Joseph R. Oelkers III, Executive Director
Acadiana Legal Services Corporation
Post Office Box 4823
Lafayette, Louisiana 70502-4823

           Re: Louisiana State Plan for the Delivery of Legal Services to the Poor

Dear Mr. Oelkers:

           Thank you for the timely submission of the Louisiana State Plan for the Delivery of Legal Services to the Poor, developed in response to LSC Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6. The staff of the Legal Services Corporation Office of Program Performance has thoroughly reviewed and discussed your Plan. We believe that it, and the efforts on which it is based, are a good beginning to an integrated and comprehensive system for providing legal services to low-income people in Louisiana. We also believe that the Access to Justice Committee and legal services programs in the state should pursue additional activities in 1999 to meet this goal.

           At the outset, we want to note the deep and laudable commitment of the Louisiana State Bar Association (LSBA) to sustaining and strengthening civil legal services in the state as evidenced by its creation of the Access to Justice Committee and the provision of funding for staff. It is clear from LSC’s conversations with legal services providers in the state that the Committee and its staff have done much to ensure that the Plan’s goals are or will be met. We expect that an important role for the Committee will be to coordinate the statewide activities that promote an integrated civil legal services delivery system, and we look forward to assisting the programs and the Committee with this. We also very much appreciate the fact that during the time between the initial submission of the State Plan and the preparation of this letter, the Committee pursued implementation efforts. Planners obviously understand that efforts that strengthen Louisiana’s legal services delivery system merit serious and on-going attention.

           In that spirit, we want to emphasize that our letter is a "feedback" document and should not be viewed a criticism of a single exercise. Louisiana planners correctly see planning as a series of activities and goals, subject to refinement and amendment as circumstances change and new information becomes available. With that in mind, we offer suggestions and comments for future strategies to help you achieve your goals with greater speed and chance of success. We are available to answer any questions or concerns about our response to your plan and provide assistance to you in your planning work.

           In order to place our comments on the Louisiana State Plan within a context, it is important to understand what we look for when we review a plan.

           1. Coordination of efforts. Coordination of existing legal activities is required to insure that no community of low-income clients is excluded from securing and enforcing their legal rights and that all low-income persons in the state have appropriate access to the civil justice system. To this end, a state’s legal services programs must coordinate efforts with one another, with other providers of services to low-income persons, and with funders. A good plan sets out how this coordination occurs and what changes are necessary to improve current efforts and meet future needs.

           Through their public hearings, planners in Louisiana solicited the views and responses of many of organizations that serve low-income clients. The Plan did not indicate how legal service organizations collaborate with legal service providers to inform low-income people of their legal rights and of how to gain entry to the justice system when necessary. Similarly, the Plan did not set forth a strategy for coordinating the legal services so that present and future client needs for information, education and access are met.

           2. Common purpose. A viable plan is founded on shared goals, purposes, values, principles and norms to ensure a consistent vision and purpose. It spells out as early as possible what the planners are attempting to achieve through their plan. Some examples of common values and goals might include developing the capacity to respond to the most compelling needs of clients throughout the state, maximizing opportunities for all clients to receive timely, effective and appropriate services and ensuring that all potential clients have similar access to high quality services.

           Louisiana planners list several principles: 1) clients must have access to courts, 2) clients must be educated and informed about their legal options, and 3) clients should have access to a full range of legal assistance programs. The State Plan is organized around "Goals to Strengthen and Expand Legal Services" indicating that planners seek increased and improved opportunities for legal representation for poor people. The Plan must be measured against these values.

           3. Stakeholder involvement. Meaningful planning reflects the participation of all individuals, organizations and institutions within the state that have a stake in ensuring that there is equal justice. Either formally or through ad hoc working relationships, the Access to Justice Committee includes representatives of stakeholder communities. It involves important funders such as the Louisiana Bar Foundation along with critical legal service providers such as those serving the needs of the elderly poor and low-income children. We are also pleased that the ATJ Committee will include a client representative among its ranks, and encourage the committee to involve additional clients through its subcommittees and by inviting them to meetings. In this way, the Committee will help insure that planning is broadly representative of the needs, wishes and opinions of all those in Louisiana who have a stake in its access to justice initiatives.

