Chief's Commission on the Legal Profession
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
CHIEF’S COMMISSION ON THE LEGAL PROFESSION MINUTES OF MEETING December 1, 2011 101 W. Colfax Ave., 5th Floor 3:00–5:00 PM Chief Justice Michael L. Bender, John T. Baker, Chief Judge Roxanne Bailin, Judge Russell E. Carparelli, Associate Dean Fred Cheever, Roger E. Clark, Sarah M. Clark, Professor Roberto Corrada, John A. Eckstein, Mechelle Y. Faulk, Mark A. Fogg, Judge Richard L. Gabriel, Charles Garcia, Ed Gassman, John S. Gleason, Professor Melissa Hart, Diego G. Hunt, Chief Judge John Kuenhold, Assistant Dean Whiting ATTENDEES Dimock Leary, William Leone, Michael G. Massey, David C. Little, John E. Mosby, Chief Judge Michael A. O'Hara III, Margrit Lent Parker, David W. Stark, Chief Judge William B. Sylvester, Lorenzo Trujillo, Mimi E. Tsankov, Charles Turner, Kara Vietch, Daniel A. Vigil, U.S. Attorney John Walsh, and Dean Philip J. Weiser were in attendance. ATTACHMENTS The meeting agenda and materials are attached to these minutes. NEXT MEETING February 23, 2012 at 3:00 PM AGENDA ITEMS WELCOME CHIEF JUSTICE BENDER Chief Justice Bender observed a common theme emerging from the Working Groups: service to others. He explained that serving others is a steadfast value that ties together the members of the legal profession. He remarked that serving others has been the underlying goal of many of the Commission’s proposals and projects: such as Working Group B’s Colorado Lawyers for Colorado Veterans initiative and Working Group D’s focus on access to justice. He concluded that reinvigorating the legal profession’s common regard for serving others certainly supports and furthers the Commission’s objectives. Chief Justice Bender also introduced several new Commission members: U.S. Attorney John Walsh; Hon. William B. Sylvester; Chief Judge 18th Judicial District; Whiting Dimock Leary, University of Colorado Law School Senior Assistant Dean for Students; Daniel A. Vigil, University of Denver Sturm College of Law Assistant Dean of Students Affairs; Melissa Hart, University of Colorado Law School Associate Professor of Law and Executive Director of the Byron R. White Center; David C. Little, Montgomery Little & Soran, P.C. and Chair of Colorado Supreme Court Board of Continuing Legal and Judicial Education. 1 WORKING GROUP D DAVID STARK David Stark, Chair of Working Group D—development of the relationship between the legal profession and the community to enhance access to justice, delivery of justice, and education of the public— presented the Working Group’s report and led discussion. Working Group D’s report is included in the meeting materials attached to these minutes (Materials Pages 1–2). ACCESS TO JUSTICE INITIATIVES David Stark discussed Working Group D’s focus on access to justice and explained that the Working Group has been gathering information about two distinct access‐to‐justice issues: (1) the quantity and type of pro bono services available for unrepresented parties, and (2) the kind and quality of resources available for pro se parties. Two memos detailing the information gathered so far are attached to these minutes (Materials Pages 3–67). Based on the information gathered, Working Group D has observed that there are more in need than lawyers available, that funding is insufficient and dropping, and that there may be opportunities to coordinate national, state, and local efforts. Building on the Welcome comments delivered by Chief Justice Bender, David Stark emphasized the importance of creating and fostering a culture of service within the legal profession based on lawyers’ duties to clients, the community, the justice system, and the profession. David Stark indicated Working Group D’s next steps are to meet and coordinate with the Colorado Access to Justice Commission, and to gather information about the self‐help clinics that have been set up by local access to justice commissions in some judicial districts. MAKE HISTORY COLORADO David Stark and Charles Garcia then presented information about a new pro bono marketing campaign called “Make History Colorado,” which was recently launched by the Colorado Bar Association and the Colorado Access to Justice Commission. The purposes of the campaign are to educate lawyers about the benefits of pro bono work and to direct them to the resources and opportunities they need to provide pro bono legal services. The campaign’s resources brochure and promotional posters are included in the meeting materials attached to these minutes (Materials Pages 63–67). Judge Russell Carparelli observed a need for lawyers to be made aware of opportunities for pro bono work that is not “conflict based.” Judge Richard Gabriel suggested the need to address impediments DISCUSSION that prevent more lawyers, especially those at large law firms, from doing more pro bono work. He noted that a minority of people seem to do the majority of the pro