May 1997 Report

May 30, 1997

Chief Justice Barbara Durham
Temple of Justice
P.O. Box 40929
Olympia, WA 98504-0929

Tom Chambers, President
Washington State Bar Association
1400 Broadway
Seattle, WA 98122

Dear Chief Justice Durham and President Chambers:

On April 18, 1994, the Supreme Court entered an order establishing the Access to Justice Board (ATJ Board) for an initial evaluation period of two years. The formal work of the ATJ Board began in November 1994 shortly after its nine members were appointed by the Court. On November 21, 1996, the Court reauthorized the ATJ Board for an additional five years, having found that it had successfully completed its initial evaluation period. The Court ordered the ATJ Board to continue to file evaluative reports every six months with the Court and the Washington State Bar Association Board of Governors. This Report and the attached exhibits constitute the first six-month report under this Order and document the ATJ Board's activities since the last formal Report to this Court on July 10, 1996.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Meetings: The ATJ Board has continued to meet monthly in Seattle. I have attached the Agendas from the August 2, September 13, October 4, and December 6, 1996 meetings, and the January 24, February 21, March 21, April 18, and May 16, 1997 meetings (Exhibit 1). The ATJ Board did not hold a November meeting because of the significant time commitment occasioned by the October 4-6 Access to Justice Conference.

B. ATJ Board Mission and Structure: I have attached the ATJ Board's Priorities and Activities, which is updated monthly to track the activities undertaken within each of the ATJ Board's priority areas (Exhibit 2). I also have attached the revised ATJ Board Committee Structure (Exhibit 3), and a list of current ATJ Board Committee Chairs and Committee Members (Exhibit 4). Since the July 10, 1996 Report to this Court, the ATJ Board has created two additional committees (Accountability Standards and Technology), and discontinued one committee (Courthouse Facilitator). The ATJ Board currently has ten active working committees (see "specific ATJ Board Activities" for descriptions), and coordinates closely with the activities of the Washington State Bar Association's (WSBA) Pro Bono and Legal Aid Committee on efforts to support the state's volunteer attorney legal services network.

In June 1996 this Court appointed Judge F. James Gavin to fill a vacancy left by Judge Susan Agid. In September 1996 Judge Gavin resigned from the ATJ Board. This Court appointed Judge T.W. Small to fill this vacancy on January 7, 1997 at the request of the WSBA Board of Governors. This Court recently reappointed ATJ Board members Rep. Marlin Appelwick, Judge Paul Bastine, and Isabel Safora for additional three-year terms, at the request of the WSBA Board of Governors.

A. Overview: During the ATJ Board's 2 ½ years of activity (November 1994 - May 1997), it has set new standards for the delivery of civil legal services both statewide and nationally, and has become a national model for states looking at effective ways to coordinate, develop and implement access to justice activities for low and moderate income people. The following narrative describes the ATJ Board's activities since its July 10, 1996 Report to this Court.

Since July 1996, interested parties from approximately half the states have contacted the ATJ Board for information about its structure and activities. The American Bar Association and the national Legal Services community continue to hold up the ATJ Board as a national model, and have featured the Board and its activities widely in their publications (e.g., The State Planning Assistance Network's SPAN Update: A Guide to Legal Services Planning; American Bar Association's Dialogue) (Exhibit 5), and at their conferences and meetings (e.g., November 1996 National Legal Aid and Defender Association Annual Conference, November 1996 ABA Leadership Forum, January 1997 National Council of Bar Presidents Meeting, March 1997 ABA Pro Bono Conference). Other national organizations and foundations have sought the ATJ Board's counsel on statewide structures for legal services support, statewide planning, and other innovations (e.g., Public Citizen/Ralph Nader, Open Society Institute, Appleseed Foundation, Trial Lawyers for Public Justice).

