Guest Posts

The best lawyers are not the ones that leave “no stone unturned” but rather they are the ones who know which stones are critical to the outcome of the dispute. This type of professional judgment lies at the core of every successful litigator, and this message is reinforced loud and clear in IAALS’ Recommendations for Improving Dispositive Motions Practice in State and Federal Courts.

Done right, summary judgment expedites the just resolution of a case—that’s the whole reason we have Rule 56. Our challenge as judges and lawyers is to make dispositive motion practice advance that purpose. While lawyers have traditionally filed such motions if, when, and as often as they pleased, this is a recipe for excess or—worse—abuse. Dispositive motions work best when they are part of a plan for moving the case toward resolution.

Laura Storovich, a participant in our Colorado design sprint, shares her experience going through divorce as a self-represented litigant and her thoughts on our design sprint process.

State courts, where 95 percent of all cases are filed, are powerful. Their decisions can have profound effects on our rights and our lives—from whether Massachusetts officials can detain people based on a request from federal immigration authorities to whether a Michigan voter-initiated redistricting proposal could appear on the ballot.

On November 6, Coconino County became the first rural county in Arizona to voluntarily change from a partisan-popular election of superior court judges to a merit selection-judicial retention election.

Legal services consumers want greater access to law and justice, and teaching unbundling—or limited scope representation—in law schools is necessary for new lawyers to develop the skills they need to operate in today’s changing legal services market.

IAALS’ recent report describes a large but relatively unknown group of executive branch adjudicators who are not "Administrative Law Judges" (ALJs) governed by the Administrative Procedure Act. The report describes principal Non-ALJ characteristics, giving special attention to the degree to which agencies that employ them seek to protect their impartiality.

Through its Better Access through Unbundling Conference, IAALS has set the national agenda for expanding legal access through limited scope services—and the table is set for the use and growth of unbundling. Jurisdictions have the benefit of model rules, bar endorsement, and replicable models to encourage lawyers to unbundle and make that availability known to consumers.

IAALS’ recent publication, Redefining Case Management, provides an updated set of civil case management guidelines. Notably, the discussion surrounding strong case management by the court is not focused on the overall pace of litigation; the goals are “fair, efficient, and accountable” case management, not just faster litigation.

The outcomes of the IAALS/ABA Better Access through Unbundling conference include specific directions and recommendations to make unbundling an even more significant way to advance affordable access to legal services. Now is the time to bring stakeholders together, solidify strategic plans, and dedicate resources to the advancement of unbundling.