Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Social Security Disability Again the Subject of Congressional Inquiry


Social Security Disability Again the Subject of Congressional Inquiry
Social Security Disability Law Blog
By Jonathan Ginsberg
June 25, 2013


CBS News reports this morning that the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will begin hearings on Thursday, June 27 about the role of administrative law judges in awarding benefits.

Critics of the current disability system point to SSA’s own statistics which show that judges currently approve slightly more than half of the claims brought before them (this is down from a 60% approval rate in 2010).  Claims approved at hearings were previously rejected twice by state employees called adjudicators.

Critics also claim that too many judges are approving undeserving cases simply to clear out growing backlogs – the judges complain of quotas – which may delay a hearing date for longer than 12 months.

Others contend that long term unemployed workers claim disability when their unemployment benefits run out [fn1] [See the NPR report Unfit for Work]

A Social Security spokesman argues that the increase in beneficiaries is the result of an aging population. [fn2]. [See the Goldman Sachs study]

What can we expect from the House subcommittee report and from Social Security?  I expect the following:
  • there will be continued pressure on Social Security ALJ’s to reduce the number of approved cases and to process more cases
  • there will be an increased focus on continuing disability reviews as a means to terminate benefits – we will see a significant expansion in this part of the program 
  • Adjudicators and ALJ’s will be encouraged to deny claims where there is no objective evidence of disability.  Fibromyalgia claims, mental health claims and claims with limited medical evidence will be much harder to win
  • there will be a push to change the hearing procedures.  I do not think we will see SSA representatives appear to contest claims (this would be too expensive) but I think we will see new rules that limit new evidence submissions after a certain date and new limits on how judges evaluate evidence
  • Social Security is under immense pressure to reduce the cost of its disability programs.  The disability trust fund will run out of money in 2016 which will force Congress to redirect funds from Social Security retirement.  Such a redirection will be politically unpopular
  • I expect the hearing approval rate at hearings will continue to trend downward
1. This was the premise of a controversial NPR report entitled Unfit for Work: the Startling Rise of Disability in America – see my video about this story here.

2.  A Goldman Sachs study confirms this assertion, noting that the rise in SSDI beneficiaries has only modestly outstripped SSA’s own pre-recession forecasts

Also see,  Planet of the Blind, it’s not as dark as you think.

Sunday, June 23, 2013

Special Program: NSA Surveillance Leaks: Facts and Fiction

Special Program: NSA Surveillance Leaks: Facts and Fiction
Date: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 4:00 PM
Location: Newseum, Knight TV Studio
Note: This program will be streamed live online at newseum.org.


WASHINGTON — The Newseum, the American Bar Association, the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University, and The Robert R. McCormick Foundation, are hosting a special program, "NSA Surveillance Leaks: Facts and Fiction," at the Newseum.

The National Security Agency's clandestine surveillance program, PRISM, has emerged from the shadows as a result of recent disclosures made by NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

The first round of disclosures has touched the hot-button topics of government secrecy, intrusion into American citizens' privacy interests, and the beginning of the era of Big Data.

National security and protecting privacy are becoming the central interests of the emerging technological revolution. How do democracies and emerging democracies create frameworks for these vital interests? Read more here

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Why not let nonlawyers help regulate the legal profession? Law prof makes case for change

James Moliterno
Why not let nonlawyers help regulate the legal profession? Law prof makes case for change
ABA Journal Law News Now
May 20, 2013
By Debra Cassens Weiss


Lawyers are not all-knowing and could benefit by allowing nonlawyer outsiders to help regulate the profession, a law professor says in a law review article.

Washington and Lee law professor James Moliterno tells the Wall Street Journal Law Blog (sub. req.) that nonlawyers should be allowed to serve in leadership and policy positions in the ABA and state bar associations, where they could help set standards for the profession. He makes his case in an Emory Law Journal article (PDF) and a new book, The American Legal Profession in Crisis: Resistance and Responses to Change.

In an interview with the Law Blog, Moliterno outlines possible changes if nonlawyers help govern the profession. There could be a movement to a national law license or a relaxed admission-on-motion system to allow freer law practice across borders. Ethics rules barring nonlawyer ownership of law firms would likely be relaxed. And entities such as LegalZoom and Rocket Lawyer would gain ground as a way to assist low- and middle-income people needing legal help.

