ACCESS TO JUSTICE: A NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

AND A KENTUCKY PERSPECTIVE

Sponsor: Access to Justice Commission CLE Credit: 1.0

Thursday, June 14, 2018 10:50 a.m. - 11:50 a.m.

Elkhorn A-D Lexington Convention Center

Lexington, Kentucky

A NOTE CONCERNING THE PROGRAM MATERIALS

The materials included in this Kentucky Bar Association Continuing Legal Education handbook are intended to provide current and accurate information about the subject matter covered. No representation or warranty is made concerning the application of the legal or other principles discussed by the instructors to any specific fact situation, nor is any prediction made concerning how any particular judge or jury will interpret or apply such principles. The proper interpretation or application of the principles discussed is a matter for the considered judgment of the individual legal practitioner. The faculty and staff of this Kentucky Bar Association CLE program disclaim liability therefore. Attorneys using these materials, or information otherwise conveyed during the program, in dealing with a specific legal matter have a duty to research original and current sources of authority.

Printed by: Evolution Creative Solutions 7107 Shona Drive

Cincinnati, Ohio 45237

Kentucky Bar Association

TABLE OF CONTENTS The Presenters ................................................................................................................. i Access to Justice: A National Perspective ...................................................................... 1 Access to Justice: A Kentucky Perspective .................................................................... 5 Kentucky Access to Justice Commission ......................................................................... 9 One Advocate's Perspective: The Right to Civil Counsel and Access to Justice Initiatives ........................................................................................... 11 Resources ..................................................................................................................... 15

THE PRESENTERS

Justice Michelle M. Keller Supreme Court of Kentucky

Kenton County Justice Center 230 Madison Avenue

Covington, Kentucky 41011

JUSTICE MICHELLE M. KELLER was appointed to the Kentucky Supreme Court in April, 2013, by Governor Steven Beshear, and elected to her second full term on the bench in November, 2014. Prior to her service on the Supreme Court, she was elected as judge on the Kentucky Court of Appeals in November, 2006. Justice Keller has served as the Court of Appeals representative on the Judicial Conduct Commission, chair of the Court of Justice's Technology Governance Committee, and is currently serving as chair of the Kentucky Access to Justice Commission. Prior to taking the bench, she practiced law for 17 years, concentrating in the areas of criminal defense, administrative law, family and personal injury law, as well as medical negligence and products liability defense. Justice Keller also served as an assistant county attorney for Kenton County. She is Chairwoman Emeritus of the Kentucky Personnel Board and has served as a hearing officer and member of that board. Justice Keller is licensed to practice law in Kentucky, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, and the United States Supreme Court. She has twice been commended by the Kentucky House of Representatives for her service to the Commonwealth. Justice Keller attended Northern Kentucky University's Chase College of Law while working as a licensed registered nurse in critical care. At Chase she was an IOLTA Scholar, earning her J.D. in 1990. Chase presented her with the Case Excellence Award in 2007 and the Chase Exceptional Service Award in 2011. Additionally, Justice Keller was named a 2012 Outstanding Woman of Northern Kentucky for her commitment to public service and community involvement. She was honored on Law Day 2013 with the Richard D. Lawrence Lifetime Achievement Award presented by the Northern Kentucky Bar Association. After delivering the 2014 Law Day address, Justice Keller was presented with the Liberty Bell Award for her service to the Court of Justice. In December, 2017, she was honored to be the first woman presented with the Distinguished Lawyer of the Year Award by the Northern Kentucky Bar Association. Justice Keller has served in various positions for the Northern Kentucky, Kentucky and American Bar Associations. In 2009, she received the KBA's Donated Legal Services Award for her commitment to pro bono service and support of Kentucky's legal services organizations. She is a Master in the Salmon P. Chase Inn of Court and served as president of the Inn from 2012-13. Justice Keller is also a Fellow of both the American and Kentucky Bar Foundations.

i

Glenda J. Harrison Kentucky Access to Justice Commission 700 Capital Avenue, Suite 225 Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

GLENDA J. HARRISON serves as the executive director of the Kentucky Access to Justice Commission. She received her B.A. from Florida State University and her J.D. from Salmon P. Chase College of Law. Ms. Harrison is a member of the Kentucky and American Bar Associations. She is the recipient of the 2016 Kentucky Bar Association Donated Legal Services Award and the 2015 Northern Kentucky Volunteer Lawyers, Inc. Justice for All Award.

