November 22, 2003

The Access to Justice Commission meeting was held at a Colorado Bar Association (CBA) meeting room on November 22, 2003. Chair David Butler called the meeting to order at 9:20.

Members present were Jon Asher, Darla Benford, David Butler, Chair, Aaron Clay, Yolanda Fennick, Greg Hobbs, Barney Iuppa, Meredith McBurney, Sue Parenteau, Connie Talmage, JoAnn Vogt and John Zakhem. Also present were Greg Martin from the Colorado Bar Association (CBA) and Joe Dischinger, President, Denver Bar Association (DBA).

1. The minutes of the September 26, 2003 meeting were approved.
2. Chair’s report

The Chair reported on Commission reappointments. Judge Iuppa has been reappointed by the Supreme Court. Jon Asher’s appointment will be approved by the Board of Colorado Legal Services on December 9, 2003. The appointments of Aaron Clay, Pamela Gagel and Connie Talmage by Bob Truhlar, the President of the CPA are pending.

The next order of business was the nomination and election of the officers. The following officers were reelected to serve another term.

Title	Name
Chair	David Butler
Vice Chair	Judge Joann L. Vogt
Secretary	Sue Parenteau
Assistant Secretary	Jo Ann Viola Salazar

The Commission established a calendar for meetings in 2004, subject to changes for scheduling conflicts. The Commission will meet the 3rd Friday in each of the months of January, March, May, July and September at 12:00 noon at the Colorado Bar Association. A final meeting of the year was not scheduled.

The Chair read aloud the Mission Statement adopted at the beginning of 2003 which is contained in the first paragraph of the Bylaws. The Mission was reaffirmed with no changes. The Chair asked each Committee to provide a written list of its members.

3. Presentation by Joe Dischinger

Our next order of business was a presentation by Joe Dischinger concerning a proposal for CLE credit for time spent on pro bono cases. Dischinger told the group that there were five states with such a program. These states have wide variation of ratio of CLE hours to pro bono credit and caps for maximum hours. Some states exchange one hour of pro bono for one hour of credit, others have as much as an 8 to 1 ratio with caps from 3 to 6 credits. One common denominator is that each state requires the pro bono work to be recognized by an organized pro bono program.

Dischinger discussed objections to the proposal and possible answers to those objectives including the argument that this program inappropriately links skills advancement to professional responsibility. Another objection was that this would not be a sufficient incentive for people currently not doing pro bono work on their own and would be unnecessary for those who were doing a lot of pro bono work. Additionally, there is concern within the Bar membership that this could lead to a "slippery slope" eventually requiring mandatory pro bono participation.

Dischinger indicated that states with this system in effect have seen a dramatic increase in reported pro bono work.

Justice Hobbs noted if we consider 50 hours of pro bono work per year as a core value of the legal profession (as established by the Colorado Supreme Court), then we may be devaluing that decision by awarding CLE hours for doing something declared to be a core value. One possibility suggested to Dischinger was that the proponents consider only giving credit for hours in excess of 50 hours in any given year.

The Commission members discussed the idea of establishing something structured similar to ethics credits by proposing a minimum number of CLE credits which would relate to the substantive law involved in particular areas of pro bono practice. For example, CLE of Colorado could offer CLE courses in domestic abuse remedies, landlord-tenant disputes, public benefits-substantive areas where pro bono attorneys are needed and lawyers need further training before accepting pro bono cases. Courses of this nature are already offered, but the difference would be that a minimum hours requirement would become part of the overall CLE requirements, as ethics credits have been.

Several people present suggested that voluntary disclosure of pro bono hours might be proposed again. It was suggested this could be a local ATJ committee task in monitoring reporting by attorneys and would help pro bono coordinators in developing lists of volunteer lawyers. The suggestion was made that pro bono-related CLE courses could be offered for free as an alternative to requiring them. Dischinger indicated the CLE Board has been open to discussion regarding these issues. There was agreement by the Commission that the CLE requirement and the voluntary pro bono disclosure issues would be appropriate topics for future discussion. Dischinger indicated he would continue to investigate the proposal and will provide further information to the Education Committee of the ATJ Commission.

The Commission members did not object to the pursuit of this idea, which is strongly backed by Stacy Carpenter and Steve Choquette on behalf of the Availability of Legal Services Committee of the DBA. However, the Commission did not take a position in favor of any particular proposal.

