Non-Magic Carpets To Success

Continued From The Previous Post . . .

Marian Wright Edelman
By CDC (PHIL #8416)
(Obtained from CDC Public
Health Image Library.)
[Public domain],
via Wikimedia Commons

"If you see a need, do not ask why doesn't somebody do something, ask why don't I do something. Hard work and persistence and initiative are still the non-magic carpets to success for most of us."

Marian Wright Edelman, Civil Rights Activist and Lawyer, spoke these words during the commencement address at the Washington University in St. Louis on May 15, 1992. I was present when she delivered that address.

Before departing on March 23, the Go Team advocates asked me to attend their hearing. I apologized, explaining prior professional commitments prevented this. None of the advocates persisted, but I realized the invitation was not a mere formality.

Thus, I endeavored to rearrange my schedule. Murphy's Law, however, took the upper hand. Despite several phone calls and a visit to the court house that day, too many logistics and not enough time stood in the way. Nevertheless, various people returned favorable reviews about each adult's testimony. I was honored to have contributed to this successful outcome.

My communication continued with Ronnie, the Go Team Sponsor. The honors ceremony remained on the horizon. Therefore, I met the Go Team on May 18. Before meeting, I researched themes and speaking styles.

President Lyndon B. Johnson meets with 
Civil Rights leaders Martin Luther King, Jr., 
Whitney Young, James Farmer
By Yoichi R. Okamoto [Public domain],
via Wikimedia Commons.

Knowing the Go Team advocates yearned for freedom, I studied I Have a Dream by the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Additionally, I learned about the history and personal experiences of those who have bravely struggled for freedom and equality.

Furthermore, I researched the structure of compelling speeches.

The most effective speech structure involved describing the harsh reality of life today, proposing a remedy, and contrasting life today with dreams of a more perfect future. Accordingly, it seemed to me the Go Team advocates would make the strongest impression by describing life today in the Developmental Center, and contrasting this with descriptions of the future life each advocate dreamed about when the Developmental Centers will finally be closed.

We prepared for these speeches similarly to the way we prepared for the Task Force testimony. Speaking with the advocates heightened my awareness of various things I take for granted. For example, freedom means the ability to choose how to spend one's time. One may go to the mall, to the beach, or for a bike ride at one's leisure. The advocates, however, are not free to make these kinds of choices.

Freedom includes choosing the people with whom to associate and socialize. In the D.C., however, the advocates are not free to make these kinds of choices. Freedom also means responsibility, like the responsibility to hold a job. At the same time, freedom means having the option to choose one's occupation. Life in the D.C., however, does not include those liberties. Without completely dismissing the general reasons for these restrictions, my discussions deepened my own appreciation for the many freedoms I enjoy.

I found out the ceremony was scheduled to take place on June 21. The Go Team would be competing for the attention of legislators who would certainly be thinking about the end-of-the-month deadline for the State Budget. Even though this decreased the likelihood that the advocates would be able to deliver their complete speeches, we remained undeterred.

Asm. Louis Greenwald & the Go Team
State House, Trenton, NJ
June 21, 2012

On June 21, the road these advocates had been traveling lead to the State House in Trenton for the honor ceremony. Although I had joined them on their travels only a few months earlier, I considered it an honor simply to attend.

Positioned before the Assembly side by side with Assemblyman Greenwald, each adult glowed with pride.

As anticipated, time did not permit the adults to deliver the prepared speeches. Instead, each advocate improvised, and delivered brief, impromptu statements of gratitude. Despite the size of the audience and the stature of its members, not to mention the anxiety the men and women had expressed before the ceremony, all the advocates spoke serenely.

The Go Team sponsors thanked me many times for my service. They have told me these mentally handicapped men and women with whom I worked could not have done this without me. Personally, I wonder what I really did. I had always believed these men and women would exceed all our expectations.

The Go Team, Sponsors, & Michael Smolensky
State House, Trenton, NJ
June 21, 2012

Moving Mountains

. . . Continued From The Previous Post . . .

New Lisbon Developmental Center
New Lisbon, NJ

Having added the March 23 meeting to my calendar, I began to prepare. The Go Team and I were to meet at the New Lisbon Developmental Center. In the days immediately before the first session, however, I learned that members of the Go Team had been invited to testify before the New Jersey Task Force on the Closure of State Developmental Centers (Task Force).

