National Center for Access to Justice News Feed

Check Out Our New Report, "Ability to Pay: Closing the Access to Justice Gap with Policy Solutions for Unaffordable Fines and Fees"

david — Thu, 25 Jul 2024 23:22:47 EDT

Government imposes fines as punishment for everything from traffic and municipal code violations to felonies, and charges people fees on top of the fines as a means of financing such core functions as law enforcement, the court system, and other government operations.

Routinely ordered without regard to a person’s ability to pay, the fines and fees for even a single incident can add up to thousands of dollars. People who can afford to pay can quickly close the case and move on with their lives. People unable to pay the sums, however, may face a wide range of ongoing harms, including more fees, civil judgments, driver’s license suspensions, revocation of voting rights, and even incarceration. Such inequality also has consequences for the stability and integrity of our communities and institutions, including our courts.

It shouldn’t be this way. The most direct approach to eliminating the harms of unaffordable fines and fees is to abolish fees altogether and to right-size fines. In many jurisdictions, however, such changes are far-off, as fines remain unaffordable, and fees are commonly imposed. Reformers, both within and outside of courts, have an interest in taking steps to reduce the harms of unaffordable fines and fees, including by establishing and implementing meaningful ability to pay determinations.

Constitutional and public policy imperatives support the public’s expectation that the judiciary will make ability to pay determinations before imposing fines and fees. In NCAJ’s new report, Ability to Pay: Closing the Access to Justice Gap with Policy Solutions for Unaffordable Fines and Fees, NCAJ’s Law & Policy Director, Lauren Jones, examines those imperatives, and identifies a set of 10 policy models — laws and practices already in place across the country — that some states are currently using to increase access to justice by reducing the harms caused by unaffordable fines and fees.

NCAJ's new Ability to Pay Report supplements our earlier Fines and Fees Justice Index, the online resource NCAJ created in 2021 (and updated in 2022) that is available as a resource to all who are working to establish better policies to curb the harms caused by states and communities that rely excessively on revenue from fines and fees. The Ability to Pay report casts a bright light on 10 key policy models, invites researchers to examine them, journalists to write about them, advocates to use them, and reformers to consider replicating them in locations where they are not yet in place.

We invite you to check out the Ability to Pay Report (including NCAJ's new web page featuring highlights from the Report) and also check out the Fines and Fees Justice Index. We welcome questions about these resources and we would be happy to talk with you about how you can use the findings to increase access to justice in your community. We would also love to hear your thoughts about the ability to pay procedures in your state. Reach us here, ncaj@fordham.edu.

Watch the Videos from NCAJ's Access to Justice Solutions Symposium of February 9, 2024

david — Tue, 12 Mar 2024 23:45:05 EDT

On February 9, 2024, NCAJ and the Fordham Urban Law Journal joined in welcoming more than 500 hundred people to The Access to Justice Solutions Symposium: With People Struggling and the Law Failing, What are the Solutions to the Access to Justice Crisis in America? Panels of experts (bios here) discussed the access to justice movement's leading edge: policy solutions. In four sessions, the experts considered: i) abolitionist solutions that reduce the footprint of the legal system in people’s lives; ii) civil right to counsel solutions that ensure people have legal representation in home eviction proceedings; iii) democratization solutions that empower people to turn to friends, neighbors, and front line justice workers (not only lawyers) for help in asserting their legal rights; and, iv) additional solutions that increase access to justice through fair laws, innovative technologies, creative programs, and other interventions (not only legal representation). We are posting, below, The Solutions Symposium Agenda with Complete Links to Videos. We hope you will find value in the remarks and join forces with us in the movement to increase access to justice in our country:

The Solutions Symposium Agenda with Complete Links to Videos (Feb. 9, 2024)

Welcome & Opening Remarks (Video LINK):

Mackenzie Philbrick, Symposium Editor, Fordham Urban Law Journal
Matthew Diller, Dean, Fordham Law
David Udell, Executive Director, National Center for Access to Justice (Video LINK)

Panel 1, The Abolitionist Movement for Civil Access to Justice (Video LINK) – This panel will examine policy solutions that may be viewed as abolitionist because they eliminate or reduce civil legal problems and the need for the civil legal system. It will ask, for example: Can reduced surveillance and increased social services lower the number of family law neglect proceedings, termination proceedings and other family law proceedings? Should third parties intercede to pay debt or rent as a means of preventing court evictions? Can abolitionist approaches that reduce incarceration – restorative justice, diversion, mental health care – be models for civil justice solutions that reduce evictions, debt collections, prosecutions of parents, and other civil disputes? Most fundamentally, what solutions are already working to reduce the footprint of the civil legal system, and what are our collective goals as we prioritize civil justice in our society?