4. Committees

1. Educational

   Judge Vogt reported on behalf of the Education Committee that Dean Getches of the CU Law School has appointed Norm Aaronson to serve on the Education Committee. She distributed the minutes of the Education Committee from its last meeting and the group discussed its work with the law schools to find pro bono activities for student interns. The Judicial Advisory Committee is looking at the high number of grievances filed against young attorneys and possible solutions, including a required internship.

   A spring lunch for all in-house counsel is being considered. One goal is a centralized website for attorneys seeking pro bono involvement. Members of the Commission noted that the ATJ Commission is not yet on-line. The Chair will work with JoAnn Salazar on this matter.

2. Courthouse Committee

   Justice Hobbs discussed a proposed change in Rule 201.14 Oath of Admission, relating to admission to the bar. The suggested change would permit applicants to complete the required course on professionalism presented by the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel in cooperation with the CBA within six months after admission. A suggestion was made that this would lessen the importance of that particular course in the eyes of people taking the bar, which Justice Hobbs said he would consider.

   A discussion was held regarding the purpose and content of proposed Rule 16.1 providing for a simplified procedure for civil actions in which the amount claimed is less than $100,000. Various aspects of the Rule were discussed.

   Hobbs indicated a need for a simple form to explain pro se procedures in "plain English". McBurney & Benford agreed to review a draft of the form and offer suggestions.

   There was discussion of a proposal being considered by Chief Justice Mullarkey for creation of a "Justice for All Commission" focusing on training and directives to court personnel relating to improved access for persons encountering barriers such as those of gender, ethnicity, language or physical disabilities, etc. The Commission members recognized this as an important and valuable avenue to pursue consistent with the Access to Justice Commission’s goals, but which would probably be more effectively implemented through the group being created by the Supreme Court. It was agreed that the Courthouse Committee would serve as a liaison with this group. The ATJ Commission expressed concern that the titles of the two commissions might be confusing and asked that the "Justice for All Commission" consider another name.

3. Resources Committee

   Meredith McBurney indicated the committee is looking at where funding comes from for programs and has found that there are not a lot of gaps where funding sources have not been previously explored. The committee’s goals for 2004 include:

   1. Gain legislative support
   2. Maintain and manage the $500,000 from state funding.

   There was general agreement that it was important for people on the Commission and in local committees to be in touch with legislatures at both the state and federal levels in support of funding for CLS, for the judicial system in the state, and for pro bono projects throughout the state. The Commission discussed the importance of building relationships while recognizing the effects of term limits which have erased institutional memory.

   The Commission discussed funding for the ATJ Commission itself. Some state Commissions receive funding from state bar associations, the courts, legal service programs and IOLTA programs. The Commission recognized that it might be many years before money is available to fund the Commission.

4. Pro Bono Committee

   Aaron Clay reported that he had 12 members of his committee from 12 judicial districts. He indicated his strategy was to build successful committees in a few places and then build more around the state. The 7th JD has a local committee and developed a model charter. The various districts have also been visited as part of the President’s visits by Robert Truhlar, the CBA President. He has been joined by members of this Commission. Jo Ann Viola Salazar and Jane Gill Kellenberger have independently visited various parts of the state to discuss pro bono matters and local ATJ Committees. The Chair reported that Truhlar strongly encouraged the Commission to make the forming of local ATJ Committees a priority. Suggestions from Commission members for the Pro Bono Committee include:

• Find the right person to be a strong local leader who can move the process along.
• Ask judges and retired judges for their involvement and suggestions for local champions.
• Work with existing efforts such as Availability of Legal Service Committees (ALS) and keep the lines of communication open so as to avoid duplication of effort.

Aaron Clay reported on the progress being made in particular judicial districts. It appeared that there are four committees formed and several others moving toward that point. After much discussion, Clay indicated he would target the following 4 areas for local ATJ Committees: The joint 15th and 16th JDs, the 18th JD, the 8th JD, and the joint 6th and 22nd JDs.

5. Resolution

   Following this discussion, a resolution was made and unanimously passed favoring efforts to secure funding for new judges authorized, but not yet funded and for increased local court services. The Chair agreed to meet with Michael Valdez and Chuck Turner to discuss this issue.

6. The meeting was adjourned at 2:15. The next meeting will be held on January 16^th at noon at the CBA office.

3179373_1.DOC