Here are some excerpts from Moliterno’s article:

"The profession seems to repeat the same question in response to every crisis: How can we stay even more ‘the same’ than we already are? In short, the legal profession is ponderous, backward looking, and self-preserving. …

"I recommend a more forward-looking approach that welcomes the views, and even control, of nonlawyers and innovators in business and other enterprises. My hope is that the legal profession can be more like companies that have thrived because of their innovative tendencies (e.g., Apple, IBM, and Western Union), and less like companies whose stagnancy caused large-scale problems (e.g., Kodak). …

"History demonstrates that lawyers are inept at being their own exclusive regulators. Lawyers tend to look backward to precedent and sideways to existing articulations of law. When lawyers do look forward, their primary task is to predict and guard against risk. It is not in lawyers’ nature to be forward-looking planners or sensitive to cultural trends. …

"The unwelcome cure is to enlist nonlawyers—planners and evaluators of cultural trends—in the regulation of the legal profession. These people, who have a wider view and can see the path ahead and not merely the ground already trod, can regulate the legal profession without the same self-interest as established members of the bar." Read more here

Sunday, June 9, 2013

Edward Sharpe and The Magnetic Zeros Live on Letterman - Man On Fire

I’m a man on fire, Walking through your street, With one guitar, And two dancing feet, Only one desire, That’s left in me, I want the whole damn world, To come dance with me, Ohhhhhhhh, Come dance with me, Over murder and pain, Come and set us free, Over heartache and shame...lyrics

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

President Obama Speaks at the National Conference on Mental Health

The White House
June 3, 2013 


President Obama delivers remarks to open the National Conference on Mental Health at the White House, part of the Administration’s effort to launch a national conversation to increase understanding and awareness about mental health.

Remarks by the President at National Conference on Mental Health

East Room, 10:00 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you so much.  Welcome to the White House.  And thank you, Janelle, for that introduction and sharing your story, and making such a difference through your organization.  We’re really proud to have you here.

I want to thank Secretary Sebelius, Secretary Arne Duncan, Secretary Ric Shinseki for their leadership and helping to organize this event.  And I also want to acknowledge some outstanding members of Congress who are here and who care deeply about this issue.

And finally, I want to thank all of you for participating in this national conference on mental health.  We wanted to bring together folks who’ve suffered from mental illness and families who’ve supported them.  We wanted to bring together advocates and educators, faith leaders, veterans, local officials.

All of you have shown an extraordinary commitment to what is a critical goal, and that is to make sure that people aren’t suffering in silence and that we have the capacity to pull together all the resources and support and love that’s out there to go after an extraordinary challenge in our society.

The main goal of this conference is not to start a conversation -- so many of you have spent decades waging long and lonely battles to be heard.  Instead, it’s about elevating that conversation to a national level and bringing mental illness out of the shadows.

We want to let people living with mental health challenges know that they are not alone, and we’ve got to be making sure that we’re committed to support those fellow Americans, because struggling with a mental illness or caring for someone who does can be isolating.  And I think everybody here who’s experienced the issue in one way or another understands that.  It begins to feel as if not only are you alone, but that you shouldn’t burden others with the challenge and the darkness, day in, day out -- what some call a cloud that you just can't seem to escape -- begins to close in.

The truth is, in any given year, one in five adults experience a mental illness -- one in five.  Forty-five million Americans suffer from things like depression or anxiety, schizophrenia or PTSD.  Young people are affected at a similar rate.  So we all know somebody -- a family member, a friend, a neighbor -- who has struggled or will struggle with mental health issues at some point in their lives.  Michelle and I have both known people who have battled severe depression over the years, people we love.  And oftentimes, those who seek treatment go on to lead happy, healthy, productive lives.

So we know that recovery is possible, we know help is available, and yet, as a society, we often think about mental health differently than other forms of health.  You see commercials on TV about a whole array of physical health issues, some of them very personal.  (Laughter.)  And yet, we whisper about mental health issues and avoid asking too many questions.

The brain is a body part too; we just know less about it.  And there should be no shame in discussing or seeking help for treatable illnesses that affect too many people that we love.  We've got to get rid of that embarrassment; we've got to get rid of that stigma.  Too many Americans who struggle with mental health illnesses are still suffering in silence rather than seeking help, and we need to see it that men and women who would never hesitate to go see a doctor if they had a broken arm or came down with the flu, that they have that same attitude when it comes to their mental health.

We see it in veterans who come home from the battlefield with the invisible wounds of war, but who feel somehow that seeking treatment is a sign of weakness when in fact it's a sign of strength.  We see it in parents who would do anything for their kids, but who often fight their mental health battle alone -– afraid that reaching out would somehow reflect badly on them.

We see it in the tragedies that we have the power to prevent.  And I want to be absolutely clear:  The overwhelming majority of people who suffer from mental illnesses are not violent.  They will never pose a threat to themselves or others.  And there are a whole lot of violent people with no diagnosable mental health issues.  But we also know that most suicides each year involve someone with a mental health or substance abuse disorder.  And in some cases, when a condition goes untreated, it can lead to tragedy on a larger scale.

