Robert Schwartz, of the Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia, contributed a commentary piece to CNN on why children should not be tried as adults in the criminal justice system. Schwartz discusses two similar Pennsylvania cases, though separated by 20 years, and much of the recent research on the intersection between child psychology and development and the criminal justice system. This article is a good primer for anybody interested in the subject of juvenile justice generally, and the issue of trying kids as adults in particular.

Please note that previous Public Interest News Bulletin stories are archived on PSLawNet.  Also, for a summary of news stories affecting the larger legal industry, see the  NALP Industry News Weekly Digest.

• 2.17.10 – West Virginia Record – Legal Aid of West Virginia and FamilyCare Health Centers have collaborated to form the state’s first medical-legal partnership, through which an LAWV attorney will be onsite part-time at medical clinics to provide legal assistance to low-income patients and to educate medical staff.  Medical-legal partnerships, originally put into operation in Boston, “integrate legal services into the health care setting to help low-income patients navigate the complex legal systems that often hold solutions to social, economic, and environmental determinants of health. For example, when a patient is entitled to obtain Supplemental Security Income and cannot pay for his medication without it, lawyers and doctors can effectively work together to help address the patient’s needs.”  Link to article.

• 2.16.10 – Business Week –   the Obama Administration is emphasizing accountability and performance-based metrics in its approach to managing the federal civil service.  Also vitally important, though, is ensuring that government’s higher ranks are populated with strong leaders.  “Although there are certainly many strong leaders in the Senior Executive Service, the government’s top tier of career executives, and the broader civil service, there is general agreement among senior leaders in the government and experts who have studied the issue that more attention needs to be placed on the selection, assessment, and development of leaders.”  Link to article.

• 2.16.10 – Dallas Morning News – DNA-based exonerations of those convicted of crimes raise a question about whether prosecutors’ limited resources should be devoted to tracing an improper conviction all the way back to a root cause, or whether the exoneration itself suffices to right the past wrong, ending a need for additional inquiry.  Link to article.

• 2.16.10 – American Lawyer Daily – in AmLaw’s “Deferred Associate Diaries” feature, a Class of 2009 law school graduate whose start date at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP was deferred provides an occasional update on his public service placement with the Public Interest Law Project’s Oakland office.  His most recent entry, made on February 16th, is here, and his first entry, made on December 23, 2009, is here.

• 2.15.10 – American Spectator – a former Georgetown University Law Center student who enrolled during the “golden era for well-paid corporate legal work,” reviews the phenomenon of deferred associates taking public service placements and speculates that, after their exposure to public service work, some deferred associates may seek to remain in those settings rather than returning to Biglaw.  Link to article.

• 2.15.10 – Rome News-Tribune (Georgia) – the Georgia Supreme Court just heard arguments in a case in which two men accused of a 2007 murder are seeking to have the charges dismissed because delays in the public defense system have resulted in the men remaining in jail without a trial.  One of the dilemmas the high court confronted was the possibility that delay and inaction on the part of a criminal defense lawyer might lead to an ironic result that ultimately would benefit their client because charges would be thrown out.   Link to article. 

• 2.14.10 – Herald-Palladium (Southwest Michigan) – the indigent defense system in Michigan, which now essentially is a patchwork of programs that vary county by county, is under attack from critics who “charge that the [state] legislature and governor are shirking their responsibility to pay for and operate a system that works.  The ACLU filed a class action lawsuit in 2007 to spur indigent defense reform, and a bill has been introduced in the state House to “create a state-run public defender system to enforce minimum standards.”  Link to article.

• 2.13.10 – Minneapolis Star Tribune – Dakota County, Minnesota is trying to help criminal defendants who “make too much to qualify for a public defender — but not enough to afford legal representation.”   County judges just approved a plan through which “lawyers will volunteer their services on arraignment day and stay available [at reduced rates] to any low-income person charged with a crime who has not hired a private attorney or has not qualified for a state-paid public defender.”  Link to article. 

