Researching to Support Justice October 4, 2017

Transcription

1 Researching to Support Justice October 4, 2017

2 A doctor (and a criminologist and a public health specialist and a fitness expert and a development economist) and a lawyer....

3 Medicine in 1935

4 1962: Kefauver-Harris Amendments Before new drugs can be marketed to the public: adequate and well-controlled studies = RCT (usually)

5 Why conduct rigorous studies in medicine? Physicians recognized: professional judgments too often Wrong

6 New Drug Development & Testing Idea + Lab Development Phase 1: Safety Screening (<100 people) Phase 2: efficacy, often small RCT (<1000 people) Phase 3: Field RCT (>1000 people) Success $$ $$$ $$$$ (Source: Bio et al., 2016)

7 Question: What fraction of phase 1 drugs clear phase 3? Idea + Lab Development Phase 1: Safety Screening (<100 people) Phase 2: efficacy, often small RCT (<1000 people) Phase 3: Field RCT (>1000 people) Success $$ $$$ $$$$ What fraction make it? A. 55% C. 25% B. 40% D. 10% (Source: Bio et al., 2016)

8 Question: What fraction of phase 1 drugs clear phase 3? Idea + Lab Development Phase 1: Safety Screening (<100 people) Phase 2: efficacy, often small RCT (<1000 people) Phase 3: Field RCT (>1000 people) Success $$ $$$ $$$$ What fraction make it? A. 55% C. 25% B. 40% D. 10% (Source: Bio et al., 2016)

9 Maybe doctors just aren t that smart? (and lawyers are?)

10 What happens in other professions? Criminology: Scared straight Public health: Robot babies (I don t know what this is): Fitbits Poverty: microcredit business loans

11 Other professions beginning to change?

12 What we do in law Idea Field (Unless a resource constraint)

13 Maybe lawyers need to rethink?

14 Why Care About Rigorous Research in Law? There is a huge need for civil legal services Courts are in crisis, with funding cuts and the rise of self-representation Legal service providers turn down 1 out of ever 2 eligible requesters Pro bono attorneys: only about half do pro bono in a given year People who don t self-identify legal issues in the first place Civil Gideon movements We don t know everything right now What works and what doesn t How a system works, where the best leverage points are

15 What does rigorous empirics mean? Mixed methods (deployed at the same time) Surveys Detailed, memorialized observations Crunching numbers that are already gathered But: to find out, really, what works and what doesn t, need a randomized control trial ( RCT ), aka Randomized field experiment Clinical trial Lottery study

16 The Harvard A2J Lab is working on Incorporating lessons from other fields Adult education (cartoons) Statistics (teaser postcards) Psychology (self-affirmation, e.g., You re a good person ) Sociology (social messages, e.g., You re not alone ) Economics (cost-benefit) Public health, political science, design, etc.

17 What does the A2J Lab do? Design interventions, e.g., Self-help: paper & tech Student-supported law practice improvements Outreach mechanisms Evaluate interventions (our own, other s) Legal outcomes (litigant success, court burden, procedural justice, etc.) And beyond (socioeconomic success, stress, family stability, etc.,)

18 Case study: ipv triage 18

19 Civil Protection Orders Filed in 8 Ohio counties (2014)

20 Why study triage? Full rep. Limited advice + self-help No assistance Screening + intake Assess the case Assign to level of service

21 Can we win vs. can we help Phone Call + Self-Help YES NO NO Full Rep YES YES NO

22 Can we win vs. can we help Phone Call + Self-Help YES NO NO Full Rep YES YES NO

23 IPV Triage: Measuring Outcomes Where do lawyers make a difference? What is the effect of a restraining order? How are lawyers making triage decisions? Adjudicatory outputs + longer term outcomes

24 Changing Gears: Illinois Pro Bono Data

25 Survey Project

26 Attitudes, Barriers, Motivations

27 Motivating Factors Helping people in need Ethical obligation Professional duty Participating in reducing social inequalities It would make me feel like a good person Helping the profession s public image A firm culture that encourages pro bono Opportunities to interact with low-income populations Opportunities to work directly with clients Gaining experience in an area outside of my expertise Opportunities to work with other attorneys Strengthening relationships with my private practice clients who value pro bono engagement Opportunities to go to court Recognition from colleagues and friends Recognition from employer

28 82% of the attorneys believe it is either somewhat or very important for attorneys to offer pro bono services

29 Motivating Factors: Gender Male Female

30 Motivating Factors: Age or younger

31 Motivating Factors: Geography Urban Suburban Towns Rural

32 Motivating Factors: Practice Setting Private Corporate Government

33 Barriers Lack of time Commitment to family or other personal obligations Lack of skills or experience in the practice areas needed by pro bono clients Scheduling conflicts making it difficult to be available for court appearances Lack of clarity on how much time I would end up having to commit The unrealistic expectations of clients Lack of malpractice insurance Competing billable hour expectations and policies Lack of interest in the types of cases Too costly; financially burdensome to my practice Lack of administrative support or resources Lack of information about opportunities Discouragement from employer/firm A preference for spending volunteer time on non-legal matters Concerns about compromising the interests of my other clients A preference for providing reduced fee assistance rather than no fee assistance I feel that a lot of pro bono clients really can afford legal assistance Personal or philosophical objections

