Is access to Canada's justice system only for the rich?
Good Day Folks:
The following is typical of the type of unsolicited e-mail CyberSmokeBlog regularly receives usually relating to legal matters - in fact, there's a couple more sitting in its mail box while this is being written. CSB appreciates receiving them, problem is there wouldn't be much time left for blogging after reading, reviewing and interviewing an author an average of once a week.
However, University of Windsor Law Professor Julie Macfarlane and trusty Research Assistant Susan Rice may be interested in following up on the aforementioned e-mail. Dr. Macfarlane has been championing the cause of SRLs (Self-Represented Litigants, or simply Self-Reps) vis-a-vis the issue of access to the Canadian justice system. As fate would have it, CyberSmokeBlog received a copy of her latest update the other day.
When she states:
"Our repeated requests last Fall to local organizers for the 7 regional Cromwell roadshow meetings that they include a couple of local SRLs (whom we could introduce them to) on their invitation list came to almost no result. In the end, just one SRL was invited to one roadshow meeting. We were told over and over again that before inviting the public, "first we have to get our act together."
Here's the problem. The legal system as currently constituted/framed/shaped is by lawyers, for lawyers and of lawyers. What could the great unwashed masses (code for taxpayers/voters) possibly know they're "laypersons." In 2008 Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin convened a group (solicitors of course) with the highflalutin name, The Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters (few have heard about) chaired by puisne (regular member of a court rather than head of a court or ex officio member) Supreme Court Justice with the famous name Thomas Cromwell shown below in his ceremonial robe lined with ermine made from the endangered Canadian Arctic weasel.
In October of 2013 the Committee released it's final report with six broadly worded recommendations so as to be meaningless.
Another shining example of citizen exclusion/oversight in the legal process are Canadian Judicial Council driven "Public" Inquiries into the conduct of federally appointed justices. Wonderful case in point the taxpayer financed unmitigated disaster/embarrassment that is the salacious, titillatting, sleazy Douglas Inquiry showing the legal community's seedy underside.
From the get go CyberSmokeBlog tried for intervenor standing so there'd be at least some citizen oversight of Independent Counsel purportedly representing the public interest but was gently patted on the head and sent packing. CSB's argument? Guy "The Cat" Pratte and sidekick Kirsten "The Pain" Crain while undoubtedly really nice, competent folks are not omnipotent, thus, prosecutorial misconduct either inadvertent or otherwise does and can indeed happen. One need only check the annals of North American jurisprudence.
"The Cat" in arguing against it famously said, "The public can participate by attending the hearings." Huh? Try standing up to make a point and watch what happens - "Security! Security! Security!"
While that's exactly what occurred after Inquiry Counsel, and recently minted British Columbia Supreme Court Justice "Gentleman" George Macintosh, at the request of the Inquiry Committee, shredded a couple key witnesses (including "Polaroid" Jack King lawyer husband of Lori Douglas) on cross examination. "The Cat" promptly resigned taking "The Pain" with him - the CJC presumably "in the public interest" of taxpayers has steadfastly refused to release a copy of his lengthy resignation letter. Toronto-based Rocco "The Attitude" Galati counsel to complainant Alex Chapman has gone to Federal Court in an attempt to force The Council to publish it. In the meantime, Independent Council have been paid their big, fat, juicy retainers and accumulated legal fees something in the order of a cool quarter of a million dollars.
CyberSmokeBlog's Self-Rep Nominees for any Judicial Review of Access to Canada's Judicial System
Karyn Delichte, Ms Self-Rep, a Winnipegger currently enrolled in a doctoral degree program (clinical psychology) at the University of California has been waging a custody battle in Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench Family Division for almost 10-years. Once finished she'll be able to use her new found skills to analyze and, hopefully, get into the heads of some of these quirky Justices - if that's possible.
Vancouver-based Mr Self-Rep Chris J. Budgell who's been fighting British Colombia's legal establishment, including the Canadian Judicial Council, for over 10-years.
