That being said, what are the major activities of these centers that are estab- lished at university levels that made them so relevant by all accounts? The uni- versity-based legalaid centers provide full-fledged legal service for the indigent section of the society. The Mekele Legal Proposal details out the undertaking that it engages in achieving its goals as “the center has been involved in different activities among others providing free legalaid service, advocacy, community legal literacy program, and different training to legal practitioners’ to strengthen the capacity of justice system” (The Mekele University LegalAid Proposal, 2015: p. 3). The services of the centers extend to the commonly known part of the so- ciety as indigent, vulnerable and people living with HIV/AIDS. In this relation, Hawassa University legalaid proposal underlined that the beneficiaries of the service as “the target beneficiaries of the service are those groups which research shows are the most likely to suffer discrimination and be poor: women, children, prisoners, people living with HIV/AIDS, persons with disability and the elderly” (Hawassa University, Free LegalAid Service Program Proposal, 2017: p. 2). As the principle guiding the delivery of the service, it has been argued that “the principles that underpin the rights advice service are that the service is free, con- fidential, impartial and independent…” (Ibid).
After speaking with respondents from various types of organizations located throughout the state, it is clear that pro bono takes different forms throughout the state, depending on the size of the city, the sizes of firms, the number of attorneys, the resources of legalaid providers in the area, and more. Charlotte Center for LegalAdvocacy has an extensive pro bono program and is able to match attorneys with cases that fit their comfort level and preferences. Riasanovsky said, “If you were able to go to a legalaid office in, let’s say, Winston Salem, they may have 5 practice areas. We have 20, maybe 22” reviews (personal communication, February 9, 2018). In Charlotte, there are many large international law firms that place a heavy emphasis on firm-wide pro bono participation reviews (K. Riasanovsky, personal communication, February 9, 2018). Riasanovsky said, “We have partnerships with all of the major law firms. I have never not placed a pro bono case in 8 years. I’m talking thousands of cases. There is an unprecedented amount of community support. When I ask for help, I get it” reviews (K. Riasanovsky, personal
Finally, the legalaid system should make room for and prioritize systemic work — that is to say, legalaid services which potentially benefit a large number of economically disadvantaged people, society, and the public interest more generally. While I received relatively fewer submis- sions on this point, I was persuaded that systemic work should be seen as a core legalaid service. The focus of legalaid work is on assisting individuals to deal with their legal problems. However, legalaid providers are uniquely placed to identify the widespread and recurring legal problems and to use legal strategies to address them on a system-wide basis, thereby solving the prob- lem for a greater number of people and reducing the demands on legalaid and on other legal proceedings. For example, duty counsel may identify recurring problems with bail hearings and suggest practical reforms. Similarly, community advocates and supervising lawyers can identify patterns of wrongful denials of services or benefits to members of a vulnerable group and ad- dress this situation either through law reform advocacy or test-case litigation. The Community Legal Clinics in Ontario are widely touted as operating in a manner that facilitates both individual and systemic work. In British Columbia, systemic work is carried out by agencies such as the Community Legal Assistance Society and the BC Public Interest Advocacy Centre, but there is also a potential role for LSS in a renewed legalaid system.
As noted earlier, it has been a regular refrain of the Board that there needs to be overall coherence in terms of accountability, governance, finance and inter-dependence in relation to legalaid generally. This has been a matter that has long been accepted by the current Minister and initial steps have been taken to transfer responsibility for criminal legalaid to the Board. Two of the ad hoc schemes are already with the Board with the main scheme awaiting the necessary legislation. Government has also approved the transfer of the Mental Health Commission legalaid scheme to the Board and this, too, awaits legislation. 2013 is certainly likely to present considerable challenges. The most significant is the budgetary one and our capacity to meet the demand on the civil law side. Being successful in having a greater number of cases resolved through mediation rather than through the courts is also not resource-free. There will be challenges too in extending the Board’s remit in criminal legalaid, Mental Health Commission legalaid and further developments on the civil law side. The Board is determined to ensure that the extra responsibilities taken on and challenges faced will be addressed with the same commitment, resolution and professionalism that we bring to bear on an ongoing basis to all our work.
It is still the case that the majority of applicants seeking services from the Board do so in relation to a family problem. Of the 16,649 applications to law centres in 2016 approximately 81% involved a family matter (this figure excludes applications on foot of the Abhaile Scheme). This percentage is the same as it was in 2015 and the predominance of applications for legalaid or advice in relation to family problems is consistent with the pattern of demand in other jurisdictions. The numbers seeking services in relation to international protection matters rose from 1,537 to a figure of 1,648. This is over twice the level of demand there was for these services in 2013 (708) though still very considerably less than fourteen or fifteen years ago when the demand for legal services in this area consistently exceeded 5,000 applications per year. The commencement at the end of 2016, of the ‘single procedure’ provisions in the International Protection Act 2015 is welcome and they should stream-line the international protection process for the benefit of all.
Citywide vacancy rates are extremely low, meeting the legal definition of a housing emergency in New York City. 3 William C. Thompson Jr., the City Comptroller, recently said that, due to the large number of apartments withdrawing from the state Mitchell-Lama program 4 and similar federal and state subsidy programs, 5 the city’s “impending crisis in affordable housing” has arrived. 6 The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) noted that the “increasing unavailability of housing units at affordable prices remains one of the largest obstacles for low-income households.”
