News

  • 04/28/2015 8:53 PM | Ian Elkus

     

    Full Report: http://board.calbar.ca.gov/docs/agendaItem/Public/agendaitem1000013003.pdf

     

    Overview:

     

    The Civil Justice Strategies Task Force (“CJSTF”) has created a report that includes the following:

    • ·      An Acknowledgment by Luis Rodriguez, president of the State Bar of California and Chair of the CJSTF
    • ·      A brief introduction of the problem the task force set out to address
    • ·      A summary of key recommendations to develop an action plan with steps that should be taken to fill the justice gap and achieve true access to justice in California
    • ·      Excerpts from the testimony; and
    • ·      Individual reports from each of the CJSTF subcommittees

     

    Summary of Recommendations

    The State Bar should study the design of a pilot program, in one subject matter area, and, with input from the Supreme Court, address how the governance, oversight, and “licensing” would be handled. It is important to allow the time for the Court to have input at the early stages, rather than after design is complete.

     

     

    Now Group  - The “Now” Group was tasked with a review other current access environment in order to identify what approaches are working now and what may be scalable or can be replicated.

     

    “Now Group” Draft Recommendations

    ·      Funding: recommend that the State Bar boost promotion of the Justice Gap Fund in order to increase donations to the fund by lawyers and law firms.

    ·      Incubators/Modest Means: recommend that the State Bar track the trajectory of incubator participants; and recommend that the State Bar help create a framework (e.g., mentors, toolkits, forms, etc.) to assist modest means practitioners.

    ·      Unbundling: recommend that the State Bar do more to promote and incentivize limited scope representation.

    ·      Improved Coordination: recommend greater coordination between the State Bar and Judicial Council, including in efforts to link the various stakeholders involved in providing affordable legal services.

    ·      Civil Gideon: recommend that the State Bar support efforts to secure universal representation starting with the following four areas: Land Lord / Tenant, Family, Domestic Violence, Immigration; and recommend that State Bar help to market what’s working in the pilot projects, publicly support them, and help to scale them.

     

    New Group - The “New” Group focused on innovations that currently are being considered or implemented in other jurisdictions.

     

    “New Group” Draft Recommendations

    ·      Limited License Legal Technicians (LLLT): The State Bar should study the design of a pilot program, in one subject matter area, and, with input from the Supreme Court, address how the governance, oversight, and “licensing” would be handled. It is important to allow the time for the Court to have input at the early stages, rather than after design is complete.

    ·      Alternative Business Structures (ABS): The State Bar should monitor the ABS concept in other jurisdictions, with particular attention to the impact on pro bono and public impact litigation in jurisdictions that adopt these practices. Until this information is available to consider and understand, the Bar should not proceed with new rules or programs.

    ·      Re-engineering: recommendation for a pilot project, perhaps in landlord-tenant, using a joint working group of the bar, the courts, and perhaps relevant social scientists and tech people, to explore how the system could be redesigned to streamline the process, make it easier to use, and provide protection for the parties’ rights.

    ·      Navigators: A program should be designed to be piloted in one or more self-help centers, to provide volunteer assistance to self-represented litigants in attending hearings. Permission should be requested to have the navigator sit at counsel table with the litigant, but not to address the court. Based on experience in other jurisdictions, the focus should be on this as a volunteer program, not as a for-profit method of assistance.

     

    “Law School Debt” Group - This group examined the intersection of law school debt and access to justice.

    Law School Debt Draft Recommendations

    ·      Info Clearing house: The Bar should serve as a clearinghouse of information on student debt management and repayment programs and key student loan debt and repayment information.

    ·      California Young Lawyers Association: Working through CYLA, the Bar should develop mechanisms and new approaches to assist young lawyers in better understanding and proactively addressing the implications of their student debt obligations.

    ·      Creating an Enhanced Understanding of Student Debt Data, Concerns and Implications: The Bar should continue to put a spotlight on the issue of law school debt, promote an enhanced understanding of the link between student debt and broader community access to justice and public safety concerns, and assist others working to study, quantify and better define the implications of student loan indebtedness.

