Final Report on the Potential Use of Private Lawyers, Who
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE POTENTIAL USE OF PRIVATE LAWYERS, WHO ARE PAID REDUCED FEES BY A LEGAL SERVICES FUNDER, TO REPRESENT LOW-INCOME PERSONS IN MARYLAND WHO CAN NOT OBTAIN LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN CIVIL CASES TO: THE MARYLAND STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, SECTION ON DELIVERY OF LEGAL SERVICES Michael Millemann May 25, 2007 FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE POTENTIAL USE OF PRIVATE LAWYERS, WHO ARE PAID REDUCED FEES BY A LEGAL SERVICES FUNDER, TO REPRESENT LOW-INCOME PERSONS IN MARYLAND WHO CAN NOT OBTAIN LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN CIVIL CASES TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................1 II. RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................9 Recommendation 1: The Maryland Administrative Office of The Courts And Maryland Legal Services Corporation Should Request Proposals For And Fund, In Several Jurisdictions, Locally-Administered Judicare Programs That Will Provide Counsel In Family Law Cases To Litigants Who Can Not Now Obtain Representation.......................................9 Recommendation 2: Clients Whose Resources Make Them Financially Ineligible Under The Lab Guidelines, But Eligible Under The Higher MLSC Guidelines, Could Be Required To Contribute A Small Amount To The Cost Of Their Representation, Absent Good Cause ............................................................................................................................18 Recommendation 3: When Resources Permit, The Maryland Administrative Office Of The Courts And Maryland Legal Services Corporation Should Request Proposals For And Fund A Pilot Project Or Projects To Provide Legal Services To Indigent Litigants In Selected Housing Cases..................................................................................................................19 III. UNMET LEGAL NEEDS IN MARYLAND......................................................................................20 A. Maryland’s Existing Legal Services Delivery System ..................................................................20 B. The Gaps in Legal Services ...........................................................................................................23 1. Federal and State financial eligibility guidelines...............................................................23 2. General measures of unmet legal need ..............................................................................25 3. Unmet legal needs today in family and housing cases ......................................................31 a. Relevant factors ..................................................................................................31 b. Family cases........................................................................................................31 c. Housing cases......................................................................................................36 4. The unmet need for discrete task representation................................................................36 IV. REDUCED FEE AND JUDICARE PROGRAMS .............................................................................37 A. Maryland........................................................................................................................................38 1. Maryland’s Judicare Program............................................................................................38 a. Judicare from 1971-81 ........................................................................................38 b. Contraction and then elimination of Judicare .....................................................42 c. The Judicare Supplementation Program: A hybrid.............................................45 d. The Maryland Judicare programs: an assessment...............................................47 ii 2. Maryland’s current reduced fee programs for family cases...............................................52 a. Self-held centers..................................................................................................52 i. Structures ...................................................................................................52 ii. Rates of compensation ...............................................................................55 iii. Hours of service .........................................................................................55 iv. Financial eligibility ....................................................................................56 b. The Contested Custody Representation Program ...............................................56 i. 2003 evaluation..........................................................................................56 ii. The CCRP today ........................................................................................61 iii. The views of CCRP administrators............................................................66 B. Judicare Programs Elsewhere ........................................................................................................71 1. United States ......................................................................................................................71 a. Wisconsin............................................................................................................71 i. History of program..................................................................................71 ii. Operation today.......................................................................................71 iii. Program evaluation .................................................................................76 b. Judicare Programs in other states........................................................................78 2. International judicare programs .........................................................................................81 iii I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On April 24, 2007, I issued a Preliminary Report. This is my final report. The Maryland State Bar Association, acting through its Section on the Delivery of Legal Services and with the support of the Maryland Administrative Office of the Courts (“AOC”), commissioned this Report. My charge was to assess, and make recommendations about whether private lawyers paid reduced fees by government or another source should be employed more substantially in Maryland to represent poor people who can not now obtain legal assistance in civil cases. In preparing this report, I have worked closely with a project steering committee, interviewed over 80 legal services lawyers and legal services program and court administrators (among others), primarily in Maryland, but also in other states and countries, and gathered and analyzed Maryland, national, and international information, including five Maryland legal needs surveys and reports dating from 1987. I also have considered comments offered in response to the Preliminary Report. • Maryland’s Civil Legal Services Programs: Maryland has a diversified, complex and relatively well-funded civil legal services delivery system for the poor. The central component is the Legal Aid Bureau (“LAB”), the largest and oldest program, which provides a broad spectrum of legal services statewide. There are over 30 smaller, specialized providers, most of which are funded by the Maryland Legal Services Corporation (“MLSC”). Three other statewide entities provide services or support providers: the Maryland Volunteer Lawyers Service, Inc. (“MVLS”), the Pro Bono Resource Center (“PBRC”), and the AOC. There are self- help centers in each circuit courthouse, and statewide hotlines, including a Family Law Hotline that the Women’s Law Center (“WLC”) and the LAB operate, a WLC-operated Legal Forms Helpline, and a tenant-landlord hotline that Baltimore Neighborhoods operates. Online services include those offered by The Peoples Law Library. The State’s two law schools have well- developed clinical law and public interest programs. The State’s major institutions--including the courts, the legislature, the governor’s office, the MLSC, the public providers, the private bar (and the state and local bar associations), and the law schools—have worked in partnership to create this impressive array of legal services programs. 1 • Coordination and Collaboration: Although there always is need for creative new legal services initiatives, and sometimes for a new organization to develop and test them, I believe the immediate need in Maryland is for better coordination and collaboration in the administration of existing programs and resources, and I base my major recommendations on a collaborative service model. See Part II. • Unmet Legal Needs Generally: It is not possible to quantify the extent of unmet legal need today since the last quantitative study of the legal needs of low-income people in Maryland was in 1987 (it showed that four out of five people could not obtain the legal help they needed), and there have been substantial improvements in the delivery system since then. However, it is apparent that the majority, probably the substantial majority, of low-income people can not now obtain the legal help they need to resolve civil legal problems. Annually, the MLSC grantees in Maryland, combined, provide some form of legal assistance to approximately 105,000 people a year.1 Maryland’s legal needs studies have estimated that low and moderate-income households