Commission Meeting | Justice Building, 625 Marshall St. | Little Rock, Arkansas

Members:

Rose Adams Judge Robert McCallum Glenn Vasser Rep. Mary Broadaway Rodney Nagel Rep. John Vines Jean Carter (ex offico) Prof. Kelly Olson (ex officio) Bill Waddell, Vice Chair (ex Prof. Chuck Goldner Lee Richardson (ex officio) officio) Judge Robin Green Kerri Sernel Andrea Walker Judge Vic Harper Prof. Tim Tarvin (ex officio) Justice Robin Wynne Samantha Leflar Sen. Robert Thompson Mark Mayfield Justice Annabelle Tuck, Chair

Staff:

Amy Johnson, Erin Jacobson, Kim Marshall, Vince Morris

Guests:

Nate Coulter; David Ivanov, UC Davis (via Skype), Tyler Maffia (via Skype) Danyelle Walker AGENDA February 5, 2015

Newer Member Orientation – 10:00 a.m.

Welcome & Introductions ...... Justice Annabelle Imber Tuck

Orientation Program ...... Ms. Amy Johnson

Commission Meeting – Lunch at 12:00, Business Meeting at 12:30

Dial-in Number: 1-877-848-7030 Access Code: 1043711

Lunch, Video, and Recognition of Outgoing Commissioners ...... Prof. Chuck Goldner

Welcome & Introductions ...... Justice Annabelle Imber Tuck

Approval of Minutes from October 3, 2014 Commission Meeting (pp. 3-7) ...... Justice Annabelle Imber Tuck

Project and Partner Organization Discussions and Reports *Following the Rural Access Report, Commissioners will divide into small groups that will rotate tables and discuss the projects below. Each group discussion will last approximately 20 minutes, then each group will report to the full Commission.

Report on Rural Access Proposal and UC Davis Study (pp. 8-25) ...... Mr. David Ivanov, Mr. Tyler Maffia Housing Law & Consumer Protection Program (pp. 26-40) ...... Ms. Jean Carter, Mr. Dustin Duke CourtHelp and Limited Scope Pilot (pp. 41-46) ...... Mr. Vince Morris Legal Aid Modest Means Panel (pp. 47-65) ...... Mr. Lee Richardson Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation Report (pp. 66-71)...... Mr. Bill Waddell

Committee and Task Force Reports and Recommendations Governance Committee (pp. 72-113) ...... Justice Annabelle Imber Tuck

• Draft Operating Rules – for adoption Self-Represented Litigant Task Force (pp. 114-33) ...... Prof. Chuck Goldner • Draft administrative order and rule changes – for approval • Spring 2015 Work Plan – for review

Election of Officers (p. 134) ...... Justice Annabelle Imber Tuck

Committee and Task Force Appointments (pp. 111-13)...... Chairperson

Report of Executive Director (pp. 135-63) ...... Ms. Amy Johnson

New Business

Open Discussion

Old Business

Future Meetings April 24, 2015, 11:30 a.m., Clarendon, Arkansas – Clarendon Community Room July 24, 2015, 11:30 a.m., location TBA October 30, 2015, 11:30 a.m., location TBA

Adjourn

Arkansas Access to Justice Commission Meeting

Tyson Foods Discovery Building and Boardroom Springdale, Arkansas

October 3, 2014 12:00 p.m.

Attending Members:

Rose Adams Prof. Tim Tarvin Jean Carter Justice Annabelle Tuck, Chair Judge Robin Green Bill Waddell, Vice Chair Judge Vic Harper Andrea Walker Rodney Nagel Lee Richardson

Absent Members:

Nate Coulter Kerri Sernel Prof. Chuck Goldner Sen. Robert Thompson Samantha Leflar Rep. John Vines Prof. Kelly Olson Danyelle Walker

Staff: Guests:

Amy Johnson Janet Dyer, Center for Arkansas Legal Services Erin Jacobson Rey Hernandez, Northwest Arkansas Kim Marshall Workers’ Justice Center Vince Morris Heidi Jamison, Legal Aid of Arkansas Maria Tommey, Legal Aid of Arkansas

MEETING MINUTES

Welcome & Introductions

Following lunch, Justice Tuck opened the meeting at 1:01 p.m. Mr. Nagel welcomed everyone to Tyson. Justice Tuck introduced new Commissioner, University of Arkansas Law Professor Tim Tarvin. She then asked the other attending Commissioners and guests each give their own introductions.

NEW BUSINESS

Justice Tuck proposed modifying the order of business so that Partner Organization Reports would precede approval of the minutes from the previous Commission meeting. There being no objections, Partner Organization Reports commenced.

Partner Organization Reports

Northwest Arkansas Workers’ Justice Center

Justice Tuck recognized Mr. Rey Hernandez from the Northwest Arkansas Workers’ Justice Center and asked him to speak a bit about his organization.

3 Mr. Hernandez explained the mission of the Northwest Arkansas Workers’ Justice Center (NWAWJC) as working to improve conditions of employment for low-wage workers in northwest Arkansas by educating, organizing, and mobilizing them, and by calling on people of faith and the wider region to publicly support the workers’ efforts. He mentioned that his organization involves several workers committees, including poultry workers and a women’s committee. Ninety percent of their clientele are Hispanic or Marshallese. He added that they are part of the Interfaith Workers Alliance out of Chicago and have several foundations that support their work. He asked to be remembered for cases or situations where his organization might be of assistance. They do not provide legal help, but help clientele connect with community resources, including legal aid. They do have a need for pro bono attorneys who can help with legal issues. They are also seeking additional funding sources. He concluded that his organization is growing and that they are looking to potentially open a new office in Central Arkansas.

Justice Tuck thanked Mr. Hernandez for his report and for attending meeting. She next asked Mr. Waddell to give a report on behalf of the Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation.

Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation

Mr. Waddell gave the report for the Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation. He stated that he believes there is a renewed energy that has followed the merger of that foundation with the former Arkansas IOLTA Foundation. He went over current projects of the Foundation, including updates in progress to financial and investment policies, housing grant review, and efforts to engage the business community, including the previous night’s reception at Mitchell Williams law firm. He further talked about partnerships, including Bancorp South, and his desire for the Foundation to build relationships with non-lawyer groups including banks, adding that interested rates are expected to start rising in 2015. He mentioned the hiring of Lesley Roberts on a contract basis to work on Campaign for Legal Aid and her help with integrating the campaign efforts of both legal aid entities and the Foundation.

Ms. Johnson added Ms. Roberts is working with the Foundation to expand the annual campaign to include multiple “asks” throughout the year. She is also helping with an acquisition campaign and to replicate the VOCALS model in areas like NWA and Jonesboro. She explained that staff will be sending out letters and then steering committee members will be making follow-up calls to help establish the new campaigns.

Justice Tuck thanked Mr. Waddell for his report and asked Mr. Morris to present next for the Arkansas Legal Services Partnership.

Arkansas Legal Services Partnership

Mr. Morris presented for ALSP. He reviewed the many projects they do in support of legal aid, including justice and technology projects and grant-writing. He mentioned that ALSP has received two new grants to help improve the statewide website. One of the new grants will help to upgrade the website to be mobile friendly as many poverty populations have been shown to rely on their mobile devices for internet access. Ms. Adams added that Arkansas is actually number two in mobile usage of rural and low income persons. Other grants include a “Smart Content” project that will direct users to personalized content based on how they interact with the website, and the other is a grant for online intake that was procured by Mr. Richardson through LAA. Ms. A. Walker noted that there are currently at least three to four online intakes per day and that these numbers are starting to increase. Mr. Morris mentioned that CALS’ online intake will be established in the coming weeks.

ALSP has also been partnering with the Commission in developing a self-help divorce resource for couples with children. In 2013, the uncontested divorce packet for couples without children resulted in 10,881 document generations, while AOC filings reflected that nearly 15,000 divorces without support were filed. While not conclusive, these numbers suggest that the current resource for uncontested divorce without children has about a 70% market share.

Mr. Morris concluded his report, relaying that the Statewide Legal Services Staff Conference will be coming up mid- month and be held at DeGray Lake.

4 Center for Arkansas Legal Services

Ms. Carter gave report on behalf of the Center for Arkansas Legal Services. She mentioned the fundraising MOU and efforts to integrate statewide fundraising, reporting that letters went out to VOCALS prior-year donors to solicit renewal of annual contributions. She added that in less than two weeks, they have received $23,000. Their goal is to raise $175,000 among lawyers in Pulaski County. The next step will be to reach out to attorneys who are not contributors or pro bono attorneys.

She continued, stating that CALS will participate in about seven or eight pro bono events throughout the state this month, during which time the justice community is observing National Pro Bono Month. The first clinic was held earlier in the morning in Fayetteville. She added that there will be an expungement clinic tomorrow in Pine Bluff, with nearly 70 clients anticipated. A similar clinic will be held at Shorter College in North Little Rocker later in the month, as well as clinics for UAMS for cancer patients in Little Rock and for families of Arkansas Children’s Hospital patients. Additionally, an ongoing monthly veterans clinic has been created in partnership with the Day Treatment Center in Little Rock; Entergy’s corporate legal department attorneys are volunteering. Ms. Carter concluded her report by stating that these events help show donors that their contributions help fund people with specific needs, not just the lawyers that assist them.

Legal Aid of Arkansas

Mr. Richardson reported for Legal Aid of Arkansas. He opened his report by stating that they are in the new federal fiscal year as of October 1st. He mentioned a continuing resolution that had minimal impact on LAA’s funding, adding that national funding is in a holding pattern. Despite this, he added that there really is not too much change up or down and that he does not project significant changes. Nationally, cases closed are down about 18% since 2011; his program is following this trend, due in large part to the program’s strategic priority changes.

He mentioned procuring a catalyst grant to help address the aging out of attorneys in rural areas. LAA is placing attorneys in rural counties, including Newton, Madison, Cleburne, and Woodrow counties. They are hoping to create “low bono,” or moderate-means panels out of these projects.

Justice Tuck asked about support from Arkansas Children’s Hospital. Mr. Richardson stated he is optimistic that support will be forthcoming and that they are currently putting together information to give to potential funders.

LSC 40th Anniversary Conference

Mr. Nagel reported on the Legal Services Corporation’s 40th Anniversary Conference in Washington, D.C. He touched on Ms. Carter’s comment about getting non-lawyers focused in the cause for legal aid and access to justice. He stated that he believes there is great opportunity to improve fundraising by making connections to people beyond the legal community and by focusing on clients and their stories. He felt the opportunity was a good orientation for his service on the Commission and that he was surprised most by the deficit of services to people who require assistance the most. Despite this service gap, he believes there are great stories and great opportunities to do more.

Justice Tuck added that she was interested in the “pro bono departments” of larger law firms. She, Mr. Nagel, Ms. Leflar, Mr. Richardson, and Ms. Carter had all attended the conference.

Limited Scope Pilot Project – Divorces with Support Self-Help Demonstration

Mr. Morris and Ms. Marshall presented the Limited Scope Pilot Project on divorce involving children. Ms. Johnson gave some background about the project, including the ABA grant that funded development of the resource as part of a larger program to pilot limited scope services to address simple legal issues.

Mr. Morris continued, stating that this project entails an innovative business model with unbundled representation and will involve a two-step process, and two interfaces: one for public access through a Turbo-Tax-like form, and the other for attorneys. Commission and ALSP staff will soon begin a program in the Pulaski County Court to help individuals attempting to file divorces with children while at the court.

5 Project partners have discussed ultimately including a mediation component. Individuals can be directed to the Alternative Dispute Resolution Commission’s Access and Visitation program if there is a contested issue and both parties agree to mediation.

Approval of Minutes from July 25, 2014 Commission Meeting

The Commission returned to the regular order of business, beginning with approval of the minutes of the July 25, 2014 Commission meeting. Justice Tuck directed the group to the meeting packet, which Commissioners received. She briefly recapped the discussion and resulting action that occurred at that meeting regarding self-help forms on the Arkansas Legal Services Partnership website that have historically identified the Commission as a partner. After hearing concerns conveyed by Arkansas Bar Association President Brian Ratcliff, who reported on a meeting with the Arkansas Supreme Court where concerns were raised, the Commission voted to add a disclaimer to the cover sheet and take the Commission’s name off of the form header. Since that time, ALSP staff have taken the requested action with regard to the divorce resource for couples without children. The Commission’s name was to remain on the guardianship and order of protection forms. However, the resource for divorces with children that was developed as a result of a grant that the Commission received from the ABA will necessarily need to identify the Commission as a partner. Furthermore, self-help resources have been at the core of the Commission’s work since its inception. Justice Tuck stated that she believes this is an issue that is ongoing given the nature of the Commission’s work.

Mr. Waddell asked to be recognized and stated that he regretted that he was not able to attend the July 25 meeting. He had seen the agenda and meeting materials, but did not know that any action was requested regarding the forms. He said that he had reviewed the minutes and believed that the concerns raised were legitimate but that action prior to any opportunity for study was premature. Mr. Waddell moved at that time to rescind the action taken at the last meeting regarding the forms and to create a committee to study the issue and make a recommendation to the Commission. He stated that we did not have adequate warning and that not all Commissioners were present for the discussion. He added that we are a leadership organization for access to justice and that we have to stand behind our core values and mission. A process problem got us to the point, and this new action is not meant to be offensive to the court or to the bar president. Ms. A. Walker seconded the motion. Justice Tuck opened up the floor for discussion.

Prof. Tarvin stated that he would like to speak in support of the motion, though he acknowledged his status as a new ex officio Commissioner. He stated that he would like to know more about the ABA Limited Scope Pilot Project and about the mechanics of the project, including the technology used. He stated that he sees the issue being as tension between judicial economy and economics of law practice.

Ms. Adams asked whether referring this issue for further study would affect the Pilot Project or the availability of the resource for divorces with children. She wondered, too, how this might impact the other forms that the Commission discussed changing. Mr. Morris stated that there would be no delay. Even though the Commission’s name has been on them, they were developed through legal aid and will still be available for low income Arkansans to use, with or without the Commission’s support.

Ms. Carter clarified that the divorce with no children resource has already had the disclaimer added and the Commission’s name removed, and that this would not be changed back while the issue was still under consideration.

Justice Tuck asked for clarification on availability of packet for the pilot project. Mr. Morris stated the resource will not be publicly launched during the pilot phase of the project, but instead will be made available to legal aid clients who call the HelpLine, to court patrons who come to the Pulaski County help desk, and others who are provided direct links. Ms. Johnson added that several members of the bar in key leadership positions (including Board of Governors members) are serving on the Self-Represented Litigant Task Force that is currently overseeing the pilot project.

Judge Harper called the question to a vote. Justice Tuck called the roll and asked voting members to raise hands in favor of the motion. All voting members voted in favor of the motion.

Justice Tuck will reach out to Mr. Ratcliff to discuss this action and how the committee designated to study the issue, which she will appoint, can involve appropriate leaders from the Association in the discussion. Prof. Tarvin offered his assistance.

6 Justice Tuck asked for a motion to approve the meeting minutes from the July 25th meeting of the Commission. Ms. Adams moved to approve the minutes and Judge Harper seconded the motion. All members voted in favor of approving the minutes.

OLD BUSINESS

Commission Appointments

Justice Tuck mentioned that Mr. Waddell, as well as several other Commissioners, have served their maximum terms. Arkansas Bar Association President Brian Ratcliff has appointed Mark Mayfield and Glenn Vasser, with a third appointment pending. These appointments are for vacancies from termed-out Commissioners Danyelle Walker, Nate Coulter, and Bill Waddell, all of whom will be honored at the February Commission Meeting. Ms. Johnson is working with Administrative Office of the Courts staff on a possible amendment to the per curiam order creating the Commission that provides for the Executive Director of the Arkansas IOLTA Foundation to serve as an ex officio commissioner. She hopes to receive approval of an amendment that would replace that position with the Chairperson of the Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation board.

Executive Director’s Report and Future Meetings

Ms. Johnson noted the dates of upcoming Commission meetings: February 5, 2015 in Little Rock; April 24, 2015 in Clarendon; and July 24, 2015 (location TBD).

The February 5 meeting will be followed by a day-long symposium at the UALR Bowen School of Law on access to justice. Speakers will include Justice Dickinson, James Sandman, and Stephanie Kimbro. Limited scope representation will be a big focus of the symposium. Mr. Richardson, Ms. Carter, Mr. Morris, and Prof. Goldner will be part of a panel discussion. She encouraged Commissioners to attend the event.

Adjourn

Ms. Adams moved to adjourn and Mr. Nagel seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.

7 Yasmin Pajouhesh Arvin Shen Vinh Ho David Ivanov HNR 194/Pruitt 8 December 2014 Access to Justice in Rural Arkansas

Access to Justice

Access to Justice is a phrase describing whether low-income people have access to legal advice and are fairly represented in civil litigation (American Bar Association, 2011). While those in urban and suburban areas might take access to justice for granted, not everyone in

America has a lawyer within easy reach when the need arises. In the United States, just about two percent of all small law practices are in rural areas, which results in a lawyer shortage for the nearly twenty percent of the U.S. population who reside in those areas (Pruitt & Showman,

2014). Residents of rural areas are thus less likely to have adequate access to legal services and thus may not be fairly represented in civil court. Nationwide, an average of four lawyers are available to serve every 1,000 residents. In the state of Arkansas, the average number of lawyers in urban areas is 2.71 for every 1,000 residents, but the average for rural Arkansas is only 0.72 lawyers for every 1,000 residents (McKinney, 2014). Currently, no empirical evidence in

Arkansas or any other state suggests how best to alleviate this rural lawyer shortage. In short, no one has investigated what it would take to convince lawyers to practice in under-served rural communities.

One state has acted in spite of this lack of evidence. In 2013, South Dakota implemented a novel program to entice more lawyers to rural counties. In Rural Incentive Programs for Legal and Medical Professions: A Comparative, Hannah Alsgaard examines the new programs that

South Dakota is using to solve the shortage of rural lawyers (Alsgaard 2014). One such program

1 of 14 8 is a mentorship program, where a senior attorney in a rural county trains a new lawyer, and once the senior attorney retires, the new lawyer takes over the rural practice. Another program is loan repayment, where a lawyer who moves to a rural county and makes a five-year commitment to work there gets loan repayment up to $60,000 over the five years, which is up to $12,000 per year (Alsgaard, 2014). In Law Stretched Thin, Pruitt and Showman note that “what may work in

South Dakota [where the legislature cares about this issue and law school tuition is low] is unlikely to work in other states that are more [metropolitan]” (Pruitt & Showman, 2014).

Arkansas Legislative Proposal

Arkansas has also taken initiative to solve this problem in their state. The Arkansas

Access to Justice Commission has drafted a legislative proposal for the Arkansas legislature in which several incentive programs are introduced to attract more new law graduates to move to and practice in rural counties. These programs include loan repayment aid, a Legal Aid

Fellowship program, and a distance legal incubator program. The loan repayment program gives new lawyers working and living in rural counties up to $12,000 per year for a maximum of

$60,000 over five years. For the Legal Aid fellowship program, the two legal aid providers in

Arkansas will hire a fellow to work under a senior rural attorney for two years. The judicial clerkship program would try to attract new lawyers to rural areas and fill judgeships by giving them a clerkship position in a rural county. They would conduct legal research, draft memos, and write court opinions. The distance legal incubator program will help new law graduates start their own practice in a rural county by providing them training and mentoring, and help from the two law schools in Arkansas. (Legislative Proposal, 2014).

It is clear that lawyers are lacking in rural America. Without practicing lawyers in these areas, a “justice gap” forms because residents of rural areas are unlikely to be adequately

2 of 14 9 represented in court and may not be able to get the legal advice they need. Working with our client, the Arkansas Access to Justice Commission, our group has devised two different surveys to collect empirical evidence regarding this shortage in Arkansas. One survey targets law students at the two law schools in Arkansas, while the other targets practicing lawyers in

Arkansas. The surveys we designed seek to gauge law students’ and legal practitioners’ interests in the proposed incentive programs in the draft legislative proposal. The survey results will provide empirical evidence on whether these programs are likely to be attractive to prospective lawyers and therefore, whether or not the proposed legislation presented to the Arkansas legislature would alleviate the rural lawyer shortage in that state by encouraging law graduates to practice in rural areas.

Our Charge

In order to deliver said empirical evidence to our client, the Arkansas Access to Justice

Commission, we created a survey after conducting extensive research on survey science. We utilized our survey science research findings to create a survey that would provide the quality data needed to drive the Arkansas legislature’s decision on whether to create new programs to help bring in more lawyers to rural counties. The research assisted us in being deliberate and thoughtful in how we designed our survey, including how to ensure an adequate response rate, without which the quality of data would be severely weakened. To inform our decisions on how to create our survey and what to ask of our target groups, we focused on research pertaining to different question types, question wording, survey length, and survey platforms. We also consulted with scholars in the field of Access to Justice for suggestions and feedback, and compared our survey to theirs.

Survey Science

3 of 14 10 The design of a survey must be consistent, clear, and informative to the respondent in order for the researcher to produce valuable data that can be measured. Different types of questions provide different kinds of data, typically falling under three measurement patterns: ordinal, nominal or categorical, and numerical. Ordinal measurements are the most common question type in surveys, because ordinal data are based off of subjective answers (Fink, 1995).

Subjective questions measure an individual’s perception, feelings, tastes, or opinions. There are two types of subjective questions that are largely used by survey designers, rating and ranking; therefore, both rating and ranking questions produce ordinal data. A distinctive feature of measuring subjective questions is that there are no right or wrong answers. This makes it difficult to analyze or completely comprehend a respondent’s subjective state apart from the answers they choose in the survey, since the degree to which a subjective question is “right,” implies the possibility of an objective standard against which to evaluate answers (Fowler, 1995). Thus, it is essential to design subjective questions so that all respondents understand the question and are answering the same questions consistently to produce reliable data that can be placed on a single, well-defined continuum (i.e. on the same scale).

One type of subjective question is the ranking question. Ranking questions are a comparison between objects on the same dimension, providing a respondent’s choices in an ordinal manner. The key difference between rankings and rating questions is that in a ranking question, respondents are not directly placing an object on a rating scale as in a rating question.

Rather, they are evaluating the distance between their views and a statement (Fowler, 1995).

Ranking gives a relative sense of which object is preferred more than the others; however, the data provided by the ranking order does not tell how much more, as all of the objects that are ranked could be perceived as very high or very low on the rating continuum. For example, when

4 of 14 11 ranking a list of factors that affect a lawyer’s decision to practice civil law in rural areas, a respondent may think that family is a huge factor compared to location and salary, but salary may be only slightly more preferred than location, or all three may or may not be a huge factor.

Ranking questions will only provide the order, not the strength of the preferences, and can become complicated very quickly. Once a ranking question has developed more than three choices, it becomes very difficult for people to rank the numerous options, so the survey responses become inconsistent and increasingly invalid. When respondents are given a cognitively difficult task such as a ranking of four or more things, they can become frustrated, ultimately causing higher dropout rates or unreliable data due to respondents randomly ranking the choices (Fowler, 1995). Although ranking questions are complicated to design and obtain data, since rating questions also measures ordinal data, researchers are able to implement rating questions, which are able to measure the strength of preferences, as well as the order of preferences.

Another type of subjective question is the rating question. Rating type questions are variations of positive to negative perceptions or feelings on a single rating dimension, allowing researchers to perceive how much a respondent likes or dislikes something. If respondents are asked to rate how important factors are in contemplating their ideal law job, rating dimensions can vary from a scale of (A) 1-10, a scale of (B) not important at all, not very important, neutral, important, and very important, or a scale of (C) not important and important (Fowler, 1995).

These three scales all use the same continuum, and although there may be some overlap between ratings, researchers can still obtain some sort of ranking order, where respondents are asked to rate each object. In scale A, there are ten different response categories labeled with numbers, whereas scale B is divided into five categories labeled with adjectives, and scale C is split into

5 of 14 12 two. There is a clear order in the different categories for each scale, which allows for researchers

to measure the ratings in an ordinal manner. For instance, respondents may rate income as an

extremely important factor, while proximity to family is rated as important, and diversity of

practice as not very important. From these three ratings, we get a sense of an ordinal

measurement where income is more important than proximity to family, and proximity to family

is more important than diversity of practice.

Even though the three different scales all use the same rating continuum, they have different potentials in how much data they can provide. For example, scale C divides respondents into two categories, making for a very unrefined set of data. In general, more categories are better than fewer categories, but there is a limit to the amount that is useful. Most studies have shown that a very small amount of new valid information is provided by questions that contain more than 10 categories. In fact, the optimal amount of categories that a respondent can use meaningfully ranges from five to seven (Andrews, 1984). In order to obtain good ordinal measurement with a rating question, a five to seven point scale should be used. Anything more than seven becomes increasingly more redundant to have, as it provides no new data, and anything below five will have too few answer choices, which will not produce good ordinal measurements, as many of the ratings will overlap and not show a clear order of preference

(Fink, 1995).

Question Wording

Concise and accurate word choice is imperative in designing effective questions. “The

goal of writing a survey question for self-administration is to develop a query that every potential

respondent will interpret in the same way, be able to respond to accurately, and be willing to

6 of 14 13 answer,” (Dillman, 2000, p. 32). In this way, meticulous question design will ensure minimally biased responses.

Every question on a survey should focus directly on a single, specific issue or topic (Alreck &

Settle, 1995). This will minimize misinterpretation and inaccurate responses. “Have you secured employment post-law school and what is your preferred field of law?” is a prime example of a question seeking two directives. It would better serve the survey to split the question into two focused questions, “Have you secured employment post-law school?” and “What is your preferred field of law for employment?” As stated the respondent would less likely misinterpret the question and respond accordingly.

A prime example of a misleading question that would lead to misinterpretation would be a question such as, “Do you live within a rural community?” This question provides no context as to what defines a rural community. Respondents from different backgrounds would likely have variations to their response and result in unreliable data. “Rural – Population 15,000 and under,” by defining the parameters of a rural community, respondents can provide a more accurate response.

Respondent Considerations

Sensitive questions can lead to lowered response rates if not dealt with accordingly.

Questions pertaining to topics such as salary, gender, and political affiliation should be put under careful scrutiny. For instance, “What is the lowest starting salary you are willing to accept post- law school?” could be seen as a sensitive question. Worded this way, respondents may feel threatened or pressured to answer based on what they feel is socially acceptable and not what they truly think. The question could be more appropriately phrased, “What do you believe is a fair starting salary post-law school?”

7 of 14 14 According to SurveyMonkey, an online survey platform, it is important to build a rapport with a respondent prior to asking a sensitive question. Surveys are essentially a one-sided conversation and by building the questions from least sensitive up, a respondent is more inclined to answer them. Research indicates questions pertaining to topics in salary, gender, and so forth are better fitted at the end of a survey. To decrease the likelihood of an offended respondent it is important to include the option “decline to answer” and allow them to complete the survey. This would potentially minimize instances of an offended respondent refusing to complete the survey.

During the survey design, a careful researcher should be cognizant of any other ways in which the survey design could potentially reduce response rate. While one may assume that the length of a survey will naturally reduce response rates, the evidence for this line of thinking does not clearly emerge from the literature. A literature review in 1996 by Karen Bogen of the US

Bureau of the Census confirmed previous findings of mixed evidence on whether survey length actually decreased response rates. Some research showed weak negative correlations with survey length and response rate, while others showed none, or even a positive correlation. Researchers speculated that length of survey could indicate to the respondent the importance of the survey, which could potentially ameliorate the negative effect of a lengthy survey. (Bogen, 1996) Upon review of the literature, overall data suggests that length does negatively affect response rate, but the evidence was ‘weak and inconsistent’. (Bogen, 1996) The author also notes that other factors are potentially more important than length, such as salience of survey to respondent. However, it is important to consider the fact that the body of literature used focused mostly on mail surveys, and it is not clearly evident whether or not these conclusions would directly apply to online surveys.

8 of 14 15 Designing the survey is but one step in the process. Picking an efficient and cost effective

platform is also an essential step in the process. In a study comparing the difference in web based and paper based survey response rates, Dillman found that web based surveys received significantly higher response rates compared to paper based surveys. The study was performed with the assistance of the American Evaluation Association (AEA) to create a survey that collected data from approximately 4,000 very well educated and literate members. The data consisted of salaries and work related information from its members. The response rate came to be approximately 52% of the total members responding, with approximately 61% responding via the web based survey and 39% responding via the paper based survey (Dillman, 2000). It is clear to see that the utility of web based surveys are much more favorable in comparison, at least in terms of response rate.

Comparison to previous works in the field

After conducting survey science research on methodology, we also consulted prior

research addressing Access to Justice. One of the main works was a dissertation done in

Australia by Caroline Hart. In her thesis, Hart examined the lack of rural lawyers and what might

hinder lawyers from practicing in more rural areas. Her dissertation included both qualitative and

quantitative data. Hart explains how qualitative data is harder to get and harder to analyze, but

gets you more personal answers. The quantitative data helps make compelling cases, such as

showing that there may be a particular reason that lawyers do not go to practice in rural areas

(Hart, 2014). Since all respondents answer the same questions, excluding those which are applied

via skip logic, certain reasons law students do not pursue work in rural areas can become evident.

In her study, Hart clearly defines what constitutes “regional,” “rural,” and “remote” so that the

respondents are clear about what she is talking about and answer the questions accordingly (Hart,

9 of 14 16 2014). In our surveys, we define what a “rural county” is in the beginning so that the respondents know which counties are considered rural for the purposes of our survey. For our purposes, a rural county is one with a population less than 15,000.

In Hart’s study, she included a section where she analyzed some limitations of quantitative data, such as if the sample size is too small, it is not possible to make broad generalizations about the population. Hart also explained in her analysis of her surveys that a low response rate was a major limitation in her study and thus she could not have solid conclusions since the sample may not be representative of the population of lawyers in Australia as a whole

(Hart, 2014). This is something to be considered as we gather data and analyze the responses.

Considering that we are trying to gather empirical evidence to support funding programs for rural lawyers, we need a sufficient sample size in order to have evidence that could be considered compelling.

We were very fortunate to get feedback on our surveys from Ms. Hart. One of the questions on our surveys asked about a person’s happiness, however it was not specified what type of happiness we were asking about. She suggested we include different categories of happiness to make it easier to tell if someone is happy or unhappy personally, financially, or professionally. In our survey, we changed the question on happiness into three parts, which asked about the respondent’s happiness personally, financially, and professionally. Ms. Hart also suggested that we put the demographics questions near the top to have people ease into the survey with easier questions. However, the academic literature we reviewed all suggested it is better to put demographics information near the end since people may find the questions threatening. By leaving those questions near the end, we are more likely to get the bulk of the questions we want to ask answered, and if the respondents feel threatened by the demographic

10 of 14 17 questions, they can simply skip them without impacting the response rate for the other questions.

