{"id":623,"date":"2007-03-23T11:20:23","date_gmt":"2007-03-23T15:20:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/shlep\/2007\/03\/23\/wisconsin-access-report-pols-courts-bar"},"modified":"2007-03-23T11:20:23","modified_gmt":"2007-03-23T15:20:23","slug":"wisconsin-access-report-pols-courts-bar-schools-get-to-do-lists","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/shlep\/2007\/03\/23\/wisconsin-access-report-pols-courts-bar-schools-get-to-do-lists\/","title":{"rendered":"Wisconsin Access Report: pols, courts, bar, schools get to-do lists"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a0 \"scalesRichPoorS\"\u00a0 A new report from the State Bar of Wisconsin<\/a>‘s Access to Justice Committee showcases the findings of\u00a0the State’s\u00a0“first comprehensive legal needs study of low-income residents,” and makes recommendations for closing the justice gap between the State’s rich and poor. “Bridging the Justice Gap: Wisconsin’s Unmet Legal Needs<\/em><\/a>: Final Report<\/em>,” Access to Justice Study Committee<\/a>, State Bar of Wisconsin (March 9, 2007, 26 pp, pdf.; webpage<\/a>)\u00a0 The Report’s recommendations cover a broad array of goals and assign tasks for various segments of the legal profession and the government.\u00a0 (via SelfHelpSupport.org<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Here are the broad recommendations:\u00a0 \"NoYabutsT\"<\/p>\n

1. Funding from the State of Wisconsin is necessary to help close the Justice Gap and must be adequate to meet the needs of at least those who are currently turned away due to lack of funding.
\n2. A permanent Wisconsin Access to Justice Commission should be established.
\n3. Self-help centers for unrepresented litigants should be established in every courthouse in Wisconsin.
\n4. Expanded use of nonlawyer advocates before Wisconsin courts and agencies must be explored. [“The Wisconsin Supreme Court should modify ethics rules and procedural rules to permit paralegals to advocate in court and before agencies on a limited basis<\/em>.]”
\n5. Client contributions to the cost of services may be an appropriate means of expanding access to justice for residents who can afford to do so.
\n6. Increasing Wisconsin\u2019s already high court filing fees is not an appropriate means of expanding access to justice.
\n7. The current $50 assessment on attorneys to help pay for civil legal services to the poor should be retained and the exemption for judges should be removed.
\n8. Expanded efforts to increase the already substantial pro bono contributions of Wisconsin lawyers should be explored.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"don'tForgetR\"\u00a0 In addition,\u00a0the Report sets forth many tasks for the State Bar, the legislature and the courts.\u00a0 Lawyers, their firms,\u00a0and law schools have assignments, too, in the campaign to close the justice gap.\u00a0\u00a0Suggestions for increasing\u00a0the provision of unbundled legal services and volunteer advice programs are outlined. Below\u00a0the fold, we provide excerpts that flesh out some of the most important recommendations, including the major role suggested for the State’s two law schools. <\/p>\n

_____________________<\/p>\n

Important recommendations and suggestions from the Report are expanded upon in the following excerpts:
\n\u00a0\"don'tForgetR\"\u00a03. The Legislature should fund self-help centers connected to every courthouse in Wisconsin<\/em>. Self-help centers, open during all business hours and staffed by a knowledgeable assistant, enable many unrepresented litigants to accomplish uncomplicated legal objectives by themselves and to get basic guidance in legal procedure, particularly in family court and in small claims court. While these services are not a solution for people who are illiterate or those incapable of representing themselves, there are many who have made successful use of such programs. Ideally, every courthouse in Wisconsin would contain a self-help center. However, videoconference and computer technology may permit access from more remote courthouses to self-help centers in regional locations.<\/p>\n

\"scalesRichPoorS\"\u00a04. The Wisconsin Supreme Court should modify ethics rules and procedural rules to permit paralegals to advocate in court and before agencies on a limited basis<\/em>. In an ideal justice system, every client would receive the assistance of an experienced, well-trained lawyer. The reality in Wisconsin, however, is that there are not enough lawyers in Wisconsin to meet the needs of all potential clients. Thus, for decades, lawyers and clients have relied on paralegals.<\/p>\n

As discussed previously, the state\u2019s benefit specialist programs demonstrate the potential for trained and supervised nonlawyers to help fill the Justice Gap. Programs such as these will make an even more effective solution if specialists are permitted to advocate for their clients in proceedings in court and before administrative agencies. Lay advocates are used extensively and successfully in tribal courts located within Wisconsin. The available research shows that trained paralegals under the supervision of a lawyer can be effective, efficient advocates in simple proceedings involving, for example, harassment injunctions, public benefit eligibility, benefit coverage and termination, and small claims.<\/p>\n

The Wisconsin Supreme Court should adopt new ethics rules that support expanded voluntary pro bono contributions by lawyers.<\/em> Although the Supreme Court may turn to other matters before revisiting the Code of Professional Conduct again soon, the code deserves amendment in order to encourage and expand pro bono practice. Lawyers who reside in Wisconsin but are licensed and in good standing elsewhere should be permitted to represent pro bono clients in Wisconsin even before being admitted to practice here, and inactive bar members should be permitted to engage in a limited amount of pro bono work without incurring dues. Practice rules like these have been adopted in New York, Colorado, Washington, and elsewhere.<\/p>\n

\"scalesRichPoorSN\"\u00a0Lawyers should take advantage of new rules permitting lawyers to provide short-term limited legal services without creating imputed conflicts<\/em>.<\/p>\n