Between them they could author a series of books the Canadian judiciary wouldn't want you to read. Perhaps after all these years Dick the Butcher in Shakespeare's Henry VI got it right, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
julie.macfarlane@uwindsor.ca
suerice@live.ca
Would you be interested in reviewing a copy of Sheld Krantz' new book -- THE LEGAL PROFESSION: What is Wrong and How to Fix It (LexisNexis, Jan 2014)?
Krantz is focused on how we change the legal profession to make it more accessible to the AVERAGE American. If you are a middle class person in middle America with a legal problem, what do you do? It is financially challeneging to hire a lawyer, consequently, many Americans just don’t. In addition, new law school grads are drowning in debt and facing an industry that they are just not prepared to handle.
Solutions include: More pro bono work, lower fees, developing an oversight board, more assistance for new lawyers, etc.
Law School examples/solutions: CUNY – incubator program to improve job market for lawyers. New grads are given dollars to start solo practice in exchange for pro bono work.
Harvard Law has a research center on the legal profession. It is also experimenting with free online legal education for non lawyers.
The University of Maryland Carey Law School has created JustAdvice which pairs volunteer lawyers and law students to provide 30 minutes of legal advice—at a cost of $10—for those who need advice but don’t qualify for legal aid. Since 2009, JustAdvice has served over 1,000 individuals providing legal advice on legal issues including family law, housing, employment, and elder law issues.
Cardozo Law School has created the National Center for Access to Justice – study done in October and November about what needs to be done nationally.
ABOUT: Krantz has been a federal prosecutor, law professor, Dean of the University of San Diego Law School, partner at one of the world’s largest law firms for almost two decades, and director of New Perimeter, DLA Piper’s global pro bono affiliate.
Would you like a copy of the book?
Happy New Year!
Johanna J. Ramos-Boyer
JRB Communications, LLC
Phone: (703) 646-5137
This message was sent to pieuk@shaw.ca from: JRB Communications LLC | 9011 Mountain Valley Road | Fairfax Station, Virginia 22039
Let's Make and Keep some New Year Resolutions about Access to Justice
January 11, 2014
By Dr. Julie Macfarlane
Over the past 12 months, there has been extensive study, analysis, and debate about the state of access to justice in Canada – verdict, abysmal – and over the tsunami wave of self-represented litigants who cannot afford a lawyer and do not qualify for increasingly limited public assistance – conclusion, self-representation is at a record-breaking level.
Moving into 2014 offers an opportunity to set some concrete and realistic benchmarks for change (I prefer this to the CBA’s (Canadian Bar Association) march towards 2030 (http://www.cba.org/CBA/equaljustice).
The National Self-Represented Litigants Study (http://www.representing-yourself.com/PDF/reportM15.pdf) presented final recommendations in September 2013, which we framed as Ten Action Steps (http://www.representing-yourself.com/finalrecommendations.html). Over the coming year, the National Self-Represented Litigants Project (NSRLP, now based at Windsor Law and with two full-time and two part-time staff) will be taking these ten highly practical and achievable recommendations one- by-one as our focus each month. From February through November we shall concentrate our social media, outreach and education, blogs and special events on one Action Step each month.
But first comes January and New Year resolutions. The three proposed resolutions that follow represent three urgent, concrete, and efficacious steps that we can each commit to – whether you are a member of the public or a justice system professional, whether as an individual or on behalf of your organization – towards enabling access to justice in Canada. What is more, we can make significant steps towards achieving each of these in 2014.
Resolution One: Engage the Public in Justice Reform
The National Action Committee’s final report (http://www.cfcj-fcjc.org/sites/default/files/docs/2013/AC_Report_English
_Final.pdf), as well as the CBA’s Equal Justice report clearly state that justice system reform must include consultation with the public. At NSRLP we have been saying and doing this for some time now.
Our repeated requests last Fall to local organizers for the 7 regional Cromwell roadshow meetings that they include a couple of local SRLs (whom we could introduce them to) on their invitation list came to almost no result. In the end, just one SRL was invited to one roadshow meeting. We were told over and over again that before inviting the public, “first we have to get our act together.”
Well, now we have our act together, so let’s do it. This has to be the last time that a national consultation on access to justice takes place with virtually no participation by system users.