New challenges accompanied this new circumstance. The Task Force, I soon found out, had been formed to evaluate and provide recommendations for closing the Developmental Centers. But I did not know what the Task Force actually hoped to gain from the testimony of these adults. Internet research, a few phone calls, and persistence provided clarity. Based on this, each advocate worked with me to prepare for the hearing during the March 23 meeting.

Naturally, the apprehensive adults wondered whether I, a complete stranger, was going to tell them how to testify. Making certain immediately to dispel this concern, I explained the Task Force needed to know their personal experiences. I proceeded to described my two-fold purpose.

First, I intended to help each adult organize their personal ideas for the Task Force. And second, I intended to assist each advocate with techniques for delivering these ideas at the forthcoming Task Force hearing. Each team member easily came to understand my goal was to help prepare the team to testify both honestly and credibly.

To prepare for the testimony, each adult engaged me in one-on-one interviews. Aware of their anxieties, I knew a formal question-and-answer session would not have yielded authentic answers. Instead, the interviews took the shape of a casual conversation.

Each advocate's comfort progressively increased. I observed each adult move from a protective and guarded posture where they wondered about what I may have expected them to say, to comfort characterized by openness and a desire to share. As we spoke, I noted the comments and thoughts each advocate expressed.

After completing each interview, I read my notes aloud. This reinforced my objective—to help each advocate testify as to their personal experiences and opinions. Similarly, it mitigated any concern whether I might dictate the content of their testimony.

As with any speech, the advocates needed structure for the purpose of effective communication. Therefore, I organized the notes into sentences, grouped the sentences into paragraphs, and formed the paragraphs into an introduction, body, and conclusion.

Additionally, when an advocate struggled to find the right word for an idea, I made recommendations. As before, each advocate reviewed the testimony with me for accuracy. Finally, each advocate had an opportunity to review the structure.

After reducing the testimony to writing, I coached each team member with speaking skills. Knowing each adult was to testify before a Task Force, I assisted the advocates with articulation, vocal projection, pace, eye contact, and the placement of pauses. Most significantly, each advocate practiced smiling. After all, this was to be a landmark occasion. To reinforce the importance of smiling, each advocate repeated exercises that involved relaxing and smiling.

At the end of the session, each advocate grinned. I later learned each advocate testified persuasively before the Task Force. This made me feel both proud and honored, as though I had helped these adults move mountains.

Concluded Here . . .

Go Team, March 23, 2012
New Lisbon Developmental Center
New Lisbon, NJ

Simply Kismet

State House
Trenton, New Jersey
By Marion Touvel [Public domain],
via Wikimedia Commons

On June 21, 2012, an honorary ceremony at the New Jersey State House brought me to Trenton. Majority Leader of the Assembly Louis Greenwald presented a group of mentally handicapped adults with a proclamation.

Known as the Go Team, which stands for "Get Out!", these adults advocate for the closure of Developmental Centers in New Jersey. Their efforts to promote public awareness, drive discussion and debate, and stimulate social change garnered this special recognition.

About four months earlier, in the middle of winter, I first learned about the Go Team. Just as I had not previously heard about this dynamic group, I was also unaware of the political issues surrounding the closure of  Developmental Centers here. All that changed, however, when a volunteer opportunity came to my attention.

One of the Go Team sponsors, Ronnie had contacted my club, the Moorestown Area Toastmasters club. Ronnie sought Toastmasters to coach the Go Team in public speaking. With discussions already underway between the Go Team and government officials about an honorary ceremony (i.e. the one that ultimately occurred on June 21), Ronnie wanted to prepare the Go Team advocates to speak publicly on the occasion.

To say weighing the different aspects of this opportunity took no time may be slightly inaccurate—but only slightly. It is absolutely fair, however, to say it took next to no time. During a previous chapter of my life, I earned a Masters of Science in Education. Although I had aspired to teach special education, other professional pursuits took a front seat. Even so, I remembered certain fundamentals of education.

From an objective perspective, for example, the ability to learn requires the ability to imitate behaviors. Additionally, learning is within every individual's ability. Thus, the educator's task in simple terms is to model behaviors, and to reinforce the imitation of those behaviors. The student demonstrates mastery by consistently and correctly performing the target behaviors. Educational theory, however, was far from the heart of my decision here.

It was the opportunity to coach these mentally handicapped adults in public speaking that resonated strongly with me. This confluence of circumstances must have been, in my personal opinion, more than serendipity. It was simply kismet.

Continued Here . . .