James L. Sandman Legal Services Corporation

3333 K Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20007

JAMES L. SANDMAN has served as president of the Legal Services Corporation in Washington, D.C. since 2011. He practiced law with Arnold & Porter, LLP for 30 years and served as the firm's managing partner for 10 years. Mr. Sandman is a past president of the 100,000-member District of Columbia Bar and a former general counsel for the District of Columbia Public Schools. He serves on the District of Columbia Access to Justice Commission and the District of Columbia Circuit Judicial Conference Committee on Pro Bono Legal Services. Mr. Sandman received his B.A. from Boston College and his J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania.

ii

ACCESS TO JUSTICE: A NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE James L. Sandman

I. ACCESS TO JUSTICE AS THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL OF AMERICAN

VALUES

A. Mayflower Compact: "Enact, constitute, and frame … just and equal laws."

B. Thomas Jefferson: "The most sacred of the duties of government [is] to

do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." C. Alexander Hamilton: "The first duty of society is justice." D. James Madison, The Federalist No. 51: "Justice is the end of

government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit."

E. First line of the Constitution: "We the people of the United States, in order

to form a more perfect union, establish justice …." F. Closing words of the Pledge of Allegiance: "Justice for all." G. Inscription on the pediment of the Supreme Court building: "Equal justice

under law." H. Justice Lewis Powell: "Equal justice under law is not merely a caption on

the façade of the Supreme Court building. It is perhaps the most inspiring ideal of our society. It is fundamental that justice should be the same, in substance and availability, without regard to economic status."

I. Justice Antonin Scalia: "Can there be justice if it is not equal? Can there

be a just society when some do not have justice? Equality, equal treatment, is perhaps the most fundamental element of justice."

II. THE REALITIES OF ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR LOW-INCOME AMERICANS TODAY

A. 56.5 million Americans are financially eligible for service at a legal aid

program funded by the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) – 17.6 percent of the population. Financial eligibility = 125 percent of federal poverty guideline ($15,175 for individual, $31,375 for family of four).

B. Funding inadequate – LSC funding per eligible person = approximately

$6.06, near an all-time low. C. LSC’s 2017 "Justice Gap" study:

1

1. 71 percent of low-income households had at least one civil legal problem in prior year. 25 percent had six or more civil legal problems.

2. 86 percent of the civil legal problems of low-income people

received no or inadequate legal assistance.

D. High percentages of unrepresented litigants in high volume, high stakes cases – often 90+ percent of tenants in eviction cases, parents in child support cases, defendants in consumer/credit collection cases have no lawyer.

E. Unrepresented litigants face a complex legal system created by lawyers

for lawyers. Examples:

1. Between 12 and 21 different forms are required for uncontested divorce in New York.

2. Kentucky self-help divorce tools (kyjustice.org/print/1855): Form

VS-300 must be printed on "25% cotton bond paper with a visible watermark."

3. Sign in a clerk’s office: "Pro Se Litigants Here"

III. REASONS FOR THE DISPARITY BETWEEN NATIONAL VALUES AND CURRENT REALITIES

A. Widespread ignorance of the problem. Most Americans do not realize you

have no right to a lawyer in a civil case. They think the opposite. B. Even many lawyers do not understand the magnitude of the problem. C. Lawyer membership in legislative bodies at historic lows. D. Tight government budgets; legal aid faces stiff competition for funding.

IV. HOW TO ALIGN ACCESS TO JUSTICE WITH NATIONAL VALUES

A. Raise awareness of the problem. Rethink to whom we speak, who does the talking, what we say. Enlist support from other disciplines and the business community.

B. Increase funding for legal aid from all sources, including private

philanthropy. C. Improve self-help resources, especially through technology.

2

D. Expand pro bono assistance. Rule 6.1 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct: "Every lawyer has a professional responsibility to provide legal services to those unable to pay."

E. Simplify legal processes in high-stakes cases with large numbers of

unrepresented litigants. "We have to make the law less complex and more workable. Lawyers have been paid, and paid well, to proliferate subtleties and complexities. It is about time we brought our intellectual resources to bear on eliminating some of those intricacies." – Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, May 1, 1964.

