Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Culture’ Category

https://cdn.morguefile.com/imageData/public/files/l/larryfarr/10/l/13817963898k84q.jpgOver the holidays, I finished reading lawyer and social activist Bryan Stevenson’s extraordinary memoir, Just Mercy. Not only does Stevenson humanize the incarcerated by telling their stories but he goes marrow deep in describing endemic injustices in our criminal justice system.

Perhaps it’s because so many of the lawyers I’ve come to like and admire are criminal defense attorneys that I’ve found myself reading to understand their work. The best of them are lawyers who despite the odds remain willing to represent defendants who New Jersey Supreme Court Justice Barry Albin once wrote are “treated as just another fungible item to be shuffled along on a criminal-justice conveyor belt.”

In reading books like Just Mercy, I follow a thread begun when I first picked up David Cole’s 1999 seminal standard, No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice System. I later read John Grisham’s The Innocent Man: Murder and Injustice in a Small Town. Grisham’s nonfiction book left me disgusted and angry. That book was followed by Steven Bogira’s Courtroom 302: A Year Behind the Scenes in an American Criminal Courthouse.

And more recently still tripping the outrage meter, there’s been Radley Balko’s Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America’s Police Forces and Michael Cicchini’s Tried and Convicted: How Police, Prosecutors, and Judges Destroy Our Constitutional Rights.

These aren’t books just for lawyers. Every U.S. resident should read them. Forewarned is forearmed. Indeed, Cicchini’s latest, the equally excellent, Convicting Avery: The Bizarre Laws and Broken System behind “Making a Murderer,” to be published in April, will hopefully all but ensure average citizens do all they can to stay far away from the machinery of criminal justice. Too many times, it seems, the sad message for the Average Joe and Jane coming from unequal justice literature is if you don’t have money for a defense — you’re going to get screwed.

https://cdn.morguefile.com/imageData/public/files/c/click/preview/fldr_2008_11_08/file000521358819.jpgAll of which gets me back to Just Mercy and what’s stayed with me since reading it. It was the chapter almost near the end of the book where Stevenson talks about the one night 25 years into his fight against excessive punishment, mass incarceration, and racial and economic injustice, and when at extremely low ebb, he despairs over our “broken system of justice.” He is ready to stop. “I can’t do this anymore,” he writes. “I can just leave. Why am I doing this?”

But through his soul crisis, he comes to a powerful epiphany. Stevenson writes: “My years of struggling against inequality, abusive power, poverty, oppression, and injustice had finally revealed something to me about myself. Being close to suffering, death, executions, and cruel punishments didn’t just illuminate the brokenness of others; in a moment of anguish and heartbreak, it also exposed my own brokenness. You can’t effectively fight abusive power, poverty, inequality, illness, oppression, or injustice and not be broken by it.

“We are all broken by something. We have all hurt someone and have been hurt. We all share the condition of brokenness even if our brokenness is not equivalent.”

https://cdn.morguefile.com/imageData/public/files/o/Oleander/12/l/1418846725d5h3t.jpgAnd then in one of the book’s most arrestingly inspirational passages, Stevenson cites a quote  once heard and attributed to writer Thomas Merton, “We are bodies of broken bones. I guess I’d always known but never fully considered that being broken is what makes us human. We all have our reasons. Sometimes we are fractured by the choices we make; sometimes we’re shattered by things we would never have chosen. But our brokenness is also the source of our common humanity, the basis for our shared search for comfort, meaning, and healing. Our shared vulnerability and imperfection nurtures and sustains our capacity for compassion.

“We have a choice. We can embrace our humaneness, which means embracing our broken natures and the compassion that remains our best hope for healing. Or we can deny our brokenness, forswear compassion, and, as a result, deny our own humanity.”

In his Ted talk below, Bryan Stevenson revisits this and more, including “The opposite of poverty is justice.” For more insights watch the video and read Just Mercy.

___________________________________________

Credits: Morguefile.com, no attribution license.

