September 13, 2002

Access to Justice Board Minutes
September 13, 2002
Washington State Bar Association

Present:

ATJ Board members Chair Scott Smith, Michele Jones, Christine Crowell, Pam Feinstein, Pete Dewell, Dwight Williams; ATJ Board committee chairs and members Barrie Althoff, Commissioner Kimberley Prochanua, Don Horowitz, Debi Perluss, Dan Ford, Leonard Schroeter, Ada Shen-Jaffe, Judge Paul Bastine, Alice Paine, Val Carlson, Erin Hyppa, Lisa Stone, Judge Janet Garrow, Judge James Murphy, Gail Hammer, Holland McBurns, Steve Pelletier, Caitlin Davis-Carlson, Barbara Clark, Debbi Juntunen, Jim Bamberger, Jeanne Dawes (by phone); Guests former ATJ Board member Phyllis Selinker, Pro Bono and Legal Aid Committee Chair Gail Smith, Larry Kenney, Kittitas Pro Bono Coordinator Reed Gardner, Legal Foundation of Washington President Kay Frank; Staff Joan Fairbanks, Sharlene Steele, Rebecca Elder, Leslie Johnson.

Welcome and Introductions

Scott Smith welcomed everyone to his first meeting as chair. After introductions, he reported on the July meeting of the Board of Governors, which he attended as liaison, and distributed copies of the Pro Bono Pledge, which is a request from Immediate Past WSBA President Dale Carlisle that every attorney volunteer to perform pro bono work in the coming year in commemoration of the anniversary of the September 11 disaster.

Approval of June 7, 2002 Minutes

The Minutes were approved as written.

Matrix Project

Columbia Legal Services Director Ada Shen-Jaffe, Columbia Legal Services Controller Debbie Juntunen and Northwest Justice Project Controller Steve Pelletier distributed copies of the Matrix Project, a work in progress which seeks to accomplish the following:

Phase I: Develop a better understanding of who and where the clients are through collection and analysis of data.
Phase II: Identify and analyze current levels of resources in each Region and county for civil equal justice for poor and disparate treatment populations.
Phase III: Identify service gaps, under-represented persons, and emerging issues that are highlighted or revealed by changes in census and other data;
Phase IV: Develop plans to address gaps, under-representation, emerging issues and changes reflected in census and demographic data.

They requested that the ATJ Board members and other interested parties review the materials with the following questions in mind, and submit additional information and comments to Ada, Debbie or Steve. She also noted that all the back-up data for the Matrix project is available to those who would like to review it.

(1) Review the list of organizations that collect this data and submit additional names.

(2) Consider the types of question that should be asked of the agencies listed and new ones submitted.

(3) Think about possible uses for the data (e.g., grant writing).

Civil Equal Justice Network Funding

Kay Frank, President of the Legal Foundation of Washington, made a presentation regarding the current dilemma facing LFW of how to allocate this year's funds when facing a $1.2 million reduction in IOLTA revenues. The funding crisis is complicated by the uncertainty of the outcome of the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of IOLTA. The ATJ Board had invited all LFW grantees to participate in the discussion both to give LFW an opportunity to explain the intricacies of the problem and to hear suggestions from the greater community. Kay reviewed LFW's procedures for awarding grants, which includes reviewing compliance with LFW grant criteria and the resource development protocols outlined in the ATJ Board's State Plan. She noted that LFW has $5.4 million available for grants this year. Additionally, there is $3 million in the Goldmark Fund, which is held as a grant stabilization fund. Significantly, the LFW Board is considering whether or not to dip into the Goldmark Fund this year, or whether that would be too risky given the potential implications of the loss of mandatory IOLTA. There was wide-ranging discussion about potential solutions to this year's funding dilemma, including: reconsidering LFW's policy of keeping one year's funding in reserve; maintaining the current infrastructure pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case so as to avoid shutting down programs immediately; utilizing the Goldmark Fund as a transitional fund; considering a 20% across-the-board cut vs. evaluating each program's funding cuts. The LFW Board will make its decisions in the next couple of weeks.

Key ATJ-related activities since the June ATJ Board meeting

LSC grant for ComTech and JIS statewide technology planning: ATJ Board ComTech Committee Chair Dan Ford, reported that members of ComTech met with Justice Bobbe Bridge, Mary McQueen and AOC Information Systems Division Manager Tom Clarke, to discuss the ComTech/JIS planning process that will be funded by a grant from the Legal Services Corporation, and to discuss lines of communication among the entities. Dan reported that the meeting went extremely well. In response to requests from Justice Bridge and AOC, ComTech is proposing that the ComTech Chair serve as the main ATJ contact for JIS; and that Rebecca Elder serve as the main technology planning process contact. Dan will draft a letter from the ATJ Board to that effect. Dan also proposed that the ComTech Committee change its name to the Tech Committee ,given the recent establishment of an ATJ Board Communications Committee. The ATJ Board approved the change.