34 Barriers

35 Barriers: Gender Male Female

36 Amount of Pro Bono in 2016

37 The Numbers: Pro Bono in AVE HOURS 50+ Hours 80+ Hours: 11.7% Hours: 7.3% Hours 16.9% 1-19 Hours: 16.4% None: 47.8% RULE 6.1 ABA Model Rule Rule 6.1 states that every lawyer has a professional responsibility to provide legal services to those unable to pay and that a lawyer should aspire to render at least (50) hours of pro bono public legal services per year

38 By practice setting

39 Geography: Urban: 38.9 Hours? Towns: 32.9 Hours??? Suburbs: 29.7 Hours? Rural: 26.7 Hours

40 Age Groups: or younger

41 Age Groups + Gender: Males Females or younger

42 Types of Services in 2016 Limited Scope 42.5% 38.3 Ave Hours Both 23.7% Ave Hours Full 33.1% 70.1 Ave Hours

43 2016 Pro Bono Recipients

44 Client Types Services Provided To Percent of Attorneys Providing Pro Bono to Average Hours Individuals 83.6% 54.6 Class of Individuals 5.5% 25.1 Organizations 40.4% 38.1

45 Client Categories Rural Resident Homeless Person Victim of Consumer Fraud Migrant Worker LGBTQ Ethnic Minority 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Single Parent Elderly Person Non or Limited English Speaker Disabled Person Student Illinois National Veteran Incarcerated Person Undocumented Immigrant Documented Immigrant Victim of Domestic Violence Child/Juvenile

46 Most Recent Pro Bono Experience

47 How Attorneys Find Clients Directly 22% Indirectly 78% Direct: 1. No Relationship 2. An Acquaintance 3. Former client Indirect: 1. Legal Aid Pro Bono Program 2. Judge/Court Administrator 3. Present/Former Client

48 Legal Tasks Performed Provided advice Reviewed/drafted documents Interviewed/met with the client 66.0% 62.8% 73.2% Spoke with other attorneys Wrote letter Provided full representation in court (trial or 37.4% 35.9% 33.5% Negotiated a settlement with other parties Referred to other organization(s) Represented the client in administrative Limited scope representation in court (trial or Represented the client before a legislative body Other 17.9% 11.9% 7.6% 6.3% 1.0% 7.5%

49 Top Areas of Law (National Data) Full Representation Limited Scope Representation 1. Family (31.6% of the cases) 2. Criminal (13.4%) 3. Estate planning/probate (9.1%) 4. Immigration (8.3%) 5. Real Estate (5.4%) 6. Domestic violence (5%) 7. Civil rights (4.8%) 8. Housing (4.1%) 1. Family (19.3% of the cases) 2. Estate planning/probate (13.7%) 3. Real Estate (9.7%) 4. Non-profit organization (9.6%) 5. Contracts (8.4%) 6. Criminal (8%) 7. Housing (7.3%) 8. Business/corporate (7.2%)

50 Most Time Consuming Areas of Law (National Data) Full Representation (45.7 average hours) Limited Scope Representation (16.4 average hours) 1. Medical malpractice (255 hours) 2. Military (161.8) 3. Civil rights (147) 4. Tribal/native American (117.8) 5. Technology (93) 6. Disability rights (90.6) 7. Health care (88.5) 8. Non profit organization (86.1) 1. Juvenile (72.9 hours) 2. Civil rights (57.2) 3. Securities (50.4) 4. Technology (36.6) 5. Non profit organization (29.3) 6. Education (29) 7. Criminal (28) 8. Tribal/native American (27.2)

51 Expertise and Expectations 68% said their most recent case was within their area of expertise and 66% said it was consistent with their expectations. Consistent With Expectations 66% Not Consistent With Expectations 34% 87% more time 33% more complex

52 How to Best Engage Pro Bono Attorneys

53 Rating Scale from 1-5, where 1 = least encouraging and 5 = most encouraging Top Encouraging Actions Limited scope representation opportunities CLE credit for doing pro bono If a judge solicited my participation Malpractice insurance provided by referral org If a colleague asked me to take a case Free or reduced cost CLE Online description of case opportunities from The option of selecting a client based on Mentorship/supervision by an attorney Opportunities to act as a mentor to young Administrative or research support Opportunities to do pro bono remotely

54 Employer Attitudes and Actions Employer discourages pro bono activities 6% Employer allows use of internal resources for pro bono activities Employer allows pro bono during regular business hours 25.7% 25.4% Employer neither encourages nor discourages pro bono activities 50% Employer encourages pro bono activities 44% Employer has a pro bono policy that supports employee pro Employer allows billable hour credit for pro bono work Employer has procedures in place for identifying and Employer provides mentoring for pro bono activities/matters 15.9% 12.0% 10.5% 10.0% Employer has a pro bono manager 8.4%

55 Law School Pro Bono Less likely to provide pro bono services 3.0% Did not provide pro bono while in law school 47% Provided pro bono while in law school 53% It had no impact on my provision of pro bono services More likely to provide pro bono services 36.6% 32.7% Far more likely to provide pro bono services 27.7%

56 How do I learn more? Harvard Access to Justice Lab: Website: a2jlab.org access2justicelab@gmail.com ABA Committee on Pro Bono and Public Service Website: abaprobono.org abaprobono@americanbar.org Presenter Contact: April Faith-Slaker: afaithslaker@law.harvard.edu