We can do something about stories like these.  In many cases, treatment is available and effective.  We can help people who suffer from a mental illness continue to be great colleagues, great friends, the people we love.  We can take out some pain and give them a new sense of hope.  But it requires all of us to act.  And there are a few ways we can do our part.

First, we’ve got to do a better job recognizing mental health issues in our children, and making it easier for Americans of all ages to seek help.  Today, less than 40 percent of people with mental illness receive treatment -- less than 40 percent.  Even though three-quarters of mental illnesses emerge by the end of -- by the age of 24, only about half of children with mental health problems receive treatment.  Now think about it:  We wouldn’t accept it if only 40 percent of Americans with cancers got treatment.  We wouldn’t accept it if only half of young people with diabetes got help.  Why should we accept it when it comes to mental health?  It doesn't make any sense.

The good news is, there are plenty of groups that are stepping up to change that.  So a former colleague of mine, Gordon Smith, a former Republican Senator, lost his son to suicide 10 years ago.  And I remember him speaking so eloquently about it.  Gordon is now the head of the National Association of Broadcasters, and today, the National Association of Broadcasters is announcing a new campaign designed to change attitudes about mental illness through TV ads and social media,   because Gordon doesn’t want other parents to go through the agonizing loss that he’s endured.  So we thank you, Gordon, for that great work.  (Applause.)

You’ve got secondary school principals who are holding assemblies on mental health.  You’ve got organizations like the YMCA who are volunteering to train staff to recognize the signs of depression and other mental illnesses in our young people.  You got leaders from different faith communities who are getting their congregations involved.  And dozens of other organizations have today made similar commitments, so we’ve very thankful to all of you.

There are other people who are leading by example.  My great friend, Patrick Kennedy, when he was running for reelection back in 2006, he could have avoided talking about his struggles with bipolar disorder and addiction.  Let’s face it, he’s a Kennedy.  (Laughter.)   He was -- his seat was pretty safe.  Everybody loved him.  And yet, Patrick used his experience as a way to connect and to lift up these issues, not hide from them.

And one day, a woman came up to Patrick at a senior center and told him she was afraid to tell her friends she was taking medication for a mental illness because she was worried they might treat her differently.  She told Patrick, "You’re the only one who knows aside from my son."  And so Patrick started realizing how much power there could be for people to speak out on these issues.  And Patrick carried these stories back with him to Washington, where he worked with a bipartisan group of lawmakers, including his dad, to make sure the mental health services you get through your insurance plan at work are covered the same way that physical health services are -- a huge victory.  (Applause.)

So because of Patrick's efforts and the colleagues who worked with him, it's easier for millions of people to join him on the road to recovery, which brings me to a second point.  It’s not enough to help more Americans seek treatment -– we also have to make sure that the treatment is there when they're ready to seek it.

For years now, our mental health system has struggled to serve people who depend on it.  That’s why, under the Affordable Care Act, we’re expanding mental health and substance abuse benefits for more than 60 million Americans.  (Applause.)  New health insurance plans are required to cover things like depression screenings for adults and behavioral assessments for children.  And beginning next year, insurance companies will no longer be able to deny anybody coverage because of a pre-existing mental health condition.  (Applause.)

We’re also investing in science and basic research to make it easier to diagnose and treat disease early.  And earlier this year, I announced an ambitious initiative to develop tools for mapping the human brain, which could help scientists and researchers unlock the answers to conditions that affect mental health.

We’re also doing more to support our troops and our veterans who are suffering from things like traumatic brain disorder -- or traumatic brain injury or PTSD, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.  Today, we lose 22 veterans a day to suicide -- 22.  We've got to do a better job than that of preventing these all too often silent tragedies.  That’s why we’ve poured an enormous amount of resources into high-quality care and better treatment for our troops.

And today, under Ric Shinseki's leadership, the VA is going even further.  They’re partnering with 24 communities in nine states to help reduce wait times for veterans seeking mental health care.  And they're -- they’ve met their goal of hiring 1,600 new mental health providers, which means this summer they're going to hold more than 150 summits like this one in communities all across the country so that every one of our servicemembers and veterans understand -- just like you take care of yourself and each other on the battlefield, you’ve got to do the same thing off the battlefield.  That’s part of being strong.

For many people who suffer from a mental illness, recovery can be challenging.  But what helps more than anything, what gives so many of our friends and loved ones strength, is the knowledge that you are not alone.  You’re not alone.  You’re surrounded by people who care about you and who will support you on the journey to get well.  We're here for you.

And that’s what this conference is about.  That’s why these issues are so important.  So if there's anybody out there who's listening, if you’re struggling, seek help.

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT:  You're welcome.  (Applause.)  If you know somebody who is struggling, help them reach out.  Remember the family members who shoulder their own burdens and need our support as well.  And more than anything, let people who are suffering in silence know that recovery is possible.  They’re not alone.  There's hope.  There's possibility.  And that’s what all of you represent with the extraordinary advocacy and work that you've already done.