• 2.12.10 – Casper Star-Tribune (Wyoming) –  a bill to create a statewide civil legal services system has gotten through state House’s Judiciary Committee and will be taken up by the full body.  Funding for the system would come from a proposed $10 increase in court filing fees.  The system was first proposed by the state’s Access to Justice Commission, under the leadership of Wyoming Supreme Court Justice James Burke.  During the Judiciary Committee hearing, many from the legal community expressed support for the new measure, but a representative for the state’s agricultural interests voiced skepticism on account of the possibility of a legal services program initiating litigation against farmers.  Link to article.

The Orlando Sentinal reported yesterday on a case being handled by Community Legal Services of Mid-Florida in which a couple is being threatened with eviction from their mobile home park due to the presence of a small dog. The dog was recommended by a doctor to alleviate some symptoms of Alzheimer’s in Verdie Cook, the 78 year old resident and owner of the dog with her husband, Kenny. The Cooks are arguing that the strict no-dogs rule of the park must be waived in this case as a “reasonable accommodation” for Cook’s disability under the Fair Housing Act. Unrelated to the merits of the case – the dog is a very cute chihuahua-Boston terrier mix named Lucy.

The latest edition of the ABA Division for Legal Services’ Dialogue newsletter includes a piece on the phenomenon of state jurisdictions creating blue-ribbon Access to Justice commissions (or ATJs), and their close ties with the state Interest on Lawyers Trust Account (IOLTA) programs that fund civil legal services.  ATJs, which are often composed of high-level players from the bench, the private bar, and the public interest community, tend to work on the systemic level, developing big-picture solutions for and bringing attention to shortcomings in the justice system that affect poor and socially marginalized citizens. 

The idea of the organized bar, the courts, legal aid providers, funders, and other stakeholders working together to expand access to civil justice for low-income and disadvantaged people is not new. What is novel about ATJ commissions is that they institutionalize these relationships, typically under the aegis of the state supreme court, providing the group’s recommendations with built-in visibility and credibility and facilitating their implementation.

The piece goes on to talk about the relationship between ATJs and IOLTA programs which, while having some divergence in mission, unite around the goal of ensuring equal access to justice in their jurisdictions.

The Harvard Law Record has a wonderful (student-written) story on a recent visit from Albie Sachs, retired justice on the South African Constitutional Court. Mr. Sachs was arrested in 1963 as a political prisoner because he had been representing persons arrested and charged under racist statutes. He was held in solitary confinement for 90 days, and lived in exile following that experience until 1990. When Nelson Mandela was elected President of South Africa, he nominated Sachs to the Constitutional Court, where he served until this year. The story includes a video of Sachs’ talk at Harvard.

A piece by the National Law Journal’s Tony Mauro looks at the possibility that retirements by Justices Ginsburg and Stevens could leave two, concurrent vacancies at the Court.  (As if there hasn’t been enough partisanship on display in Washington…)

In many respects the legal “public interest community” (amorphous as it may be) is set apart from the law firm world.  Recruiting and hiring are done quite differently, for instance, among nonprofits and government offices compared to large law firms.  But there is some overall cohesion in the industry at large.  The Great Recession has shown us that no law office has been immune from its effects.  Indeed, the closely-knit relationship between “Biglaw” and the public interest community on pro bono issues became evident as firms adjusted pro bono programs to assist nonprofits with changing client needs, and also in the phenomenon of deferred law firm associates taking public service placements in public interest offices.  Also, those large firms that kept up their financial backing of the public interest community have been absolutely vital pillars of support as other traditional public-interest revenue streams tapered to a trickle.

What does this mean for aspiring and current public interest advocates?  It means that there are a lot of good reasons to keep your finger on the pulse of the larger legal industry.  In some contexts there is a close relationship, even a symbiosis, between law firms and their public interest partners.  So your practice could be directly impacted, as could the financial fortunes of your employer.