Cancellation of Removal

On August 2, 2010 a Legal Permanent Resident who had been in ICE detention for eleven months finally had his day in court. The Department of Homeland Security wanted to deport this man, and I was his attorney. This was not only my first pro bono client, but also my first official file. The most significant first to me, however, was this first experience with immigration law.

(It bears mentioning, therefore, that immigration law is beyond the scope of my general practice. This means at this point in my career I will refuse to represent a private immigration client.)

Last February I agreed to represent this individual. As an attorney, the private details of his circumstances are strictly confidential. The court record, however, reflects the most impotant result of this ordeal. The Immigration Judge granted our application to cancel his removal. This means the Department of Homeland Security may not exercise any authority to deport him now.

I learned many things during this experience. In a previous post I blogged about the importance of pro bono service as a means to learning. Similarly, I blogged about the relationship between a criminal conviction and immigration consequences under federal and state law. My upcoming posts are intended briefly to describe the factors an immigration court considers in determining whether to prevent DHS from deporting a Legal Permanent Resident.

Scales of Justice

This Memorial Day Weekend post is dedicated to the men and women serving in our nation's military, both past and present. Without their brave defense of liberty, it is indisputable that the topics I blog about would not exist.

I wrote recently, here and here, about pro bono service. Those posts addressed volunteer representation in general, and a particular immigration matter of mine. In New Jersey, there is an unbroken history, dating to colonial times, of each lawyer's ethical and enforceable obligation to accept pro bono assignments for indigent clients. Madden v. Delran Twp., 126 N.J. 591, 603 (1992).

Indeed, New Jersey may have been the first State to enact a compulsory representation statute for indigent criminal defendants. This statute, enacted by New Jersey legislature on March 6, 1795, stated "[t]he court before whom any person shall be tried upon indictment, is hereby authorized and required to assign to such person, if not of ability to procure counsel, such counsel, not exceeding two, as he or she shall desire." Id.

The United States Supreme Court waited 168 years to impose a similar obligation on state courts with respect to the representation of indigents in felony matters. That case, of course, is Gideon v. Wainright, 372 U.S. 335, 344 (1963).

The obligation to appoint counsel for indigent defendants applied in full force in federal courts before Gideon. The Gideon Court selectively incorporated this Sixth Amendment obligation into the Fourteenth Amendment, and made it applicable to state courts. To paraphrase the Gideon court, "This is America." Id. at 344 ("The right of one charged with crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries, but it is in ours.")

New Jersey's 1795 compulsory representation statute was repealed around 1952. Furthermore, in 1966 the Supreme Court discontinued the practice of appointing members of the bar to provide pro bono representation for indigents in criminal matters. State v. Rush, 46 N.J. 399 (1966). Even so, the spirit of these laws did not disappear. Indeed,New Jersey Law as to compulsory representation and the effective assistance of counsel continues to apply to indigent Municipal Court defendants. N.J.S.A. 2A:158A-5.2. This system of appointment is administered as follows:

The Assignment Judge of each vicinage prepares a list of every attorney licensed to practice in New Jersey whose primary office is in that vicinage. Put differently, each lawyer licensed to practice in New Jersey falls under the jurisdiction of the Assignment Judge of the vicinage where the lawyer has his primary office. Using this list, any Municipal Court Judge in the vicinage may assign a pro bono client each year to each lawyer on the list. Defendants qualify for pro bono representation only if they qualify as indigent. Indigency shall be determined by the court uniformly and in accordance with standards provided by the AOC. Madden, supra, 126 N.J. at 606.

By stipulation of the New Jersey Supreme Court, each attorney who voluntarily gives free legal assistance through a Legal Services program, and performs a minimum of 25 hours of pro bono service, will be exempt from court appointed pro bono assignments for the following year. Notably, the stipulation applies to any indigent client in any litigated matter.

In my situation, I volunteered to represent an indigent immigration client. Among the other considerations I blogged about previously, I undertook this responsibility as a way to discharge my pro bono duties. This duty may be discharged with 25 volunteer hours. Without disclosing the number of hours I have committed so far for my client, I am inclined to say I have exceeded 25 hours. This does not include travel time for client visits, witness interviews, and court appearances. With the outcome of this matter yet to be decided, I anticipate spending more time on this matter before it comes to a close. Irrespective of the court's final determination, my representation of this client has enabled me to serve the public.