F. License trained, regulated paraprofessionals to assist low-income people.

3

4

ACCESS TO JUSTICE: A KENTUCKY PERSPECTIVE Justice Michelle M. Keller and Glenda Harrison

To increase access to the courts and high quality legal representation for people with low and moderate incomes living in Kentucky through innovative partnerships with the judiciary, the civil legal aid programs, private bar, law schools, and business and community based organizations.

I. WHAT IS ACCESS TO JUSTICE?

A pledge that any person with a legitimate grievance, regardless of the color of your skin, the system of beliefs by which you live, the country from which you come, the person you have chosen to love or how much money you have, has the ability to be fully and fairly heard before a tribunal and receive an impartial decision based on the rule of law.

II. WHY IS THERE A NEED FOR ACCESS TO JUSTICE?

A. Poverty Statistics

1. The United States has a poverty rate of 12.7 percent.

2. With a state poverty rate of 18.5 percent, Kentucky ranks as one

of only four states with more than 18 percent of its population living below the poverty line.

3. Of Kentucky’s 120 counties, 109 have a higher percentage of

people living in poverty than the United States average. 4. More than 824,000 Kentuckians live in poverty. 5. More than one in four Kentucky children live in poverty. 6. More than one in 10 Kentucky seniors live in poverty.

B. Number of Attorneys for People Living in Poverty

1. Lawyers are expensive. Even for those who are comfortably

middle class, the cost of a lawsuit can cause serious hardship. For people of more modest means, paid counsel is simply out of reach for matters as important as evictions, mortgage foreclosures, child custody and child support proceedings, and debt collection cases. Nor is there a right to counsel in most categories of civil legal matters.

2. Kentucky ranks 34 with 0.43 attorneys available per 10,000

people living under 200 percent of the federal poverty guidelines.

5

III. HISTORY OF THE KENTUCKY ACCESS TO JUSTICE COMMISSION (see attached)

IV. GOALS OF THE COMMISSION

A. Identify and Assess Current and Future Needs of Low and Moderate Income Kentuckians in Matters Related to Access to Civil Justice

B. Create a Framework for Equitable Access to Justice by Promoting

Policies, Procedures, Court Rules, and Legislation that Reduce Barriers to the Judicial System

C. Increase Resources and Funding for Access to Justice in Civil Legal

Matters D. Promote principled and efficient use of available resources and

encourage the coordination and sharing of resources or funding. E. Develop and implement initiatives to increase access to the courts and

meaningful use of the judicial process, such as creative pro bono opportunities, strategic uses of technology, and enhanced community education.

F. Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the statewide justice systems

and services and the findings to interested parties in Kentucky. V. ROADMAP TO ACCESS TO JUSTICE IN KENTUCKY

A. Increase the flexibility of Kentucky's civil justice system, thereby expanding the options available to people seeking help with a legal problem.

1. Encourage the delivery of legal services on a task-by-task basis

so that informed consumers can make choices about the services to be provided.

2. Find new ways for lawyers to work with non-legal third parties and

expand roles for paralegals. 3. Make the courts more approachable and simplify forms and

procedures.

4. Remove selected issues from the courts entirely and allow them to be handled through administrative procedures or directly by the involved parties.

5. Increase the use of alternative dispute resolution. 6. Experiment with alternative fee arrangements.

6

B. Develop better ways for people to obtain information about their options when facing a legal situation. Ensure that people are able to get referrals to appropriate resources.

1. Support community-wide centers for information and referral to all

types of legal and social services. 2. Use new information technologies wherever possible. 3. Provide easy-to-understand information for the public at

courthouses, libraries, and municipal buildings. C. Make the practice of personal services law more attractive within the legal

profession.

1. Inform lawyers of areas of law where people most often experience legal problems, especially those not being served by the justice system.

2. Encourage mentoring of attorneys new to personal services law. 3. Develop new approaches to billing for value rather than time.

D. Increase pro bono services by the private bar to Iow-income individuals and households.

1. Find ways for private bar and legal services lawyers to "partner" in

providing services and draw more effectively on the specialized competence of members of the private bar.