Here’s some good news about keeping up with the news: NALP makes it easy for you to check in on happenings in the industry at large.  Every Friday, the esteemed Jim Leipold, NALP’s executive director (and your author’s boss), circulates the NALP Industry News Weekly Digest, which is freely available NALP’s website.  We’ll also begin posting a link to it in our weekly PSLawNet Public Interest News Bulletin.

Managing a high-ranking confidential informant must be among the most difficult, and perhaps even agonizing, responsibilities for a law enforcement officer.  On one hand, the closer the informant is to a criminal enterprise’s power center, the more information he can provide.  On the other, the closer he is, the more connected he is to the enterprise’s crimes.

National Public Radio has begun a three-part series on U.S. Customs’ (now called Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE) use of Guillermo Eduardo Ramiez Peyro, a member of a Mexican drug cartel, as an informant.  Peyro, who goes by the nickname Lalo, initiated contact with ICE to become an informant.  And he delivered, providing valuable pieces of intelligence.  But there were also indications that Lalo was present during crimes, including murders, and may have played a role.  He admitted that in one instance he “held the victim’s legs while the man was being brutally strangled, suffocated and beaten with a shovel.”

Now, in the aftermath of this saga, which has included a lawsuit filed against the U.S. government by the families of some of Lalo’s cartel’s murder victims, questions have been raised about whether this is an isolated incident in which U.S. customs agents did not follow internal guidelines – essentially letting an informant run wild – or if the agents could not have been aware of all that was happening across the Mexican border, or if the agents did alert their superiors to some of Lalo’s criminal conduct, and did not receive appropriate guidance – or some mix of all of those.

In any event, the piece is thought-provoking and sheds some light on the gray areas that exist as law enforcement agencies use criminals to fight crime.

Reminder: all content from past editions of the Bulletin is archived here on PSLawNet.

• 2.11.10 – Press Release from Office of Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna – using proceeds from a court settlement stemming from an unfair-lending-practices lawsuit against Countrywide Financial, the attorney general will direct $1.8 million to restitution, debt counseling, and other support services for Washington homeowners.  Of that $1.8 million, $320,000 will go to the Washington State Bar Association “to fund the Home Foreclosure Legal Aid Project, which provides pro bono legal services to homeowners facing foreclosure.”  Link to full press release. 

• 2.11.10 – National Law Journal – the presiding judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court warned that 300 staffers may have to be laid off in March on account of a $79 million deficit.  More layoffs could follow later in the year.  The president of the L.A. County Bar Association is arguing in favor of releasing funds from a construction bond account to shore up the court system, predicting long trial delays and a backlog if staffers are laid off.  Link to article.

• 2.10.10 – Boston Globe (Op-ed) – newly elected U.S. Senator Scott Brown (R., MA) was incorrect when he stated that “federal employees are making twice as much as their private sector counterparts” while he argued for a freeze on federal hiring and pay raises.  First, comparing salaries generally between the public and private sectors is misleading because there are no low-paying, minimum wage jobs in the public sector, and federal workers tend to be older and better educated than their private sector counterparts.  Further, “[d]irect comparisons show professionals in government routinely make far less than their private sector counterparts.”  Second, shrinking the federal workforce is an ill-considered proposal.  “The unintended result of such [hiring] freezes is to leave a federal workforce that is wildly uneven in its capabilities.”    Link to article.

• 2.9.10 – Minneapolis Star-Tribune – in an act of recession-era fiscal belt-tightening, Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty unilaterally “unalloted” $2.7 billion in state funding that had been budgeted to support various initiatives, including social services programs.  A Ramsey County judge had put the kibosh on the governor’s efforts, ruling that his move violated the constitutional separation of powers.  The governor, with support from three law professors, will take his case to the state’s high court in March.  Link to article.  [Ed. Note: this sequence of events exemplifies the tension between state (and local) governments’ efforts to right their own foundering fiscal ships while continuing to offer a social safety net for increased numbers of poor citizens.  As was reported on the MinnPost news site in late January, another target of unallotment was the state’s General Assistance Medical Care program.  After the Legal Aid Society of Minneapolis threatened a lawsuit, the state postponed the program’s discontinuation.]