Therefore, we did not follow Ms. Hart’s advice on this issue.

Preliminary Results

While the data from our survey at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville law school has been collected, the task of analyzing our results still remains to be done. However, preliminary results are encouraging. Out of 379 total students at University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, 146 students responded to our survey, a response rate of 38.5%. The incentive programs in the legislative proposal put forth by the Arkansas Access to Justice Commission were, overall, well received. Of the 39 students who answered the question measuring interest in a Legal Aid

Fellowship, about 28% found it ‘very attractive,’ and about 36% called it ‘moderately attractive.’

Unsurprisingly, when polled about their interest in a summer internship in a rural county, students weren’t very interested when the internship was unpaid, but were much more so when asked about a paid internship. 31 students out of 127 stated they would either ‘seriously’ or ‘very seriously’ consider practicing law in a rural area. Though this is only about 24% of the respondents, it still shows that there is interest in working in rural areas that could potentially be tapped. It should also be noted that when asked about how much loan repayment per year would incentivize them to work in a rural area, a plurality of students who answered the question chose

‘$5,000-$9,999’. This is considerably less than the maximum of $12,000 that our client put forth in the legislative proposal, which would allow the Arkansas Legislature some flexibility in determining the final sum.

Conclusion

Exploring the basic fundamentals of survey science helped us transform the rough draft of a survey originally developed by an associate of our client’s, who had no experience with

11 of 14 18 designing surveys, into a more polished product. We hope the survey we sent out will accurately address the need for data in regards to attitudes towards practicing in rural areas, as well as for specific programs to encourage lawyers to do so. It is exciting to be, in some small way, at the vanguard of the effort to bring access to justice to those who lack it, and addressing a systemic problem our nation faces. Based on the demographic trends of this country, the justice gap is projected to worsen if not addressed, and while lawmakers have paid lip service to the cause in the past, little has been done so far. Our team and our clients, with the support of key players and scholars in the field, can hopefully nudge the Arkansas General Assembly to pass meaningful legislation that could serve as a pilot program for other states to emulate. Only then can we, as a nation, actually begin bridging this gap.

12 of 14 19

Bibliography

Alreck, P., & Settle, R. (1995). The survey research handbook (2nd ed., pp. 87-207). Chicago:

Irwin.

Alsgaard, H. (2014). “Rural Incentive Programs for Legal and Medical Professions: A

Comparative.” South Dakota Law Review (59), pp. 585-615.

Fink, A. (1995). How to ask survey questions (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

Fowler, F. (1995). Improving survey questions: Design and evaluation (Vol. 38). Thousand

Oaks: Sage Publications.

Bogen, Karen (1996). "The Effect of Questionnaire Length on Response Rates -- A Review of

the Literature". Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods (American

Statistical Association): 1020–1025.

Dillman, D., & Dillman, D. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd

ed., pp. 3-79). New York: Wiley.

Arkansas Access to Justice Commission. (2014). Proposal to increase legal access in rural

arkansas. pp. 1-4.

Hart, Caroline. (2014). The prevalence and nature of sustainable regional, rural, and remote legal

practice. University of Southern Queensland.

McKinney, Cliff. (2014). Arkansas rural lawyers: the current picture. pp. 1-12.

Pruitt, L. & Showman, B. (2014). Law stretched thin: access to justice in rural america. South

Dakota Law Review. (59). pp. 468-526.

13 of 14 20 How to Ask Sensitive Questions in Surveys. (n.d.). Retrieved December 10, 2014, from

https://www.surveymonkey.com/blog/en/blog/2014/09/24/ask-sensitive-questions-

surveys/

14 of 14 21 PROPOSAL TO INCREASE LEGAL ACCESS IN RURAL ARKANSAS Arkansas Access to Justice Commission | University of Arkansas School of Law | University of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law

Residents of rural Arkansas are facing a looming crisis when it comes to access to legal representation. Without the help of a lawyer, families with critical legal problems—even ones affecting basic human needs—are left to flounder on their own. The national per capita average of attorneys is 4.11 per 1,000 residents. Among the states surrounding Arkansas, the average is 3.28 per 1,000. Arkansas’s average is 2.04 per 1,000. Among the twenty-five most sparsely counties in Arkansas (the "Rural Counties"), the average is only 0.72 per 1,000. At least one Arkansas county has no lawyers at all.

On average, the attorneys in the Rural Counties are older than the general population, and they also tend to be older than the average Arkansas attorney. The rate of new attorneys locating in the Rural Counties is very low, with only fourteen attorneys locating in any of the Rural Counties between 2008 and 2013. Twenty-eight percent (28%) of the Rural Counties have no attorneys who were licensed in this millennium.

If swift action is not taken to address this disparity, the accident of where in Arkansas someone lives will likely determine their ability to access essential legal services. This proposal outlines five complementary programs that will work together to increase the presence of lawyers in rural Arkansas: (1) A loan repayment program for attorneys who locate in Rural Counties; (2) A judicial clerkship program to benefit circuit judges and courts in Rural Counties; (3) A fellowship program for Legal Aid attorneys in Rural Counties; (4) A distance incubator program that emphasizes skills needed to successfully establish practices in in Rural Counties; and (5) the addition of two Legal Aid staff attorney positions in Rural Counties.

These programs are proposed on a pilot basis. The Arkansas Access to Justice Commission, University of Arkansas School of Law, and University of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law will jointly report to the General Assembly at the conclusion of Year 5 on the effectiveness of these programs in recruiting new attorneys to provide services in the Rural Counties and on the need for continued legislative funding for one or more of the programs.

Loan Repayment

Programs exist in Arkansas to encourage doctors, dentists, teachers and veterinarians to serve disadvantaged communities. The proposed Loan Repayment program would create a similar program for attorneys. By helping to repay student loans, attorneys will be encouraged to locate in Rural Counties, and those who do will be better able to establish a practice in such areas.

An attorney in the program must establish an office in a Rural County and dedicate the significant majority of his or her practice to clients in a Rural County. For each year that the attorney completes in the Rural County, the attorney will receive up to $12,000 to repay student loans. The attorney would be permitted to remain in the program for a maximum of five years, receiving a maximum student loan reimbursement of $60,000. A pilot program of five attorneys would cost a grand total of $300,000, which could be spread out over a period of up to nine years, if needed in order to ramp up the program and then to taper off if the program is discontinued or other sources of funding identified. If the program is sustained, it would cost $60,000 per year. The program would be administered by the Arkansas Access to

1

22 Justice Foundation, which would select the most qualified applicants for participation in the program and ensure compliance with the program requirements.

Judicial Clerkship Program

Arkansas circuit courts are the state’s courts of general jurisdiction, which means that they handle a wide variety of civil and criminal matters. The courts are organized into a system of 28 judicial circuits that serve all 75 counties of the state. Only in Pulaski County are all circuit judges provided with a law clerk funded through the county budget. Many of the judges who hear cases in the Rural Counties regularly travel to several different courthouses in a judicial circuit, and they operate under strict deadlines for hearing certain matters. They typically travel to the Rural Counties without the assistance of staff and, in many locations, have no access to even basic law library materials. The availability of a law clerk would greatly enhance the ability of judges in Rural Counties to manage their caseloads in each county of their respective circuits, benefiting the judge, the attorneys, and the public.

In addition, the declining number of attorneys locating practices in Rural Counties impacts the availability of future judges to serve in these areas. A number of judicial circuits will, upon a sitting judge’s retirement, have few attorneys in the circuit who can run for election to take the place of the retiring judge. Statewide, the average age of sitting trial court judges is 58.7. In 2013, the average retirement age was 65.7, suggesting that many judges are within just a few years of retirement. Without a way to develop potential successor judges in these rural areas, our state risks depriving rural citizens—particularly those without the means to travel significant distances—meaningful access to the court system.

This program will offer a mechanism for attracting new attorneys to underserved areas of the state, while meeting a need for assistance to sitting judges and fostering the tutelage of potential successors. Law clerks will be responsible for conducting legal research, drafting memoranda, and preparing court opinions. Participating clerks will also be available to supervise law students through externship programs, leveraging law student participation that will provide additional judicial support at no cost and introduce law students to rural communities.

Legal Aid Fellowship Program

Arkansas’s two nonprofit civil legal aid providers, the Center for Arkansas Legal Services and Legal Aid of Arkansas, provide high-quality legal representation in all 75 counties to low-income Arkansans facing critical civil legal problems, such as domestic violence, mortgage foreclosures, and child custody. With 16 offices statewide, these organizations are ideal sources of infrastructure and support for new attorneys wishing to establish practices in rural areas of the state. A Legal Aid Fellowship program would provide funding for CALS and LAA to each hire a recently licensed attorney who would be expected to make a two-year commitment of at least 50% of his or her time providing services in Rural Counties where the attorney population is sparse and aging. The fellows will work under the direct supervision of senior staff who work in those areas of the state, and who will provide mentoring and links to the local community. The fellow will have a guaranteed source of part-time income and support and have the flexibility to spend outside of the legal aid commitment but primarily within a Rural County establishing a practice and developing a base of paying clients.

2

23 Distance Legal Incubator

A legal incubator is a mechanism for providing structured and professional support to new law school graduates interested in creating solo or small-firm practices in underserved communities. The first incubator was created at CUNY law school in 1998, and the website of the American Bar Association reports approximately 25 legal incubators around the country. Incubator programs benefit law school graduates by creating jobs and allowing them to serve the communities in which they grew up, contrary to the frequent expectation that they would have to abandon those communities to make a living. Incubator graduates receive supervision and training that they would not have otherwise received had they established practices on their own. This support includes:

• Having an experienced, highly-regarded lawyer to serve as a sounding board for brainstorming • Training in basic lawyering skills if needed • Feedback on projects • Training on client development • Training on uses of technology to minimize operating costs • Other law office management training • Introductions to the legal community • Inculcation of professional values

Individuals in underserved communities benefit from incubators because they not only have access to legal services they would not otherwise have had, but because the legal services they do receive are more likely to be competently performed.

The program would include a component designed to support and assist graduates who desire to practice in rural parts of the state. Graduates who participate will act as “legal circuit riders” in one or more underserved judicial districts by conducting periodic legal clinics in those areas. In addition, those who relocate to Rural Counties during their incubator tenure will have virtual access to such services and tools as online legal research, video-conferencing capability, and malpractice insurance coverage that would otherwise create significant overhead costs for them as newly established attorneys trying to build a practice. Once the program is well established, incubator participants will have access to incubator alumni across the state who will be available as mentors and who could provide space for incubator participants to meet with clients around the state.

We are therefore proposing the creation of a legal Distance Incubator, with offices in each of the two state law schools. Both law schools are willing to incur the costs of providing the necessary office space and supplies for the Distance Incubator program through a mix of private funding and redirecting existing resources. However, both law schools lack the economic resources the personnel to staff the proposed Distance Incubator program. We believe that a half-time employee at each law school can adequately staff each location. For example, at Bowen Law School, a person who currently works at Bowen as a half-time clinical professor would become a full-time employee. The law schools estimate this extra cost at $35,000 per year for years 1-3. Thereafter, if things go well, the Distance Incubator program will be able to cover this extra salary expense through incubator revenue. Most incubators operate practices that are able to break even after a few years.

3

24 Expansion of Legal Aid in Rural Counties

Arkansas is one of only 17 states in the country that provide no general revenue funding to support the provision of civil legal aid. A 2014 study by the Arkansas Access to Justice Commission in partnership with the Clinton School of Public Service concluded that civil legal aid in Arkansas has a substantial positive economic benefit at the individual level by increasing household income, decreasing household debt, keeping families in their homes, and protecting victims of domestic violence. Our state’s two legal aid programs annually produce a combined total of more than $11.7 million in financial recoveries and avoidance of financial loss for legal aid clients and generate a total of more than $32 million in economic activity in the state each year. They accomplish this at a cost that is $2.4 million less than the equivalent cost of such services in the private legal market. State funding for the addition of staff attorneys dedicated to providing services in the Rural Counties will not only improve access to legal help for low-income rural Arkansans facing life-altering civil legal crises, it will create an economic stimulus effect within those communities and for the state as a whole. A total of $500,000 is requested for 4-6 staff attorneys who will be dedicated to delivering services in the Rural Counties. This funding could increase the capacity of CALS and LAA to serve as many as 1300 more clients annually. CALS and LAA presently turn away about half of the 30,000 eligible Arkansans who contact them each year for help due to resource constraints.

Cost Summary

The incubator program would cost $70,000 per year for three years for both locations combined. The judicial clerkship and legal aid fellowship programs would cost $60,000 per year each if fully funded. Finally, the proposed allocation of funds to increase legal aid staffing in Rural Counties would cost $500,000 per year over the five year pilot period. These projections also assume cash and in-kind support from the law schools, legal aid programs, and Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation.

The Loan Repayment program would likely have a ramp-up period, so the program would need flexibility to distribute funds over a period of time that may exceed the five-year pilot period. The Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation is also committed to identifying alternative sources of funding for the program once the pilot program is established and has a demonstrated track record of success. The following cost illustration assumes that four of the five programs will be fully funded for five years, except for the Distance Incubator, which is projected to become self-sustaining after Year 3.

LRAP Incubator Clerkship Fellowship Rural Legal Aid Totals by Year Year 1 $60,000 $70,000 $60,000 $60,000 $500,000 $750,000 Year 2 $60,000 $70,000 $60,000 $60,000 $500,000 $750,000 Year 3 $60,000 $70,000 $60,000 $60,000 $500,000 $750,000 Year 4 $60,000 $0 $60,000 $60,000 $500,000 $680,000 Year 5 $60,000 $0 $60,000 $60,000 $500,000 $680,000 Totals by $300,000 $210,000 $300,000 $300,000 $2,500,000 $3,610,000 Program

4

25 REPORT OF THE ARKANSAS ACCESS TO JUSTICE COMMISSION

To: Attorney General Dustin McDaniel Chief of Staff Erika Gee Chief Deputy Brad Phelps

From: Jean Carter, Executive Director, Center for Arkansas Legal Services; Amy Johnson, Executive Director, Arkansas Access to Justice; Lee Richardson, Executive Director, Legal Aid of Arkansas

Re: Report on Housing Settlement Expenditures – Arkansas Access to Justice Commission

Date: August 27, 2014

I. Introduction

In July 2012, the Arkansas Attorney General distributed $2,000,000 in settlement funds to the Arkansas Access to Justice Commission in connection with a multi-state settlement agreement (“Settlement Agreement”) with the nation’s five largest banks over allegations of fraud and abuse within the mortgage service industry. The purpose of the funds was “to provide equal access to justice to Arkansas residents affected by the mortgage and foreclosure crisis.”

In order to effect the stated purpose of the funds, the Commission entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation, Inc. (formerly the Arkansas IOLTA Foundation, Inc.) under which the Foundation administers the funds through a targeted, four-year grant program aimed at funding free civil legal services to low-income Arkansans in matters related to housing and financial fraud. A copy of the current MOU is attached as Appendix 1.

There are two nonprofit organizations in Arkansas that provide high-quality free legal representation for indigent Arkansas who face critical civil legal issues: The Center for Arkansas Legal Services (CALS), which serves 44 counties in central, western, and southern Arkansas; and Legal Aid of Arkansas (LAA), which serves 31 counties in northern and eastern Arkansas. These two programs are the designated recipients of the grants that the Foundation is making out of the settlement funds. One hundred percent of the $2 million principal, plus all earnings on those funds, are being distributed to these programs. Neither the Commission nor the Foundation is applying any of the funds or their earnings to cover the costs of administering the program.

The Foundation currently makes quarterly distributions to CALS and LAA totaling $125,000, for those organizations to conduct the following activities:

1

26

• Assure the borrower clients are receiving the benefits of the mandates created by the Settlement Agreement, federal law, and state law, including bankruptcy services where appropriate; • Assist clients in accessing and maintaining residence in affordable housing through legal advocacy, including foreclosure defense, eviction defense, housing discrimination, title issues, and other matters related to safe and affordable housing; • Work with clients to prevent foreclosure, including community partners in the process when appropriate; • Assist clients with matters involving financial fraud, such as unfair or deceptive trade practices, housing-related predatory lending, and truth-in-lending violations; and • Develop training and educational materials on foreclosure, housing rights, and financial fraud for the legal advocates who will serve eligible clients, as well as materials for members of the public.

To date, the Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation has distributed a total of $1,000,000 in settlement fund grants to CALS and LAA. As a condition of receiving these disbursements, CALS and LAA submit quarterly grant reports to the Foundation that detail program-related activities, cases opened and closed, case outcomes, and client stories. Copies of these reports are available upon request.

II. Impact of Funds Designated for Provision of Legal Services

Beginning with the initial distribution of settlement funds in late 2012, CALS and LAA established a Housing Team that developed a specialized intake mechanism for cases identified as involving mortgage issues. Even though legal aid programs have always handled housing and consumer-oriented cases for low-income Arkansans, these matters have, in past years, represented a smaller proportion of the overall legal aid caseload. In addition, resource limitations have historically necessitated that CALS and LAA limit eligible clients to those whose household income fell within 125% federal-poverty-level threshold, meaning that homeowners—whose income often exceeds that threshold—could not be served. The settlement funds distributed to CALS and LAA have given these programs flexibility to handle cases for Arkansans up to 200% of FPL1 and to allow for a more holistic approach to handling matters presented by clients eligible for services under settlement grant funds, as they are often facing multiple issues.

Clients typically contact CALS and LAA through their statewide telephone helpline. Some callers receive immediate advice or brief services, while others require further investigation and negotiation with opposing parties. Some clients require representation in court.

To date, the programs have served a combined total of 2011 clients. The attached Appendix 2 details the numbers of cases closed so far, by category. Of these totals, 1822 were handled

1 CALS and LAA have leeway to exceed the 200% threshold in cases of extreme need, for up to 10% of all cases handled with grant funds.

2

27

through brief advice or other limited scope services, while 189 were (due to the complexity of the case and the likelihood of success on the merits) accepted for more extended representation.

Additionally, CALS and LAA’s statewide coordinating unit—the Arkansas Legal Services Partnership—has developed comprehensive legal information on housing-related legal issues for its highly-trafficked website. Those resources, which are available at www.arlegalservices.org/foreclosure, have received a total of 4328 page views, and printable facts sheets on that page have been downloaded 1106 times. A breakdown of the page views and downloads is attached as Appendix 3.

Cases handled in matters funded through the settlement have resulted in recoveries and have prevented financial liabilities for clients to the tune of an estimated total of $1,441,042. An economic benefit study completed by the Commission in partnership with the Clinton School of Public Service (publication forthcoming) suggests that the benefits to clients and to the Arkansas economy extend far beyond these immediate recoveries: they protect real estate values of homes and neighborhoods, they boost individual consumer spending, they prevent costs to taxpayers that would be occasioned by homelessness.

The impact of this program is probably best demonstrated through examples of cases and clients whose lives have been tangibly impacted by the services they have received, which in many instances have helped Arkansas families salvage their credit, remain in their homes, and protect assets and income that would have otherwise been lost. Here are just a few examples of clients helped by this program:

A family came to Legal Aid of Arkansas after getting notice of a foreclosure on their home with a sale looming. The family, which included two minor children, was $4000 behind on payments because of economic hardship. The father was disabled and wheelchair-bound. Legal Aid of Arkansas was able to get the sale stopped and request a forbearance then loan modification. After almost two years of ongoing negotiation, an agreement was reached under which the clients were able to meet their initial obligations and under which the loan was modified.

Ms. R. had serious medical conditions that caused her to have to cut back her working hours. She had always paid her mortgage on time, but she knew she would not be able to afford to pay the full mortgage while working a reduced schedule. Ms. R. contacted her mortgage company, Bank of America, to try to work out a payment plan until she could return to work full-time. Bank of America would not assist her, and she fell behind on her payments. She was eventually told that she qualified for a loan modification, which she applied for and completed. She then received notice that the bank had reevaluated her loan modification and determined that she was not qualified. Furthermore the bank and advised that it was going to foreclose on her home. A Center for Arkansas Legal Services attorney contacted Bank of America. After several contacts with a loan officer, Ms. R. received notice that she qualified for a loan modification. The legal aid attorney was able to assist her in successfully completing the loan modification Ms. R. needed in order to continue living in her home.

CALS represented a woman in a divorce case with home ownership issues. During the pendency of the divorce, her husband orally agreed to make payments on the mobile home where the

3

28

woman and their small child resided. The client was later served with a Complaint and Affidavit for Possession and a Notice of Petition for Order of Delivery. She found out that her husband had not made the last three payments due on the mobile home; instead, he had taken his girlfriend and girlfriend’s daughter to Florida for a vacation. The CALS attorney notified the husband’s attorney and made a demand for mobile home payments. The request was ignored, so the CALS attorney assisted the client in defending the lawsuit. The attorney was able to negotiate with the mobile home financing company to allow the client to catch up on the payments. She was awarded the mobile home in the divorce, and her husband signed over his interest in the home. The client and her daughter were able to retain their home as a result of the legal representation they received.

Legal Aid of Arkansas accepted a case to help a client get out of an apartment that had visible mold on the carpet and large holes in the yard. In addition, the apartment manager’s behavior toward the client and her autistic grandchild was causing the child to regress at school and at home. The apartment manager filed an unlawful detainer action to obtain a writ of possession. LAA was able to negotiate with management to allow the client sufficient time to find other accommodations and move, as well as obtain a dismissal with prejudice. After the complaint was dismissed, however, the apartment manager sent the client’s account to collections. LAA obtained written confirmation from the collection agency that the attempt had been in error and that no detrimental information had been reported to any credit agency.

4

29 Appendix 1 30 Appendix 1 31 Appendix 1 32 Appendix 1 33 Appendix 1 Appendix34 A Page 1 of 4 Appendix 1 Appendix35 A Page 2 of 4 Appendix 1 Appendix36 A Page 3 of 4 Appendix 1 Appendix37 A Page 4 of 4 Housing Foreclosure Cases Closed October 1, 2012 to June 30, 2014

Center for Arkansas Legal Services Legal Aid of Arkansas Counsel/Advice/Brief Services Extended Services Counsel/Advice/Brief Services Extended Services Consumer Bankruptcy/Debtor Relief 268 17 2 0 Collection/Repo/Def/Garnishment 12 1 0 0 Contracts/Warranties 2 1 4 1 Collection Practices/Creditor 3 0 0 0 Loans/Installment Purchase 3 0 0 0 Public Utilities 20 1 0 0 Predatory Lending 1 0 0 0 Other Consumer/Finance 2 0 1 0 Housing Fed. Subsidized Housing 113 27 59 7 Homeownership/Real Property 171 14 56 10 Housing Discrimination 0 0 3 2 Private Landlord/Tenant 470 18 388 52 Public Housing 4 1 31 11 Mobile Homes 2 0 3 0 Mortgage Foreclosures not Pred. 44 5 73 14 Mortgage/Predatory Lending Prac. 0 0 1 0 Other Housing 10 0 31 3 Other/Multiple Wills and Estates 19 1 14 0 Advance Directives/Powers 1 0 4 0 Family Divorce/Separation/Annulment 2 0 0 0 Domestic Abuse 0 1 0 0 Support 0 0 1 0 Other Family 4 1 0 0 Juvenile Minor Guardianship Conserv. 0 1 0 0

Case Closure Total 1151 89 671 100

Appendix 2 38

Pageviews & Summary To assist with the October 2012 inception of the Housing Rights and Consumer Protection Program formed by the Center for Arkansas Legal Services and Legal Aid of Arkansas, ALSP staff developed a new section on the www.arlegalservices.org website1 that focused on foreclosure issues. These resources supplemented existing web pages, fact sheets, videos, and self-help housing resources available in the Online Legal Library.

The foreclosure-specific section has seen a total of 4,328 pageviews in the 21 months since the housing program's inception.

Page Pageviews Unique Pageviews /foreclosure 2,042 1,515 /foreclosureoverview 157 122 /foreclosuredefense 835 750 /foreclosurequalification 235 176 /foreclosure5stages 98 89 /homeownership 631 519 /contactusevictions 141 105 /search/node/foreclosure2 189 115 TOTAL 4,328 3,391

Annual Comparisons (October 2012-June 2014)

2500

2000

1500

1000 2012 (Oct-Dec)

500 2013 2014 (Jan-Jun) 0

1 Site visitors can also access the site through use of the following URLs: www.arlegalaid.org and www.arkansaslegalservices.org. 2 Pageviews include searches for foreclosure, non-judicial foreclosure, mortgage, and homeownership.

Appendix 3 39

File Downloads (Events) Google Analytics classifies downloads of Adobe PDF, MS Word documents, PowerPoint presentations, and other files as events. Events include downloads, clicks on e-mail addresses, and clicks on links that take users to other websites. Since the inception of the housing program, there have been a total of 1,106 events.

2014 2012 Event Type 2013 TOTAL (Jan-June) (Oct-Dec) Fact Sheet – Foreclosure: The 5 Stages 37 44 No data 81 Fact Sheet – Foreclosure Options 39 78 No data 115 Fact Sheet – Home Improvement Scams 4 19 5 28 Fact Sheet – Housing & Foreclosure 21 61 No data 82 Fact Sheet – How to Avoid Foreclosure 41 114 21 175 Fact Sheet – Owning a Home: Know Your Rights 62 115 23 197 Fact Sheet – Rent-to-Own Home 54 71 15 138 Fact Sheet – Resources for Your Home 35 55 21 111 Fact Sheet – What is a Mortgage? 9 15 No data 24 Link – AATJ $2 Million Distribution Press Release 2 11 No data 13 Link – AG Settlement Press Release 3 12 1 16 Video – National Mortgage Settlement PSA 19 25 No data 44 Link – AG Resource Center for Housing Issues 27 35 No data 62 Link – National Foreclosure Settlement 2 12 6 20

Appendix 3 40 Pulaski County Circuit Courthouse

Room 200 Tuesday and Thursday | 9 am – 1 pm

We are here, as volunteers, to provide valuable information, court forms, and other resources for people who represent themselves in court in non-criminal matters. Self-representation should not be taken lightly, and there are many times when hiring an attorney is a good idea.

The goal of the Arkansas CourtHelp™ Project is to educate and help Arkansans without a lawyer (pro se) to navigate a complicated, and sometimes intimidating, court process in non-criminal matters. FREE Court Forms FREE Legal Information

Disclaimer We are providing this information as a public service. We try to make it accurate. Sometimes the laws change. We cannot promise that the information is always up-to-date and correct. We do not intend this information to be legal advice. We do not intend it as advertising or solicitation. By providing this information, we are not acting as your lawyer. Always talk to a competent lawyer, if you can, before taking legal action.

These free resources have not been endorsed by the Supreme Court of Arkansas.

www.arlegalservices.org/courthelp

Arkansas Legal Service Partnership | Arkansas Access to Justice Commission 41 ABA Access to Justice Commission Expansion Project 2013 INNOVATION GRANTS Arkansas Assisted Pro Se Pilot Project October 14, 2014

Grant Report

What did the project seek to achieve?

The goals of the project were to (1) to develop a pro se document assembly form for an Arkansas Uncontested Divorce with Children packet utilizing HotDocs and A2J Author software; (2) introduce members of the private Arkansas Bar to the concept of limited scope representation— something that Arkansas attorneys are largely unfamiliar with—through a series of pilot clinics where attorneys were to assist pro se litigants in completing a self-guided interview that would produce all the documents needed for the litigant to file and obtain an uncontested divorce where there are children. The anticipated outcomes of the project were: (1) completion of a ready-to- use pro se document assembly form for an Arkansas Uncontested Divorce with Children packet; (2) increased judicial and private bar support for the Arkansas Uncontested Divorce with Children packet garnered through the assisted pro se user clinics prior to full public release; and (3) increased awareness and support among members of the Arkansas bench and bar for the provision of limited scope legal assistance to pro se litigants.

What role did the ATJ Commission play in carrying out the project’s activities?

The Arkansas ATJ Commission has served as the lead organizer of all of the project’s activities and has coordinated this pilot project with the work of the Commission’s Self-Represented Litigant Task Force (“SRL Task Force”) in developing a comprehensive set of recommendations for implementing its plan for Services to Self-Represented Litigants in Arkansas, (“SRL Plan”). A central recommendation to come out of that was “encouragement of the provision of limited scope representation to persons representing themselves in Arkansas.” The Task Force’s work plan is attached.

What activities did the project complete during the grant period? Were any activities originally planned not completed or substantially modified?

