How build connections?

Ø      Promote civic-mindfulness to grow resultant leadership

Ø      Incenticize & reward people to see what real legal service issues are while are still students & new lawyers involved, so continues to be part of work as move on

Ø      Leadership must reflect diversity of populations.  Otherwise, wont’ cultivate future leadership either

Ø      Non-legal community should be leaders too:  religious, civic, gov’t

Ø      Need to mitigate impediments to participating in such opportunities, i.e. cost of transport, child care, time

Ø      Prevention.  Educate immigrants or others in need about legal system before have issues.   Cross-cultural

Ø      Keep access to justice a primary issue.  Helps put focus on this branch

Ø      Application of justice has to overcome inherent religious & cultural biases in our society

Back to JAG Statewide Planning Retreat Related Materials - Work Group Goals