May 2008
Access to Justice: A Justice System Imperative
by Chief Justice Gerry L. Alexander
The term “access to justice” is a term of art, which, over the years, has meant different things to different persons. Fortunately, when the Washington Supreme Court employed the term in its 1994 order creating Washington’s Access to Justice Board, it endeavored to give practical meaning to the term. The Court said then that the Access to Justice Board was authorized and charged with “assuring access for low and moderate income residents of the state of Washington to the civil justice system through high quality services.”
One of the first challenges faced by that initial Access to Justice Board was to develop and implement policies and initiatives that would carry out the broad charge the Washington Supreme Court had given it. It did so in its Statement of Principles and Goals, which are, necessarily, somewhat complex, reflecting the challenges those of us in the justice system face as we work to ensure that access to justice is an imperative of the system. The goals and principles are set forth below.
The board also faced the challenge of addressing the troubling findings of the Supreme Court’s 2003 Civil Legal Needs Study, which concluded that 87 percent of all low-income people with serious civil legal problems in our state cannot get legal help. The study revealed, additionally, that nearly half of those with a legal problem did not seek legal assistance because they did not know they had one; did not know there were laws to protect them; or did not know that relief could be obtained from the justice system. Others, the study revealed, did not know where to turn; were fearful; believed they could not afford legal help; or had language barriers. According to the study, nine out of 10 low-income people who did not get legal assistance received no help at all and ended up living with the consequences of the problem.
These findings, although disturbing, have had a positive impact on our justice system. Indeed, the Civil Legal Needs Study was a key factor in the Access to Justice Board’s 2004 decision to revise its Plan for the Delivery of Civil Legal Aid to Low Income People in Washington State (State Plan). The revised State Plan, which was adopted in 2006, carefully documented the need for improved rural client service. This, in turn, was instrumental in securing a recent biennial increase in state funding. Significantly, those funds have enabled the Northwest Justice Project to open four legal services offices in rural areas of the state which had closed their doors in the 1980s because of funding cuts. The study’s findings also support the premise that improvements in technology, availability of interpreters, and reduction of costs are important goals for the justice system. These goals, among others, are being aggressively pursued by justice system partners.
From my vantage point as the chief justice, and as a member of this justice community for many years, I am confident that we are improving access to the justice system in this state. I attribute this to the years of work by many to build a highly coordinated and disciplined justice community in this state. The members and supporters of this community, which we now call the Washington State Alliance for Equal Justice, have approached seemingly intractable problems by adhering to a common vision and a set of core principles, and through a framework which addresses the access to justice goals articulated by the ATJ Board.
The goal of this issue of Bar News — which has informally been dubbed “Access to Justice 101”— is to provide the reader with a general understanding of access to justice in our state. This issue features articles that touch on the fundamentals of this state’s approach to the challenges of ensuring access to the civil justice system and, importantly, includes stories from low-income clients who have benefited from the provision of legal services.
Access to Justice Board Chair Judge Greg Tripp introduces the Washington State Alliance for Equal Justice and the Washington State Access to Justice Board. Through his article you will become acquainted with the supporters and directors of many alliance providers, who describe the work of their respective organizations. On page 21 there is a map showing the location of the alliance providers and information about the poverty population in each of the service delivery regions. These 18 regions have been delineated by the ATJ Board’s Revised State Plan, the implementation of which is described in an article by ATJ Board member Greg Dallaire. There are also informative articles about how the Alliance is funded. In that regard, Equal Justice Coalition (EJC) Chair Scott Smith and LAW Fund Board President J. Richard Manning provide an overview of the major funding sources. You will also learn about the Campaign for Equal Justice and get important information about the upcoming Access to Justice and WSBA Bar Leaders Conferences on June 6–8, 2008, in Vancouver, Washington.
This issue strongly focuses on the professional responsibility of the bar. WSBA President Stan Bastian and WSBA Executive Director Paula Littlewood use their monthly columns to provide their unique perspectives on the role of the WSBA as an institution and of individual attorneys. You will learn about the perspectives of a pro bono attorney, Cheryl E. Handy, and of a pro bono program director, John Brett. WSBA Pro Bono and Legal Aid Committee member Gregory Abbott authors an article about WSBA’s very successful Emeritus Attorney Pro Bono Program.
The Supreme Court has authored an article on the importance of pro bono participation by WSBA members in addressing the findings of the Civil Legal Needs Study. That study concluded that “[l]ow income people who get legal assistance experience better outcomes and have greater respect for the justice system than those who do not.” We speak for judges across Washington state who believe that the pro bono participation of WSBA members is essential if we are going to realize the goal of justice for all.