During the grant period, we conducted the following activities:

• Engaged a developer to create an automated self-help resource designed for couples with children who are seeking a divorce; completed an initial beta version of the pro se divorce with children resource (link: https://lawhelpinteractive.org/login_form?template_id=template.2014-08- 06.6515697302&set_language=en), as well as a beta version of a HotDocs resource for attorneys (link: https://lawhelpinteractive.org/login_form?template_id=template.2014-03- 19.7294856137&set_language=en)

42 • Developed a CLE-accredited program on limited scope representation that was presented in two counties (one urban and one rural), as well as the Arkansas Bar Association’s annual meeting (PowerPoint presentation is attached) • Made presentations to the Arkansas Bar Association’s Board of Governors and House of Delegates about the SRL Plan and the pilot project • Authored an article in the Arkansas Bar Association’s quarterly magazine, the Arkansas Lawyer, on limited scope representation (article is attached) • Recruited stakeholders to serve on the Commission’s Self-Represented Litigant Task Force and its committees, including a Committee on Limited Scope Representation; members include attorneys who plan to provide limited scope services, law librarians, judges, a trial court assistant, an attorney who represents the state’s largest malpractice insurer, Arkansas Bar Association leaders (including a past president and members of the Association’s House of Delegates and Board of Governors), a legal aid attorney, and law professors • Began development of an attorney “toolkit” on limited scope representation in divorces cases with children, which will include a summary of existing applicable law in Arkansas, sample forms, and client screening protocols for divorces with children (outline attached); the Commission will work with the Bar Association to replicate this toolkit for other legal issues where low- to moderate-income Arkansans could benefit from access to unbundled legal services • Received a commitment from the Pulaski County Circuit Court to begin piloting the program as part of a court-based “help desk” to be staffed initially by the Commission and the Arkansas Legal Services Partnership (“ALSP)”; the court has provided dedicated space for the help desk, which will serve as a point of entry for self-represented litigants participating in the project • Began recruitment efforts for attorneys to participate in pilot project; have received eight commitments from Pulaski County attorneys to accept referrals We have not yet completed the toolkit or initiated the attorney referral process; remaining activities underway are described in the following section. The two most significant modifications to this project have been (1) the addition of an attorney toolkit component to the project, and (2) elimination of a “clinic” format for delivering limited scope services. We have opted not to do pilot clinics, but instead to rely on the pro se divorce resource itself as the primary mechanism for connecting clients with attorneys. The Commission and ALSP currently conduct periodic limited scope pro bono clinics, which have been highly successful in promoting limited scope representation in the pro bono context. However, this format does not lend itself to the real-time connection of clients with attorneys that is needed for a self-sustaining delivery mechanism. What additional steps are planned for carrying forward the project? Who is responsible? The Commission will be responsible for the remaining steps needed to complete the project and carry it forward. Many of these activities will be completed through its Self-Represented Litigant Task Force and with the support of ALSP. Remaining steps include the following:

• Final testing and refinement of the automated self-help and attorney resources; attorney participants will be doing the final testing of the attorney resource, and pro se litigants

2 43 will do final testing of the pro se resource with the assistance of Commission and ALSP staff at the Pulaski County Courthouse • Modifications to the pro se resource that will provide a conduit for users to connect with attorneys participating in the pilot project when the resource “exits” a user out based on a self-identified issue that is beyond the scope of what the pro se resource is designed to address (e.g., a user who needs a Qualified Domestic Relations Order) • Development of pro se, attorney, and judge surveys to evaluate project outcomes • After initial pilot in Pulaski County (where Commission and ALSP staff can directly assist with implementation and refine model), replicate program in one or more rural judicial districts

What has changed so far as a result of the project?

The access to justice crisis in our state and the impending changes to practice of law have been elevated as matters of significant concern in our state. The Arkansas Bar Association has expressed interest in convening key leaders of the Association and the state’s judicial leadership for global discussions about needed changes to the state’s legal service delivery system. Our state’s two law schools have sought out the Commission’s input and assistance on initiatives designed to better equip law school graduates to be “practice ready,” including an incubator that would teach graduates the skills necessary to succeed in establishing and maintaining a profitable law practice. Finally, this project has led the Commission to reorganize its core structure so that the bulk of its substantive work is accomplished through project-specific task forces instead of standing committees.

Does the ATJ Commission consider that the project accomplished what it set out to do? What evaluation findings were considered?

The Commission’s work on this project is continuing. While substantial progress has been made, the project’s ultimate goal of increasing awareness and support among the judiciary and private bar for limited scope representation remains yet to be fully realized. This support will ultimately be necessary in order for the Commission to succeed in obtaining Arkansas Supreme Court approval for the recommendations (including revision of rules and adoption of polices) that the Commission will be making upon completion of the SRL Task Force’s work. The evaluation findings that will ultimately be considered in determining the success of this project will be the results of the survey and the success of getting the rule changes and policies recommended by the SRL Task Force endorsed by our state bar association and passed by our supreme court.

Did the ATJ Commission’s role bring benefits that might not otherwise have been present (if the initiative had been undertaken by another entity, e.g. legal aid, the courts, the bar)?

The Arkansas Access to Justice Commission has been the optimal leader for this project and the underlying effort to transform legal service delivery in Arkansas. The ultimate success of the project is predicated on the involvement and support of the private bar, the bench, our state’s law schools, and those who routinely consult resources that the ALSP makes available to members of the self-help public—and the Commission has credibility with and support from each of these constituencies. In addition, the Commission has been able to effectively deflect criticisms

3 44 associated with this effort (i.e., this effort is “encouraging” or “promoting” pro se litigation”) from courts and from legal aid by being the lead partner.

What challenges arose or were identified during the course of the project?

The primary challenge that we have encountered have been the need for more advance work than anticipated in order to successfully enlist attorneys to participate, namely a “toolkit” that provides all relevant applicable law, checklists, and forms. This challenge is one that will ultimately result in a better and more readily replicable project.

What insights were gained in the course of the project?

For a state that does not currently have rules or policies in place that are more specific regarding the parameters of limited scope representation than Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.2, a pilot project such as this can be a good way to demonstrate the need for adoption of such rules and policies. Finding attorneys who are willing to face the possibility that they may be required to appear in court for a client notwithstanding an agreement to the contrary can be a challenge.

What documents or other resources were produced and have been available for use in other states?

See attachments to accompanying email.

What level of investment (time/money) would be required for another state to implement the project? to sustain it?

Because this project aims to encourage and empower the private bar to incorporate limited scope representation into their practices as a means of serving Arkansans who would otherwise be unable to afford legal representation, its successful completion will result in a self-sustained delivery mechanism. The primary investment would need to be in commission-level staff support to assist in preparing the needed resources and to convene and actively involve other necessary partners, including legal aid, the private bar, and the judiciary. If it does not already exist, a state seeking to implement a project like this needs a robust source of information and forms for self- represented litigants that can serve as a platform for connecting self-represented litigants with attorneys willing to provide limited scope representation. That aspect of a project like this would require legal aid, court, and/or commission staff to develop and maintain such resource. (In Arkansas, these resources have been developed by and are maintained by ALSP.)

Why should a state Access to Justice commission consider replicating this project?

This project offers a promising way to make meaningful progress in increasing access to justice by equipping the private legal market to meet the legal needs of many of those who currently fall in the “justice gap.” At a time when the legal marketplace is undergoing radical changes due in part to the widespread availability of information and resources on the internet and the significant demand for affordable legal services, the proliferation of unbundling as a delivery model will not only benefit many low- to moderate-income individuals, it will also benefit

4 45 attorneys and the administration of justice. This stands to result in greater buy-in and support from the private bar and the judiciary for the commission’s mission and work.

What other factors should be taken into consideration in deciding whether to implement this project in another state?

All known factors have been addressed in other responses; if any come to mind after completion of the full project, we will share them.

5 46 Legal Aid of Arkansas Modest Means Panel

The mission of the Legal Aid of Arkansas Modest Means Panel is to meet the overwhelming need for access to the justice system for moderate-income individuals with defined common civil legal assistance, where legal aid and pro bono assistance is not possible, and household resources are insufficient to pay prevailing hourly rates for legal services. The Modest Means Panel will meet this need by providing moderate-income individuals access to a panel of attorneys who besides providing a public service, will also have the opportunity to broaden their practice.

47 Legal Aid of Arkansas Modest Means Panel

Legal Aid of Arkansas is creating the Modest Means Program to help low to moderate-income Arkansans find affordable legal assistance. Because of limited resources, Legal Aid is unable to provide assistance to all applicants who qualify financially for assistance. There are also several hundred thousand Arkansans who exceed Legal Aid’s financial eligibility guidelines but are unable to afford an attorney, even at the reasonable rates charged by the legal community in Arkansas.

We anticipate this project fill some voids in the ability to access the justice system in Arkansas, aiding the court infrastructure, while providing participating attorneys the ability to serve the low to moderate income community. Newer attorneys will benefit from the exposure and experience while also generating some income. We plan to initially focus this project in rural areas where access to justice resources are scarce.

Lawyers who choose to participate will agree to charge an hourly rate to clients based on a sliding scale for legal work provided to Modest Means Program clients. Modest Means lawyers will handle only family law, bankruptcy, wills and powers of attorney, guardianship, and criminal record expungement matters.

Clients requesting assistance will enter the program by contacting the Legal Aid hotline at 800-952-9243, or by applying for assistance online at www.arlegalaid.org. Legal Aid will only refer qualified clients based on income guidelines and the availability of a lawyer serving the county in which the legal problem lies. It is anticipated that there will be a limited number of lawyers in the program, and there may not be a Modest Means lawyer in every county.

If a potential client qualifies, Legal Aid will make a referral to a lawyer in the area. The client will need to make an appointment to meet with the lawyer for a consultation about the legal issues. The lawyer will provide a free sixty minute consultation. The lawyer has the final say in the qualification process.

If an attorney is hired through Modest Means, the client may be asked to pay a retainer (deposit against fees) up front. The amount of the retainer will depend on the lawyer's estimate of how much work will be required to complete the case. The client will also be responsible for any court fees and other direct costs, which the attorney may request up front and will not be counted as part of any required retainer. In appropriate circumstances, the lawyer may determine that a client would qualify to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning the lawyer would file a petition to have some of the fees and costs waived. The fee schedule would be as follows:

• Client household income below 125% of poverty- $35 per hour with a ten hour maximum for the retainer. • Client household income from 125% to 200% of poverty- $50 per hour with a ten hour maximum for the retainer. • Client household income from 200% to 250% of poverty- $75 per hour with a ten hour maximum for the retainer.

No representation would be undertaken until both the client and attorney sign a retainer agreement clearly setting forth the duties and responsibilities of each, and clearly stating that representation is being undertaken as part of the Modest Means project.

48 Legal Aid of Arkansas Modest Means Panel

The Modest Means project is not a traditional Pro Bono program. In some areas, this may be called a low bono project, but the client must be able to pay for any services they receive. If a client’s circumstances change and they are unable to pay the fees, they can be referred back to the Legal Aid program for consideration.

Initially, Legal Aid of Arkansas will be providing logistical support and oversight for this project. Since many of the clients would not otherwise qualify for traditional Legal Aid, alternative funds will be necessary to support the project. Legal Aid proposes that a $25 administrative fee be received from participating attorneys for each case successfully referred to defer this expense.

49 Legal Aid of Arkansas Modest Means Panel

Modest Means Panelist Information

The Modest Means project is a reduced-fee referral panel designed to make legal services accessible to lower and moderate income people who are ineligible for legal aid because of either income or Legal Aid case acceptance priorities.

Attorneys who accept referrals agree to charge no fee for an initial consultation, and work on the following fee schedule if an attorney/client relationship is established and representation is undertaken.

• Client household income below 125% of poverty- $35 per hour with a ten hour maximum for the retainer. • Client household income from 125% to 200% of poverty- $50 per hour with a ten hour maximum for the retainer. • Client household income from 200% to 250% of poverty- $75 per hour with a ten hour maximum for the retainer.

Attorneys who charge a flat rate fee that does not exceed the above guidelines (examples might include $300 plus costs for an uncontested divorce that takes an average of 10 hours for a client at 150% of poverty, or $500 for a chapter 7 no asset bankruptcy that takes an average of 8 hours for a client at 225% of poverty) may charges those flat rates in lieu of the above schedule.

Legal Aid staff will screen calls and online applications for general eligibility (subject matter, client income and location of dispute) and match potential clients with participating attorneys in the area on a rotation bases. Client’s will at no time establish an attorney-client relationship with Legal Aid, and will only be provided referral, legal information when appropriate, and logistical information.

Legal Aid staff will explain the Modest Means program to prospective clients, assure that each client is aware of potential fees including the attorney's hourly rate, the possible need for a retainer deposit, and other costs such as filing and service fees. Clients will be told that Modest Means attorneys are private attorneys with regular caseloads who agree to perform services at a reduced fee for a limited number of clients.

Staff pre-qualifies Modest Means clients if their income does not exceed 250% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines. These income caps are adjusted annually. Restrictions on client assets also apply.

Legal Aid sends a copy of the client’s application to the attorney. Since the Modest Means attorney spends more time with the client, and may discover undisclosed income and/or assets during the course of the initial consultation, the attorney remains the final arbiter of whether a client qualifies for the program.

Pre-qualified clients are referred to the attorney whose practice most closely matches the subject matter of the problem and whose office is located near the client. If more than one Modest Means panel attorney serves that geographic location and handles the substantive legal matter, then clients are referred on a rotating basis. Clients are told that the Modest Means attorneys do not travel, nor do they ordinarily take clients who live outside of the area they indicate they will serve when signing up for the program.

50 Legal Aid of Arkansas Modest Means Panel

It is up to the attorney and client to decide whether to continue the attorney/client relationship. The attorney will be asked to complete and submit a simple one page closing report to Legal Aid at the completion of a case for the purpose of program evaluation.

51 Legal Aid of Arkansas Modest Means Panel

Policies and Procedures

I. Program II. Panelists

A. Overview A. Eligibility

The Modest Means project is designed to make Attorneys satisfying the following requirements legal services available to lower income people shall be eligible for participation in the program: who are ineligible for legal aid but unable to afford regular attorney fees. 1. A Panelist must be licensed and in good standing in Arkansas with malpractice coverage B. Operation and not be the subject of a formal disciplinary proceeding. Legal Aid shall develop and revise referral 2. Panelists against whom disciplinary procedures and shall be responsible for the proceedings have been filled shall be operation of the program. Procedures and rules immediately removed from the Modest Means shall be consistent with the program goals and project until those charges have been resolved. the following guidelines: A matter shall not be considered resolved until all matters relating to the disciplinary 1. Staff may not comment on the qualifications proceedings, including appeals, have been of a Panelist and may not guarantee the quality concluded and the matter is no longer pending or value of legal services. in any form. 2. Staff shall not make referrals on the basis of race, sex, age, religion, sexual orientation, or B. Rules for Panelists national origin. 3. No more than three referrals may be made In order to remain eligible to receive referrals for a client for the same legal problem. each Panelist shall: 4. Staff may provide legal information and referrals to social service agencies for callers 1. Participate only in those substantive areas for whom a legal referral would not be reasonably within the Panelist's competence. appropriate, and may develop agency resource 2. Refer back to Modest Means project any lists. client with whom the Panelist has a conflict of 5. Callers complaining about possible ethical interest. violations by Panelists shall be referred to the 3. Cooperate with the Modest Means project Committee on Professional conduct. staff by responding promptly to requests for information. C. Client Eligibility and Attorney Fees 4. Immediately notify staff if the Panelist is unable to accept referrals due to vacation, 1. Client income must not exceed 250% of the leave of absence, heavy caseload or any other Federal Poverty Guidelines. reason. 2. Attorney fees shall be set on a sliding 5. Fill out and return all Modest Means project schedule based on the client’s income. There referral notices within two weeks of the referral will be no fee for an initial consultation of sixty date. minutes. 6. Submit any administrative fees on clients referred by the Modest Means project to Legal Aid within 30 days of being retained.

52 Legal Aid of Arkansas Modest Means Panel

Modest Means Program Registration Select your areas of practice by clicking the boxes and type any additional information in the spaces provided. Please print your completed form, sign it, and email/fax/mail it back to us. [email protected] -870-910-5562- 714 S. Main, Jonesboro, AR 72401

Domestic Relations Estate Planning

Divorce Adult Guardianship Custody Wills Visitation Power of Attorney Support/Modification Probate Paternity Simple Deeds/Property Transactions Adoption Name Change Other Juvenile Guardianship Bankruptcy (Chapter 7) Criminal Record Expungement/Sealing Pro Se Coaching

Active Other State Licenses:______Other Languages:______

Counties where I will participate:______

______

Other Information______

I agree to comply with all the Modest Means Program Policies and Procedures.

Signature ______Date ______

(Print Name) ______Bar # ______

Address ______

City/State/Zip______Phone ______

Fax______Email ______

I prefer to receive notices by:

Email Fax Regular Mail Phone

53 Legal Aid of Arkansas Modest Means Panel Income and Assets Guidelines

Size of Family 125% 200% 250% Unit 1 $14,713 $23,540 $29,425

2 $19,913 $31,860 $39,825

3 $25,113 $40,180 $50,225

4 $30,313 $48,500 $60,625

5 $35,513 $56,820 $71,025

6 $40,713 $65,140 $81,425

7 $45,913 $73,460 $91,825

8 $51,113 $81,780 $102,225

The figures represent the Federal Poverty Guidelines, as determined by the Department of Health and Human Services. For each additional family member, add $5,200 for 125%, $8,320 for 200%, and $10,400 for 200%

Each eligibility level is determined using gross income. Income includes all household income used for household expenses. Persons in the household include spouse/partner and dependents (not roommates). A dependent is someone living in the household where more than 50% of their livelihood is provided by you.

Liquid asset limits are $2,000 for an individual and $4,000 for a household. Liquid assets are cash or something easily converted to cash with significant degradation in value.

Non-liquid asset limits are $10,000 for a household. Non-liquid assets are not easily turned into cash. A primary residence, one vehicle per driver used for transportation purpose and not recreational purpose, work related tools and equipment, retirement plans and cash values of life insurance policies, and proceeds that compensate for bodily injury or wrongful death of someone for whom the client is/was dependent, are not counted toward non-liquid asset limits.

54 Model Retainer Agreement – Legal Aid of Arkansas Modest Means Panel

{Date} {Client Name} {Address}

Dear {Client Name}

In accordance with our conversation today, this document details the agreement between us for this law firm to represent you in connection with ------Consistent with our conversation, our representation of you will be on the following basis:

I) We will record time spent on the above matter, and we will bill you at the hourly rate of (per the modest means sliding scale). If we determine that the adverse party will be responsible for the payment of your legal fees, we reserve the right to raise our hourly rate for all time spent on the above matter to our standard hourly rate of $ -- The reduced rate we have agreed upon was set after representations by you that your income falls below 250% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines currently in effect.

We reserve the right to raise our hourly rate up to our standard rate of $ per hour in the event that your income increases above 250% of those guidelines, or if it becomes evident that the financial information you provided to the Legal Aid of Arkansas Modest Means Panel was false. You agree to notify us of any change in your household income or property.

2) Our fees for service will be billed periodically along with separately listed out-of-pocket expenses. You agree that you are responsible for paying all costs related to your case. These costs might include filing fees for court papers, serving (delivering) court papers to the opposing party in your case, copying charges, long distance telephone charges, court reporter charges and other such costs. Such costs, when advanced by us, will be shown separately on the monthly bill. Payment of each statement is due within 30 days of the statement date. At his or her discretion, the attorney may agree to arrange a payment plan with you, at your request.

3) We acknowledge receipt of a retainer payment, as an advance against fees, of (not more than ten times the hourly rate based on the sliding scale). The retainer payment will be reflected on your monthly statements until it has been used. One the retainer payment has been used, a net balance will be shown on the statement each month. That balance must be paid as provided in paragraph 2 above.

4) We reserve the right to withdraw from our engagement as your attorneys upon reasonable notice when any fees, expenses or charges are past due or in other appropriate circumstances.

5) You retain the right to terminate our representation of you at any time. Amounts incurred for legal services rendered prior to termination will remain payable.

If the foregoing arrangement it satisfactory to you, please sign one copy of this letter and return it to this law firm at your earliest convenience.

Very truly yours,

{Lawyer's name I Firm name}

Accepted this day of , 20 . By:______Client

55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation Meeting

Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation Board of Directors Meeting November 20, 2014 11:30 a.m.

Arkansas Bar Center 2224 Cottondale Lane Little Rock, AR 72202

Attending Toby Atkinson (phone) Absent Lori Chumbler (phone) Angela Duran Tamra Cochran J.D. Gingerich Nate Coulter Reverend Vic Nixon Dick Downing Zina Frazier Guest Dr. Alice Hines (phone) Karen Hutchins Ron Lanoue John Monroe Staff Frank Sewall Amy Johnson Jim Sprott (phone) Erin Jacobson Bill Waddell

Meeting Minutes (DRAFT) Welcome and Introductions

Mr. Waddell called the meeting to order at 11:46 p.m. All present and on the phone gave their own introductions. Approval of Minutes of August 21, 2014 Meeting

Mr. Waddell asked for a review of the minutes and if any corrections or additions were required. None were raised. Mr. Sewall made the motion to approve the meeting minutes and Mr. Lanoue seconded the motion. All members approved the motion.

Report of Officers & Staff

President’s Report

Mr. Waddell began his report by speaking about the October 2nd reception at Mitchell Williams sponsored by Walmart and Tyson. He mentioned that despite the tornadic weather there was a good group of attendees, including two of the Clinton School students who did another great job of presenting the economic impact study. He reported that there were good questions which generated discussion, followed by food and drinks during the reception portion. He remarked that the idea with this type of reception is to branch out to a wider, regional audience. Tyson brought quite a few folks, including many from their legal department. He asked for Ms. Cochran’s and Ms. Chumbler’s opinions regarding the event.

Ms. Cochran agreed that there had been a great group and presentation. Ms. Chumbler was touched by the emotional response many attendees had. Mr. Waddell thanked Ms. Chumbler for

66 her and Walmart’s support in helping to make the event possible. Mr. Waddell stated that he would like to do more of these receptions and would like to do one or two more in 2015.

Several attendees also volunteered at the VA MLP event in Fayetteville. He reported seeing strong transformational moments with several of the volunteers. He concluded his report by stating that the Commission meeting followed the pro bono service event at Tyson.

Treasurer’s Report

Ms. Johnson gave report in Mr. Gingerich’s stead. The balance sheet shows that a majority of its assets are restricted funds from the 2012 housing foreclosure settlement. The financials reflect deficit spending attributable to the payout of those funds in the form of grants. When the settlement grant distributions are excluded, the financials show a modest increase in the bottom line.

The Foundation’s $25,000 unrestricted CD with Arvest matured in October and was moved to Southern Bancorp. Southern Bancorp has been a good community partner and has also paid higher rates on IOLTA accounts.

On the income side, the primary variance is due to lower-than-projected donations. IOLTA Program income will likely take in just under $100,000 in remittance revenue. Ms. Johnson added that donations are also now picking up as the official annual fundraising campaign has begun.

Operating expenses are coming in about where expected; the only major variance due to fundraising contractor being engaged late in the year. Historically, the IOLTA Foundation has underwritten funds for executive assistant. Now the Bar of Arkansas Fund will absorb that whole expense and therefore free up about $50,000 annually beginning in 2015.

Ms. Johnson reported having acted on a recommendation of the finance committee that $250,000 be transferred from the Stephens money market account to the Community First money market account, which earns higher interest.

Mr. Waddell asked for motion to approve the Treasurer’s Report. Mr. Monroe moved to approve the report and Ms. Frazier seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Executive Director’s Report

Ms. Johnson briefly went over the reports on IOLTA program performance, the statistical analysis report, bank analysis report, and top 50 law firms ranked by amounts remitted. The top 50 law firms represent 47% of IOLTA revenues for 2014 to date. She mentioned that staff are asking for rate sheets from banks if any changes are noted from one month to the next. Bank of America dropped its two lowest interest tiers, which may impact revenues by a couple hundred dollars each month.

She then reported on completion of the economic impact study, which was conducted in partnership with the Clinton School of Public Service. The study has yielded useful information that can be used to show policymakers and funders a quantifiable positive impact.

Next, she reported on the seven pro bono events held during October, when the Foundation, Commission, and legal aid celebrated Pro Bono Month. The events resulted in help to more than 250 clients.

There will be two more service events held in February, including a “Super Saturday” event in Helena with Southern Bancorp and a Leadership Academy clinic as part of Mid-Year Meeting.

67 Mr. Downing asked about the status of the ABA project and the release of the divorce with children resource. Ms. Johnson relayed the project’s status update including the development of a toolkit for attorneys, the establishment of a self-help desk in the Pulaski County Courthouse, and the actual development of the resource itself.

Ms. Johnson reported on the Commission’s action at its October meeting to rescind the previous decision to remove the Commission’s name from the document header of certain self-help forms on the Arkansas Legal Services Partnership website—a decision that had the potential to impact the ABA pilot project, as that project includes a self-help resource. The Commission decided to form a committee to study the issue and make a recommendation so that any action would be thought through after ample time to give full consideration to the concerns raised. The Commission has asked for the involvement of a couple representatives from the Association in studying the issue; Ms. Johnson will follow up with Ms. Hutchins regarding these appointments. Ms. Johnson stated that the pilot project will serve as the test for the overall project. Can share results and successes with the Association and judges.

Report of Committees

Grant Committee Report

Mr. Sewall reported that the committee met on Monday to determine grants of housing settlement funds for the coming year. Housing foreclosure case data reviewed for CALS and LAA for the year. For the last two grant cycle, these funds have been divided so that CALS receives 55% of the statewide total and LAA receives 45%. At the committee’s request, staff did follow-up research to provide unlawful detainer filing statistics. The committee will be meeting immediately after this board meeting to evaluate the additional information and make a final decision. He invited all members to stay for that meeting.

Mr. Sewall stated that the committee is beginning work on revising its grant policy left over from the original IOLTA Foundation. The committee’s goal is to finish the revisions in the spring so that the Foundation would be poised to request grant applications for consideration next fall.

Mr. Waddell asked if grants would be limited as to who can receive them. Mr. Sewall indicated that, as a practical matter, the vast majority of grant funds have gone to legal aid in past years. More recently, the two legal aid organizations have been the only grantees because of the limited availability of funds. He added that the committee will likely recommend adoption of more clear priorities that reflect the past practice and that incorporate language that tracks the merged foundation’s mission and priorities as stated in its Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation.

Resource Development Committee Report

Mr. Coulter reported that the committee met in early October. Members reviewed and approved of the overall campaign timeline developed by fundraising consultant Lesley Roberts. Staff have already completed the renewal phase of the campaign and now will be pursuing the bar acquisition campaign. The committee is also working to raise visibility with media for fundraising as well as getting high profile recognition in general for access to justice issues.

Mr. Waddell stated that though the Northwest Arkansas reception was more of a “Friend- raising” event versus a fundraising one, but that it might be helpful to have the capability of accepting donations on the spot.

Ms. Johnson mentioned that Giving Tuesday is coming up, and that we also have an AmazonSmile account, which allows individuals who make purchases on Amazon to designate the Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation to receive a percentage of proceeds. The Foundation has a Square card reader and account that can be used to take on-the-spot donations for future events. 68

Finance Committee Report

Mr. Monroe gave the report for the Finance Committee. He spoke about the development of a general financial policy as well as investment policy. The Committee will have drafts for full board to review by the next full board meeting. He highlighted several items of research and focus while in the process of developing these policies. He stated that the committee is also looking to create guidelines for investment managers that the Foundation selects to manage the Foundation’s portfolio.

He continued, stating that one goal of the Finance Committee is to take some responsibility off of Ms. Johnson as the executive director. She has worked directly with financial advisors, but would like the committee to have more responsibility as a matter of guidance, ownership and accountability. Ms. Johnson agreed that the board should be actively involved in periodically reviewing the Foundation’s investments and offering guidance as needed. Mr. Waddell supported as good corporate governance.

2015 Proposed Budget

Ms. Johnson presented the proposed budget for 2015. She reviewed the projections for revenues and expenses, noting that projected revenues are $30,000 less than what the proposed budget was last year. This is reflected in reductions to project grants and donations, as last year’s projections were too high. She stated that she is positive that revenues will increase now that we are working with a fundraising consultant. She mentioned that the events sponsorship donation line item has been added on the revenue side. Looking to have more corporate partners like Walmart who have given this past year in support of Pro Bono Month. The Federal Reserve has indicated that it will be late 2015 at the earliest before interest rates may increase, so IOLTA revenue projections will remain the same for the coming year.

On the expense side, Ms. Johnson projects a decrease of about $50,000 from last year’s budget. This change is the result of moving the expense for Ms. Jacobson’s position entirely to the Commission budget and a decrease in project expenses, as no project grants are currently planned for the coming year. She would like to keep $50,000 in the budget for Ms. Roberts. On the contract labor line, Ms. Oakes is working about 15-20 hours per week. She is now so efficient that Ms. Johnson believes the budget can now be reduced. A new line item has been added to include designated donation distributions gifts that are earmarked for a particular legal aid organization.

Mr. Downing asked what plans were for issuing an RFP for the Foundation’s 2015 audit and Form 990 preparation. Ms. Johnson indicated that a short Form 990 will need to be filed for the pre-merger Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation to reflect transfer of its assets effective January 1. An RFP can be issued for the merged Foundation audit and Form 990. The Governance Committee will oversee the RFP process and selection.

Mr. Downing asked if there has been a goal provided by the fundraiser, essentially asking for metrics which can help judge a fundraising consultant’s work. Ms. Johnson referenced page 51 of the meeting packet for the outline goals of the 2014-2015 fundraising campaign. He also asked about the new Bank of America settlement, wondering when that might occur. Ms. Johnson stated that she is not sure when the funds will filter down, as there are still discussions at the national level. The Justice Department person involved is expected to work with national leaders, including herself, to have a conversation about the direction of disbursing the settlement. Each IOLTA program will receive a minimum of $200,000, but more funds may be distributed based on poverty population distribution. Mr. Downing asked about restrictions. Ms. Johnson stated that she believes there will be similar restrictions to the AG settlement funds.

Mr. Coulter asked about Campaign for Legal Aid projections compared to the $75,000 listed on the proposed 2015 budget. Also the $96,000 projected from IOLTA revenues—will any of it be 69 spent on the legal aid programs? Ms. Johnson indicated that the Grant Committee has discussed the potential for grants to be made from the now-freed-up $50,000 from the Executive Assistant position. The Foundation currently has $200,000 available in unrestricted funds, including a $25,000 certificate of deposit.

Ms. Frazier supported being strong in what we are doing even in the light of potential further budget cuts coming down the pike. Cannot let these actions dissuade the work that still needs to occur.

Mr. Coulter moved to approve the budget and Mr. Lanoue seconded the motion. All members voted in favor of the motion.

New Business

30th Anniversary of Arkansas IOLTA Program

Ms. Johnson stated that 2015 represents the 30th Anniversary of the Arkansas IOLTA Program. She added that she found a treasure trove of old photos, grant information, old reports, etc. during the merger process. She stated that she would like to use this opportunity to highlight what the program has done in the last 30 years, especially as it relates to legal aid. She mentioned that she has spoken to Anna Hubbard about someone writing an article for the Arkansas Lawyer.

Members agreed to appoint a committee or an event and that it would be necessary to generate some publicity. Ms. Frazier and Mr. Coulter offered to be on the committee. Mr. Lanoue suggested “Who Are They and Where Are They Now” from pictures to use in the article. Mr. Waddell asked if anyone interested to email Ms. Johnson. The group discussed approaching key people to write essays.

Mr. Lanoue reported the Jewish Federation of Arkansas’s plans to honor Justice Tuck at its annual Tikkun Olam Award dinner on February 21, 2015 at the Arkansas Arts Center. He mentioned Mr. Coulter’s involvement, adding that Ms. Johnson will also be working with him to reach out to members to put some tables together; wondered if it would be able to use Foundation funds. Mr. Waddell and Mr. Lanoue offered potential sponsorships.