So thank you all for being here.  Let’s do everything we can to help our fellow Americans heal and thrive.  And now I’d like to turn it over to Secretary Sebelius who will be leading our opening panel.

Thank you very much, everybody.  (Applause.)

END
10:15 A.M. EDT

Remarks by President Obama at National Conference on Mental Health, June-03-2013 by Neil Gillespie

A First-Rate Madness: Uncovering the Links Between Leadership and Mental Illness


A First-Rate Madness: Uncovering the Links Between Leadership and Mental Illness
Dr. Nassir Ghaemi, Author

Nassir Ghaemi MD MPH is an academic psychiatrist specializing in mood illnesses, especially bipolar disorder.
He is Professor of Psychiatry and Pharmacology at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, where he directs the Mood Disorders Program. He is a also a Clinical Lecturer at Harvard Medical School, and teaches at the Cambridge Health Alliance.

Amazon.com Book Description. A First-Rate Madness: An investigation into the surprisingly deep correlation between mental illness and successful leadership, as seen through some of history's greatest politicians, generals, and businesspeople.

In A First-Rate Madness, Nassir Ghaemi, who runs the Mood Disorders Program at Tufts University Medical Center, draws from the careers and personal plights of such notable leaders as Lincoln, Churchill, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., JFK, and others from the past two centuries to build an argument at once controversial and compelling: the very qualities that mark those with mood disorders- realism, empathy, resilience, and creativity-also make for the best leaders in times of crisis. By combining astute analysis of the historical evidence with the latest psychiatric research, Ghaemi demonstrates how these qualities have produced brilliant leadership under the toughest circumstances.

Take realism, for instance: study after study has shown that those suffering depression are better than "normal" people at assessing current threats and predicting future outcomes. Looking at Lincoln and Churchill among others, Ghaemi shows how depressive realism helped these men tackle challenges both personal and national. Or consider creativity, a quality psychiatrists have studied extensively in relation to bipolar disorder. A First-Rate Madness shows how mania inspired General Sherman and Ted Turner to design and execute their most creative-and successful-strategies.

Ghaemi's thesis is both robust and expansive; he even explains why eminently sane men like Neville Chamberlain and George W. Bush made such poor leaders. Though sane people are better shepherds in good times, sanity can be a severe liability in moments of crisis. A lifetime without the cyclical torment of mood disorders, Ghaemi explains, can leave one ill equipped to endure dire straits. He also clarifies which kinds of insanity-like psychosis-make for despotism and ineptitude, sometimes on a grand scale.

Ghaemi's bold, authoritative analysis offers powerful new tools for determining who should lead us. But perhaps most profoundly, he encourages us to rethink our view of mental illness as a purely negative phenomenon. As A First-Rate Madness makes clear, the most common types of insanity can confer vital benefits on individuals and society at large-however high the price for those who endure these illnesses. Read more here

National Public Radio, 'Madness' And Leadership, Hand In Hand
The New York Times, What Befits a Leader in Hard Times?
American Scientific, MIND Reviews: A First-Rate Madness
 Dr. Nassir Ghaemi, Author’s website

Kirkus Book Review
Barnes and Nobel

Dr. Nassir Ghaemi
Psychology Today, Mood Swings blog
Dr. Nassir Ghaemi
Published on August 9, 2011


Many great leaders have been mentally ill, mainly with severe depression and sometimes with mania.  This is not an entirely controversial statement.  It is generally accepted by historians that Abraham Lincoln had severe depression, and so did Winston Churchill.  Both were suicidal at times.  Some other figures are less well-known but the documentary evidence is relatively strong: General William Sherman was removed from command because of concerns that he was insane.  He appeared, in retrospect, to have experienced a manic episode with paranoid delusions; he also had,throughout his life, episodes of severe depression, along with occasional suicidal thoughts.  Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King both made suicide attempts in adolescence, and each had at least two severe depressive episodes in their lifetimes. Read more here

Monday, June 3, 2013

Globalization at the Crossroads, Hernando de Soto



Globalization at the Crossroads is a story of threat and possibility. People are living longer, healthier, and better lives than ever before. Globalization has produced more prosperity in the past 60 years than in the previous two thousand. But unless we include the 80 percent of people that are excluded from the system, they will bring globalization down.

