From a UVA press release:

A federal judge on Monday threw out the conviction and death sentence of Justin Wolfe of Chantilly, through the efforts of the University of Virginia School of Law‘s Innocence Project Clinic and partnering organizations. 

The clinic worked closely with Wolfe’s pro bono attorneys at the Washington, D.C., law firm King & Spalding and the Virginia Capital Representation Resource Center to demonstrate that the prosecutors in Wolfe’s trial had suppressed evidence that would have exonerated Wolfe. In his ruling, U.S. Judge Raymond A. Jackson agreed that the prosecutors’ conduct resulted in an unfair trial.

“We’re elated and gratified,” said Deirdre Enright, director of investigation for the Innocence Project Clinic. “It’s rare to get relief in death penalty cases and rarer still to lay it at the feet of prosecutors.”

Wolfe, who has been on death row since 2002, was convicted of murder for hire and sentenced to die in a case that received national attention and involved an extensive drug ring run by suburban middle-class youths in Northern Virginia.

…

Congrats, UVA Innocence Project Clinic!

By Lauren Forbes

Howdy, folks! Every Thursday, the PSLawNet Blog posts a compilation of some of our favorite posts from the public interest blogosphere. Here’s what looks good this week:

• The ABA Center for Pro Bono Reform Blog discusses the great need has existed for years for patent lawyers to be able to help low-income inventors seek their American dreams.  The LegalCORPS Inventor Assistance Program has been created to meet that need.
• Advancement Project’s Just Democracy Blog has a piece about how racial justice is officially a matter of life and death.
• Amnesty International’s Human Rights Now Blog points out that while a new nation was born: the Republic of South Sudan, there are still growing problems of violence and discrimination against women in the South.
• The Poverty Law Blog picked up Mother Jones‘ latest coverage of  legal aid hysteria, a  new proposal would take away $104 million from legal aid at a time when demand is soaring.
• The Equal Justice Work Blog urges you to consider the benefits of federal student loans!

By Jamie Bence

In an editorial published today on AOL Government, Admiral Thad Allen, the former Commandant of the US Coast Guard, takes up the issue that PSLawNet has covered previously. In his piece, General Allen reminds us why public servants should not be demonized in the debate over budget cuts and slowing federal hiring:

In the current political climate and discourse over the national debt, we have done a poor job of distinguishing between the need for fiscal responsibility and the value of public service, which is enduring.

While politicians necessarily haggle over policy, budgets and the size of government, it is worth remembering that it does not serve any of us as Americans when government employees are denigrated or vilified. We all want the best government possible, and our aim should be to encourage, not discourage, bright, capable people from serving their fellow citizens.

The article points out that, while a government job may be “just a paycheck” for some, and like any institution, the government makes mistakes, civil servants are by and large individuals who make personal sacrifices for a greater cause. Moreover, they provide essential services that make resolve problems, big and small, in everyday life:

Imagine what it would be like taking your children to school and finding no one there to teach them, calling 9-1-1 and having no one respond to your emergency, having no sanitation workers to pick up your trash, no one building or maintaining our roads, no one guarding our borders, no one manning or embassies abroad, or no one providing health care to our wounded warriors or sending out Social Security checks.

The truth is that each and every day, civil servants are finding solutions to serious problems, assisting Americans in need, keeping us safe and advancing our national interests.

To read Admiral Allen’s complete piece, click here.

By Jamie Bence

Across the pond, a story similar to one we blogged about last week, as legal aid there faces deep cuts from Parliament. As in the United States, the proposed cuts to service providers have sparked controversy and debate over the role of Legal Services in the justice system.
BBC News has outlined the major provisions of the legislation as follows:

Under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, ministers say they want to end legal aid for:

• Private family law cases, such as divorce and custody battles
• Clinical negligence claims
• Employment and education law
• Immigration, other than where someone is detained
• Some debt, housing and benefit issues.

The government says that domestic violence cases will still receive legal aid and it intends to expand the definition to include mental and sexual abuse.

Sir Bill Callaghan, Chair of the Legal Services Commission, released a statement, saying:

‘The Legal Services Commission is committed to playing its part in delivering these reforms, to ensure there is a sustainable legal aid scheme for the future, targeted at those who need help most.”

The BBC reports that Justice Secretary Ken Clarke had a different take on the proposals:

Mr Clarke has told MPs that the current system “too often encourages people to bring their problems before the courts, even when they are not the right place to provide good solutions and sometimes for litigation that people paying out of their own pocket would not have pursued.”