This event happens the same day as the Helena and Leadership Academy events but those are in the early part of the day.

2015 Meeting Dates

• March 13, 2015 at 11:30 a.m. • June 10, 2015 (Wednesday of Arkansas Bar Annual Meeting) at 11:30 a.m. • September 11, 2015 at 11:30 a.m. • December 11, 2015 at 11:30 a.m.

Adjournment

Mr. Coulter moved to adjourn the meeting and Mr. Monroe seconded. The meeting ended at 2:00 p.m.

70 Campaign Overview

Total Amount # of Donors # of Gifts

$252,512.60 464 539

by recipient org

Org Total Amount # of Donors # of Gifts

AATJ Foundation $ 38,483.50 70 77 LAA $ 84,774.10 33 89 VOCALS 130005 376 378

$ 253,262.60 479 544

by campaign

Campaign Total Amount # of Donors # of Gifts

Acquisition Campaign $ 2,275.00 12 12 Annual Renewal $ 152,008.10 379 392 ATJ Event Sponsorship $ 2,500.00 1 1 Board and Staff Campaign $ 6,101.00 13 71 Corporate Campaign $ 87,283.50 5 6 Giving Tuesday $ 110.00 2 2 Just Jeans $ 1,550.00 41 41 LAA School Supply Drive $ 735.00 16 16 Unsolicited $ 700.00 3 3

253,262.60 253,262.60 472 544

71 Arkansas Access to Justice Commission

Governance Committee Meeting September 9, 2014 9:00 a.m.

Attending: Rose Adams, Chuck Goldner, Judge Vic Harper (telephone), Amy Johnson, and Annabelle Imber Tuck

The meeting opened with a discussion about the Committee’s objectives. Tasks at hand include finalizing a set of operating rules, developing a Commissioner “job description,” reviewing and updating the current Commissioner orientation, and developing a succession plan for Commission leadership. The focus of this meeting was to be on the operating rules, a draft of which Ms. Johnson distributed to the Committee beforehand.

The Committee first discussed the examples that Ms. Johnson had gathered from other state access to justice commissions and agreed that the Washington example was the closest “fit” for what we are trying to accomplish.

Next the Committee began going through the draft operating rules and discussing needed changes. Recommended changes include the following:

• Include language to distinguish the “Bar of Arkansas” from the Arkansas Bar Association • Include language regarding the disputed constitutional authority of the legislature to require appropriation of Bar of Arkansas funds; request input from AOC Director J.D. Gingerich • Indicate that the Executive Director of the Commission serves at the pleasure of, and reports to, the Arkansas Supreme Court • State the Executive Director’s authority to handle the day-to-day business of the Commission • Provide a full link to the Statement of Financial Interest form and instructions • Describe duties of the Executive Director and Executive Assistant with respect to the Commission • Reword passive voice language regarding the role of the Arkansas Legal Services Partnership and request input from Jean Carter, Lee Richardson, and Vince Morris. • Soften language that suggests any staff or budget changes are subject to legislative approval • State that the Commission follows the Bar of Arkansas Accountable Reimbursement Policy • Reformat statutory language regarding financial disclosure requirements for Commissioners. [Committee discussed applicability of these requirements to commissioners as a result of the Commission’s receipt of settlement funds in 2012; no consensus was ultimately reached regarding applicability of the reporting requirement, although Committee members agreed it would be best to err on the side of disclosure.] • Add “Secretary” to the list of Commission officers; provide descriptions of each officer’s role

1

72 • Include advisory groups to the section on Committees and Task Forces [The Committee agreed that the Commission might benefit from having advisory groups to provide feedback on the implications of recommended policies for such issues as language access and rural access.] • Delete specific mention of the Housing Foreclosure Settlement in the Executive Committee description • Add an at-large position to the Executive Committee, which shall be a voting commissioner • Specify that Task Forces include at least one Commission member who will be responsible for reporting Task Force activities to the full Commission • Provide for the option of participation in Commission meeting by telephone; include language describing Commission member expectations, including in-person attendance at meetings when possible.

Further research is needed on the applicability of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act to Commission meetings and records. Ms. Johnson will incorporate these edits and fill out sections regarding meetings, quorum, Commission composition, and reports to the supreme court.

2

73 Arkansas Access to Justice Commission

Governance Committee Meeting November 10, 2014 9:00 a.m.

Attending: Rose Adams, Chuck Goldner, Judge Vic Harper (telephone), Amy Johnson, and Annabelle Imber Tuck (telephone)

The meeting opened with a discussion about a couple of the major substantive issues that need to be resolved as a matter of policy in order to finalize the draft operating rules: the applicability of financial disclosure requirements to commissioners and the applicability of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act to the Commission.

After a discussion, it was the committee’s decision with regard to financial disclosure requirements that our Commission err on the side of disclosure. Section III.C of the Operating Rules will be amended accordingly. As for the applicability of FOIA, the committee agreed that open records and open meetings provisions likely apply, but that we should contact the Court’s Communications Counsel to ensure that this position is not inconsistent with the approach of similarly situated committees of the supreme court.

Next the Committee began going through the draft operating rules and discussing needed changes. Recommended changes include the following:

• Make no provision for removal of commissioners by the Commission, as this could serve to override the authority of the bodies that make appointments to the Commission • Require at least three voting members to request a special meeting • Add language to the Notice provision that would require notice of specific items of business to come before the Commission • Eliminate language in Section VIII regarding the supreme court justice serving as the designated liaison; this is a decision that will ultimately be the supreme court’s • Add language to section IX requiring that amendment of operating rules be an item specifically identified in any meeting notice given.

Finally, the committee discussed the language in the supreme court’s per curiam appointment regarding appointment of a “full-time” district judge. It was the committee’s consensus that this language would effectively disqualify over half of sitting district judges and would be likely to eliminate a disproportionate share of rural district judges. The committee agreed that a request should go to the supreme court for deletion of the “full-time” language.

Ms. Johnson will make the changes discussed, as well as technical changes provided in writing by Prof. Goldner and Ms. Adams. Ms. Johnson will contact staff attorney Larry Brady about further modification of the per curiam order and supreme court Communications Counsel about applicability of FOIA.

1

74 The committee agreed that the operating rules can most likely be finalized with one more call between now and the February Commission meeting. The next meeting will be conducted by telephone on Friday, January 9, 2015, at 9:00 a.m.

2

75 Arkansas Access to Justice Commission

Governance Committee Meeting January 9, 2015 9:00 a.m.

Attending: Rose Adams, Chuck Goldner, Judge Vic Harper (telephone), Erin Jacobson, Amy Johnson, and Annabelle Imber Tuck (telephone)

The meeting opened with a discussion about finalizing language in the operating rules that dealt with record and the Freedom of Information Act. Ms. Johnson consulted with a staff attorney and communications counsel at the supreme court and concluded that the Commission is likely subject to the open meetings and open records provisions of the Arkansas FOIA. The Committee agreed that the operating rules should reference “Records” and designate the Executive Director of the commission as the custodian of records. Ms. Johnson will contact Ryan Owsley at the Arkansas Attorney General’s office for any further suggestions.

The only two remaining changes pending in the operating rules are provisions in Section IV dealing with Commissioner membership; changes to the membership provisions regarding the Executive Director of the Arkansas IOLTA Foundation and district judge are pending with the Arkansas Supreme Court. The operating rules can be finalized once those changes are finalized.

The Committee next discussed needed edits to the list of Standing Committees and Task Forces in Appendix F. Prof. Goldner provided technical edits to sections regarding the Governance Committee and Legislative Task Force.

With the adoption of these Operating Rules, the Commission will need to elect a Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, and Secretary. Justice Tuck, who has been serving as Commission Chairperson since 2010, will be concluding her term on the Commission. Bill Waddell will be shifted to an ex office position, so new officers must be elected at the upcoming meeting. After a discussion, the Committee agreed on the following nominations: Prof. Chuck Goldner, Chairperson; Judge Vic Harper, Vice Chairperson; Rose Adams, Secretary.

The meeting concluded with a discussion about next items for the Committee to take on. It was agreed that the new Commissioner orientation curriculum should be circulated to the Committee for feedback and that the Committee will begin work on creation of a mentorship plan and on a Commission succession plan. Ms. Johnson will circulate the finalized version of the Operating Rules and Exhibits, along with an updated Commission roster reflecting new appointees.

The meeting adjourned at 9:55 a.m.

1

76 Arkansas Access to Justice Commission Operating Rules 1/26/2015 Draft – For Approval

I. Authority and Origins

The Arkansas Access to Justice Commission was created at the request of the Arkansas Bar Association, which petitioned the Arkansas Supreme Court in August of 2003 to establish the Commission. The Arkansas Supreme Court granted the Association’s request in a per curiam opinion handed down on December 18, 2003, giving the newly-formed Commission the mission of providing “equal access to justice in civil cases to all Arkansans.” A copy of the per curiam opinion is attached as Appendix A.

The Commission operates as a committee of the Supreme Court and receives funding for basic operating costs—staff salaries and benefits, insurance, and Commission travel expenses—from the Supreme Court Bar of Arkansas, which is the Supreme Court fund through which annual attorney license fees are paid (“Bar of Arkansas”).1

II. Personnel

The Commission is staffed by a full-time Executive Director and full-time Executive Assistant, both of whom are considered employees of the Bar of Arkansas and are subject to its policies and procedures. The Bar of Arkansas provides salaries and benefits for Commission employees (health insurance, retirement through APERS, worker’s compensation insurance, a 457(b) plan).

A. Supreme Court Bar of Arkansas

The Bar of Arkansas has historically existed as a fund subject to the Supreme Court’s sole control, with all Bar of Arkansas employees (including those who work for the Office of Professional Conduct, Office of Professional Programs, and Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program) participating in employee benefit programs established for Bar of Arkansas employees. Beginning in 2013, the General Assembly made Bar of Arkansas funds subject to legislative appropriation, which had the effect of making all then-current Bar of Arkansas staff state employees effective July 1, 2013.2 A copy of the 2014-15 appropriation bill is attached as Appendix B.

1 “Bar of Arkansas” is not to be confused with the Arkansas Bar Association, which is the state’s voluntary association for Arkansas attorneys. There is no connection between the two bodies. 2 There is currently no constitutional basis for the Arkansas General Assembly’s actions in making Bar of Arkansas funds subject to legislative appropriation. Amendment 28 of the Arkansas Constitution assigns responsibility to the Judicial Branch for regulating the practice of law and professional conduct of attorneys. That duty necessarily extends to the making and enforcing rules governing the practice of law, including the power to “take whatever measures are essential and appropriate to the performance of the duty.” Such measures include the adequate financing of staff support for carrying out those duties. “That responsibility could not be effectively discharged if it were dependent upon action to be taken by the General Assembly.” In re Supreme Court License Fees, 251 Ark. 800, 483 S.W.2d 174 (1972).

1

77 B. Executive Director

The Executive Director of the Commission reports to and serves at the pleasure of the Arkansas Supreme Court. The Court created the position by per curiam order dated April 2, 2009. A copy of the order is attached as Appendix C. The Executive Director is authorized to manage the day- to-day affairs of the Commission.

The Executive Director is considered an “agency head, department director, or division director of state government” for purposes of Arkansas laws governing financial disclosure requirements found in Ark. Code Ann. § 21-8-701. Accordingly, the Executive Director is required to file a Statement of Financial Interest with the Arkansas Secretary of State no later than January 31 of each year. The Statement of Financial Interest form and instructions may be found on the Arkansas Ethics Commission website at http://www.arkansasethics.com/forms.htm.

C. Arkansas Access to Justice Commission, Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation, and IOLTA Program

The Commission’s responsibilities, as set forth in the per curiam order establishing it, include the following:

• Develop an objective and accurate understanding of the problems Arkansans face in using our legal system to obtain justice in civil cases • Devise a strategic plan for statewide delivery of civil legal services to all Arkansans • Review and report on the efficient allocation and application of available resources • Educate the people of Arkansas about the importance of equal access to justice and of the problems many Arkansans face in gaining effective access to our civil justice system • Encourage a strong and consistent commitment to providing equal access to justice among the leaders of our state • Suggest innovations that will increase effective access to the civil justice system for all Arkansans • Provide technical and other support to the efforts of the legislature, courts, and other government agencies to improve access to justice for the people of Arkansas • Develop stable, long-term funding and other resources to support access to civil justice

The Commission’s Executive Director and Executive Assistant oversee the work of fulfilling these objectives in coordination with various stakeholders, including the judiciary, the bar, legal service programs, and the state’s two law schools. In addition, the Executive Director and Executive Assistant staff the Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation, which oversees the Arkansas IOLTA Program. The Executive Director and Executive Assistant also manage all aspects of the Foundation’s operations, including the development of an annual budget, board management, fundraising, grant program oversight, timely preparation of all required filings with the Arkansas Secretary of State and IRS, management of the Foundation’s retirement plan for former IOLTA Foundation employees, and website maintenance and content development.

The Foundation also contracts with a part-time IOLTA Program Manager who is responsible for day-to-day contact with participating banks and for managing the monthly reporting and

2

78 remittance of interest earned. The ability of state-employed Commission staff to provide such support to the Foundation is specifically authorized in special language contained in the Supreme Court Bar of Arkansas’s appropriation. See Appendix B.

D. Other Personnel Support

The Bar of Arkansas provides a Financial Specialist, who handles all accounts receivable and payable for the Commission and Foundation, payroll, bank reconciliations, monthly financial reporting, and oversight of the Supreme Court Bar of Arkansas’s annual audit. The Financial Specialist performs similar functions for other Bar of Arkansas entities.

The Arkansas Legal Services Partnership—which is a statewide coordinating unit of the Center for Arkansas Legal Services and Legal Aid of Arkansas and which provides internal leadership, coordination, and logistical support for the delivery of civil legal aid in Arkansas—provides in- kind staff support to the Commission.

III. Financial Policies

A. Annual Budget; Appropriations

The annual operating budget for the Commission, which is funded out of the Bar of Arkansas account, is normally developed and submitted to the Financial Officer for the Clerk of the Supreme Court in late April of each year. The budget is reviewed and ultimately approved by the Supreme Court in administrative conference. The budget, including the Commission’s personnel positions, are presently part of a larger Supreme Court legislative appropriation that the Arkansas General Assembly approves. Any changes to the Commission’s staffing configuration or operating budget are therefore subject to approval by the Supreme Court. The Arkansas General Assembly’s assertion of appropriation power over the Bar of Arkansas fund also impacts the Commission’s latitude to make significant changes to its budget or staffing configuration.

The annual budget for the Commission shall be developed by the Executive Director in consultation with the Commission’s Executive Committee, which shall approve the budget prior to its submission to the Court.

B. Travel Reimbursement

The Commission follows the Bar of Arkansas Accountable Reimbursement Policy, which is attached as Appendix D.

C. Financial Disclosure

Under Ark. Code Ann. § 21-8-701, there are two relevant “triggers” for financial disclosure with regard to those who are serving on Supreme Court Boards and Committees. The first relates to whether the group has “regulatory authority.” If so, then the members should file the statement. The second relates to what they receive for their service. Even if they have no regulatory

3

79 authority, if they receive or disburse anything other than mileage (meals, travel, hotel reimbursement), they must file. Under § 21-8-701(a)(5),

(A) A public appointee to a state board or commission that is authorized or charged by law with the exercise of regulatory authority or is authorized to receive or disburse state or federal funds must file a statement of financial interest;

(B) A public appointee to a state board or commission that is not charged by law with the exercise of regulatory authority and that receives or disburses state or federal funds only in the form of mileage reimbursement for members attending meetings of the board or commission shall not be required to file a statement of financial interest.

Even though the Commission does not exercise regulatory authority and does not have spending authority independent of the Supreme Court, the Commission receives an annual appropriation of funds, and may, from time to time, receive other public monies. It is therefore the Commission’s policy that members should annually file a Statement of Financial Interest. Such statement must be filed with the Arkansas Secretary of State no later than January 31 of each year for the previous calendar year. The Statement of Financial Interest form and instructions may be found on the Arkansas Ethics Commission website at http://www.arkansasethics.com/forms.htm.

D. Insurance

The Bar of Arkansas maintains insurance policies for employee dishonesty (fidelity bond), unemployment, workers compensation, and building contents. No professional liability or directors and officers coverage is provided.

IV. Commission Composition and Terms of Office

The composition of the Commission is set out by the 2003 per curiam order; the Court amended the composition in 2009 and again in 2015. Those amendments are attached as Appendix E and F.

A. Responsibilities. Each voting and ex officio Commissioner should use best efforts to attend all Commission meetings in person; prepare for participation in Commission meetings by reviewing materials posted on the Commission portal or sent prior to such meetings; follow up on tasks assigned at Commission meetings; participate in Commission retreats, planning sessions, and orientation activities; and advance the work of the Commission by serving on at least one standing committee or task force of the Commission.

B. Voting Members. Each of the appointing authorities indicated below shall coordinate appointments of voting members to ensure that, at all times, the Commission shall reflect the diverse ethnic, gender, and geographic communities of the state. Appointments shall be made as follows:

4

80 1. The Arkansas Supreme Court shall appoint (a) one justice or retired justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court; (b) two circuit judges, one from a circuit with a total population of more than 100,000 and one from a circuit with a total population of less than 100,000; (c) one state district court judge or local district court judge; and (d) one representative from the faculty of the University of Arkansas or University of Arkansas at Little Rock Bowen Schools of Law.

2. The Arkansas Bar Association shall appoint (a) the President of the Arkansas Bar Association or his or her designee; (b) one attorney who is either employed as an in-house corporate counsel or whose practice is primarily focused on the representation of corporate clients; (c) one non-attorney employed in a full-time capacity as an advocate for the needs of low-income Arkansans; and (d) two attorneys active in the private practice of law who have demonstrated an interest in the provision of pro bono legal services.

3. The Governor shall appoint (a) one non-attorney employed in a full time capacity by a nonprofit agency which is dedicated to providing for the needs of low- income Arkansans; (b) one attorney employed in a full-time capacity by the Center for Arkansas Legal Services or Legal Aid of Arkansas; and (c) one non- attorney representative of the Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce.

4. The Speaker of the Arkansas House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Arkansas Senate shall each be entitled to appoint one member of their respective chambers to serve as members of the Commission.

C. Ex Officio Members. The Director of the Center for Arkansas Legal Services, the Director of Legal Aid of Arkansas, the Chair of the Board of Directors of the Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation, and representatives of the legal clinics at the state’s two law schools appointed by their respective deans shall serve as ex officio members of the Commission.

D. Term of Office. All voting members of the Commission shall be appointed to serve three-year terms. A voting member may be appointed to serve no more than three successive three-year terms. Ex officio positions on the Commission are held by virtue of the Commissioner’s employment by or election to, as applicable, the organization and position specified in Section IV.C above.

E. Vacancy. Should any vacancy in the term of a voting member occur, the appropriate appointing authority shall appoint a successor voting member who shall serve the remainder of the term. Any member whose term shall expire shall continue to serve until his or her successor is appointed.

V. Meetings

A. Regular Meetings. An annual meeting of the Commission shall be held during the first quarter of each calendar year for the purpose of electing Officers provided for in

5

81 Section VI of these Operating Rules, for appointing the Chairpersons of each standing committee and task force, and for the transaction of other business as may come before the meeting. The time and place of such meetings may be fixed by resolution of the Commission, and should provide for regular rotation among different geographic regions of the state. There shall be a minimum of three (3) regular meetings of the Commission per year.

B. Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Commission may be called by the Chairperson or at the request of three or more voting members of the Commission.

C. Notice. Written notice of all annual, regular, and special meetings shall be mailed or electronically transmitted to all Commissioners at least ten (10) days before the scheduled date set for the meeting and shall clearly and specifically state the subject matter of business or motions to come before the Commission.

D. Parliamentary Authority. The rules contained in the most recent edition of the Roberts Rules of Order shall govern the conduct of Commission meetings, except where inconsistent with these Operating Rules or other special rules of the Commission.

E. Quorum – Authority to Act. A majority of the voting members of the Commission then in office shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of any business requiring a vote of the Commission at any meeting of the Commission.

F. Remote Participation. Commissioners are expected to attend meetings in person whenever possible; however, those who are unable to attend in person will have the option of participating by telephone or other electronic means that allows for remote and in-person meeting participants to hear and interact with each other. Voting Commissioners who participate remotely as provided by this Section shall be considered present for purposes of establishing a quorum.

VI. Officers

The Commission shall, by majority vote, elect from among its voting members a Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, and Secretary. Once elected, these officers shall serve a term of one year and may be re-elected to successive terms. Each officer shall hold office until his or her successor shall have been duly elected or until the officer’s death or resignation.

A. Chairperson. The Chairperson shall preside at all meetings of the Commission and Executive Committee, and shall serve as an ex officio member of all other committees and task forces. Any voting member of the Commission who has served two or more years on the Commission shall be eligible to be elected Chairperson.

B. Vice-Chairperson. In the absence of the Chairperson or in the event of the Chairperson’s death, resignation, or inability to act, the Vice-Chairperson shall perform the duties of the Chairperson. The Vice-Chairperson shall serve on the Executive Committee and perform such other duties as from time to time may be

6

82 assigned by the Chairperson of the Commission. Any voting member of the Commission who has served two or more years on the Commission shall be eligible to be elected Vice-Chairperson.

C. Secretary. The Secretary shall keep the minutes of the proceedings of the Commission; ensure that all notices are duly given in accordance with the provisions of these Operating Rules; declare whether or not a quorum is present at the beginning of each Commission meeting; serve on the Executive Committee; and perform such other duties as from time to time may be assigned by the Chairperson of the Commission. Any voting member of the Commission who has served one or more years on the Commission shall be eligible to be elected Secretary.

VII. Committees, Task Forces, and Advisory Boards

A. Standing Committees

1. Executive Committee. This committee consists of the Commission Chairperson, Commission Vice-Chairperson, Secretary, Governance Committee Chair, and one at- large member appointed by the Chairperson, who shall be a voting member of the Commission. It shall be authorized to exercise the powers of the Commission in the management of the business and affairs of the Commission in between regularly scheduled meetings. Such business may include approval of matters related to oversight of any funds granted to or appropriated to the Commission; approval of Memorandums of Understanding between the Commission and any other entity; annual performance reviews of the Commission Executive Director; recommendation of the Commission’s annual operating budget to the Arkansas Supreme Court; and making reports to the Arkansas Supreme Court on the Commission's activities. This committee shall maintain regular minutes of its meetings, which shall be provided to the Commission at each regular meeting.

2. Governance Committee. This committee shall consist of at least three voting members of the Commission appointed by the Chairperson. This committee will develop and annually review a Commissioner “job description;” develop and update a Commission orientation curriculum; provide for the mentorship of newly appointed Commissioners; recruit and recommend new members for appointment to the Commission and its Task Forces; and recommend policies and operating rules for adoption by the Commission.

B. Task Forces and Advisory Boards

The Commission may create such Task Forces as from time-to-time may be necessary or desirable to carry out the Commission’s work. Task Forces shall include at least one Commissioner who shall be designated to report to the Commission on the Task Force’s activities. A current list of Task Forces is attached as Appendix G. The Commission may create advisory boards, which may or may not include Commissioners, to provide input and

7

83 recommendations regarding any of the Commission’s initiatives. Task Force and Advisory Board members are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Chairperson.

VIII. Reports to Supreme Court and Bar Association

The Commission shall, through its Chairperson, Executive Director, and/or Supreme Court Liaison, report on at least an annual basis to the supreme court and to the governing bodies of the Arkansas Bar Association.

IX. Miscellaneous Provisions

A. Conflict with Supreme Court Orders. If and to the extent these Operating Rules are in conflict with any order of the Arkansas Supreme Court pertaining to the Arkansas Access to Justice Commission, the supreme court order controls.

B. Amendment of Operating Rules. These Operating Rules may be altered, amended, or repealed and new operating rules adopted by a majority of voting Commissioners present at a regular or special meeting of the Commission where amendment of such Operating Rules is an item of business for which notice is properly given.

C. Records. For purposes of this policy, the Executive Director of the Commission is the custodian of all records maintained by the Commission.

8

84 IN RE: ARKANSAS BAR ASSOCIATION-- PETITION for CREATION of the ARKANSAS ACCESS to JUSTICE COMMISSION

___ S.W.3d ___

03-979

Supreme Court of Arkansas Delivered December 18, 2003

PER CURIAM. The Arkansas Bar Association has petitioned the Court to create the Arkansas Access to Justice Commission. The Bar through the work of its House of Delegates and Access to Justice Working Group ("Working Group") has submitted a detailed recommendation for a commission to coordinate efforts to improve access to the civil justice system for poor and near-poor individuals who cannot afford attorneys for representation in civil legal matters.

The Working Group reviewed access to justice efforts from across the nation in developing its recommendation to create an Arkansas Access to Justice Commission. The recommendation points out that "while there are no comprehensive studies of the unmet civil legal needs of poor and near poor Arkansans, case data from Arkansas' two legal services providers suggest the unmet need is substantial":

·Just 21% of the 12,588 cases Arkansas' two legal services providers completed in 2002 received full representation while 71% were given advice and counsel. While advice met the needs of some, a significant number would have benefitted from full representation. An additional 3,022 cases were pending at the end of the year.

· In addition to completed cases, Arkansas' legal services providers had to reject 4,858 cases in 2002 due to conflicts and other factors. This number does not include individuals who call and no case is opened.

· Demand for civil legal services for the poor is increasing. Arkansas' legal services providers completed seven percent more cases in 2002 than 2001. Requests for assistance are expected to accelerate in 2003 due to the declining economy, at a time when staff reductions at Arkansas' legal services providers will make it difficult to maintain the current level of services.

· Despite the growing need, the number of cases handled on a pro bono basis was more or less flat from 2001 to 2002.

·Due to a decline in Arkansas' share of the national poverty population, federal funds will decline in 2003 at the same time that Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts (IOLTA) funds are decreasing. Arkansas' legal services providers have seen their revenue slashed nearly 20%, making it necessary to eliminate six support staff and nine attorney positions in 2003.

Appendix A 85 Recommendation dated March 31, 2003 at pages 2-3.

The Court has reviewed the proposal and concludes that a commission charged with the responsibility of assessing access to the civil justice system and furthering access to all Arkansans is called for. We thank the Arkansas Bar Association and the Working Group for its work on this project.

We incorporate the mission, goals, and structure for the Commission as contained in the the Working Group's Recommendation and set them out below. Members will be appointed at a later date. The remainder of the Recommendation is appended to the end of this order.

ARKANSAS ACCESS TO JUSTICE COMMISSION

MISSION STATEMENT

The Mission of the Arkansas Access to Justice Commission is to provide equal access to justice in civil cases to all Arkansans.

GOALS

A. Develop an objective and accurate understanding of the problems Arkansans face in using our legal system to obtain justice in civil cases.

B. Devise a strategic plan for statewide delivery of civil legal services to all Arkansans.

C. Review and report on the efficient allocation and application of the available resources.

D. Educate the people of Arkansas about the importance of equal access to justice and of the problems many Arkansans face in gaining effective access to our civil justice system.

E. Encourage a strong and consistent commitment to providing equal access to justice among the leaders of our state.

F. Suggest innovations that will increase effective access to the civil justice system for all Arkansans.

G. Provide technical and other support to the efforts of the legislature, courts, and other government agencies to improve access to justice for the people of Arkansas.

H. Develop stable, long-term funding and other resources to support access to civil justice.

STRUCTURE

A. The Commission shall consist of fifteen voting members, appointed as provided herein. The initial voting members shall draw their initial terms by lot, so that five members shall serve a one- year term, five shall serve a two-year term, and five shall serve a three-year term. All subsequent appointments of voting members shall be for a term of three years. A voting member may be appointed to serve no more than three successive three-year terms.

Appendix A 86 B. Should any vacancy in the term of a voting member occur, the appropriate appointing authority shall appoint a successor voting member who shall serve the remainder of the term. Any member whose term shall expire shall continue to serve until his or her successor is appointed.

C. Membership.

1.The Arkansas Supreme Court shall appoint five members of the Commission as follows:

(a) one justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court,

(b) two circuit judges, one from a circuit with a total population of more than 100,000 and one from a circuit with a total population of less than 100,000,

(c) one full-time district court judge, and

(d) one representative from the faculty of the University of Arkansas or University of Arkansas at Little Rock Schools of Law.

2. The Arkansas Bar Association shall appoint five members of the Commission as follows:

(a) the President of the Arkansas Bar Association or his or her designee,

(b) one attorney who is either employed as an in-house corporate counsel or whose practice is primarily focused on the representation of corporate clients,

(c) one non-attorney employed in a full time capacity as an advocate for the needs of low income Arkansans, and

(d) two attorneys active in the private practice of law who have demonstrated an interest in theprovision of pro bono legal services.

3. The Governor shall be entitled to appoint three members of the Commission as follows:

(a) one non-attorney employed in a full time capacity by a non-profit agency which is dedicated to providing for the needs of low income Arkansans,

(b) one attorney employed in a full time capacity by the Center for Arkansas Legal Services or Legal Aid of Arkansas, and

(c) one non-attorney representative of the Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce.

4. The Speaker of the Arkansas House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Arkansas Senate shall each be entitled to appoint one member of their respective chambers to serve as members of the Commission.

D. Each of the appointing authorities shall coordinate the appointments to insure that, at all times, the Commission shall reflect the diverse ethnic, gender and geographic communities of the state.

Appendix A 87 E. In addition to the voting members set out herein, the Director of the Center for Arkansas Legal Services, the Director of Legal Aid of Arkansas, the Director of the Arkansas IOLTA Foundation and representatives of legal clinics at the state's two law schools appointed by their respective deans shall serve as ex- officio members of the Commission.

F. The Commission shall, by majority vote, elect a Chairperson from among the voting members who shall serve a term of one year and who may be re- elected to successive terms. Such other officers of the Commission may be selected, pursuant to rules established by the Commission.

G. The Commission may create such committees and appoint such committee members as are necessary to facilitate the work of the Commission.

APPENDIX

Recommendation

To Create an Arkansas Access to Justice Commission

Submitted to the

Arkansas Bar Association

By

Access to Justice Working Group

March 2003

"Equal justice under law is not only a caption on the façade of the Supreme Court building. It is perhaps the most inspiring ideal of our society . . . It is fundamental that justice should be the same, in substance and availability, without regard to economic status."

Justice Lewis Powell, Jr.