As for the practicalities, designing a process or processes for public participation is not rocket science.
NSRLP as well as other organizations have the access, the methodologies and the skills to obtain and present public feedback on system changes generally; on specific proposals (for example, how should Legal Aid Ontario spend its additional public funding of $30 million over the next three years?); and to develop new ideas and innovations that come from system users.
Public input can and should also be happening at a micro level. If you offer legal services, ask your clients for feedback. What do they think of your services, and in what other ways might you assist them?
One note of caution: public consultation in other policy areas has sometimes been a cosmetic exercise to ensure a rubber stamp for decisions already made, or pushed to one side and disregarded. This must not happen here. The community that is waiting eagerly to be consulted (it is an amusing myth that we have to work first at getting the public interested in the issue of access to justice!) is sophisticated and motivated and will not be satisfied with inauthenticity.
Resolution Two: Support (and get excited about!) Innovation
It is clear that one of the ways in which the public will access justice is to develop new ways of accessing legal services.
We know that the reason that so many people are representing themselves is because they cannot afford lawyers. And that many who have spent significant sums on legal services have been dissatisfied with how they were listened to and the value they received for in return their investment.
While change in this regard seems both obvious and inevitable, the legal profession often seems to get stuck wringing their hands over the downsides, and preoccupied with developing clever arguments about the complexities, the risks, and the sheer inconvenience of doing things differently.
I suggested recently (http://lawtimesnews.com/201312273677/headline-news/public-input-integral-for-real-equal-justice) that change brings out both the best and the worst in people and institutions. It is time for the public to see more of the best from the legal profession (and I believe that there is plenty of it). It is time for lawyers both individually and via their professional associations to commit to embracing the range of exciting – yes! – opportunities that change will bring.
I know from my research with lawyers over the past 15 years that after entering law school with high aspirations, many become disillusioned with practice. Some leave the profession, while others seek different ways to practice law that feel more aligned with their values (holistic law, collaborative law, mediation etc.).
My 2008 book The New Lawyer is full of examples of lawyers who want to practice their craft differently in order to bring greater satisfaction to both their clients and themselves.
Of course, both supporting and participating in innovation is risky – and lawyers are trained to avoid risk at all costs. Heck, lawyers see bogeymen under rocks where there aren’t even any rocks. But the profession needs to show the public that it takes extremely seriously the fact that virtually none can afford them, and even among those who do, many are dissatisfied.
This means that it is critically important that everyone who believes in the profession of law as a force for good encourage, support and enable sensible innovation and innovators. This includes (but is by no means limited to) ideas such as limited scope retainers (LSRs),“legal coaching” assistance in its various forms (www.drjuliemacfarlane.wordpress.com/2013/12/18/providing-legal-services-in-a-coaching-model-the-what-why-and-how) and the provision of “legal information” (practical assistance by non-lawyers). Debates over the quality and efficacy of such services will (and should) continue – but that does not prevent lawyers seeing innovations as opportunities rather than as threats.
There are many concrete and practical ways in which lawyers and their organizations can support innovation, whether or not they are placed to partake themselves. They can:
Resolution Three: Remember that Change Requires Collaboration (and will include failures)
In a way, the Equal Justice authors are right – it may take until 2030 for the type of transformative culture change that public participation and new forms of legal services will bring to take deep root in our courts and legal institutions.
Ahead lie heated and even harsh debates. There will be turf wars, accusations of disloyalty (to the profession) and disappointments (among the public). There will be difficult choices to be made. There will be innovations that don’t work the way we hope they might to enhance access. But we have to keep trying. We can and must fix this.
No one interest group, either inside or outside the justice system, has all the answers here – system change is multi-layered and multi-dimensional. There is no single magic bullet that can address all the profound complexities of enabling access to justice. That is why we need to work together to pose the right questions and explore and experiment with many possible answers. The rich value of the experiences of the ubiquitous “non-lawyers” is balanced by the deep expertise of members of the legal profession and the judiciary, by veteran court administrators and counter staff, and dedicated public legal aid workers across Canada.