Read Full Post »

Dinner for One | by Georgie PauwelsOverlook for the moment what a Canadian judge said in settling a Saskatoon, Saskatchewan canine custody conflict about where a divorcing couple’s dogs would live. Spare me now the case histories, legal citations and genuflections to ancient custom that characterize and ‘justify’ dogs as so much chattel — mere inanimate objects — property like a toothbrush, a table lamp or what Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Richard Danyliuk analogized to “the family butter knives.”

https://cdn.morguefile.com/imageData/public/files/l/lauramusikanski/10/p/c1b5a7e39758f723c46b1ea6875e227a.jpgI don’t know anyone who treats a lamp, a toothbrush or a set of butter knives the way most of us treat our pets. “Am I to make an order that one party have interim possession of [for example] the family butter knives but, due to a deep attachment to both butter and those knives, order that the other party have limited access to those knives for 1.5 hours per week to butter his or her toast?”

This year, Americans will spend well over $60 billion on their pets. One fourth of that will be for veterinary care. Granted, they aren’t children. But clearly that doesn’t stop many of us from treating them like kids with fur.

“Dogs are wonderful creatures,” wrote the jurist in his 15-page order. But despite the feel-good bromides and empty nods to societal views about companion animals treated like “family,” Justice Danyliuk nonetheless admonished the couple’s inability to settle for themselves “an issue unworthy of this expenditure of time, money and public resources.” He further lamented the “wasteful” use of judicial resources “which should be discouraged.”  See “Judge rules dogs should not be treated like kids”

Ah — as though every matter seeking a legal remedy or a prayer of juridical wisdom was always of great moment and exceptional portent. And if only people had capacities so facile to solve disputes writ large and small, petty and important on their own — without employing courts and lawyers and without “demeaning for the court and legal counsel to have these parties call upon these legal and court resources because they are unable to settle . . . .”

But better still, the best rebuttal to pets as butter knives is my favorite video of the year.

Happy New Year to those we rescue and to those that rescue us.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Credits: Dinner for One, by Georgie Pauwels at Flickr Creative Commons attribution license; morguefile.com, no attribution license.

 

Read Full Post »

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/GrouchoCaricature.jpg/330px-GrouchoCaricature.jpg

“I don’t want to belong to any club that would have me as a member.” – Groucho Marx

Earlier this month, a white Austin lawyer filed a federal discrimination lawsuit against members of the Texas State Bar’s Board of Directors claiming the Bar is “violating the Equal Protection Clause by maintaining a race- and sex-based quota scheme on its Board of Directors.” Solo family law attorney Greg Gegenheimer alleged he’s being unconstitutionally discriminated against because the Texas Bar won’t consider him for one of the four board seats statutorily designated for minority members.

This is the latest of the Texas Bar’s constitutional kerfuffles. At the end of last year, Texas Governor Greg Abbott accused the Bar of religious discrimination for refusing to accredit a continuing legal education (CLE) class on Christian ethical perspectives in the legal profession sponsored by San Antonio’s St. Mary’s University School of Law.

minority-director-soughtAs for Gegenheimer’s suit, Texas law states “four minority member directors appointed by the President of the State Bar” must serve on the Bar’s board. “Minority member” means a state bar member who is “female, African-American, Hispanic-American, Native American, or Asian-American.” Gegenheimer’s complaint alleges the Bar is prohibiting white men from being nominated or even considered for the open minority-member positions posted for the board.

Seriously? Why would any lawyer pick a fight to sit on any compulsory membership state bar’s governing board — unless it was to disrupt the collection of sycophants, suck-ups and social climbers that calcify there?

Legal elites detest dissenters — but if Gegenheimer wants to sit on the board as a disruptive force — well more power to him.

The preferable constitutional battle.

But a squabble over bar quotas is merely an undercard. The main event, the better bout is defending the First Amendment free speech and free association rights of Texas lawyers by eradicating compulsory membership in the Texas Bar. Now that’s the fight worth having.

https://i0.wp.com/wiki.ncac.org/images/e/ed/FirstAmendment.jpgAnd as for filling its minority-member vacancies, the Texas Bar most likely can’t persuasively argue a sufficient constitutional interest for imposing a sex and race based quota for appointments to its board. (Not to say there hasn’t been a basis for assuring some semblance of minority representation in Texas given the Lone Star State’s rather inglorious past and recent history).

Rather than contesting race and sex based numerical requirements, Texas lawyers should be revisiting the still dubious foundations of coercive bar association membership. Granted, the only compelling state interest the U.S. Supreme Court has found to justify it is improving the practice of law through the regulation of attorneys. Yet 18 states—Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Vermont—have already found ways to regulate attorneys without compelling membership. To say that in Texas and in 31 other jurisdictions that this interest cannot be achieved through less restrictive means, simply ignores reality. Mandating membership in any state bar association crosses “the limit of what the First Amendment can tolerate”1 when there are less restrictive means available.

