Washington, DC-Filing comments with the New Jersey Supreme Court on Monday, consumer watchdog group HALT asked the court's Professional Responsibility Rules Committee to throw out a confidentiality rule that state disciplinary officials have used to unconstitutionally "gag" consumers who file grievances against their lawyers. HALT, the nation's oldest and largest legal reform organization, recommended that the Committee issue clear guidance that grievants are permitted to speak freely about complaints they have filed against lawyers.

"It's appalling that a state with such a longstanding tradition of openness and progressiveness continues to support an unconstitutional gag rule that muzzles New Jersey citizens from telling anyone that they have filed a grievance against an attorney," stated HALT Associate Counsel Suzanne Mishkin. "Perhaps more important, the rule, as it's being applied, prevents the New Jersey public from evaluating whether the state attorney discipline body is taking client complaints seriously, responding promptly and meting out discipline where appropriate."

The confidentiality rule before the Committee appears to only require members of the Office of Attorney Ethics to keep disciplinary matters confidential, but New Jersey's disciplinary authority has applied the rule to grievants and barred victimized consumers from speaking publicly-even to family or friends. HALT's comments reveal that, if anything, disciplinary officials actually have wider latitude than consumers to discuss information about complaints.

According to HALT, the proposed rule violates free speech rights and fosters a system already plagued by secrecy and unfairness. If New Jersey followed HALT's recommendation to allow citizens to disclose information about disciplinary complaints, it would join several other states, including Tennessee, Florida and New Hampshire, that have recently abandoned gag rules in the interest of protecting free speech and defending the rights of legal consumers.

The California Judicial Council is considering repealing a 10-day time delay between a small claims judgment and enforcement proceedings. In its letter to the council, HALT called the measure a tremendous step toward speeding the collection process.

"All too often, a successful small claims litigant leaves court thinking she has won, only to realize her real battle is still ahead of her," says HALT Senior Counsel Thomas M. Gordon. "By speeding the process, California would prevent people from winning a moral victory and still suffering a financial loss."

In the other proposal, the council is weighing the implementation of easy-to-understand forms in small claims courts. Plain-language forms, HALT said, are especially important for small claims litigants, who often represent themselves and find the system confusing.

Small claims courts have tremendous promise as a means of empowering ordinary people to take charge of their own routine legal needs. According to the American Bar Association, 38 million low- and moderate-income Americans are shut out of the legal system each year because they simply cannot afford to hire a lawyer. Small claims courts represent one solution to this inaccessibility crisis by providing a valuable alternative to costly and complex litigation in higher courts. Without user-friendly reforms like those the council is considering, the potential of small claims court is stifled.

While supporting the pending proposals, HALT advised that further reform is still necessary. HALT encouraged the council to support legislation that would increase California's small claims jurisdictional limit from $5,000 to $10,000-a proposal for which is currently languishing before the California Law Review Commission. Raising the ceiling on small claims would allow these courts to resolve a wider range of disputes. By adopting plain-language forms, abbreviating the collection process and increasing the small claims jurisdictional limit, California lawmakers can ensure that the California small claims systems remains the standard to which other states aspire.

Earlier this month, HALT released its 2004 Small Claims Report Card, grading all 50 states and the District of Columbia on their small claims courts. While California's score was second best in the nation, its "B" grade leaves room for improvement.

Washington, DC-To correct widely-publicized failures of its notoriously underfunded attorney discipline system, the D.C. bar approved a 25 percent increase of bar dues, effective this year. In written comments, HALT, a national legal consumer watchdog group, had urged the adoption of a higher dues ceiling and offered guidance on how to use the additional funds to create a fairer and more efficient discipline system.

"For too long, the D.C. bar has failed victims of attorney misconduct by only paying lip service to consumer protection," stated HALT Associate Counsel Suzanne Mishkin. "We're delighted the bar has finally decided to put its money where its mouth is. With adequate funding, we now expect to see marked progress for legal consumers in the nation's capital."

In the 2004-2005 budget, the increased annual bar dues, which were raised from $155 to $165 for active bar members, will be allocated toward repairing the District's badly broken lawyer discipline system. HALT urged the bar to use increased revenue to hire more staff and secure more resources to relieve the discipline system's rapidly-building backlog of complaints. The new budget provides funding for two full-time and two part-time positions at the Board on Professional Responsibility.

The increased dues revenue will also bolster the District's attorney discipline system by allowing the bar to fully fund its Clients' Security Fund for the first time in three years. The fund, which provides restitution to consumers victimized by lawyer misconduct, will be restored to its recommended minimum funding level of $750,000.

While HALT applauds the added financial support of the discipline system, it is only the first step. "The systems' problems are more deep-seated and demand a more radical response than simply throwing money at the system," stated Mishkin. "The court should go further than simply raising bar dues and take this opportunity to adopt other meaningful reforms." HALT advocated three reforms crucial to making the system more effective and credible: increased nonlawyer participation, more evenhanded procedures and firm deadlines.

The budget's approval marks a critical step in replacing a hamstrung and distrusted system with one that actually protects District residents against unethical and incompetent attorneys. "The only question now," said Mishkin, "is whether the nation's capital will build upon this fiscal foundation with other needed reforms."

Washington, DC-In a letter to Alaska Governor Frank H. Murkowski, HALT offered support of a House Bill that, once signed into law, will significantly increase the state's jurisdictional dollar limit on small claims. Alaska House Bill 227 stands to lift the state's ceiling on small claims from $7,500 to $10,000, which would leave far fewer people stuck outside the justice system.

"Many Alaskans are stranded in a legal no-man's land because their routine legal problems have a dollar value above the state's ceiling on small claims, yet they cannot afford to hire an attorney for such a simple matter," stated HALT Senior Counsel Tom Gordon. "These people are effectively shut out of the legal system."

Small claims courts, which use simplified procedures and require plain language, have tremendous promise as a means of empowering ordinary people to take charge of their own routine legal needs. HALT's Small Claims Reform Project advocates for states across the nation to raise their jurisdictional limits to $20,000 in order to open up small claims courts. Realizing that the $20,000 mark is an ambitious goal, HALT views House Bill 227 as an excellent first step. A $10,000 limit would make Alaska's limit tied for third highest in the nation.

Earlier this month, HALT released its 2004 Small Claims Report Card, grading all 50 states and the District of Columbia on their small claims courts. While Alaska's score was ninth best in the nation, its "C" grade leaves room for improvement.

Gordon cautioned increasing the dollar limit is only the first step in ensuring full access to small claims courts. HALT recommends several other user-friendly reforms necessary for Alaska's small claims court system: providing assistance with collecting judgments; authorizing small claims judges to issue court orders; expanding small claims dispute resolution programs; and making small claims courts user-friendly by adding additional hours of court operation and simplifying procedures.