The University of Detroit Mercy School of Law is addressing the growing legal needs of low-income veterans with two programs – Project Salute and its Veteran’s Law Clinic.  These programs both focus on assisting veterans access federal disability and pension benefits through education, law student representation, and pro bono attorney referral.

The mission of Project SALUTE is to “hit the highways to provide priceless legal advice to low income veterans for free and teach students the invaluable lesson of using the law to serve.”  The work of the students, faculty, and staff of Project SALUTE is supported by a custom designed 31-foot Mobile Law Office, built and donated by General Motors.

Since 2008, the program has provided pro bono assistance to more than 800 veterans and trained more than 300 lawyers to serve as pro bono veteran advocates in Michigan.  In addition to serving Michigan veterans,  Project SALUTE has reached veterans in more than 13 states and 22 cities across the country.   This year more than 65 clinics for veterans have been held across Michigan, with 35 additional clinics scheduled to take place this fall.

The Executive Director of Project SALUTE, Tammy Kudialis, highlighted the changing face of the veteran community and the growing need for assistance.

“You may think of the Veterans’ Administration helping older veterans who served in Vietnam, Korea and even World War II, but Afghanistan is the longest running war in U.S. history.  More than 36,000 troops have been wounded in action (in Afghanistan and Iraq) and all those veterans need our help.”  Read more.

Read more about issues facing the veteran community.

Last week we wrote about the United Kingdom’s Legal Services Commission’s (LSC) plans to implement significant cuts to its current budget for legal aid.  The budget cuts are expected to cause the number of family law firms offering legal aid to fall from 2,400 to 1,300.

In response, The Law Society sent a pre-action protocol letter to the LSC, challenging the lawfulness of the LSC’s decision to proceed with the reduction in legal aid contracts.  The Law Society’s president, Linda Lee, expressed that despite the “difficulty taking action may cause” for firms that were successful in obtaining legal aid contracts who may have been “planning to expand their businesses either by volume, new work type, or a new geographic location” the decision to challenge the cuts was necessary and rooted in the profession’s duty to public interest.

“As a profession we accept and are proud of an ethical code that is higher than pure commercial considerations. We have a duty to protect the public interest. A reduction in access to justice cannot be in the public interest particularly when it affects the most vulnerable people in society, those who are seeking to establish their basic rights.”

The LSC expressed its disappointment regarding The Law Society’s actions.  The Commission believes that “further uncertainty will have a far greater destabilising effect on the availability of family legal aid than allowing the tender to take its course. ”

President Lee emphasized that,

“The Law Society remains ready and willing to talk with the Legal Services Commission and the Ministry of Justice to avoid litigation and urgently resolve these issues,” but “if an agreement cannot be reached, then [The Law Society] will bring the proceedings before the High Court.”

To read more on The Law Society’s position.

Last week the good folks at the Law Librarian Blog posted about the availability of a free resource offering search tips for WestlawNext and Lexis users.  Here’s a link to Guides for WestlawNext and Lexis-Nexis Online Research, which is produced by the Law Librarian and the Director of the Legal Writing Program at the University of Akron School of Law.  It looks pretty good to us.  Detailed but well organized, and plenty of helpful screenshots…

 This Week: deferred law firm associates bitten by the public interest bug, indigent defense resource shortages in Missouri and Minnesota, congressional support for doctors and lawyers working together, $$$ in judicial elections, New Jersey libraries are prepping to help pro se litigants because legal services funding cuts are looming, Connecticut brings pro se resources to the Interwebs, and big cuts in Washington State’s welfare program.

• 8.19.10 – New York Times – some law firm associates who took temporary public interest placements when their law firm start dates were deferred have found public interest work so rewarding that they have opted to remain with their host organizations rather than going back to the law firm life, salary cut notwithstanding. 

• 8.19.10 – St. Louis Post-Dispatch – the Missouri State Public Defender program is fighting back against accusations by some prosecutors that the defenders are exaggerating a resource shortage.  An MSPD spokesperson notes that although some prosecutors are complaining that the defenders’ caseloads are not actually that high, it’s an apples-and-organges comparison because the public defenders count cases differently.  [Ed. note: this article is one of the few written about this unfolding story that goes past the verbal battles and offers an update about how the criminal justice system has been affected by some public defenders’ refusals to take new cases: “The impact on defendants has been minimal so far, with only the three circuits affected and their deferred July cases accepted with the arrival of August. But some of the system’s doors are expected to close again each month, possibly a little earlier each time.  While the effect is not very noticeable now, waits for help could increase in the longer term, and judges could face pressure to appoint private counsel to fill the gaps.”  It also provides hard data about the MSPD’s funding.  For more coverage of the back-and-forth between prosecutors and defenders, see item 7 below (Springfield News-Leader coverage).]