bono work. To identify the impediments, Judge Gabriel urged meaningful discussion with those who are not champions of pro bono. 2 Professor Roberto Corrada explained that lawyers are more likely to develop a regular pro bono practice if they are introduced to pro bono work from their first day of work. Dean Phil Weiser noted that Professor Melissa Hart was awarded the CU’s Clifford Calhoun Public Service Award for her success with the school’s Public Service Pledge Project, which has a commitment from 90% of CU’s law students to complete 50 hours of law‐related public service work during law school. Associate Dean Fred Cheever noted DU’s law students are required to perform 50 hours of law‐related public service work during law school. Chief Justice Bender commended the positive attitude and efforts of the faculties at both CU and DU toward public service and pro bono. John Eckstein commented that the legal profession’s commitment to pro bono work stems from and must be rooted in the admissions oath. Chief Justice Bender commented that it’s difficult to get lawyers thinking in a different way about pro bono work, but that it is necessary to change the current mentality. David Little asked David Stark whether Working Group D had gathered any information about why lawyers are reluctant to accept pro bono work. David Stark explained that lawyers often comment that they are too busy to take a case pro bono and that they do not want to take a case that is outside their practice area. He also suggested creating a Colorado Supreme Court pro bono recognition “seal” for law firms to put on their websites. Mark Fogg suggested a need to address whether the work being done by lawyers is serving clients or sitting on committees, as both forms of public service are encouraged by Rule 6.1 of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, though service to clients is supposed to comprise a substantial majority of a lawyer’s public service work. He also suggested that there may be opportunities to educate law firms about the Colorado Supreme Court’s Pro Bono Initiative and the meaning of Rule 6.1. Chief Justice Bender explained the Colorado Supreme Court’s Pro Bono Initiative asks law firms and in‐house practice groups to commit to an annual goal of 50 hours of pro bono legal service by each lawyer. He further explained that the Court hosts ceremonies throughout the state to recognize both the firms that commit to the 3 initiative and those that achieve the 50‐hour per lawyer goal. Make History Colorado’s promotional video and resources brochure can be found at: http://makehistorycolorado.org/. The law firms, solo practitioners, and in‐house practice groups who have ADDITIONAL INFORMATION committed to and achieved Colorado Supreme Court’s Pro Bono Legal Service Commitment can be found at: http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/Pro_Bono.cfm WORKING GROUP A LORENZO TRUJILLO Lorenzo Trujillo, Chair of Working Group A—development of professional identity, social responsibility, and practice skills in law school, and involvement of judges and leaders of the bar in law school— presented the Working Group’s report and led discussion. Working Group A’s report is included in the meeting materials attached to these minutes (Materials Page 68). FOR THIS WE STAND: 1L JOINT FALL 2012 ORIENTATION Lorenzo Trujillo introduced Dean Whiting Dimock Leary and Dean Dan Vigil as the co‐chairs of Working Group A’s For This We Stand Subcommittee. He then presented the draft curriculum, agenda, and budget that the Subcommittee and Working Group have put together and which are included in the meeting materials attached to these minutes (Materials Pages 69–74). He also announced the proposed date of the orientation: Saturday, September 22, 2012. Chief Justice Bender asked about the rationale of holding the event in late September. Professor Roberto Corrada explained that late September is an ideal time to intervene with concepts about professionalism because it’s about the time that 1Ls start to believe that anything can be won by the best argument. He added that any later and the 1Ls will be consumed by midterms and exams. Mark Fogg sought clarification about whether there were plans to follow up on the one‐day event with additional programs on DISCUSSION professionalism. Lorenzo Trujillo explained that the joint 1L orientation is but one piece of the For This We Stand curriculum, and that the goal is to develop other events for students to participate in throughout law school, and indicated that Working Group A still needs to discuss these ideas but that one thought is that students could earn a “professionalism certification” of some kind upon graduation. Dean Whiting Dimock Leary noted that one idea that has been discussed is a speaker series featuring practitioners discussing their personal experiences in the legal profession and their transitions 4 from law school to practice.