Below are a few bits from an email I got this morning.  This one pretty much resembles other emails I get from people all over Oregon, people I've never met or talked to.  I usually get several of these a week, sometimes several a day.

Mr. Gear-
  I am not sure if you can help me or not. I am in the middle of an arbitration with . . . . Suddenly, at the hearing, his witness came up with something that [Attorney _____] said [Attorney ______] had no knowledge of until then. I asked for a continuance so I could read and try to interpret what this new report means.

  I e mailed [Attorney _____] and received a couple of brief definitions as well as this closing remark -- "This information that you requested is beyond the scope of your discovery request and is in the nature of an Interrogatory which is not a permitted discovery device in OR.  However at least as to this request, I am providing a response  to you as a courtesy."

  My question is, can they actually . . . ? [Attorney _____] is trying to confuse me or turn around what I say . . . . I do not have the money for an attorney but am in desperate need of some advice on what to do, especially with this new information.

    I normally just delete these, but I feel so bad about not being able to respond that I thought I would try to explain to my anonymous correspondent -- and anyone else who emails me like this -- why they won't hear back from me.  It's not because I'm a jerk (or at least not only that).

    What the typical "civilian" (nonlawyer) doesn't know is that lawyers -- who can sometimes seem so absolutely certain of everything -- are pretty much just like normal people.  Underneath the facade of bravado bordering on (if not crossing well into) arrogance, is a human being full of doubts and fears about everything, from fear of being revealed as an imposter and someone who never should have been allowed near a law license, to fear of getting a bad reputation with other attorneys and judges, to fear of being bankrupted or ruined by a small mistake that blows up into a nightmare of hearings and appeals.  It all boils down to the same old human fears -- that we're going to lose our careers, security, and families because of a mistake made while casually trying to help a stranger in need, so no one will love us and that we're going to wind up collecting soda cans in a shopping cart and sleeping under a bridge.

    Pretty unlikely stuff, but fear isn't about rationality, it's about the lizard part of the brain that determines how we think about things before we've had a chance to "think" about them at all.  And this is the killer part:  some of the nightmare stories around this particular fear are true. 

    That is, unlike the urban legends about hidden razor blades in apples given away on Halloween (no doubt started by clever kids who want real candy, not apples!), there really are true tales of horror stories where lawyers have been hurt bad or even undone by giving legal advice to non-clients while just trying to help them, one human to another. 

    So, absurd as it sounds to people who don't live with these fears, a lawyer who responds to a emailed cry for help like this is risking their ticket to practice and an ordeal of responding to bar complaints, malpractice suits, and just generally suffering for a long time. 

    I hate the whole fear thing, and I do my best to try not to be afraid of everyone I talk to, and to remain a decent person despite being a lawyer.  But, even ignoring the issue of constantly being asked to give away my only product (legal advice) to complete strangers, there's no way that I can stay in practice for long if I give legal advice to random callers and emailers, because there's no way to do that without screwing it up.  And, given my low-costs, low-overhead, low-fee practice model, I can't afford any time spent answering a bar complaint lodged by a non-client -- the first one of those will probably put me out of business entirely.

    So, while it pains me to constantly be reminded what a disfigured and inadequate legal system we have and how it systematically, relentlessly, and remorselessly denies access to justice to precisely the people who most need it, I too wind up going along, refusing to help the stranger whose cry for help reaches my ear or email account.

    All I can suggest is that, when you find yourself in a bind and unable to afford even the Oregon State Bar's modest means program, you contact every elected official who is supposed to represent you and tell them how the lack of adequate civil legal services is affecting you.  I have some ideas for broadening access to justice that I'm working on, and with luck they will bear fruit before too many more years go by; but in the meantime, since America has not yet recognized access to justice as a fundamental right, we ration it by price: those with money can have all they want; those without money are left with scraps or pushed out in the cold entirely.  The corporations like it this way, and the corporations decide who gets elected in this country.  Frighteningly, these corporations are becoming increasingly active in judicial races. 

    Until real people -- human people -- unite to demand a civil justice system that is more than just rhetorically open to all, we're stuck.  I do my part, I'd appreciate it if you would do yours:  Every time you get a chance, every time a candidate asks for your vote, tell your elected officials and candidates, from dog-catcher on up, that you want them to fund a robust expansion of civil legal aid programs until every real person in America with a legal problem is able to afford to get the help they need.

Postscript:  You would think that disavowing science and preferring the insights of revelation to all the evidence would keep you from getting an invitation to speak to a lawyer trade show all about the toys that could only be created after scientists unlocked some pretty deep secrets in nature.  Weirdly, Ben Stein -- who has managed to cultivate a rep as a smart guy, but who pushes creationism -- was invited to give a keynote talk to the ABA Tech Show.  Still, he is apparently smart on non-science matters:

    “We all have rights, but it can be staggeringly expensive to possess those rights,” Stein said, “Unless you can get access to a lawyer, there’s a greatly diminished chance of getting access.”
    “This makes [lawyers] and their clients richer in material and emotional ways, more powerful as human beings and citizens,” Stein said to a packed audience. “U.S. and Canadian lawyers take their greatest national inheritances and they share it with everyone else who is not necessarily rich. They let everyone all over North America know they have legal rights and what those legal rights are and what they aren’t.”

Great news from KMUZ:

"Dear Board and key volunteers:
 
    Our 501(c)(3) status has been approved by the IRS.  Willamette Information, News, and Entertainment Service (WINES) is its own non-profit and is tax exempt from federal income taxes!!
 