• 2.9.10 – Hartford Courant [Op-ed] – Connecticut’s legal services programs have been walloped by a drop in IOLTA revenues and declines in other funding sources.  Now, the state judiciary, an initial supporter of state funding to shore up the legal aid infrastructure, “has proposed diverting $1.5 million of funds that were appropriated for legal aid to the poor to help cover a rescission of $7.8 million in the judicial budget.  The governor, General Assembly and judicial branch must find a way to ensure this $1.5 million reaches legal aid. Legal aid staff members have responded to the crisis with heart. Faced with pay cuts and uncertainty, they continue to fight for thousands of domestic violence victims, elderly people pressured by creditors, low-wage workers not being paid, disabled children seeking an education, disabled people seeking state and federal benefits.”  Link to piece.

• 2.9.10 – Baltimore Sun – the recent snowstorms in the mid-Atlantic have left more than snowdrifts piling up.  In Baltimore, and in counties throughout Maryland, court closures are clogging up the criminal justice system as hearings and trials back up while some defendants spend additional nights in jail until they can get to a judge for a bail hearing.  While some prosecutors and defense attorneys are doing all they can to keep up with trial prep, judges and court personnel must weigh a number of factors in making decisions on closures, including the ability of witnesses and jurors to safely travel to courthouses.  Link to article. 

• 2.9.10 – Vicksburg Post (Mississippi) – in Warren County, a proposal to create a public defender’s office has met with support from the local district attorney, who cited potential cost savings as the county would have to contract with fewer appointed counsel for indigent defendants.  Also, a consultant hired by the county to review its jail capacity noted that a public defender’s office may be able to expedite cases and keep more defendants out of jail, easing the burden on the jail facility.  Link to article.

• 2.9.10 – Oakland Tribune (California) – the Public Interest Law Project and Bay Area Legal Aid have sued the Alameda County’s Social Services Agency to stop the termination of a portion of some General Assistance welfare recipients’ benefit payment that is directed toward home rental expenses.  Link to article.  [Ed. Note: this is not the first time that public interest advocates have opposed General Assistance reductions imposed by Alameda County, which has been trying to take the General Assistance program out of the red by cutting benefits.  See San Francisco Chronicle coverage of the County’s legal victory regarding a three-month cap that it imposed on some General Assistance recipients who were deemed to be “employable”.] 

• 2.9.10 – National Law Journal –  Harvard Law School’s newly created Public Service Venture Fund will support graduates on public service career paths by dividing “$1 million per year among qualified graduates who start their own nonprofit organizations or seek jobs at government agencies or public interest groups.”  The addition of this program is one of a series of modifications that Harvard has made in its offerings to support aspiring public service lawyers.  The school has added a fellowship program to financially support grads who were unable to find work and who desired to work for one year in a public interest setting, and, due to budget constraints, it has temporarily done away with an initiative to waive third-year tuition for students who commit to five years of public service work upon graduation.  Link to article, and see Harvard’s announcement. 

• 2.8.10 – WSBT Television Station Website [CBS Affiliate in Indiana] – in April the Michigan Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of indigent defendants whose constitutional rights, the ACLU claims, have been violated because of Michigan’s poor indigent defense infrastructure.  Through the lawsuit, the ACLU “asks the state to step in and fix the problem: to make sure each county provides the funding, policies, and oversight so every defendant gets justice.”  Link to article.  [Ed Note: past coverage related to apparent troubles in the Michigan indigent defense network is available via the National Law Journal and the Michigan Citizen.]

• 2.8.10 – San Jose Mercury News (California)- the Santa Clara County District Attorney, who had appeared to direct her staff to take action amounting to a full boycott of a judge on criminal matters last month, has softened her stance a bit, indicating that it will not oppose the judge’s participation in some misdemeanor criminal proceedings.  The D.A.’s decision to boycott the Judge Andrea Bryan, which came after Bryan had ruled that a prosecutor from the D.A.’s office committed misconduct, was highly controversial in the local legal community.  Link to article.   [Ed. Note: past coverage by the San Jose Mercury News is available here.]