Moderator: Lauren Sudeall, Professor & Director, Vanderbilt Access to Justice Initiative, Vanderbilt Law School
Panelists: Norrinda Brown, Associate Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law; Tehra Coles, Executive Director, Center for Family Representation; Andrew Scherer, Professor of Law, New York Law School; Neil Steinkamp, Managing Director, Stout

Panel 2, The Movement for a Tenants’ Civil Right to Counsel (Video LINK) – Tenants and home owners facing eviction proceedings without counsel are often unaware that the law offers them protection and are thus at heightened risk of losing their homes. Recognition of a civil right to counsel for tenants has gained substantial traction as a policy solution with four states and 17 cities now providing counsel to tenants through novel laws and programs. The approach has important benefits for family and community stability, yet also faces questions around design, implementation, and scalability. Experts will discuss the issues, including: Can communities recruit and retain a number of lawyers and other advocates sufficient to fully implement the right? What can be done to help communities respond to legal problems for which there is no right to counsel? Is there a role for social services providers alongside counsel? How should communities decide whether to establish a civil right to counsel when other policy solutions also offer potential relief, for example, traditional models for civil legal aid, government payments for rent arrears, creation of new low cost housing, stronger rent stabilization laws, and more?

Moderator: Rasheedah Phillips, Director of Housing, PolicyLink
Panelists: Larisa G. Bowman, Court Innovation Fellow, Deborah L. Rhode Center on the Legal Profession, Stanford Law School; Bob Glaves, Executive Director, the Chicago Bar Foundation; John Pollock, Attorney & Coordinator, the National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel; Radhika Singh, Vice President, Civil Legal Services & Strategic Policy Initiatives, National Legal Aid & Defender Association

Panel 3, The Movement To Democratize the Law (Video LINK) – In light of the justice gap that leaves millions of people in search of justice but without access to obtain it, a movement has grown to enable people to obtain legal advice from individuals who are not lawyers – and to do so as an exception to state criminal laws prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). In New York and South Carolina, federal lawsuits are challenging traditional UPL prohibitions on constitutional grounds. A national initiative, Frontline Justice, is envisioning a new category of "justice workers" specifically trained to help people resolve their legal issues. In some states, new models are being tested that allow people to pay “allied legal professionals” for legal services. What are the new advocacy models that are being tried within and outside of the courts, in nonprofit settings and in for profit settings, with attorney supervision, and without? With more people educated and with legal texts readily available online, what requirements of education, training, experience, and safeguards are being suggested, implemented, scaled up and evaluated?

Moderator: Bruce Green, Louis Stein Chair of Law, Director of Stein Center, Fordham Law
Panelists: Nikole Nelson, Founding CEO, Frontline Justice; Michele R. Pistone, Professor of Law, Founder & Faculty Director for the Strategic Initiative for Migrants + Refugees, Founder & Faculty Director for Villanova Interdisciplinary Immigration Studies Training for Advocates (VIISTA), Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law; Tanina Rostain, Agnes Williams Sesquicentennial Professor of Justice Innovation, Georgetown University Law Center; Rebecca L. Sandefur, Professor & Director, School of Social and Family Dynamics, Arizona State University, Faculty Fellow at the American Bar Foundation, and Co-Founder, Frontline Justice

Panel 4, The Creation of Alternative Interventions (Video LINK) – Alongside abolitionist approaches, civil rights to counsel, and roles for new providers of legal assistance, the access to justice movement has developed additional interventions to increase fairness. These take the form of new laws, technologies, structures and programs (not only legal representation). Some of the specific solutions include: laws that require a determination of "ability to pay" before fines and fees debt can be imposed; automated court forms that make it easier for people to file answers to civil lawsuits; and, enforcement initiatives in which state attorneys general hold employers accountable to requirements of wage and hour laws.This panel will ask: What are these new solutions, are they fully implemented and do they accomplish their goals? Also, do the new solutions respond to the hard problems, such as court avoidance, discrimination and intimidation in the civil legal system, and systemic injustices that persist over time. The experts will also discuss what’s next on the horizon, will it make effective use of AI, and is the modern movement for increased fairness meeting the moment?