An eight-minute film featuring Hernando de Soto summarizing his ideas and the Institute of Liberty and Democracy's work - produced by an independent U.S. filmmaker to raise funds for a two-hour television documentary about the ILD. The first documentary aired in the U.S. in October 2009. Published on Mar 8, 2012. Learn more here: http://www.thepowerofthepoor.com/

David Rowland misled Florida AG, SCOTUS Petition

David A Rowland
May 16, 2013

VIA U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP294626428                     
and kenneth.wilson@myfloridalegal.com

Kenneth V. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General
Civil Litigation Bureau -Tampa
Office of the Attorney General
501 E Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1100
Tampa, Florida 33602

RE: Missing Public Records, Gillespie v. Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida, et al. Petition No. 12-7747 for Writ of Certiorari, Supreme Court of the United States

Dear Mr. Wilson:

So sorry to see you got duped by court counsel David Rowland and paralegal Sandra Burge, who misrepresented to you that I did not provide Mr. Rowland a copy of Petition No. 12-7747. That must explain why the petition was not among the 323 pages of public records provided by your office that arrived here in Ocala May 9, 2013 in response to my records request.

An email (Exhibit 1) from Mr. Rowland’s paralegal Sandra Burge to Chief Assistant Attorney General Diana R. Esposito 12/20/2012 at 12:51 PM, Cc to David Rowland and Chris Nauman, advanced this material falsehood, which Ms. Esposito sent to you, Cc to Amanda Cavanaugh:

The Plaintiff's Notice of Filing the petition for writ of certiorari was received in the Legal Department's Office on 12/18/12 is attached as well as the Court's docket indicating a response is due, if needed, by January 14, 2013. Neither a copy of the petition nor "separate Volume Appendices" accompanied the Notice.

A letter (Exhibit 2) emailed by you January 8, 2013 repeated the falsehood back to Mr. Rowland:

           While Plaintiff did not provide a copy of his Petition....

On December 10, 2012 I served Mr. Rowland per Rule 29, proof of service, the following:

1.   Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States,
2.   Rule 39 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
3.   Rule 29 proof of service, December 10, 2012
4.   Compact Disk (CD) containing PDF files of the separate volume appendices.
5.   My cover letter to the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court, December 10, 2012

United Parcel Service (UPS) tracking 1Z64589FP297520287 shows delivery December 11, 2012 at 10:55 AM to the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, 800 E. Twiggs Street, Tampa, Florida 34481. FYI, all UPS ground shipping within Florida is delivered next day, unless shipped on Friday.

The UPS proof of delivery for 1Z64589FP297520287 December 11, 2012 shows "DAVIS" at the front desk signed for the delivery, and shows an image of the signature "D. Davis". A seven (7) page composite of the UPS proof of delivery and tracking documents is enclosed. (Exhibit 3).

The document referred to by Ms. Burge in her deceptive email to Ms. Esposito was a Rule 12.3 notice, and notice of waiver to file a response, delivered December 18, 2012 at 10:44 AM to the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit. Unfortunately Ms. Burge, Mr. Rowland, and Mr. Nauman failed to inform you that my petition was delivered a week earlier, December 11, 2012 at 10:55 AM.

The Thirteenth Circuit gang further mislead you by providing you my December 10, 2012 cover letter to the Clerk of the Supreme Court which they date-stamped December 18, 2012, when this letter was in fact a second courtesy copy of the one received by Rowland December 11, 2012 but does not appear date-stamped as such in the records your office provided me May 9, 2013.     

Enclosed you will find evidence showing I served by UPS the Rule 12.3 notice, and notice of waiver to Mr. Rowland December 17, 2012 tracking no. 1Z64589FP291778029, which was delivered December 18, 2012 at 10:44 AM, to the Court’s address, 800 E. Twiggs Street, Tampa, Florida. The UPS proof of delivery shows "DAVIS" at the front desk signed for the delivery. A composite of the UPS proof of delivery and tracking documents is enclosed. (Exhibit 4).

The Supreme Court sent me three (s) sets of Rule 12.3 notices, and notices of waiver to file a response, December 14, 2013 after my petition was docketed, with instructions for notifying opposing counsel(s) that the case was docketed. (Exhibit 5).

You have my sympathy for any embarrassment caused by the deception of Mr. Rowland and his accomplices, that caused an inaccurate letter to issue from the Office of the Attorney General falsely implying I did not provide a copy of my petition to Mr. Rowland. (Exhibit 2).

Enclosed you will find my records request to Mr. Rowland intended to correct the record. If and when I get an accurate response back, I will provide you the correct date-stamped petition for inclusion in the record showing it was received by Mr. Rowland December 11, 2012.

Until then you can find Petition No. 12-7747 online at the link below. Thank you.  http://nosueorg.blogspot.com/2012/12/petition-for-writ-of-certiorari-to.html

Sincerely,

Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, FL 34481
Enclosures

cc: Gov. Rick Scott, via U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP290544836
cc: Attorney General Pam Bondi, via U.P.S. No. 1Z64589FP294245643

Email to: Gov. Scott, AG Bondi, AAG Esposito, ABA service list; Florida Bar service list; Mr. Anderson, Chair, Thirteenth Circuit JNC; Sixth Circuit Grievance Committee "D", Thirteenth Circuit BOG, David Rowland, K. Christopher Nauman, Sandra Burge.

