After successfully persuading the New Jersey Supreme Court to strike down its lawyer discipline gag rule in 2005, HALT urged the court this month to extend its ruling to consumers who file fee arbitration claims.  In written comments, HALT called on New Jersey's Professional Responsibility Rules Committee to amend its regulations to clarify that individuals requesting fee arbitration "may make public statements regarding the fee arbitration process, the submission and content of the fee dispute, and the result, if any, of the arbitration."

 

As it had earlier argued in the attorney discipline gag rule case, R.M. v. Supreme Court of New Jeresey, HALT maintained that protecting attorneys' reputations is not a constitutionally sufficient basis for prohibiting a consumer from speaking publicly about a fee arbitration proceeding. 

 

"Permitting consumers to disclose information about the fee arbitration process serves two important functions," stated HALT Senior Counsel Suzanne M. Blonder.  "It protects individuals' fundamental right to free speech and it brings sunshine to a system that has, for far too long, operated behind closed doors without any meaningful oversight."

 

While HALT called for a rule that would permit full disclosure on the part of the consumer, the written comments urged the court to prohibit the offending attorney from violating attorney-client privilege by initiating his or her own public disclosures about the underlying case. 

 

Later this year, HALT plans to release the 2007 Fee Arbitration Report Card, which will evaluate the effectiveness of fee arbitration systems in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.  One key component will highlight the openness of each jurisdiction's system, so stay tuned.

 

Read HALT's comments to the New Jersey Supreme Court here.

 

 

California Identifies $400 Million 'Justice Gap'

 

The California Commission on Access to Justice recently released a report finding that two-thirds of the legal needs of California's low-income population are unmet, and that nearly $400 million is needed to close the gap between these legal needs and the resources actually available to meet them.

 

The Commission's report, prepared at the request of Dave Jones (D-Sacramento) and led by Contra Costa Superior Court Judge Steven Austin, details 27 recommendations for improved access.  These recommendations include increasing contributions to the Equal Access Fund, increasing the yield of IOLTA funds (funds that provide for legal services based on interest accrued on client funds) and expanding the availability of self-help resources at courthouses.  The report also releases some rather shocking findings, among them: In 2005, only one legal aid lawyer existed for every 8, 361 low-income Californians, yet there was one private attorney for 250 Californians. 

 

"The result is that the majority of Californians do not have the resources to obtain legal representation for the myriad legal problems affecting them every year, such as divorce, child support, child custody, domestic violence, loss of housing and employment, education and discrimination," the report concluded.

 

To read more about the Commission's findings and recommendations, visit the California Bar Journal here.