Public Interest News Bulletin: 9/10/10

There was no Public Interest News Bulletin last Friday.  This is because the PSLawNet Blog observed the Labor Day long weekend by doing less labor.  But the Bulletin returns today with a special Interrogatory Edition.

This week: Why is it bad to be mean to opposing counsel?; Volunteer State pro bono – redundant?; legal services – to bundle or not to bundle?; do you know what an MLP is?; how do resource-strapped courts observe speedy-trial guarantees?; law students can’t pretend to be attorneys, but can they collect attorney’s fees?; how cold is stealing money from a legal services provider?; how cool an acronym is LOLLAF?;  where’s the best place to work in Uncle Sam’s bureaucracy?; how much poverty has the recession created?; are those pesky law school professors messing up legal education?; and finally, what’s shakin’ over at the ABA Division for Legal Services?

  • 9.8.10 – according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Cobb County is expanding attorney practice rules that permit limited scope representation, or “unbundled legal services,” so that more moderate-income individuals can afford the services of a lawyer for discrete undertakings – like a consultation or document preparation – when they could not afford the fees that would be charged for full-scope representation on a legal matter(s).  The article touches upon the fact that the recession has brought the debate about limited scope representation to the front burner because many more people find themselves with legal problems but without sufficient funds to pay for an attorney.  And outside of Georgia, “[t]he practice is popular in California, where there are continuing legal education courses for lawyers on the topic.  In Massachusetts, the state’s highest court last year expanded a trial program for limited scope representation to the entire state court system.”  The PSLawNet Blog has covered news on the limited-scope representation debate in other jurisdictions, like Arizona (item 5) and Michigan (item 7), and here’s a New York Times op-ed from the chief justices of California and New Hampshire arguing that states should consider limited-scope representation as one means to increase access to justice.
  • 9.5.10 – Congestion in the courts!  The Press-Enterprise reports on a case in front of the California Supreme Court – People v. Engram – stemming from resource shortfalls and case backlogs in Riverside County trial courts – problems that exist in many other California counties as well.  The case could have an impact on “how courts statewide handle criminal cases on the verge of dismissal because of constitutional speedy-trial deadlines.”  After a long, winding adjudicatory path that included a conviction on a felony charge, a reversal, a retrial, a mistrial, and a stream of continuances on a third trial, a court ultimately dismissed the people’s case against Engram because it has reached a time deadline intended to guarantee a defendant’s speedy-trial right.  As it turns out, Riverside County has streamlined its docket system since the troubles at the center of this case took place.  As noted though, the underlying issue in the case could affect courts elsewhere in the state which are grappling with similar problems.
  • 9.4.10 – the Palm Beach Post reports that, “In Florida, 12 men have been freed from prison since 2000 after DNA evidence proved their innocence, some after serving time on Death Row.  Now the Florida Supreme Court has ruled a legal system that allows such miscarriages of justice needs to be fixed. It has created the Florida Innocence Commission to learn what goes wrong and to propose reforms.  Florida becomes the 10th state to study the causes of wrongful convictions.”  The commission is being funded with an appropriation from the state legislature and a grant from the Florida Bar Foundation.  The commission “will not hear individual please from those who say they have been wrongly imprisoned,” but rather will explore the systemic causes of wrongful convictions.  That work is already underway, and according to the story, “Mistaken eyewitness identification is far and away the leading cause…” of wrongful convictions.
  • 9.2.10 – from the National Law Journal, we learn that Washington D.C.’s highest (local) court delivered a favorable ruling regarding attorney’s fee awards for law school clinical programs last week.  Regarding an administrative matter in which two law students represented an individual whose disability benefits were terminated, the “…D.C. Court of Appeals ruled…that the Public Justice Advocacy Clinic [at George Washington University’s law school] was entitled to legal fees under a District of Columbia law pertaining to government worker disability cases. The court…found that the students’ work, supervised by George Washington clinical professor Jeffrey Gutman, did not amount to lay representation, which would have precluded recovery. The clinic sought about $6,400 in fees.”  The question in the case turned on whether a particular statute governing attorneys fees could apply to the work done by law students, who are by definition not attorneys.  “Because the students had worked closely with Gutman, a licensed attorney, the court found that awarding the fees was warranted.”  This decision is narrow because it deals with a particular statute, but this story makes the PSLawNet Blog wonder about case law in other jurisdictions on the question of law school clinic programs receiving attorney’s fees for cases handled by students.  If you have any insight on this topic, please offer it in the Comments section below.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine