News

Could “qualified legal advocates” help Pennsylvanians with their legal issues?

Vast numbers of Americans, including a sizeable share of the population of Pennsylvania, have no access to legal help in important matters involving basic needs, such as housing, child support and custody, and public benefits. And while efforts are (always) being made to expand rights to counsel and pro bono services, it is widely agreed that, at least in the foreseeable future, there will not be enough lawyers to meet everyone’s needs at prices they can afford.

It’s also unclear, however, that everyone who confronts a legal issue requires the services of a lawyer who has been trained in all of the areas addressed in law school and on the bar examination. That’s why one effective response to the “justice gap,” according to Briana Ziff, a student in the Sheller Center’s Access to Justice Clinic, may be to authorize trained individuals other than lawyers to provide legal assistance in specific situations, such as certain types of family-law and landlord-tenant proceedings.

In an article published in this month’s Philadelphia Lawyer, Ms. Ziff presents her research on four states — Utah, Arizona, Minnesota and Delaware — that have taken steps to do just that. “Qualified legal advocates” is Delaware’s term; while the states use different terminology and take slightly different approaches, the underlying idea — that effective legal help of certain kinds can be provided by people with varying levels of skill and training, and that not all of them have to be lawyers — is the same.

So far, according to the article, the results are encouraging: access to help has grown and the quality of services appears to be good. Given the scale of Pennsylvania’s “justice gap,” Ms. Ziff argues, it’s time to consider whether qualified legal advocates could provide a valuable service to Pennsylvanians as well.

After years of hard work by advocates, Berks Immigration Detention Center to close

The Berks County Detention Center–—which first held immigrant families and then women—is finally shutting down. The federal government announced that it is ending its contract with Berks County on January 31, 2023.

The Shut Down Berks Coalition, comprised of organizers, lawyers, immigrant leaders, faith communities and allies, has long been advocating for the closure of the facility due to the inhumane treatment of immigrants, many of whom are fleeing violence and seeking protection. While the facility first opened in 2001, it was under the Obama Administration that a record number of immigrant families were detained at the center, including mothers and infants. Most recently, Berks County converted the facility into one that held adult immigrant women.

The Social Justice Lawyering Clinic (SJLC) has long been working in support of the coalition to call for closure of the facility. Rhiannon DiClemente (‘16) and Paige Joki (‘17) first outlined the case for why the facility was illegally holding families and children under Pennsylvania law. In 2016, the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (PA DHS) revoked the operating license for the facility. John Farrell (‘17), Anthony Sierzega (‘18), and Mariya Tsalkovich (’18) then drafted an Urgent Action Appeal on behalf of over 50 immigrant right organizations with the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention arguing that the facility is engaged in unfair and arbitrary practices that restrict liberty and endanger the health and dignity of families.

In opposition to Berks County’s continued litigation to challenge the revocation of their license, SJLC filed an amicus brief on behalf of physicians, psychologists, social workers, nurses, and Psychologists for Social Responsibility about how detention inflicts serious harm on asylum-seeking children. In December 2019, Emma Pajer (’20) and Jediah Grobstein (’20) helped to file a lawsuit on behalf of several families based on PA DHS’ unlawful back door agreement to continue operation of the facility without a license. In March 2021, when Berks County decided to convert the facility into a women’s detention center, Lina Ruth Duiker (’22) and Kate Steiker-Ginzberg (’22) helped Berks County residents file a Sunshine Act lawsuit against the county for being secretive about its proposal for conversion and expansion of bed space at the facility.

All this work by SJLC was done in collaboration with community and legal partners: Aldea, Al Otro Lado, Free Migration Project, Juntos, Make the Road Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Immigration and Citizenship Coalition, Syrena Law, and Villanova’s Farmworker Clinic.

At the end of the day, what triumphed was the powerful voices of the parents and children who had been detained at this facility. In a letter to the outside world, the Madres de Berks questioned how the U.S. government could continue:

“… depriving them of having a normal life, knowing that we have prior traumas from our countries, risking our own lives and that of our children on the way until we arrived here, having family and friends who would be responsible for us and who are waiting for us with open arms and that immigration refuses to let us out.”

As we continue to grapple with immigrant detention in Pennsylvania, may we remember these voices.

Issue Brief Advocates for Fee-Sharing to Advance Social Justice 

The National Legal Advocacy Network (NLAN) just issued the Sheller Center’s Expanding Social Justice: Fee-Sharing Between Non-Profits and the Private Bar. NLAN, which focuses on building worker power through law and organizing, sought to clarify ways in which workers centers in local communities could build resources for their work by partnering with the private bar. This brief outlines how fee-sharing arrangements work, their compliance with rules of professional conduct, and the advantages of such arrangements between nonprofit organizations and the private bar. Social Justice Lawyering Clinic students Tram Ha (’22) and BK Katzmann (’22) authored the brief. 