• 8.17.10 – Saint Paul Pioneer Press  (Minnesota) – in southeastern Minnesota, the chief public defender is asking “a Steele County judge to remove public defenders from 45 open cases” because the office doesn’t have the staff to handle current caseloads.”  This circumstance is emblematic of problems facing under-resourced defenders’ offices throughout the state.  “Stiffer legal penalties, an annual battery of new laws and increasingly complex cases have thrust indigent defendants before the courts for longer periods, heaping work on the state public defense system just as it is experiencing back-to-back budget cuts.”  The ACLU of Minnesota is keeping an eye on the problems in Southeastern Minnesota, concerned largely about the fact that overworked defenders may not be prepared for their cases.  In fact, “14 defenders filed a work grievance through the Teamsters union, calling their workloads illegal.”  [Ed. Note: the article references a February, 2010 report from the state’s legislative auditor highlighting systemic problems in the indigent defense network throughout the state.] 

• 8.16.10 – American Medical News – federal lawmakers in both houses of Congress have proposed bills that would support and expand Medical-Legal Partnership programs throughout the country.  [Ed. note: for more detail on this story and on MLPs generally, see our 8/17 blog post.]

• 8.16.10 – Brennan Center for Justice – Report – a new report from the Brennan Center, the Justice at Stake Campaign, and the National Institute on Money in State Politics looks at the remarkable increase in the amount of campaign funding in state judicial elections.  The New Politics of Judicial Elections, 2000-2009: Decade of Change finds that campaign spending has more than doubled in the past decade compared to the decade prior.  Learn more from our recent blog post on the report’s release.  Also, the Philadelphia Inquirer picked up on the report because, lamentably, the Keystone State (home to the 2008 World Champion Philadelphia Phillies) “consistently rank[s] at or near the top for special-interest spending [in state supreme court election campaigns].” 

• 8.15.10 – Springfield News-Leader (Missouri) – [Ed note: the News-Leader’s editorial board weighs in on the statewide indigent defense controversy, worrying that the current back and forth between prosecutors and defenders about whether the latter are truly overworked is “rehash and backtracking” that gets nowhere toward a solution.  There has been an acknowledged resource crisis in the state’s indigent defense program for some time, and all interested parties must sit down together to develop practical solutions.  Speaking of back and forth, the News-Leader also ran dueling opinion pieces.  Taney County’s two top prosecutors propose doing away with, or heavily downgrading the role of, the Missouri State Public Defender.  They allege that the MSPD has become a bloated bureaucracy.  Not so fast, says Springfield County’s chief defender: “The idea of disbanding the entire public defender system is likely the most ridiculous attack on our efforts. The suggestions that have been made as to how we could be replaced only bolster the position that the prosecutor’s true objective is to maintain an advantage and how sad is it that the ones they seek to keep down are those who already have little to nothing.”  The National Legal Aid & Defender Association also counters the prosecutors’ ideas.  For those who are following events as they unfold, the PSLawNet Blog has been tracking news coverage over the past few weeks.  For what it’s worth, while we at the PSLawNet Blog find the News-Leader’s editorial to be a bit glib, we agree with the core point that all interested parties – and that includes neutral parties like the state judiciary and bar association officials – should get down to brass tacks to identify the scale and scope of the problem and craft solutions.  The attacks on the MSPD and its counterattacks could just go on forever.]     

• 8.14.10 – Philadelphia Inquirer – Legal Services of New Jersey is facing dramatic funding cuts that will result in large-scale layoffs of lawyers and staff.  “So where can residents turn for assistance?  Try the library.  A New Jersey Courts program is training librarians to help patrons find legal forms and instructions so they can represent themselves.”  LSNJ’s president observes that “[t]his is in no way the answer…But a small percentage of people can benefit.”  Librarians are willing to help connect people to information and resources but are wary of “cross[ing] the line” and providing legal advice.  [Ed. note: the PSLawNet blog covered the LSNJ funding cuts in some depth.  See item 5 in our 8/6/10 Public Interest News Bulletin for more.

