November 14, 2006

To:  JAG Work Group Members

From Colleen Khoury

Re:  Update on Planning Process

             I am writing today to say thank you for your involvement in the JAG Planning Process and to give you some highlights and share what has been happening outside of your particular work group.  I hope that this will provide you with some context for the attached Issues/Strategies summary.

             As you know, the planning effort is being undertaken by six workgroups focusing on six broad issue areas that emerged from the March retreat.  We invited over 125 individuals to participate in the process and I am pleased to report that almost all of those invited are actively participating in one or more groups.  The level of enthusiasm is high.  Attendance at the meetings, in person or by videoconference or teleconference, has been excellent so far.  One of our goals at the outset was to involve people from all areas of the State and from outside, as well as inside, the legal community.  I am delighted to report that, despite the perceived obstacles, we have managed to sustain the diversity of the participants in the process; and you all have shown great dedication and commitment to making it a success. 

             This is not to say that there have not been challenges along the way.  As many of you have experienced, there has been some adjustment to holding meetings by videoconference, both technological and psychological.  (Looking at folks at another location framed in a little box takes some getting used to, at least for some of us!)  But, the technology has been a tremendous boon and has allowed many more people to participate than would have been possible otherwise.  I want to take this opportunity once again to thank Nan Heald and Pine Tree Legal Assistance and MSBA for the generous donation of their videoconferencing technology to the planning process.  Without it, we could not achieve our goal of wide geographical participation. 

            All of the work groups met in May/June and set tasks for work/brainstorming to be done over the summer.  Since Labor Day, the work groups have met several times -- at least monthly -- and a number have broken into smaller groups to work directly on specific issues and strategies.  The staffing provided by the legal services providers and MSBA has been invaluable in helping the process to run more smoothly.  Sally Sutton and I (mostly Sally because of my class schedule) have tried to attend all the work group meetings to foster communication and coordination between and among the groups.

            The Steering Committee, currently consisting of the work group Chairs and Vice Chairs, has met twice, once in May and again in September.  We could not have asked for a more dedicated and knowledgeable group to lead this effort.  They are committed to the success of the planning process and are forging themselves into a team to lead us through the coming year.  The Steering Committee has already identified and discussed overlaps among the work groups as well as gaps that one or more of the groups should address.  We have revised the planning timetable a bit, with interim reports from the work groups due in January and the final report due to JAG in June.  Sally and I continue to think about and plan for broader stakeholder involvement as we move through the process.

            Since their first meetings in late spring, the work groups have been working to evaluate and winnow, from among the broad array of potential strategies that emerged from the March retreat, the issues and strategies they will focus on over the coming year.  For some groups, this was a relatively straightforward task.  For others, it was a challenging exercise because there were so many important issue areas and the natural instinct was to try to do it all.  Each group has had to make hard choices, but they have tried to focus on those issues and strategies that will have the broadest impact.  Attached is a summary of the initial Issues/Strategies list on which each of the groups is now working.  I think it is an impressive array and will stand us in good stead going forward. 

            Please do not hesitate to contact me or Sally Sutton with any comments or questions about any of the Issues/Strategies list or the process in general.  Thanks also to each of you for your involvement and your support.

With all best wishes,

 Colleen Khoury
 780-4520
ckhoury@usm.maine.edu
www.mbf.org/justice.htm

JAG Statewide Planning Issues/Strategies – 10-11-06 Draft 2

Work Group 1 – Reducing the Need for Crisis Intervention –The group decided that it would be more effective to focus on one issue, with many strands, rather than do more superficial work on a host of issues.  The goal is to develop a strategic model that would be applicable to other broad issues in the area of crisis intervention, e.g. predatory lending, children’s issues.

Using the following criteria, the group decided to focus on the broad issue of homelessness.

Criteria for Identifying an Issue

- Issue lends itself to upstream intervention to avoid later engagement with legal system and legal service providers- Issue area is one that the legal system (courts, legal service providers, others) spend a lot of staff time on, particularly crisis related

- Issue is a priority for both legal and social service providers

- There are existing coalitions working on the issue that can be built on

- There is passion/energy around addressing the issue

- The size of the issue – it is something for which the work group can identify suggested strategies and short term outcomes

- Likelihood of demonstrable (measure/evaluate) success in the near future

- Sustainability

- Replicability (Although different issues may require their own strategies)

Work Group #1 will now use the Road Map outlined below to study the issue and develop strategies to address the issue selected.

The group also recognized the need to recommend to JAG a process/structure/approach for continuing work in the area of crisis intervention and to provide a model and culture for ongoing collaboration, beyond the work done on the initial issue of homelessness.