           4. Assignment of tasks. A good plan presents its goals both in terms of measurability and of who is responsible for ensuring their completion. Responsibility is either assumed or assigned. Moreover, responsibility is shared between and among everyone who is covered by and included in the plan. In a high-quality planning document all of the legal services providers play important roles and perform essential tasks.

           The Louisiana State Plan is organized around tasks and time frames. The Access to Justice Committee and its staff have assumed the responsibility for overseeing the work of the LSBA, the pro bono coordinators and the legal services programs to meet the articulated goals. Collectively, but not individually, all the legal services programs have taken on critical assignments, the performance of which will advance the Plan’s goals to strengthen and expand legal services in Louisiana. As noted elsewhere in this letter, many of the goals are written in vague language and lack measurability.

           5. Broad vision. An effective plan indicates that all of the legal service providers looked beyond single issues or a single program and examined client needs and organizational capacities at the state level. This allows participants to design the best possible methods and mechanisms to address the present and future needs of clients within the state. A plan that provides for coordination of legal services will contain concrete information about what the legal service providers believe are the major issues confronting clients and client communities. It will indicate how these providers will collaboratively respond to these issues and it will describe what they envision for their collective future and for the future of their delivery system.

           The State Plan does not show that planners considered what the most critical legal issues facing clients in the state are and how to craft a statewide strategy to address them. It is our understanding that in its bi-monthly meetings the Committee is beginning to discuss these issues. We ask that you keep us informed about these discussions as they occur. The Plan does emphasize that programs will collaborate to meet their goals and shows that they have a history of cooperative endeavors.

           6. LSC requirements. A comprehensive plan will fully respond to all of the issues identified in Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6. The Louisiana State Plan addressed each issue contained in the Program Letters although some goals were not clearly defined and some did not include the steps required to achieve them

           Current intake systems vary among programs. The Louisiana Plan states that each service area has a particular culture requiring a unique approach to intake, but does not contain a description of service area differences and their effect on intake procedures. Furthermore, the Plan does not appear to consider the many similarities, in either the legal services offered by LSC programs in Louisiana and in the problems faced by clients, that might make regional or statewide approaches the more efficacious. In fact, the Plan did not weigh the merits of any possible alternative methods including full service hotlines, although one of the legal services programs has successfully used a telephone advice, brief counsel and intake system for many years.

           In Goals #1 and 4 the "legal services programs" agree to "evaluate" the current intake system over the next two years, with an "eye to standardizing" its components in a way that would benefit clients, such as developing a uniform intake form and procedures. These goals challenge the Plan’s premise that the eight different systems are best because of individual service area culture. It is important and appropriate that the programs and planners reflect on current intake methods and review alternatives, developing informed thoughtful reasons for changing or preserving the status quo. In Goals #2, 3, 5 and 6, the programs agree to continue improving the statewide directory of service organizations for use by intake staff. Over the next year, the legal service task forces and other (unnamed) service organizations will develop client education and self-help material. These are very important goals yet the Plan does not address with any specificity how they will be met nor why it will take two years. Goal #7 commits the legal services providers and the Access to Justice Committee (ATJ) to developing an "all providers" referral procedure to strengthen the existing referral network.

           In this section, the planners address the very problems that keep clients from availing themselves of justice systems – ignorance of their rights and of how to exercise them. Solutions identified are improved intake systems, community education materials, standardization of intake and referral forms and procedures among legal services programs and other service providers, and up-to-date, comprehensive information on the many social and legal services available to help clients with existing problems and prevent future ones. The ATJ Committee should consider how members could move more forcefully to address these important issues by firming up assignments so that specific committees, programs and individuals are responsible for them.

           The Committee may also want to create short-term benchmarks so that the one and two year time frames envisioned by the Plan are successfully met.

           The Louisiana State Bar Association (LSBA) has guided legal services programs toward using technology to more effectively serve clients. Most recently, the LSBA made possible the creation of a listserv and a brief and pleadings bank, two significant resources that will do much to improve and make more efficient the work that programs do for clients. The LSBA is to be commended for this important contribution to the legal resources available to clients. In addition, the ATJ Committee received a 1999 Technology Assistance Grant from LSC to improve current systems. This shows LSC’s confidence in the commitment of the Committee to a system of equal justice for poor clients and in the ability of the Committee and programs to create such a system.