This post began with a dedication to our men and women in uniform, and they remain on my mind at its close. Just as it would not be possible for me to write about these topics without their brave defense of liberty, similarly I would not be able to serve the public in this capacity were it not for their sacrifices. The criminal justice system encompasses many values. These values often appear to conflict. Nevertheless, these are deeply rooted American values. One can begin to appreciate this more fully when one realizes that many people died to protect these values. This is one reason I am grateful to our soldiers, both past and present, this Memorial Day Weekend.

Pro Bono - A Practical Approach to an Ethical Obligation

On Friday I blogged about a few practical reasons for solo practitioners to provide a portion of their services pro bono. Notwithstanding the "return on investment," every lawyer in this state has an ethical obligation under the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) to provide legal service to those of modest means. New Jersey RPC 6.1 provides,

Every lawyer has a professional responsibility to render public interest legal service. A lawyer ‎may discharge this responsibility by providing professional services at no fee or a reduced fee to ‎persons of limited means or to public service or charitable groups or organizations, by service in ‎activities for improving the law, the legal system or the legal profession, and by financial support ‎for organizations that provide legal services to persons of limited means.

Accordingly, based on both RPC 6.1 and the reasons I reviewed yesterday, my business plan allots for public interest legal aid. Legal Services of New Jersey has opportunities to volunteer in various practice areas, including Immigration, Bankruptcy, and many others. I volunteered to assist in Immigration Law. To be candid, I am not an immigration lawyer, and I do not hold myself out to the public as one. I made this perfectly clear when I applied. Legal Services, nevertheless, was delighted and assigned a mentor to help me. In addition to the ethical obligation, I had additional reasons for choosing this category.

In my previous post I explained staying on top of legal developments is one reason to volunteer. In July 2009 the Supreme Court of New Jersey determined it is ineffective assistance of counsel under state law for a criminal defense lawyer to fail to advise a client of the immigration consequences of a guilty plea. State v. Jose Nunez-Valdez. Similarly, the Supreme Court of the United States determined more recently in Padilla v. Kentucky that this violates the right to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment. As I mentioned above, I had my own reasons for choosing to volunteer in the Immigration section. Based on these recent developments, I decided I needed to learn and gain experience with immigration law - not necessarily with a goal to practice but certainly in order to provide the representation the law now requires.

Selfless Taking - A Reasoned Approach to Pro Bono

As a new lawyer, and an even newer solo practitioner, I have sought out the advice of more experienced attorneys. Needless to say, starting a private practice requires confidence, and succeeding in private practice requires both patience and tenacity. In addition to these and other character traits, a solid business plan is very important.

One particular piece of advice has made a very big difference. In pursuit of this advice, I have devoted a significant portion of my time during my initial start-up months to pro bono representation. For those who do not know, bar associations encourage lawyers to volunteer a portion of their services to the indigent for free. The Sixth Amendment guarantees effective assistance of counsel to criminal defendants, and the Office of the Public Defender in New Jersey assures this right is provided to indigent defendants. But there is no analogous right to counsel for individuals in any other litigation. Nevertheless, many states have organizations to fill the gap. Legal Services of New Jersey plays that role in this state.

Helping the poor, like any idealistic aspiration, can provide personal fulfillment. In addition to this and other idealistic reasons, many practical motivations exist for solo practitioners to devote a portion of their time to pro bono clients.

First, general practitioners are certainly encouraged to refine and expand their skill set. This endeavor results, of course, in a broader scope of expertise. As a new lawyer, this is imperative. Similar to employers who narrow the scope of employment opportunities to experienced applicants, prospective clients demand the same, especially in exchange for the legal fees they will be expected to pay. Pro bono representation provides an excellent opportunity for a lawyer to gain practical, hands-on experience. Although the representation will be free, in the future the lawyer can do the same work based on his pro bono experience and earn a fee.

Second, lawyers must stay on top of legal developments that relate to their field of practice. Perhaps the most common way lawyers fulfill this obligation is to attend Continuing Legal Education courses. An alternative is to gain practical experience handling files on a volunteer basis.

Finally, pro bono volunteerism goes hand-in-hand with professional networking. In addition to establishing oneself among other lawyers, a volunteer lawyer may receive a referral for an individual who does not qualify for pro bono services but cannot pay the full fee lawyers typically charge. The attorney benefits because he adds a new client to his base, and the individual benefits from an attorney willing to charge a discounted fee and perhaps even arrange a payment plan.

In conclusion, an apropos aphorism comes to mind. "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, who am I? If not now, when?" The reasons explained above illustrate only a few of the practical considerations for solo practitioners to participate in pro bono volunteerism.