However, whether the legislation will save money in the long term remains a point of controversy. In an op-ed, Peter Lodder, chairman of the Bar Council, argues:

Legal aid is an insurance policy, paid for through our taxes, that is there for people when something goes wrong. It will come as a shock to many, at what is often among the most stressful times in their lives, to discover that they are being left by the roadside with no one available to assist them.

Worse still, it is far from clear these proposals will even save money. They will disrupt the courts, increase costs and cause delays. Stressed litigants in person, unfamiliar with their surroundings and not used to marshalling their arguments, will prolong hearings. These concerns are not confined to the Bar Council; they have been echoed by the Judges’ Council of England and Wales.

The reforms have had a startling impact on the Immigration Advisory Service, which had 14 branches handling thousands of immigration cases until recently, when their doors closed due to budget cuts. BBC reports:

In a statement, the IAS said: “The government’s reforms include the removal of immigration from the scope of legal aid, and a 10% cut in legal aid fees for refugees seeking asylum within the UK. Immigration accounts for around 60% of IAS’s income.

“There are few organisations that could cope with the compound effect of removal of immigration from the scope of legal aid and a cut in fees for asylum clients.”

While it remains to be seen what budget cuts legal services will face stateside, the problems associated with drastic reductions in legal services are already clear in the UK.

By Jamie Bence

Today, the Wall Street Journal examines a growing trend among law schools to offer more practice-oriented courses in the wake of the recession. The article points out that these changes are largely in response to employers’ criticism of newly minted attorneys:

“Law firms are saying, ‘You’re sending us people who are not in a position to do anything useful for clients.’ This is a first effort to try and fix that,” says Larry Kramer, the law dean at Stanford.

The moves come amid a prolonged downturn in the legal job market. Only about one-quarter of last year’s graduating law-school classes—down from 33% in 2009—snagged positions with big law firms, according to the National Association for Law Placement, an organization that collects employment data.

The article also points out the incongruities between law schools and other professional schools, which typically take a more practice-oriented approach. Changes being implemented at several law schools are highlighted in the article:

Indiana University Maurer School of Law started teaching project management this year and also offers a course on so-called emotional intelligence. The class has no textbook and instead uses personality assessments and peer reviews to develop students’ interpersonal skills.

New York Law School hired 15 new faculty members over the past two years, many directly from the ranks of working lawyers, to teach skills in negotiation, counseling and fact investigation. The school says it normally hires one or two new faculty a year, and usually those focused on legal research.

And Washington and Lee University School of Law completely rebuilt its third-year curriculum in 2009, swapping out lectures and Socratic-style seminars for case-based simulations run by practicing lawyers.

A few elite players also are making adjustments. Harvard Law School last year launched a problem-solving class for first-year students, and Stanford Law School is considering making a full-time clinical course—which entails several 40-hour plus weeks of actual case work—a graduation requirement.

As the PSLawNet Blog has noted in the past, it will be interesting to see how a movement to more experiential learning models may impact public interest programming at law schools.  Clinical programs, externships, and pro bono work are already among the main avenues through which students can get hands-on legal experience, so it’s possible that a push toward more experiential learning programs may lead to a boost in public interest opportunities.

For more information on specific changes that schools are implementing, read the complete article here.

By: Steve Grumm

Greetings, readers!  The big news this week is a House proposal to take a big chunk out of LSC funding in FY12.  Other news items will carry us from Vermont to Pennsylvania (home of the Glorious Philadelphia Phillies Baseball Franchise, presently the best team in the majors – FYI) to Mississippi to California to Hawaii, with stops at various points between. 

This week: Have Justice Will Travel up against the ropes financially; House proposes 25% cut in Legal Services Corporation funding (yikes!); IOLTA funds distributed in Mississippi; in PA, state funding for legal services cut; a new CO pro bono program for appellate-level cases; from multiple-time drug offender to assistant district attorney – that’s taking a new career path; is this man the “face of bad court-appointed lawyers”?; Aloha State legal services programs to benefit from filing fee bump-up; AmLaw’s pro bono report is out, numbers are down; foreclosure defense funding in the Bay Area.   