           LSC programs in Louisiana have levels of technology ranging from very strong to acceptable. Commendably, they share a commitment to both meeting optimum levels and coordinating technological acquisitions to achieve a more integrated delivery system. Staff in all legal services offices have computers. All offices have e-mail and Internet capacity and some case handlers have Internet access from their desks. All offices have computerized intake, case management and financial systems. Some programs share the cost of computerized legal research, client trust and other accounting software and intake programs. One program has videoconferencing and another has its own website. The ATJ Committee has a link from the LSBA web page.

           The Plan lists six goals to strengthen and expand this technology. These goals do not include funding sources or strategies to help ensure that the Plan’s ends are achieved. No specific individuals or subcommittees are charged with carrying out important tasks such as that laid out in Goal #1: continuing "to seek additional funding, through whatever available sources, for the development of technology… for the advancement of statewide technology."

           Goal #4 contemplates the completion and formalization of a state technology plan, but without specificity. Goal # 4 will not be completed for 12 months although Goals # 1, 2, 3, and 5 depend on the development of a state technology plan to guide their activities. Goals #2 and 3, asking "all parties" to develop a source of ongoing technological assistance and cooperate to achieve advances through shared costs, require an explicit strategy, which was not spelled out in the Plan. Goals # 5 and 6 assign tasks to specific actors (ATJ Committee and the LSBA) but do not define what is meant by "work with."

           Technological advances are central to the planners’ goal of access to courts and a full range of legal assistance programs by an educated and informed client community. Computerized intake systems coupled with full-service hotlines can generate legal information responsive to a client’s problems that can be sent to the client within minutes after the intake session is completed. Websites can be useful community education tools, available to clients, advocates, community leaders and staff at social service and legal organizations around the state. This is even truer now that all of Louisiana’s public libraries will have computers and Internet access. Private attorney involvement initiatives can be streamlined through use of e-mail and Internet accessible forms, pleadings, and communication about client cases status. Substantive law training and other important educational exchanges can take place over the Internet to the benefit of legal services staff, pro bono volunteers and other legal and social service providers. The Plan does not really address these possibilities, nor does it present a vision of how entities and activities can be coordinated so that clients throughout the state can benefit equally from technology. The ATJ technology subcommittee has a significant role to play here, and planners may want to spend some time defining that role.

           A state technology plan is the foundation of any statewide effort to improve access to justice through technology. Coordinated and shared efforts across service areas must be clearly described and assigned. The ATJ Committee may want to revise this section’s goals to include specific and detailed activities and assignments and benchmarks. There should be a well-formulated plan for acquiring technology that emphasizes statewide coordination. There should be strategy for obtaining funds, and there should be a prioritized list of actions to be undertaken by specific dates. The strong start made by some programs as well as the LSBA’s listserv and briefbank provide a good foundation for these efforts.

           The Plan identifies numerous barriers that prevent clients from achieving equal access to the justice system. Among them are the dearth of ADR and mediation programs and reluctance on the part of courts to allow for pro se litigants. In response the Plan resolves that the Supreme Court of Louisiana should "investigate the possibility of developing a legal services provider-based ADR program," (Goal #1) and should "investigate the possibility of a Supreme Court of Louisiana Pro Se Forms Task Force" (Goal #5). The Plan does not give steps to reach these goals, particularly important since there was no representative of the Supreme Court of Louisiana on the ATJ subcommittee drafting the Plan.

           Goals #2 and 3 address the need for community legal education. They promote increased awareness of legal services organizations through a telephone information hotline and written information on the availability of free representation sent along with court notices and other documents. The Plan does not focus on how the clerks will be persuaded to include this information, and there was no representative of the local courts (either judge or clerk) on the ATJ’s planning subcommittee to participate in the design of this goal. Goal #5 reiterates previous goals about the need for self-help and client education materials.

           This section presents little information on how the eight programs do or should collaborate with individual courts, community groups and other organizations to expand information and access opportunities for clients. It focuses primarily on the Tel-Law initiative and sketches out vague approaches to further mediation and pro se opportunities. The Plan does not describe cooperative efforts with non-LSC organizations such as law and social work school clinics, domestic violence projects, local pro bono initiatives, and similar resources. It does not show how client needs that legal services programs cannot meet will be satisfied. There is no discussion about how legal work that LSC programs traditionally do not undertake, such as community economic development, is accomplished.

