Court assistance officer

["Mike Curley" <curley@turbonet.com>]

In reply to Sam Duncan's comments on the BOCC's removal of the
courthouse assistant officer:

> > >    The advocates for the court assistance program are no less
> passionate,
> > > nor above misrepresenting the data to prove their point publicly.
	Sam:  sounds like you think there is some conspiracy to keep the
office going and everyone in favor talked about exactly how to
misstate the facts.  It is quite probable that some folks are
misinformed, others see the data different from you, or think that
every member of the BOCC may not be stating all the reasons in his or
her heart for denying the proposal.  You (in the next line) say "as 
we understand it."  That suggests to me that you might have less than
complete information.  So, maybe we should ask questions of one
another to get a more complete answer and picture rather than 
pointing fingers and accusing.

> > >    About a year ago the Law school and the District court as we
(BOCC)
> > > understand it got a grant from Health and Welfare to conduct a PILOT
> > > project to aid people in their access to the courts and maybe help
> > > individuals that chose not to use a lawyer to represent them in
court,
	I challenge you to find anyone at Health and Welfare, the Law
School, District Court, Supreme Court, or anywhere else involved in
the project who said the project was primarily designed for "People 
who CHOSE not to use a lawyer."  This was a project aimed at people 
who cannot AFFORD a lawyer.  People who are stuck in marriages 
(and the JOINT financial responsibility that entails in a  community 
property state like Idaho) because they couldn't afford to get legal 
help.  People who often TRIED to get divorced, but couldn't because 
the judge couldn't practice law and tell them what they needed to do. 
 True, ANYONE could use the CAO, so that a person who could afford a 
lawyer might also file his/her own documents, but that is NOT why the 
office was organized.


> > fill out the necessary paperwork. This office would be offering no legal
> > advice.
> > > The Court assistance officer would be available to provide referrals
to> > > attorneys or mediators as appropriate if the person could be
dissuaded> > form> > > representing themselves in court.
	Again, I think THIS misstates the data, or at least the reasoning.
As one of the attorneys to whom some of the referrals were made, I
can tell you that NEVER was money paid by the referred individual.
Again, they were folks who couldn't afford an attorney.  The CAO had
a list of attorneys who VOLUNTEERED their time for seemingly worthy
causes.  People who were abused, threatened, about to lose their
housing, children in need, etc.  I am not aware of a single person
who was "persuaded" to use a lawyer when s/he didn't want to in the
first place.  Not saying it didn't happen, but it was neither the
reason for creation of the office or the normal operating procedure.


  Six months later the BOCC was presented with a project report
> > which clearly stated that the program while minimally successful served
> mostly "those that did not want to pay a lawyer", their words not ours.
	Not wanting to pay does not mean they were actually able to pay.  I
believe that the report from the LOCAL office (which is the ONLY one
we are concerned about) was not couched in those terms.  The language
subtly SUGGESTS that the people were able to pay lawyers and chose
not to, that the office was not serving folks who had a real need.
That was not my experience with the program, nor that of anyone else
I knew associated with it, from Francis Thompson to Pat Costello at
the Law School to other attorneys who donated their time.

> > >    The BOCC again acquiesced to provide another $10,000 to continue
the> > > PILOT project for another six months.
> > >     Now comes the participants to imply that somehow Latah County is
> > > politically obligated to continue a project of The Law school and the
> > > Supreme Court. Furthermore, we are told to expect the "matching
> funding"> > to> > > dry up and the County will be shouldering the entire
burden for the
> > program> > > with no oversight in the operation, just provide the money,
phones,
> > > offices, fax, new office equipment as may be wanted, copying etc.
> > >    This is a new ballgame now. If these are the new rules then the
> Court> > > Assistance program will have to compete on its own merits with
the
> needs> > of> > > other advocacy groups.

	Wait, somehow you jumped from "another six months of funding" 
(during which the county is providing only a piece of the funding and 
can take advantage of the contributions from other groups) to the 
"new ballgame" of being totally responsible.  Certainly the county 
won't be OBLIGATED to continue the project at the end of the pilot 
period, so why not wait until then to throw it away.


> > > project we must accept clients from a 5 county region, and in fact
from
> > > anywhere in the State if a person so desired to access this office in
	A point that might justify arguing for contribution from other
counties, assuming that we actually had very many applicants for help
from out of county.  Since there was a fixed cost for the office
there was no extra cost associated with helping someone from another
county.  I don't think we experienced a flood of people coming from
say, Boundary County asking for help in local courts.  Access is a
major problem for people with no money.  Many of the people I
represented had to find transportation to get to the courthouse
because they didn't have their own.

. Should the county be funding
> > divorce problems, and other myriad family problems, really? Is the
government
> > > really responsible? The BOCC is committed to finding a workable,
> > equitable solution and will listen to any and all input on this issue.
	Equal access to justice issues and "equal access to health care"
raise many of the same questions--and primarily they revolve around
how we treat people who don't have money, and perhaps more
importantly their children.  They are mostly the same reasons that
the County provides assistance to Sojourners Alliance, Alternatives
to Violence of the Palouse, and the other organizations you
mentioned--all of whom, by the way, I suspect would support the
maintenance of the Court Assistance Office because it gives them a
means to provide legal authority and support to the work they are
doing.  I'm sure they wouldn't want to lose funding to the CAO, or to
each other for that matter, but the CAO was able to do things that
the other places couldn't do for someone in serious need. The program
isn't perfect, and there is no reason that the county should not have
some oversight, but it is worthy of funding to a reasonable level.
If it is to be staffed, I would argue for a lawyer staffing it if
that is reasonably possible.  Giving legal advice and giving legal
information are two different things.  Legal information is often as
valuable as the advice.  Imagine if we had a similar office for
medical information.  Would you be more comfortable with a trained
medical person (doctor/nurse/therapist) or a county employee?
I believe that the social costs of not helping people without money
gain access to the courts is greater than the cost of maintaining an
office such as the CAO.  But that is a can with its own worms that is
best not debated in this particular forum.

Mike Curley

Mike Curley
curley@turbonet.com
208-882-3536