Moderator: Sateesh Nori, Clinical Adjunct Professor, NYU Law
Panelists: Ray Brescia, Associate Dean for Research and Intellectual Life, Hon. Harold R. Tyler Chair in Law and Technology, Albany Law; The Honorable Glenn Grant, Administrative Director of the New Jersey Courts; Lauren Jones, Legal & Policy Director, National Center for Access to Justice; Janet Sabel, Director of Access to Justice Initiative at Center on Civil Justice at NYU Law, Adjunct Professor of Law at NYU Law

Discussants (contributing to all sessions): Tom Lininger, Orlando John and Marian H. Hollis Professor, University of Oregon Law; Alyx Mark, Assistant Professor of Government, Wesleyan University; James Teufel, Visiting Scholar at Arizona State University, Principal & Owner of Help Justice LLC; Kathryne Young, Associate Professor of Law at The George Washington University Law School, Visiting Scholar (2023–24) at The Russell Sage Foundation

Closing Remarks: Rasheedah Phillips (Video LINK), Director of Housing, PolicyLink

Next Steps: David Udell (Video LINK, 9 min.), Executive Director, National Center for Access to Justice

Final Thoughts: Joe Gomez (Video LINK, 12 min), Editor-in-Chief, Fordham Urban Law Journal

For questions about the AtJ Solutions Symposium, please email us at ncaj@fordham.edu.

For more on the National Center for Access to Justice, check out our website, ncaj.org.

Update: View the Video from Webinar Introducing NCAJ's New Consumer Debt Litigation Index and Two Additional New Tools for Increasing Fairness in Consumer Debt Litigation

david — Fri, 8 Mar 2024 12:36:04 EST

Update: See the Webinar Here. Original Post: This past week NCAJ released the Consumer Debt Litigation Index, a new tool for use by advocates, reformers, scholars, legislators, judges and other stakeholders in pursuing reform initiatives to promote fairness in consumer debt litigation. To learn more about the new Index, see this new article in Law 360, Most States Allow Abusive Debt Collection, Report Says, and check out NCAJ's news-post. Today, we are reaching out to invite all who are interested in fairness in consumer debt litigation to register for the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC)'s national webinar on March 14, 2024 at 2pm. The webinar will introduce NCAJ's new Index alongside the Center for Public Health Law Research at Temple University Beasley School of Law (CPHLR)'s new Dataset containing an overview of state statutes, regulations, and court rules governing debt collection lawsuits, and alongside NCLC's new report, “No Fresh Start 2023: Will States Let Debt Collectors Push Families Into Poverty as the Cost of Necessities Soars?”, containing a comparison of state post-judgment exemption laws that protect wages, bank accounts, homes, cars, and household goods. If you would like to sign up for this NCLC Webinar, please REGISTER HERE and join us on the 14th.

New “Consumer Debt Litigation Index” Ranks States on Best Policies for Access to Justice

david — Mon, 4 Mar 2024 12:47:26 EST

The National Center for Access to Justice (NCAJ) at Fordham Law School today announced the release of the Consumer Debt Litigation Index, an on-line resource that demonstrates that every U.S. state and the District of Columbia lack essential legal standards to protect consumers from wrongful, abusive debt collection tactics that can lead to homelessness, family breakup, overwhelming stress and other devastating consequences for families and individuals. There are signs of progress and many states are trying to improve, but every state has a long way to go.

Millions of Americans each year face lawsuits brought by debt collectors. These cases clog court systems, in some districts approaching or exceeding half the number of civil cases filed in some jurisdictions. Because of ineffective court rules, cases are often filed on bogus or stale debts, against the wrong people, and/or claiming inflated amounts. Moreover, because of ineffective rules, people often are not even informed they are being sued, are prevented from responding by overly complex legal requirements or can’t respond because they can’t afford a filing fee. Very, very few people sued by debt collectors can afford to hire a lawyer – though the debt collectors almost always have lawyers on their side. In some jurisdictions the debt collector wins by default in more than 70% of cases because the consumer never responds or appears in court.

Good policies can make collection actions more fair for consumers and still provide a path for creditors with valid claims to get repaid. The findings in the new Consumer Debt Litigation Index—which looked at 24 policy benchmarks critical to making consumer debt litigation more just and fair—reveal a legal landscape with much room for improvement, including:

30 states still allow for debtor’s prisons relying on a loophole that allows their judges to send people to jail for failure to obey a court order to pay debt;
15 states still charge a fee to answer a consumer debt complaint; and
7 states still allow seizure of wages ("garnishment") and property ("attachment") without a court order.