           The goals do not state what is meant by "investigate" the development of ADR programs and "expand" the campaign to have district courts include material on the availability of legal services to low-income litigants. Thus, the ATJ Committee may want to create a series of small "action plans" that will lead to the completion of some of the goals set forth here. It may want to invite a representative of the Supreme and district courts to participate in the campaigns to increase ADR and pro se opportunities, and to include material about legal services with court documents. Additional, specific goals leading to increased cooperation with non-LSC institutions and organizations that serve clients are needed to reach the Plan’s goal of an informed client community with maximum access to legal representation.

           With the loss of a state support entity in Louisiana, the legal services programs assumed the responsibility of creating and maintaining training and substantive law task forces. Recently, these task forces expanded to include non-LSC participants. An ATJ subcommittee augments the work of the task forces and local law schools assist with the creation of educational materials.

           The planners recognize that "training is an important aspect of providing legal services to the poor." Their goals are appropriate to this. Improving the goals by adding specific tasks and assignments would help achieve them. For example, the purpose of an ATJ newsletter is not outlined nor is there any discussion of the gap it would fill, yet this information is critical to the Committee’s investigation of a need for such a publication. Goal #4 does not indicate how the programs will expand their task forces or encourage inter-program training. Goal #3 does not quantify the number of training events the ATJ Committee believes must be added annually nor does it list new areas of law to include.

           The goals in this section are not measurable. The Committee should revisit them and assign tasks to specific actors, spell out what is meant by "use of technologies, which can supplant and expand opportunities for training." It might want to replace "on-going" with specific dates and list what activities it means by the verbs "investigate," "work" and "develop."

           There are 14 pro bono programs in Louisiana. They meet quarterly with the ATJ Committee director to discuss management, coordination and innovative delivery ideas. They have a standing invitation to participate in the Committee meetings and, from time to time, they are formally invited to attend and make presentations. Most pro bono projects accept their clients directly from legal services programs. Several programs have instituted local recognition programs to reward volunteers. The state bar has played in important leadership role here. A recent LSBA President conducted meetings in every major city in the state to discuss access and pro bono participation. The LSBA initiated a voluntary pro bono reporting process as part of the annual dues statement and it includes Private Attorney Involvement (PAI) exhortations to new attorneys and the judiciary in bar mailings. It also holds a recognition ceremony for outstanding volunteer work. Reduced fee CLE programs area available for PAI participants.

           In most of Louisiana’s legal services programs, significantly more than half of all pro bono cases closed are family law cases (100% 91%, 85%, 79%, 74%, 66%, 52%, and 48%). Planners do not consider whether this pattern contributes to the pro bono malaise described in the Plan or whether family law problems merit the almost exclusive attention of PAI. Planners should take into account how volunteer lawyers and law school clinics can be used to meet critical client needs that legal services programs cannot fill. There is currently no entity in the state that is capable of representing low-income individuals whom legal services programs cannot serve. Similarly, the State Plan was silent on efforts to involve volunteer lawyers in community economic development and other transactional work. The Plan does not discuss co-counseling opportunities, community education and other innovative PAI projects. Planners did not weigh the benefits of a statewide pro bono system on the order of the ABA’s LAPP to involve attorneys from more populated areas in the work of rural and small programs.

           The scarcity of pro bono attorneys in rural environments, the lack of involvement by the judiciary, and a general apathy toward PAI participation by the private bar are addressed by this section’s seven goals. Most of the goals are not quantifiable. For example, the Plan does not list how many new or older attorneys need to be added to the PAI roster, nor does it sketch out a role for judges to play in PAI activities (Goals #1 and 6). No individual programs are charged with creating model "joint program opportunities" or shared training events so that other programs may learn from their experience (Goal #3). Goal #5 does not talk about how the ATJ Committee will "reach out… to encourage development of pro bono participation by local bars" nor does how it will recognize increase participation (by more lawyers, by more rural efforts).

           To improve the goals listed here, the ATJ Committee should assign specific tasks to specific individuals or subcommittees. These tasks could highlight on one or two components of increased pro bono participation, for example more involvement by new attorneys. The Committee may want to craft a specific strategy to accomplish this and prioritize various activities that need to be accomplished in defined, short time frames. Small accomplishments not only provide a firm basis for successive activities but also create a sense of purpose and achievement.