2. Develop roles for private attorneys in public education and

preventive law programs. 3. Encourage private lawyers to assist nonprofit and community

organizations. 4. Expand the use of mechanisms, such as bar association pro bono

clinics that use volunteer time most efficiently. 5. Encourage law firms to count pro bono time as billable, thereby

making contribution of services more attractive to private lawyers who must meet billable hour requirements in order to advance professionally.

E. Increase the availability of affordable legal services to less affluent moderate-income individuals and households.

1. Experiment with sliding fees and services to groups at discounted

rates. 2. Expand privately subsidized legal services programs.

7

F. Affirm the crucial role of public funding for legal services that provide access to justice for Iow-income persons.

1. Call attention to the scale of unmet legal needs. 2. Seek broad recognition that the private bar and legal services

programs together cannot fill the need given current resources. 3. Highlight the diversity of the legal problems of Iow-income

households and the potential importance of legal assistance to a household’s self-sufficiency.

G. Encourage legal services programs serving Iow-income persons to retain

as much flexibility as possible in deciding which cases to accept.

1. Programs should seek out and use empirical information in setting program priorities.

2. To avoid slighting the legal problems of those just below 125

percent of poverty, legal services programs should avoid use of an eligibility threshold lower than 125 percent of poverty when deciding which cases to take on.

H. Expand the tracking and dissemination of information about innovations in

the delivery of legal services.

1. Expand efforts to spread the word about innovations. 2. Make it possible for people knowledgeable about successful

programs to provide technical assistance as other localities attempt to establish comparable programs.

I. Evaluate programs that may be strong candidates for adoption by others.

1. Assess aspects of on-going programs that might be tried in new settings.

2. Build into new programs the capacity to evaluate their

effectiveness.

J. Draw on the experience with the Comprehensive Legal Needs Study to improve the methodology of legal needs surveys and identify important topics for further study.

1. Ensure it is not another 20 years until the next national legal

needs study is conducted. 2. Think through related research bearing on issues of access to

justice.

8

KENTUCKY ACCESS TO JUSTICE COMMISSION Glenda Harrison

The Kentucky Access to Justice Commission was established in 2010 by order of the Kentucky Supreme Court. In announcing the formation of the commission, Chief Justice John D. Minton, Jr. declared that the Kentucky Supreme Court was making access to justice a priority for the judicial branch of government. Chief Justice Minton envisioned a commission where the judicial branch would collaborate with other stakeholders, including the executive and legislative branches, as well as legal, business, civic and religious communities to ensure access to justice for Kentucky’s low and moderate income citizens. As stated in Chief Justice Minton’s remarks "the goal of the Commission is for the judiciary to take a leadership role in delivering civil legal aid to low-income citizens who have nowhere else to turn for help." Early Development of Access to Justice Commissions The genesis of Access to Justice [ATJ] Commissions extends back to 1994 with the creation of the first commission in the state of Washington. In a 2010 address to the Conferences of Chief Justices and State Court Administrators, Professor Laurence Tribe, then senior counselor for Access to Justice for the U. S. Department of Justice, highlighted the importance of Access to Justice Commissions. Professor Tribe called the movement one of the most important justice-related developments in the past decade. During that meeting, the conferences passed a resolution supporting "the aspirational goal that every state and United States Territory have an active access to justice commission or comparable body." To date, thirty-five (35) states, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands have achieved the goal of having ATJ Commissions. These commissions are blue-ribbon entities that bring together the courts, the bar, civil legal aid providers, and other stakeholders in a coordinated effort to identify and remove barriers to civil justice for low-income and disadvantaged people. They embody shared, ongoing institutional commitments to address access to justice issues in a coordinated and collaborative way, mobilizing the stature of the individual leaders and the highest levels of the courts and bar and other participating institutions to raise the visibility and credibility of these efforts. From the inception of these state commissions, the American Bar Association, Center for Court Access to Justice for All (launched in 2012 by the National Center for State Courts) and the national Conference of Chief Justices have offered broad support and provided resources for the commissions. Grants from private foundations, including the Public Welfare Foundation, the Kresge Foundation and the Bauman Foundation, have provided financial support to promote the creation of new ATJ Commissions and to encourage existing commissions to expand the scope of their activities and undertake innovative initiatives. Kentucky’s Access to Justice Commission When Chief Justice Minton introduced the commission in October 2010, he challenged the newly formed commission and Kentucky’s legal community to remove impediments to access to the justice system, including physical, economical, psychological and