• 7.7.11 –Have Justice Will Travel, an organization that represents domestic violence victims in Vermont, is hurting for cash.  Vermont Public Radio has the story: “Wynona Ward of Vershire founded Have Justice Will Travel in 1998. Raised in a violent household herself, Ward eventually became a lawyer dedicated to helping others in that plight.  Her organization is the only one in Vermont that specializes in legal representation in divorce, child custody and similar cases. But now Ward has had to lay off five of her six employees. Ward hopes the situation is just temporary.”  What’s really hurt the group is the loss of DOJ grant funding.  (VAWA funding, probably.)  Props to John Lamson, an attorney who was laid off by HJWT, but who has taken the time to continue representing DV victims at no charge, hopeful that a new funding stream will put him back on salary.  (Faithful Bulletin readers – all six of you – will recall that HJWT got some similar press attention in early June.)

• 7.6.11 – a House of Representatives proposal would slash Legal Services Corporation funding by over 25% in FY2012.  From an LSC press release: “The [House Appropriations] Committee bill proposes a $300 million budget for LSC [which now stands at just over $400 million] —rolling back LSC funding to a level not seen since 1999.  LSC’s preliminary estimates show that about 235,000 low-income Americans eligible for civil legal assistance at LSC-funded programs would be turned away if the Committee proposal were enacted.”  The House proposal is frightening, but is hardly the last word.  The Obama Administration had proposed a $450 million LSC budget, while LSC itself is shooting for $515 million.  And the Senate hasn’t weighed in with a figure yet, but it will undoubtedly not be as low as the House’s. 

• 7.5.11 – the Mississippi Center for Legal Services received 96,000 in IOLTA funds, according to the Sun Herald.  According to its website, MCLS receives 90% of its funding from LSC.  Given the potential for a considerable drop in LSC field grants whenever a federal budget gets passed for FY12, other funding streams, such as IOLTA, are going to become increasingly important.  With respect to IOLTA funding in the Magnolia State, you can view a list of 2011-12 funding recipients here.

• 7.5.11 – the Legal Intelligencer reports on state funding for Pennsylvania legal services programs.  The bad news: Due to some last-minute budget reshuffling, state funding will drop by 10%, down from $3.04 million to $2.7 million.  ” ‘Right now ranks up right there with one of the most challenging years we’ve experienced in the nearly 40 years of the statewide legal aid system,’ [Pennsylvania Legal Aid Network exec. director Samuel] Milkes said. ‘It’s not only the cuts that we’re experiencing here but cuts in federal funding for programs, too. It’s just occurring everywhere’.”  The silver lining: “Another source of funding for both legal services and for the judiciary was passed by both houses of the General Assembly: a bill that will continue temporary filing fee surcharges until Dec. 31, 2014. One dollar of the $11.25 surcharge goes to civil legal aid and $10.25 goes to the judiciary. Milkes said that the legal services community is hoping that Harrisburg lawmakers will also extend a $2 filing fee that goes toward civil legal aid and which is slated to sunset Nov. 1, 2012.”

• 7.5.11 -the Denver Post reports on a Colorado pro bono program focused on providing assistance to low-income litigants at the appellate level.  “The program started as the brainchild of appellate court Judges Daniel Taubman and David Richman, who saw litigants representing themselves struggle with complex legal issues….  Until last year, there was no assistance for low-income people trying complex cases before the state’s appellate and Supreme courts, said Christina Gomez, who is chairwoman of the committee that screens applications.   So far, 27 people have asked for help and volunteer attorneys have taken on 10 cases, Gomez said…. The program accepts applications from people who make 125 percent of the federal poverty level or less, and handles cases involving property rights, contract disputes, family law, employment and others topics. Cases involving prison discipline, election appeals, unemployment compensation and post-criminal-conviction relief are excluded.
   
• 7.4.11 – arrested on drug charges, shot five times, and now a prosecutor in the Philly D.A.’s office.  The Philadelphia Inquirer reports on the remarkable story of A.D.A. Kevin Harden, Jr.  Harden grew up in very difficult circumstances, made some critical course-corrections after serious run-ins with the law, and now supports himself and two younger brothers since both of his parents have died.  As also noted in the story, Harden’s been the subject of some criticism regarding his hiring. Harden has the strong support of District Attorney Seth Williams, however, and also gets high marks from Dean JoAnne Epps at his alma mater (and mine!), Temple Law.

• 7.4.11 – the Detroit Free Press checks up on court-appointed defense counsel Robert Slameka, who was profiled in 2009 NPR story focused on how poorly resourced many indigent defense systems are, leading to attorneys acting with little client interaction, little funding, and little oversight.   The Free Press, characterizing Slameka as having been “the face bad court-appointed lawyers” in the NPR story, hones in on his long disciplinary record.  However, the story also quotes some defenders of the defender, who note that anyone who has spent decades doing indigent defense work will be subject to some criticism.