           In a state as poor as Louisiana, funding is always a critical concern. Over the years, the LSBA has been directly involved in state planning activities and currently supports the ATJ Committee staff of two. Program success in obtaining private and public grants has varied. Filing fees are an option with each court and some programs have been more aggressive in pursuing them. IOLTA funds are awarded to all programs based on the quality and merit of their funding proposals. Two programs have shared the cost of a fundraising consultant and local pro bono programs have helped with local funding efforts. The programs intend to share information on funding opportunities through the new listserv.

           The state legislature has created a "Fund for Louisianians," but in spite of significant efforts by the LSBA, has not appropriated money for it. Committee staff works to change this situation and is also exploring a cy pres program with the Supreme Court of Louisiana. The LSBA established a dues check-off contribution. With little publicity in its first year, the check-off netted $12,000 that the programs shared equally. Programs intend to expand publicity and support for this fundraising mechanism.

           The ATJ Committee has correctly approached resource development from a statewide vantage point while recognizing the need to obtain funding for special projects that meet regional needs. For example, Goal #1 charges the LSBA, the Committee, the LBF with investigating the development of a network for local fundraising that will have clearinghouse and training capacities. ATJ Committee staff will add support to this effort. The ATJ Committee and the LSB "should incorporate possible funding options into the judiciary education campaign" (Goal #4). At the same time, legal services programs "and other interested parties" are asked to investigate opportunities for funding the Fund for Louisianians.

           This section does not tell the reader what the legal services programs plan to do to increase and expand their funding bases. Many of the goals lack strategies or action steps and fail to describe how success will be measured –either in terms of achievements or timeframes. Here again the ATJ Committee should focus on what it hopes to obtain with each goal and tighten language and assignments so that "investigation" leads to implementation.

           We encourage the ATJ Committee to develop a clear picture of what it is endeavoring to achieve in this section of the Plan. Once that is accomplished, the Committee can establish goals that are straightforward and measurable, and involving tasks that are assigned to specific individuals and that must be completed by a time certain. When verbs such as "investigate," "encourage" and "assists" is used, the drafters should add specific information about what these terms entail.

           Without appearing to weigh alternatives, the State Plan concludes that the current structure best promotes an effective and comprehensive delivery system. As it moves toward its vision of a state where all poor people have equal access to courts, are educated and informed about their legal options, and have access to a full range of legal assistance programs through increased and improved opportunities, the ATJ subcommittee on configuration must seriously reflect on the quality of services provided by eight separate programs and consider whether fewer larger entities would offer more effective and efficient services in the future. We recommend that the subcommittee review all of the resources that currently support legal services programs in Louisiana and ask themselves how they would expend these resources to create the most efficient and effective delivery system within the state if they were starting over. While these discussions are taking place, existing programs should expand current collaborative activities and move toward regional and statewide systems when those are more effective (as they may be for pro bono and intake efforts).

           This Plan shows a strong commitment to improving legal services for poor people. We encourage you to expand it by establishing significant and measurable activities to ensure that clients throughout the state have equal access to the civil justice system. We would like the ATJ Committee to submit to us by October 15, 1999 a very short supplemental report noting achievements over the past year and any necessary modifications to goals. Please include a response to our concerns and discuss specific dates and assignments you have developed for future activities.

           We also believe that the ATJ Committee and the programs need to thoroughly evaluate the current intake systems used by legal services programs in the state. It would be quite useful if a small team composed of program staff (not necessarily ATJ Committee members or program directors) could visit and review all existing intake systems. Their critique should occur against the backdrop of client needs, particularly in rural areas, rather than individual program preference or culture. Ideally, the team would compare and contrast the eight different systems used by Louisiana’s programs at this moment. Consideration would be given to the benefits of technological advances that some programs may not have but could acquire, such as video-conferencing and full-service telephone intake systems staffed by attorneys. The team could also investigate the merits of statewide and regional telephone systems. We hope the Committee will pursue this suggestion. With that in mind, we would like to have by March 1, 2000, a preliminary report on the eight intake systems, highlighting the one or ones most useful to clients in Louisiana and describing worthwhile alternatives.

           Also by March 1, 2000, we would like to see a report from the ATJ configuration subcommittee that responds to our concerns outlined above. This report should reflect the subcommittee’s thinking on the value to clients of fewer large programs versus many small ones. We encourage the subcommittee to reflect on all aspects of configuration from the vantage point of clients as well as to give serious consideration to economies of scale. We are uncertain about whether the current configuration of programs constitutes the best use of scarce resources.