Crime and Courts: Supreme Court rejects court-appointed lawyers for poor in civil cases

Crime and Courts: Supreme Court rejects court-appointed lawyers for poor in civil cases

"x x x.

Courts in Wisconsin will not have to provide lawyers for poor people embroiled in cases that involve basic human needs, the state Supreme Court ruled last week. But the court gave its blessing to starting a pilot project in one or more counties that would provide attorneys in certain cases.
The court's decision at Thursday's administrative conference was in response to a petition by Legal Action of Wisconsin asking the court to adopt "civil Gideon," which takes its name from the landmark 1963 case Gideon vs. Wainright, which established the right to counsel for criminal defendants.
Civil Gideon advocates sought to establish a similar right in civil court for low-income people litigating matters involving basic needs like shelter, food, clothing, heat, medical care, child custody and safety.

Legal Action filed the petition, with 1,320 supporting signatures, in September 2010.

John Ebbot, executive director for Legal Action, says he was "deeply disappointed" by the court's decision.

"I'm concerned that this pilot project is going to be an excuse to wait for that to be concluded before courts start to appoint counsel," he says.
No state has enacted a comprehensive civil Gideon policy, but a few states have done pilot projects. Last year California embarked on an $11 million project.

While rejecting Legal Action's petition, the court also instructed the Wisconsin Access to Justice Commission, created by the Supreme Court, to set about devising the pilot project to weigh the effectiveness of appointing lawyers.

Ebbot says he working with the commission, but the funding will be tight. Legal Action is trying to get a $100,000 grant from the State Bar to cover the costs.

Ebbot says it's unclear what the pilot project will look like. Possibilities include: having a county appoint lawyers and comparing it with one that doesn't; keeping the project within one county with some judges assigning attorneys while others don't; or having a single judge appoint attorneys in some cases but not in others.

"Right now it's pretty much in the air," Ebbot says.

x x x."


Read more: http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/crime_and_courts/blog/crime-and-courts-supreme-court-rejects-court-appointed-lawyers-for/article_21c90f02-46b7-11e1-93e4-001871e3ce6c.html#ixzz1kUlxMQm6"