These policy failures—and successes—transcend geography and politics. The District of Columbia, Delaware, New York and Alaska top the rankings for best policies, with Pennsylvania and Texas landing in a tie for fifth. The bottom five states are Hawaii, Louisiana and Montana tied for last with Rhode Island and Nevada next to the bottom. The Report that accompanies the release of the Index observes that although some states are making progress (indeed, only two of the recommended policies have not been adopted by any state), none are doing well (the highest score was only a 53 out of 100), showing room for significant improvement in every state. The Index also contains a set of State Reports outlining each state’s results with respect to each of the 24 policy benchmarks.

Lauren Jones, NCAJ's Director of Law & Policy, said: “There are four basic principles underlying the Consumer Debt Litigation Index. First, in too many cases people never even get notice that they are being sued, and, if they do, they have no idea how to proceed. People should be notified of a lawsuit and where they can find help. Second, to prevent bogus lawsuits, creditors should be required to produce evidence that a debt claim is valid. Third, fees, interest, and garnishment amounts should be limited so that lawsuits do not render people destitute. And, finally, debtor’s prison must be eliminated once and for all.”

David Udell, NCAJ's Executive Director, said: “We are seeing that simple changes in the law can produce a markedly fairer legal landscape. Legal reforms can reduce the number of unjust lawsuits filed, increase the opportunity for people to learn they have been sued and defend themselves effectively, and stem the flow of adverse judgments that lead to unjust wage garnishment, arrest and incarceration. We are heartened to see that almost every one of the 24 policy solutions we identified as critical is already in place in at least one state. This means that states seeking to improve need not reinvent the wheel. Rather, they can quickly and easily learn what adjacent states and comparable states are already doing to create a fairer, more just system.”

The new Index offers the equivalent of 24 national reports revealing which of the 50 states and the District of Columbia have in place each of 24 policies essential to fairness in consumer debt litigation (and which do not). Seventy attorneys serving pro bono from law firms that included DLA Piper LLP, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Ropes & Gray LLP, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, White & Case LLP, and a team from UBS, participated in the comprehensive research initiative that produced the new Index. NCAJ consulted throughout the process with consumer debt scholars, officials and advocates, and also shared preliminary results with state officials for their input. The views advanced in the Index are entirely NCAJ’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of those who have contributed to the project.

To rely on the new findings to support change in your state, we encourage you to visit the Consumer Debt Litigation Index and the website of the National Center for Access to Justice.

You are invited: With People Struggling and the Law Failing, What are the Solutions to the Access to Justice Crisis in America?

david — Thu, 25 Jan 2024 16:31:21 EST

Join NCAJ for the AtJ Solutions Symposium on February 9th

On February 9th, please join us (in person or virtually) for this important gathering with experts from across the country who will examine and discuss practical solutions for increasing access to justice for people contending with life’s many challenges. Debt collection threatens people’s financial stability and liberty. Eviction threatens their homes. Family prosecution threatens their relationships. In each context, and in many others, people face powerful opponents and complex legal systems, often without meaningful assistance. Many of the consequences fall hardest on communities of color.

A civil access to justice movement seeks to empower people in these challenges. This “Solutions Symposium” will focus on the movement’s leading edge: policy solutions. These include approaches that: i) narrow the footprint of the legal system in people’s lives; ii) ensure people will have a right to legal representation in civil legal disputes; iii) empower people to turn to friends, neighbors, and other front line workers (not only lawyers) for help in asserting their legal rights; and, iv) increase access to justice through fair laws, innovative technologies, creative programs, and additional interventions. Attention will be given to evaluation of the claimed policy solutions, and to considerations of quality, impact, and scalability.

The Symposium is co-sponsored by the National Center for Access to Justice with Fordham Law’s Access to Justice Initiative, Fordham Law’s Stein Center for Law & Ethics, and Fordham Law’s Urban Law Journal which will publish a set of papers authored for the Symposium. The Symposium will be transmitted with Zoom link. CLE credit will be available in NJ and NY. Register here to attend in person or virtually.