Meantime, you can read Gegenheimer’s complaint here. His suit is being backed by the Project on Fair Representation, an organization which calls itself “a public interest organization dedicated to the promotion of equal opportunity and racial harmony.” It goes on to add, “The Project works to advance race-neutral principles in the areas education, public contracting, public employment, and voting.”

In actuality, I seriously doubt Gegenheimer wants to serve as one of the board’s minority-member designees. After obtaining a declaratory judgment that the minority-member law violates the Equal Protection Clause, what he really wants is a preliminary and a permanent injunction preventing the Bar from enforcing that law.

Yet the broader view is for Texas lawyers and other lawyers forced to join bar associations as preconditions to practice to instead work to protect their fundamental rights of free speech and freedom from coerced association that forces them to pay compulsory dues whether or not they subscribe to the viewpoints, activities and agendas of that association.

______________________________________________________

1Knox v. Service Employees Intern. Union, 132 S. Ct. 2277, 2291 (2012).

Credits: Groucho Marx caricature drawn by Greg Williams via Wikipedia Commons, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 License; FirstAmendment.jpg under Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported.

Read Full Post »

On Sunday, the local paper ran a front page story about how $4.6M in charitable contributions was spent. It was only news because of the way some of that money was distributed to the beneficiaries.

In the aftermath of the sixth-largest loss of life for firefighters in U.S. history, millions of dollars in donations came pouring in from around the country. The donations, big and small, were meant for the surviving families of the 19 Granite Mountain Hotshots, an elite group of firefighters who died in a wildfire near Yarnell, Arizona in 2013.

WTF | by ulricaloebAccording to the investigative report by the Arizona Republic’s Robert Anglen, “One of the key organizations responsible for managing those donations now questions how some of the money was used, with hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on sightseeing trips, high-end restaurants and hotels for hotshots’ families.”

My point in mentioning this head-shaking story is not to pick on the surviving families who as Anglen points out, “did nothing wrong in accepting the donations.” Or is it to unnecessarily dwell upon what amounts to a pretty embarrassing and disastrous public relations snafu for the charities and their management. The paper’s investigative story does all of that and then some.

It’s merely to highlight once again one of life’s most sacred and unhappy truths. The easiest money to spend is always somebody else’s.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Portrait_of_Milton_Friedman.jpg/385px-Portrait_of_Milton_Friedman.jpg

Milton Friedman

I’ve known this all my life. And it’s one of the principal reasons that organizational, business and government transparency and the lack thereof aggravates and animates me so much. As a matter of fact, it is one of the two key drivers of my quest to reform mandatory bar associations. You don’t get any more high-handed and cavalier in spending somebody else’s compulsory dues money than the tin-eared bureaucrats running our nation’s mandatory bar associations.

The other energizer is of course, reclaiming and protecting the First Amendment freedoms of lawyers, which like the Constitutional rights of all Americans are being eroded everyday.

As for transparency and “on whom money is spent,” Nobel prize-winning economist, the late Milton Friedman said it best some 36-years ago in Free to Choose co-authored with his wife, Rose.

 

Friedman knew that if it’s someone else’s money — there’s no accountability and no real consequences as to how that money is spent.

________________________________________________________

Credits: money, at Morguefile, no attribution; “WTF,” by ulricaloeb at Flickr Creative Commons attribution license; Portrait of Milton Friedman by Robert Hannah 89, The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice via Wikipedia, public domain; chart via Youtube video.

Read Full Post »

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/Jan_de_Bray_-_The_Governors_of_the_Guild_of_St_Luke%2C_Haarlem_-_WGA03124.jpg/640px-Jan_de_Bray_-_The_Governors_of_the_Guild_of_St_Luke%2C_Haarlem_-_WGA03124.jpg

I recently attended a seminar where a lawyer-lobbyist opined that non-lawyers should not be lobbyists. Influence peddling, it seems, should be the sole province of lawyers. Not that much explanation was given. Perhaps none was needed. After all, most in attendance were lawyers. Somewhere in the lawyer DNA is genetically grafted an exaggerated belief that “Anything you can do I can do better; I can do anything better than you.” 