• 2.8.10 – Daily Record (Jacksonville, FL) – the Northeast Florida Medical Legal Partnership, one of a handful of advocacy programs that take a more holistic approach to serving low-income client communities, is expanding its services with the addition of Holland & Knight, LLP as a new organizational partner.  Link to article.

The following analysis is provided by William C. Penn, Public Interest Law Coordinator at Lewis & Clark Law School.  Thanks, Bill!

The U.S. Department of Education recently produced a Q&A guide pertaining to the College Cost Reduction & Access Act’s Income Based Repayment (IBR) program.  The Q&A mentions that starting in July 2010, married borrowers who file a joint tax return will be able to consider the income AND the debt of both spouses when calculating IBR payments and eligibility.  I did not see a clear description of how the changes will alter the amount that married borrowers have to pay, so I read through the Federal Register for Thursday October 29, 2009.

What follows is my rundown of the changes:

1. Graduates will be able to pick the greater of the amount of their loans when they began repayment or the amount of their loans when they request Income Based Repayment to use in the equations that determine
   eligibility for using Income-Based Repayment.  In the real world, this means that some graduates who might not have qualified for IBR at graduation may be able to qualify later if their loans have grown due
   to circumstances like deferment.
2. The calculation method for determining Income-Based Repayment amounts for single graduates remains the same.
3. The calculation method for determining Income-Based Repayment amounts for married graduates filing separate tax returns remains the same (count only individual income and only their individual debt in
   the equations).
4. The calculation method for determining Income-Based Repayment amounts for married graduates filing joint tax returns is very different: 

•  
  • In determining qualification for IBR, both the joint income and the joint debt of the couple is considered.  This means, for qualification, a joint tax return filing married couple will be
    treated as a single unit for both income and debt.  The qualification question is:  does the IBR equation produce a smaller payment amount when calculated using the joint income than a standard 10-year payment plan based on the joint debt.  If one spouse qualifies, the other does
    as well.  Fewer graduates will fail to qualify because their joint income is too high.
  • For calculating the amount that each spouse must pay toward their student loans under IBR, the joint IBR equation [ (15% of (joint income minus 150% of the poverty guide)) divided by twelve]  is multiplied by the individual spouse’s share of the total student debt.  So, if one spouse has 30% of the student loans, they pay 30% of what the IBR equation produces using joint income.  The other spouse would pay 70%.  The result is that under the new equation married filing jointly couples will, together, pay HALF as much on their loans as
    they pay together under the old calculation method!

What Does It All Mean?

In the real world, this change means, starting in July 2010, married couples who use IBR and file joint tax returns will pay close to what two unmarried people in the same situation would pay.  Considering the loss of deductions when filing tax returns as married filing separately, married graduates will likely be better off filing taxes jointly if both spouses are attempting to use IBR.  (In scenarios that I have run calculations for, couples filing jointly and using the new equation should save at least few hundred dollars per year over filing
separately.)

An Example (using rough calculations)

• Take a couple, both partners making $40,000 per year and with $100,000 in debt each (plus a large number of plain-vanilla assumptions for estimating their taxes).
• As single people, together they pay about $6,400 under IBR toward their loans and about $8,800 in taxes – $15,200 in loans and taxes.
• As married-filing-separately, together they pay about 7,100 under IBR toward their loans and about $10,000 in taxes – $17,100 in loans and taxes.
• As married joint filers under the new rules, together they pay about $8,000 under IBR toward their loans and about $8,800 in taxes – $16,800 in loans and taxes.
• UNDER THE OLD RULES The married joint filers, together pay about $16,000 under IBR toward loans and about $8,800 in taxes – $24,000 in loans and taxes.
• WITH THE NEW RULES, the handling of married joint tax filers is what it should have been from the start.