At its annual meeting held in Washington, DC from March 9 through March 12, the Consumer Federation of America adopted legal reform proposals recommended by the nation's oldest and largest legal consumer watchdog, HALT. The resolutions adopted by the CFA reflect HALT's core advocacy mission of creating a more accessible and accountable civil justice system.

"Making the legal system more user-friendly is a shared goal of HALT and the Consumer Federation of America," stated HALT Associate Counsel Suzanne Mishkin. "Calls for increased oversight of judges, additional legal resources for seniors, written fee agreements and improvements to small claims courts are long overdue."

As Chair of the CFA's Vulnerable Consumers Subcommittee this year, HALT's Mishkin successfully urged the Federation to incorporate legal reform provisions into its 2005 Policy Resolutions Manual. The HALT-backed resolutions focus on expanding access to the civil justice system through the implementation of small claims court advisers and the creation of free legal hotlines for low-income seniors. Targeting the need for increased accountability in the civil justice system, HALT's remaining resolutions recommend gift receipt restrictions for federal judges and requirements that professional fee agreements be written in plain-language and clearly outline clients' rights.

"We hope that the Consumer Federation of America's endorsement will galvanize decision-makers to consider and implement these important reforms," state Mishkin.

The CFA works to advance pro-consumer policy on issues like energy, financial services, health and safety, government accountability and telecommunications. At the annual meeting, member organizations discuss and vote on policy resolution proposals submitted by the Federation's Policy Resolution Committee, comprised of chairpersons of various subcommittees that meet each year to evaluate new policy ideas and propose resolutions. CFA resolutions help set the policy agenda for the courts, Congress and the White House, as well as federal and state regulatory agencies.

HALT successfully urged the Consumer Federation of America to incorporate the following legal reform provisions into its 2005 Policy Resolutions Manual:

1. CFA Endorses HALT Recommendation of Gift Receipt Restrictions for Judges. CFA supports strict limitations on the gifts that federal and state judges may accept. Judicial standards should parallel the standards imposed upon the executive and legislative branches, not to exceed de minimus amounts.
2. CFA Endorses HALT Proposal to Require Written Professional Fee Agreements. Any professional licensed by the state must provide clients with plain language written fee agreements and send itemized monthly statements when fees are incurred.
3. CFA Endorses HALT Recommendation for the Creation of Free Legal Hotlines for Low-Income Seniors. CFA supports the establishment and generous public and private funding of free legal hotlines for low-income seniors, staffed by licensed attorneys and covered by legal malpractice insurance. Senior hotlines should exist nationwide.
4. CFA Endorses HALT Recommendation for the Implementation of Small Claims Court Advisors. CFA supports expanding the availability of legal self-help through small claims court systems. Such expanded access should include small claims advisors. Small claims advisors are individuals other than clerks with an understanding of small claims procedures whose primary duties are to explain those procedures to small claims litigants and guide them through their cases.

What could you do if you found out that the judge hearing your case had taken an all-expense- paid vacation to the Elkhorn Ranch in Big Sky, Mont., with your adversary? Sadly, the answer is "nothing."

Even worse, it's not just a single judge who has a problem. Since the 1990s, over 230 judges-more than one-quarter of the federal judiciary-have traveled to resort locations at the expense of private groups that have vested interests in the outcome of federal litigation. Pretending to provide "education" about complex legal issues, some of the nation's worst polluters wine and dine federal judges at the Sea Pines Plantation in Hilton Head, the Omni Golf Resort & Spa in Tucson and the Ritz-Carlton in Naples, Florida.

Who foots their bills, which run as high as $10,000 per judge? An outfit like "The Foundation on Research and the Environment," which is in turn funded by major oil and chemical companies including Texaco, Exxon, GE, Monsanto, and Shell.

But the $10,000 gifts come at a price-the judges must attend classes where they are systematically indoctrinated by these special interest groups in lobbying sessions urging "rejection of top-down, command and control environmentalism."

Make no mistake. The Foundation on Research and the Environment is not shelling out $10,000 gifts to judges out of the kindness of their hearts. They have a carefully planned mission: to shape courtroom verdicts for their financial profit.

Judges are supposed to be above influence. They have a special duty to remain objective, neutral and fair. Yet James Huffman, one of the leaders of the Foundation on Research and the Environment candidly admits they are peddling influence:

"If people feel strongly about ideas and they want to influence someone in government, they can- that's the way the system works."

On the contrary, this is not the way our system is supposed to work. The Ethics in Government Act prohibits employees of all three branches of government from accepting "anything of value" from those whose interests may be affected by their actions, and allows each branch to establish specific rules for itself. The Executive Branch imposes strict limitations on gifts (no more than $20 in value), while Congress has similar gift restrictions (no more than $50 in value). In fact, if cabinet members or senators accept a lavish $10,000 vacation package, they are breaking the law. Unfortunately, the judicial branch places no such limitation on federal judges.