Not that it’s true — especially in lobbying where cunning, connections, comprehension and experience count as much if not more than a legal education. Nevertheless, those advocating the supposed advantages of lawyer-lobbyists over nonlawyer-lobbyists also sniff that “Nonlawyer lobbyists lack a system of obligatory ethics norms akin to the Rules of Professional Conduct.” Apparently it matters little that such self-serving smugness is undercut by the likes of former lawyer-lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

File:Theodoor Rombouts - Christ Driving the Money-changers from the Temple.jpg

Bottom line, for lawyers fiercely wedded to the medieval guild’s monopoly-has-its-privileges — free market competition sucks. Or to Ben Franklin’s “nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes” — add with certitude the protectionist instincts of lawyers.

The ABA takes the lead.

Under the sheltering cover of “ponderous, backward looking, and self-preserving” bar associations, licensure was the sine qua non to supposedly protect “the uninformed public against incompetence or dishonesty.” Or at least that’s what Professor Walter Gelhorn said in “The Abuse of Occupational Licensing”  where more significantly, he also pointed out how such pretextual public protection always has “the consequence that members of the licensed group become protected against competition from newcomers.”

Ah, the joys of monopoly or as Professor Gerard Clark explains in “Monopoly Power in Defense of the Status Quo: A Critique of the ABA’s Role in the Regulation of the American Legal Profession,”

“Since its founding in 1878, the American Bar Association (ABA) has served the legal profession in two principal ways: by limiting membership in the profession, and by protecting its prerogatives. It has done so by: advocating a system of licensing backed by unauthorized practice rules; supporting and then regulating law schools and thereby diminishing the apprenticeship-clerkship route to admission; regulating the delivery of professional services through detailed professional codes; by lobbying the state and federal legislatures for favorable legislation; providing a continuous public relations campaign to put the bar in a favorable light; and supporting the growth of state bar associations that press for these prerogatives at the state and local level. The result is an outsized and comfortable profession that is costly, and inefficient. By seizing the initiative in the creation of a trade association, which simply declared itself the official voice of the bar over all aspects of the profession (although less than one-third of the 1.2 million lawyers in the United States are ABA members), and then convincing state bar authorities to accept its judgments, the ABA accomplished its goal of self-regulation through the use of monopoly power.”

Just-us.

Lawyer regulation to protect the public sounds good. But by regulating who can practice law, lawyers also maintain a monopoly on who provides legal services. The legal establishment accomplishes this by regulating the unauthorized practice of law (UPL) either by statute or court rule. But the rub is that bar association regulators have an inherent conflict of interest. On the one hand, they’re supposed to protect and serve the public by regulating lawyers. But at the same time, they function like trade associations promoting the legal profession’s common interests.

https://i1.wp.com/cdn.morguefile.com/imageData/public/files/m/meowzeroni/04/l/1397514359cws5o.jpgThese two purposes conflict because lawyers and the public often have different interests. When these interests conflict—such as when out-of-state lawyers or lower-cost legal services wish to compete with lawyers — lawyers use their regulatory powers to stop that competition.

Last year, for example, in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling against a protectionist North Carolina Dental Board, the State Bar of North Carolina settled its suit against LegalZoom. LegalZoom is now free to offer online document services and prepaid legal services plans to North Carolinians.

Here in Arizona, examples of lawyer interests trumping public interests include the Arizona State Bar’s efforts to stop realtors in the 1960s, legal document preparers in the 1990s, and out-of-state lawyers in the 2000s from offering services in Arizona.

When it comes to access to justice, those at the temple precincts mean access to just-us.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Credits: The governors of the guild of St. Luke, Haarlem, 1675 by Jan de Bray, Wikimedia Commons, public domain; Theodoor Rombouts, Christ Driving the Money-changers from the Temple, Wikimedia Commons, public domain; other photos via Morguefile.com, no attribution required.

Read Full Post »

It's A Dry Heave | by cogdogblog

This is the time of year where anywhere is better than being trapped in Satan’s boxers. Sure, we missed the 120 weather forecast on June 19th. Just the same Phoenix spent the month breaking infernal records.

And now we’re bedeviled with the glistening humidity and demonic heat of monsoon season. What a combination. But how fitting for filing the following under WHAT. THE. HELL.