U.S. Supreme Court

Equal justice hinges on all Arkansans being empowered to make their case in a court of law, not only in criminal cases but also in civil matters. Most often, people retain an attorney to make their case for them. Across the nation, however, a growing number of litigants now choose to represent themselves in civil matters. While the reasons vary, most represent themselves because they cannot afford an attorney. When people with limited income and education face a corporation or government agency without representation because they cannot afford an attorney, equal justice under the law can quickly become an unfulfilled promise.

Some 16% of Arkansans live below the federal poverty level, compared to 12.4% nationally. In nine Delta counties, more than 25% of the population lives in poverty. One-quarter of Arkansas adults lack a high school diploma, compared to 20% nationwide. Not only is justice not served when self-

Appendix A 88 represented litigants are unprepared, but these individuals also affect the functioning of the courts. Not surprisingly, the increase in self-represented litigants is occurring at the same time that funding for legal services for the poor is declining.

The National Council of State Courts, the American Judicature Society, the American Bar Association, the National Legal Aid and Defender Association and other national organizations have addressed the causes and consequences of barriers that impede access as well as strategies to improve access to justice in the civil legal system. In response, many states have created a broadly representative commission or similar entity to coordinate efforts to improve access to the civil justice system for poor and near-poor individuals who cannot afford attorneys. These commissions achieve their goals in part by bringing together leaders from the judiciary, private bar, advocacy community, academia, legal services and other interests who share a commitment to improving access to the civil legal system as a means to fulfilling the promise of equal justice under law. Their approaches range from reinvigorating pro bono programs to generating new resources for legal services to developing pro se materials to simplifying court procedures and forms.

National Studies and State Studies Provide Insight

In its landmark Comprehensive Legal Needs Study published in 1994, the American Bar Association found that 38% of poor households and 43% of near poor households in the South had one or more legal problems in the survey year. The most frequently reported legal problems were housing and real property, personal finance and consumer issues, family and domestic needs, and employment. Of these, 37% of poor households and 41% of near poor households sought help either from the civil justice system or a non-legal third party while 24% and 23% respectively reported handling their problem on their own. Even though the study was conducted nearly a decade ago, many states have conducted state-level legal needs studies more recently, most generating similar results.

A 1999 article published by the American Bar Association, Standing Committee on the Delivery of Legal Services, summarized recent research on the frequency of pro se litigation. A 1991 report from the National Center for State Courts examined the incidence of representation in divorce cases in urban jurisdictions. Just 28% of divorces proceeded with both parties represented by a lawyer. Frequently cited studies examining the trend of pro se litigation in domestic relations in Maricopa County, Arizona found that pro se cases in which one party proceeded without a lawyer grew from 24% in 1980 to 47% in 1985 and 88% in 1990. A 1996 Maryland study found 57% of pro se litigants surveyed reported they could not afford a lawyer.

Indicators Suggest Arkansas' Unmet Need is Substantial

While there are no comprehensive studies of the unmet civil legal needs of poor and near poor Arkansans, case data from Arkansas' two legal services providers suggest the unmet need is substantial.

· Just 21% of the 12,588 cases Arkansas' two legal services providers completed in 2002 received full representation while 71% were given advice and counsel. While advice met the needs of some, a significant number would have benefited from full representation. An additional 3,022 cases were pending at the end of the year.

Appendix A 89 · In addition to completed cases, Arkansas' legal services providers had to reject 4,858 cases in 2002 due to conflicts and other factors. This number does not include individuals who call and no case is opened.

· Demand for civil legal services for the poor is increasing. Arkansas' legal services providers completed seven percent more cases in 2002 than 2001. Requests for assistance are expected to accelerate in 2003 due to the declining economy, at a time when staff reductions at Arkansas' legal services providers will make it difficult to maintain the current level of services.

· Despite the growing need, the number of cases handled on a pro bono basis was more or less flat from 2001 to 2002.

· Due to a decline in Arkansas' share of the national poverty population, federal funds will decline in 2003 at the same time that Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts (IOLTA) funds are decreasing. Arkansas' legal services providers have seen their revenue slashed nearly 20%, making it necessary to eliminate six support staff and nine attorney positions in 2003.

The Process

The Arkansas Access to Justice Conference brought 118 attorneys, judges and advocates representing Arkansas' justice community together on March 23, 2001 to identify challenges to access and develop a consensus about the most effective institutional vehicle to coordinate statewide efforts to improve access to justice. The conference concluded with a call to action to create a permanent Arkansas Access to Justice Commission. In response, the Arkansas Bar Association convened the Access To Justice Working Group, which held its first meeting in October 2002 (membership list attached). The Working Group's purpose is to determine if a need exists for a permanent Arkansas Access to Justice Commission and, if so, to develop a recommendation for the governance bodies of the Arkansas Bar Association.

To this end, the Arkansas Access to Justice Working Group has met as a body four times since October 2002. In addition, subcommittees have met in between meetings to develop work products for review. Through its deliberations, the Working Group has concluded:

· Fulfilling the promise of equal justice under law requires an ongoing process of continually improving access to the legal system.

· Leaders of the private bar, the judiciary, advocacy organizations, legal services and other Arkansans share a commitment to improving access to justice. Without a coordinated effort, however, progress will remain elusive.

· Improving access to justice hinges on documenting the unmet need in Arkansas, understanding the different dimensions of that need, and devising a long term plan of action, while demonstrating best practices through pilot projects and other means.

· Effective and frequent communication among different interests is fundamental to progress.

Appendix A 90 · A permanent Arkansas Access to Justice Commission is the most effective forum to bring leaders committed to improving access to justice together and to promote coordinated effort.

To this end, the Access to Justice Working Group recommends that the Arkansas Bar Association submit a formal request to the Arkansas Supreme Court to create a permanent Arkansas Access to Justice Commission with the mission, goals and structure described below.

....

[... Mission, Goals, Structure...have been excerpted and may be found in body of order.]

.... Recommendation

The Access to Justice Working Group recommends that the Arkansas Bar Association submit a formal request to the Arkansas Supreme Court to create a permanent Arkansas Access to Justice Commission with the mission, goals and structure described above.

Access to Justice Working Group

Nate Coulter

Attorney

James D. Gingerich

Administrative Office of the Courts

Charles W. Goldner, Jr., Chair

UALR School of Law

The Honorable James R. Hannah

Arkansas Supreme Court

Louis "Bucky" Jones

Attorney

Chalk S. Mitchell

Attorney

Michael W. Mullane

University of Arkansas School of Law

Appendix A 91 Susie Pointer

IOLTA Foundation

The Honorable Willard Proctor

Circuit Judge

The Honorable Jim D. Spears

Circuit Judge

Carolyn B. Witherspoon

Attorney

Scott Holladay

Carelink

Amy Rossi

Arkansas Advocates for Children & Families

Frank Sewall

Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield

Ex Officio

Don Hollingsworth Arkansas Bar Association

Jean Turner Carter

Center for Arkansas Legal Services

Mona Teague

Legal Aid of Arkansas

Sandra Miller

Arkansas Legal Services Partnership

Appendix A 92 Stricken language will be deleted and underlined language will be added. Act 56 of the Fiscal Session

1 State of Arkansas 2 89th General Assembly A Bill 3 Fiscal Session, 2014 SENATE BILL 94 4 5 By: Joint Budget Committee 6 7 For An Act To Be Entitled 8 AN ACT TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICES 9 AND OPERATING EXPENSES FOR THE ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT 10 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2015; AND FOR 11 OTHER PURPOSES. 12 13 14 Subtitle 15 AN ACT FOR THE ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT 16 APPROPRIATION FOR THE 2014-2015 FISCAL 17 YEAR. 18 19 20 BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS: 21 22 SECTION 1. REGULAR SALARIES - OPERATIONS. There is hereby established 23 for the Arkansas Supreme Court for the 2014-2015 fiscal year, the following 24 maximum number of regular employees. 25 26 Maximum Annual 27 Maximum Salary Rate 28 Item Class No. of Fiscal Year 29 No. Code Title Employees 2014-2015 30 (1) Q009N SUPREME COURT CLERK 1 GRADE N912 31 (2) Q011C CRIMINAL COORDINATOR 1 GRADE C129 32 (3) Q010C LIBRARY DIRECTOR 1 GRADE C129 33 (4) Q012C SUPREME COURT REPORTER 1 GRADE C129 34 (5) Q021C APPELLATE REVIEW ATTORNEY 2 GRADE C128 35 (6) Q036C CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK 1 GRADE C126 36 (7) Q083C COMMUNICATIONS COUNSEL 1 GRADE C126

*WLC038* Appendix B 01-23-2014 15:16:41 WLC03893

SB94

1 (8) Q061X DEPUTY CRIMINAL COORDINATOR 1 GRADE C126 2 (9) Q035C SUPREME COURT LAW CLERK 14 GRADE C126 3 (10) Q037C ASSISTANT CRIMINAL COORDINATOR 2 GRADE C125 4 (11) Q038C DEPUTY REPORTER 1 GRADE C125 5 (12) Q051C NETWORK ADMINISTRATOR 1 GRADE C124 6 (13) Q072C FISCAL OFFICER 1 GRADE C122 7 (14) Q141C TECHNICAL ONLINE PUBLISHER 1 GRADE C122 8 (15) Q090C EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO CLERK 1 GRADE C119 9 (16) Q091C JUDICIAL CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE ASSIST 1 GRADE C119 10 (17) Q107C ASSISTANT CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK 1 GRADE C118 11 (18) Q108C FINANCIAL SPECIALIST 1 GRADE C118 12 (19) Q192C PUBLIC SERVICE LIBRARIAN 1 GRADE C118 13 (20) Q109C RECORDS SUPERVISOR 1 GRADE C118 14 (21) Q106C TECHNICAL SERVICES LIBRARIAN 1 GRADE C118 15 (22) Q116C JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 6 GRADE C117 16 (23) Q115C SUPREME COURT POLICE CHIEF 1 GRADE C117 17 (24) Q123C ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 1 GRADE C115 18 (25) Q122C EDITORIAL ASSISTANT 1 GRADE C115 19 (26) Q124C LIBRARY TECHNICAL ASSISTANT 1 GRADE C115 20 (27) Q125C SUPREME COURT POLICE OFFICER 2 GRADE C115 21 MAX. NO. OF EMPLOYEES 48 22 23 SECTION 2. EXTRA HELP - OPERATIONS. There is hereby authorized, for 24 the Arkansas Supreme Court for the 2014-2015 fiscal year, the following 25 maximum number of part-time or temporary employees, to be known as "Extra 26 Help", payable from funds appropriated herein for such purposes: five (5) 27 temporary or part-time employees, when needed, at rates of pay not to exceed 28 those provided in the Uniform Classification and Compensation Act, or its 29 successor, or this act for the appropriate classification. 30 31 SECTION 3. APPROPRIATION - OPERATIONS. There is hereby appropriated, 32 to the Arkansas Supreme Court, to be payable from the State Central Services 33 Fund, for personal services and operating expenses of the Arkansas Supreme 34 Court for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015, the following: 35 36 ITEM FISCAL YEAR

2 01-23-2014 15:16:41 WLC038 Appendix B 94

SB94

1 NO. 2014-2015 2 (01) REGULAR SALARIES $2,697,896 3 (02) EXTRA HELP 30,000 4 (03) PERSONAL SERVICES MATCHING 845,665 5 (04) MAINT. & GEN. OPERATION 6 (A) OPER. EXPENSE 323,089 7 (B) CONF. & TRAVEL 30,000 8 (C) PROF. FEES 25,000 9 (D) CAP. OUTLAY 112,000 10 (E) DATA PROC. 0 11 (05) ARKANSAS REPORTS 229,477 12 (06) COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEYS 195,000 13 (07) COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES 20,000 14 (08) SPECIAL JUSTICES 5,500 15 (09) JUDICIAL EDUCATION 100,000 16 TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED $4,613,627 17 18 SECTION 4. APPROPRIATION - APPELLATE MEDIATION - CASH. There is hereby 19 appropriated, to the Arkansas Supreme Court, to be payable from the cash fund 20 deposited in the State Treasury as determined by the Chief Fiscal Officer of 21 the State, for operating expenses of the Arkansas Supreme Court - Appellate 22 Mediation Pilot Program for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015, the 23 following: 24 25 ITEM FISCAL YEAR 26 NO. 2014-2015 27 (01) MAINT. & GEN. OPERATION 28 (A) OPER. EXPENSE $0 29 (B) CONF. & TRAVEL 0 30 (C) PROF. FEES 13,120 31 (D) CAP. OUTLAY 0 32 (E) DATA PROC. 0 33 TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED $13,120 34 35 SECTION 5. REGULAR SALARIES - SUPREME COURT BAR OF ARKANSAS. There is 36 hereby established for the Arkansas Supreme Court - Bar of Arkansas for the

3 01-23-2014 15:16:41 WLC038 Appendix B 95

SB94

1 2014-2015 fiscal year, the following maximum number of regular employees. 2 3 Maximum Annual 4 Maximum Salary Rate 5 Item No. of Fiscal Year 6 No. Title Employees 2014-2015 7 (1) SUPREME COURT DIRECTOR OF OPC 1 GRADE N917 8 (2) SUPREME COURT DIRECTOR OF OPP 1 GRADE N916 9 (3) SUPREME COURT DEP DIRECTOR OF OPC 1 GRADE N906 10 (4) SUPREME COURT SENIOR STAFF ATTY OPC 1 GRADE C128 11 (5) SUPREME COURT DIRECTOR OF AJC 1 GRADE C128 12 (6) SUPREME COURT DIRECTOR OF JLAP 1 GRADE C128 13 (7) SUPREME COURT STAFF ATTORNEY OPC 1 GRADE C126 14 (8) SUPREME COURT PROGRAM COORDINATOR OPP 2 GRADE C120 15 (9) SUPREME COURT DEPUTY DIRECTOR JLAP 1 GRADE C120 16 (10) SUPREME COURT INVESTIGATOR OPC 1 GRADE C119 17 (11) SUPREME COURT FINANCIAL SPECIALIST 1 GRADE C118 18 (12) SUPREME COURT DATABASE MANAGER 1 GRADE C118 19 (13) SUPREME COURT PARALEGAL OPC 1 GRADE C118 20 (14) SUPREME COURT ADMIN ASSISTANT OPC 2 GRADE C115 21 (15) SUPREME COURT ADMIN ASSISTANT OPP 2 GRADE C115 22 (16) SUPREME COURT ADMIN ASSISTANT AJC 1 GRADE C115 23 MAX. NO. OF EMPLOYEES 19 24 25 SECTION 6. EXTRA HELP - SUPREME COURT BAR OF ARKANSAS. There is hereby 26 authorized, for the Arkansas Supreme Court - Bar of Arkansas for the 2014- 27 2015 fiscal year, the following maximum number of part-time or temporary 28 employees, to be known as "Extra Help", payable from funds appropriated 29 herein for such purposes: five (5) temporary or part-time employees, when 30 needed, at rates of pay not to exceed those provided in the Uniform 31 Classification and Compensation Act, or its successor, or this act for the 32 appropriate classification. 33 34 SECTION 7. APPROPRIATION - SUPREME COURT BAR OF ARKANSAS. There is 35 hereby appropriated, to the Arkansas Supreme Court, to be payable from cash 36 funds as defined by Arkansas Code 19-4-801 of the Arkansas Supreme Court, for

4 01-23-2014 15:16:41 WLC038 Appendix B 96

SB94

1 personal services and operating expenses of the Arkansas Supreme Court - Bar 2 of Arkansas for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015, the following: 3 4 ITEM FISCAL YEAR 5 NO. 2014-2015 6 (01) REGULAR SALARIES $1,500,000 7 (02) EXTRA HELP 25,000 8 (03) PERSONAL SERV MATCHING 500,000 9 (04) MAINT. & GEN. OPERATION 10 (A) OPER. EXPENSE 1,000,000 11 (B) CONF. & TRAVEL 100,000 12 (C) PROF. FEES 500,000 13 (D) CAP. OUTLAY 100,000 14 (E) DATA PROC. 0 15 (05) CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 100,000 16 (06) TRANSFERS, RETIREMENT, INVESTMENTS 2,250,000 17 TOTAL AMOUNT APPROPRIATED $6,075,000 18 19 SECTION 8. SPECIAL LANGUAGE. NOT TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE ARKANSAS 20 CODE NOR PUBLISHED SEPARATELY AS SPECIAL, LOCAL AND TEMPORARY LAW. ACCESS TO 21 JUSTICE. The General Assembly finds that the Access to Justice Foundation 22 serves a public purpose, therefore financial accounting, general bookkeeping, 23 management and administrative services may be provided by employees of the 24 Arkansas Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Bar of Arkansas in support of 25 the Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation, Inc. 26 The provisions of this section shall be in effect only from July 1, 27 2014 through June 30, 2015. 28 29 SECTION 9. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS. Disbursement of funds 30 authorized by this act shall be limited to the appropriation for such agency 31 and funds made available by law for the support of such appropriations; and 32 the restrictions of the State Procurement Law, the General Accounting and 33 Budgetary Procedures Law, the Revenue Stabilization Law, the Regular Salary 34 Procedures and Restrictions Act, or their successors, and other fiscal 35 control laws of this State, where applicable, and regulations promulgated by 36 the Department of Finance and Administration, as authorized by law, shall be

5 01-23-2014 15:16:41 WLC038 Appendix B 97

SB94

1 strictly complied with in disbursement of said funds. 2 3 SECTION 10. LEGISLATIVE INTENT. It is the intent of the General 4 Assembly that any funds disbursed under the authority of the appropriations 5 contained in this act shall be in compliance with the stated reasons for 6 which this act was adopted, as evidenced by the Agency Requests, Executive 7 Recommendations and Legislative Recommendations contained in the budget 8 manuals prepared by the Department of Finance and Administration, letters, or 9 summarized oral testimony in the official minutes of the Arkansas Legislative 10 Council or Joint Budget Committee which relate to its passage and adoption. 11 12 SECTION 11. EMERGENCY CLAUSE. It is found and determined by the 13 General Assembly, that the Constitution of the State of Arkansas prohibits 14 the appropriation of funds for more than a one (1) year period; that the 15 effectiveness of this Act on July 1, 2014 is essential to the operation of 16 the agency for which the appropriations in this Act are provided, and that in 17 the event of an extension of the legislative session, the delay in the 18 effective date of this Act beyond July 1, 2014 could work irreparable harm 19 upon the proper administration and provision of essential governmental 20 programs. Therefore, an emergency is hereby declared to exist and this Act 21 being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health 22 and safety shall be in full force and effect from and after July 1, 2014. 23 24 25 APPROVED: 02/28/2014 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

6 01-23-2014 15:16:41 WLC038 Appendix B 98

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

IN RE: ACCESS TO Opinion Delivered April 2, 2009 JUSTICE COMMISSION AND BAR OF ARKANSAS LICENSE FEES

PER CURIAM

The Arkansas Bar Association petitioned this court to create the Arkansas Access to

Justice Commission, and the petition was granted in 2003. See In Re: Arkansas Bar Association

Petition for Creation of the Arkansas Access to Justice Commission, 355 Ark. Appx. 709 (2003). The purpose of the Commission is to “coordinate efforts to improve access to the civil justice system for poor and near-poor individuals who cannot afford attorneys for representation in civil legal matters.” Id. at 710. The goals of the Commission are set out in the per curiam order:

A. Develop an objective and accurate understanding of

the problems Arkansans face in using our legal system

to obtain justice in civil cases.

B. Devise a strategic plan for statewide delivery of

civil legal services to all Arkansans.

C. Review and report on the efficient allocation and

application of the available resources.

D. Educate the people of Arkansas about the

importance of equal access to justice and of the

problems many Arkansans face in gaining effective

Appendix C 99 access to our civil justice system.

E. Encourage a strong and consistent commitment to

providing equal access to justice among the leaders

of our state.

F. Suggest innovations that will increase effective

access to the civil justice system for all Arkansans.

G. Provide technical and other support to the efforts

of the legislature, courts, and other government

agencies to improve access to justice for the people

of Arkansas.

H. Develop stable, long-term funding and other

resources to support access to civil justice.

Id. at 711-712. The Commission consists of fifteen members appointed by the Governor,

Arkansas Bar Association, Speaker of the House, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and the Supreme Court.

Since its inception, staff support for the Commission has been provided by Arkansas

Legal Services Partnership (“Partnership”), a consortium of two nonprofit legal services programs, the Center for Arkansas Legal Services and Legal Aid of Arkansas. However, staff support for the Commission is not the primary function of either of these entities1 . They have

1 The Center for Arkansas Legal Services, based in Little Rock, and Legal Aid of Arkansas, headquartered in Jonesboro, are 501(c)3 nonprofit organizations that provide free legal services to low-income Arkansans in non-criminal cases in such legal areas as family, consumer,

-2-

Appendix C 100 much on their plates already, and limited funding further strains their ability to meet the growing demand for free legal services, especially during times of economic recession.

The Supreme Court has not provided staff or financial support to the Commission.

The court has approximately sixteen committees and boards which are supported by revenues from attorney license fees. Since the Commission is a creature of the court, created at the behest of the Arkansas Bar Association, we believe that it should receive financial and staff assistance from the court as these other entities.

The court has historically tried to explain to Arkansas attorneys how the Bar of

Arkansas License Fee funds are used, why the assessment levels are set as they are, and why the need for an increase if one is being made. When we last addressed this topic in 2001, the

Commission was not in existence, so its funding was not on the table. If it had been created, we have little doubt that it would have been included.

In 2001, the annual dues for membership in the Bar of Arkansas were raised, effective

January 1, 2008, as follows: an annual license fee of $200.00 for lawyers who have been licensed for three or more years, $125.00 for new enrollees who have been licensed for fewer than three years, and $20.00 for lawyers who are sixty-five years of age or older. See In Re Bar of Arkansas License Fees, 346 Ark. Appx. 574, 575 (2001). At that time, we discussed the history of the assessment of annual dues and various increases over the years. In particular, we explained the reasons for the need to increase the assessments, including: “new costs related

housing, elder, landlord-tenant, social security, medicaid, and medicare. Together the two programs serve clients in all seventy-five counties in Arkansas.

-3-

Appendix C 101 to the implementation of the Arkansas Lawyer Assistance Program, restructure and expansion of the operations of the Office of Professional Conduct, and the need for additional resources for the Client Security Fund. These new and revised programs arose from the recommendations made by the Arkansas Bar Association, the American Bar Association, and individual members of the Bar.” Id. at 575.

In 2001, we anticipated that in the 2008-2009 time frame, there would be a deficit.

Fortunately, our projections have not held true, and we are not currently running a deficit.

With better than expected resources, the Supreme Court is in position to address the needs of the Commission, a need that heretofore has been borne by the Arkansas Legal Services

Partnership.

As we have done in connection with other funding needs, we will take this opportunity to explain why the Commission should be supported by license fees revenue. The work of the Commission has been referenced in the per curiam order creating it. Going to the

Commission’s website (www.arkansasjustice.org) will illustrate the work of the Commission and how far it has come since its creation in 2003. The Commission is organized in five committees: Legal Services, Pro Bono, Court Assistance, Education, and Legislative.

The Legal Services Committee seeks to address the wide disparity in access to justice for low-income individuals and families. The context for this work is the ever shrinking federal revenue support which since 1995 has been reduced over $2,000,000 in Arkansas. The census identifies 411,777 Arkansans eligible for free civil legal services. These are families at

-4-

Appendix C 102 or below 125% of the poverty level.2 The Center for Arkansas Legal Services and Legal Aid of Arkansas cannot handle all the cases that come to them. Additional resources will be required to better address the legal needs of the poor in our state.

The Pro Bono Committee works to improve and expand the pro bono services provided by attorneys in this state and to provide resources to these attorneys.

The Court Assistance Committee strives to make the courts more accessible to self- represented/pro se litigants and to identify measures to be taken by the courts, the bar, legal service providers, and other stakeholders to assist the pro se litigants. Simplified forms, online resources offices, and information in languages other than English are such measures.

The Education Committee seeks to inform the state’s legal community and entire population about the needs for legal aid, including the plight of the poor, and the limited resources available to service them. To aid in these efforts, a DVD was produced entitled

“Access to Justice” and is available for showing at various public forums throughout the state and is also available online.

The Legislative Committee works to obtain funding from the State of Arkansas for civil legal aid for low-income Arkansans.

In looking at the work of the Commission, there can be no doubt of the need for staff assistance. The work of the Partnership and the Commission are inextricably linked, and financial support from the court will assist the Commission in achieving its goals and will

2 See Arkansas Access to Justice Commission Website: http://www.arkansasjustice.org/about.html.

-5-

Appendix C 103 assist the Partnership in its mission of providing free legal services to low-income Arkansans.

Finally, on a related matter, the court has observed that the work of Arkansas IOLTA

Foundation, Inc., and the Commission overlap in many areas, and there are a number of individuals serving on both the IOLTA Board of Directors and the Commission. We request that the IOLTA Board of Directors and members of the Commission explore possible options regarding mission and structure and report to the court as to how the needs for legal services to low-income Arkansans can best be met.

-6-

Appendix C 104 Appendix D 105 Appendix D 106 Appendix D 107 Cite as 2009 Ark. 627

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

Opinion Delivered December 10, 2009

IN RE: ARKANSAS ACCESS TO JUSTICE COMMISSION

PER CURIAM

In 2003, the Supreme Court established the Arkansas Access to Justice Commission and set out its structure. In re Arkansas Bar Association - Petition for Creation of the Arkansas Access to

Justice Commission, 355 Ark. 709 (2003) (per curiam). We hereby amend, effective immediately, subsection (C)(1)(a) of the provision setting out the Commission’s structure as set out below.

Except for this amendment, all other provisions remain unchanged.

STRUCTURE

...

C. Membership.

1. The Arkansas Supreme Court shall appoint five members of the Commission as follows:

(a) one justice or retired justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court,

(b) two circuit judges, one from a circuit with a total population of more than 100,000

and one from a circuit with a total population of less than 100,000,

(c) one full-time district court judge, and

(d) one representative from the faculty of the University of Arkansas or University of

Arkansas at Little Rock Schools of Law.

...

Appendix E 108 Cite as 2015 Ark. 12 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

IN RE ARKANSAS ACCESS Opinion Delivered January 15, 2015 TO JUSTICE COMMISSION

PER CURIAM

In 2003, in response to a petition filed by the Arkansas Bar Association, the supreme court established the Arkansas Access to Justice Commission. In re Ark. Bar Ass’n–Petition for

Creation of the Ark. Access to Justice Comm’n, 355 Ark. 709 (2003) (per curiam). Arkansas

IOLTA Foundation, Inc., and Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation, Inc., recently merged, and the surviving corporation is Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation, Inc. See In re Petition to Merge Ark. Access to Justice Found., Inc., 2013 Ark. 207 (per curiam). As a result of the merger, the Chair of the Board of Directors of Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation, Inc., will replace the Director of Arkansas IOLTA Foundation as an ex-officio member of the

Arkansas Access to Justice Commission. Accordingly, we amend, effective immediately, the

Commission’s structure as set out below. Except for this amendment and clarification of the district court membership, all other provisions remain unchanged.

STRUCTURE

. . . .

C. Membership.

1.

. . .

c. one state district court judge or local district court judge, and

. . . Appendix F 109 Cite as 2015 Ark. 12

E. In addition to the voting members set out herein, the Director of the Center for

Arkansas Legal Services, the Director of Legal Aid of Arkansas, the Chair of the Board of

Directors of Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation, Inc., and representatives of legal clinics at the state’s two law schools appointed by their respective deans shall serve as ex-officio members of the Commission.

. . . .

2 Appendix F 110 1300 West Sixth Street, Room 113 • Little Rock, AR 72201 • (501) 492-7175 • www.arkansasjustice.org

COMMISSION TASK FORCES, STANDING COMMITTEES, AND ADVISORY BOARDS January 26, 2015

I. Standing Committees

Executive Committee This committee consists of the Commission Chairperson, Commission Vice-Chairperson, Secretary, Governance Committee Chair, and one at-large member appointed by the Chairperson, who shall be a voting member of the Commission. It shall be authorized to exercise the powers of the Commission in the management of the business and affairs of the Commission in between regularly scheduled meetings. Such business may include approval of matters related to oversight of any other funds granted to or appropriated to the Commission; approval of Memorandums of Understanding between the Commission and any other entity; annual performance reviews of the Commission Executive Director; recommendation of the Commission’s annual operating budget to the Arkansas Supreme Court; and making reports to the Arkansas Supreme Court on the Commission's activities. This committee shall maintain regular minutes of its meetings, which shall be provided to the Commission at each regular meeting.

Governance Committee This committee shall consist of at least three voting members of the Commission. This committee will develop and annually review a Commissioner “job description;” develop and update a Commission orientation curriculum; provide for the mentorship of newly appointed Commissioners; recruit and recommend new members for appointment to the Commission and its Task Forces; and recommend policies and operating rules for adoption by the Commission.

II. Task Forces

Task Force on Self-Represented Litigants This task force was created by the Commission to oversee implementation of the Plan for the Delivery of Services to Self-Represented Litigants adopted by the Commission in 2013. This Task Force replaces the Commission’s former Court Assistance Committee. The Task Force has three committees:

(1) Committee on Rules and Policies, which is responsible for developing and recommending proposed changes to the Rules of Professional Conduct, the Code of Judicial Conduct, and the Rules of Civil Procedure for adoption by the Arkansas Supreme Court. In addition, the committee is responsible for developing policies and training curricula for judges, court staff, and librarians on assistance to self-represented litigants.

Appendix F 111

(2) Committee on Libraries and Self Help, which is responsible for coordinating with the Administrative Office of the Courts’ public education initiatives, determining the feasibility of establishing the Supreme Court Law Library as the hub of a statewide network of self-help centers, identifying areas of greatest unmet need for self-help resources, and planning for the sustainability of self-help resources.

(3) Committee on Limited Scope Representation, which is responsible for overseeing the ABA-funded pilot project on limited scope representation; developing a toolkit for attorneys who desire to incorporate limited scope representation into their practices; and education of the bench and bar regarding limited scope practice.

Joint Resource Development Task Force This is joint task force consisting of commissioners; members of the Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation board; and the boards of the Center for Arkansas Legal Services, Legal Aid of Arkansas, and VOCALS. This task force’s mission is to oversee implementation of a comprehensive resource development strategy that includes coordination of a statewide annual private bar fundraising campaign.

