Access to legal system is fundamental: John Hood of John Locke Foundation

John Locke

John Hood, Chairman of North Carolina’s John Locke Foundation, makes the same point this week that MidLaw made last week: the legal system and meaningful access to it for everybody is fundamental to our system of government. Access is a matter of infrastructure. (An on-ramp, if you will.)

Hood is not addressing the federal budget with its proposed de-funding the Legal Services Corporation. Instead, he is endorsing the just-released final report of the North Carolina Commission on the Administration of Law and Justice.

The final report calls for investments in North Carolina’s courts system up to $91 million over 6 years to improve access to the system. Hood sums up:

this plan is affordable and reflects the highest priorities of any government: public safety and the protection of individual rights.

But, if the federal government de-funds Legal Services, then the cost of the North Carolina plan will go up — both now and later.

The North Carolina report finds that

Statistics about low-income individuals’ access to lawyers are quite discouraging, … partly because legal aid programs have lost significant funding in recent years. Pro bono (donated legal services) programs have helped some litigants but simply do not have the capacity to come close to being a complete solution

Legal Aid of North Carolina brings legal services to low-income people in North Carolina. It appears to deliver a very high volume of access to justice (legal services) with limited and now declining resources. It depends heavily on funding from the Legal Services Corporation.

Hood points to technology and service providers other than lawyers, as emerging means of improving access to the justice system. He concludes:

Legal practice and public expectations are changing in response to new technologies, like it or not. North Carolina can either adjust its court system to that reality, or pay a far heavier price in the future.

Might there be better ways to deliver legal services to the poor? Technology, say, and providers other than lawyers? Bring them.

In the meantime, eliminating funding from the federal budget for Legal Services sounds like making a bad situation worse (“pay a far heavier price in the future”). And it puts a premium on State funding.

Legal aid is infrastructure, not welfare: got to have bridges so traffic can move

Word has come that the next federal budget will cut or eliminate funding for the Legal Services Corporation. Legal Services Corporation is the largest funder of legal services for the poor in the country.

Does the impetus for cutting legal aid come from a sense that legal aid to the poor is a form of welfare? Does it come from a sense that legal aid funds lawsuits against the wealthy?

That’s the wrong way to look at it. Legal aid, even when given free to the undeserving poor, is not a handout. It’s an investment in infrastructure.

The rule of law is the foundation of the economy and society. And it depends on the justice system.

Our system is complex and getting more so. (“Increasing complexity is the story of human evolution, and the story of how and why law emerged.“)

If poor people do not have effective access to this complex system, two bad things happen. First, the legal entanglements of the poor clog and burden the system. Either controversies don’t get resolved, or people try to fix them without assistance. That makes things worse.

Second, bad outcomes contaminate society. People get soured and distracted from positive, productive pursuits.

North Carolina Chief Justice Mark Martin perceptively points to domestic affairs: spousal abuse, child abuse, child custody, divorces. Often intervention by the justice system is the only fix in those cases. People helping themselves makes things worse.

That’s domestic relations. The same things can happen with healthcare, housing, veterans’ rights, benefits for the elderly, and any number of other everyday things. The unmet legal needs of poor people in these areas are growing, while funding is already on the decline.

Removing legal aid from the federal budget will make things worse. It will make our system more expensive for everybody, not less. And it will exacerbate negative spirits generally — in a way that drags down the economy, politics, and society at large.

Legal Services Corporation channels funds to local agencies such as Legal Aid of North Carolina. If there’s something wrong with Legal Services in particular, then fix that. But don’t take the resources out of the system.

Legal aid ain’t a handout. It’s bridges and roads.

Traffic has to move. Pay me now, or pay me more later.

 

 

Immigration restrictions said to cause recent declines in US technology, innovation, entrepreneurship

Brooks Pierce friend Vivek Wadhwa believes that US immigration restrictions are creating a reverse brain drain. He says skilled innovators come to the US for education, then get frustrated with US treatment of immigrants, and go home.

Vivek has tracked US restrictions on immigrants to the surge of start-ups in China and India — and he links that surge to recent declines in the US. So, he’s got the cure:

We need to make it easy for entrepreneurs
abroad to bring start-up firms to the United
States. One solution is to provide a ‘start-up
visa’ as a path to permanent residency. This
would perhaps be valid for five years, with
an upgrade to permanent residency dependent
on the firm’s employment of US workers.
The Kauffman Foundation in Kansas City,
Missouri has estimated that such a visa
would create 1.6 million jobs within 10 years
and boost the US economy by $224 billion
a year.

This sounds like a robust response to the challenges of globalism. Vivek says:

By becoming the best place in the world for entrepreneurs to study and work in, the United States could again be in the driving seat of technology innovation. Then we can share the resulting prosperity in a more equitable way to mitigate the anger of the electorate.

MidLaw is for that.

Probiotic flake bomb discovered in Greensboro

augA compelling culinary idea.

MidLaw discovered it last week. Turns out to be a centuries-old tradition in eastern Europe.

Phyllo pastry filled with sauerkraut. Genius.

You can get it at the Greensboro Farmers Market, at Augustino Gusto European Bakery. They make it with locally sourced sauerkraut, which they fill into a flaky (phyllo) pastry crust. No doubt there is a name for it, but MidLaw has not yet discovered that. Augustino Gusto is Romanian.

MidLaw foresees a successful chain of phyllo-sauerkraut restaurants in the offing. For now though, you are requested not to tell anyone. Do not disrupt the market for this incomparable probiotic flake bomb.

Now that MidLaw has moved in, supplies may be limited. Please do not buy any without checking first with MidLaw.

Greensboro Farmers Curb Market

New software can do in seconds work that takes lawyers hundreds of thousands of hours annually

 Bloomberg recently reported that JPMorgan Chase has deployed contract-analysis software that does in seconds work that takes lawyers hundreds of thousands of hours annually.