Welcome & Opening Remarks (9 am):

Mackenzie Philbrick, Symposium Editor, Fordham Law’s Urban Law Journal
Matthew Diller, Dean, Fordham Law
David Udell, Executive Director, National Center for Access to Justice

Panel 1 (9:30 am) The Abolitionist Movement for Civil Access to Justice – This panel will examine policy solutions that may be viewed as abolitionist because they eliminate or reduce civil legal problems and the need for the civil legal system. It will ask, for example: Can reduced surveillance and increased social services lower the number of family law neglect proceedings, termination proceedings and other family law proceedings? Should third parties intercede to pay debt or rent as a means of preventing court evictions? Can abolitionist approaches that reduce incarceration – restorative justice, diversion, mental health care – be models for civil justice solutions that reduce evictions, debt collections, prosecutions of parents, and other civil disputes? Most fundamentally, what solutions are already working to reduce the footprint of the civil legal system, and what are our collective goals as we prioritize civil justice in our society?

Moderator: Lauren Sudeall, Professor & Director, Vanderbilt Access to Justice Initiative, Vanderbilt Law School
Panelists: Norrinda Brown, Associate Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law; Tehra Coles, Executive Director, Center for Family Representation; Andrew Scherer, Professor of Law, New York Law School; Neil Steinkamp, Managing Director, Stout

Panel 2 (11:10 am) The Movement for a Tenants’ Civil Right to Counsel – Tenants and home owners facing eviction proceedings without counsel are often unaware that the law offers them protection and are thus at heightened risk of losing their homes. Recognition of a civil right to counsel for tenants has gained substantial traction as a policy solution with four states and 17 cities now providing counsel to tenants through novel laws and programs. The approach has important benefits for family and community stability, yet also faces questions around design, implementation, and scalability. Experts will discuss the issues, including: Can communities recruit and retain a number of lawyers and other advocates sufficient to fully implement the right? What can be done to help communities respond to legal problems for which there is no right to counsel? Is there a role for social services providers alongside counsel? How should communities decide whether to establish a civil right to counsel when other policy solutions also offer potential relief, for example, traditional models for civil legal aid, government payments for rent arrears, creation of new low cost housing, stronger rent stabilization laws, and more?

Moderator: Rasheeda Phillips, Director of Housing, PolicyLink
Panelists: Larisa G. Bowman, Court Innovation Fellow, Deborah L. Rhode Center on the Legal Profession, Stanford Law School; Bob Glaves, Executive Director, the Chicago Bar Foundation; John Pollock, Attorney & Coordinator, the National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel; Radhika Singh, Vice President, Civil Legal Services & Strategic Policy Initiatives, National Legal Aid & Defender Association

Panel 3 (1:30 pm) The Movement toward Democratizing the Law – In light of the justice gap that leaves millions of people in search of justice but without access to obtain it, a movement has grown to enable people to obtain legal advice from individuals who are not lawyers – and to do so as an exception to state criminal laws prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). In New York and South Carolina, federal lawsuits are challenging traditional UPL prohibitions on constitutional grounds. A national initiative, Frontline Justice, is envisioning a new category of "justice workers" specifically trained to help people resolve their legal issues. In some states, new models are being tested that allow people to pay “allied legal professionals” for legal services. What are the new advocacy models that are being tried within and outside of the courts, in nonprofit settings and in for profit settings, with attorney supervision, and without? With more people educated and with legal texts readily available online, what requirements of education, training, experience, and safeguards are being suggested, implemented, scaled up and evaluated?

Moderator: Bruce Green, Louis Stein Chair of Law, Director of Stein Center, Fordham Law
Panelists: Matthew Burnett, Senior Program Officer American Bar Foundation, Adjunct Professor Georgetown Law, Co-Founder of Frontline Justice; Michele Pistone, Professor of Law, Founder & Faculty Director for the Strategic Initiative for Migrants + Refugees, Founder & Faculty Director for Villanova Interdisciplinary Immigration Studies Training for Advocates (VIISTA), Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law; Tanina Rostain, Agnes Williams Sesquicentennial Professor of Justice Innovation, Georgetown University Law Center; Rebecca Sandefur, Professor & Director, School of Social and Family Dynamics, Arizona State University, Faculty Fellow at the American Bar Foundation, and Co-Founder, Frontline Justice

Panel 4 (3:10 pm) The Creation of Alternative Interventions – Alongside abolitionist approaches, civil rights to counsel, and roles for new providers of legal assistance, the access to justice movement has developed additional interventions to increase fairness. These take the form of new laws, technologies, structures and programs. Some of the specific solutions include: laws that require a determination of "ability to pay" before fines and fees debt can be imposed; automated court forms that make it easier for people to answer civil court complaints; enforcement initiatives by state attorneys general that hold employers accountable to wage and hour laws; and “court navigators” and “community navigators” who inform people about the law and legal proceedings. This panel will ask: What are the new solutions, are they fully implemented and do they accomplish their goals? The panel will consider whether the new solutions respond to the hard problems, such as court avoidance, discrimination and intimidation in the civil legal system, and systemic injustices that persist over time. Panelists will consider what’s next on the horizon, will it make use of AI, and is the modern movement for increased fairness meeting the moment?