Within the state of Washington, the ATJ Board now is recognized widely as the mechanism for "coordinating, improving and advancing civil access to justice for low and moderate income state residents," as contemplated by this Court's Order establishing the ATJ Board. Increasingly, organizations, committees and individuals are contacting the ATJ Board for assistance, counsel, and input on a wide variety of topics and issues. Examples of these (since the July 1996 Report to this Court) include the following:

WSBA Pro Bono and Legal Aid Committee request for comments on its proposed amendments to RPC 6.1; WSBA request for ATJ Board input on proposed Emeritus Attorney Rule; Alliance for Justice/University of Washington School of Law request for ATJ Board representation on its First Monday in October planning committee (Exhibit 6); King County Bar Foundation request for the ATJ Board to make a report to its Long-Range Planning Committee; King County Bar Association request for ATJ Board support for the retention of mandatory arbitration in King County (Exhibit 7); WSBA ADR Section requests ATJ Board representation on its Mandatory ADR Task Force (Exhibit 8); WSBA invites ATJ Board to participate in its legislative planning; Washington Association of County Clerks requests ATJ Board presentation at its June 1996 conference; Columbia Legal Services' new bylaws require ATJ Board appointments to its Board; Domestic Relations Commission seeks ATJ Board participation; King County Legal Advocates request support from ATJ Board for continued King County funding (Exhibit 9); Pro Bono Institute seeks input on "reinventing pro bono" (Exhibit 10); ATJ Board makes a May 1996 presentation to WSBA Judicial Recommendations Committee on the importance of a demonstrated commitment to access to justice by judicial candidates; National Association of Public Interest Law (NAPIL) seeks ATJ Board input on expanding its Fellowships for Equal Justice; Northwest Justice Project seeks ATJ Board support for a senior hotline proposal to the Administration on Aging (Exhibit 11).

In addition, the ATJ Board is institutionalizing a variety of methods to increase awareness of, and appreciation for, the important work being done in this state to improve our justice system:

Regular reports to the WSBA Board of Governors;

Letters to every new WSBA member about the role of the legal profession in access to justice (Exhibit 12);

Use of WSBA Bar News, Judicial News and other media;

Nomination of key people for awards (e.g., Judge Paul Bastine for ABA Pro Bono Publico Award; Attorney General Christine Gregoire for WSBA Professionalism Award, Phyllis Selinker for National Association of Pro Bono Coordinators - NAPBCO - Coordinator of the Year Award; Courthouse Facilitators for 1996 Louise M. Brown Award for Legal Access) (Exhibit 13);

ATJ Board presence at significant events (e.g., ATJ Board/WSBA Board of Governors table at October 1996 Washington Women Lawyers Dinner);

Adoption of ATJ Board Statement on Welfare Reform (Exhibit 14).

B. ATJ-Coordinated Statewide Planning Process: The ATJ Board's first significant project was the development in 1995 of its Plan for Delivery of Civil Legal Services to Low Income Persons in Washington State. Using the guidelines set out in the Hallmarks of an Effective Statewide Civil Legal Services Delivery System (Exhibit 15), the ATJ Board developed 18 recommendations for reconfiguring Washington's delivery system so as to preserve access to low income clients to a full range of advocacy. Although the legal services delivery network has been responsible for much of the Plan's actual implementation, the ATJ Board and its committees continue to perform critical coordination and oversight functions (see below) as contemplated by this Court's order, and in accord with the vision of a statewide legal services delivery system articulated in the Hallmarks. Additionally, the ATJ Board, through its annual Access to Justice Conference (see below), has created a mechanism for institutionalizing an ongoing statewide planning process that involves the entire Access to Justice Network (Exhibit 16). Following is the status of the implementation of the Plan's key recommendations since the July 10, 1996 Report to this Court:

The new statewide program, Columbia Legal Services (CLS), is a full-service, statewide legal services program dedicated to ensuring that a full range of legal services is available to all of Washington's low-income population, in particular, vulnerable and hard to serve special needs populations that face unique barriers to our justice system. CLS operates out of seven regional offices around the state (Exhibit 17). Its primary funding sources include the State of Washington, using a portion of Superior Court filing fees, the Legal Foundation of Washington and LAW Fund donations.