Sunday, June 2, 2013

Amy Bach, Ordinary Injustice: How America Holds Court



Amy Bach, author of Ordinary Injustice: How America Holds Court, spoke to the students of the College of Law's Externship Program about the pitfalls of accepting the status quo in our legal system, and the severe harm to individuals that can result.

Ordinary Injustice Author website: http://www.ordinaryinjustice.com/
Winner of the 2010 Robert F. Kennedy Book Award

Are our courts beyond repair? 
Read a proposal to fix our courts.

Justice by the Numbers
The New York Times
By AMY BACH
Published: August 10, 2010


IN communities across the country, people use statistics on hospitals, schools and other public services to decide where to live or how to vote. But while millions of Americans deal with their local criminal courts as defendants and victims each year, there is no comparable way to assess a judicial system and determine how well it provides basic legal services.

This lack of data has a corrosive effect: without public awareness of a court system’s strengths and weaknesses, inefficiencies and civil liberties violations are never remedied.

That’s why America needs a “justice index” to show how the essential aspects of our local courts are working. The index, compiled according to national standards, would function roughly like college rankings, evaluating county courts on factors like cost, recidivism, crime reduction and collateral consequences, including whether people lose their jobs or homes after contact with the criminal justice system. Read more here

Reviews for Ordinary Injustice

"One of the most powerful and important books on the law published in 2009…".
- National Law Journal

 "This is a magnificent work, a crusading call for reform in the tradition of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring or Ralph Nader’s Unsafe at Any Speed…This groundbreaking book deserves widespread attention." - Doris Kearns Goodwin, author of Team of Rivals

 "In different places across the country Amy Bach watched what went on in courtrooms. Her accounts of what she saw should open others' eyes to unwelcome reality. It is a revealing and important book." - The New York Review of Books

"Amy Bach, a writer and attorney, has found a powerful and frightening story in the day-to-day workings of the justice system and, in particular, how it fails to live up to its ideals – ]the routine injustice,’ she writes, ‘is happening in courtrooms across the country.’" - Chicago Tribune

 "It takes an attorney to investigate state county courtrooms, and Bach’s research reads like a novel." - The Providence Journal

TRANSCRIPT, Ordinary Injustice, Amy Bach by Neil Gillespie

A New Look: ABA Plans First Comprehensive Review of Disciplinary Enforcement Rules in 20 Years

Myles V. Lynk, Chair
A New Look: ABA Plans First Comprehensive Review of Disciplinary Enforcement Rules in 20 Years 
ABA Journal Law News Now
By James Podgers
Nov 1, 2012


Just as the ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20 is winding down its review of the association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, another entity is gearing up to take a comprehensive look at the Model Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement.

There is some logic to that coincidental timing, says Myles V. Lynk, who chairs the ABA Standing Committee on Professional Discipline, which will review the disciplinary enforcement rules. The two sets of model rules serve as bookends for the ABA’s guidance to states on the substance and procedure of their professional conduct systems for lawyers.

At one end of the system, the Model Rules of Professional Conduct are the direct basis for the substantive ethics rules for lawyers in every state except California (which uses a unique format combining rules and standards). Under Model Rule 8.4, it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to violate rules of professional conduct, or engage in other wrongdoing under ethics rules or substantive law. Model Rule 8.5 recognizes that a state where a lawyer is admitted to practice has primary disciplinary jurisdiction over that lawyer.

Since 2009, the Ethics 20/20 Commission has been studying the impact of technology and globalization on the Model Rules. In August, the ABA House of Delegates approved a series of revisions to the Model Rules proposed by the commission. Later this year, the commission will submit its final recommendations for consideration by the House in February at the 2013 ABA Midyear Meeting in Dallas.

At the other end of the system, the Model Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement set forth a procedural framework at the state level for investigating and prosecuting complaints against lawyers in a fair and efficient manner while providing appropriate due process for the lawyers who are subject to allegations of wrongdoing.

MAKE NO ASSUMPTIONS

The disciplinary enforcement rules haven’t been reviewed in their entirety since the early 1990s—shortly after their adoption by the House of Delegates in 1989—so they’re due for a thorough checkup, says Lynk, who is a professor at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law in Tempe. "Simply as a matter of due diligence and good practice, we should review the Model Rules on a regular basis," he says, to determine whether there are provisions that have become unworkable or whether there have been developments at the state level that they should be incorporate.

The professional discipline committee’s timetable for the project is still a bit open-ended, Lynk says. "I would love it if we could bring our recommendations before the House of Delegates sometime in 2014," he says, "but we don’t know the depth and extent of comments we’ll receive. We are not entering this review with any assumptions about what rules need revision."