    ·      Assess Relationship to Misconduct: The Bar should work through its discipline arm to assess whether student debt is precipitating or contributing to lawyer misconduct.

    ·      Work with Law Schools: The Bar should use both its law school regulatory power as well as its established relationships with law school leaders to encourage enhanced counseling, strategies and disclosures in regard to student debt.

    ·      Participate in National Dialogue: The State Bar should consider ways to add its voice to the national dialogue seeking to develop and promote enhanced loan forgiveness and repayment approaches.

    ·      Encourage New Law School Cost Models: The State Bar should help encourage new and innovative models that seek to address law school cost concerns.

    ·      Implementation: The Board of Trustees should create a group to implement these recommendations

     

    Appendix A- List of Panelists and Witnesses at CJSTF Hearing

    Appendix B - Summary of Recommendations

    Appendix C - Excerpts from Witnesses at Hearings

    Appendix D - Reports of the CJSTF Subcommittees


  • 03/17/2015 8:59 PM | Ian Elkus

    Our fellow CAPA Association in Santa Rosa is presenting MCLEs on 3/28/15.  CAPA discount for all SFPA members: Redwood Empire MCLE event

     

     

  • 02/24/2015 7:10 PM | Ian Elkus

    A number of pieces of passed legislation were mentioned at the presentation but weren't included in the outline.  Here are the details:
     
    ·         AB 1525 (Lowenthal), Stats. 2014, Ch. 450:  City clerks of charter cities can now perform marriage ceremonies
     
    ·         SB 1306 (Leno), Stats. 2014, Ch. 82:  includes “housekeeping” to reflect legality of same sex marriages in CA (e.g., revises language throughout the Family Code to refer to marriage between 2 persons, rather than to husband and wife)
     
    ·         AB 1755 (Gomez), Stats. 2014, Ch. 412:  Requires reporting of unauthorized access to or disclosure of patient medical information
     
    ·         AB1951 (Gomez), Stats. 2014, Ch. 334:  Eff. 1/1/2016, new rules for birth records to include options for mother, father and parent to describe parent’s relationship to the child
     
    ·         AB 2344 (Ammiano), Stats 2014, Ch 636:  establishes statutory forms for assisted reproduction to provide clarity regarding a person’s intent to be a legal parent; establishes procedures for conducting a step-parent adoption under certain circumstances.
     
    2.  With respect to the legislation that had not passed which would have allowed a private professional fiduciary to obtain a license for the business, rather than a license being for the individual:  I commented that this would be a boon to clients who need a private professional fiduciary for a term longer trust beneficiary or conservatee’s lifetime, and I wasn’t sure why it had not passed.   Someone came up to me after the meeting and explained that one reason it hadn’t passed was the difficulty of protecting the public:  there is no way to bond a corporation, only an individual.  (Bank trustees are exempt from bonding requirements because they are subject to other regulatory requirements that would provide enough protection) 
  • 02/19/2015 9:10 PM | Anonymous

    Check out these upcoming events to be held at San Francisco State University (Downtown Campus).

     

    paralegal-ceu.pdf
  • 02/17/2015 9:21 PM | Ian Elkus


    Anti-bullying laws in California and Tennessee could be the start of a new trend:

     

    http://bit.ly/1vDjhKZ 

  • 02/12/2015 9:41 PM | Ian Elkus

    Jesse Raskin, associate professor and head of the paralegal studies program at Skyline College in San Mateo will be presenting some SFPA Board members in a panel discussion on "paralegal-ing" (my term) for some of his students on April 16!

     

    We are thrilled to participate and pass down our knowledge, thanks for inviting us Jesse! 

San Francisco Paralegal Association • 1 Sansome St., Ste. 3500 • San Francisco, CA 94104-4448 • (415) 946-8935 • info@sfpa.com