Moderator: Sateesh Nori, Clinical Adjunct Professor, NYU Law
Panelists: Ray Brescia, Associate Dean for Research and Intellectual Life, Hon. Harold R. Tyler Chair in Law and Technology, Albany Law; The Honorable Glenn Grant, Administrative Director of the New Jersey Courts; Lauren Jones, Legal & Policy Director, National Center for Access to Justice; Janet Sabel, Director of Access to Justice Initiative at Center on Civil Justice at NYU Law, Adjunct Professor of Law at NYU Law

Discussants (contributing to all sessions): Tom Lininger, Orlando John and Marian H. Hollis Professor, University of Oregon Law; Carlos A. Manjarrez, Chief Data Officer, Economic Development Administration, US Department of Commerce; Alyx Mark, Assistant Professor of Government, Wesleyan University; James Teufel, Visiting Scholar at Arizona State University, Principal & Owner of Help Justice LLC; Kathryne Young, Associate Professor of Law at The George Washington University Law School, Visiting Scholar (2023–24) at The Russell Sage Foundation

Closing Remarks (4:40 pm): Rasheeda Phillips, Director of Housing, PolicyLink

Next Steps (4:55 pm): David Udell, Executive Director, National Center for Access to Justice

Reception (5 pm)

The Price People Pay: Fines and Fees in New York

david — Wed, 15 Nov 2023 23:09:54 EST

The Price People Pay: Fines and Fees in New York

After a police officer killed Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014, a Department of Justice investigation revealed that the police department there had engaged in racially discriminatory, aggressive policing practices driven in part by its reliance on fines and fees for revenue. Research since then has revealed that the problem goes far beyond Ferguson. Across the country and New York State, the pursuit and collection of fines and fees by law enforcement and the judiciary is often racially biased, imposed disproportionately on the poorest and most vulnerable communities, destructive for families, grossly inefficient as a solution to budget needs, and a powerful source of injustice. Lauren Jones, Legal & Policy Director of the National Center for Access to Justice, will lead this important public conversation about the harsh consequences of fines and fees, the campaign for change in New York State (including the End Predatory Court Fees Act), and the organized efforts that are dedicated to reversing these destructive policies in New York and across the nation.

Moderator

Lauren Jones, Legal and Policy Director, National Center for Access to Justice

Panelists

Zach Ahmad, Senior Policy Counsel, New York Civil Liberties Union

Antonya Jeffrey, New York State Director, Fines and Fees Justice Center

Andre Ward, Associate Vice President of the David Rothenberg Center for Public Policy, The Fortune Society

Claudia Wilner, Director of Litigation and Advocacy, National Center for Law and Economic Justice

In-person
6:30 – 8 p.m.

Fordham Law School
Costantino Room (Second Floor)
150 West 62nd Street
New York, NY 10023

Zoom Program
6:30 – 8 p.m.

^{CLE Credit 1.5 hours, professional practice (available on site and remote)}

Tuesday, December 5, 2023

Sponsored by
National Center for Access to Justice
New York County Lawyers Association
Fordham Law’s Access to Justice Initiative

Co-sponsored by
Fordham Law’s Center on Race, Law and Justice
Fordham Law’s Feerick Center for Social Justice

^{Photo by Johnny Silvercloud CC BY-SA 2.0 DEED}

To Close Rikers Island by 2027, Charting a New Path on Mental Health May be the Key

Lauren — Tue, 26 Sep 2023 22:02:06 EDT

On September 13, 2023, at a program hosted by the National Center for Access to Justice and the Access to Justice Initiative at Fordham Law School, former Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman outlined a plan to close the infamous Rikers Island by 2027. “How do we close Rikers? What’s the secret potion to make it happen?” he asked. “It’s not so secret and it’s not so difficult. Mental illness is the key,” he said.