Road Map

- Decide who should be at the table
- Create initial steps  
- Develop strategies  
- Fine tune strategies, recommendations, outcomes  
- Give input into the report

Work Group 2A – Assuring a Consumer Friendly System – This group is looking at 4 different areas:

- Intake Web-based Issues  
- Plain Language Forms  
- Training/Education and Training Bias/Impediments
- Education on so Many Levels

Work Group 2B – Assisting Self-Represented Litigants – This group is focusing on court based ideas and is interested in pursuing a court based triage concept on a more in-depth basis and they will likely be proposing a pilot project to be put in place at both a rural and urban (busy courthouse) setting.  The model will likely be physically located in or next to the courthouse, but it will be made clear to consumers that those providing assistance are not court personnel or under the court’s supervision. 

Work Group 3 - Utilizing Lawyers to Enhance Justice –This group has developed consensus on 3 areas on which it would like to move forward:

1) Civil Gideon – should there be a judicially recognized right to counsel or should this be done legislatively?  

2) Advertising/technology/education for the public to get them to connect to lawyers – removing the barriers and helping people understand when they need a lawyer

3) Education and development of incentives to provide pro bono or reduced fee services.

Work Group 4 – Expanding Resources – This group is in the process of surveying a number of different fundraising approaches and will soon focus their attention on a more limited number and that have the greatest potential for reward and success.  The group will then develop strategies for pursuing the recommended approaches.  In addition to this primary focus, the group will also look at initiatives that may already be underway in Maine, such as the MBF’s work on IOLTA, and may also consider longer term strategies such as requesting support from the General Fund.  It will make recommendations in those areas as well.

Work Group 5 - Sustaining and Assuring Quality –This group has been discussing broad issues such as how quality should be defined, whether its focus should sweep broadly to encompass quality in the court system, the legal service providers and providers of pro bono services, should the focus be statewide, etc.  A recommendation is being made to the full group that they use the "Guiding Principles" (in the full report these are called the "Underlying Principles of the Standards") established by the American Bar Association for Provision of Civil Legal Aid as the starting point in developing Maine’s own principles for a state wide system for providing legal services to low income and vulnerable populations.  These principles are:

1. Responsiveness to the needs of low income communities and of clients who are served;   
2. Achieving results;   
3. Treating persons served with dignity and respect;   
4. Access to justice;  
5. High Quality and effective assistance;   
6. Zealous representation of client needs.

To deal with these principles in a concrete way, the group plans to focus on the family law system, and in particular, family law involving the issues of protection from abuse, protection from harassment, custody, divorce, and modifications.  By using a specific legal problem and following it through the system, the group hopes to create a template which can be used to assess and assure quality.

Work Group 6 - Sustaining and Promoting Leadership – This group has had wide ranging conversation around such topics as:  Leadership for what?  What is justice?  Issues that this group will focus upon include: recruiting "new" attorney leadership for legal services and broader justice issues; developing a cohesive access to justice vision/message; developing a cohesive plan/structure to reach and engage potential leaders outside the legal profession; and clarifying/changing the leadership role of JAG – the next phase of organizational structure/membership. 

Overarching Issues – There are a number of issues that cut across groups and steps are being taken to make sure that this work is coordinated and that there is not a duplication of efforts.

There are also some potential gaps and issues that warrant consideration on a number of different levels and by more than just one group.  One example is family law issues.  Work on this issue will also be coordinated through the Steering Committee. See Family Law Issues from VLP provided below.

Each work group recognizes the fact that the number of issues it can address over the course of the year is limited.  Therefore, recommendations will also be coming forward, either from individual groups, from the Steering Committee as a whole, and/or as a recommendation that recognizes that JAG will need to continue certain work in the future, with suggestions for how that work will continue.

Family Law Issues from Mary Richardson, VLP

The concern is that one of the largest areas of need/demand (if not the largest area) for legal help for low-income people is family law - and our current structure of legal services in Maine looks to volunteers (VLP) and students (CLAC) to be the primary providers of legal representation and assistance to pro ses in this area.  (The other providers, particularly PTLA, are doing a little bit of family law primarily for victims of domestic violence and largely in the area of protection orders, but it is very clear that the expectation is that VLP handle the family law demand.)  We count on unpaid providers to address this enormous area of legal need for our state (private attorneys are increasingly unwilling to volunteer their services in this area, but are willing to help in other areas).  There are also important interfaces/issues with the courts that should be addressed regarding pro se assistance and structural changes that have made representation in family law matters (by both pro bono or paid attorneys) more cumbersome and expensive.