Medidas analógicas

Because the cost of legal services is prohibitive for low-income and often modest-means Americans, the legal industry has followed other industries—such as the airline industry, the financial service industry, and the music industry—by unbundling legal services.²⁰²

198. ARIZ. REV. STAT. SUP. CT. R. 39(1), (5) (2018); SUP. CT. RULES FOR THEGOV’T OF THE

BAR OFOHIOR. 9(1)(E) (limiting the work to “criminal or poverty law clinics,” which may exclude work associated with clinics focused on environmental law, civil rights, animal rights, community and economic development, etc.).

199. CAL. RULES OFCT. R. 9.45(a)(1)(B).

200. PA. BD.OFLAWEXAM’RS, PA. BARADMISSIONRULESR.311(b) (2015).

201. N.M.R. 15-301.2 (2018); MINN. STATE BD. OF LAW EXAMINERS, RULES FOR

ADMISSION TO THEBAR8 (2017) (granting a temporary license not to exceed fifteen months).

202. Stephanie L. Kimbro, Law a la Carte: The Case for Unbundling Legal Services, 29 GPSOLO30, 30 (2012), https://www.americanbar.org/publications/gp_solo/201 2/september_october/law_a_la_carte_case_unbundling_legal_services.html

[https://perma.cc/9J4J-QZJZ].

Model Rule 1.2(c) formally permits limited scope representation (“unbundling”): “A lawyer may limit the scope of the representation if the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances and the client gives informed consent.”²⁰³Unbundling is a delivery method for legal services in which a “lawyer breaks down the tasks associated with a client’s legal matter and provides representation only pertaining to a clearly defined portion of the client’s legal need” and in which the

“client accepts responsibility for doing the footwork for the remainder of the legal matter until reaching the desired resolution.”²⁰⁴ Such services include advising clients on court procedures and courtroom behavior, coaching on strategy, conducting document review, drafting agreements or pleadings, ghostwriting, dispute resolution, negotiating, organizing discovery material or preparing exhibits, and making limited appearances in court or providing legal guidance.²⁰⁵ To date, Rule 1.2(c) has been adopted either verbatim or with some modification (typically limiting unbundling only to noncriminal matters) in all fifty states and the District of Columbia.²⁰⁶

I. Access to Justice Commissions

Although the first Access to Justice (ATJ) Commission was launched in 1994 in the State of Washington, the expansion of this concept has only occurred within the last few years.²⁰⁷ Now, ATJ Commissions exist in forty-four jurisdictions—a growth spurred by a series of one-time grants in 2012 and 2013 to spread the ATJ Commission movement across the United States.²⁰⁸Created typically

203. MODELRULES OFPROF’LCONDUCTr. 1.2(c) (AM. BARASS’N2016).

204. Kimbro, supra note 202, at 32.

205. See id. at 33–34.

206. See Unbundling Resources by State, A.B.A.,

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/delivery_legal_services/resources/pro_se_u nbundling_resource_center/pro_se_resources_by_state.html

[https://perma.cc/SL6V-CEKZ]; Rules, A.B.A., https://www.americanbar.org/groups /delivery_legal_services/resources/pro_se_unbundling_resource_center/court_rules .html [https://perma.cc/4X58-SPBD].

207. See Access to Justice Commissions, A.B.A.,

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_aid_indigent_defendants/initiatives/res ource_center_for_access_to_justice/atj-commissions.html [https://perma.cc/W5WT-DKJW].

208. See Directory and Structure, A.B.A.,

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_aid_indigent_defendants/initiatives/res ource_center_for_access_to_justice/atj-commissions/commission-directory.html

by order of the jurisdiction’s highest court, ATJ Commissions focus not on providing direct pro bono assistance, but rather on improving existing systems or creating new opportunities for expanding access to justice within the jurisdiction.²⁰⁹ ATJ Commissions are typically comprised of state citizens representing the legal profession, the business sector, the academic community, the religious community, and the public interest and advocacy community.²¹⁰

III. SURVEYSAYS!: MOTIVATIONS FORPROBONOENGAGEMENT

Absent a complete system overhaul²¹¹or significant funding to support legal services organizations,²¹²pro bono legal services will

[https://perma.cc/AJK8-LEC5] (noting the establishment of ATJ Commissions in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virgin Islands, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming; and other ATJ entities in Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Oregon); see also RES. CTR.FORACCESS TOJUSTICEINITIATIVES, AM. BARASS’N, ACCESS TOJUSTICEUPDATES2017-2018 122 (2018),

https://www.americanbar.org/content

/dam/aba/events/legal_aid_indigent_defendants/ls_sclaid_atj_18_meeting_material s_booklet.authcheckdam.pdf [https://perma.cc/97MS-N4H4] [hereinafter ACCESS

UPDATES]. Although the West Virginia Access to Justice Commission lost its funding at the end of 2017, it appears that it secured a grant of almost $75,000 to revive the commission. See Steve Canterbury, Cuts at Supreme Court Might Look Good at First, But Will Harm People, CHARLESTONGAZETTE-MAIL(Dec. 28, 2017), https://www.wvgazettemail.com/opinion/gazette_opinion/op_ed_commentaries/st eve-canterbury-cuts-at-supreme-court-might-look-good-at/article_82df3090-f36b-5a7e-8199-b6b2ac2d36b8.html [https://perma.cc/U37V-WP6Y]; Press Release, W.V. State Bar, Access to Justice Foundation Awarded Grant From West Virginia State Bar, (Feb. 19, 2018), https://wvbar.org/access-to-justice-foundation-awarded-grant-from-west-virginia-state-bar [https://perma.cc/5X3V-NYLX].

209. See Access to Justice Commissions, supra note 207.

210. RESOURCECTR.FORACCESS TOJUSTICEINITIATIVES, AM. BARASS’N, HALLMARKS OF

EFFECTIVEACCESS TOJUSTICECOMMISSIONS, 2 (2014), https://www.americanbar.org/co ntent/dam/aba/administrative/legal_aid_indigent_defendants/ls_sclaid_atj_effectiv e_atj_commissions_hallmarks.authcheckdam.pdf [https://perma.cc/8FHF-HSD4].

211. Keith, supra note 18, at 65–96 (describing the complexity of the civil legal aid delivery system).

212. In the current political climate, it is unrealistic to think that federal funding for the civil legal aid system will increase any time soon. See Katie Benner, Justice Dept.

Office to Make Legal Aid More Accessible is Quietly Closed, N.Y. TIMES(Feb. 1, 2018),

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/01/us/politics/office-of-access-to-justice-continue to be a key component of the access to justice equation. As such, attempting to provide an understanding of the best state-wide practices to further expand pro bono resources throughout the country is an important next step. Unfortunately, though, there is a lack of empirical evidence evaluating whether and to what extent any of the above discussed approaches promote pro bono and are effective in expanding access to justice.²¹³ Despite this reality, the following section attempts to provide some understanding of the rules, policies, and initiatives that are most worthwhile to pursue.