Today, more than half of people in Rikers have been diagnosed with a mental illness, and one in five has been diagnosed with a serious mental illness. Rikers is the largest provider of psychiatric services in New York City and one of the largest providers in the world.

Eighty-five percent of people held in Rikers are there pretrial. In August, people without a mental health diagnosis waited three and a half times as long for trial as their peers without a mental illness—193 versus 55 days, on average. For Black people with a mental illness, the disparities were larger still. On average, they were held in jail pretrial for 201 days.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who joined a panel moderated by NCAJ Legal and Policy Director Lauren Jones, said that the long jail times for people with mental illness can largely be attributed to underfunding of community mental health. “Even if the judge, defense attorney and prosecutor all agree that treatment is the best outcome, the person could still be in Rikers two months because there’s no place that can therapeutically address the person’s needs,” he said. For Black communities, he said, the problem of underfunding for mental health services is particularly acute.

Wesley Caines, Deputy Director of the Bronx Defenders, challenged people to imagine a new paradigm. “We’re ok with Black and brown people being incarcerated for mental health issues and other social issues that are triggered by a lack of resources,” he said. “Unless and until we can get to a place as a society where we say that it’s not ok for blackness to be a marker of dangerousness, or for mental health to be a marker of dangerousness, it’s not going to change,” he added.

Dr. Ayesha Delany-Brumsey, chief strategic growth officer at Fountain House, outlined a number of specific investments in community mental health that could make all the difference. “First, we need to build out a true mental health emergency response,” she said. “When you call 9-1-1 across most of the City, with a few exceptions the options are: law enforcement, EMS, or fire. We should be able to connect someone to a mental health provider in that moment,” she said. “Second,” Dr. Delany-Brumsey added, “We have to expand the focus of our community mental healthcare so it’s not just symptom focused but is whole-person focused.” She pointed to supportive housing and club house models as successful in providing community and support that people with serious mental illness need to thrive.

Judge Matthew D’Emic, who has presided over the Brooklyn Mental Health Court for more than 20 years and now co-chairs Mayor Adams’ Mental Health Task Force, agreed that expanding mental health treatment options is the key. Judge D’Emic described the case of a young man who was “floridly psychotic” but had been turned away from a hospital that found he did not pose an imminent threat to himself or others. The young man’s mother, Judge D’Emic said, could not manage him at home. “The options that are open for me are generally to arrest, or to release the person into the streets,” he said. “Arrest is generally the last thing I want to do, but if someone is dangerous I cannot just release them out into the streets and the hospitals can’t always keep them. Give me a different option,” he said.

DA Bragg underscored that addressing mental health differently is not only the key to closing Rikers but it is also a critical part of keeping the City safe. Research shows that people with mental illness are much more likely to be the victims of crime than the perpetrators of it. “We can do a whole lot of diversion. We can treat people and drive down crime,” he said. “That’s the recent history of our City.”

Judge Lippman agreed, “We’ve proven that we don’t have to send people to Rikers Island. Over the years we’ve been able to reduce crime and reduce the jail population at the same time. We’ve done it and we can keep doing it.”

Rikers and Mental Illness

david — Tue, 5 Sep 2023 23:30:11 EDT

New York City committed to closing the infamous Rikers Island by 2027. Today, however, the number of people in New York City jails is climbing, more than half of those incarcerated have a mental health diagnosis, and one in five has a serious mental illness. The jail is the largest mental health provider in the City and among the largest in the world, and the burdens of this dysfunctional system fall most heavily on Black and brown communities. The state of affairs is inhumane to those incarcerated, an obstacle to the City’s promise of closing Rikers, and a threat to the safety of people living with mental illness and New York more generally. Please join Lauren Jones, NCAJ's Legal and Policy Director, in this discussion with Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, Mental Health Court Judge Matthew D'Emic, Bronx Defenders' Deputy Executive Director Wesley Caines, and Fountain House Chief Strategic Growth Officer Dr. Ayesha Delany-Brumsey as we consider Less Jail, More Wellness: How NYC's Mental Health Response is Key to Closing Rikers.

Register here and join us from 6:30 to 8 pm on September 13th in Fordham Law School's Costantino Room, 150 West 62nd street, 2nd Floor (or, view online, link provided following registration).