Since its founding in 1988 by law students at UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall, EBCLC staff attorneys have supervised approximately 400 law students through the clinical internship program. During this time, staff and students have assisted clients with more than 13,000 legal matters. EBCLC is now both the largest provider of legal services for poor people in the East Bay and Boalt Hall's primary legal services clinic. Contact organization directly for current needs.
A fundamental question is whether legalaid should be under control of the Judiciary or the AGO. More than likely, the AGO will retain primary responsibility, but the Judiciary should also have a defined role. Courts need to draw a bright line between basic information on court procedures and giving legal advice. Courts currently can provide basic filing information and forms, fees, procedure, etc., but cannot engage in the provision of substantive advice. Courts in the islands and atolls are very small and need guidance from the Supreme Court or the DJA on proper procedures. There needs to be an access point for lawyers at the AGO or the courts to obtain legalaid information and procedural issues. This can be provided inexpensively via a hotline that lawyers can call. Courts can also provide facilities at the courthouse for lawyers (e.g., a private conference room that a lawyer can rent for a small fee to meet with a client).
I confirm that I have personally checked the foregoing and am satisfied that all sections have been fully and accurately completed and that all the enclosed documents are clear and legible. I understand that if a LegalAid Certificate is granted I have a duty to keep the case under review and to keep the Legal Services Agency informed of any material development which may adversely affect the continuation of LegalAid.
• Lawyers – Many lawyers do legalaid. The Ministry has a list of legalaid lawyers on its website at www.justice.govt.nz. Lawyers are also listed in the Yellow Pages under “Barristers and Solicitors” and “Lawyers”; however, not all lawyers do legalaid work. Some lawyers may answer questions about legalaid for free, but you should always check this with the lawyer when you start talking to them.
4. The Law Line — Legal services staff on the Law Line can answer your questions and refer you to other resources that may be able to help you with your legal problem. This is a legal information telephone service that provides information on poverty, family, criminal and prison law. This service is for people who have been refused by legalaid.
To simplify the analysis and the presentation, we will henceforth compress the ten income classes of Figure 2 into three major classes: (1) less than € 20,500, (2) € 20,500 - 45,000 and (3) € 45,000 and more. See Table 1. This threefold classification has been chosen in view of the legalaid income thresholds in the Netherlands; cf. Section 2. Taking into account differences in income definitions (survey: gross income; legalaid criterion: fiscal income) together with the difference in the income threshold for multi-person households versus singles, we know (almost) for sure that respondents in income class 1 are entitled to legalaid according to government standards. Respondents in income class 3 on the other hand are definitely outside the range of legalaid. Income class 2 takes an intermediate position.
During its development, university legal clinic at FLAP Faculty of Law Monash University has begun and practiced in the area of Victoria Dandenong Family Court which is became one of the pilot projects. They open ministry on every working day at the Dandenong Family Court and Monday becomes the busiest day. Funding support provided by the Victorian State Government is allocated to employ an attorney and administrative officer and fees. Such a program can be simply referred to as self-help. Referring to FLAP Annual Report (2013), this program is seemed also more intended for people who have family law issues and do not have the funds to conduct legal remedies in court. Until now, the pilot project is very well known as the Family Court Support Program.
Over the years, empirical research and legal needs studies have challenged that approach. Forty years later, the conventional wisdom recognizes that legalaid plays an important role in the economic and social health of the entire community and, to make its maximum contribution, must take an outcome-‐focused approach ;ĂůƐŽƌĞĨĞƌƌĞĚƚŽĂƐĂ͞ĐůŝĞŶƚ-‐ĐĞŶƚƌĞĚĂƉƉƌŽĂĐŚ͟Ϳand concentrate on helping people find timely and lasting resolutions to their legal problems. Legalaid now encompasses a full spectrum of services ranging from education programs and self-‐help information aimed at the general public, through outreach services to assist
Punitiveness and Leniency. Until recently it appeared to be conventional penological wisdom to suggest that Dutch sentencing is far more lenient and tolerant than that in other countries and especially that of the UK (Downes 1988). It would be tempting to conclude that this explains a generally more ‘tolerant’ climate which in turn may require lower legalaid spending since a custodial sentence may be assessed as unlikely by legalaid decision-makers and so making legalaid unnecessary. However, the evidence for this more lenient penological approach is open to question. The evidence tends to concentrate on the analysis of cross-national rates of imprisonment. The conventional means of comparison of national prison populations is as a number incarcerated per 100,000 of population (e.g.: Council of Europe 1992). These have tended to show a substantially higher rate in Great Britain than that in the Netherlands. However, this is not the end of the story in assessing punitiveness and leniency. Ken Pease has argued that expressing prison population in relation to national population is ‘…useless for all practical and intellectual purposes.’ (Pease 1994: 125, sic). The Netherlands may not be as lenient as their position in the oft-used league tables of imprisonment rates suggest (see also Kommer 1994). In using the number of people imprisoned per 100,000 of the population as the main indicator of punitiveness, the influence of early release legislation and practices (including remission and parole); pre-trial practices and their relationship with ‘backdating’ to cover a period spent in custody on remand are critical. Given the relatively less generous practice concerning early release from custody in the Netherlands than in Britain, the use of imprisonment rates as a means of calibrating of puntiveness and leniency may therefore be suspect. Reviewing alternative means of comparing ‘national punitivess’, Pease concludes: