We posted last week about Stacey Braverman, a Sutherland Equal Justice Works Fellow at Bread for the City’s Legal Clinic, who appeared as a contestant on Jeopardy!     

Stacy was a run-away victor in her first appearance.  Alas, another contestant beat her out in her second appearance -no contestant is invincible,  even the inimitable KJ – but Stacy bowed out gracefully and with much to be proud of.  Congrats, Stacy! 

And what’s better than a public interest lawyer acquitting herself well on a T.V. gameshow?  Answer: using that appearance to raise funds for the cause she serves.  We reached to Stacy about her appearance, and here’s what she told us:

[I]t was a lot of fun, and something I’d wanted to try for a long time.  I had great competitors, including one (Emily) who co-hosted a viewing party with me.  And I’m grateful to my co-workers for not pressuring me (too much) to reveal how it went, and for coming to watch the show with me on Tuesday night.  The bar where we watched donated 15% of their profits from the party to Bread for the City so that was extra fun. 

Well played all around.

The Public Interest News Bulletin took a rare vacation last week, but has returned with coverage of stories from the past two weeks affecting public interest lawyers and law students.

• 4.1.10 – Atlanta Journal-Constitution – rural Georgians find it difficult to access legal services because so few lawyers practice outside of the state’s metropolitan areas.  Of 28,200 lawyers practicing in the state, almost 70% are in the greater Atlanta area.  There are 35 counties with no more than four lawyers.  The Georgia Legal Services Program, which aims to serve low-income clients outside of Atlanta, is seeing demand for its services rise, but its funding streams have diminished in the recession.  (IOLTA funding to GLSP was cut in half between 2009 and 2010 – from $2.8 million to $1.4 million.)  To further compound the problem of accessing legal services in rural areas, moderate-income Georgians who do not qualify for free legal services often end up representing themselves because they find it too expensive to retain counsel.  Link to article.

• 3.31.10 – Blog of the Legal Times – “In a case [Robertson v. United States ex rel Watson] being closely watched by advocates for domestic abuse victims, several Supreme Court justices on Wednesday expressed serious discomfort with a District of Columbia law that lets the victims themselves bring criminal prosecutions to enforce restraining orders.”  The underlying question in Robertson is whether a private individual who initiates a criminal contempt proceeding is acting as a state agent in doing so.  While many advocates for DV victims support allowing individuals to pursue such actions (because they can be initiated by battered women who seek to enforce restraining orders), “at least four justices wondered aloud about the protections afforded to criminal defendants facing such charges” because it is tantamount to giving law enforcement authority to private citizens.  Link to blog post. 

• 3.29.10 – National Law Journal (Opinion Piece) – recent lawsuits challenging resource deficiencies in state indigent defense programs, as well as a well-intentioned Department of Justice initiative to shore up public defense infrastructures nationwide, show that there is a problem.  But the federal government should not “throw more money at the states; instead, it needs to get out of this business altogether….  The problem is entirely of the state’s own making and within its control. State lawmakers determine what will be a crime in the first place and the attached punishment, while state agents choose which individuals will be propelled through the criminal justice system.”  And when states exercise their power to create and enforce criminal laws, they must also ensure that their justice systems provide adequate resources for the accused to protect their rights.  “[D]elinquent jurisdictions must be held responsible for their decisions, not absolved from their constitutional debts. The states owe indigent defendants competent legal representation. It’s time to pay up.”  Link to piece.

• 3.29.10 – New York RealEstateRama Website – New York City “Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg…launched a new NYC Service initiative to provide free legal support for New Yorkers at risk of losing their homes to foreclosure.  The program will increase the availability and effectiveness of free legal representation for those facing foreclosure by training and dispatching 300 volunteer attorneys to expand legal services provided by non-profit organizations.”  The volunteers’ work will be supported by ProBono.net, the Empire Justice Center, Legal Services NYC, the Legal Aid Society, and the City Bar Justice Center.  Link to article.

• 3.29.10 – The Recorder (California) – San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi, during a press conference on 3/25, called for the city to establish a crime lab that works independently of law enforcement “in the wake of an evidence tampering scandal at the police department’s crime lab.”  Also, in calling for additional dismissals of cases [the prosecutor’s office has already dismissed over 350 drug cases] that could have been tainted as a result of the scandal, Adachi argued that the prosecutor has been slow to turn over information related to the scandal.  The District Attorney’s office opposes a sweeping round of case dismissals and contends that it is not responding slowly to requests for information.  Link to article.      