Instead, they resist all efforts to end the corrupt junkets they enjoy. When Senator Patrick Leahy (D- Vt.) introduced legislation during the last Congress banning judicial attendance at private seminars, the judges asked him to wait and "allow the judiciary further opportunity to propose self-regulation on these important issues." Rather than curb their lavish perks, last August the judges actually created a new gaping loophole in the rules that limit gifts, deciding that they can accept vacation gifts and attend lobbying sessions as long as the topic is not "directly related" to a specific case they are currently hearing.

These unethical junkets feed a growing distrust of our justice system. By continuing to accept lavish gifts and vacations, our federal judges are not acting as public servants dedicated to integrity, but rather as a special privileged class whose favors are for sale.

Federal judges have made it clear that they are unwilling to police themselves.

Now it is up to Congress to step in and restore some sense of responsibility and impartiality. Senator Leahy plans to reintroduce legislation strictly limiting privately funded judicial junkets later this year. This time around, we must demand that Congress put an end to this extravagant and corrupting practice.

James C. Turner and Suzanne M. Mishkin are executive director and associate counsel, respectively, with HALT-An Organization of Americans for Legal Reform. HALT is a national non-profit consumer advocacy group dedicated to improving accountability and increasing access within the civil justice system. www.halt.org.

On February 19, 2005, the Virginia State Bar held a hearing to consider Unauthorized Practice of Law Opinion 207, which states that a social worker preparing forms for self-represented litigants in small claims court is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. HALT submitted written comments to the bar, urging the rejection of the proposal, arguing that preventing social workers from assisting small claims litigants threatens to hurt those who already have the least access to courts.

HALT, which works to reduce and eliminate barriers that prevent legal consumers from resolving their legal affairs simply and affordably, has staunchly advocated increasing access to and the user-friendliness of small claims courts. Unfortunately, Virginia's small claims courts already rank among the nation's worst, receiving a "D" grade in HALT's 2004 Small Claims Report Card. UPL Opinion 207, if passed, would go even further toward undermining the potential of small claims courts as venue that allows ordinary people to take charge of their legal affairs.

"Virginia's small claims courts are on the verge of going from bad to worse. The forms that small claims litigants need to fill out are more complicated than a tax return and have fewer accompanying instructions," stated HALT Senior Counsel Thomas Gordon. "If the Virginia Bar has its way, consumers will not be allowed any assistance in filing in small claims court. At least with a tax return, H&R Block can help you complete it."

In comments to the bar, HALT outlined the difficulty of filing in Virginia's small claims courts, which requires litigants to complete hard-to- understand forms. HALT urged Virginia to follow the model of other states that allow nonlawyer assistance and, in states like California, actually provide small claims advisors to provide such a service.

"The vast majority of Virginia small claims litigants are unable to complete court forms unassisted. If the Virginia Small Claims Division is to serve any meaningful function as an accessible arbiter of justice, litigants must be allowed to use the assistance of nonlawyers," stated Gordon.

HALT has worked to abolish a number of other unauthorized practice restrictions that unnecessarily block access to nonlawyer services. HALT advocates the simple definition that the unauthorized practice of law means saying you are a lawyer when you are not.

At HALT's Board of Director's meeting last month, Sally Greenberg was unanimously elected to join the board.

Sally brings over 20 years of consumer advocacy experience to HALT's Board of Directors. For more than a decade, Sally worked for the Civil Rights Counsel for the Eastern States for the \ Anti-Defamation League in Boston. During this time period, she also served on the Governor's Hate Crime Commission, the Governor's Commission on Technology and Computer Crime and the Governor's Commission on the Status of Women.

Since 1997, Sally Greenberg has been a product safety counsel at Consumers Union. As a Senior Product Safety Counsel, Sally works to insure that consumers receive the best possible information about the safety of their cars, appliances and other consumer products, and works to see that dangerous products are removed from the market. She advocates for preserving consumers' access to the courts in the event they are injured by medical malpractice, a hazardous product, or simply have a dispute with a company and want access to the courts to seek resolution. Sally has long supported the right of consumers to be treated fairly throughout the legal system, including by their own lawyers, and supports broader access to legal services regardless of socio-economic status.

"We are very proud and happy to welcome Sally Greenberg to our board," stated HALT Executive Director Jim Turner. "Sally brings a special expertise in defending consumer rights and a longstanding commitment to improving access and accountability in our legal system -- a combination that will strengthen both our advocacy and education efforts. All of us look forward to working with her to protect and empower America's legal consumers."