Comments on: Pro Bono is Not the Answer to the Access Problem

By: shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress » Blog Archive » MLK and the pro se movement

Mon, 15 Jan 2007 22:19:51 +0000

[...] It is estimated that 80% of the legal needs of the poor and near poor go unmet in this rich nation. As discussed here, there will never be enough lawyers to serve the needs of every American [indeed, assigning lawyers to “solve” the legal needs of every American would waste dollars better used elsewhere.] Instead, as we say on our shlep About page: The best way to ensure that the non-rich also have access to necessary legal and judicial services is to give them the ability and the option to formulate adequate solutions themselves, including acting as pro se litigants in court. [...]

By: shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress » Blog Archive » BigLaw boosts Brooklyn pro se project

Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:28:29 +0000

[...] “With the opening of the Self-Represented Legal Services Project at Brooklyn Family Court, for the first time in New York State, low-income litigants in Family Court who do not have an attorney will be able to obtain free legal advice from pro bono attorneys right in the courthouse. Attorneys from local New York City law firms and corporations, who have completed special training provided by the court system, will conduct free on-the-spot consultations with families in need of legal services who cannot afford to pay for them. This is an initiative of the Hon. Joseph M. Lauria, Administrative Judge of the New York City Family Court, in collaboration with the Honorable Juanita Bing Newton, Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for Justice Initiatives. The project furthers the goal of Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye of providing valuable legal services to court users who are unable to afford attorneys by partnering with the city’s major law firms and corporations. . . . “The project will be supervised by a full-time court attorney, who is available five days a week to provide general court information to litigants starting this month. Beginning November 2, 2006, pro bono attorneys will be on site Tuesdays and Thursdays to provide legal advice to families involved in child support, paternity and guardianship cases. Assistance with other types of cases (beyond child support, paternity and guardianship) will be offered after the initial six months. Several New York City law firms and corporations are assisting in this new initiative by offering the services of their legal staff. The law firm of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, has taken a leadership role in this project, with attorneys from Citigroup; Strook & Strook & Lavan LLP; Reed Smith LLP; Dechert LLP, and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe also participating.” It goes without saying (again), but we’re saying it nonetheless: Helping pro se litigants is an especially effective way to use the legal profession’s scarce pro bono resources. Most Family Court litigants do not need a lawyer through every step of the process (in fact, lawyers often complicate, aggravate and prolong the process) — but, they can often use well-focused legal assistance. Pro bono projects, like the one at the Brooklyn Family Court, greatly leverage pro bono efforts. [...]

By: shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress » Blog Archive » could “for-profit charities” fund self-help lawyering?

Tue, 19 Sep 2006 16:03:04 +0000

[...] MyShingle weblogger Carolyn Elefant is rightly skeptical [as was ethicalEsq] about the ability of traditional pro bono efforts to make a dent in the access to justice deficit in our society — even when sponsored by large corporate law firms (see Law.com article, Sept. 18, 2006). After thinking about Google’s efforts to use for-profit entities to achieve public interest results (see NYT article, Sept. 13, 2006), and checking out Prof. Eric Posner’s recent thoughts on for-profit charities, Carolyn used her forum at Law.com’s Legal Blog Watch yesterday to ask “What About a For-profit Pro Bono Corporation?” (Sept. 18, 2006). She wondered: “Could large law firms and corporations mimic Google’s plan? Perhaps they could set up for-profit charities that could develop sophisticated but user-friendly tools to allow clients who can’t pay for lawyers to handle cases pro se. Or these firms could develop these tools and provide them at low cost to small firms to allow them to represent small clients more efficiently and at less cost. Perhaps there’s even some way that these firms could set up a huge legal clinic, where clients could go for cheap advice but would pay midlevel rates. I realize that as a service, law is different from designing a product like a fuel-efficient car. But maybe if lawyers have a profit motive to go after the population of clients who can’t pay for lawyers and find a way to serve them and make money, we’ll reach the goal of access to justice more quickly.” [...]

By: SHLEP: the Self-Help Law ExPress » Blog Archive » message to Mississippi Access Commission: “think self-help”

Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:51:16 +0000

[...] [pre-launch posting; we hope to finish construction and “go public” soon] The Supreme Court of Mississippi has issued an Order Establishing The Mississippi Access to Justice Commission (via HALT eJournal, Aug. 28, 2006). According to the Court’s press release, (June 29, 2006), the Commission is “comprised of business and community leaders, clergy and representatives from all three branches of government,” and it will seek to ”develop a unified strategy to improve access to justice for the poor.” With half of its population at or below the Federal poverty level, Mississippi has long had a serious crisis in access to justice. Despite that crisis, the State has apparently relied solely on legal services organizations (with no direct state funding) and lawyer pro bono efforts to provide better access for the poor. For example, Mississippi is not included in the NCSC directory of Self-Help/Information Centers and Resources, and the State has a “No links” designation on The Pro Se Law Center’s directory of court-based services and websites for self-represented litigants. Despite the Access Commission’s promise to bring together “creative people” to develop new and creative access solutions, SHLEP is concerned that their exclusive focus will be on providing free or low-cost lawyers for the poor — an approach that is doomed to fall far short of the Commission’s goal (see the discussion here and there at ethicalEsq). Why are we worried? Neither the Court’s Order, nor its Press Release, mentions self-help programs as possible solutions, despite an extensive, seven-point list of the Commission’s mission and tasks. The omission seems quite telling, because the Mississippi Order prominently points to Resolution 23 [”Leadership to Promote Equal Justice’] of the Conference of Chief Justices, to explain its own “primary leadership responsibility to preserve and protect equal justice and take action necessary to ensure access to the justice system for those who face impediments they are unable to surmount on their own.” Resolution 23 “encourages individual members in their respective states to establish partnerships with state and local bar organizations, legal service providers, and others to: 1. Remove impediments to access to the justice system, including physical, economic, psychological and language barriers; and [...]