• 7.3.11 -Aloha State legal services advocates have reason to be mahalo-ful.  From the Honolulu Star Advertiser: “Starting Jan. 1, the cost of filing a state lawsuit will increase under a measure approved by lawmakers this year to help fund nonprofit groups providing assistance to Hawaii residents who can’t afford to pay for legal services.   The legislation could generate an additional $1 million or more a year and was one of the key initiatives by the Access to Justice Commission, created by the Hawaii Supreme Court in 2007 after a study found that four of five low-income residents don’t get the legal help they need.”

• 7.1.11 – AmLaw issued its annual pro bono report this week, showing a drop-off in pro bono by the 200 highest grossing law firms between 2009 and 2010.  From the report overview: “Average pro bono hours for lawyers at Am Law 200 firms plummeted 8 percent in 2010 to their lowest level in three years, reversing a decade of steady growth. The overall average percentage of lawyers who did more than 20 hours of pro bono work dipped 5.2 percent.”  Context is important here.  In 2009, law firms were still “right-sizing” their attorney workforces, meaning that there were still many associates doing a lot of pro bono because of a shortage of fee-paying work.  In 2010, there were fewer attorneys and fee-paying work began picking up, which meant less time for pro bono.  This doesn’t explain the pro bono drop-off entirely, but in my view it’s a significant factor.

• 7.1.11 – foreclosure defense funding in the Bay Area.  From the San Jose Mercury News: “South Bay and Peninsula residents at risk of losing their homes got a boost Friday when the Silicon Valley Community Foundation awarded $511,000 to organizations who work to prevent foreclosure.  The foundation says the award will allow seven nonprofits in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties to retain employees who were hired with previous grants from the foundation. That should allow the groups to provide housing counseling or legal services to more than 1,000 people.  [Among the benefiting organizations,] Bay Area Legal Aid, Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County and Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto each received $75,000 to provide legal assistance to those facing foreclosure.” 

By Jamie Bence and Lauren Forbes

Howdy, folks! Every Thursday, the PSLawNet Blog posts a compilation of some of our favorite posts from the public interest blogosphere. Here’s what looks good this week:

• Access to Justice breaks down updates to DOJ’s Grant Information page. Updates via email are now available!
• Equal Justice Works discusses the a new proposal in Congress to help relieve student debt.
• The ACLU Blog of Rights reports that yesterday, organizations combating HIV/AIDS received support to continue and strengthen their work with one of the populations most vulnerable to infection. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the “anti-prostitution pledge,” a part of the U.S. Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act.

By Lauren Forbes

A piece in The Queens Courier announces an official location change for The City University of New York’s School of Law (CUNY Law) that has been long-awaited.  CUNY Law,  a school with a public interest mission,  is now positioning itself to train even more public servants with an upcoming change of scenery.  In an effort to better serve Queens, CUNY  Law is gearing up to leave its current Flushing location in favor of the more transportation-friendly Long Island City.

CUNY Law reports that L.I.C.’s central location will allow for an easier commute from all five boroughs and from around the region. Further, the move will enable the School to realize its long-held ambition to establish a part-time program, an innovation that would help make the Law School accessible to a more diverse range of students. With its greater centrality, its mission will be enhanced by its closer proximity to the public interest community and to its clients.

Assemblymember Grace Meng and Councilmember Peter Koo toured the under-construction facility on Thursday, June 30. During the tour, Koo noted that the school will provide more of the kinds of lawyers society needs.

“There are too many lawyers, but not enough working in public interest,” he said. “This school is one of the best public interest law schools in the country and with this move it will serve even more people.”

Meng said that while she was sad to see the school leave Flushing, she knows that it will have an even greater presence in L.I.C.

“As a law school dedicated to public interest, CUNY Law is a great asset to our community, offering pro bono legal assistance through its clinic and supporting new lawyers who are eager to devote themselves to practice law for social justice,” she said. “The school’s move to Long Island City will allow even more people to access these critical services.”

Dean Michelle Anderson said that while Flushing was a great home for a number of years, moving to L.I.C. will help the school to better serve the community. According to Anderson, the Flushing location sometimes hindered the school – but in L.I.C. more people will have access to CUNY’s wealth of resources.

…
The new building, located at 2 Court Square, is LEED Gold certified and boasts 225,000 square feet of space for larger classrooms, an auditorium and a moot courtroom. The school will also be accessible by more than a dozen subway and bus lines, as well as the Long Island Railroad.