See the full report here.

Seeking feedback from attorneys about language access in PA courts

Social Justice Lawyering Clinic (SLJC) students David Baldwin (’22) and Livia Luan (’23) created a survey tool for attorneys to capture their experiences with limited English proficient (LEP) persons in the Pennsylvania courts. This tool was created as part of a statewide advocacy effort to ensure that LEP litigants, victims, and witness have a right to an interpreter in the Pennsylvania courts. This fall, law schools across the state will launch a survey with local community groups created by the same SJLC team.

For any attorneys who have experience with LEP persons in the Pennsylvania courts, please take the survey here.

In 2017, Pennsylvania issued a statewide language access plan in response to the systemic failure of Pennsylvania courts to provide interpreters to limited English proficient (LEP) persons. Such failures were previously documented by SJLC students in their reports Unfinished Business: The Continuing Challenge for Limited English Proficient Individuals in Pennsylvania’s Minor Courts  and Barriers to Justice for Non-English Speakers in the Pennsylvania Courts. In collaboration with the coalition, this new work by SJLC is intended to assess the how the courts are faring with the new statewide language access plan.

More notes from the Systemic Justice Project Clinic

Ellie Holzman ’23

The Systemic Justice Clinic was an incredibly valuable experience for me. Both the seminar and the clinic project taught me a lot about how to integrate what you learn in the classroom into projects that you are working on. Professor Sibley is an incredible person and professor and I feel extremely honored to have been able to spend so much time learning from and with her. The discussion we had in the seminar were engaging and meaningful, and allowed me to think about the criminal legal system in ways that I had not previously. The clinic project was a great opportunity to put thought into practice, and I really appreciated the opportunity to have a real impact. Not only did I learn a lot about our topic substantively, but I also gained invaluable practical skills pertaining to communication, professionalism, and collaboration that I surely will take with me into my post-graduate experiences.

Luis Rodriguez ‘23

This is probably one of the most important classes/clinics at Temple. In this clinic, we spent some time looking at the philosophy surrounding our criminal justice system and incarceration but more time discussing the systemic mechanism that exists to put a lot of people in contact with the criminal system. The readings and discussions were geared towards getting us to think about how the criminal system affects us and our communities in ways that introduction to criminal law does not cover. This clinic opened my eyes to so many issues, and I am a better person and future lawyer for taking it. I wish to have this feeling with more classes. Take this clinic. 

Notes from a semester in the Systemic Justice Project Clinic

Simone Adkins ‘23

The Systemic Justice Clinic was truly an eye-opening experience. Having the ability to build something with my peers to address gaps to legal resources and access for the people of North Philadelphia was an invaluable experience. I learned so much from talking with other community organizations and those on the front lines of the fight against gun violence in Philadelphia. The clinic provides a great opportunity for students to learn valuable project and people management skills as well as the opportunity to strengthen your oral and written communication skills. It was hard work but worth every minute.

Sophia Harmelin ‘23

I had a great experience in the Systemic Justice Clinic and would definitely recommend to anyone interested in learning more about the collateral consequences of the criminal legal system. Professor Sibley understands the important balance of law student life with becoming young professionals that will help any student. The seminar was definitely my favorite part of the clinic. Professor Sibley is prepared with knowledge and experience on the issues while still allowing the students to facilitate and discuss what they wish. The readings are current, enjoyable, and very interesting. 

Navigators could help pro se defendants in debt-collection court

By Nicole Kerr and Ed DeLuca

There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the current access-to-justice crisis in debt collection court. That is why the Access to Justice Clinic has prioritized the development of alternative reform proposals to aid the Philadelphia Municipal Court in its commitment to 100% access to justice.

This semester, the Debt Collection team — Ed DeLuca, Scott Hofman, Nicole Kerr, and Rory Kress Mandel — explored emerging models for non-lawyer assistance.  Identifying court navigator programs as effective means for remedying unmet civil needs, our team developed a proposal for the implementation of a pilot Consumer Debt Court Navigator program in Municipal Court.

To inform our proposal, we interviewed leaders of existing court navigator programs in courts across the country. Additionally, to ensure the efficacy of implementing such a program in Philadelphia Municipal Court, we conducted over ten hours of court observation. 

Based on leader recommendations and our observation of high default rates in debt collection cases, we proposed a proactive outreach model that would educate debt collection defendants about their legal rights. Trained navigators, equipped with contact information available from court records, would be tasked with contacting defendants before their hearings. Both by mail and over the phone, navigators would provide defendants with procedural and legal information, make referrals for legal assistance, and answer general questions. By highlighting the legal ramifications of failing to appear in court, the navigators would emphasize that defendants should appear on their court date. Navigators would also be on site to assist defendants on the day of their hearing.