9

language barriers; to develop effective plans for funding for civil legal services, who work on behalf of those who have no meaningful access to the justice system; and to expand assistance available for self-represented litigants. During its early years, the commission was ably led by Judge Roger L. Crittenden, a retired Franklin County circuit judge. Judge Crittenden brought years of judicial and administrative experience, as well as the leadership ability and diplomacy, to the newly formed commission. Since its inception, the commission’s work had been facilitated by the Access to Justice Foundation. In 2017, the Kentucky Supreme Court reaffirmed its commitment to increasing civil legal aid to low and moderate income Kentuckians and the ongoing work of the commission. Chief Justice Minton named Justice Michelle Keller as the chair of the commission. "After my appointment by our Chief Justice, I began to study how Kentucky might better embody our Supreme Court's comprehensive vision regarding access to justice. It became apparent to me fairly early on in that process, that the jurisdictions where the most progress was being made maintained Commissions led by full-time staff. That allowed those Commissions to devote focused attention to the various issues, while coordinating volunteer and stakeholder participation. The leadership of both the Kentucky Bar Association and the Access to Justice Foundation stepped up and assisted me in transforming Kentucky's Commission into the model I have described" says Justice Keller. While specific projects will continue to evolve, broadly speaking, the commission’s goals include identifying and addressing obstacles to providing access to the justice system; developing strategies to increase funding, resources, support, development and delivery for those working to ensure access to the courts; assisting in increasing access to the justice system through use of volunteer attorneys; expanding the delivery and support of civil legal aid through the development of committed government leaders; increasing public awareness of civil legal aid and its positive impact on the state and local communities; and partnering with other service providers to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the statewide delivery systems. Glenda Harrison is the executive director of the commission. Ms. Harrison has worked for Legal Aid of the Bluegrass for over forty years and most recently served as advocacy director for the program. Nan Hanley is the communications/training coordinator of the commission. Ms. Hanley worked for the Access to Justice Foundation, a statewide resource center for civil legal aid programs, for over 20 years. The commission office is located in Suite 225 at the state Capitol in Frankfort. They can be contacted via phone at 502-564-5493 or email at glenda.harrison@kyaccesstojusticecommission.org.

10

ONE ADVOCATE’S PERSPECTIVE: THE RIGHT TO CIVIL COUNSEL AND ACCESS TO JUSTICE INITIATIVES

I. INTRODUCTION

Many states are now motivated to create a right to civil counsel in certain

contexts. This trend is occurring because studies have shown increasing numbers of unmet legal needs with litigants appearing unrepresented in court.1 Additionally, many states have formed Access to Justice Commissions in response.2 Unrepresented litigants are an issue because they can create difficulties and delays for courts, but more importantly, they may forfeit their rights due to the absence of counsel.

Courts have an ethical responsibility to ensure that unrepresented litigants do not forfeit their rights. Legal aid programs can also help to protect unrepresented litigants. The right to civil counsel should fill in the contexts where courts and legal aid programs cannot.

II. THE THREE-STEP APPROACH

The most significant problem that Access to Justice Commissions should address is the forfeiture of rights due to the absence of counsel. The first step to address this is by redefining the roles of judges, mediators, and court clerks. The second step is by using and expanding the capacities of the civil legal aid programs. The final step is to begin to move toward an expanded right to appointed civil counsel in specific contexts. A. Step One: Redefining the Role of the Court System The traditional adversarial system frustrates rather than furthers the goals

of fairness and justice in the context of unrepresented litigants because litigants with lawyers are favored over those without. To eliminate these inequalities, courts have an ethical duty to play an active role in keeping the system impartial.

To achieve this, courts must remember that not all unrepresented litigants have chosen to self-represent. A more accurate assumption is that a pro se litigant’s appearance is compelled and not chosen. Courts should use the standard of "informed consent"3 and accept an appearance as

1 See 2017 Justice Gap Report: Measuring the Civil Legal Needs of Low-income Americans (2017), https://www.lsc.gov/media-center/publications/2017-justice-gap-report. 2 See American Bar Association, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_aid_indigent_ defendants/initiatives/resource_center_for_access_to_justice.html. 3 See ABA Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct. Comment 18 to Rule 1.7 (defining "informed consent").

