Empirical study of legal services

The Boston Globe Ideas section today (December 23, 2012) has an interesting article about Harvard Professor James Greiner who is doing empirical studies on the efficacy of providing free legal services to poor people who otherwise would have no representation. It makes legal services attorneys and friends of legal services kind of nervous in a lot of ways. But he is actually a supporter of legal services. He just wants to be sure the money and services are going where they will do the most good.

Greiner's first research effort examined the clients of the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau who were represented in their unemployment insurance claims. His findings were reported in the Yale Law Journal, and discussed in the Yale Law Journal Online, "Service Delivery, Resource Allocation, and Access to Justice: Greiner and Pattanayak and the Research Imperative," by professors Jeffrey Selbin, Jeanne Charn, Anthony Alfieri & Stephen Wizner. Basically, his first study found that the clients were no better off, and had to wait longer for their cases to be resolved when they were represented by Harvard Legal Aid Bureau. Apparently, Greiner has gone on since this first study to examine the effects of legal assistance in other types of cases, and it varies, which is interesting. He has completed a study that showed that representation in eviction cases made it more likely that a client would prevail. Greiner has three other studies in process now: divorce, social security disability benefits, federal prisoners making civil rights complaints.

In all the discussion I saw in the Globe article and in the scholarly discussions in the Yale publications, one aspect I did not see touched on was whether representation of clients assisted the courts. I know from conversations I have had with court librarians that the courts get jammed up with self represented litigants. Judges who have to deal with cases involving self represented litigants end up spending much more time explaining civil procedure and rules, and generally offering assistance to them. It slows the entire law suit down and can make settlements much more difficult. Anything that can assist the self represented litigant to prepare better before getting to the court room would speed the process along, and help the courts. Not all self represented litigants are poor and unable to afford a lawyer. Some simply do not like or trust lawyers and prefer to handle their case by themselves. But whatever the reason they are self representing, they are at a disadvantage in terms of all the rules of procedure, and evidence that lawyers had to learn in law school. And there should be some way to offer assistance to the literate pro se litigant.

Massachusetts adding cameras to courtrooms

The Boston Globe reports today that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court announced proposed new rules about cameras in courtrooms at all levels of the judicial system. The rules are not final yet, and comments are encouraged; the article tells interested readers where to send comments. The rule was crafted by the Supreme Court's Judicial Media Committee with input from journalists over the course of this year.

The rules are designed to increase citizen access to courts and trials, including blogger access. There is already a rule allowing 2 cameras in every court: one for television and one for newspapers. The new rule would allow 3 cameras, designating the new camera for Web access. The Court is clearly paying attention to the new role that citizen journalists have been playing in coverage of local news. As newspapers find it difficult to fund investigative reporters, these volunteer bloggers have often filled an important gap in coverage. While I certainly hope that professional journalists will continue to be available to cover important state trials, it's nice to think that a case of local interest could be covered by a blogger even when the papers decide it's not "big enough."

In a summary released yesterday, the court said “the news media would be defined as those who are regularly engaged in the reporting and publishing of news or information about matters of public interest.’’

The rules would allow journalists to use laptop computers and other electronic devices while court is in session, provided it is not disruptive.

Even with the new rules, judges still have the authority to ban cameras in certain circumstances. Also, journalists would still be barred from recording jurors at all times during a trial, whether it is a civil or criminal matter.

(from the Globe article by John R. Ellement, a staffer from the Globe who has shared in the Globe's 2003 Pulitzer prize. I was curious because of the rule, who was reporting.) This is the Court that pioneered webcasts (and archives of them) of oral arguments in their court. The Court really is seeking public feedback before making the rule final. Comments can be sent:

Christine P. Burak,
Secretary, Supreme Judicial Court Rules Committee,
Supreme Judicial Court,
John Adams Courthouse,
One Pemberton Square,
Boston MA 02108 on or before Jan. 28, 2011

The photo of the Court listening to arguments is from the Suffolk Law School website that houses the webcasts and archives.