The Capital University Colloquium was attended by approximately 40 people. There were representatives from 6 of the 9 Ohio Law Schools and almost all of the legal services programs in the State. Unfortunately the date conflicted with a major event at OSU Law School, so we missed a number of interested faculty from there.

Dean Hill Rivkin, of the University of Tennessee College of Law and the Project Director for the Equal Justice Project, made the first presentation at the Colloquium. In it, he discussed the goals of the Equal Justice Project and framed the landscapes of unequal representation that characterize both our civil and criminal systems. The numbers speak for themselves. The large number of unmet legal needs of the poor in civil cases; the lack of access to high quality representation in death penalty cases; the gross inadequacy of layers for children in juvenile courts, the inability of parents of children with disabilities to find counsel in educational disability cases, the lack of counsel in detention hearings for immigrants, and others. The overall failures in the current legal system--when aggregated--are deep and disturbing. One premise of the Equal Justice Project is that law schools have vital roles to play in finding solutions to these problems.

Suellyn Scarnecchia of Michigan Law School followed with a presentation about the Michigan Poverty Law Program (MPLP), a cooperative venture with Michigan legal services programs. Organized around the restrictions that Congress has placed on LSC programs, MPLP is centered in the clinical program at the Law School. It is funded by the Law School, University "outreach" funding, and the State Bar Foundation. The program provides technological support to selected legal services programs, engages in litigation and legislative advocacy, and provides state-wide and office-wide training. Suellyn teaches a course in "Access to Justice" and, in selected cases, nonclinical faculty will co-counsel with Clinic faculty. Suellyn holds hope that other Michigan law schools, with growing clinical programs, will join the program. She did note that it took time and sensitivity for the two communities to learn each other's language and differential demands.

Next, Deborah Howard, described the Law School Consortium Project, which she directs. The Consortium, which is working with projects at CUNY Law School, Maryland Law School, and Northeastern Law School, seeks to form relationships between law schools and solo and small firm practitioners who engage in social justice work and meet unmet legal needs. The current projects are centered on family law (CUNY), immigration law (CUNY), general practice (CUNY), employment law (CUNY), a demonstration law office (Maryland), domestic violence (Northeastern), and economic development (Northeastern). The Consortium, which is funded by the Open Society Institute (as is our AALS Project), is founded on networks of like-minded practitioners called "Community Legal Resource Networks (CLRN)." These networks provide, among other services, peer technical assistance, law library support, technology training, and law office management assistance. Deborah stated that CLRNs help build law school support among alums and help meet the legal needs of the poor and near-poor in an era of declining pro bono representation. Deborah also envisioned the need for more formal alliances among CLRNs and legal services and pro bono programs, a sort of web of representation and training. Cleveland Legal Aid's Consumer Task Force was mentioned as a similar, but more limited, effort in which experienced practitioners mentor legal services lawyers and help screen referrals.

Tom Weeks of the Ohio State Legal Services Association spoke next. He discussed the various components of the state planning process in Ohio. These include issues around intake (e.g., hotlines), technology, access to justice (e.g., pro se representation), coordination of training and litigation, private attorney involvement, resource development, and program configuration. Tom noted that, thanks to this process, there is more strategic cohesion in the legal services community, making this a propitious time to involve the nine Ohio law schools in aspects of the process. Tom also listed "next step" to build on the Colloquium. He discussed greater networking through e-mail lists, etc., continuing forums to share ideas and to coordinate interests and efforts, exploration of a model for Ohio similar to the Michigan program, co-counseling cases, greater coordination among law school clinics and legal services programs, especially in the coordination of litigation and other advocacy efforts, greater training programs by law school faculty in areas of special interest, and the creation of model projects involving law schools and their students in the strategic provision of legal services. The discussion around these proposals centered on the need for "local connections" to nurture these efforts. It was suggested that it is important not to overstate the general competence of many faculty in advocacy issues, but that, in areas such as legal ethics, there were faculty resources at each law school. It was also mentioned that grants might be easier to obtain with more broad-based dimensions in the various communities of interest. Someone mentioned that it might be more effective to stimulate more collaboration if local legal services lawyers, rather than directors, met with law school faculties and relevant committees and described in real terms the needs and possibilities for mutual assistance. It was also noted that tapping the overall resources of the universities might prove fruitful in generating experts and knowledge. There was agreement that representatives of the legal services community should attend the Ohio Deans' meeting in March to follow-up on the discussions at the Colloquium; but that this should not be done at the expense of "local" campaigning.

The final part of the Colloquium consisted of individual accounts of the efforts currently underway, almost exclusively through clinical programs, to participate in equal justice work in Ohio. Dean Hill Rivkin has notes on the presentations that were made by faculty and representatives from Cincinnati, Ohio Northern, Cleveland-Marshall, Capital, Dayton, Case Western Reserve, Ohio State, and Toledo. There is much of interest and possible replicability (e.g., Ohio State's student pro bono program that supports legal services lawyers in the field). There was consensus that there could be much greater coordination of this diverse work. As you can tell, the Colloquium was a serious, substantive day of conversations about linking resources, stimulating action, and developing new, mutually beneficial relationships. To the extent that the AALS Project can assist, please feel free to Dean Hill Rivkin. Thanks to everyone for their persistence in doing the hard work (and it may get harder) that is necessary to achieve real justice in our legal system and communities.

Information about the program is available at www.law.capital.edu/news/ej.asp. You may also contact the local planner listed below:

Helen Schinagl
Capital University Law School
303 East Broad St., Columbus, OH, 43215-3200
(614) 236-6377
hschinagl@law.capital.edu