• 8.14.10 – Connecticut Post – legal services advocates in Connecticut have launched a new website to provide resources for pro se litigants.  “Trying to represent oneself in court is a daunting task, and the number of people doing so in civil lawsuits has steadily risen in the past five years, according to state Judicial Branch data.  Thankfully for pro se parties across the state, a new website created by legal aid advocates is billing itself as a valuable resource for low-income people involved in civil actions.  The Connecticut Network for Legal Aid site — www.ctnla.org — is the result of a statewide initiative to provide online guidance and information to low-income residents. The site features self-help guides to immigration and family law, links to a legalese dictionary, and a directory of phone numbers for various nonprofits and social services.”  [Ed. note, for additional coverage see Item 4 in our 8/6/10 Public Interest News Bulletin.

• 8.13.10 – Bloomberg Businessweek (running an AP story) – “[a]t least $51 million is being cut from WorkFirst, [Washington State’s] welfare-to-work program, because while enrollment continues to rise, matching funds from the federal government have remained flat since the 1990s….  Advocacy groups decried the cuts, and said that removing poor families from the program will cause them to seek out social services through different state programs.  ‘This seems like a really tough time to put families on the street,’ said Robin Zukoski, a staff attorney for Columbia Legal Services, which provide civil legal aid to low-income people. ‘These families are not going to just disappear. They’re going to go into the homeless shelters’.”

Legal careers in the federal government are growing in popularity.  The 2010-2011 Federal Legal Employment Guide is now available and can be downloaded for free.  The Guide is an excellent tool to help you learn about legal careers in the federal government and conduct a successful job search.

Download the Guide and access organized, easy-to-read information concerning:

• the benefits of a federal legal career;
• how to find legal positions in the federal government;
• strategies for conducting your job search to find the ideal positions; and
• how to design successful application materials.

Want to learn even more about federal legal careers?  Visit PSLawNet’s Federal Government Resources page.

The first comprehensive analysis of state  judicial elections during the past decade,  “The New Politics of Judicial Elections, 2000-2009:  Decade of Change,” was released this week by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, the Justice at Stake Campaign, and the National Institute on Money in State Politics.

Across the country spending on judicial elections more than doubled during the past decade, increasing from $83.3 million in 1990-1999 to $206.9 million in 2000-2009.   Campaign fundraising exceeded $45 million in three of the last five Supreme elections cycles and the last decade witnessed the highest ever spent on individual contests in 20 of the 22 states with competitive judicial elections.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a strong advocate for judicial reform since her retirement from the U.S. Supreme Court, cautioned in the report’s forward that the

“crisis of confidence in the judiciary is real and growing.  Left unaddressed, the perception that justice is for sale will undermine the rule of law that the courts are supposed to uphold.”

According to the report, concern over the significant growth in judicial campaign spending is bipartisan and widespread.  Three out of four Americans believe that campaign spending influences courtroom decisions  and forty-six percent of state judges agree that election spending is impacting courtroom results.

What is responsible for the dramatic change in judicial spending?

Read more about the report’s key findings.

In an effort to cut costs and streamline a bulky system, the Legal Services Commission in the United Kingdom is cutting its legal aid budget substantially. In the UK, subsidized legal aid is provided for those who cannot afford private representation through firms which contract with the LSC. Starting in 2008, the LSC developed a new set of criteria for contracting firms (called tendering), and firms had to submit new bids showing how they met these criteria in order to continue as providers. After the latest round of tenders, it looks like the number of providers across the UK will fall from around 2400 to 1300, according to this article from Channel 4 News (which has some good background on the reform process as well).

Though the LSC argues that the reduction in providers will not result in a reduction in the number of cases Legal Aid can handle, many lawyers are concerned that this will not be true, particularly in more rural parts of the country. The Channel 4 News article explains:

In addition, the decline in service providers will mean the loss of a legal aid lawyer in many communities. Although the LSC says there will always be a provider within 45 minutes from a persons’ home, for those with childcare, abuse or custody issues, or indeed those on low incomes, the very geography will pose a significant barrier to seeking the help they need.

Solicitors in Wales have been particularly concerned and outspoken over the cuts. WalesOnline reported last week that two family court judges in Wales have written in protest over the changes to the LSC. Additionally, the Law Society (the professional association for solicitors in England and Wales, somewhat akin to the ABA in the United States) has come out against the changes. A representative of the Society explained that the changes are creating “advice deserts,” saying

“We are worried about places like Wales where it seems the number of solicitors is being reduced by a half, we are worried about Cornwall where 50 firms are being reduced to less than 10, and places like Poole and Dorset where there is only one firm of solicitors with a contract for over 140,000 people.”