The studies are in (although of course more data is always useful). It is not understanding the problem that we need more help with at this juncture – and already many possible, if partial, solutions appear obvious – as addressing the so-called “implementation gap.”
So let’s commit to these three resolutions for A2J for 2014 – and get started. Happy New Year.
The following is typical of the type of unsolicited e-mail CyberSmokeBlog regularly receives usually relating to legal matters - in fact, there's a couple more sitting in its mail box while this is being written. CSB appreciates receiving them, problem is there wouldn't be much time left for blogging after reading, reviewing and interviewing an author an average of once a week.
However, University of Windsor Law Professor Julie Macfarlane and trusty Research Assistant Susan Rice may be interested in following up on the aforementioned e-mail. Dr. Macfarlane has been championing the cause of SRLs (Self-Represented Litigants, or simply Self-Reps) vis-a-vis the issue of access to the Canadian justice system. As fate would have it, CyberSmokeBlog received a copy of her latest update the other day.
When she states:
"Our repeated requests last Fall to local organizers for the 7 regional Cromwell roadshow meetings that they include a couple of local SRLs (whom we could introduce them to) on their invitation list came to almost no result. In the end, just one SRL was invited to one roadshow meeting. We were told over and over again that before inviting the public, "first we have to get our act together."
Here's the problem. The legal system as currently constituted/framed/shaped is by lawyers, for lawyers and of lawyers. What could the great unwashed masses (code for taxpayers/voters) possibly know they're "laypersons." In 2008 Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin convened a group (solicitors of course) with the highflalutin name, The Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters (few have heard about) chaired by puisne (regular member of a court rather than head of a court or ex officio member) Supreme Court Justice with the famous name Thomas Cromwell shown below in his ceremonial robe lined with ermine made from the endangered Canadian Arctic weasel.
Another shining example of citizen exclusion/oversight in the legal process are Canadian Judicial Council driven "Public" Inquiries into the conduct of federally appointed justices. Wonderful case in point the taxpayer financed unmitigated disaster/embarrassment that is the salacious, titillatting, sleazy Douglas Inquiry showing the legal community's seedy underside.
"The Cat" in arguing against it famously said, "The public can participate by attending the hearings." Huh? Try standing up to make a point and watch what happens - "Security! Security! Security!"
While that's exactly what occurred after Inquiry Counsel, and recently minted British Columbia Supreme Court Justice "Gentleman" George Macintosh, at the request of the Inquiry Committee, shredded a couple key witnesses (including "Polaroid" Jack King lawyer husband of Lori Douglas) on cross examination. "The Cat" promptly resigned taking "The Pain" with him - the CJC presumably "in the public interest" of taxpayers has steadfastly refused to release a copy of his lengthy resignation letter. Toronto-based Rocco "The Attitude" Galati counsel to complainant Alex Chapman has gone to Federal Court in an attempt to force The Council to publish it. In the meantime, Independent Council have been paid their big, fat, juicy retainers and accumulated legal fees something in the order of a cool quarter of a million dollars.
CyberSmokeBlog's Self-Rep Nominees for any Judicial Review of Access to Canada's Judicial System
Between them they could author a series of books the Canadian judiciary wouldn't want you to read. Perhaps after all these years Dick the Butcher in Shakespeare's Henry VI got it right, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
julie.macfarlane@uwindsor.ca
suerice@live.ca
Would you be interested in reviewing a copy of Sheld Krantz' new book -- THE LEGAL PROFESSION: What is Wrong and How to Fix It (LexisNexis, Jan 2014)?
Solutions include: More pro bono work, lower fees, developing an oversight board, more assistance for new lawyers, etc.
Law School examples/solutions: CUNY – incubator program to improve job market for lawyers. New grads are given dollars to start solo practice in exchange for pro bono work.
Harvard Law has a research center on the legal profession. It is also experimenting with free online legal education for non lawyers.
The University of Maryland Carey Law School has created JustAdvice which pairs volunteer lawyers and law students to provide 30 minutes of legal advice—at a cost of $10—for those who need advice but don’t qualify for legal aid. Since 2009, JustAdvice has served over 1,000 individuals providing legal advice on legal issues including family law, housing, employment, and elder law issues.