Defendants who are equipped with knowledge about their legal rights and court processes will be able to make meaningful and informed decisions about their cases — the first of which, we hope, will be to appear at their hearings.

A user-friendly court web site for Philadelphia

Students in the Access to Justice Clinic spent some time this year studying the web site of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas and Municipal Court (collectively, the First Judicial District, or FJD). Because our focus is on getting more legal information and help to people who need it, we explored the site from the perspective of the public rather than that of legal professionals. We were especially interested in whether unrepresented folks and those who help them (friends, family, community partners) would find the site helpful.

Students summarized their observations in a set of slides, Redesign of the FJD Website, as well as a more detailed report. And, in a cross-campus collaboration, students of Prof. Bryan Satalino (Tyler School of Art and Architecture) came up with visual design ideas for the site.

As all the students quickly recognized, unrepresented people who visit a court web site are typically looking for a concrete answer – for example, how to respond to (or file) a landlord-tenant or small-claims complaint, how to modify a child support or custody order, how to deal with a debt-collection case, or how to obtain a court record. But many sites do not lead with answers to these sorts of questions. Instead, they “welcome” visitors with complex descriptions of court structures and processes, lists of administrative orders, compilations of oddly-named forms and rules, and other material that may not seem relevant — and may be overwhelming and even scary.

To its credit, the First Judicial District is taking a different approach. Just last week, Municipal Court unveiled reorganized pages designed to take people quickly to the information they need, and to communicate information in friendlier, more understandable language. (Check out the new landlord-tenant case page for an example.)  Common Pleas Court has made significant improvements on its pages as well, with more to come.

Providing user-friendly information on court web sites is just a step toward narrowing the “justice gap,” but it’s an important step. We applaud the FJD for its efforts, and we appreciate its openness to hearing community voices, including those of our students.

Relieving the legal burdens on unrepresented defendants in debt-collection cases

  • By Javier Zurita, Luke Myers, and Elizabeth Napierkowski,

This pandemic revealed the extent of economic inequities in our society. However, defendants sued in Philadelphia Municipal Court over allegedly unpaid debt have long struggled with an additional hindrance – the issuance of default judgments based on inadequate proof that the money sought is actually owed. Our investigation and report focused on the tens of thousands of consumer-debt actions brought by collection agencies – generally out-of-state debt buyers — each year, against low-income Philadelphians. Most of these defendants do not have legal representation.

Based on our courtroom observations, court dockets, and legal research, we created a checklist intended to help the Philadelphia Municipal Court ensure that in consumer-debt claims brought by collection agencies, default judgments are awarded only when claims have merit. Our proposed checklist itemizes the evidence that the Court should require from plaintiffs before they enter judgment (for example, proof that the plaintiff actually owns the debt; proof of the terms of the contract; and proof of the amount of damages sought). The proposal draws on local and state rules and case law, especially Local Rule 120, which states that Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence apply not only at trials but also before a default judgment can be entered. It is our hope that the Court will utilize the proposed checklist to provide greater due process to defendants in debt cases.

More reflections from the Systemic Justice Project

Students Elydah Joyce and Crystal Zook share their experiences from fall ’21.

Re-ignited Goals

Elydah Joyce, ’23

I had no expectations of what my first clinic would be like at Temple Law and I ultimately was blown away by how engaging, hands-on, and enjoyable the work and class time were. Even when I was not feeling the best on a given Wednesday, the two hours of our class brought me into a great mental space, where I felt like the goals I had in entering law school (ones that have been a bit squashed by the law school grind) were re-ignited. The team I had to work with was fantastic, and it was such a refreshing experience to be placed with a passionate, effective and driven group. I feel like we collectively accomplished and learned a lot more than I could have expected from a few months of research and writing. Thanks to both the classwork and the clinic work, I have a deeper and broader understanding of collateral consequences and the USA context on incarceration issues. I am so happy to have had the chance to be part of this clinic and stand by my opinion that Professor Sibley could pursue a Netflix special that is both comedic and educational on prison abolition (or celebrities’ heights).

Reflecting on the Roles that a Lawyer Can Play

Crystal Zook, ’23

I chose to participate in the Systemic Justice Clinic because it was important to me that I have a practical element in my third semester of law school to help remind me of all the reasons I came into law school in the first place. My experience in the clinic did exactly that. The seminar challenged my thoughts and assumptions about how specific aspects of the legal system work, and about how law, power, discretion, systems, and justice operates more generally.

Both the seminar and the project aspect of the clinic encouraged me to think beyond the “normal” portrayals and understandings of what lawyers do and the interventions lawyers can be a part of in the community. I learned the importance of really stepping back to understand an issue and its context, to better understand community needs and norms, and to really reflect on the role a lawyer can and should play.