Expert Opinions

The COVID-19 pandemic poses unique challenges to lawyers and law students alike. For many students enrolled in live-client clinics, the challenges of meeting their clients' needs in a transitional environment are particularly demanding. Yet these law students in clinical programs have a unique opportunity to rise to the occasion.

Courts, judges, and lawyers have demonstrated a remarkable ability to adapt to a remote and technology-driven version of our justice system in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. These changes have fundamentally altered the way the system operates and call for a renewed commitment to civility and collegiality across the legal profession.

Administering justice in the time of COVID-19 has taken on a whole new direction in a rural municipal court in Laramie, Wyoming. After the governor declared a state of emergency, we developed a plan to temporarily delay any in-court personal appearances and began utilizing videoconferencing to facilitate necessary court functions.

Imagine a legal sector neatly divided into two groups: the Rule Makers and the Risk Takers. With evidence piling up that the legal market is not working for ordinary citizens, the Rule Makers come together to evaluate possible changes. After the new rules are enacted, the burden shifts to the Risk Takers to build out workable solutions.

In January 2019, IAALS published recommendations for improving dispositive motions practice in state and federal courts, calling for a new paradigm for motion practice in the United States. Now, judges around the country are answering the call.

On Thursday, March 12, the State Bar of California Trustees voted to postpone passing the motion to explore the development of a regulatory sandbox to May. In my eyes, every day, hour, or minute of delay leads to bad legal outcomes for Californians. Our legal system is in crisis. Now, as a community, we have to turn our kinetic access-to-justice energy into focused action.

From my perspective as the director of a law school innovation lab, legal education is disengaged from the regulatory reform effort: only a handful of legal academics have chimed in on regulatory reform or been involved in task force efforts. But legal education should join the conversation and prepare for the changes ahead, for several reasons.

To address the challenges posed by the rising number of debt collection cases in our state courts—including high rates of self-represented litigants and default judgments—IAALS and the National Center for State Courts have released a new white paper that presents a model approach to reform in these cases.

As a member of the California State Bar Task Force on Access Through Innovation of Legal Services, I’m often asked how things are going with ATILS and what is coming next. Considering the recent increase in news coverage of our efforts, the critical feedback received to date, and with the Task Force recently being named to the 2020 American Bar Association’s list of Legal Rebels, I thought it was the right time to put together this quick blog post to provide everyone with an update from the Golden State.

In Ohio, state judges are currently chosen in nonpartisan general elections (although they do compete in partisan primaries). But House Bill 460 would allow judicial candidates to place their party affiliations directly on the general election ballot. If the measure becomes law, Ohio would be the second state in recent years to move from nonpartisan to openly partisan elections.

IAALS’ Court Compass project is all about incorporating user-centric design into courts’ reform process to engage and empower litigants in creating solutions and to help improve their trust and confidence in the legal system. The results of IAALS’ model workshops were just released in a new report, titled Redesigning Divorce: User-Driven Design for a Better Process.

Some lawyers have expressed concern that changes to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct will allow new players into the field, potentially reducing their income and/or taking their jobs. On the contrary, however, allowing new players in the business of legal services may make it possible for lawyers to scale their practices and enlarge the legal services pie for all.