Cardozo Law School has created the National Center for Access to Justice – study done in October and November about what needs to be done nationally.
ABOUT: Krantz has been a federal prosecutor, law professor, Dean of the University of San Diego Law School, partner at one of the world’s largest law firms for almost two decades, and director of New Perimeter, DLA Piper’s global pro bono affiliate.
Would you like a copy of the book?
Happy New Year!
Johanna J. Ramos-Boyer
JRB Communications, LLC
Phone: (703) 646-5137
This message was sent to pieuk@shaw.ca from: JRB Communications LLC | 9011 Mountain Valley Road | Fairfax Station, Virginia 22039
January 11, 2014
By Dr. Julie Macfarlane
Over the past 12 months, there has been extensive study, analysis, and debate about the state of access to justice in Canada – verdict, abysmal – and over the tsunami wave of self-represented litigants who cannot afford a lawyer and do not qualify for increasingly limited public assistance – conclusion, self-representation is at a record-breaking level.
Moving into 2014 offers an opportunity to set some concrete and realistic benchmarks for change (I prefer this to the CBA’s (Canadian Bar Association) march towards 2030 (http://www.cba.org/CBA/equaljustice).
The National Self-Represented Litigants Study (http://www.representing-yourself.com/PDF/reportM15.pdf) presented final recommendations in September 2013, which we framed as Ten Action Steps (http://www.representing-yourself.com/finalrecommendations.html). Over the coming year, the National Self-Represented Litigants Project (NSRLP, now based at Windsor Law and with two full-time and two part-time staff) will be taking these ten highly practical and achievable recommendations one- by-one as our focus each month. From February through November we shall concentrate our social media, outreach and education, blogs and special events on one Action Step each month.
But first comes January and New Year resolutions. The three proposed resolutions that follow represent three urgent, concrete, and efficacious steps that we can each commit to – whether you are a member of the public or a justice system professional, whether as an individual or on behalf of your organization – towards enabling access to justice in Canada. What is more, we can make significant steps towards achieving each of these in 2014.
Resolution One: Engage the Public in Justice Reform
The National Action Committee’s final report (http://www.cfcj-fcjc.org/sites/default/files/docs/2013/AC_Report_English
_Final.pdf), as well as the CBA’s Equal Justice report clearly state that justice system reform must include consultation with the public. At NSRLP we have been saying and doing this for some time now.
Our repeated requests last Fall to local organizers for the 7 regional Cromwell roadshow meetings that they include a couple of local SRLs (whom we could introduce them to) on their invitation list came to almost no result. In the end, just one SRL was invited to one roadshow meeting. We were told over and over again that before inviting the public, “first we have to get our act together.”
Well, now we have our act together, so let’s do it. This has to be the last time that a national consultation on access to justice takes place with virtually no participation by system users.
As for the practicalities, designing a process or processes for public participation is not rocket science.
NSRLP as well as other organizations have the access, the methodologies and the skills to obtain and present public feedback on system changes generally; on specific proposals (for example, how should Legal Aid Ontario spend its additional public funding of $30 million over the next three years?); and to develop new ideas and innovations that come from system users.
Public input can and should also be happening at a micro level. If you offer legal services, ask your clients for feedback. What do they think of your services, and in what other ways might you assist them?
One note of caution: public consultation in other policy areas has sometimes been a cosmetic exercise to ensure a rubber stamp for decisions already made, or pushed to one side and disregarded. This must not happen here. The community that is waiting eagerly to be consulted (it is an amusing myth that we have to work first at getting the public interested in the issue of access to justice!) is sophisticated and motivated and will not be satisfied with inauthenticity.
Resolution Two: Support (and get excited about!) Innovation
It is clear that one of the ways in which the public will access justice is to develop new ways of accessing legal services.
We know that the reason that so many people are representing themselves is because they cannot afford lawyers. And that many who have spent significant sums on legal services have been dissatisfied with how they were listened to and the value they received for in return their investment.
