|
Schedule Registration Housing |
| Saturday, January 8, 2000 10:30 a.m.-12:15 p.m. |
Marriott Ballroom Salon II Marriott Wardman Park Hotel Lobby Level |
|
Joint Program of Sections on Clinical Legal
Education, Litigation, Poverty Law and Professional Responsibility |
|
| Kimberly E. O'Leary, University of Dayton, and Chair, Section on Clinical Legal Education | |
| Edward F. Sherman, Tulane University, and Chair and Program Co-Chair, Section on Litigation | |
| Matthew Diller, Fordham University, and Chair and Program Co-Chair, Section on Poverty Law | |
| Bruce A. Green, Fordham University, and Chair and Program Co-Chair, Section on Professional Responsibility | |
| Bernida Reagan, University of California at Berkeley, Program Co-Chair, Section on Clinical Legal Education |
| Access to Justice: Competing Visions for the New Century |
| Moderator: | |
| Matthew Diller, Fordham University | |
| Speakers: | |
| John O. Calmore, University of North Carolina
Carl Pierce, University of Tennessee Karen Sarjeant, Deputy Director, National Association for Public Interest Law, Washington, D.C. David S. Udell, Deputy Director, Poverty Program, Brennan Center for Justice, New York University, New York, New York |
| The ABA Model Rules proclaim that "every person in our society should have ready access to the independent professional services of a lawyer of integrity and competence." Although efforts to realize this goal date back at least a century, it has remained elusive. The establishment of federal funding for legal services in the 1960s marked significant progress toward providing access to the justice system for those least able to afford it. However, legal services have never been able to meet more than a fraction of the need. |
| Today, almost everything about access to justice is contested, including the desirability of the goal. Federal funds for legal services have been slashed. Congress has increasingly regulated and restricted the activities of legal services lawyers. Other governmental and private funders have followed suit. In the case of Louisiana, the state bar has even restricted the services provided by law school clinics. At the same time, others have proposed that access to justice can be achieved by rethinking the concept of legal representation in order to permit an "unbundling" of services. It is argued that this "unbundling" would permit legal services programs to serve many more clients by providing only limited forms of representation or advice. Some have suggested a relaxation of the strictures against unauthorized practice of law to facilitate the provision of advice by paraprofessionals. Finally, some have suggested that lawyers for the poor should refocus their efforts on representing community institutions rather than individuals. |
| At the root of these developments and proposals are differing assumptions about the meaning of access to justice and why it is important. For some, access to the justice system is an end in itself. For others it is a means of attaining other ends, such as the redistribution of societal resources. Also at issue are differing views of the boundary between the legal system and the political arena: Is access to the legal system a means of distributing political power, or is it simply a service that helps individuals resolve their disputes? Who should decide which of these visions predominate—governmental funding sources, the legal profession or low income communities? The panel will discuss these questions. Panelists will also comment on the current controversies in light of the underlying issues. |
| Business Meeting of the Section on Litigation at Program Conclusion |