Pro Bono Task Force This Task Force oversees accomplishment of task-oriented objectives related to pro bono and “low bono” services, including a survey of attorneys regarding pro bono service, planning of National Pro Bono Week activities, and the development of toolkits and other support materials that would assist in cultivating pro bono service in Arkansas. This Task Force replaces the Commission’s former Pro Bono Committee.

Legislative Task Force This Task Force works to obtain funding from the State of Arkansans for civil legal aid for low- income Arkansans and to support or propose substantive legislation that would improve access to the court system, to legal services, and to legal remedies available to Arkansans of limited or modest means. In addition, this Task Force addresses short-term, time-sensitive requests from access-to-justice-related national entities for outreach to members of the state’s federal congressional delegation on matters related to Legal Services Corporation and IOLTA funding.

III. Advisory Boards

Corporate Advisory Board The Corporate Advisory Board consists of corporate counsel from some of Arkansas’s leading corporations to help the Commission and its sister foundation devise a strategy for broadening the support base for civil legal aid within the state’s corporate community. The group is small, informal, and acts in an advisory capacity to the Commission, Foundation, and their partners to advise on how to best secure financial and other support from Arkansas corporations and corporate law departments. Advisory Board members will act as a sounding board, meeting 1-2 times a year and offering input (via email or phone call) as needed to assist in • Recruiting corporate leaders to serve on local boards of directors and annual fundraising campaign committees, as well as the Access to Justice Commission and Foundation;

Appendix F 112

• Identifying and approaching corporate legal departments regarding participation of corporate attorneys in the statewide annual fundraising campaign for legal aid; • Identifying and approaching corporations regarding gifts from corporate giving program or foundation for general support or project grants; • Expanding the support of the private bar through corporate counsel contacts with Arkansas firms and attorneys; and • Leveraging funding from the legislature through corporate contacts with legislators.

Appendix F 113 Strategic Plan for Delivery Legal Services to Self-Represented Litigants in Arkansas

Task Force Meeting January 20, 2015 12:00 p.m.

Center for Arkansas Legal Services Boardroom 1300 West Sixth Street

Participants

Jessie Burchfield, Charlie Harwell (phone), Ava Hicks, Prof. Chuck Goldner, Shana Graves (phone), Amy Johnson, Vince Morris, Annabelle Tuck, Prof. Kelly Olson (phone), Brian Vandiver (phone), Judge Warren (phone)

Unable to attend: Chelle Caswell, Judge Amy Grimes, Judge Scott Jackson, Brooke Moore, Adam Reid, Jay Shue, Judge Joanna Taylor, Andrea Walker

Minutes

Prof. Goldner opened the meeting at 12:05 by thanking the Task Force committees for their work. The committee minutes provided in the packet were informational only; no action needed by the Task Force.

The first item for the Task Force’s review was a draft Administrative Order No. 22. The proposed order is intended to lay out clear guidance for what non-attorney court staff, librarians, and others with specialized knowledge about the legal system may permissibly provide to self- represented litigants without crossing the “legal advice” line.

Prof. Burchfield noted that guidelines are permissive for people who are not court employees. Prof. Goldner asked about language in Section III of the outline, which states that self-help personnel may “[p]rovide language and/or citations of statutes and rules, without advising whether or not a particular statute or rule is applicable to the situation.” Prof. Goldner expressed concern that this might be perceived by self-help patron as providing advice and by the Bar Association as follows: “Provide information about language and/or statutes and rules.” The committee approved the change, with one abstention from Ms. Hicks. Next, the committee approved the draft Administrative Order in its entirety, subject to the approved change.

Next, Prof. Goldner called the Task Force’s attention to the draft proposed revision to Rule 2.2 of the Arkansas Judicial Code of Conduct, which deals with the obligation of judges to remain impartial. The proposed changes clarify and elaborate on how judges may facilitate cases involving self-represented litigants being heard on their merits, while maintaining the obligation to remain fair and impartial. After a brief discussion, the proposed rule revision was unanimously approved.

114 The Task Force next reviewed the proposed draft revision to Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Ms. Johnson noted that the proposed revisions would amend a version of Rule 11 that is currently pending before the Arkansas Supreme Court for approval. There were other recent proposed changes to the rule that will be incorporated by the time these changes go before the Court. Prof. Goldner pointed out that these revisions address the rule’s signature requirement, which is problematic in its current form for attorneys who “ghostwrite” pleadings for otherwise self-represented litigants.

Mr. Vandiver posed the question about what obligation an attorney might have to ensure that the footer required by the rule would remain on the pleading between the time of document preparation and the time of filing. After a discussion, the Task Force reached the consensus that good record-keeping on the attorney’s part would substantially address the issue. Mr. Morris suggested adding language clarifying the attorney’s responsibility with respect to the “prepared document.” The Task Force agreed. Task Force members also agreed that the language in (a)(2) should be rearranged to address the “footer” requirement before the attorney signature requirement. The final language in (a)(2) will read as follows: “An attorney may draft or help to draft a pleading, motion, or other paper filed by an otherwise self-represented person. The attorney shall include a notation at the end of the prepared document stating: ‘This document was prepared with the assistance of a licensed Arkansas lawyer pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Professional Conduct 1.2(c).’ The attorney need not sign that pleading, motion, or other paper.” It was also noted that the subsection reference in (c)(4) to “(c)(2)” should be changed to “(b)(1)(B).”

Prof. Goldner next asked the Task Force to discuss the proposed revisions to Arkansas Rule of Professional Conduct 1.2. Mr. Morris asked if the “writing” referenced in the rule could include electronic, or “click wrap” agreements? The Task Force consulted the “Definitions” section of found in Ark. R. Prof’l Conduct 1.0 and concluded that subsection (n) would extend “writing” to electronic agreements. The Task Force Unanimously approved the proposed revisions to Rule 1.2.

The Task Force next discussed proposed revisions to Rules 4.2 and 4.3 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Ms. Johnson noted that the rules reference notices to be given to the court and opposing counsel, and that the Committee on Limited Scope Representation is in the process of drafting such notices based on notices that Alabama has adopted. The Task Force unanimously approved the proposed revisions to Rules 4.2 and 4.3.

With regard to next steps, the Task Force agreed that these draft revisions—one approved by the Arkansas Supreme Court—would need to be vetted with the appropriate court committees, namely the Committee on Professional Conduct and the Civil Practice Committee. Mr. Vandiver added that the review and approval of the proposed revisions by these committees would likely carry a lot of weight with the Arkansas Bar Association.

Ms. Johnson noted that one of the proposed rule changes that the Committee on Self- Represented Litigation had developed had been omitted from the meeting packet. That committee developed a draft Rule of Civil Procedure 87, which provides for automatic withdrawal of a limited scope attorney upon completion of the agreed-upon representation. Prof.

115 Goldner wondered whether the rule should specify that it applies in cases where an attorney’s appearance is required. He expressed concerned about whether the rule could be read to require attorneys to give notice under Rule 87 if all they do is ghostwrite pleadings. Because the draft rule was not included in the packet, the Task Force agreed that Ms. Johnson would send the draft to Justice Tuck and Prof. Goldner to review and resolve any questions. The final version will be circulated to the full Committee for email approval.

Next, Ms. Johnson reviewed the draft fee agreements included in the meeting packet. The Task Force agreed that these drafts would be part of the full attorney toolkit under development by the Committee on Limited Scope Representation, and that these agreements are not ready for full Commission review until the entire toolkit is complete. Ms. Johnson added that these agreements are intended to be modifiable templates for attorneys to use.

Prof. Goldner reviewed a number of technical edits that the agreements needed, including revision of language that permits a client to seek a second opinion. Current versions of the agreements specify that a client may seek separate legal advice from counsel on matters outside the scope of the agreement, but the Task Force agreed that the agreements should specify that the client could seek separate legal advice on ALL matters.

The next order of business was to review and update the Task Force Work Plan, which was last revised in February 2014. The Task Force agreed to delegate those updates to Prof. Goldner, Justice Tuck, and Ms. Johnson to prepare. The updated Plan will be submitted to the full Task Force for review, suggestions, and approval.

The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m.

116 Arkansas Access to Justice Commission Task Force on Self-Represented Litigants

Chair, Professor Chuck Goldner

Committee on Policies and Training

Jessie Burchfield [email protected] Judge Scott Jackson (501) 324-9446 [email protected] UALR William H. Bowen School of Law Jay Shue Chelle Caswell [email protected] [email protected] Arkansas Medicaid Inspector General Trial Court Assistant, 4th Judicial Circuit Judge Joanna Taylor Judge Amy Grimes [email protected] [email protected] (479) 444-1682 479-285-2388 4th Judicial Circuit – Division 7

Charles Harwell Judge Joyce Warren [email protected] [email protected] (479) 751-5222 Cypert, Crouch, Clark & Harwell

Committee on Library- and Court-Based Self-Help Centers/Forms

Jessie Burchfield (contact information Vince Morris above) [email protected] 501-376-3423 Ava Hicks Arkansas Legal Services Partnership [email protected] (501) 682-2041 Annabelle Imber Tuck Arkansas Supreme Court Library [email protected] (501) 868-6372 Chuck Goldner Arkansas Access to Justice Commission [email protected] (501) 324-9914 Andrea Walker UALR William H. Bowen School of Law [email protected] Arkansas Access to Justice Commission 870-972-9224, ext. 6303 Legal Aid of Arkansas Arkansas Access to Justice Commission

117 Committee on Limited Scope Representation

Shana Woodard Graves Kelly Browe Olson [email protected] [email protected] (501) 324-9452 K. Brooke Moore UALR William H. Bowen School of Law Arkansas Virtual Lawyer [email protected] Adam Reid [email protected] Vince Morris (contact information above) (501) 372-6175 Barber Law Firm

Brian Vandiver [email protected] (501) 688-8893 Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard

Commission Staff

Erin Jacobson Kim Marshall [email protected] [email protected] (501) 492-7176 501-376-3423 Arkansas Access to Justice Commission Arkansas Legal Services Partnership

Amy Johnson Vince Morris [email protected] [email protected] (501) 492-7172 501-376-3423 Arkansas Access to Justice Commission Arkansas Legal Services Partnership

118 DRAFT 1/22/15 – FOR COMMISSION APPROVAL

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 22

Policy Regarding Provision of Legal Information to the Public

Pursuant to Ark. Const. Amend. 80 §§ 1, 3, 4; Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-10-101 et seq.; and this Court's inherent rule-making authority, the Court adopts and publishes Administrative Order Number 22.

I. Purpose

An increasing number of individuals—in Arkansas and across the country—are handling their own legal problems without the assistance of lawyers. These “Self-Help Patrons”1 often seek help from court staff, librarians, and others who have specialized knowledge of the court system or legal resources (“Self-Help Personnel”), but who are prohibited from offering legal advice. Absent clear direction on the distinction between what constitutes “legal information” and what constitutes “legal advice,” Self-Help Personnel may be overly cautious in providing assistance to Self-Help Patrons or may risk being reported or reprimanded by their employers. As a result, Self-Help Patrons may be unnecessarily frustrated in their efforts to effectively navigate the legal system and may, in turn, lose confidence in our courts. Furthermore, there may be instances where Self-Help Patrons involved in litigation may be entitled to receive assistance from the court as a matter of due process.2

It is the policy of the Arkansas Supreme Court to ensure access to Arkansas courts by all persons, including those who may not have the benefit of legal representation. The purpose of this Administrative Order is to provide clear guidance to Self-Help Personnel so that they are equipped to provide appropriate legal information to Self-Help Patrons consistent with applicable standards of impartiality and without engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.

The goal is to provide authority for, within the bounds of this Administrative Order, assistance to achieve fair and efficient resolution of cases on their merits, and to minimize the delays and inefficient use of court resources that may result from use of the court system by litigants who are not represented by lawyers. There is a compelling state interest in resolving cases efficiently and fairly, regardless of the financial resources of the parties.

1 “Self-Represented Litigant” is a term often use to describe these individuals, but such terminology fails to take into account persons with legal issues that may not involve litigation. Use of the word “patron” also acknowledges that courts and libraries are, and should be, institutions that serve members of the public. 2 In Turner v. Rogers, 131 S. Ct. 2507 (2011), the U.S. Supreme Court held that trial judges in civil contempt proceedings must ensure that certain safeguards are in place to avoid wrongful conviction, including (1) notice to the defendant that his “ability to pay” is a critical issue in the contempt proceeding; (2) the use of a form (or the equivalent) to elicit relevant financial information; (3) an opportunity at the hearing for the defendant to respond to statements and questions about his financial status (e.g., those triggered by his responses on the form); and (4) an express finding by the court that the defendant has the ability to pay. Although the findings in that case were limited to the civil contempt context, there are indications that it may have greater implications for the broader realm of civil self-represented litigation. See, e.g., Richard Zorza, A New Day for Judges and the Self-Represented: The Implications of Turner v. Rogers, THE JUDGES’ JOURNAL, Fall 2011, at 16.

119 DRAFT 1/22/15 – FOR COMMISSION APPROVAL

II. Definitions

A. “Self-Help Patron” means any individual who seeks legal information to pursue or defend a court case or administrative action, or to understand potential legal rights, remedies, or obligations.

B. “Self-Help Personnel” means court staff, librarians, and other individuals who are frequently asked to provide help for people involved in legal matters. Those court staff, librarians, and other individuals who are also licensed lawyers are governed by this Order in the same way that non-attorney personnel are governed unless they are acting on behalf of a nonprofit or court-annexed limited legal services program as provided in Arkansas Rule of Professional Conduct 6.5.

C. “Self-Help Assistance” means support and guidance provided by Self-Help Personnel within the scope and limitations of this Order, including collaboration and coordination with legal and community resources.

D. “Approved Forms” means the forms and instructions that appear on the Arkansas Legal Services Partnership website; on the Arkansas Judiciary website; in administrative orders, rules, or other policies of the Supreme Court; in administrative agency rules; in state statutes; and local forms to facilitate following local case- processing procedures.

III. Role of Self-Help Personnel

A. Basic Services. Self-Help Personnel may provide the following services:

• Provide general information about court procedures and logistics, including requirements for service, filing, scheduling hearings and compliance with local procedure; • Provide, either orally or in writing, information about court rules, terminology, procedures, and practices; • Inform Self-Help Patrons of available pro bono legal services, low cost legal services, unbundled legal services, legal aid programs, alternative dispute resolution services including referrals to the Arkansas Alternative Dispute Resolution Commission’s database of certified mediators, referrals to legal services and legal aid programs, lawyer referral services (such as Arkansas Find-A-Lawyer), and legal resources offered by state and local libraries, legal aid programs, and state agencies; • Encourage Self-Help Patrons to obtain legal advice without recommending a specific lawyer or law firm; • Explain options within and outside the court system, including providing information about community resources and services; • Provide information about domestic violence resources; • Offer educational sessions and materials, as available, and provide information about classes, such as parenting education classes;

120 DRAFT 1/22/15 – FOR COMMISSION APPROVAL

• Assist Self-Help Patrons in selecting the correct forms, and instructions on how to complete forms, based on the Self-Help Patron’s description of what he or she wants to pursue or request from the court, including, but not limited to, providing forms for the waiver of filing fees. Where no Approved Form exists to accomplish the Self- Help Patron’s request, Self-Help Personnel should inform the litigant of that fact; • Record information provided by the Self-Help Patrons onto Approved Forms if that person cannot complete the forms due to disability, language, or literacy barriers; • Assist Self-Help Patrons to understand what information is needed to complete filling in the blanks on Approved Forms; • Review finished forms to determine whether forms are complete, including checking for signatures, notarization, correct county name, and case number; • Assist in calculating child support using the Arkansas Child Support Guidelines, based on financial information provided by the Self-Help Patron; • Answer general questions about how the court process works; • Answer questions about court timelines; • Provide docket information; • Provide information concerning how to get a hearing scheduled; • Inform Self-Help Patrons of the availability of interpreter and sign language assistance and process requests for such services; • At the direction of the court, review Self-Help Patrons’ documents prior to hearings to determine whether procedural requirements for the filing of pleadings have been met; • Assist Self-Help Patrons with preparation of proposed court orders based upon the parties’ agreement or stipulation for signature of the judge or magistrate; • Answer questions about whether an order has been issued, where to get a copy if one was not provided, and read the order to the individual if requested; • Provide a Self-Help Patron with access to information from a case file that has not been restricted by statute, rule or directive; • Provide assistance based on the assumption that the information provided by the Self- Help Patron is accurate and complete; • Provide the same services and information to all parties to an action, as requested; • Provide information about language and/or citations of statutes and rules, without advising whether or not a particular statute or rule is applicable to the situation; • Provide other services consistent with the intent of this Order and the direction of the court, including programs in partnership with other agencies and organizations.

B. Prohibited Services. Self-Help Personnel shall not:

• Recommend whether a case should or should not be brought to court or administrative order appealed or not appealed; • Give an opinion about the outcome of a case that is brought to court or an administrative action that is appealed; • Represent a Self-Help Patron in court; • Tell a Self-Represented Patron that Self-Help Personnel may provide legal advice; • Provide legal analysis, strategy, or advice;

121 DRAFT 1/22/15 – FOR COMMISSION APPROVAL

• Disclose information in violation of a court order, statute, rule, order, or case law; • Refuse to allow a Self-Help Patron to proceed with his or her case based solely on the fact that he or she is self-represented; • Tell the Self-Help Patron anything Self-Help Personnel would not repeat in the presence of the opposing party, or any other party to the case; • Advise a Self-Help Patron that he or she should go to a specific lawyer or law firm for fee-based representation. • Tell the Self-Help Patron how he or she should word any substantive content in court pleadings or other legal documents. • Talk to a judge on behalf of a Self-Help Patron.

IV. Assistance by Self-Help Personnel is not the Practice of Law

The performance of services by Self-Help Personnel in accordance with this order is not the practice of law, as Self-Help Personnel are to provide neutral information and are not to give legal advice. Information provided by a Self-Help Patron to Self-Help Personnel is neither confidential nor privileged. No attorney-client relationship exists between Self-Help Personnel and a Self-Help Patron.

V. Assistance by Lawyers and Nonlawyer Assistants who are not Self-Help Personnel

When Self-Help Personnel refer Self-Help Patrons to community resources and services, this may include referrals to legal aid organizations or lawyers or law firms who provide limited scope legal services on a fee-based, “low bono,” or pro bono basis. Such referrals are permitted and do not constitute a violation of this Administrative Order. Lawyers, and their nonlawyer assistants, as that term is used in the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct 5.3, are guided by the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct, including, but not limited to Rule 6.5 which addresses nonprofit and court-annexed limited legal services programs.

VI. Availability of Services

Subject to available resources, assistance is available to all Self-Help Patrons. Self-Help Personnel may direct Self-Help Patrons to other appropriate services where the inquiry is better addressed. Some limited examples are: the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney for questions about victims’ services; the Americans with Disabilities Act coordinator in the location, for information about accommodations necessary for a Self-Help Patron; the collections investigator for information about payment of court costs; the clerk and recorder, for information about property records; and the Division of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Division, for information about drivers’ licenses or state identification.

VII. Copy Costs

Courts and libraries may require Self-Help Patrons to pay the reasonable copying costs of providing forms and instructions to Self-Help Patrons, provided that the charge for persons who are indigent may be reduced or waived, as required by statute, rule or directive.

122 DRAFT 1/22/15 – FOR COMMISSION APPROVAL

VIII. Notices to Self-Help Patrons

Court-based Self-Help Personnel shall provide and, if necessary, review with the Self- Help Patron, the below “Notice to Self-Help Court Patron.” Such notice shall also be available through conspicuous posting and be made available in other languages, as needed. Self-Help Personnel who are providing Self-Help Services outside of a court setting may provide and post the “Notice to Self-Help Patron” below.

NOTICE TO SELF-HELP COURT PATRON

Self-help services are available to all persons who seek information to file, pursue, or respond to a case without the assistance of a lawyer authorized to practice before the court, within the resources available to us.

We are employees of the court and are available to provide information about court procedures, practices, rules, terminology, and forms, as well as community resources and services that can help you. By providing this information, we are not taking sides in a case. This means we will provide the same services and information to all parties in a case, if requested. We cannot act as your lawyer or provide legal advice.

We can explain the court process, help you to understand what information is needed to fill in the blanks on a form, and review your forms for completeness. We cannot tell you what your legal rights or remedies are, represent you in court, or tell you how to testify in court.

Based on the information you share with us, we can help you locate forms and understand the information you need for your case. Any information you share with us is not confidential or privileged.

No attorney-client relationship exists between us and you. If you need a lawyer or legal advice, we can help you find community resources and services, but we cannot tell you which lawyer or law firm you should use.

We are not responsible for the outcome of your case.

We are not investigators and cannot provide investigative services.

We are court employees, and we do not act on behalf of any particular judge. The presiding judge in your case may require that you change a form or use a different form. The judge is not required to grant the relief you request in a form.

In all cases, it is best to obtain the assistance of your own lawyer, especially if your case presents significant or complicated issues. If requested, we will help you find community resources and services without recommending a specific lawyer or law firm.

123 DRAFT 1/22/15 – FOR COMMISSION APPROVAL

For more information about the court’s self-help assistance, see Administrative Order No. 22, which is available at [website].

NOTICE TO SELF-HELP PATRON

Within the resources available to us, informational services are available to all persons who seek information to file, pursue, or respond to a case without the assistance of a lawyer authorized to practice before the court.

We are available to assist you in locating information about court procedures, practices, rules, terminology, and forms, as well as community resources and services that can help you. By providing this information, we are not taking sides in a case. This means we will provide the same services and information to all parties in a case, if requested. We cannot act as your lawyer or provide legal advice.

We cannot tell you what your legal rights or remedies are, represent you in court, or tell you how to testify in court.

Based on the information you share with us, we can help you locate forms and understand what information you need for your case. Any information you share with us is not confidential or privileged.

No attorney-client relationship exists between us and you. If you need a lawyer or legal advice, we can help you find community resources and services but we cannot tell you which lawyer or law firm you should use.

We are not responsible for the outcome of your case.

We are not investigators and cannot provide investigative services.

In all cases, it is best to obtain the assistance of your own lawyer, especially if your case presents significant or complicated issues. If requested, we will help you find community resources and services without recommending a specific lawyer or law firm.

For more information about self-help assistance, see Administrative Order No. 22, which is available at [website].

124 Approved by Committees on Policies and Guidelines September 24, 2014

Draft of Suggested Revision to the Revised Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct Current Rule

RULE 2.2 Impartiality and Fairness A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially. COMMENT [1] To ensure impartiality and fairness to all parties, a judge must be objective and open-minded. [2] Although each judge comes to the bench with a unique background and personal philosophy, a judge must interpret and apply the law without regard to whether the judge approves or disapproves of the law in question. [3] When applying and interpreting the law, a judge sometimes may make good-faith errors of fact or law. Errors of this kind do not violate this Rule. [4] It is not a violation of this Rule for a judge to make reasonable accommodations to ensure pro se litigants the opportunity to have their matters fairly heard.

Suggested Revision

RULE 2.2 Impartiality and Fairness (A) A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially. (B) A judge may make reasonable accommodations, consistent with the law and court rules, to facilitate the ability of all litigants, including self-represented litigants, to be fairly heard.

COMMENT [1] To ensure impartiality and fairness to all parties, a judge must be objective and open-minded. [2] Although each judge comes to the bench with a unique background and personal philosophy, a judge must interpret and apply the law without regard to whether the judge approves or disapproves of the law in question. [3] When applying and interpreting the law, a judge sometimes may make good-faith errors of fact or law. Errors of this kind do not violate this Rule. [4] It is not a violation of this Rule for a judge to make reasonable accommodations to ensure pro se litigants the opportunity to have their matters fairly heard. [4] The growth in litigation involving self- represented litigants and the responsibility of courts to promote access to justice warrant reasonable flexibility by judges, consistent with the law and court rules, to ensure that all litigants are fairly heard. Examples of accommodations that may be made include but are not limited to (1) making referrals to any resources available to assist the litigant in the preparation of the case; (2) liberally construing pleadings to facilitate consideration of the issues raised; (3) providing general information about proceeding and foundational requirements; (4) attempting to make legal concepts understandable by using plain language

125 Approved by Committees on Policies and Guidelines September 24, 2014 whenever possible; (5) asking neutral questions to elicit or clarify information; (5) modifying the traditional order of taking evidence; and (6) explaining the basis for a ruling.

126 1/20/2015 Draft – For Final Approval

Rule 11. Signing of Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Sanctions.

(a) Signatures. (1) Every pleading, written motion, and other paper of a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in his or her individual name, whose address shall be stated. (2) A party who is not represented by an attorney self-represented person shall sign his or her pleading, motion, or other paper and state his or her address and telephone number, if any. An attorney may draft or help to draft a pleading, motion, or other paper filed by an otherwise self-represented person. The attorney shall include a notation at the end of the prepared document stating: “This document was prepared with the assistance of a licensed Arkansas lawyer pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Professional Conduct 1.2(c).” The attorney need not sign that pleading, motion, or other paper. (3) Except when otherwise specifically provided by rule or statute, pleadings need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit.

(b) Certificate. (1) The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by the signatory that to the best of his or her knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances: (1) (A) the pleading, motion, or other paper is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; (2) (B) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law; (3) (C) the factual contentions have evidentiary support; (4) (D) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information; (5) (E) when a party’s claim or affirmative defense may only be established in whole or in part by expert testimony, the party has consulted with at least one expert, or has learned in discovery of the opinion of at least one expert, who (i) is believed to be competent under Ark. R. Evid. 702 to express an opinion in the action and (ii) concludes on the basis of the available information that there is a reasonable basis to assert the claim or affirmative defense; and (6) (F) the pleading, motion, or other paper complies with the requirements of Rule 5(c)(2) regarding redaction of confidential information from case records submitted to the court. (2) For an attorney who provides drafting assistance to an otherwise self-represented person, the attorney may rely on the self-represented person’s representation of facts, unless the attorney has reason to believe that such a representation is false or materially insufficient.

(c) Sanctions. (1) If a pleading, motion, or other paper is not signed, it shall be stricken unless it is signed promptly after the omission is called to the attention of the pleader or movant. If a pleading, motion, or other paper is signed in violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or

127 1/20/2015 Draft – For Final Approval upon its own initiative, shall impose upon any attorney or party who violated this rule an appropriate sanction. (2) Sanctions that may be imposed for violations of this rule include, but are not limited to: (A) an order dismissing a claim or action; (B) an order striking a pleading or motion; (C) an order entering judgment by default; (D) an order to pay to the other party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading, motion, or other paper, including a reasonable attorney’s fee; (E) an order to pay a penalty to the court; (F) an order awarding damages attributable to the delay or misconduct; (G) an order referring an attorney to the Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct or the appropriate disciplinary body of another state. (3) The court’s order imposing a sanction shall describe the sanctioned conduct and explain the basis for the sanction. If a monetary sanction is imposed, the order shall explain how it was determined. (4) The court shall not impose a monetary sanction against a represented party for violating subdivision (b)(2) ((b)(1)(B), or on its own initiative, unless it issued the show-cause order under subdivision (c)(6) before voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims made by or against the party that is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned. (5) A motion for sanctions under this rule shall be made separately from other motions or requests and shall describe the specific conduct alleged to violate subdivision (b). It shall be served as provided in Rule 5 but shall not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion, (or such other period as the court may prescribe), the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected. If warranted, the court may award to the party prevailing on the motion the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees incurred in presenting or opposing the motion. (6) On its own initiative, the court may order an attorney or party to show cause why conduct specifically described in the order has not violated subdivision (b). The order shall afford the attorney or party a reasonable time to respond, but not less than 14 days.

128 Rule 1.2. Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority Between Client and Lawyer. (a) Subject to paragraphs (c) and (d), a lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation, and, as required by Rule 1.4, shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued. A lawyer may take such action on behalf of the client as is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation. A lawyer shall abide by a client's decision whether to settle a matter. In a criminal case, the lawyer shall abide by the client's decision, after consultation with the lawyer, as to a plea to be entered, whether to waive jury trial and whether the client will testify. (b) A lawyer's representation of a client, including representation by appointment, does not constitute an endorsement of the client's political, economic, social or moral views or activities. (c) A lawyer may limit the scope of the representation if the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances and the client gives informed consent. (1) The client’s informed consent must be confirmed in writing unless: (A) the representation of the client consists solely of a telephone consultation; (B) the representation is provided by a lawyer employed by a nonprofit legal services program or participating in a program authorized by Rule 6.5 and the lawyer’s representation consists solely of providing information and advice or the preparation of legal documents; or (C) the court appoints the attorney for a limited purpose that is set forth in the appointment order. (2) If the client gives informed consent in writing signed by the client, there shall be a presumption that: (A) the representation is limited to the attorney and the services described in the writing; and (B) the attorney does not represent the client generally or in matters other than those identified in the writing. (d) A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law.

129 12/11/14 Draft – For Discussion Purposes Only

Rule 4.2. Communication with Person Represented by Counsel (a) In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law. (b) A person to whom limited scope representation is being provided or has been provided in accordance with Rule 1.2(c) is considered to be unrepresented for purposes of this rule unless the opposing lawyer has been provided with a written notice of the limited-scope representation. If such notice is provided, the opposing lawyer shall not communicate with the person regarding matters designated in the notice of limited-scope representation without consent or authorization as provided by Rule 4.2(a).

130 12/11/14 Draft – For Discussion Purposes Only

Rule 4.3. Dealing With Unrepresented Person

(a) In dealing on behalf of a client with a person who is not represented by counsel, a lawyer shall not state or imply that the lawyer is disinterested. When the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the unrepresented person misunderstands the lawyer's role in the matter, the lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to correct the misunderstanding. The lawyer shall not give legal advice to an unrepresented person, other than the advice to secure counsel, if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the interests of such a person are or have a reasonable possibility of being in conflict with the interests of the client.

(b) A person to whom limited scope representation is being provided or has been provided in accordance with Rule 1.2(c) is considered to be unrepresented for purposes of this rule unless the opposing lawyer has been provided with a written notice of the limited scope representation. If such notice is provided, the person is considered to be unrepresented regarding matters not designated in the notice of limited scope representation.

131 1/26/2014 Draft – For Discussion Purposes Only

Rule 87. Limited Scope Representation

(a) Permitted. In accordance with Rule 1.2(c) of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct, an attorney may provide limited scope representation to a person involved in a court proceeding.