The Northwest Justice Project (NJP) is the federal partner in the statewide Access to Justice Network. The NJP's goal is to assist as many eligible low-income clients as possible, either directly or through efficient and effective referrals. NJP operates out of ten regional offices around the state (Exhibit 17). Principal funding is from Congress through the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), which regulations the types of cases that may be handled and the types of representation that may be provided.

NJP serves as a primary point of access for clients to talk with an attorney through a centralized, statewide referral system called CLEAR (Coordinated Legal Education, Advice and Referral). Clients can call CLEAR toll-free for a determination of eligibility for assistance. Staff then assesses the legal resources available within the local community. A team of attorneys and paralegals respond to basic questions, provide brief counseling and, in some cases, negotiate or prepare documents on behalf of clients. CLEAR now operates in 20 counties with a staff of 6.5 advocates on telephone lines. NJP plans to have CLEAR in operation statewide by the end of the year.

The state's volunteer attorney legal services programs continue to enjoy stable financial support from NJP and the Legal Foundation of Washington. With the advent of CLEAR, several of the volunteer programs are beginning to reassess their client priorities and service delivery mechanisms because of a noticeable decrease in clients needing legal advice. The ATJ Board is dedicated to assisting these programs in this process of reassessment and planning, and has structured its June 1997 Access to Justice Conference around the necessary first steps of partnership building and resource sharing.

The Plan provides for cooperative fundraising to maximize the total number of dollars available for equal justice activities. LAW Fund has been working closely with many of the volunteer attorney programs to develop workable county/regional models. Additionally, LAW Fund, the King County Bar Foundation and the Eastside Legal Assistance Program worked with the ATJ Board and the Washington State Trial Lawyers Association (WSTLA) on this state's first cooperative statewide fundraising/education event held on Law Day (May 1, 1997) in Seattle. WSTLA generously provided the opportunity for equal justice supporters to meet with Morris Dees, Director of the Southern Poverty Law Center, in a private reception to raise money for, and raise awareness of, all the partners in Washington State's Legal Service Delivery Network (Exhibit 18). The proceeds will be distributed equally among the state's legal services providers. The ATJ Board prepared and distributed a document describing the Legal Services Delivery Network (Exhibit 19).

C. ATJ Board Committees: One way the ATJ Board has worked to involve members of this Access to Justice Network in its activities is through a formal committee structure. Currently more than 150 volunteers are active in the ATJ Board's ten committees (Exhibit 4).

1. Access to Justice Conference Planning Committee: (1996 Chair, Dick Manning; 1997 Chair, Colleen Kinerk) Nearly 200 people attended the first annual Access to Justice Conference in Chelan on October 4-6, 1996 (Exhibit 20), marking the first time that representatives from Washington State's Access to Justice Network have come together to pursue a shared vision of ". . . justice for all." The Conference, "Visualize Justice," was, by all accounts, a great success (Exhibit 21). Chief Justice Barbara Durham and Maine Supreme Court Justice Howard Dana provided the keynote remarks. During the Conference wrap-up session, participants agreed on a set of 14 recommendations for improving access to justice in Washington state (Exhibit 22). The Access to Justice Board identified "responsible members" of the Network to implement these recommendations, and notified them of the ATJ Board's availability to facilitate those activities. The ATJ Board prepared a comprehensive Access to Justice Conference Report, which was distributed to every Conference participant, every member of the Washington State Supreme Court, and every member of the WSBA Board of Governors.

Plans currently are underway for the second annual Access to Justice Conference in Yakima on June 20-22, 1997 (Exhibit 23). This year's conference, "Partnerships for Justice," will be held concurrently with the Bar Leaders Conference and in conjunction with the WSBA Annual Awards Luncheon. The keynote speaker is Legal Services Corporation President John McKay, former Chair of the Equal Justice Coalition. Conference participants will review the status of the 14 recommendations adopted at the first annual conference, and will approve an amended set of recommendations to serve as guideposts for this community's collective access to justice-related efforts during the coming year.