  1. Utah v. Strieff: The erosion of fundamental Constitutional freedoms continues.

On Monday, June 20, 2016, a 48-year Phoenix temperature record was broken when the thermometer hit 116 by 3 pm. On the same day, the nation’s highest court further undermined the part of the Fourth Amendment that safeguards individuals from unreasonable government searches and seizures. In Utah v. Strieff, No. 14-1373, the U.S. Supreme Court weakened the “exclusionary rule.” It’s the rule that excludes evidence from trial obtained by unconstitutional police conduct.

Bill of Rights | by GruenemannThe case involved police officer Douglas Fackrell who without probable cause stopped Edward Strieff after Strieff left a South Salt Lake City house under police surveillance thanks to an anonymous drug tip. Strieff was arrested after Officer Fackrell discovered an outstanding arrest warrant for a minor traffic violation. A search of Strieff turned up methamphetamines and drug paraphernalia.

But if the stop was unlawful, shouldn’t the drugs have been excluded? Or did the existence of an outstanding arrest warrant weaken or attenuate the connection between the government’s misconduct and the discovery of the evidence?

Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the evidence obtained was admissible “because the officer’s discovery of the arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the evidence seized incident to arrest.”

In spirited dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor declared:

“The Court today holds that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer’s violation of your Fourth Amendment rights. Do not be soothed by the opinion’s technical language: This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants—even if you are doing nothing wrong. If the officer discovers a warrant for a fine you forgot to pay, courts will now excuse his illegal stop and will admit into evidence anything he happens to find by searching you after arresting you on the warrant.”

Justice Sotomayor particularly warned about the risk of “treating members of our communities as second-class citizens.”

“It is no secret,” she wrote, “that people of color are disproportionate victims of this type of scrutiny.” And she added, “. . . this case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an officer can verify your legal status at any time. It says that your body is subject to invasion while courts excuse the violation of your rights. It implies that you are not a citizen of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged.”

Just 5 years ago, criminal defense lawyer Michael Cicchini deconstructed the ongoing erosion of our fundamental rights in Tried and Convicted. On the heels of Strieff, the bad news is that our individual rights continue being “hammered and softened by high court judicial decisions.” These rights are “intended to protect us from the vagaries of the criminal justice system” and from the “government agents” who “are easily able to bypass, and in fact destroy, our constitutional protections.” 

           2.   Brock Turner and Raul Ramirez: Racial and ethnic disparity in sentencing persists.

Unequal Justice in America | by DonkeyHotey

As though Judge Aaron Persky wasn’t facing enough opprobrium for sentencing Stanford swimmer Brock Turner to only six months in county jail for rape, The Guardian reported last month that the same Judge Persky had approved a much harsher three-year prison sentence for Salvadoran immigrant Raul Ramirez for committing a similar crime. And unlike Turner, Ramirez expressed genuine remorse and plead guilty, which should have mitigated his sentence. See “Stanford sexual assault case revealed racial bias.”

By itself the disparity in Ramirez’s sentencing is nothing unusual. It’s commonplace. It’s only newsworthy because of the light touch administered on Turner.

According to Census and Dept. of Justice analyses by the Sentencing Project, racial disparity in sentencing and incarceration is real. Indeed, research by Dr. Ashley Nellis bears out that prosecutors and judges often treat blacks and Hispanics more harshly in their charging and sentencing decisions.

“Sentencing policies, implicit racial bias, and socioeconomic inequity contribute to racial disparities at every level of the criminal justice system. Today, people of color make up 37% of the U.S. population but 67% of the prison population. Overall, African Americans are more likely than white Americans to be arrested; once arrested, they are more likely to be convicted; and once convicted, they are more likely to face stiff sentences. Black men are six times as likely to be incarcerated as white men and Hispanic men are more than twice as likely to be incarcerated as non-Hispanic white men.”

WHAT. THE. HELL.

 ______________________________________________

Credits: “It’s A Dry Heave,” by Alan Levine at Flickr Creative Commons Attribution; “Bill of Rights,” by John W. Schulze at Flickr Creative Commons Attribution;”Unequal Justice in America,” by DonkeyHotey at Flickr Creative Commons Attibution.

Read Full Post »

SG_01_IMG_3458_MFI was disappointed to recently learn from a colleague about the demise of the Washoe County, Nevada volunteer program known as SAFE, Special Advocates for the Elderly. SAFE’s purpose is to assist judges by independently gathering and evaluating information about elders under or facing guardianships.

Based in Reno, NV, the Washoe County SAFE program became a victim of the great recession when grants and donations apparently dried up during 2008 to 2010. The sad consequence was that an indispensably meritorious organization was forced to shut its doors. A shame I’m late on the news.