The committee’s plans to review the disciplinary enforcement rules have been getting support from other groups and individuals in the field, including the National Organization of Bar Counsel and the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers, but often with the qualification that the committee might not expect that its effort will lead to the same kind of uniformity that has been achieved with the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

"I heartily agree that the time is right for a substantial review of the Model Rules, if not a little overdue," says Douglas J. Ende, who is chief disciplinary counsel for the Washington State Bar Association in Seattle. "But there is a need to be sensitive to the reality of local variation and to recognize that there’s more than one way to skin this cat."

Lynk says the committee will rely heavily on input from individuals and groups working in the ethics and discipline field. The committee recognizes that, while a significant amount of uniformity has been achieved in the substantive ethics standards adopted by the states based on the ABA’s Model Rules, localized rules are more essential to the lawyer discipline process, he adds.

The reasons for that difference are a combination of function and history.

In terms of function, the Model Rules of Professional Conduct reflect a fairly clear consensus on what constitutes ethical behavior by lawyers. But developing a system for enforcing those substantive ethics rules requires each state supreme court, which directs the process, to make decisions based on factors such as budgets, staffing and other local considerations that differ from one jurisdiction to another.

The other reality is that, while the ABA has been at the forefront of developing professional conduct rules since it adopted the Canons of Professional Ethics in 1908, most states already had implemented their own lawyer discipline systems by the time the ABA entered the field. In 1967, the ABA created the Special Committee on Evaluation of Disciplinary Enforcement, known as the Clark committee for its chair, retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Tom C. Clark. In 1970, the Clark committee submitted a report to the House of Delegates warning that the disciplinary process was operating so ineffectively in many states that the legal profession’s self-regulation was at risk. The House adopted the report, which prompted many states to incorporate many of its recommendations, including adding public members to disciplinary panels.

In 1979, the House adopted the Standards for Lawyer Discipline and Disability Proceedings. Over the next decade, the professional discipline committee transformed the standards into a court rule format, which the House adopted in 1989 as the Model Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement. That same year, the ABA created the Commission on Evaluation of Disciplinary Enforcement, known as the McKay commission for its first chair, Robert B. McKay, a former dean at New York University School of Law, who died in 1990. The commission was charged with conducting a nationwide evaluation of the state of lawyer disciplinary enforcement in the United States and recommending a model for responsible regulation into the 21st century. In 1992, the House of Delegates adopted all but four of the commission’s 22 recommendations, and in 1993, the discipline committee incorporated those recommendations into the Model Rules.

The ABA’s contributions have been important to the continuing development of effective disciplinary enforcement systems at the state level, Lynk says. "We needed to develop a system that is meaningful, transparent and accessible under the direction of the courts," he says.

EMERGING ISSUES

While the professional discipline committee still is in the startup phase of its review of the disciplinary enforcement rules, some issues already have begun to surface. Some of the issues being addressed by the Ethics 20/20 Commission are likely to also appear on the committee’s radar. Lynk says the committee is likely, for instance, to deal with the question of how disciplinary procedures should apply to lawyers from one jurisdiction who are allowed to practice at least temporarily in another jurisdiction—or to have a virtual presence in that second jurisdiction. Lynk notes that the ABA Task Force on International Trade in Legal Services is drafting a protocol on how national jurisdictions can communicate with each other about the disciplinary status of lawyers in foreign jurisdictions.

Ende says other key issues the professional discipline committee should address include the growing use of private disciplinary proceedings for lawyers, and the investigation and adjudication of cases involving lawyers who claim to lack the necessary mental capacity to respond.

Other topics already suggested to the committee include confidentiality and privacy issues in a digital environment, the role of nonlawyer members on disciplinary panels, and discovery procedures.

The professional discipline committee is undertaking its review of the Model Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement at a time when it’s already plenty busy with other projects. The committee is working with the Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility to develop proposals to revise the Model Rules of Professional Conduct and the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct to provide further guidance to the states on judicial disqualification and disclosure of contributions by litigants and lawyers to judicial election campaigns. Lynk says the committees, which also are consulting with the Judicial Division, hope to submit their recommendations for consideration by the House in February.

The committee’s ongoing work includes consulting with various states that invite the committee to assess their lawyer discipline systems, coordinating the National Data Bank on Lawyer Discipline, and conducting training programs for members of ABA sections and divisions on how to avoid discipline problems.

It’s a full plate, but Lynk is undaunted. "With only nine members," he says, "I think we have one of the hardest-working committees in the ABA." Read online

 Update: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

On Friday, May 31, 2013, the ABA Standing Committee on Professional Discipline will hold a public hearing from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. at the Hilton Palacio del Rio, 200 Alamo Street, San Antonio, TX in the La Condesa Room, Mezzanine Level.  The purpose of the hearing is to assist the Discipline Committee in its review of the Model Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (MRLDE).

