Civil Gideon as a Human Right: Is the U.S. Going to Join Step with the Rest of the Developed World?

This article will discuss the scope of services and rationale for the right to a free lawyer in civil matters as is the case in criminal cases. This right is currently provided in the 49 European member countries in the Council of Europe (COE), Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Japan, Zambia, South Africa, and Brazil. Frequent reference will be made to a chart in the appendix, which condenses extensive information about programs in each of these countries. The article’s general conclusion regarding the foreign programs is that the right to a free lawyer in civil matters is a robust concept. Multiple rationales, such as, rule of law, preservation of other human rights, due process, foundational for democracy, peaceful dispute resolution, access to justice, equal protection, confidence in the judicial process, and social policy goals of poverty eradication, all lead to a similar result, publicly provided lawyers for indigents in civil matters

Civil Gideon: A Human Right Elsewhere in the World

The right to free counsel in civil cases is widely accepted around the world but not in the United States. In England the right originated over five hundred years ago. Twelve European countries provided the poor with free lawyers even before 1979, when the Council of Europe required its members to do so as a matter of international human rights law. The standards for eligibility and scope of legal services vary, and means and merit tests are common

The Power of Narrative: Listening to the Initial Client Interview

As I thought about the hypothetical situations posed for consideration by this symposium, I envisioned distinct individuals in context, speaking particular words. I decided to write the initial consultation out as a dialogue to see what happened to the ideas and the interactions as these three, the lawyer, husband, and wife, explored them. I, thus, chose to turn a hypothetical into a real situation. By selecting this format, I was only able to focus on the first hypothetical. This one was perhaps the most challenging for me personally. As a feminist and a family law lawyer, I have struggled and frequently counseled others, particularly women, to avoid voluntary or involuntary submission to the will or charms of others. I make no pretense that the following conversation is a model to be followed by others. It is one narrative of what might occur. I invite the reader to imagine himself or herself in this setting and to consider how he or she might handle it differently

The Guardian Ad Litem in Child Custody Cases: The Contours of Our Judicial System Stretched Beyond Recognition

This article discusses the role of the guardian ad litem, as Part I dissects each of the five potential guardian ad litem roles: Lawyer, Expert Witness, investigator/Lay Witness, Mediator/Facilitator, and Party. For each role, this section explores: how the well-known role is typically performed within the court system as a whole; how that role might be performed in a custody case, consistent with its occurrence elsewhere in the judicial system; and how that role, when held by a guardian ad litem, actually is performed in a custody context. Part II endeavors to explain how the guardian ad litem figure has become so confusing by separately discussing five factors which have muddled the role of court-appointed officials in dissolution-custody cases. Section A briefly reviews the history of divorce law and reflects on the changing ways in which courts and legislatures have viewed the nature of the family and the rights of parents to the custody of their children. Section B then looks at the origins of the term guardian ad litem and its application in non-dissolution contexts. Section C discusses the little-used option of appointing lawyers for children. Part D focuses on the differing perspectives of the participants in a divorce proceeding. And finally, Section E examines the alleged efficiencies and real costs of using guardians ad litem. The Conclusion offers the following recommendations: (1) the Latin term, guardian ad litem should be eliminated entirely; (2) court appointment of an individual should be limited to clearly articulated functions consistent with a known role; and (3) courts should make such appointments sparingly in custody cases arising from a dissolution

Desarrollando un ethos del probono en la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Seattle

El artículo no presenta resumen

The Guardian Ad Litem in Child Custody Cases: The Contours of Our Judicial System Stretched Beyond Recognition

This article discusses the role of the guardian ad litem, as Part I dissects each of the five potential guardian ad litem roles: Lawyer, Expert Witness, investigator/Lay Witness, Mediator/Facilitator, and Party. For each role, this section explores: how the well-known role is typically performed within the court system as a whole; how that role might be performed in a custody case, consistent with its occurrence elsewhere in the judicial system; and how that role, when held by a guardian ad litem, actually is performed in a custody context. Part II endeavors to explain how the guardian ad litem figure has become so confusing by separately discussing five factors which have muddled the role of court-appointed officials in dissolution-custody cases. Section A briefly reviews the history of divorce law and reflects on the changing ways in which courts and legislatures have viewed the nature of the family and the rights of parents to the custody of their children. Section B then looks at the origins of the term guardian ad litem and its application in non-dissolution contexts. Section C discusses the little-used option of appointing lawyers for children. Part D focuses on the differing perspectives of the participants in a divorce proceeding. And finally, Section E examines the alleged efficiencies and real costs of using guardians ad litem. The Conclusion offers the following recommendations: (1) the Latin term, guardian ad litem should be eliminated entirely; (2) court appointment of an individual should be limited to clearly articulated functions consistent with a known role; and (3) courts should make such appointments sparingly in custody cases arising from a dissolution