(b) Notice. An attorney’s role may be limited as set forth in a notice of limited scope representation filed and served prior to or simultaneously with the initiation of a proceeding or initiation of representation, as applicable. Such notice shall not be required in matters where an attorney’s representation consists solely of the drafting of pleadings, motions, or other papers for an otherwise self-represented person as provided in Rule 11(a)(2).

(c) Termination. The attorney’s role terminates without the necessity of leave of court upon the attorney’s filing a notice of completion of limited scope representation with a certification of service on the client.

(d) Service. Service on an attorney providing limited scope representation is required only for matters within the scope of the representation as set forth in the notice.

132 Arkansas Access to Justice Commission Self-Represented Litigant Task Force Spring 2015 Work Plan

Committee on Policies & Training (Judges, Court Staff, & Librarians)

• Divide into two work groups that will: • Develop a training curriculum for non-attorney court staff (clerks, TCAs) and librarians • Develop Arkansas-specific judicial curriculum and related resource materials on dealing with self-represented litigants (currently in process, modeling NCSC training modules)

Committee on Self-Help (Public)

• Look at other states with library- or court-based self-help centers; gather examples and determine best practices; develop model and supporting materials for use in Arkansas

Limited Scope Representation (Attorneys)

• Continue education/outreach to the bench and bar (with the goal of seeking broad-based, statewide support) • ABA Pilot Project on Limited Scope Representation o Continue work on attorney toolkit ! MOU re terms of participation ! Arkansas law summary on relevant law (including new rules, Turner v. Rogers) ! Best practices for intake and screening for collateral issues ! Sample client letters for terminating and declining representation ! Sample limited appearance forms o Continue recruiting attorneys to participate (preferably in a supportive judicial district)

Accomplishments

• Developed proposed Administrative Order to provide guidance on legal information vs. legal advice • Developed proposed revision to Rule 2.2 of the Judicial Code of Conduct • Developed proposed revision to Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and new proposed Rule 87 • Developed proposed revisions to Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2, 4.2, and 4.3 • Developed sample limited scope agreements for use as part of attorney toolkit on limited scope services !

133 Arkansas Access to Justice Commission

Governance Committee Officer Nominations 2015

Atte

The Governance Committee has nominated the Commissioners listed below to serve as officers for 2015; additional nominations will be accepted from the floor.

Chair: Prof. Chuck Goldner

Vice-Chair: Judge R. Victor Harper

Secretary: Ms. Rose Adams

1

134 Amy Johnson

From: Amy Johnson Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 9:55 AM To: Andrea Walker ([email protected]); 'Annabelle Imber Tuck ([email protected])'; 'Chuck Goldner'; 'Danyelle Walker ([email protected])'; 'Jean T. Carter'; 'Jr.William A. Waddell'; '[email protected]'; 'Kelly Olson ([email protected])'; Kerri Sernel ([email protected]); 'Lee Richardson'; Nagel, Rodney; Nate Coulter - Wilson, Engstrom, Corum & Coulter ([email protected]); 'Robert Thompson (Rft3 @paragould.net)'; [email protected]; 'Rose Adams ([email protected])'; [email protected]; Samantha B. Leflar ([email protected]); Tim Tarvin Cc: 'Vince Morris'; Kim Marshall; Erin Jacobson; Alice Hines ([email protected]); 'Angela Duran ([email protected])'; Frank Sewall ([email protected]); JD Gingerich ([email protected]); Jim Sprott; John Monroe ([email protected]); 'Lori Chumbler'; Richard Downing ([email protected]); '[email protected]'; Tamra L. Cochran ([email protected]); Toby Atkinson ([email protected]); 'Vic Nixon ([email protected])'; 'Zina Frazier ([email protected])' Subject: FW: Bank of America Settlement

You all may have heard the news about the Bank of America Settlement announced yesterday—we’ve just received word that there are provisions that will allocate portions to each IOLTA program for the provision of “foreclosure prevention legal services and community redevelopment legal services.” We’ll be getting a minimum of $200,000—plus whatever our state’s poverty population allocation is.

I’ll keep everyone posted as developments unfold.

From: Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts [mailto:IOLTA‐[email protected]] On Behalf Of Groudine, Beverly Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 9:37 AM To: IOLTA‐[email protected] Subject: Bank of America Settlement

Dear Members of the IOLTA Community:

You may have heard that this morning the Department of Justice announced that it has entered into a nearly $17 billion settlement with Bank of America. Of that settlement amount, $7 billion is allocated to consumer relief. While I have not have a chance to read through the consumer relief section yet, and will do so soon, I did receive a briefing from DOJ and wanted to share with you the wonderful news I received.

Of the $7 billion consumer relief, a minimum of $30 million is allocated to IOLTA programs for the provision of foreclosure prevention legal services and community redevelopment legal services. Funds are to be distributed to IOLTA in the following manner: Each program (all 50 states, D.C. and programs in the Territories) will receive $200,000 and the remainder of the $30 million will be distributed to IOLTA programs based on poverty population (as LSC funds are distributed). As will the Citigroup settlement, Bank of America will receive $2 of credit for every $1 it provides to IOLTA. In addition, Bank of America will receive extra credit if it distributes the funds within a year of the settlement, and DOJ believes that will occur. But that is not all! There are two other provisions that have the potential to provide a lot more funding to IOLTA programs:

1 135 1. If by December 31, 2018 there are funds that have not been distributed from the $7 billion for consumer relief, those “liquidated damages” will be distributed as follows: 75% to IOLTA programs (based on poverty population and for the same purposes listed above) and 25% to Neighborworks America (they provide housing counseling, etc.) . DOJ has no idea how much that could be.

2. There is a provision in another portion of the settlement that sets aside $490 million for a tax relief fund for those borrowers who due to their mortgage debt being eliminated have added tax liability. There had been federal legislation that lapsed at the end of 2013 (Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act) that waived this tax liability. The Administration has urged that legislation be enacted that is retroactive regarding this matter. Whatever is left in this fund (and if Congress acts on this matter this year or next, the bigger the pot will be) will be allocated as in #1 – 75% to IOLTA (based on poverty population and for the same purposes listed above) and 25% to Neighborworks. While there is not a bill introduced yet on this matter, I will be in touch with Ann Carmichael to determine what steps the ABA and others might take to possibly get this moving. I will keep you posted.

Once I have had a chance to carefully review the settlement, I will get back to you if I detect any errors or clarification needed to what I have reported in this message. (I was taking notes furiously during my call with DOJ, but likely missed some details.) In the meantime, please celebrate this great news!

Below is the press release from DOJ regarding the settlement.

Bev

Bev Groudine Staff Counsel, Commission on IOLTA Associate Counsel, Standing Committee on Legal Aid & Indigent Defendants American Bar Association 321 N. Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654

T: 312/988-5771 F: 312/932-6425 [email protected] http://www.americanbar.org

From: USDOJ-Office of Public Affairs (SMO) Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 09:16 AM To: USDOJ-Office of Public Affairs (SMO) Subject: BANK OF AMERICA TO PAY $16.65 BILLION IN HISTORIC JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SETTLEMENT FOR FINANCIAL FRAUD LEADING UP TO AND DURING THE FINANCIAL CRISIS

Note: The court documents are attached as pdf files.

______FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE AG THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2014 (202) 514-2007 2 136 WWW.JUSTICE.GOV TTY 1-866-544-5309

BANK OF AMERICA TO PAY $16.65 BILLION IN HISTORIC JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SETTLEMENT FOR FINANCIAL FRAUD LEADING UP TO AND DURING THE FINANCIAL CRISIS

WASHINGTON - Attorney General Eric Holder and Associate Attorney General Tony West announced today that the Department of Justice has reached a $16.65 billion settlement with Bank of America Corporation – the largest civil settlement with a single entity in American history — to resolve federal and state claims against Bank of America and its former and current subsidiaries, including Countrywide Financial Corporation and Merrill Lynch. As part of this global resolution, the bank has agreed to pay a $5 billion penalty under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) – the largest FIRREA penalty ever – and provide billions of dollars of relief to struggling homeowners, including funds that will help defray tax liability as a result of mortgage modification, forbearance or forgiveness. The settlement does not release individuals from civil charges, nor does it absolve Bank of America, its current or former subsidiaries and affiliates or any individuals from potential criminal prosecution.

“This historic resolution - the largest such settlement on record - goes far beyond ‘the cost of doing business,’” said Attorney General Holder. "Under the terms of this settlement, the bank has agreed to pay $7 billion in relief to struggling homeowners, borrowers and communities affected by the bank’s conduct. This is appropriate given the size and scope of the wrongdoing at issue.”

This settlement is part of the ongoing efforts of President Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force and its Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities (RMBS) Working Group, which has recovered $36.65 billion to date for American consumers and investors.

“At nearly $17 billion, today’s resolution with Bank of America is the largest the department has ever reached with a single entity in American history,” said Associate Attorney General West. “But the significance of this settlement lies not just in its size; this agreement is notable because it achieves real accountability for the American people and helps to rectify the harm caused by Bank of America’s conduct through a $7 billion consumer relief package that could benefit hundreds of thousands of Americans still struggling to pull themselves out from under the weight of the financial crisis.”

The Justice Department and the bank settled several of the department’s ongoing civil investigations related to the packaging, marketing, sale, arrangement, structuring and issuance of RMBS, collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), and the bank’s practices concerning the underwriting and origination of mortgage loans. The settlement includes a statement of facts, in which the bank has acknowledged that it sold billions of dollars of RMBS without disclosing to investors key facts about the quality of the securitized loans. When the RMBS collapsed, investors, including federally insured financial institutions, suffered billions of dollars in losses. The bank has also conceded that it originated risky mortgage loans and made misrepresentations about the quality of those loans to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration (FHA).

Of the record-breaking $16.65 billion resolution, almost $10 billion will be paid to settle federal and state civil claims by various entities related to RMBS, CDOs and other types of fraud. Bank of America will pay a $5 billion civil penalty to settle the Justice Department claims under FIRREA. Approximately $1.8 billion will be paid to settle federal fraud claims related to the bank’s origination and sale of mortgages, $1.03 billion will be paid to settle federal and state securities claims by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), $135.84 million will be paid to settle claims by the Securities and Exchange Commission. In addition, $300 million will be paid to settle claims by the state of California, $45 million to settle claims by the state of Delaware, $200 million to settle claims by the state of Illinois, $23 million to settle claims by the

3 137 Commonwealth of Kentucky, $75 million to settle claims by the state of Maryland, and $300 million to settle claims by the state of New York.

Bank of America will provide the remaining $7 billion in the form of relief to aid hundreds of thousands of consumers harmed by the financial crisis precipitated by the unlawful conduct of Bank of America, Merrill Lynch and Countrywide. That relief will take various forms, including principal reduction loan modifications that result in numerous homeowners no longer being underwater on their mortgages and finally having substantial equity in their homes. It will also include new loans to credit worthy borrowers struggling to get a loan, donations to assist communities in recovering from the financial crisis, and financing for affordable rental housing. Finally, Bank of America has agreed to place over $490 million in a tax relief fund to be used to help defray some of the tax liability that will be incurred by consumers receiving certain types of relief if Congress fails to extend the tax relief coverage of the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007.

An independent monitor will be appointed to determine whether Bank of America is satisfying its obligations. If Bank of America fails to live up to its agreement by Aug. 31, 2018, it must pay liquidated damages in the amount of the shortfall to organizations that will use the funds for state-based Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Account (IOLTA) organizations and NeighborWorks America, a non-profit organization and leader in providing affordable housing and facilitating community development. The organizations will use the funds for foreclosure prevention and community redevelopment, legal assistance, housing counselling and neighborhood stabilization.

As part of the RMBS Working Group, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey conducted a FIRREA investigation into misrepresentations made by Merrill Lynch to investors in 72 RMBS throughout 2006 and 2007. As the statement of facts describes, Merrill Lynch regularly told investors the loans it was securitizing were made to borrowers who were likely and able to repay their debts. Merrill Lynch made these representations even though it knew, based on the due diligence it had performed on samples of the loans, that a significant number of those loans had material underwriting and compliance defects - including as many as 55 percent in a single pool. In addition, Merrill Lynch rarely reviewed the unsampled loans to ensure that the defects observed in the samples were not present throughout the remainder of the pools. Merrill Lynch also disregarded its own due diligence and securitized loans that the due diligence vendors had identified as defective. This practice led one Merrill Lynch consultant to “wonder why we have due diligence performed” if Merrill Lynch was going to securitize the loans “regardless of issues.”

“In the run-up to the financial crisis, Merrill Lynch bought more and more mortgage loans, packaged them together, and sold them off in securities – even when the bank knew a substantial number of those loans were defective,” said U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman for the District of New Jersey. “The failure to disclose known risks undermines investor confidence in our financial institutions. Today’s record-breaking settlement, which includes the resolution of our office’s imminent multibillion-dollar suit for FIRREA penalties, reflects the seriousness of the lapses that caused staggering losses and wider economic damage.”

This settlement also resolves the complaint filed against Bank of America in August 2013 by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of North Carolina concerning an $850 million securitization. Bank of America acknowledges that it marketed this securitization as being backed by bank-originated “prime” mortgages that were underwritten in accordance with its underwriting guidelines. Yet, Bank of America knew that a significant number of loans in the security were “wholesale” mortgages originated through mortgage brokers and that based on its internal reporting, such loans were experiencing a marked increase in underwriting defects and a noticeable decrease in performance. Notwithstanding these red flags, the bank sold these RMBS to federally backed financial institutions without conducting any third party due diligence on the securitized loans and without disclosing key facts to investors in the offering documents filed with the SEC. A related case concerning the same securitization was filed by the SEC against Bank of America and is also being resolved as part of this settlement. 4 138 “Today’s settlement attests to the fact that fraud pervaded every level of the RMBS industry, including purportedly prime securities, which formed the basis of our filed complaint,” said U.S. Attorney Anne M. Tompkins for the Western District of North Carolina. “Even reputable institutions like Bank of America caved to the pernicious forces of greed and cut corners, putting profits ahead of their customers. As we deal with the aftermath of the financial meltdown and rebuild our economy, we will hold accountable firms that contributed to the economic crisis. Today’s settlement makes clear that my office will not sit idly while fraud occurs in our backyard.”

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California has been investigating the origination and securitization practices of Countrywide as part of the RMBS Working Group effort. The statement of facts describes how Countrywide typically represented to investors that it originated loans based on underwriting standards that were designed to ensure that borrowers could repay their loans, although Countrywide had information that certain borrowers had a high probability of defaulting on their loans. Countrywide also concealed from RMBS investors its use of “shadow guidelines” that permitted loans to riskier borrowers than Countrywide’s underwriting guidelines would otherwise permit. Countrywide’s origination arm was motivated by the “saleability” of loans and Countrywide was willing to originate “exception loans” (i.e., loans that fell outside of its underwriting guidelines) so long as the loans, and the attendant risk, could be sold. This led Countrywide to expand its loan offerings to include, for example, “Extreme Alt-A” loans, which one Countrywide executive described as a “hazardous product,” although Countrywide failed to tell RMBS investors that these loans were being originated outside of Countrywide’s underwriting guidelines. Countrywide knew that these exception loans were performing far worse than loans originated without exceptions, although it never disclosed this fact to investors.

“The Central District of California has taken the lead in the department’s investigation of Countrywide Financial Corporation,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Stephanie Yonekura for the Central District of California. “Countrywide’s improper securitization practices resulted in billions of dollars of losses to federally-insured financial institutions. We are pleased that this investigation has resulted in a multibillion- dollar recovery to compensate the United States for the losses caused by Countrywide’s misconduct.”

In addition to the matters relating to the securitization of toxic mortgages, today’s settlement also resolves claims arising out of misrepresentations made to government entities concerning the origination of residential mortgages.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, along with the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s Office of Inspector General and the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, conducted investigations into the origination of defective residential mortgage loans by Countrywide’s Consumer Markets Division and Bank of America’s Retail Lending Division as well as the fraudulent sale of such loans to the government sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the “GSEs”). The investigation into these practices, as well as three private whistleblower lawsuits filed under seal pursuant to the False Claims Act, are resolved in connection with this settlement. As part of the settlement, Countrywide and Bank of America have agreed to pay $1 billion to resolve their liability under the False Claims Act. The FIRREA penalty to be paid by Bank of America as part of the settlement also resolves the government’s claims against Bank of America and Countrywide under FIRREA for loans fraudulently sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In addition, Countrywide and Bank of America made admissions concerning their conduct, including that they were aware that many of the residential mortgage loans they had made to borrowers were defective, that many of the representations and warranties they made to the GSEs about the quality of the loans were inaccurate, and that they did not self-report to the GSEs mortgage loans they had internally identified as defective.

5 139 “For years, Countrywide and Bank of America unloaded toxic mortgage loans on the government sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with false representations that the loans were quality investments,” said U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara for the Southern District of New York. “This office has already obtained a jury verdict of fraud and a judgment for over a billion dollars against Countrywide and Bank of America for engaging in similar conduct. Now, this settlement, which requires the bank to pay another billion dollars for false statements to the GSEs, continues to send a clear message to Wall Street that mortgage fraud cannot be a cost of doing business.”

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York, together with its partners from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), conducted a two-year investigation into whether Bank of America knowingly made loans insured by the FHA in violation of applicable underwriting guidelines. The investigation established that the bank caused the FHA to insure loans that were not eligible for FHA mortgage insurance. As a result, HUD incurred hundreds of millions of dollars of losses. Moreover, many of Bank of America’s borrowers have defaulted on their FHA mortgage loans and have either lost or are in the process of losing their homes to foreclosure.

“As a Direct Endorser of FHA insured loans, Bank of America performs a critical role in home lending,” said U.S. Attorney Loretta E. Lynch for the Eastern District of New York. “It is a gatekeeper entrusted with the authority to commit government funds earmarked for facilitating mortgage lending to first-time and low-income homebuyers, senior citizen homeowners and others seeking or owning homes throughout the nation, including many who live in the Eastern District of New York. In obtaining a payment of $800 million and sweeping relief for troubled homeowners, we have not just secured a meaningful remedy for the bank’s conduct, but have sent a powerful message of deterrence.”

“Bank of America failed to make accurate and complete disclosure to investors and its illegal conduct kept investors in the dark,” said Rhea Kemble Dignam, Regional Director of the SEC’s Atlanta Office. “Requiring an admission of wrongdoing as part of Bank of America’s agreement to resolve the SEC charges filed today provides an additional level of accountability for its violation of the federal securities laws.”

“Today’s settlement with Bank of America is another important step in the Obama Administration’s efforts to provide relief to American homeowners who were hurt during the housing crisis,” said U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Julián Castro. “This global settlement will strengthen the FHA fund and Ginnie Mae, and it will provide $7 billion in consumer relief with a focus on helping borrowers in areas that were the hardest hit during the crisis. HUD will continue working with the Department of Justice, state attorneys general, and other partners to take appropriate action to hold financial institutions accountable and provide consumers with the relief they need to stay in their homes. HUD remains committed to solidifying the housing recovery and creating more opportunities for Americans to succeed.”

“Bank of America and the banks it bought securitized billions of dollars of defective mortgages,” said Acting Inspector General Michael P. Stephens of the FHFA-OIG. “Investors, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, suffered enormous losses by purchasing RMBS from Bank of America, Countrywide and Merrill Lynch not knowing about those defects. Today’s settlement is a significant, but by no means final step by FHFA-OIG and its law enforcement partners to hold accountable those who committed acts of fraud and deceit.”

The attorneys general of California, Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland and New York also conducted related investigations that were critical to bringing about this settlement. In addition, the settlement resolves investigations conducted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and litigation filed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Company (FDIC).

6 140 The RMBS Working Group is a federal and state law enforcement effort focused on investigating fraud and abuse in the RMBS market that helped lead to the 2008 financial crisis. The RMBS Working Group brings together more than 200 attorneys, investigators, analysts and staff from dozens of state and federal agencies including the Department of Justice, 10 U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, the FBI, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), HUD’s Office of Inspector General, the FHFA-OIG, the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the Federal Reserve Board’s Office of Inspector General, the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and more than 10 state attorneys general offices around the country.

The RMBS Working Group is led by Director Geoffrey Graber and five co-chairs: Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division Stuart Delery, Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Leslie Caldwell, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement Andrew Ceresney, U.S. Attorney for the District of Colorado John Walsh and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.

Investigations were led by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Leticia Vandehaar of the District of New Jersey; Dan Ryan and Mark Odulio of the Western District of North Carolina; George Cardona and Lee Weidman of the Central District of Carolina; Richard Hayes and Kenneth Abell of the Eastern District of New York; and Pierre Armand and Jaimie Nawaday of the Southern District of New York.

Learn more about the RMBS Working Group and the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force at: www.stopfraud.gov.

# # # 14-884

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, PLEASE USE THE CONTACTS IN THE MESSAGE OR CALL THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS AT 202-514-2007.

______Thank you for your continued interest in this list. A summary of your discussion list subscriptions, including IOLTA-LIST, can be found at http://apps.americanbar.org/elistserv/home.cfm . This new List Subscription Page allows you to manage your lists - unsubscribe from existing or join others.

If you have any issues you may either contact the list owner via email: IOLTA-LIST- [email protected] , or the ABA Service Center at phone: 1-800-285-2221 or email: [email protected] . ______

7 141 Amy Johnson

From: Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts on behalf of Groudine, Beverly Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 10:30 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Follow-Up - Bank of America Settlement Conference Call Attachments: LSC Poverty Population-FY2014 Allocation.xlsx

I hope that many of you were able to join the call yesterday with Karen Lash and Bob Bullock of the DOJ Access to Justice Office. While I know that many questions remain unanswered, I do believe that some valuable information was provided.

As I mentioned on the call, DOJ attorneys have put one of Bank of America’s attorneys in contact with me, and I want to recap what I discussed on the call about that conversation, along with one other piece of information.

1. When will the settlement funds be distributed?

When I asked the attorney this question, his response was: “I think the bottom line is that the Bank intends to make the donations as soon as it has all relevant approvals to do so, which it intends to seek expeditiously.”

My sense from the conversation is that you will be seeing the funds sooner rather than later.

2. How many programs will receive the initially $200,000?

In my discussions with the Bank of America attorney, it was clear that B of A will need to do more research before this question can be answered, particularly regarding the Territories. This is the case because if there is no IOLTA program in a jurisdiction, the settlement agreement provides that settlement funds can go to other “statewide bar association affiliated intermediaries” that provide funds to legal aid organizations. Whether such entities exist in those jurisdictions that do not have IOLTA programs will need to be researched. Another issue that B of A will need to decide is whether both programs in Alabama receive the $200,000 or if that amount is to be divided between them. Thus, there is no answer yet as to how many entities will receive funds.

3. Based on information from the U.S. Census, what will be the percentage of the remainder of the “IOLTA Donation” portion of the settlement funds received by each program/jurisdiction?

As I think most of you know, the settlement agreement states that the remainder, after the $200,000 is distributed to each program/jurisdiction, will be distributed as follows: “…pro rata among all jurisdictions based on poverty population data, in the manner employed for funding distribution by the Legal Services Corporation based on data collected by the U.S Census Bureau.”

We need an answer to question #3 above before we will know what the remainder is, to which programs/jurisdictions it will be distributed and thus what the exact percentage of the poverty population will be for each of those jurisdictions. That being said, I did request from Jim Sandman information on the percentage of the LSC Basic Field grant that is received by each state, Territory and D.C., based on the U.S. Census data. I have attached the chart that he provided to me; I have also provided it to the B of A attorney. However, the B of A attorney made clear to me that B of A will engage in its own analysis of the poverty population data available through the U.S. Census Bureau once it has all the other information it needs. As a result, and given all the variables that still exist, no one should depend on the attached chart to determine the actual percentage or amount of the remaining funds (after the initial $200,000 per

1 142 program/jurisdiction is subtracted) that will be distributed to each program/jurisdiction. Nevertheless, that chart may provide you with some general sense of what those percentages may look like.

4. E‐Mail from Bank of America Foundation

Finally, you may recall that I previously reported that I had heard from a few IOLTA directors that they had received an e‐mail from the Bank of America Foundation, requesting an “update of records.” As it turns out, that request had nothing to do with the settlement. Instead, it was only sent to those programs that previously received funding from the B of A Foundation to, in fact, update the Foundation’s records.

I know that many questions regarding the settlement remain, but I think we need to be patient and keep in mind how fortunate we are that more funds are being made available for distribution by IOLTA programs for much needed legal assistance. As soon as I have any additional information from Bank of America’s counsel, I will certainly let you know.

Bev

Bev Groudine Staff Counsel, Commission on IOLTA Associate Counsel, Standing Committee on Legal Aid & Indigent Defendants American Bar Association 321 N. Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654

T: 312/988-5771 F: 312/932-6425 [email protected] http://www.americanbar.org

From: Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Caitlin Davis Carlson Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 1:28 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Bank of America Conference Call

Hi IOLTA colleagues,

When the initial national foreclosure settlement occurred two years ago, the Legal Foundation of Washington applied to our state attorney general for funds to do a multi‐year foreclosure project. I am attaching a copy of our grant application just in case it is helpful to you as you think about strategies for using the BOA settlement funds in your own states. Feel free to email me if you have questions.

Caitlin

Caitlin Davis Carlson Executive Director Legal Foundation of Washington

2 143 It's not justice if it's not equal

From: Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Groudine, Beverly Sent: Wednesday, October 1, 2014 2:08 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Bank of America Conference Call

Below is the call‐in information for the conference call scheduled for Thursday, October 2nd at 1 pm CENTRAL TIME with representatives of the Department of Justice Access to Justice Initiatives Office regarding the Bank of America settlement:

To join the call, please dial 866/646-6488. When asked for the code, dial 108-626-7850, and as instructed, follow that number with the # sign.

Please note that you will need to individually mute your line by hitting *6 (“star” 6) after you dial into the call. The call will only work if everyone except the speakers are on mute.

Karen Lash and Bob Bullock will be addressing some general questions regarding distribution of funds and related scope issues. They will not take any other questions during the call, but are open to holding another call in the future, as more questions arise. The call cannot be recorded, so I strongly recommend that each U.S. IOLTA program has a representative listening in on the call.

We are very fortunate that Karen and Bob are willing to provide technical assistance to the community on this important issue. I am and I know that you are looking forward to hearing from them on Thursday.

Bev

Bev Groudine Staff Counsel, Commission on IOLTA Associate Counsel, Standing Committee on Legal Aid & Indigent Defendants American Bar Association 321 N. Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654

T: 312/988-5771 F: 312/932-6425 [email protected] http://www.americanbar.org

______Thank you for your continued interest in this list. A summary of your discussion list subscriptions, including IOLTA-LIST, can be found at http://apps.americanbar.org/elistserv/home.cfm . This new List Subscription Page allows you to manage your lists - unsubscribe from existing or join others.

If you have any issues you may either contact the list owner via email: IOLTA-LIST- [email protected] , or the ABA Service Center at phone: 1-800-285-2221 or email: 3 144 Title IV-D -- A Summary

 What is it?  Federal government reimburses 66% of all eligible expenditures relating to child-support and paternity services. 42 U.S.C. § 654(3, 7)  No Cap on reimbursable funds to the State.  States must come up with the remaining 34% of expenditures.  Why Self-Help Centers?  The majority of Arkansas OCSE IV-D participants are unrepresented, causing strains on the courts and OCSE to gain the information needed to resolve the case quickly and accurately. IV-D cases involve child support or paternity establishment and enforcement.  The Benefits of Using Title IV-D funding in Judicial Self-Help Partnerships  Parents are better prepared resulting in fewer court appearances needed to resolve paternity and child-support proceedings with more accurate support orders  Arkansas OCSE collects more child support and performs better on Title IV-D funding because orders are more accurate and reflect true financials of the supporting parent.  Courts gain increased public trust, as parents understand court procedures more and meaningfully participate in the court process.  What is reimbursable?  Outreach expenses limited to providing information and referral services for IV-D cases, distributing court forms, assisting parents in filling out voluntary paternity acknowledgement forms, and helping parents to get non IV-D cases the state registry.  Paternity case expenses including any related labs.  Child Support Order expenses including enforcement expenses.  Does not cover divorce-related matters (i.e. custody, visitation) or Court Judge costs.  Requirements to implement  Single State Agency for Title IV-D funds to administer state approved plan (AR OCSE).  Collaboration agreements with AR OCSE with any other agency receiving funds. . Note: A single agreement can be between the OCSE and a single official at an agency if that person has legal authority to create sub-agreements.  An accounting of all IV-D expenses ensuring only Title IV-D expenses are reimbursed.  Hiring of and using quasi-judicial personnel to run the self-help centers.  Things to avoid  Using administrative remedies and alternative dispute funds as these are harder to qualify as IV-D reimbursable. Furthermore, some parties are uncomfortable with these options.  Using Title IV-D incentive funds to fund the 34% state obligation.  Proposed regulatory changes helping self-help centers and the courts  Allowing Title IV-D funding for parenting orders when both parents are present and agree to the plan. Nov. 17, 2014 – Federal Register 79, 221, 68548  Allowing fast-track changes to child-support orders when parents are incarcerated helping states out on the performance measures under IV-D for child support owed.

145 SJI-12-T-134

Statewide Strategy for Addressing the Needs of Self-Represented Litigants Arkansas Access to Justice Commission | Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation

Executive Summary

LSC estimates that the funding available for civil legal services in the United States is sufficient to serve only 20% of the civil legal needs of poor people. Most Americans of modest means cannot afford the cost of attorney’s fees needed for representation in civil matters. The result is an enormous gap between the expectation that Americans have access to the courts to resolve their civil disputes and the reality—that justice in most civil matters is available only to the well-to-do. Arkansas statistics on self-represented litigants bear this out: judges report growing numbers of litigants who are left on their own to flounder.

The Commission—in partnership with the Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation—received a Technical Assistance Grant to (1) perform an assessment of the needs of self-represented litigants in Arkansas, (2) determine what additional resources are needed to address the needs of self-represented litigants, and (3) prepare a plan for the development and sustainability of those resources. The Commission engaged Greacen Associates, LLC, to serve as the consultant for the project.

Commission staff and Greacen Associates conducted site visits to five parts of the state encompassing a total of six counties. They visited circuit courts in each county; observed proceedings involving self-represented litigants; and interviewed judges, court staff, family law attorneys, and self-represented litigants. In addition, they met with other key leaders the bench and bar, including Arkansas Bar Association leadership, the Chief Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court, the AOC Director, Supreme Court Library staff, clinical professors, the Executive Director of the Office of Professional Conduct, and the directors and staffs of Arkansas’s two legal aid providers. Greacen Associates also developed a survey—which was administered to 16 trial court assistants—to measure the extent to which court staff are willing to provide certain information or assistance to self-represented litigants.