11

voluntary only if litigants are aware of all their options and the advantages and disadvantages of those options.

To maintain impartiality, judges and other court personnel should also be

required to assist unrepresented litigants as necessary to ensure that all relevant information is before the court. Lawyers must also maintain impartiality by following the ethical rules prohibiting contact with unrepresented litigants.

B. Step Two: Using and Evaluating Civil Legal Assistance Programs

Advocates working to increase access to justice should use current legal aid programs but also work to increase the capacity of those programs, like telephone hotlines, self-help centers, pro se offices, advice-only clinics and court-annexed limited legal services programs. While those resources do provide increased access to the courts, care must be taken to ensure those programs provide meaningful access to justice. Those programs must be evaluated to ensure that they help to prevent the forfeiture of rights, not just to help the courts to run more smoothly without affecting case outcomes. These programs should not only be evaluated by determining the extent to which the litigants believed they were helped. Advocates should develop evaluation methods that not only consider the participant’s subjective experience but determine how these programs actually affect case outcomes.

C. Step Three: Expanding the Right to Civil Counsel in Certain Contexts

The best starting point for expanding the right to civil counsel is by defining subsets of cases, such as evictions and custody matters, rather than entire categories. This is known as a "context-based approach" and as enunciated in Mathews v. Eldridge,4 it should require an analysis of the subset of cases where the absence of counsel would be likely to cause a requisite level of harm. Additionally, while almost all unrepresented litigants would benefit from the appointment of counsel, each litigant does not have an equal risk of suffering a substantial injustice due to the absence of counsel. Therefore, proponents of the right to civil counsel should also analyze the litigant’s risk of suffering harm. Finally, the extent to which the provision of counsel would reduce injustice must be balanced against the use of resources that it would require. For example, the provision of counsel for unrepresented tenants would reduce homelessness, but would be a wide use of resources because of the sheer number.

4 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976).

12

III. TARGETING THE CONTEXTS APPROPRIATE FOR THE RIGHT TO CIVIL COUNSEL The starting point for creating a right to civil counsel should be targeting the cases in which unrepresented litigants either forfeit rights or suffer a substantial injustice due to the absence of counsel. When a legal problem threatens a poor person’s family, sustenance, health, or housing,5 the justice system should provide the necessary legal assistance. The starting points for establishing this civil right are likely to be subsets of certain areas of family law, evictions, and immigration cases due to the underlying rights at stake, the sheer number of unrepresented litigants in these types of courts, and the likelihood of power imbalances in these cases. Some factors suggest that certain custody proceedings may be a stronger place to start than evictions because they make up a smaller percentage of the docket and would use fewer resources. Although narrowing the extent of the right to counsel at the beginning may seem counterintuitive, the step may be necessary to persuade the courts that the claim of a right to counsel is no more expansive than necessary.

IV. RESPONDING TO OPPONENTS’ OBJECTIONS

The fact that no current proposal for the right to civil counsel seeks appointed counsel for all parties in all civil cases illustrates that the question is not whether, but where, to draw the line. Both skeptics and supporters believe that the right, once established, will not apply to the majority of civil cases involving unrepresented litigants. Even in the criminal context, defendants are not entitled to appointed counsel in all cases. Articulating the right to civil counsel as one component in a comprehensive or holistic strategy to prevent the forfeiture of rights of unrepresented parties responds to these concerns. The right to civil counsel must be analyzed in conjunction with both redefining the roles of the court system and by using and expanding legal programs. For example, the more that the combination of expanded roles and legal aid programs succeed in preventing the forfeiture of rights, the narrower the scope of a right to civil counsel will need to be. Proponents of the right to civil counsel should also respond to cost concerns. Modifying roles for existing players rather than creating new roles is the most cost-effective strategy. However, if only appointing counsel can truly help the problem, new resources must go toward providing counsel and not into ineffective alternatives. Additionally, proponents must also point out differences in the cost of action versus inaction. For example, data on case outcomes may demonstrate that appointed counsel, in some contexts, is cheaper than the costs that result from the failure to appoint counsel. When the parties with power in the legal system can be persuaded to support the right to civil counsel, the right may be easier to achieve. Access to Justice

5 See Michael Greco, "Court Access Should Not Be Rationed: Defined Right to Counsel in Civil Cases is an Issue Whose Time Has Come, ABA Journal, Dec. 2005, at 6.