• 3.26.10 – Idaho Mountain Express – a report released in January by the National Legal Aid & Defender Association “states that Idaho has ‘sewn a patchwork quilt’ of underfunded and overworked public defender systems that are not constitutionally adequate.”   The report reviewed varying public defense models used in several counties.  The Idaho Criminal Justice Commisssion, which had been studying the indigent defense infrastructure in the state even before the report’s release, is now reviewing the report and is developing “a model public defender system for use by counties, public defender conduct standards, guidelines for qualifications for appointment of public defenders…and training programs for judges and lawyers.”  Link to article.

• 3.26.10 – Charlotte Observer (North Carolina) – an assistant public defender in Mecklenburg County is “taking steps to limit court participation by the neighborhood advocacy group called CharMeck Court Watch.”  The group’s goal is to push for “tougher penalties for some defendants with histories of arrests or convictions for felonies.”  The assistant public defender opposes the group’s practice of handing up written materials to prosecutors during court proceedings, and also worries that members wearing Court Watch t-shirts in the courtroom may have a prejudicial effect on proceedings.   (As to the practice wearing t-shirts, an ACLU attorney suggests that there is no problem with this as long as Court Watch members do not interfere with proceedings.)  Link to article.

• 3.25.10 – Blog of the Legal Times – the District of Columbia is to become a mandatory IOLTA jurisdiction.  See coverage, including a link to the original BLT post, in the PSLawNet Blog .

• 3.25.10 – Atlanta Journal-Constitution – “The Georgia Supreme Court on Thursday narrowly rejected a bid to bar prosecutors from seeking the death penalty against a defendant who has sat in jail for more than three years awaiting trial because there has been no money for his defense.  The 4-3 ruling said the state did not violate Jamie Ryan Weis’ right to a speedy trial and placed some of the blame on the defendant and his attorneys.”  Link to article.  [Ed. Note – Georgia’s underfunded public defense system has recevied a good deal of coverage lately.  The Georgia Supreme Court heard arguments in a case very similar to this one earlier this month, according to another Atlanta Journal-Constitution article.  And, the Associated Press recently covered the sad financial state of the system.]

• 3.24.10 – Buffalo Law Joural (New York) (Running an Associated Press story) –  “An attorney for the New York Civil Liberties Union told the state’s top court Tuesday that poor defendants often spend much more time locked up because the state system of public defenders routinely fails.   The NYCLU claims that the lack of effective legal help violates state and federal constitutional guarantees to counsel. The group faulted all three methods used among the state’s 62 counties: full-time public defenders, a list of private lawyers who take cases and legal-aid societies.”  The NYCLU is fighting the keep the lawsuit alive.  It was dismissed by a lower court over concerns that the judiciary may intrude upon legislative functions if it fashions a means to change the indigent defense system.  Link to story.

• 3.23.10 – OMB Watch Website (Commentary Piece) – “For the past 14 years, the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), which funds legal services for the poor, has been forced by Congress to place severe restrictions on legal aid programs that receive LSC funds….  At this critical time in our nation, legislative support for the Civil Access to Justice Act of 2009 is crucial….  The…act would expand access to justice to low-income populations by lifting … restrictions and helping to ensure that federally funded legal services providers are able to assist their clients in the most effective way possible.”  [Ed. Note: the piece provides a useful history of attempts, through litigation, to roll back the operating restrictions placed on LSC grantees in the late 1990s.]  Link to piece.

• 3.22.10 – Pittsburgh Tribune-Review – “Federal judges have been giving black and Hispanic males longer sentences as compared to white males since a 2005 Supreme Court decision converted federal sentencing guidelines from mandates to suggestions, a recently released U.S. Sentencing Commission report says.  Local criminal defense attorneys and law professors said they’re skeptical about the study’s results and don’t want to see a return to mandatory guidelines.”  The 2005 Supreme Court decision held that the mandatory sentencing guidelines in place at the time must instead be read by judges as recommendations.  Since then, according to the USSC report, disparities in sentences for minority defendants compared to whites have returned, whereas they were actually abating at the time of the Supreme Court decision.  Critics of the report note that some data which was not factored into its analysis may have skewed the disparity figures.  The “data do not meausure the amount of violence in the defendant’s criminal past, or crimes included in the pre-sentencing report that aren’t used to calculate teh defendant’s criminal history score.”  Link to article.

• 3.22.10 – Connecticut Law Tribune – as legal services programs in Connecticut have fallen victim to budget woes, the state’s chapter of the American College of Trial Lawyers put on a free one-day, litigation skills training for legal services lawyers.  Link to article.