2. Accountability Standards Committee: (Jim Bamberger, Chair) The ATJ Board established this committee in July 1996 to determine what, if any, role the Board should play in building a statewide institutional accountability system to ensure that the promises articulated in the State Plan and Hallmarks are achieved through the performance of all providers in the statewide delivery system. The Committee is collecting and analyzing existing reporting requirements/standards with the goal of developing a uniform, non-politically based set of performance standards and accountability measures with a buy-in by all the providers and the greater Access to Justice Network.

3. Education Committee: (Mary Wechsler, Chair) This Committee's members include representatives from organizations/entities that are involved either directly or tangentially in access to justice-related activities. The Committee functions like the ATJ Board in that it coordinates educational efforts around the state to avoid duplication of effort. It also supports current educational efforts, identifies gaps in education, and develops ways to fill those gaps. Target groups include the bar (including law students), the judiciary, the public and elected officials. The Committee has focused its efforts since the July 10, 1996 Report on the judiciary, law schools and the public:

Judiciary: The Committee conducted a workshop entitled "Dealing with Pro Ses" for new judges attending the Judicial College in January 1997 (Exhibit 24). The workshop consisted of two parts: presentations on the role of judges when there are one or more pro se litigants on a case; and small group discussions of hypothetical situations. Each judge received a county-specific packet of resource materials. Chair Mary Wechsler sent summaries of these small group discussions to all the participating judges (Exhibit 25). This session produced very positive feedback and has been approved as a permanent workshop for the annual Judicial College. The Committee is beginning to develop an entire educational curriculum for judges that can be presented at the spring and fall judicial conferences, as well as during special judicial training events.

Law schools: In April 1997 Committee members met with the faculties of Washington's three law schools: Gonzaga School of Law, Seattle University School of Law and University of Washington School of Law. The purpose of these meetings was to discuss with the faculty ways to integrate access to justice into the law school curricula, thereby incorporating fully the ideal of professionalism and its component of public service. Chair Mary Wechsler compiled the results of these discussions and distributed them to the Deans of the three law schools (Exhibit 26). The Committee has offered its assistance to the law schools in the implementation of the proposals, and plans to continue a productive dialogue with the law schools on these topics.

Public: Rick Craig, Director of Vancouver, B.C.'s Courts and Community Program, made a presentation to the Committee about his program and its goal improving access to justice by educating the public through innovative teaching aids in the schools, mock trials, and significant judicial involvement in the educational activities. The Education Committee will be presenting a workshop, "Educating the Public," at the June 1997 Access to Justice Conference, which will feature a discussion of existing educational resources in this state and promote discussion about other innovative models.

4. Equal Justice Coalition: (Ragan Powers, Chair) The Equal Justice Coalition (EJC) was established by the ATJ Board in January 1995 at the request of the WSBA, legal services providers, and members of the private bar, to respond to threats by Congress and the Washington State Legislature to cut legal services funding. The EJC has been phenomenally successful during its brief existence in developing a broad-based bipartisan network of equal justice supporters around the state who understand and support the need for permanent and stable funding for legal services. The EJC's first chair was John McKay, a managing partner at Cairncross & Hempelmann in Seattle. Recently John was selected President of the Legal Services Corporation, an honor earned in large part by his skillful leadership of the EJC which, in its own right, has become a national model for legislative strategies around funding issues (Exhibit 27).

Since the July 10, 1996 Report to this Court, the EJC has continued to build its base of support for legal services. Currently more than 100 community leaders and 50 organizations statewide support a statewide phone/fax network of "EJC Teams." This support has been instrumental in helping to maintain current support from the Legal Services Corporation ($283 million), despite threats by some in Congress to eliminate the program. The EJC also played a significant role in obtaining $6.8 million for legal services, a $2 million increase from the current appropriation. The Legislature also approved HB 2276, which reaffirmed bipartisan support for legal services, created a bipartisan legislative oversight committee, established a more flexible system for utilizing state funds, acknowledged the professional and ethical responsibilities on the part of lawyers to their clients, and expanded the scope of permissible representation to private housing, wills and estates, mortgage foreclosures and other client priorities. The EJC was unsuccessful in its efforts to support the passage of HB 1927, the precursor to HB 2276, which would have created a separate Office for Civil Legal Services under the authority of the Supreme Court.