Learn more about the National Center for Access to Justice and about our event cosponsors:

In NY Times Op Ed, NCAJ asks "What's Wrong with Getting a Little Free Legal Advice"

david — Tue, 21 Mar 2023 00:09:33 EDT

On March 17, 2023, David Udell, Executive Director of the National Center for Access to Justice, and Bruce Green, a law professor at Fordham Law School, coauthored an op ed in The New York Times titled, What’s Wrong With Getting a Little Free Legal Advice? The op ed describes the importance of a lawsuit brought by a reverend in the South Bronx, and by a nonprofit organization, Upsolve, that is challenging the "unauthorized practice laws" of New York State on the ground that these laws unconstitutionally interfere with the First Amendment freedom of the reverend to speak with members of his community about their legal problems, including to give them free advice on how to complete court-approved Answer forms. The lower court ruled in favor of the reverend and Upsolve, and New York State filed an appeal. We invite you to read the op ed and consider NCAJ's amicus brief. Please also visit our website to learn more about NCAJ's additional Legal Empowerment initiatives and other projects to increase access to justice.

New Findings on Fines & Fees Policies, Released Today by the National Center for Access to Justice, Rank the States & Provide a 50-State Policy Reform Agenda

david — Thu, 1 Dec 2022 15:50:30 EST

In 2016, a court in Lexington County, South Carolina ordered Twanda Marshinda Brown, a single mother who worked at Burger King, to pay $2,300 for two traffic offenses. Although she told the court she could only afford to pay $50 each month, the judge ordered her to pay $100 in monthly installments. Ms. Brown managed to make the payments for five months but she fell behind when her son was hospitalized and several checks from her employer bounced. The sheriff’s office arrested her for failure to pay, and the judge—this time without determining her ability to pay—ordered her to pay $1,900 immediately or go to jail. Unable to scrape together the money, Ms. Brown spent 57 days in jail because she could not afford to pay fines and fees from traffic infractions

Every day, stories like Ms. Brown’s repeat around the country. For people with means, fines and fees—which courts impose for everything from traffic and municipal violations to felonies—may be a mere inconvenience. But for people who are poor or working class and cannot pay immediately, like Ms. Brown, these charges may lead to years of ruined credit, suspended driver’s licenses, voting rights revocation, and even incarceration.

For that reason, in 2021 the National Center for Access to Justice researched fines and fees policies in all 50 states, ranking and scoring the states on the degree to which they protect the rights of litigants. The Fines and Fees Justice Index, created in consultation with experts from around the country, ranks the states on whether their laws and rules match 17 primary benchmarks and 46 secondary benchmarks. These measures ask whether the state has eliminated some of the most pernicious fees, such as fees for “free” appointed counsel, and whether judges must consider a person’s ability to pay any time they order fines and fees, and whether the state suspends a person’s driver’s license for failure to pay.

Now, NCAJ has created an update to the Fines and Fees Justice Index. In short, the findings are sobering. Out of a possible 100 points, only two states—Washington and Rhode Island—received more than 50 points, and no state received a passing score. Alabama, which ranked last in the nation, received only 7 points total.

There is, however, cause for optimism. Since 2021, when NCAJ released the first Fines and Fees Justice Index, a dozen states have passed new laws that eliminate unjust fines or fees, stop the ill-advised practice of suspending driver’s licenses for failure to pay fines and fees, or reduce the practice of extracting money from people simply unable to pay.

Delaware made the greatest strides on fines and fees policies. In 2021, the state ranked 47^th in the nation on the Fines and Fees Justice Index—a fact that advocates and lawmakers used as a primary argument for change. On October 3, 2022, the governor signed HB 244, an omnibus bill that, among other things, ended the practice of charging children fines and fees and halted suspensions of driver’s licenses for unpaid fines and fees. The new law moves Delaware from near last to 23rd on the Fines and Fees Justice Index.

In addition to documenting the progress states have made on fines and fees policies, the new Fines and Fees Justice Index includes a new feature: 51 “State Policy Reports”—one for each of the 50 states and another for Washington, D.C. These reports show clearly and simply how each state fared, and what it needs to do to improve. The reports provide a diagnostic tool to advocates and lawmakers seeking to improve fines and fees policies but unsure of where to start. Each report offers a roadmap for adopting best policies, and examples of other states that have already adopted them so that states seeking reform need not reinvent the wheel.

To learn more about the Fines and Fees Justice Index 2022 findings and to see each of the state reports, visit https://ncaj.org/state-rankings/justice-index/fines-and-fees. For more about NCAJ, visit NCAJ's website.