One thinks of John Henry who was a steel driving man. He died with a hammer in his hand.

JPMorgan’s technology budget runs to $9.6 billion. For that kind of money, you can eliminate more professions than one (or, at least more categories of services).

Keep on pounding.

 

Law firms: consider the pilot fish and the shark

pilotoceanic_whitetipFor all the well-known reasons, aggregate demand for legal services delivered by traditional law firms is flat. That has been pretty well documented. (In fact, enough already.)

So, the firms that are succeeding are the ones taking business from others (they are taking business from other law firms and taking it from alternative legal services providers, as well).

Here are three opportunities for midsize firms in this jungle:

Midsize firms can take business from big firms when clients elect to hire smaller firms where (i) the service is equivalent or better, (ii) costs are lower, and (iii) firm principals are more directly engaged in direct client service.

Midsize firms can take business from small firms where the midsize firm can bring broader and deeper capabilities.

Midsize firms can take business from anyone, anywhere, any time a midsize firm can provide experience-honed legal judgment delivered person-to-person by empathetic, seasoned professionals.

But “taking business” from others need not be all tooth-and-claw. Think instead pilot-fish-and-shark.

Artful midsize firms can build lasting, mutually beneficial relationships with other firms — large and small — law firm and alternative provider —  by networking, collaborating, complementing.

Midsize firms are uniquely apt for networking.

Red kidney beans break out

kidney-beans

As the International Year of Pulses draws slowly to its close, pause to marvel at the humble kidney bean.

Red kidney beans contain more antioxidants than glamorous blueberries or pomegranate juice.

Kidney beans.

Go, you crazy little red-headed, kidney-shaped whack jobs!

(Chickpeasnot far behind. What pulses!)

Guilford College president makes brave decision, teams undefeated after

guilford_college_fernandes_college_boardGuilford College President Jane Fernandes recently posted on her blog a dynamite note titled “Moving from Safe to Brave.” It mirrored her remarks as a featured speaker at the 2017 Higher Ed Colloquium in Florida, a national program of the College Board.

That post puts me in mind of an earlier Guilford leader who chose “brave” over “safe.”

In the period immediately after Lincoln called for troops, “trouble and perplexity were in the air” at Guilford College and in North Carolina. War was coming. Many Quakers and others who opposed secession were leaving. At that point, New Garden Boarding School (later Guilford College) was full. Nereus Mendenhall was its Superintendant and the principal teacher. But Mendenhall owned property in Minneapolis and his brother-in-law urged going there. For Mendenhall, this promised “worldly advancement and the accumulation of wealth.” And, as a pacifist and abolitionist, he had concerns about raising his family in slave territory.

So, he and his wife, Orianna, packed their bags for Minnesota.

On the day before they were to depart, they went over to the school to close up. But when it came to closing the school and leaving the students, Nereus could not do it. Their daughter Mary later recalled both her parents standing at the library, weeping. Nereus said, “Orianna, if I feel that the Lord requires me to stay, is thee willing to give up going and stay here?” Orianna said, “Certainly, if that is thy feeling, I am satisfied to stay.”

So Nereus and Orianna made the brave choice, certainly not the safe one. They stayed.

Opposed to secession, opposed to slavery, and opposed to war, Mendenhall kept New Garden/Guilford open throughout the war. During that time, people associated with the College often gave food and shelter (refuge) to deserters, bushwhackers and escaped slaves.

Guilford was “the only school in the South that was not closed during the war or during reconstruction.”

From this evidence, it may be deduced that Guilford’s athletic teams must have gone undefeated during that period.

Brave. Undefeated.

The Mendenhall home, The Oaks, is for sale now by Preservation North Carolina and likely to be demolished.

It’s the season for MidLaw’s somewhat famous MidWinter Supper

It’s time once more to republish the MidLaw MidWinter Supper.Supper

Last year the MidWinter Supper was supplemented with an enhanced fish feature, “Helen’s Famous Smoked Fish Dip” (the provenance is at the link). Some dip.

We’ll let this year’s embellishment be MidLaw’s recent inquiry into the skinning of chickpeas, which may, after all, be contra-indicated for the hummus américaine. You decide.

The Supper’s the thing. That hummus, that fish, that dip. And the beverage.

Mid size law firms doomed to planning, diligence

due-diligenceGuilford College president Jane Fernandes once counseled the College’s board of trustees that there is a difference between “planning” and “hoping.” (She communicated this very diplomatically, a measure of her fitness for her job.)

In a word (well, two words) the difference is “due diligence.”

British law firm consultants Edward Drummond & Co recently advised “mid-tier” firms in England that the largest London firms are shouldering mid-tier firms out of high-margin work. Mid-tier firms, Drummond says, are in danger of losing their ability to attract new business.

But, there is hope. Drummond, itself a planning consultant, says there is

scope for mid-tier firms to improve their margins by placing greater focus on ‘rigorous strategic planning’. For their new ventures to be effective, the consultancy said, it was imperative that mid-tier firms dramatically ramp up in-depth market research and competitor analysis while also ensuring a thorough understanding of the potential opportunities and risks of the work.

Firms were warned that without carrying out detailed due diligence, they could risk seeing seemingly profitable new business ventures suffer or even fail.

Before firms commit to “new lines of business” though, a Drummond partner counseled

  • analysis of competitors,
  • identifying gaps in the market, and
  • targeting potential clients

Failure to commit to rigorous due diligence is more strategic hope than strategic planning. It risks doom.

What all this means in the context of mid-size American law firms is a horse of a somewhat different color than what British mid-tier firms face, but still a horse.

x45vkpwv7hw-miles-storey