The EJC continues to focus its efforts at both the state and Congressional levels, with the goal of educating legislators and other elected officials that legal services is a model public private partnership, whose partners include a broad cross-section of the community. The EJC met with most of the candidates running for public office in the 1996 election. It has produced two new versions of its Justice at Work binder (September 1996 and March 1997) (Exhibit 28). It has continued to expand the number of signatories on the Managing Partner, Corporate Counsel and Judicial letters (contained in Exhibit 28), and has continued to produce its Justice at Work newsletter (Exhibit 29). The EJC will send a team to Washington, D.C. in June 1997 to meet with the Washington State Congressional Delegation. EJC Chair Ragan Powers has been invited by the American Bar Association to assist the national legal services community in developing a legal services "message." Theresa Harrington and Barbara Clark at the Legal Foundation of Washington staff the EJC.

5. Jurisprudence of Access to Justice Committee: (Leonard Schroeter, Chair) Currently there is no definitive legal data base on the subject of access to justice. Chair Leonard Schroeter has been compiling one on his own for some time, and recently has begun to coordinate those efforts with national organizations and local volunteers. The purpose of this Committee is multifaceted: to complete the data base; to publish significant law review and other articles; to assist the courts in identifying and briefing significant access to justice issues; to convene forums to discuss these issues; and to provide assistance to other ATJ Board committees/other groups in identifying constitutional bases for their proposals/activities.

A significant function of this Committee is to share and discuss ideas rather than have a definitive goal and a specific focus. In preparation for the 1996 Access to Justice Conference, Chair Leonard Schroeter prepared a discussion paper, From Magna Carta to Romer v. Evans Via Marbury v. Madison (Exhibit 30). The Committee is involved in the preparation of a workshop on Professionalism at the 1997 Access to Justice Conference, which will explore the jurisprudential and ethical obligations of the organized bar in access to justice. The Committee also is exploring how to disseminate/obtain information on the jurisprudence of access to justice through the Internet, and the feasibility of developing, or promoting the development of, an Access to Justice Institute, that would serve as a clearinghouse for the creation and dissemination of research, articles, legal cases, briefs and other information related to equal access to justice. The Committee is interested in creating an ability to participate as amicus curiae to significant litigation.

6. Resource Development Committee: (Barbara Clark, Chair) The ATJ Board is administered by the Washington State Bar Association, which provides staff, funding for meetings, and other administrative support. Given the exponential growth in ATJ activities, it has become necessary to look for additional sources of funding. In January 1997. representatives from the ATJ Board and the greater Access to Justice Network met with a representative from the Open Society Institute (OSI), at OSI's request, to describe Washington's approach to ATJ-related issues. The ATJ Board subsequently requested funds from OSI, which request is pending. The ATJ Board also is seeking increased support from the WSBA Board of Governors.

7. Status Impediments to Access to Justice Committee: (Hon. Anne Ellington, Chair) This Committee will coordinate efforts with the Systems Impediments to Access to Justice Committee to make and implement recommendations that will facilitate access for those with status impediments. These impediments include, but are not limited to, race, gender, language, immigrant status, disability, geographic isolation, literacy, minors, people who are "technologically challenged," and non-traditional family relationships not officially recognized by the law for purposes of child custody, visitation, etc.

8. Systems Impediments to Access to Justice Committee: (Hon. Cynthia Imbrogno, Chair) This Committee is charged with identifying judicial, legislative and administrative systems impediments to access to justice and recommending and implementing, or delegating the implementation of, proposed changes in those systems. The Committee began this task by contacting more than 70 individuals and organizations to ascertain the existence of relevant reports and studies. This step was necessary to avoid duplication of effort and to enable the Committee to review existing recommendations.