Many lawyers are demanding a review of the changes before the new tenders are finalized in October, which may lead to a delay in implementation. Seeing how different systems respond to budget restrictions may have international lessons, so we’ll keep you updated here as news develops.

Do you  know a law student who has demonstrated an extraordinary commitment to public service?  Nominate him or her for the 16th Annual PSLawNet Pro Bono Publico Award! The Award honors students at PSLawNet Subscriber Schools who have made exceptional contributions to under-served populations, the public interest community, and legal education by performing pro bono or public service work.  The award winner will be invited to Washington, DC to be honored during an Award Luncheon at NALP’s Public Service Mini-Conference on Thursday, October 21, 2010.

Anyone can nominate a student.  Nomination forms are available here.  Nominations are due on Thursday, September 9.

We’ve covered the ascendance of medical-legal parnterships (MLPs), which are collaborations between medical and legal professionals to attack the root causes of many health problems in low-income communities.  For instance, if a family is living in substandard conditions (utility shut-offs in winter, mold in house, lack of food, etc.), this often leads to medical problems and trips to the emergency room.  Doctors can address the effects of these conditions – the health problems – but not the causes.  This is where lawyers come in.  Lawyers and paralegals can work through administrative and other legal channels to ensure that a low-income family’s rights are protected and that they have access to public benefits.  This in turn, cuts down on expensive emergency medical treatments, which is a win not only for the family but for everyone who supports the cost structure of the healthcare system. 

Yesterday,  the American Medical News reported that federal lawmakers have taken note of the potential of MLPs this summer, and have proposed legislation in both houses that may end up supporting the expansion of MLPs nationwide:

A bipartisan group of lawmakers has introduced bills that would allocate $10 million to test the value of medical-legal partnerships…

On July 29, [Sen. Tom] Harkin [D, Iowa], along with Sens. Evan Bayh (D, Ind.) and Kit Bond (R, Mo.), introduced the bill — the Medical-Legal Partnerships for Health Act. Reps. Daniel Maffei (D, N.Y.) and Christopher Murphy (D, Conn.) introduced companion legislation in the House….

The lawmakers said the legislation would:

• Provide federal support to hospitals and attorneys to establish MLPs and encourage local buy-in by requiring each MLP to match at least 10% of federal grant funding.
• Help cut health care costs by reducing emergency department visits.
• Support a healthier work force by reducing the rate at which employees are absent from work or show up despite being ill.

Law students have played important roles in making MLPs work.  The article notes, for instance, that “[a]t the University of Kansas, law students work at the Family Health Care Legal Services Clinic to assist poor clients who have been referred to them through Southwest Boulevard Family Health Care in Kansas City…”

If you are a student and are interested in getting involved, find out what’s going on in your school or in your local legal services community.  MLPs are popping up throughout the country, so it may be that you’ll have a chance to make a contribution on the ground floor.  And to learn more, check out the National Center for Medical Legal Partnership’s website.

Last week’s Public Interest News Bulletin covered an opinion piece from the Pro Bono Institute’s Esther Lardent which had run in the National Law Journal. Lardent argues that, now more than ever, law firm pro bono contributions are necessary to protect immigrants’ rights until larger-scale policy reform improves the system.

We are at a crossroads where immigration is the point of intersection for civil liberties law, racial discrimination and poverty law. This presents challenges, certainly, but it also offers an opportunity for collaboration in ways that haven’t been the norm. What we need to see, in the absence of sweeping policy reform, are lawyers coming together to preserve the rights of immigrants and to promote concrete change to immigration laws.

It would seem that the Washington & Lee University School of Law is thinking along the same lines.  The school announced last week that it is launching the Citizenship & Immigration Program, a component of its externship program which will allow students to represent those facing deportation, as well as individuals seeking asylum and refugee status.  The school’s announcement notes that, in light of stepped-up immigration enforcement efforts:

…[T]here is a fast-growing need for legal services for people facing immigration problems, especially in areas not accustomed to large immigrant communities like the Shenandoah Valley. However, due to restrictions put on legal aid offices in exchange for receiving federal funding, such providers do not assist with immigration cases. Now, Washington and Lee law students will get a chance to help fill this void through a new program launching this fall at the School of Law.The Citizenship and Immigration program will focus on resolving legal disputes related to immigration and naturalization. Students working in the program, which is part of the School’s general externship program and third-year curriculum, will represent individuals before the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Department of Justice in order to obtain immigration benefits such as permanent residence, citizenship, asylum, and relief from deportation.