SAFE

rep.5 | by simajeSAFE volunteers are appointed by the court in civil or criminal matters involving allegations of exploitation, abuse or neglect of a vulnerable adult or ward. In addition to acting as the court’s eyes and ears, SAFE volunteers provide essential companionship that improves the quality of life and enhances the dignity of at-risk elders. And unlike financially motivated stakeholders, these volunteers work autonomously for the court as trained advocates not conflicted by financial self-interest.

The model for SAFE is the Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) program for children. CASA advocates “for the timely placement of abused and neglected children in safe, permanent homes and for the highest quality of their care while they are under the court’s jurisdiction.”

rep.1 | by simaje

SAFE volunteers are trained to investigate the appropriateness of guardianship for elders by visiting residents in nursing homes and other facilities. They review court documents and accounting records. They interview witnesses, family members, attorneys, and facility staff. Advocates prepare reports of their findings for the court and attend court hearings for the wards.

I’ve been remiss not keeping up with the topic of elder financial abuse here as I once did. The problem hasn’t gone away. Far from it. In fact, I still think SAFE ought to be duplicated throughout the country.

Happily, the SAFE program created 6 years ago in Douglas County, NV continues to thrive. I’ve even heard Douglas County’s SAFE has become a state model and that it may be adopted by other Nevada counties.

https://i0.wp.com/cdn.morguefile.com/imageData/public/files/b/bjwebbiz/preview/fldr_2008_11_02/file000228637046.jpgIndeed, last week the same Nevada colleague speculated that SAFE’s laudable objectives may even be gaining traction with a Nevada Supreme Court statewide commission created a year ago to study the administration of guardianships in Nevada’s Courts.

Under Nevada Supreme Court Administrative Order ADKT 0507, the Commission to Study the Creation and Administration of Guardianships in Nevada’s Courts has been reviewing the processes for creating guardianships and conservatorships, stakeholder accountability, court documentation and tracking, judicial training, and any resources available or needed to assist Nevada’s courts in administering guardianships.

While it’s commendable Nevada’s high court has tasked a state commission to undertake this comprehensive review, why does it always seem such praiseworthy initiatives only occur in temporal proximity to media scrutiny, scandal and public embarrassment?

the Clinquant of the Future | by DerrickTLike in other jurisdictions, including Arizona’s, probate court reforms come in fits and starts and seemingly only after disconcerting media revelations. In 2011, for example, The Arizona Republic published a multi-part investigation, “Probate Court: A Troubled System,” which “revealed that Maricopa County Probate Court is allowing the life’s savings of vulnerable adults to become engines of profit for attorneys, for-profit fiduciaries and care providers. Their fees can drain a large portion of the assets of people who have lost the ability to take care of themselves.” Court reforms and remedial legislation followed.

In Nevada, ongoing problems with the probate system in Clark County came to light in a series of Las Vegas Review-Journal articles published in April 2015. “Cases high­lighted by the newspaper showed a lack of oversight by the courts, such as failing to require guardians to file annual accounts of a ward’s finances even though it is required by state law.”  Two months later, there was a statewide guardianship commission.

DSCF1286 | by rahnekat

But no matter the timing or how belated, this ought not diminish the importance of the Commission’s charge. Past Supreme Court Chief Justice James W. Hardesty is Chairperson and is joined by stellar state jurists with longstanding interests in doing right by Nevada’s most vulnerable populations.

Additionally, the Supreme Court’s Order limited the Commission membership to no more than 20 representatives from the public and private guardianship system. And in a refreshing departure from the insular approach too often taken by Arizona’s high court, Commission members also include members of the state legislature and even the news media. Public testimony has also been taken statewide.

And so strong is the Commission’s interest in getting it right that the deadline for the its final report was recently extended by the current Chief Justice to September 30, 2016. The Commission’s website has news, documents and forms as well as meeting recordings. I will keep you posted.

__________________________________________________________

Credits: “rep.5” and “rep.1” by sima dimitric at Flickr Creative Commons Attribution; “the Clinquant of the Future” by Derrick Tyson at Flickr Creative Commons Attribution; “DSCF1286 Nevada Supreme Court in Carson City. January 18, 2011” by Rahne at Flickr Creative Commons Attribution; other photos via Morguefile.com no attribution required.

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »