Case Studies
At Lawyers for Change we are committed to having lawyers be and be seen as a contribution in society. We are an organisation that explores what else is possible in the practice of law through alternative approaches including the cultivating of the unique skill set each and every lawyer has to bring to their work in order to produce exceptional results.
Our case studies are of legal projects that particularly inspire us. They are not necessarily relating to Lawyers for Change supporters. They are brief, designed to inspire people as to what is possible through law and the practice of law. Where possible, links for further information are provided.
We are not suggesting that anyone take on the same approaches themselves but simply explore what would be available from thinking “outside the box”.
Case Study 1: The Georgia Justice Project
The Georgia Justice Project is the brainchild of a US attorney, Doug Ammar, a supporter of Lawyers for Change. He runs a criminal practice with an amazing commitment to helping turn his clients’ lives around.
Clients of the firm who end up in prison are given the opportunity to sign up to a commitment to turning their life around. For those who take it on, they commit to taking whatever help they need (e.g. anger management, counselling, etc). Being admitted to the project’s programme means that they are then supported with prison visits, help and support in finding work when they are released from prison and even being offered employment – The Georgia Justice Project set up an independent, profit-making landscape gardening business to help enable it to employ some of its clients and enable them to get on the first rung on the ladder back to rehabilitation.
The result of this altruistic, committed client programme? The recidivism rate for their clients is 18.8% compared to a US national rate of 60%.
Doug Ammar runs a successful practice that really gets to make a difference. It is impossible to know the full extent of the impact of their work – how many lives are transformed, not only for the clients themselves but their families and communities?
Case Study 2: The Suffolk County Model Guardianship Part
New York Bar Association Journal (June 2006) carries a lead article on “The Model Guardianship Part”, a project to prioritise and protect the interests of incapacitated persons. It is a pilot court that is intended to “bring a holistic approach to guardianship proceedings”.
The project is in its early days and there are no statistics to disclose at this stage but we believe that the pilot court is an example of broad-based approaches to law and justice to enhance the concept of justice in the 21 st century.
In the article, we are told that “the pilot court addresses the need for maintaining or restoring trust, peace and harmony within the incapacitated person’s life.”
The project has taken extreme trouble to consider the best interests of people coming before the court. The project chooses judges that have experience in guardianship but also in the areas of criminal law, family law and general civil litigation in order to serve the interests of incapacitated persons “in an efficient and expedited manner”.
The pilot court made special physical arrangements in the court room to ensure that the alleged incapacitated person’s experience in court is as positive as possible. Many people before the court are elderly or disabled, often with dementia or Alzhiemer’s. Considerable trouble has been taken to create an environment which is seen as less threatening and allows them to be at ease and to alleviate their fears - this is not a court where the authority of the court needs to be asserted.
Further, the court candour is carefully run to allocate specific times for hearings which are kept to in order to minimise any physical and other discomfort that an alleged incapacitated person might otherwise have to endure while waiting for cases to be heard.
Consideration is even given to the layout of tables of which Counsel and Judges sit to hear the application. Special arrangements are also made for common disabilities including the use of special devices to help people with hearing impairments. The court even has photographs taken of the alleged incapacitated person to allow people to put a face to the name and emphasises the individual and personal nature of each application.
Where possible, mediation is used. Experience has shown that parties are more likely to honour an agreement reached through mediation because they crafted it themselves. Sometimes “simply listening and giving each party a chance to air his or her grievances and concerns often engenders a catharsis, paving the way to compromise and resolution”.
Beside the impressive trouble taken to make the whole process as painless and fair as possible, we acknowledge the lawyers and volunteers who accept responsibility to act as guardians, monitors and mediators who are an integral part of the pilot court. The “commitment and contribution of all of these dedicated individuals are immeasurable”.
Case Study 3: The Drug Court Project
In a Californian Drug Court, people who have been convicted of serious drug offences and, as a result, separated from their children, have the opportunity to commit themselves to a programme within the court with the specific goal of rehabilitation and re-unification with their children.
The court itself continues to meet after the conviction to hold the “convict” to account for their commitment to overcoming their addiction. The court itself employs holistic approaches, not only having the judge and defendant’s lawyer but also a panel of experts to help get the person back on track. The experts include employment specialists, housing specialists and mental health specialists all designed to deal with relevant issues to help turn the defendant around.
Whilst asserting the authority of the court and its intention to be strict, it does so in a compassionate manner, specifically declaring the intention of the court that the person is successful on the programme and therefore reunited with their children. This is no hollow boast: the impact of this holistic programme which seems generally to care about the income for the people before the court is that 4 in every 5 (80%) people before the court succeed and are reunited with their children. This compares with a State-wide average of only 43%.