• 3.20.10 – Lansing State Journal (Michigan) (Running an Associated Press Story) – Michigan “has one of the nation’s stingiest and most fragmented systems for representing the 80 percent of defendants who can’t afford a lawyer, a wide range of critics say.”  A National Legal Aid & Defender Association report noted that the state’s annual per capita spending on indigent defense, $7.35, ranks it among the lowest of the 50 states.  Some also point to the fact that having an inadequate public defense system could ultimately cost the state money in having to adjudicate ineffective-asssitance-of-counsel appeals and in housing a larger number of inmates.  There are reform efforts being pushed in both the legislative and judicial arenas.  “The state House Judiciary Committee is drafting a bipartisan proposal to overhaul Michigan’s 153-year-old indigent defense system.”  And, next month the state supreme court will hear arguments in a class action suit, initiated by the ACLU, challenging the system as being inadequate to meet constitutional guarantees.  Link to article.  [Ed Note: a previous PSLawNet Blog post on the Michigan indigent defense crisis links to additional media coverage.]

• 3.20.10 – Marin Independent Journal (California) – in a circumstance emblematic of difficult decisions confronting cash-strapped counties throughout the U.S., Marin Mediations Services, a Marin County program that has “resolved thousands of disputes…over the past three decades” may not survive as the government wrestles with a $20 million budget shortfall.  The program will not go away without a fight from its director, who argues that mediation services save money by settling legal disputes without protracted litigation.”  If the program is cut, the county may ask the district attorney’s office to handle more mediation matters.  Link to article.

• 3.19.10 – New York Times – the Santa Clara County (California) district attorney’s recently imposed policy of using peremptory challenges to effectively ban a particular judge from sitting in most criminal matters has caused debate in the legal community and led to complications in courthouse administration.  District Attorney Dolores Carr contends that Judge Andrea Bryan is not giving her office a “fair shake.”  Since Bryan threw out a sexual abuse conviction because of what she saw as “outrageous” misconduct on the part of a prosecutor at trial, Carr’s office has instituted the peremptory challange policy.  Such challenges are permitted by law  but the sheer volume and consistency of the challenges is a marked departure from custom.  Link to article.  [Ed. Note: previous coverage available via stories from the San Jose Mercury News published on  2.8.10 and 1.26.10.] 

• 3.19.10 – Legal Services Corporation Press Release – the Senate confirmed six of President Obama’s nominees to serve on the board of the Legal Services Corporation.  “The six nominees were Sharon L. Browne, Robert J. Grey, Jr., Charles N.W. Keckler, John G. Levi, Victor B. Maddox and Martha L. Minow. President Obama announced their nominations last year and the nominations were approved by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, led by Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Ranking Member Michael B. Enzi (R-Wyo.).”  Link to press release.  [Ed. Note – one nomination, that of Sharon L. Browne, had caused some controversy in the public interest community as both the ABA and a sizeable consortium of public interest advocates opposed her joining the LSC board.  The PSLawNet Blog covered this controversy in 3/11 post.]

• 3.18.10 – Casper Journal (Wyoming) – on March 11 Wyoming’s governor signed into law a bill that begins to build the infrastructure for a statewide civil legal services sytem.  “In 2009, Wyoming and Idaho were the only two states in the nation that didn’t have a specific appropriation to directly support general, civil legal aid for low income individuals. The law that goes into effect on July 1 will put Wyoming in line with the rest of the nation by providing legal services statewide for the tens of thousands of Wyoming people who can’t afford the legal services they need.”  The legal services program will be funded via a $10 court case filing fee, which will be collected beginning in July.  By November, a plan to put the accumulated funds into action should be submitted to the Wyoming legislature.  Link to article.

We’ve been following a controversy that’s arisen as Maryland lawmakers have threatened to withhold funding from the University of Maryland School of Law unless it provides information that would identify some of its clinical program’s clients.  Some lawmakers are apparently upset that the clinical program is involved in an environmental pollution suit aimed at, among others, Perdue Farms – a powerful actor in the state.