    Kudos to Dave and me for pushing through the arduous process of figuring out and filling out the forms.  Special thanks to John Gear for his legal overview, w/out his suggested changes, we may still have been in legal limbo.  And to Karen Lord, CPA who help us at the intial stages. And to Fritz Graham, Sen. Wyden's office, for bird-dogging our application on our behalf."

   I found an old Salem Resources list with a number of useful listings.  As a first step towards updating it, I made a legible version of it (see file below).  Anyone knowing of newer or better information is invited to contact me with the updates so I can update the file.  Please feel free to direct others to this resource list and to suggest additional resources for people in need.

SSI Must be Strengthened
-- by Gerald McIntyre, Directing Attorney, National Senior Citizens Law Center

     The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program was established to provide critical subsistence income to those older people and people with disabilities who are in greatest economic need.  As Pres. Nixon said on the day he signed the SSI program into law, “For millions of older people, it can mean a big step out of poverty and toward a life of dignity and independence.” Today eight million people rely on this program for survival.  Two out of every three people over the age of 65 who are receiving SSI are women, most often single women.  In order to qualify for SSI, you cannot have more than $2,000 in resources (a home, an automobile and basic household necessities are not counted) and, in most states you cannot have more than $694 in monthly income.  If you qualify, the maximum monthly grant you can receive in most of the country is $674.  For most SSI recipients, that is the only income they have.  For those who do have other income, it is most likely a small Social Security benefit and the SSI grant is reduced to reflect the Social Security benefit.

     Yet even these very modest benefits are at risk in the current budget debate.  For example, if Congress were to enact an across-the-board spending cap, SSI would be severely impacted and the monthly SSI benefit would be reduced from its already inadequate level.  The impact on SSI would be even more severe if, as has been discussed, some major areas of government spending such as defense, Medicare and Social Security were exempt from the cap.  The cuts would soon be reflected in unprecedented levels of homelessness among America’s elderly and disabled population.  A yet worse result might be anticipated from a proposal by the House Republican Policy Committee to dismantle the SSI program and replace it with block grants to the states funded at 2007 funding levels.  Already, without any of the more draconian proposals being adopted, the Social Security Administration (SSA) has seen a decrease in administrative funding at the same time the caseload pressure has been increasing.  Furthermore drastic cuts in administrative funding are threatened.  If these cuts are put into effect, SSA offices will be closed, office staff will be furloughed, already long processing times will be increased and some people will lose access to the program altogether.

     Yes, the SSI program needs changes.  It needs changes to bring it up to date, not changes to return to the time of the Elizabethan Poor Law.  Unfortunately, over the years SSI has been all but forgotten in Washington, except when it comes time to look for ways of saving money.  This emphasis needs to change.  To begin with, the Federal Benefit Rate of $674 needs to be increased.  Also, at present, you cannot have more than $2,000 in resources (not counting your home, automobile or household furnishings) in order to be eligible for SSI.  This amount has increased only 33% since the program was put into law 39 years ago. 

     During that same time, the cost of living has increased over 400%.  The resource limit needs to be increased to $10,000 so that those who are trying to stay in their own homes, can afford to pay for some inevitable and necessary repairs.  Another outmoded provision is one which reduces the maximum federal benefit to $449 a month for someone living in the household of another person.  Often that other person is a relative, also with limited income, who cannot afford to subsidize the SSI recipient.  Finally, as in any program of this size and complexity, it is inevitable that mistakes will be made in determining eligibility or amount of benefits.  The U.S. Constitution requires that there be an effective means of appealing these determinations.  Unfortunately, the appeals system at SSA is a shambles and SSI recipients are left with no effective means of appeal.  The integrity of the appeals process must be restored as part of any SSI modernization. 

 John Gear is a MAP volunteer attorney.  If you are a service member, service family member, or know someone who is, you should know about the Oregon State Bar's Military Assistance Panel (MAP).

The Oregon State Bar’s Military Assistance Panel connects Oregon lawyers with Oregon’s deployed servicemembers and their dependents in need of legal help.

    Since 2003 the Oregon State Bar has been addressing legal concerns of Oregon soldiers deployed overseas.  Federal and state legislation provide additional legal protection to persons entering or called to active duty in the US armed forces. Information on the Servicemembers’ Civil Relief Act (SCRA) and state laws protecting service men and women is available here.

    Although many military personnel and their families are aware of the Servicemembers’ Civil Relief Act (SCRA), they may not have the legal expertise or financial resources available to take advantage of the Act’s important provisions. The Oregon State Bar administers a referral panel that lists lawyers willing to help. Our volunteer lawyers have been trained to provide legal assistance primarily relating to the SCRA. Many volunteers are also willing to assist with family law, consumer/credit law, real property/landlord-tenant law, and estate planning issues.

    Volunteer lawyers expect to give at least one hour of advice and counseling to a cli- ent free of charge. It is up to the lawyer and client to decide whether to continue the lawyer/client relationship beyond the pro bono consultation.

How It Works:

To participate, servicemembers –

        1. Contact the Oregon Army National Guard at (503) 584-3571 for an authorization (military reference or “MR”) number; and then,

        2. Contact the Oregon State Bar’s Lawyer Referral Service at (503) 684-3763 for a referral to a participating lawyer; and then,

        3. Contact the participating lawyer.