While change in this regard seems both obvious and inevitable, the legal profession often seems to get stuck wringing their hands over the downsides, and preoccupied with developing clever arguments about the complexities, the risks, and the sheer inconvenience of doing things differently.
I suggested recently (http://lawtimesnews.com/201312273677/headline-news/public-input-integral-for-real-equal-justice) that change brings out both the best and the worst in people and institutions. It is time for the public to see more of the best from the legal profession (and I believe that there is plenty of it). It is time for lawyers both individually and via their professional associations to commit to embracing the range of exciting – yes! – opportunities that change will bring.
I know from my research with lawyers over the past 15 years that after entering law school with high aspirations, many become disillusioned with practice. Some leave the profession, while others seek different ways to practice law that feel more aligned with their values (holistic law, collaborative law, mediation etc.).
My 2008 book The New Lawyer is full of examples of lawyers who want to practice their craft differently in order to bring greater satisfaction to both their clients and themselves.
Of course, both supporting and participating in innovation is risky – and lawyers are trained to avoid risk at all costs. Heck, lawyers see bogeymen under rocks where there aren’t even any rocks. But the profession needs to show the public that it takes extremely seriously the fact that virtually none can afford them, and even among those who do, many are dissatisfied.
This means that it is critically important that everyone who believes in the profession of law as a force for good encourage, support and enable sensible innovation and innovators. This includes (but is by no means limited to) ideas such as limited scope retainers (LSRs),“legal coaching” assistance in its various forms (www.drjuliemacfarlane.wordpress.com/2013/12/18/providing-legal-services-in-a-coaching-model-the-what-why-and-how) and the provision of “legal information” (practical assistance by non-lawyers). Debates over the quality and efficacy of such services will (and should) continue – but that does not prevent lawyers seeing innovations as opportunities rather than as threats.
There are many concrete and practical ways in which lawyers and their organizations can support innovation, whether or not they are placed to partake themselves. They can:
- Promote discussions within their local bar association, perhaps including local court services and community clinics, on the development of local services that offer alternative forms of service and financial structures to SRLs and others who will not otherwise become clients
- Support the development of resources for such programs including (for example) a model retainer agreement that could be used or modified by lawyers experimenting with alternatives to full-on representation (a recent discussion among Law Societies leaders discovered, somewhat to everyone’s amazement, that none offered their members a simple template LSR. It also emerged that the Ontario Lawyer Referral Service does not presently accept advertising for limited scope representation. Sigh)
- Push for local CLE programs on alternative financial and conceptual structures for service delivery. Hannah Bahmanpour, a RA at NSRLP, recently reviewed CLE programming across Canada looking for programming on LSRs and alternative financial structures. The results of her audit were, well, virtually nothing… (although some societies expressed interest in doing something in the future).
Resolution Three: Remember that Change Requires Collaboration (and will include failures)
In a way, the Equal Justice authors are right – it may take until 2030 for the type of transformative culture change that public participation and new forms of legal services will bring to take deep root in our courts and legal institutions.
Ahead lie heated and even harsh debates. There will be turf wars, accusations of disloyalty (to the profession) and disappointments (among the public). There will be difficult choices to be made. There will be innovations that don’t work the way we hope they might to enhance access. But we have to keep trying. We can and must fix this.
No one interest group, either inside or outside the justice system, has all the answers here – system change is multi-layered and multi-dimensional. There is no single magic bullet that can address all the profound complexities of enabling access to justice. That is why we need to work together to pose the right questions and explore and experiment with many possible answers. The rich value of the experiences of the ubiquitous “non-lawyers” is balanced by the deep expertise of members of the legal profession and the judiciary, by veteran court administrators and counter staff, and dedicated public legal aid workers across Canada.
The studies are in (although of course more data is always useful). It is not understanding the problem that we need more help with at this juncture – and already many possible, if partial, solutions appear obvious – as addressing the so-called “implementation gap.”
So let’s commit to these three resolutions for A2J for 2014 – and get started. Happy New Year.
posted by Clare L. Pieuk at 11:59 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home