ABA President Carolyn B. Lamm came out against the lawmakers’ actions yesterday:

[T]here is a proposal before the Maryland legislature to withhold funds from the University of Maryland School of Law unless it reports on clients and cases served by the school’s clinical legal program, expenditures for those cases and funding sources.  Backers of the proposal claim a suit brought by the school’s environmental law clinic is targeting an important segment of the state’s agriculture industry.The proposed legislation is such an intrusion on the attorney-client relationship because of the information that is required to be revealed that it is not tolerable.  Clients seeking assistance from law school clinics or other non-profits providing legal services to the disadvantaged —as in the population generally—may be concerned about the ramifications of the release of confidential client information, even if that sensitive information is not formally subject to the attorney-client privilege.  This could result in their not seeking and receiving the legal assistance that they need.

…

As president of the American Bar Association, I urge those who would undermine clinical law school programs to step back and remember that the rule of law cannot survive if pressure prevents lawyers from fulfilling their responsibilities to their clients. 

Even closer to the controversy, Stephen H. Sachs, formerly the Maryland Attorney General and U.S. Attorney for Maryland, has come down squarely on the side of the law school via an op-ed in today’s Baltimore Sun:

Maryland’s General Assembly is being justly criticized for considering holding at least $500,000 hostage to demands for information about clients of the University of Maryland School of Law’s environmental clinic.

…

Most of the criticism of these budgetary restrictions has contended that they would undermine both the ethically mandated independence of the clinic’s lawyer-teacher and students and academic freedom. Those points are absolutely right.

But the proposed restrictions do even more harm: They target the rule of law itself, and they betray the citizen groups who seek to enforce it.

…

The lesson, unfortunately, that the pending legislation will teach is this: Powerful private interests can use government as a whip to intimidate lawyers for citizen groups who sue them to enforce laws they may be violating. It is hard to imagine a more pernicious lesson for all of us, including the University of Maryland law school’s students and the clients whom they help to represent. It is a message that other governmental bodies will hear and that some undoubtedly will act upon.

…

It is not too late for cooler heads to prevail. As one who is proud of our legislature and has great respect for its leaders, I hope so.

Public defenders and other criminal defense lawyers consider much more than just the direct consequences – i.e. jail or other punishment – that their clients could face with a conviction or a plea.  They also consider collateral consequences, such as the effect that the conviction/plea could have on a client’s ability to keep or find employment, their eligibility for public benefits, and…..their immigration status.

Yesterday, according to the Washington Post, the Supreme Court weighed in on lawyers’ obligations to counsel clients when they may face deportation as a result of a guilty plea in Padilla v. Kentucky:

Lawyers must advise their immigrant clients facing criminal charges that pleading guilty could lead to deportation, the Supreme Court decided Tuesday.

The court ruled 7 to 2 that the Sixth Amendment guarantee of an effective counsel extends to advice about the risk of having to leave the country.

“It is our responsibility under the Constitution to ensure that no criminal defendant — whether a citizen or not — is left to the mercies of incompetent counsel,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote.

Law Students: Save the date!  On Wednesday, April 14^th at 3:00pm EDT, NALP and the National Legal Aid & Defender Association (NLADA) are presenting “Top Ten Tips for a Successful Summer Internship in a Public Interest Office…and What to Avoid.”  This free webinar will help law students make the most of their summer experiences in civil legal services organizations and public defenders’ offices by offering concrete tips from both public interest attorneys with extensive experience in supervising law students and law school public interest advisors who counsel students on maximizing professional development opportunities.  The webinar will be led by Jennifer Thomas, Director of Legal Recruiting for the D.C. Public Defender Service, and Phyllis Holmen, Executive Director of the Georgia Legal Services Program.   

The webinar will be offered live on April 14th and archived for later viewing.  All students and law school career professionals who are interested in participating on April 14th should e-mail Kevin Mills, Director of Membership at NLADA at membership@nlada.org, and provide your full name, e-mail address, and a phone number.  Please type “Student Webinar” in the email’s subject line.

Jonathan Smith of the Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia wrote yesterday on their blog a response to an op-ed by Gillian Hadfield arguing that expanding non-lawyer legal help may be the necessary missing piece in ensuring that everyone has (more) equitable access to the justice system. Smith disagrees with Hadfield’s proposal, and argues quite eloquently as to the need for lawyers rather than just improving self-help options.

In an interesting article that underscores the importance of this debate, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution ran an article today on the lack of lawyers in the rural parts of the state. Georgia actually faces no shortage of attorneys, but 70% of them serve in the Atlanta metro area, leaving the rest of the state severely underserved, particularly as demands for free or low-cost legal services rise. If non-lawyer legal help isn’t the answer, then there must be a discussion on how to get the lawyers we have to serve the currently underserved (of course, that conversation is happening, as in the efforts to ensure a civil right to counsel which we have blogged about in the past).