Both aspiring public interest lawyers and community members with legal needs will likely benefit from CUNY Law, “Law in the service of human needs,” being made more accessible to public transit. Thank you for your many years of service, Flushing’s 65-21 Main Street! Congratulations, CUNY Law!

By: Steve Grumm

On the heels of our brief post yesterday about a proposal in the House to slash LSC funding by over 25% in FY12, LSC put out a press release.  We’ve reprinted it is in its entirety below.  In some ways this funding proposal is just an opening salvo.  LSC’s board favors an FY12 appropriation of about $515 million, and the Obama Administration supports $450 million in LSC funding.  The Senate subcommittee charged with LSC funding hasn’t produced a figure yet.

Nevertheless,  the House proposal is alarming.  It is being marked up today by the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies appropriations subcommittee, with a full committee markup scheduled for next week.  According to the National Legal Aid & Defender Association, the House wants to bring a funding bill to the floor before an August 5 recess.  The Senate is moving more slowly on this front, however.

Here’s LSC’s press release:    

July 6, 2011

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

House Proposal Would Cut Civil Legal Aid by $104 Million

Washington, DC— Funding for the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) would be cut by 26 percent in Fiscal Year 2012 under a proposal announced by the House Appropriations Committee today. The Committee bill proposes a $300 million budget for LSC—rolling back LSC funding to a level not seen since 1999.

Basic field grants, which are currently provided to 136 nonprofit civil legal aid programs across the nation, would be cut to $274.4 million, a 27.5 percent reduction from current funding of $378.6 million.

LSC’s preliminary estimates show that about 235,000 low-income Americans eligible for civil legal assistance at LSC-funded programs would be turned away if the Committee proposal were enacted.

“The proposed cut would prove to be especially damaging to low-income persons whose health and safety are at risk—the elderly, the victims of domestic violence, the disabled, children, veterans and others—by denying them access to justice,” LSC President James J. Sandman said.

“At LSC programs, requests for assistance are increasing. The poverty population eligible for civil legal assistance has grown by 17 percent since 2008, to an all-time high of 63 million Americans. And funding from non-federal sources is decreasing. This is not the time to undercut the fundamental American commitment to equal justice for all,” Mr. Sandman said.

In April, Congress cut LSC funding by 4 percent for Fiscal Year 2011, to $404.2 million from $420 million. The impact of that cutback, combined with reductions in state funds, Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts and other funding sources, has put many LSC-funded programs under great financial stress.

LSC-funded programs by the end of 2011 project net staff reductions of 445 employees, including more than 200 attorneys, because of layoffs and attrition, according to survey responses provided by 121 of the 136 LSC-funded programs.  In the responses, 57 percent of the programs project budget deficits for 2011 totaling more than $19 million. Forty-two percent of the respondents said they had imposed a salary freeze, and 31 percent anticipate reducing employee benefits this year.

Some LSC-funded programs have dipped into reserve funds to postpone downsizing and reduced client services, but almost all report that continued cuts to their funding in 2012 will lead to layoffs, office closures and reduced services to clients. Many rural areas, where there are not enough private lawyers to volunteer pro bono services, will be especially vulnerable to office closures because they are already minimally staffed.

Last year, the 136 nonprofit programs funded by LSC closed nearly 1 million cases, which affected 2.3 million people. The legal aid programs also assisted an additional 1.4 million Americans, through referrals to private lawyers, self-help workshops and other services.

From 2009 to 2010, foreclosure cases were up 20 percent at LSC-funded programs; unemployment compensation cases increased 10.5 percent; landlord-tenant disputes rose by 7.7 percent; bankruptcy, debt relief and consumer finance cases were up by nearly 5 percent, and domestic violence cases increased by 5 percent.

“Never in American history has the need for federal support for access to justice been clearer. We look forward to working with the Congress in the coming weeks on continuing and expanding civil legal assistance to low-income Americans,” Mr. Sandman said.

Established by Congress in 1974, LSC is an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation that promotes equal access to justice and funds high-quality civil legal assistance to low-income individuals and families.  LSC-funded programs provide legal services to persons at or below 125 percent of the federal poverty guideline.

By: Steve Grumm

From Richard Zorza’s Access to Justice Blog, we learn of a resources page listing federal grants available to legal services providers:

Special thanks to the DOJ Access Initative for its Grants Information Page, bringing together informtion about a wide range of Federal grants, including many that would not normally get the attention of access advocates.

For example as of his date, the civil area includes information about a Neighborhood Revialization grant program.

The page allows you to subscribe for e-mail alerts when there is an update.