Armed with the information garnered from this search, the Committee prepared a report (Exhibit 31) which identifies 13 impediments and makes 18 separate recommendations for addressing these impediments. The Committee focused most of its recommendations on impediments to access at the administrative level. It found that with more than 60,000 case filings a year in Washington for state administrative hearings, only 1% are appealed from the administrative level to Superior Court. The Committee learned that resources seem to be the most stressed at the administrative level, and that these processes have generated few studies and less attention than has the court process. Examples of these impediments include: dinosaur statutory administrative procedures which are not user-friendly for pro se parties; inability of claimants to attend administrative hearings during business hours; language barriers impacting notice and other aspects of the administrative process; and lack of attorney representation at the administrative level. The report also contains an Action Plan for Implementation of the Recommendations. The report currently is being circulated widely for comment. After that process is complete, the Committee will begin the implementation of the Action Plan.

9. Technology Committee: (Hon. T.W. Small, Chair) This Committee will have its first meeting in June 1997. The Committee was established following a presentation by Justice Talmadge to the ATJ Board on the Court's Pro Se Litigant Access to Electronic Forms and Court Information Project. The ATJ Board concluded that there was a significant coordinating role that it could play with respect to the myriad technological-related projects/expertise in the state (Exhibit 32) so as to make the highest and best use of these resources, and to develop a focused approach to using technology to improve access to the justice system.

10. Telephone Access Committee: (Susan Daniel, Chair) After two years of study, the Telephone Access Committee in February 1997 presented a proposal to the WSBA Board of Governors (BOG) for a "Washington State Bar Association Legal Advice and Referral Hotline" (Exhibit 33). The Board of Governors in turn asked the Committee to convene a meeting with the state's lawyer referral services and selected WSBA sections and committees, and to report back to the BOG at its June 1997 meeting with proposed contract language for the project. That meeting was held on May 14, and the ATJ Board is finalizing the proposed contract language. This focus of this project is to provide the moderate income population with low cost legal advice and low cost direct representation. The proposed Hotline will interface with CLEAR, the soon-to-be statewide intake, advice and referral system for low-income people, thereby creating the first unified statewide system of access and representation for low and moderate income people in the United States.

The proposed project will operate as follows: A potential client calls a central 800 intake number. If the client is low-income, he or she will be referred immediately to CLEAR. If the client needs legal advice, he or she will be referred to an experienced attorney who will provide the advice over the phone. Clients will have several payment options (900 number, credit card, personal check) for the telephone advice. If the client needs legal representation and meets the moderate income guidelines, he or she will be referred to a low fee panel. If the client's income exceeds these guidelines, he or she will be referred to the local lawyer referral service. The start-up and administrative costs for this project will be paid by an independent service provider, who will contract with the Washington State Bar Association.

After two and one-half years of activity, the ATJ Board continues to successfully fulfill its mandate from this Court to provide "access to low and moderate income residents of the State of Washington in civil matters and further provide[s] an effective mechanism to coordinate, improve and advance civil access to justice for low and moderate income state residents." The ATJ Board is a nationally-recognized model, and this Court and the WSBA Board of Governors are to be commended for their vision and continuing support.

The ATJ Board will have its first "retreat" in August 1997. The purpose of this retreat is to begin to plan how to make the best use of the Board's time and resources during its next four and one-half years under this Court's Order. The retreat will mark the first time the ATJ Board has devoted a significant amount of time to future planning, and we believe it will prove insightful and productive.

The ATJ Board continues to welcome your feedback on its activities, and looks forward to continuing to expand its role in access to justice efforts in Washington State.

Very truly yours,
Paul L. Stritmatter, Chair
Access to Justice Board

cc:
Justice Gerry Alexander
Associate Chief Justice James Dolliver
Justice Richard Guy
Justice Charles Johnson
Justice Barbara Madsen
Justice Richard Sanders
Justice Charles Smith
Justice Philip Talmadge
WSBA President-Elect Mary Fairhurst
WSBA Governor Steve Crossland
WSBA Governor Peter Ehrlichman
WSBA Governor Dennis La Porte
WSBA Governor William H. Nielsen
WSBA Governor Terrance Lee
WSBA Governor Marijean Moschetto
WSBA Governor Ron Perey
WSBA Governor Donald Powell
WSBA Governor Mary Alice Theiler
WSBA Governor Lish Whitson
WSBA Governor Patricia Williams
WSBA Executive Director Dennis Harwick