Task Force on Civil Equal Justice Funding: Michele Jones, Jim Bamberger and Joan Fairbanks reported that the three Task Force Work Groups are in various stages of progress. The Funding Options Work Group, chaired by Justice Tom Chambers, will be proposing a slate of funding options to be considered by the Task Force at its October 16 meeting. Likewise, the Administration and Oversight Work Group, chaired by Judge Marlin Appelwick, is preparing recommendations based in part on a recent stakeholder survey. The Legal Needs Work Group, chaired by Judge Mary Kay Becker, will meet in October to begin to consider the outline of the legal needs study report. The legal needs study is behind schedule and the target date for the collection of all the data is now October 31.

Practice of Law Board: Practice of Law Board Vice-Chair Judge Paul Bastine reported that the Board held its first meeting on August 23. Meetings will be held on the second Friday of each month. He also reported that he has been asked to chair a committee of that Board, at the request of the BJA, which is to explore the expansion of the new family law facilitator rule to other areas of law. The ATJ Board has been invited to submit four names. Chris Crowell and Pete Dewell volunteered to serve.

Civil Gideon: Debi Perluss reported on the status of the Grant County Superior Court civil right to counsel case that originated with the Civil Gideon Committee, and that she had reported on at the May ATJ Board retreat. The case involves an elderly man with a mental illness who was being forcibly removed from his home by the county as a result of a zoning change. After a finding of mental competence by the Grant County Superior Court, a notice of appeal was filed with the Washington State Supreme Court on September 12, 2002, asking it to take direct review. There is interest by the Trial Lawyers for Public Justice and Brennan Center for Justice for participation as amici. Protection and Advocacy, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health, and other related organizations are being approached as well.

"Legal Line:" Scott reported that he participated on the Bob Pittman "Legal Line" radio show on KIRO Radio with Justice Johnson and Pat McIntyre, on Labor Day week-end. Justice Johnson's topic was access to justice.

Lunch

The ATJ Board members attended the BOG's Leadership Tribute Luncheon.

Status of proposed amendments to RPC 6.1

Pro Bono and Legal Aid Committee Chair Gail Smith reported on PBLAC's efforts to clarify the definition of pro bono, codify the BOG's suggested 30-hour annual pro bono contribution, and provide for reporting of pro bono hours. Gail made a presentation at the BOG's July meeting. The BOG tabled the proposal until its October meeting pending solicitation of comments from WSBA members via an article in the September Bar News and determination of the fiscal impact of the proposal, if any, on WSBA. Gail Smith also made a presentation to the RPC Committee in August, which approved it. To date the input from the Bar News is mixed, both pro and con. The ATJ Board agreed to submit a letter in support of the proposal and to contact individual BOG members. The staff also will send out a request to all the ATJ Board listservs requesting that they comment favorably on the proposal and contact their BOG representatives.

Proposal to create an ATJ Board Pro Bono Committee

Gail Smith is interested in beginning a discussion about the nature of the interaction between PBLAC and the ATJ Board. He has not yet had an opportunity to discuss this with his new committee. The main problems are that the current WSBA committee appointment processes do not generate significant participation, and do not allow for the formal membership of those professionals (e.g., pro bono coordinators) with expertise and interest that are not attorneys. As a result, staff spends a lot of time every year orienting members who may or may not have asked for the appointments; and most of the work is done by a very few. The ATJ Board had a wide-ranging discussion about the issue, concluding that an ATJ Board Pro Bono Committee could overcome the challenges and barriers currently facing PBLAC, and would welcome the addition of the committee provided that PBLAC members and the BOG approve the change.

Status of WACLSP proposal

Pam Feinstein reported on the status of this proposal, which is a plan developed by the pro bono and specialty legal services providers (Washington Association of Community Legal Services Programs - "Pro Bono Plus"), to suggest ways that this community can more effectively integrate into the greater access to justice network. This proposal was first presented at the ATJ Board's May retreat. Pam suggests that the ATJ Board address the goals in this plan in more depth at a later Board meeting. She noted the following: (1) progress is being made in creating and improving relationships with other members of the access to justice network; (2) WACLSP members are becoming more involved in ATJ Board committees and other state-wide initiatives (e.g., ATJ Board Communications Committee); (3) members have increasingly been attending statewide training events (e.g., statewide advocacy training at Sleeping Lady); (4) there is increasing communication among members through in-person meetings and via the listservs; (5) LFW has just published a salary and benefits survey which is the beginning of the discussion of parity with staffed programs; (6) the funding goals are being addressed in large part by the work of the ATJ Board Resource Development Committee. Pam also reminded people to continue to provide comments about the proposal.

