volume 16, number 1 - UDC Law Review

More documents

Recommendations

Info

\\jciprod01\productn\D\DCR\16-1\DCR106.txt unknown Seq: 8 11-FEB-13 12:318 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LAW REVIEWclaimants believed they would have been better off with counsel, and manylacked a clear understanding of either the process or the contested issues. Moreover,many had little idea how to advocate for themselves with respect to the issuesthey did understand. The perceptions of claimants were similar to thegeneral views expressed by at least some of the ALJs and advocates involved inUI appeals: Many claimants would benefit from representation. 16The researchers acknowledge that the high volume of UI appeals relative tolegal services resources makes it “impossible” for every claimant to be representedat a hearing. Fortunately, recent rigorous evidence suggests that some—perhaps many—claimants may be able to effectively self-represent. 17 In a randomizedcontrolled trial in which the “treatment” group was offered representationin a UI hearing and the control group was not offered representation, thestudy showed no difference in success rates at hearing between the control andtreatment groups. 18 The study was inconclusive regarding the effect of actual representationon UI eligibility appeal outcomes. 19 However, the claimants whowere offered assistance experienced an average two-week delay in time to outcomeas compared to control group claimants. 20 Put bluntly, offers of representationproduced no better results but imposed a cost—a cost that validated theconcerns of advocates and ALJs that “the presence of more lawyers could complicatehearings and draw them out unnecessarily.” 21As access to justice and other social justice issues become the subject of moreand better empirical analysis, clinicians and advocates must become sophisticatedreaders and interpreters of empirical study results. Regarding the UI study inBoston and the experience of UI appeals in the District, for example, there maybe characteristics of the UI appeal process, the advocacy community, the jobmarket, or the demographics of the labor market in Boston that don’t exist inWashington D.C. These factors may account for the finding that offers of representationdid not impact UI appeal outcomes in Boston. 2216 Id. at 22.17 D. James Greiner & Cassandra Wolos Pattanayak, Randomized Evaluation of Legal Assistance:What Difference Does Representation (Offer and Actual Use) Make?, 121 YALE L.J. 2118(2012).18 Id. at 2152-58.19 Id. at 2166-70.20 Id. at 2153-58.21 Pumar & Mullen, supra note 14, at 45. R22 See Jeffrey Selbin, Jeanne Charn, Anthony Alfieri & Stephen Wizner, Service Delivery, ResourceAllocation and Access to Justice: Greiner and Pattanayak and the Research Imperative, YALELAW JOURNAL ONLINE (July 30, 2012), http://yalelawjournal.org/the-yale-law-journal-pocket-part/scholarship/service-delivery,-resource-allocation,-and-access-to-justice:-greiner-and-pattanayak-andthe-research-imperative/(supporting a strong empirical research capacity while recognizing the dangersof misreading or misuse of data and study outcomes).
\\jciprod01\productn\D\DCR\16-1\DCR106.txt unknown Seq: 9 11-FEB-13 12:31FOREWORD: THE WORK OF THE BELLOW SCHOLARS 9More refined studies comparing similar legal cases in different regions mayprovide a much clearer picture of how much and what type of assistance 23 bestmatches the needs of particular clients. 24 The sample in the Boston UI study wasnot large enough to draw any conclusions about whether age, language ability, orother claimant characteristics correlated with better outcomes when representationwas available. What we can be certain of is that empirical study, of the sortundertaken by Faith and Enrique, is critical to effectively targeting scarce resources.Their preliminary study sets the stage for follow-up research that lookstoward reforms that may make the UI hearing process more accessible for selfrepresentedclaimants. 25Mary Spector’s paper on the pitfalls confronting consumers dealing with “debtbuyers” is a wonderful example of ferreting out systemic disadvantage and bias inthe seemingly simple cases that didn’t initially appear to be challenging even fornovice clinic students. 26 Mary’s interest was piqued by what appeared to be apattern of creditors dismissing court claims as soon as a debtor’s attorney filed anappearance. Further investigation revealed “a larger pattern in which repeatplayers appeared to flout rules of evidence, procedure and professional responsibilityto transform their delinquent credit card accounts into legally enforceablejudgments.” 27 Mary then consulted with an empiricist and developed a plan toinvestigate whether the same patterns appeared in a larger, random sample ofcases. Her careful work documented not only similar patterns but evidence ofviolations of Texas consumer protection laws that might have afforded debtorsboth a defense and affirmative claims. 28On September 13, 2012, Mary testified on “Examining the Uses of ConsumerCredit Data” before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on FinancialInstitutions and Consumer Credit. Thus, as the title to her paper indicates,Mary and her students began with representation, which led to research and backagain—not only to representation but to a role in reforming debt collection practicesto better protect vulnerable consumer “one-shot” players.23 Trial courts in many states now offer on-site information and assistance, including an opportunityfor a brief consultation with a volunteer “lawyer of the day”; many courts also make accommodationsfor litigants who have opted for “discrete task” or “unbundled” legal services. See SELF-REPRESENTED LEGAL NETWORK, http://www.srln.org (last visited Dec. 1, 2012) (describing a creativeand active coalition in support of assisted self-representation); see also AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATIONSTANDING COMMITTEE ON DELIVERY OF LEGAL SERVICES, http://www.americanbar.org/groups/delivery_legal_services.html(last visited Dec. 1, 2012) (collecting exhaustive reports on innovative approachesto affordable legal assistance).24 Most administrative tribunals permit non-lawyer representation, which may be less costlythan appointed counsel; non-lawyer volunteers might also play a helping role.25 Pumar & Mullen, supra note 14, at 46-47. R26 Spector, supra note 12, at 57-60. R27 Id. at 60.28 Id. at 59-60.
Page 2 and 3: \\jciprod01\productn\d\dcr\16-1\TOC
Page 4 and 5: \\jciprod01\productn\d\dcr\16-1\fac
Page 6 and 7: \\jciprod01\productn\d\dcr\16-1\ms1
Page 8 and 9: \\jciprod01\productn\d\dcr\16-1\edn
Page 10 and 11: \\jciprod01\productn\D\DCR\16-1\DCR
Page 66 and 67:
\\jciprod01\productn\D\DCR\16-1\DCR
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148:
show all

volume 16, number 1 - UDC Law Review

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?