As chair of the Board for Judicial Administration (BJA), I can report that the BJA’s Justice in Jeopardy Initiative is committed to continuing efforts to increase funding for civil legal aid, consistent with the recommendations of the Supreme Court’s Task Force on Civil Equal Justice Funding. The Justice in Jeopardy Initiative is the most direct and cohesive effort ever undertaken to substantially alter and improve funding for Washington’s justice system. This coalition of justice-system partners campaigns for adequate state funding for our trial courts, civil legal aid, and our public-defender systems. In a nation that exalts the concept of justice for all, this must continue to be a priority.
The Honorable Gerry L. Alexander is chief justice of the Washington State Supreme Court.
Access to Justice Statement of Principles and Goals
(Revised, 2006)
Justice involves the determination and realization of legal needs, rights and responsibilities and the fair resolution of disputes. Access to justice is based on the following principles and goals.
Principles
• Access to justice is a fundamental right in a just society.
• Access to justice requires an opportunity for meaningful participation and deliberation whenever legal needs, rights, and responsibilities are affected. Legal issues must be adequately understood, presented, and dealt with in a timely, fair, and impartial manner.
• Access to justice depends on the availability of affordable legal information and services, including assistance and representation when needed.
• Access to justice requires adequate funding, resources, and support.
• Equal justice under the law requires that access to justice be available to all people. All persons or groups shall be afforded equal access to justice regardless of the popularity of the cause involved, status, or other considerations or characteristics.
Goals
• Persons and institutions involved in the justice system must make access to justice an essential priority.
• Adequate and sustained public and private funding, resources, and support must be provided to assure access to justice for low- and moderate-income and other vulnerable persons.
• Adequate and sustained public and private funding, resources, and support must be provided to maintain a strong, independent judiciary, the individuals, institutions, and organizations that provide or assure access to justice.
• The delivery of justice must be prompt, understandable, and affordable without sacrificing quality.
• A coordinated and comprehensive statewide system for delivering legal services must be maintained.
• Available and emerging technology and other resources must fairly and efficiently maximize access to justice.
• Barriers to access to justice must be prevented, removed, or reduced.
• The justice system must be inclusive and have the values, skills, and resources necessary to meet the legal needs of a diverse and multicultural population. Access to justice shall not be limited or denied for any reason of condition or status, including race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, creed, age, gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental ability, education, language or communication skills, finances, cultural background, or social status.
• The justice system must collaborate with other persons, professions, and organizations to meet the legal and law-related needs of the public.
• Public legal education must be provided to create and sustain an informed and empowered public and to build broad support for access to justice.
The Washington State Civil Legal Needs Study
(September 2003)
In 2001, the Washington State Supreme Court established the Task Force on Civil Equal Justice Funding. The Task Force was charged with conducting a study of the civil legal needs of Washington’s low-income and vulnerable populations. The 2003 study’s methods included a field survey of in-depth interviews, a telephone survey of randomly chosen households, and a survey seeking anecdotal input from a broad array of legal and social services professionals.
The 2003 Civil Legal Needs Study documented a disturbing justice gap in Washington:
• More than three-quarters of all low-income households in Washington experience at least one civil legal problem each year.
• Low-income people face more than 85 percent of their legal problems without help from an attorney.
• Women and children have disproportionately more legal problems than the general population.
• Most legal problems experienced by low-income people affect basic human needs such as housing, safety, and economic security.
• A significant percentage of legal problems experienced by low-income people are perceived to include a wrongful discrimination component.
• Legal problems do not differ significantly regionally or between those who live in close proximity to urban centers and those who do not.
• While the legal problems of urban and rural low-income residents are similar, residents of rural areas have less knowledge of available legal resources, and have less access to and success in using technology-based legal services.
• Nearly half of all low-income people with a legal problem do not seek legal assistance because they do not know that there are laws to protect them. Often they do not know where to turn, are fearful, believe they cannot afford legal help, or experience language barriers.
• Nine out of 10 low-income people who do not get legal assistance receive no help at all and end up living with the consequences of the problem or turning to organizations that cannot provide legal help for assistance.
• Though widely divergent by region and demographic cluster group, nearly half of low-income households have access to and the capacity to use the Internet, but often do not know how technology can help address their legal needs.
• Low-income people who get legal assistance experience better outcomes and have greater respect for the justice system than those who do not.