13

Commissions can help in the search for powerful allies, such as attorneys general. Commissions can also identify parties to file amicus briefs in cases on the right to civil counsel. In addition to responding to opponents and developing allies, proponents of the right to civil counsel must still continue to identify the parties who stand to benefit from the status quo and a system with unrepresented litigants.

V. CONCLUSION

A coherent Access to Justice movement articulates the overarching goal of obtaining justice for all, including those without lawyers in civil cases. An expanded right to civil counsel is just one component of the range of initiatives to achieve this goal. The idea that those without counsel should not have to forfeit their rights due to the absence of counsel should remain the driving force behind these movements, and narrowing the scope of the right and continuing to collect data will help to create this right more quickly. Finally, a disciplined focus on certain subsets of cases and contexts could help to shift the self-interest of the players who maintain the status quo and move them toward a consensus for change.

14

KENTUCKY CIVIL LEGAL AID RESOURCES Kentucky Access to Justice Commission 700 Capital Avenue Suite 225 Frankfort, KY 40601 502-564-5493 AppalRed Legal Aid 700 Pitzer Street Suite 1 Barbourville, KY 40906 606-546-5115 Serving: Bell, Clay, Harlan, Knox, Laurel and Whitley Counties 600 High Street Hazard, KY 41702 606-439-2315 Serving: Breathitt, Lee, Leslie, Letcher, Owsley, Perry and Wolfe Counties 146 Main Street Pikeville, KY 41501 606-437-3446 Serving: Pike County 120 North Front Street Prestonsburg, KY 41653 606-886-9876 Serving: Floyd, Johnson, Knott, Lawrence, Magoffin, Martin and Pike Counties 114 North Third Street Richmond, KY 40475 859-624-1394 Serving: Clark, Estill, Garrard, Jackson, Madison and Powell Counties 108 College Street Somerset, KY 42501 606-679-7313 Serving: Adair, Casey, Clinton, Cumberland, Lincoln, McCreary, Monroe, Pulaski, Rockcastle, Russell and Wayne Counties

15

Kentucky Legal Aid 1700 Destiny Lane Bowling Green, KY 42104 270-782-1924 Serving: Allen, Barren, Butler, Edmonson, Green, Hart, Logan, Metcalfe, Simpson, Taylor and Warren Counties 100 South Railroad Street Madisonville, KY 42431 270-825-3801 Serving: Caldwell, Christian, Crittenden, Hopkins, Muhlenberg, Todd and Trigg Counties 117 West Second Street Owensboro, KY 42303 270-683-4585 Serving: Daviess, Hancock, Henderson, McLean, Ohio, Union and Webster Counties 1122 Jefferson Street Paducah, KY 42001 270-442-5518 Serving: Ballard, Calloway, Carlisle, Fulton, Graves, Hickman, Livingston, Lyon, McCracken and Marshall Counties 709 South Main Street Hopkinsville, KY 42240 *Satellite Office Legal Aid of the Bluegrass 1616 Greenup Avenue Ashland, KY 41101 606-329-1321 Serving: Boyd and Greenup Counties 104 East 7th Street Covington, KY 41011 859-431-8200 Serving: Boone, Campbell, Carroll, Gallatin, Grant, Harrison, Kenton, Nicholas, Owen, Pendleton and Robertson Counties 300 East Main Street Suite 110 Lexington, KY 40507 859-233-4556 Serving: Anderson, Bourbon, Boyle, Fayette, Franklin, Jessamine, Mercer, Scott and Woodford Counties

16

546 E. Main Street Suite 1 Morehead, KY 40351 606-784-8921 Serving: Bath, Bracken, Elliott, Fleming, Lewis, Mason, Menifee, Montgomery, Morgan and Rowan Counties Legal Aid Society 416 West Muhammad Ali Blvd. Suite 300 Louisville, KY 40202 502-584-1254 Serving: Breckinridge, Bullitt, Grayson, Hardin, Henry, Jefferson, Larue, Marion, Meade, Nelson, Oldham, Shelby, Spencer, Trimble and Washington Counties

17

18