There are few more people who are more thoughtful about court improvement than Richard Zorza. His blog had an interesting post recently about mobile access to justice.

Several organizations have been stepping up to the plate on mobile, for example, LSC with its TIG grants, Illinois LegalAidOnline with their informational and pro bono apps, the State Bar of Georgia. Not to mention the Pro Bono Net, Northwest Justice Project and Montana Legal Services partnership.

But, more generally, we are way behind where we should be.  See here one blog post on possibilities for the courts.

How many courts get you mobile messages reminders of court appearance dates, community service obligations — with maps, tools to get you to the right courtroom service locations, reminders of risk of default as you fail to check in at the court?

How many legal aid programs remind you of appointments (including with social service, public benefits, etc.) again with the tools, help, chat to help you navigate the interview?

Maybe we need a jointly-funded national Center on Mobile Access to Justice (C-MAJ, pronounced Madge), to push the envelope, work with the main mobile technology platforms, and incentivize the developer community.  (For a depressing search, try putting access to justice into the Google Play Store., or the Mac App Store (nothing!))

By now, every court and every state legal aid system should have something on mobile.  Remember, the Pew data on how low income folks use mobile for their Internet access. (High school grad only, 49% of mobile owners using mobile for Internet.)

Daniel Wiessner who writes for Reuters reports that, “ Following the lead of the New York state court system, New Jersey’s top judge has formed a committee to consider requiring prospective attorneys to complete pro bono work before being admitted to the state bar.

The 17-member panel, which Chief Justice Stuart Rabner created last week, will be chaired by Judge Glenn Grant, the acting administrative director of New Jersey’s court system. The committee will review New York’s pro bono mandate, which requires 50 hours of work, and make recommendations to Rabner.

The panel includes private attorneys, bar association officials, legal service providers and officials from the state’s three law schools, as well as a third-year law student and a retired state judge.

According to an Oct. 15 letter Grant wrote inviting the officials to join the committee, 97 percent of small claims litigants and 99 percent of tenants in housing cases in New Jersey show up to court without a lawyer.

“These numbers, combined with the ongoing limits of resources for Legal Services of New Jersey, continue to cause concern about access for a considerable portion of those who could be most in need,” he wrote.”

New Jersey is not the only state that is examining how to get more lawyers involved in pro bono activity.  New York’s Chief Judge, Jonathan Lippman, proposed a requirement for mandatory pro bono service New York in May. The New York proposal designated an array of existing law school programs, such as clinics, internships and judicial clerkships, to qualify as mandatory pro bono hours. New York’s  rule will  apply to anyone admitted to the bar after Jan. 1, 2015.

Most of the time court orders or appellate decisions are, to be charitable, pretty bland. But occasionally judges use strong language. Where is the right line? Surely there are instances when strong language is called for and just as surely judges can overdo it. The American Bar Association Journal reports, “The District of Columbia’s Office of the Attorney General is taking issue with a federal judge’s scathing opinion finding that city attorneys violated a discovery order.  In a motion , District of Columbia Attorney General Irvin Nathan , accused U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth of using “vituperative rhetoric” in his opinion, according to The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times. The motion (PDF) asks Judge Lamberth to reconsider his opinion or, in the alternative, to stay sanctions pending appellate review.  Lamberth’s opinion had said the district conducted unauthorized discovery in response to a suit claiming a right to post political signs on lamp posts. In the Oct. 4 opinion (PDF), Lamberth wrote: “The central issue is whether defendant was authorized to propound any discovery at all. The answer is clear: No. Given the history of this litigation, the District’s position and arguments are as untenable as they are ridiculous. Defendant asks this court to enter an Orwellian world where all arguments are devoid of context, and all court orders magically mean whatever the District wishes them to mean. The court rejects this invitation.”

Two years ago, the talk about judicial elections was about the defeat of three members of the Iowa Supreme Court. There was fear that the results of Iowa might be a harbinger of bad things in other states. As Justice At Stake and the Brennan Center have reported, over the last several election cycles, there has been a lot of money spent on judicial elections. Some of the television ads have been very tough. To be sure, there are serious academics such as professor James Gibson who argue that how the public reacts to contested judicial elections is more nuanced than just saying “nothing good can come from them.” So here in part is what happened yesterday.

In Florida where the Republican Party (and others) sought to defeat three members of the Florida Supreme Court, the justices won handily. They got 67% of the vote. In Indiana, where a Supreme Court Justice became the foil of some Tea Party types for a decision of that state’s court last year, the retention was 68%. In Iowa, the fourth member of the Iowa Supreme Court who was targeted for the Iowa Supreme Court decision on gay marriage was retained with 54% of the vote.