State Justice Communities Planning Initiative Evaluation Instrument

Ada Shen-Jaffe reported that she and Pat McIntyre have been participating on a team to develop an instrument, designed as an aspirational device and a self-test, that the Legal Services Corporation can utilize to evaluate programs. Ada and Mac volunteered Washington as a test site because of this community's willingness to engage in self-scrutiny about successes and failures under its state plan. A three-member team will visit Washington and interview members of the ATJ network, including ATJ Board members and committee chairs. The ATJ Board will take the lead on identifying those who should be interviewed/contacted by the LSC team (e.g., Supreme Court members, BJA, BOG, PLE Council). Even if LSC chooses not to proceed with this model, she recommends that the ATJ Board utilize the instrument as part of the planned evaluation of its state plan. The target date for Washington State is the week of November 18. Scott Smith, Michele Jones and Joan will draft a comment letter. (Since the date of this meeting, the Legal Services Corporation has moved the Washington visit from November to early in 2003 based on a need for the evaluation team to respond to the comments they received about the instrument.)

Appointments

The ATJ Board discussed possible candidates for these appointments. Scott Smith will send an e-mail to the Board and other interested parties to solicit suggestions. The Executive Committee will finalize and submit recommendations. (Please note: some of the following appointments were made following the September 13 meeting).

Committee to study expansion of family law facilitator rule: Chris Crowell and Pete Dewell BOG Ethics 2000 Task Force: Debi Perluss Court Funding Task Force: (Judge James Murphy was appointed after the meeting.) BOG Public Defender Task Force: (Judge T.W. Small was appointed after the meeting.) BOG Student Loan Task Force: BOG Review of Rules of Limited Jurisdiction Court Appeals and Writ Procedures Task Force: (This request was later withdrawn.)

ATJ Board liaisons to BOG meetings

The ATJ Board appointed the following the attend upcoming BOG meeting:

October 18 (Silverdale): Phyllis Selinker, Gail Smith, Joan Fairbanks
December 6-7 (Everett): Pete Dewell
January 17-18 (Olympia): Scott Smith
February 6 (Seattle): Michele Jones
April 11-12 (Bellevue): Pam Feinstein
May 9-10 (Spokane): (Scott will ask Judge Greg Tripp, Judge Baker and Rich Kuhling about their availability)
Wenatchee (June): ATJ Conference and ATJ Board meeting in conjunction with BOG meeting - possible ATJ Annual report
July 25-26 (Bellingham): Chris Crowell

Status of Unbundled Rules

ATJ Board Unbundled Committee members Barrie Althoff and Commissioner Kimberley Prochanau reported that at the Supreme Court's September 5 en banc, only one issue was raised about the ATJ Board's proposed unbundled rule. The Court raised concerns about proposed changes to CR 11(b) and CRLJ 11(b), which relate to the liability of the lawyer who relies on a client's representation of the facts. Kim and Barrie will prepare a draft response to these concerns, to be submitted to the Supreme Court after the ATJ Board and BOG approve the letter. Of note is that the Supreme Court did not raise any concerns about the concept of unbundled legal services, and that relatively few comments were submitted.

*ACTION ITEMS*

Principles & Goals: (deadline: asap) Staff will circulate to ATJ Board suggested list of ATJ Board Network members to whom the draft will be sent for comment.
WACLSP: Plan Please contact Pam Feinstein with comments. This will be on an upcoming ATJ Board agenda.
ATJ Web Site: Please visit web site (www.waaccesstojustice.org) and contact Rebecca Elder with your comments/suggestions
RPC 6.1: (deadline: 10-18) ATJ Board will write letter in support of proposals and members will contact their BOG representatives. Staff will send message to all ATJ Board listservs with the same request.
Appointments: (deadline: asap) Scott will send a message to ATJ Board listservs asking for suggestions. The Executive Committee will make the final recommendations.
Unbundled Rules:(deadline: asap) Barrie and Kim will draft a response to Supreme Court concerns and run it by the ATJ Board for approval.
JIS letter: (deadline: asap) Dan Ford will draft a letter to JIS from the ATJ Board formalizing the lines of communication between the two entities.
Matrix Project:(deadline: asap) Submit comments and suggestions to Ada Shen-Jaffe.

Respectfully submitted,

Joan E. Fairbanks
Justice Programs Manager