The information gathered during the site visits was used to formulate recommendations for a comprehensive vision for access to justice in Arkansas. The recommendations include the following: (1) adoption by the Arkansas Supreme Court of policies clarifying the extent to which judges and court staff can provide legal information and courtroom assistance to self- represented litigants; (2) establishment of the Supreme Court Library as a statewide self- help center for Arkansans; (3) establishment of courthouse self-help services; (4) expansion of legal forms available online for common civil legal matters that are kept up-to-date; (5) encouragement of private lawyers to provide limited scope legal representation for persons representing themselves; (6) establishment of a mechanism for linking self-represented persons seeking limited scope legal services with lawyers willing to provide such assistance; and (7) focusing legal services resources on the gaps in this plan.

The Commission has since composed a Task Force on Self-Represented Litigants that is overseeing implementation of the consultant’s recommendations. Once fully implemented, the plan’s success will be measured by (1) the availability of more court-sanctioned self- help resources that are successfully used by litigants; (2) the availability of limited scope legal services provided by the private bar; and (3) judges and court staff who feel equipped to provide appropriate information to self-represented litigants without running afoul of ethical rules.

146 147 STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT

Award No. Date Report Prepared SJI-12-T-134 November 26, 2014 Project Title Report No. 10 Development of Statewide Strategy for Reporting Period Addressing the Needs of Self-Represented 10/1/14 to 11/30/14 Litigants Final Report (yes or no)

Yes Grantee Subgrantee

Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation N/A

Report (Attach Additional Pages. See instructions on reverse side.)

Project Activities for Quarter:

Project staff have completed initial testing of the self-help resource for uncontested divorces with children and modifications to the resource are underway. This is the resource that, consistent with the recommendations of the consultant engaged for this project, will serve as the mechanism for referring self-help users to attorneys who will offer limited scope legal services. Staff have also identified funding for inclusion of a mediation referral component that will connect self-help users to mediation services when there are contested issues involving custody, visitation, spousal support, debt, or property division. Funding will be sought for this phase once the ABA-funded unbundling pilot has been completed. Nine attorneys have committed to participating in the unbundling pilot, and an unbundling toolkit for attorneys remains under development. That toolkit will include a summary of existing applicable law in Arkansas, sample forms, and client screening protocols for divorces with children.

Staff have also received a commitment from the Pulaski County Circuit Court to begin piloting the limited scope legal services program as part of a court-based “help desk” to be staffed initially by the Arkansas Access to Justice Commission and legal aid partners; the court has provided dedicated space for the help desk, which will serve as a point of entry for self- represented litigants participating in the project. Final grant expenditures were made for equipment and supplies for the help desk.

Summary of Activities During Full Grant Period

At the outset of the Grant Period, the Commission’s sister nonprofit foundation, the Arkansas Access to Justice Foundation, issued a Request for Proposals seeking a qualified consultant to (1) perform an assessment of the needs of self-represented litigants in Arkansas, (2) determine what

148 additional resources are most needed to address the needs of self-represented litigants, and (3) prepare a plan for the development and sustainability of those resources. The Foundation engaged Greacen Associates, LLC, of New Mexico to serve as the consultant for the project.

After an initial planning phase, the consultant and project manager conducted site visits to five parts of the state of Arkansas: Pulaski County, Benton and Washington Counties, Jefferson County, St. Francis County, and Cleburne County. The consultant and project manager visited circuit courts in each county; observed proceedings involving self-represented litigants; and interviewed judges, circuit court clerk staff, trial court assistants, bailiffs, local family law attorneys, and two-self-represented litigants. In addition, the Commission conducted two focus groups for self-represented litigants in Pulaski and Washington Counties, with a total of four participants taking part in the two sessions.

The site visits included meetings with a circuit court administrator, a local child support enforcement attorney, Chief Justice Jim Hannah of the Arkansas Supreme Court, AOC Director J.D. Gingerich, AOC staff responsible for implementing Arkansas’s e-filing project, the Supreme Court Library staff, clinical professors at both Arkansas law schools, leaders of the Arkansas Bar Association, the Executive Director of the Arkansas Office of Professional Conduct, counsel for Arkansas’s largest legal malpractice insurer, and the directors and staffs of Arkansas’s two legal aid providers.

Greacen Associates also prepared a survey instrument to measure the extent to which Arkansas court staff members are willing to provide certain information or assistance to self-represented litigants. The project manager administered the instrument to sixteen trial court assistants during an April 2013 training session.

Greacen Associates used the information gathered during the site visits, as well as empirical data gathered from the survey of trial court assistants and from the state’s two legal aid providers (including data regarding the usage of their online resources) to develop a report that provided everything that the Commission requested in its report. The report was presented to the full Arkansas Access to Justice Commission on July 26, 2013, at which time the Commission approved a final version for dissemination (the “SRL Report”). The SRL Report has since been distributed to the full Arkansas Access to Justice Commission, the Director of the Arkansas Administrative Office of the Courts, the Deans of the University of Arkansas School of Law and the UALR William H. Bowen School of Law, the Director of the Arkansas Supreme Court Library, the Chief Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court, the Judicial Education Branch Director, the President of the Arkansas Bar Association, the Chairperson of the Arkansas Bar Association’s Strategic Planning Subcommittee on Access to Justice, and trial court judges who have expressed interest in addressing the needs of self-represented litigants in their courts. A link to the full report has also been posted on the Commission’s website at www.arkansasjustice.org/research

The Commission believes that the SRL Report lays out a comprehensive vision for access to justice in Arkansas that is specific and achievable. In other words, all project objectives were met. There is nothing that the Commission would have done differently to enhance the impact of the project during this initial phase.

149 Since the SRL Report’s adoption—and during the period for which this grant was extended— project staff have worked to begin implementation of the report’s recommendations. Most notably, The Commission has created a Task Force on Self-Represented Litigants and recruited members from a variety of interested stakeholder groups. Task Force members include the Director of the Arkansas Supreme Court Library, a law professor/law librarian, an attorney from a law firm that represents Arkansas’s largest legal malpractice insurer, two trial court judges, a trial court assistant, an attorney who is building a law practice that includes unbundled services, a corporate/employment attorney, and a past president of the Arkansas Bar Association.

The Task Force has divided its work among three subcommittees: (1) the Committee on Policies and Training, which is developing recommendations for proposed rule changes, Supreme Court policies, and written guidance and training for court staff, including judges; (2) the Committee on Libraries and Self-Help Centers, which is working to identify public information and resources most needed by self-represented litigants and to find long-term sources of sustainable support for these and existing resources; and (3) the Committee on Limited Scope Representation, which is developing a comprehensive toolkit for attorneys wishing to provide limited scope legal services and educate the bench and bar about limited scope representation as a means for delivering services to self-represented litigants who are currently bypassing the private legal market. A copy of the Task Force’s work plan is attached.

To date, the Task Force has developed a draft administrative order regarding what kinds of information and services court staff and librarians may permissibly provide to the self-help public and a draft revision to Arkansas’s code of judicial conduct regarding accommodations for self-represented litigants that judges may make without compromising the obligation to remain neutral. These items are awaiting approval by the full Task Force and Commission, after which time the endorsement of the Arkansas Bar Association will be sought. Other tasks currently pending include the development of a limited scope representation toolkit for attorneys, a judicial curriculum (based on the National Center for State Courts’ curriculum) for judges regarding how to accommodate self-represented litigants in court, and a draft revision to the rule of civil procedure regarding signatures on pleadings.

The Commission also applied for and received an ABA Access to Justice Commission Expansion Project grant to fund an unbundling pilot project is also underway, with the automated packet for divorce with children in the final stages of testing. There are two beta versions of the packet: one for attorneys who participate in the pilot project to use, and another for the self-help public. The self-help resource—which utilizes HotDocs and A2J Author technology—guides users through an interview that “exits” out users with collateral issues connects those users with attorneys who will provide limited scope representation to self-help users as appropriate and desired for those collateral issues. For example, a user who indicates in the interview that she or her spouse has pension or retirement accounts will be exited out of the resource and connected with an attorney who can prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order for the client. Commission staff are in the process of creating an unbundling “toolkit” for the attorneys who will be recruited to participate in the pilot that will include a summary of existing Arkansas law governing limited scope representation, sample engagement agreements, client screening checklists, sample client letters, and sample limited appearance forms. Other activities conducted

150 under the ABA grant in furtherance of implementation of the SRL Report’s recommendations include the following:

• Developed a CLE-accredited program on limited scope representation that was presented in two counties (one urban and one rural), as well as the Arkansas Bar Association’s annual meeting • Made presentations to the Arkansas Bar Association’s Board of Governors and House of Delegates about the SRL Plan and the pilot project • Authored an article in the Arkansas Bar Association’s quarterly magazine, the Arkansas Lawyer, on limited scope representation • Received a commitment from the Pulaski County Circuit Court to begin piloting the program as part of a court-based “help desk” to be staffed initially by the Commission and the Arkansas Legal Services Partnership (“ALSP)”; the court has provided dedicated space for the help desk, which will serve as a point of entry for self-represented litigants participating in the pilot project The extension of the SJI grant and modifications permitted have allowed the Commission to supplement the ABA grant (which only funded development of the automated resource) to provide equipment and supplies for the court-based “help desk” in Pulaski County.

The full impact of this report will not be realized until the plan is implemented—a process that the Commission believes will take up to three years. The Commission does believe that challenges lay ahead, as the Arkansas Supreme Court will wants assurances that the larger bench and bar are supportive of the report’s recommendations prior to acting on some of them. At the present time, there are a significant number of Arkansas attorneys who are unfamiliar with the concept of limited scope representation and who believe that online legal forms divert client business that they would otherwise receive. The Commission is undertaking a statewide outreach and education effort among members of the bench and private bar, which will be aided by completion of the limited scope pilot project.

Significant Problem Areas and How Resolved

None during reporting period.

Activities Scheduled During Next Reporting Period

N/A

151 Arkansas Access to Justice Commission Self-Represented Litigant Task Force Suggested Work Plan 2/19/2014

Policies & Training Committee (Judges, Court Staff, & Librarians)

• Develop draft policy on legal information vs. legal advice • Develop a training curriculum for non-attorney court staff (clerks, TCAs) and librarians o Coordinate with Circuit Clerk Association, TCA group, and Arkansas Library Association • Consider any needed revisions to Judicial Code of Conduct • Consider developing a benchbook on dealing with self-represented litigants • Develop Arkansas-specific judicial curriculum on dealing with self- represented litigants (there are existing templates in Google Drive) o Coordinate with Marty Sullivan with the AOC’s Judicial Education Branch, the Judicial Council Education Committee o Consult with the Judicial Discipline & Disability Commission o There currently are no existing models for a curriculum that specifically addresses how judges should deal with self-represented litigants who are facing an opposing party with counsel—consider developing?

Library-Based Self-Help Centers/Form Sustainability (Public)

• Coordinate with Arkansas Courts & Community Initiative; consider public education regarding the legal system and case process as a primary objective • Look at other states with library- or court-based self-help centers; determine best practices • Explore potential sources of coordination, funding, other support (e.g., Supreme Court Library, County Administration of Justice Funds for law libraries) • Consider strategic integration of CourtHelp Project • Identify areas of greatest unmet need for pro se forms; determine how best to develop and keep forms current; develop mechanism for incorporating integrated system for connecting clients who are working in forms and would like to seek legal advice from an attorney who provides limited scope representation

Limited Scope Representation (Attorneys)

• Education/outreach to the bench and bar (with the goal of seeking broad- based, statewide support) • ABA Pilot Project on Limited Scope Representation o Develop attorney toolkit § MOU re terms of participation, including schedule of fees § Arkansas law summary on relevant law (e.g., Rule 1.2, ghostwriting, Turner v. Rogers) § Best practices for intake and screening for collateral issues § Sample LSR agreements – plain language

152 § Sample client letters for terminating and declining representation § Sample limited appearance forms o Recruit attorneys to participate (preferably in a supportive judicial district) • Evaluate whether changes to the Rules of Professional Conduct are needed; whether promulgation of forms would be desirable

153 ARKANSAS IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY BILL

• One-third of Arkansans—approximately 983,000 people—rent their homes.

• Arkansas is also the only state in the country that does not have an implied warranty of habitability. Such warranties typically require landlords to keep residential rental properties livable, even if their lease agreements don’t explicitly say so.

• Many Arkansas cities have municipal codes with housing standards, while smaller towns and rural areas do not. Some cities with housing codes have limited resources to enforce them. This patchwork of laws means that the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants vary by location.

• A substantial majority of landlords already take care of their properties. This bill proposes to put into law what good landlords already do. It will not create additional costs for landlords who take care of their property.

• If a landlord breaches the warranty and fails to address the problem within a reasonable time, time, this bill give tenants the ability to terminate a lease agreement without penalty.

• This bill does not excuse the tenant from paying rent on time. It does not require a landlord to fix damage negligently or wrongfully caused by a tenant.

• This bill will not apply to commercial rental properties.

• The existing limits on landlord tort liability will not be affected by this bill.

• Other states with comparable rental rates and property values provide warranties of habitability for renters. See the 2013 report of National Low Income Housing Commission at http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oor/2013_OOR_State_Summary_Table.pdf.

Representatives of the Landlords Association of Arkansas and the Non-Legislative Commission on the Study of Landlord Tenant Laws; tenant advocates; academia; and other experts in the field participated in the crafting of this bill.

154 Stricken language would be deleted from and underlined language would be added to present law.

1 State of Arkansas 2 90th General Assembly A Bill DRAFT DLP/DLP 3 Regular Session, 2015 HOUSE BILL 4 5 By: Representative Leding 6 7 For An Act To Be Entitled 8 AN ACT TO CLARIFY THE OBLIGATIONS OF RESIDENTIAL 9 LANDLORDS AND RESIDENTIAL TENANTS; TO REQUIRE MINIMUM 10 HABITABILITY STANDARDS FOR TENANTS OF RESIDENTIAL 11 REAL PROPERTY; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 12 13 14 Subtitle 15 TO CLARIFY THE OBLIGATIONS OF RESIDENTIAL 16 LANDLORDS AND RESIDENTIAL TENANTS; AND TO 17 REQUIRE MINIMUM HABITABILITY STANDARDS 18 FOR TENANTS OF RESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY. 19 20 21 BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS: 22 23 SECTION 1. Arkansas Code Title 18, Chapter 17, Subchapter 5, is 24 amended to add additional sections to read as follows: 25 18-17-502. Landlord to maintain premises. 26 (a) A landlord shall: 27 (1) Comply with the requirements of applicable building and 28 housing codes that materially affect health and safety; 29 (2) Ensure that the premises and all common areas are safe and 30 fit for the use intended by the parties; and 31 (3) Provide and maintain: 32 (A) A roof that does not leak; 33 (B) A reasonably safe structure, including walls, floors, 34 stairs, and railings; 35 (C) An operable and lockable entry door providing 36 unobstructed entry and exit;

DRAFT 12-01-2014 09:52:48 DLP001155

HB

1 (D) An operable and lockable door or window leading 2 directly to the exterior of the unit from every sleeping room; 3 (E) Access to a water supply approved under applicable law 4 that is capable of producing hot and cold running water, including potable 5 drinking water, with plumbing that does not leak and conforms to applicable 6 building and housing codes in existence at the time of installation; 7 (F) Access to a waste disposal system approved under 8 applicable law with plumbing in compliance with applicable building and 9 housing codes in existence at the time of installation; 10 (G) Access to electricity approved under applicable law 11 with wiring in compliance with applicable building and housing codes in 12 existence at the time of installation; 13 (H) A source of heating in compliance with applicable 14 building and housing codes in existence at the time of installation; 15 (I) A functioning smoke alarm that may be battery-powered, 16 electrically powered, or both; 17 (J)(i) An adequate number of appropriate exterior 18 receptacles for garbage and rubbish. 19 (ii) The landlord shall arrange for removal of the 20 garbage and rubbish unless removal is provided by a government authority or 21 other third party or, in rural areas, as otherwise provided for by the rental 22 agreement; 23 (K) Air conditioning, if the landlord agrees to provide 24 air conditioning; and 25 (L) On and after July 1, 2016, a functioning carbon 26 monoxide detector if the unit has a fossil fuel burning heater or appliance, 27 a fireplace, or an attached garage. 28 (b) If the duty imposed by subdivision (a)(1) of this section is 29 greater than another duty imposed by this section, the landlord shall comply 30 with subdivision (a)(1) of this section. 31 (c) A landlord and tenant shall not agree that the tenant perform 32 specified repairs, maintenance, alteration, or remodeling unless: 33 (1) The agreement is in writing and for valuable consideration; 34 and 35 (2) The landlord and tenant agree that the tenant is qualified 36 to perform the repairs, maintenance, alteration, or remodeling.

2 12-01-2014 09:52:48 DLP001 156

HB

1 (d) This section does not excuse a tenant from paying rent or prevent 2 a landlord from exercising any remedy upon the tenant's material 3 noncompliance with the rental agreement. 4 5 18-17-503. Initial condition of dwelling unit – Promised repairs. 6 (a) At the beginning of the tenancy, the tenant shall be: 7 (1) Permitted to inspect the premises; and 8 (2) Provided by the landlord at the time of the inspection a 9 separate, written form with which to note: 10 (A) Any defects in the items listed in § 18-17-502; and 11 (B) Any maintenance, repair, or improvement the landlord 12 has agreed to provide that is not stated in the rental agreement. 13 (b) A landlord is presumed to be in compliance with § 18-17-502 and to 14 have no obligation to provide maintenance, repairs, or improvements not 15 specified in the rental agreement if the tenant: 16 (1) Signs the form without noting any additional defects in the 17 items listed in § 18-17-502 or the promised maintenance, repair, or 18 improvement; or 19 (2) Fails to return the form to the landlord within two (2) 20 business days of delivery. 21 22 18-17-504. Repairs. 23 (a) A landlord shall provide each tenant with current contact 24 information of the person authorized to accept repair requests and make 25 repairs. 26 (b) Except as provided in § 18-17-502(c) and subsection (e) of this 27 section, the landlord is responsible for: 28 (1) All repairs to the property; and 29 (2) Selecting and meeting with repair technicians on the 30 premises as needed. 31 (c)(1) Except as provided in subdivision (c)(2) of this section, a 32 landlord shall have fourteen (14) days to perform a repair after receipt of 33 notice under § 18-17-303 to perform the repair. 34 (2) If an emergency exists or the condition materially affects 35 health and safety, the landlord shall initiate the repair within twenty-four 36 (24) hours.

3 12-01-2014 09:52:48 DLP001 157

HB

1 (3)(A) The repair period may be extended due to factors such as 2 weather, insurance claim processing, and availability of repair technicians. 3 (B) The landlord shall make reasonable temporary repairs 4 during the extension to mitigate the severity of the condition. 5 (d) A landlord shall: 6 (1) Cause all repairs to be performed: 7 (A) In a workmanlike fashion and in compliance with all 8 building and housing codes in force at the time of the repair; and 9 (B) During normal business hours unless dictated otherwise 10 by circumstances beyond the landlord's control, including without limitation 11 an emergency or the unavailability of a repair technician; and 12 (2) Make a reasonable effort to notify the tenant of repair 13 schedules. 14 (e) A landlord is not liable for repairs to conditions caused by the 15 negligent or wrongful act or omission of the tenant, a member of the tenant's 16 family, or a person other than the landlord or the landlord's agent on the 17 premises with the consent of the tenant. 18 19 18-17-505. Noncompliance by the landlord — General. 20 (a)(1) If noncompliance with this subchapter by the landlord materially 21 affects health or safety, the tenant may deliver notice of the noncompliance 22 to the landlord by certified mail or any other method provided by the rental 23 agreement and shall specify the acts and omissions constituting the 24 noncompliance. 25 (2) The notice shall also state that the rental agreement shall 26 terminate on a date not less than thirty (30) days after receipt or attempted 27 delivery of the notice if: 28 (A) The breach is not remedied within fourteen (14) days; 29 and 30 (B) The tenant has not sued for injunctive relief. 31 (b) The rental agreement shall terminate as provided in the notice 32 unless: 33 (1) The breach is remedial by repairs or otherwise and the 34 landlord adequately remedies the breach before the date specified in the 35 notice; 36 (2) The tenant files suit for injunctive relief after the

4 12-01-2014 09:52:48 DLP001 158

HB

1 fourteenth day but before the thirtieth day after receipt or attempted 2 delivery of the notice; or 3 (3) The breach was caused by the deliberate or negligent act or 4 omission of the tenant, a member of the tenant's family, or another person 5 other than the landlord or the landlord's agent on the premises with the 6 consent of the tenant. 7 (c) To entitle the tenant to injunctive relief, the tenant shall show 8 to the satisfaction of the court that: 9 (1) Prior to the commencement of the action the landlord was: 10 (A) Provided notice by the tenant of a condition that does 11 not comply with this subchapter; or 12 (B) Notified of the condition by a violation or 13 condemnation notice from an appropriate state or municipal agency; 14 (2)(A) The landlord has failed or refused to remedy the 15 condition after having a reasonable opportunity to do so. 16 (B) Thirty (30) days from receipt of the notification by 17 the landlord is presumed to be a reasonable opportunity to remedy the 18 condition; and 19 (3) The tenant has timely paid to the landlord the amount of 20 rent required under the rental agreement and continues to pay the rent due 21 either into the court registry or to the landlord under the supervision of 22 the court. 23 (d) Injunctive relief shall not be granted under subsection (c) of 24 this section if the landlord establishes to the satisfaction of the court: 25 (1) That the condition alleged by the tenant: 26 (A) Does not in fact exist; 27 (B) Has been removed or remedied; or 28 (C) Was caused by the deliberate or negligent act or 29 omission of the tenant, a member of the tenant's family, or another person 30 other than the landlord or the landlord's agent on the premises with the 31 consent of the tenant; or 32 (2) That the tenant has unreasonably refused the landlord entry 33 to the premises for the purpose of correcting the condition. 34 (e) The remedies provided by this section are in addition to any right 35 of the tenant arising under other Arkansas law. 36 (f)(1) The remedies provided by this section are not available if the

5 12-01-2014 09:52:48 DLP001 159

HB

1 tenant is in default for failure to pay rent or in material breach of the 2 rental agreement. 3 (2) If the tenant fails to pay rent as due, the repair request 4 shall be considered void and the landlord may exercise the landlord's 5 remedies for noncompliance. 6 (g) If the rental agreement is terminated, the landlord shall return 7 all security recoverable by the tenant under § 18-17-501 and all prepaid 8 rent. 9 (h) This subchapter shall not be construed to expand a landlord's tort 10 liability beyond the limits set by § 18-16-110. 11 12 18-17-506. Prohibited conduct. 13 (a) Except as provided in this section, a landlord may not increase 14 rent, decrease services, or bring or threaten to bring a failure to vacate 15 charge or an action for possession because the tenant: 16 (1) Has complained to the landlord of a violation under this 17 subchapter within the past ninety (90) days; or 18 (2) Has made use of remedies provided under this subchapter 19 within the past ninety (90) days. 20 (b)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, a landlord may 21 bring an action for possession if: 22 (A) A violation of this subchapter or an applicable 23 building and housing code was caused primarily by lack of reasonable care by 24 the tenant, a member of the tenant's household, or a person other than the 25 landlord or the landlord's agent on the premises with the tenant's consent; 26 (B) The tenant is in: 27 (i) Default in the payment of rent; or 28 (ii) Material breach of the lease; or 29 (C) Compliance with the applicable building and housing 30 code requires alteration, remodeling, or demolition that would effectively 31 deprive the tenant of use of the dwelling unit. 32 (2) The maintenance of an action for possession by the landlord 33 does not release the landlord from liability under this subchapter. 34 (c)(1) A rental agreement shall not require a tenant to waive or 35 forego a right or remedy under this subchapter except as allowed under § 18- 36 17-502(c).

6 12-01-2014 09:52:48 DLP001 160

HB

1 (2) A provision in a rental agreement that violates subdivision 2 (c)(1) of this section is unenforceable. 3 4 SECTION 2. Arkansas Code § 18-17-602 is amended to read as follows: 5 18-17-602. Access. 6 (a) A tenant shall not unreasonably withhold consent to the landlord 7 to enter into the dwelling unit in order to inspect the premises, make 8 necessary or agreed agreed-upon repairs, decorations, alterations, or 9 improvements, supply necessary or agreed agreed-upon services, investigate 10 possible rule or lease violations, investigate possible criminal activity, or 11 exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers, mortgagees, 12 tenants, workers, or contractors. 13 (b) A landlord may enter the dwelling unit without consent of the 14 tenant in case of emergency. 15 (c) A landlord shall not abuse the right of access or use it to harass 16 the tenant. 17 (d) Except in case of emergency, pursuant to court order, when the 18 tenant has abandoned or surrendered the premises, or when it is impractical 19 to give notice, the landlord shall give the tenant at least twenty-four (24) 20 hours' notice of his or her intent to enter the premises and may enter only 21 at reasonable times. 22 (e) A tenant shall not change locks on the dwelling unit without the 23 permission of the landlord. 24 25 SECTION 3. Arkansas Code § 18-17-705 is amended to read as follows: 26 18-17-705. Landlord and tenant remedies for abuse of access. 27 (a)(1) If the tenant refuses to allow lawful access, the landlord may: 28 (A) obtain Obtain injunctive relief in district court 29 without posting bond to compel access,; or 30 (B) terminate Terminate the rental agreement. 31 (b)(2) In either case the landlord may recover actual damages 32 and reasonable attorney's fees. 33 (b)(1) If the landlord makes an unlawful entry or a lawful entry in an 34 unreasonable manner or makes repeated demands for an otherwise lawful entry 35 that has the effect of unreasonably harassing the tenant, the tenant may: 36 (A) Obtain injunctive relief to prevent the recurrence of

7 12-01-2014 09:52:48 DLP001 161

HB

1 the conduct; or 2 (B) Terminate the rental agreement. 3 (2) In either case the tenant may recover actual damages of not 4 less than an amount equal to one (1) month's rent and reasonable attorney's 5 fees. 6 7 SECTION 4. Arkansas Code Title 18, Chapter 17, Subchapter 8, is 8 amended to add an additional section to read as follows: 9 18-17-803. Administration of remedies – Enforcement. 10 (a)(1) The remedies provided by this chapter shall be so administered 11 that the aggrieved party may recover lawful damages. 12 (2) The aggrieved party has an obligation and duty to mitigate 13 damages. 14 (b) A right or obligation declared by this chapter is enforceable by 15 legal action unless the provision declaring the right or obligation specifies 16 a different and limited effect. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

8 12-01-2014 09:52:48 DLP001 162

1/25/2015 Arkansas's October Pro Bono Celebration Helps More Than 250 Arkansans | Arkansas Access to Justice

Hello Amy Johnson Log out Dashboard Content Structure Appearance People Modules Configuration Reports Help

Add content Find content Structure Edit shortcuts

Search

Home About IOLTA Program Our Work How to Help Need Help? Contact News

Home

Support Arkansas's October Pro Bono Celebration Helps More Than 250 Arkansans

View Edit Track Donate Today!

Campaign for Legal Submitted by Amy Johnson on Fri, 10/31/2014 ­ 3:35pm Aid Even though National Pro Bono Week was officially October 19­25 this year, Arkansas legal aid and the Shop at Amazon Arkansas Access to Justice Commission partnered with law firms and private attorneys to celebrate pro Smile bono all month long with seven outreach events that helped more than 250 low­income Arkansans.

"I'm thankful to the Arkansas Pro Bono Partnership for organizing community spaces to facilitate and promote access to justice," said Tabitha Lee, an attorney who volunteered at the UAMS Wills Clinic and the Commissioner & Expungement Clinic at Shorter College. "Seeing people from all walks of life come together to improve Board Member circumstances for everyone was a beautiful experience." Materials The pro bono outreach events included free legal help for veterans, cancer survivors at UAMS, and patient For Commissioners families at Arkansas Children's Hospital. With the help of 86 attorneys, 47 law students, and several notary volunteers, these Arkansans walked away with critical legal documents like simple wills, advance For Board Members directives, and powers of attorney for healthcare and financial matters. Log Out Legal aid also partnered with the W. Harold Flowers Law Society to host two Expungement Clinics in order to assist low­income Arkansans with sealing their criminal records.

Justice News Cory Childs, president of the W. Harold Flowers Law Society, said he enjoyed participating.

Supreme Court "It was very rewarding to fill a need that is so evident in our community," Childs said. "People's lives were Appoints Justice changed on Friday, and I was glad to be a part of that change." Robin Wynne, Judge Robert By providing an Expungement Clinic, the justice community sought to improve the lives of low­income McCallum to Arkansans whose past criminal history could bar them from obtaining employment, securing housing, or Commission qualifying for a loan for a car, home, or education. Vote for Arkansas The two Expungement Clinics helped close to 180 Arkansans, some of whom drove hours for the help. Legal Services Partnership to For Arkansas Legal Services Partnership and Arkansas Pro Bono Partnership Director Vince Morris, pro bono Receive Award month could be summed up like so: "In the aftermath of one of these high volume and intense pro bono IOLTA Insurance events, I get to slow down and see the tired but satisfied looks in all the pro bono attorneys, law students, Parity Extended to and other volunteers. It's like we've been on a journey together, and as journeys usually are, it was Credit Unions challenging, but you're left with the echo of those you met on the way. Some of the most memorable Arkansas's October people I've ever met were clients at these events. Veterans, terminally­ill cancer patients, firefighters, sick Pro Bono children with worried parents — they all just needed someone to listen and help." Celebration Helps Project partners included Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Arkansas Children's Hospital, CAVHS More Than 250 Veterans Day Treatment Center, Central United Methodist Church, Friday Firm, Jefferson Center, Mitchell Arkansans Williams Law Firm, Pulaski County Bar Association, Shorter College, Southern Bancorp Community Commission Partners, Tyson Foods, UALR William H. Bowen School of Law, UAMS Winthrop P. Rockefeller Cancer Honors Legal Aid Institute, W. Harold Flowers Law Society, and Walmart. Advocates at Annual Staff Legal aid has hosted similar events like this for seniors, first responders, and veterans, as a way of inviting Conference justice community partners to serve their local communities and to celebrate National Pro Bono Week.

Click here to view a photo gallery of the month's events. 2013 Annual pro bono Report

163 http://www.arkansasjustice.org/pro-bono-month-2014 1/2