In Michigan, Republican Brian Zahra defeated Democratic challenger Shelia Johnson in a contest to serve a partial term. In the combined race to win two full terms, the two top vote-getters in a close race were University of Michigan law professor Bridget McCormack, a Democrat, and incumbent Justice Stephen Markman, a Republican.  In North Carolina, incumbent Justice Paul Newby, a Republican, won a new eight-year term. He had faced a stiff challenge from appeals court judge Sam Ervin IV, a Democrat.  In Alabama, former Chief Justice Moore will be returning to the Supreme Court. In Louisiana, American Judges Association President Toni Higgginbotham ran a strong race for the Supreme Court, but not strong enough to make it to the runoff. Ballot measures to change the appointing process in Missouri and Arizona were soundly defeated. Others will no doubt have much more detailed analysis, but this much is clear: state courts in the United States still have to be concerned about the public’s perception of fairness and the legitimacy of our decisions; courts still have in many parts of the country enormous budget challenges, but there is a reservoir of goodwill toward the judiciary. The times dictate that judges seek to enhance that reservoir with ever more sustained commitment to fairness in our courts.

There will no doubt be a few folks distracted from following the judicial races in the United States and who will fixate on the Presidential race and maybe even the Senate, House, Governor and legislative races, but for the true judicial political junkie, there is nothing like following judicial races. Let’s be honest, neither Fox nor MSNBC will have their act together. But thanks to the National Center for State Courts, there is a way to follow the retention races in Florida and Iowa, the Chief Justice race in Alabama and for true AJA judicial political junkies, the important Supreme Court race in Louisiana where AJA President Toni Higgenbothem  is one of the candidates. To see the site and follow the news go to:

http://www.ncsc.org/elections

Reflecting  about the right to counsel over 50 years after the United States Supreme Court decided Gideon  is the subject of this paper by Robert Mosteller now available via SSRN. Here is the abstract:

The Sixth Amendment is aptly described by Akhil Amar as the “heartland of constitutional criminal procedure.”  It is a major part of the Framers’ designed to ensure a fair trial and provides the opportunity for the accused to challenge the prosecution’s case and to demonstrate innocence.  However, as woeful inadequate funding for indigent defense undercuts the reality of the constitutional right to counsel and as trials become more and more rare, a broader focus is needed.

In a time in which it is painfully obvious that we have limited resources available to meet public needs and a reticence to extend legal doctrines, those interested in progressive reform should look beyond developing new legal doctrine.  The fundamental Sixth Amendment interest in fairness can be furthered by administrative mechanisms and aided by actors in the criminal justice system beyond defense attorneys.  The victories may not be stirring or draw public note, but for the individuals not prosecuted or incarcerated erroneously, they can be extraordinarily significant and fulfill the basic promise of the Sixth Amendment.

The Restoration of Rights Project is an important new resource from the NACDL (National Assoc. of Criminal Defense Lawyers) that everyone with a criminal record should know about. It provides detailed information about every state: what rights are lost upon conviction, and how to get them back. Here’s the description:

NACDL is pleased to offer, as a resource for its members and as a service to the public, a collection of individual downloadable documents that profile the law and practice in each U.S. jurisdiction relating to relief from the collateral consequences of conviction. The 54 jurisdictional profiles include provisions on loss and restoration of civil rights and firearms privileges, legal mechanisms for overcoming or mitigating collateral consequences, and provisions addressing non-discrimination in employment and licensing. In addition to the full profiles, there is a set of charts covering all 50 states (plus territories and the federal system) that provide a side-by-side comparison and make it possible to see national patterns in restoration laws and policies. The information covered by the charts is summarized on the page for each jurisdiction.

There are few blogs that are as consistently as interesting as How Appealing.  The blog recently reported “Wash. convictions reversed over PowerPoint show”: The Associated Press has this report on a ruling that the Supreme Court of Washington State issued recently. According to The AP report, “During closing arguments, the deputy Pierce County prosecutor presented a slide show with Glasmann’s mug shot and the word ‘guilty’ superimposed in red letters three times across his face. The justices said unanimously Thursday that was improper, because there was no such image admitted as evidence.”

The Supreme Court’s  5-to-4 decision consists of a lead opinion, an opinion concurring in the judgment, and a dissenting opinion.

One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that one’s work is terribly important.

—Bertrand Russell

If heaven has a special place for fathers and daughters, Sen. George McGovern is now with his daughter, Terry. Hopefully an eternity of happiness and joy lie ahead. McGovern will, for the most part, be remembered in history as a liberal warrior for the hungry. He had a successful career in politics. Although he was a staunch Democrat, he knew how bipartisanship and compromise were essential, as illustrated by his work with Republican Sen. Bob Dole on the issue of food stamps. He had a Ph.D. in history, taught in many colleges and was a prolific author. And of course, McGovern was a dismal failure in his effort to become president. All of that is well worth noting, but perhaps what all of us can best learn from Sen. George McGovern is the need to better understand mental illness and chemical dependency. 

In Tim Russert’s book, “Wisdom of Our Fathers,” there is mention of a book that was so sad that Russert said he had to put it down repeatedly.  This book, written by McGovern, was entitled, “Terry: My Daughter’s Life-And-Death Struggle With Alcoholism.” Whether you admired, despised or are indifferent to McGovern’s political views, perhaps his passing can inspire us to contemplate how society can better help those disabled by mental illness and chemical dependency. Perhaps his experience can lend some comfort to parents and families whose loved ones are afflicted with chemical dependency and mental illness.  For the rest of the article: http://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2012/10/mcgovern-and-his-daughter-terry-what-we-can-learn