Please review the Notice of Public Hearing regarding the scheduling of testimony, submission of written materials, and subjects to be addressed during the hearing. PDF

OUTRAGE! Have Foreclosure Court Judges Been Given A Quota…And A Specific Threat if They Do Not Meet The Quota?

OUTRAGE! Have Foreclosure Court Judges Been Given A Quota…And A Specific Threat if They Do Not Meet The Quota?
Matt Weidner’s Foreclosure News
By Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.
May 28, 2013


This is the second report in a week.  Did these threats really occur?  This of course should be investigated.

Can we imagine a Authoritarian world where the Central Bureau announced a directive:

INCREASE YOUR CONVICTION OUTPUT OR YOU WILL BE ELIMINATED

But this very specific threat is what is being reported from circuits around the state. The allegation is that a specific threat has been issued to Florida’s Senior Court Foreclosure judges:

CLEAR THE FORECLOSURE DOCKETS OR YOU WILL BE ELIMINATED

The latest report from Chip Parker:

In Jacksonville, the senior judges were contacted by the OSCA, who threatened to stop the gravy train on July 1st if Jacksonville did not significantly reduce the number of active foreclosure cases.  So, the Jacksonville senior judges began scheduling 3800 foreclosure cases for trial last month, setting 120 cases per day for trial proceeding simultaneously in two courts.  This allocates 8 minutes per trial, which by anyone’s estimation, is a complete obliteration of a homeowner’s due process rights.  One really needs to see it to believe it. Chip Parker Here

Magistrates May Euthanize Senior Judges in Foreclosure Court

Magistrates May Euthanize Senior Judges in Foreclosure Court
By Chip Parker
Jacksonville Bankruptcy Attorney 


The Supreme Court of Florida has decided that non-judge magistrates will be hearing foreclosure cases in addition to retired senior judges.  The new Amended Rule 1.490 would expand the use of general magistrates as an alternative to the use of senior judges to assist in processing foreclosure cases.  This could mercifully spell the end of senior judges in Florida, which could help restore some confidence in our judicial system.

Don’t get me wrong.  I doubt the magistrates will provide any greater level due process than the microscopic levels afforded to homeowners in the bizarro world of retired senior judges overseeing Foreclosure Court.  However, if a homeowner does not want his foreclosure case being decided by a non-judge, the homeowner may object, and there need be no legal basis for an objection.

The homeowner must act fast because the objection must be made 10 days after the Order of Referral to Magistrate is entered.  If a timely objection is filed, then the case is referred back to a judge (or retired senior judge).

I bet the vast majority of foreclosures, which are not contested, will rocket through the new magistrate system, while homeowners wanting to fight their foreclosure will continue to do so in "regular" foreclosure court (There is really nothing "regular" about foreclosure court).  This would mean that the number of cases "lingering" in the "regular" system will be down dramatically.  With those numbers down, it will become difficult to justify the continued use of unnecessary senior judges.

This is possibly a dream come true for homeowners, but there’s a catch.  The chief judge of the individual judicial circuits can decide whether to implement the use of magistrates.  Being a judge is like being in a fraternity, and they like to protect their own – even those judges they do not like.  So, there is a strong possibility that Chief Judges of the individual judicial circuits will reject the use of magistrates because they are not "in the frat."

How lucrative is it to be a senior judge hearing foreclosure cases in Florida’s courts?  So lucrative, that these retired judges will do just about anything to keep the money flowing.

According to the Office of the State Courts Administrator in Tallahassee, $305,724 has been allocated to the retired senior judges running the Foreclosure Division in Jacksonville alone, and they are each paid, in addition to their retirement pay, $355.08 per day (this is comparable with senior judges throughout the state).

In Jacksonville, the senior judges were contacted by the OSCA, who threatened to stop the gravy train on July 1st if Jacksonville did not significantly reduce the number of active foreclosure cases.  So, the Jacksonville senior judges began scheduling 3800 foreclosure cases for trial last month, setting 120 cases per day for trial proceeding simultaneously in two courts.  This allocates 8 minutes per trial, which by anyone’s estimation, is a complete obliteration of a homeowner’s due process rights.  One really needs to see it to believe it.

So, while magistrates could spell the end of senior judges, these retirees will surely not go away without a fight. Read online

Saturday, June 1, 2013

Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeros - Man On Fire


I’m a man on fire, Walking through your street, With one guitar, And two dancing feet, Only one desire, That’s left in me, I want the whole damn world, To come dance with me, Ohhhhhhhh, Come dance with me, Over murder and pain, Come and set you free, Over heartache and shame...lyrics