Legal Beat
From Washington Lawyer, June 2007
By Julie Reynolds and Kathryn Alfisi
Bar Announces Award Winners
The D.C. Bar has selected James W. Klein, chief of the Appellate Division of the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, as the recipient of the 2007 William J. Brennan Jr. Award.
The award, presented every two years, honors one’s commitment to furthering equal justice and the public interest.
Klein will accept his award on June 21 at the D.C. Bar Annual Business Meeting and Awards Dinner.
Klein joined the Public Defender Service in 1978, becoming head of the Appellate Division in 1983. In addition to supervising and actively assisting other attorneys, he personally litigates significant cases. He has served as counsel for a party or amicus curiae in 1,500 instances, including cases in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court.
Klein has worked as an adjunct law faculty member at Antioch School of Law, and has guest-taught at the American University Washington College of Law, Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law, Georgetown University Law Center, and Harvard Law School. He has provided instruction on writing and litigation skills at national training conferences for federal and state public defender organizations, as well as for the Federal Judicial Center and the National Legal Aid & Defender Association.
From 1983 to 1987 Klein served on the District of Columbia Law Revision Commission. He was a member of the Judicial Conference of the District of Columbia from 1984 to 2000 and the Judicial Conference of the District of Columbia Circuit from 1986 to 1991 and in 1998 and 2000; and was a barrister of the Charles Fahy American Inn of Court from 1989 to 1992.
Klein received his B.A. in philosophy from Harvard College and his J.D. from Harvard Law School.
During the annual meeting, the Bar also will present the Frederick B. Abramson Award to the Senior Lawyer Public Interest Project of the D.C. Bar Pro Bono Program. This project matches experienced attorneys approaching retirement with opportunities to use their skills on behalf of public interest matters.
The Small Business Initiative of the D.C. Bar Pro Bono Program’s Community Economic Development Project will receive the award for Best Bar Project.
Two categories resulted in a tie. The Pro Bono Lawyer Award will be shared by James vanR. Springer of the Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia and Duncan N. Stevens of Miller & Chevalier Chartered. The Pro Bono Law Firm Award will go to DLA Piper US LLP and LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae LLP.
The D.C. Bar Taxation Section has been named Best Section, and the Labor and Employment Law Section’s Workplace Street Law Project has been chosen Best Section Community Outreach Project.
The Annual Business Meeting and Awards Dinner will be held in the Regency Ballroom at the Hyatt Regency Washington on Capitol Hill, 400 New Jersey Avenue NW, beginning at 7 p.m. with a reception and followed by dinner at 7:30. The event will be preceded by the Presidents’ Reception in the Columbia Room, honoring incoming D.C. Bar president Melvin White.
For more information on both events, visit www.dcbar.org/annual_meeting. —J.R.
Legal Aid Society Honors Servants of Justice
The Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia celebrated its 75th anniversary while honoring E. Barrett Prettyman Jr. and S. White Rhyne at its annual Servant of Justice Awards Dinner on April 17.
The Servant of Justice award is presented to individuals or organizations that have shown significant dedication and achievement toward making access to justice available to District residents.
Prettyman was recognized for his support of pro bono efforts at his firm of Hogan & Hartson LLP, which he joined in 1955, and as the first president of the District of Columbia Bar (1972–73).
Virginia Senator John Warner, a longtime friend, presented the award.
McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP senior counsel C. Stanley Dees presented Rhyne with his award, which recognized his long involvement with the society, beginning in 1957, when he volunteered as a staff attorney.
Rhyne was a member of the organization’s board of trustees from 1968 to 1980, and served as board president from 1976 to 1978. After retiring from practice in 2005, he once again volunteered as a staff attorney.
This year’s dinner also celebrated the work of the Legal Aid Society itself since its inception in 1932.
Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty, who had issued an order proclaiming April 17 Legal Aid Society Day, called the organization “an important component of this city’s legal system.”
“I really feel that the work the Legal Aid Society does on a daily basis makes a great city even greater,” said Fenty.
In recounting some of the organization’s achievements, Legal Aid Society Executive Director Jonathan Smith praised its “extraordinarily dedicated staff”; the lawyers, law firms, board of trustees, public officials, and courts that have formed partnerships with it; and the clients whose “courage and dignity inspire us.”
“Legal aid is not about laws,” he added. “It’s about people. It’s about healing. As we look forward to the next 75 years, we realize that our lawyers are needed now more than ever.” —K.A.
Bar Dues Deadline Is July 2
The D.C. Bar has sent its members their annual dues statements for 2007–2008.
Dues amounts are $188 for active members, $118 for inactive members, and $95 for judicial members. When paying dues, members may also join a section or renew their section memberships and make contributions to the D.C. Bar Pro Bono Program.
The deadline for payment of dues is July 2. Payments may be remitted by mail or submitted online at www.dcbar.org.
Dues not received postmarked by August 15 will be assessed a late fee of $30. Members whose bar dues and/or late fee, if applicable, are not received postmarked by October 1 will automatically be suspended.
Members are encouraged to confirm all of their personal information on the dues statement, including e-mail addresses.
The 2007–2008 dues levels for active, inactive, and judicial members fall $1, $4, and $7, respectively, below the projected dues levels contained in the Bar’s 2003 dues ceiling recommendation. Moreover, these levels remain below the current bar dues ceiling of $195. —J.R.
D.C. Bar Foundation Awards $2.89 Million in Grants
The D.C. Bar Foundation has announced the award of $2.89 million in grants to civil legal services organizations in the District of Columbia.
The funds were provided by the Council of the District of Columbia as part of a larger, $3.2 million allocation that the D.C. Access to Justice Commission was instrumental in securing.
A single grant of $500,000 was given to Bread for the City, the Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia, and the Neighborhood Legal Services Program to assist in their collaboration to make attorneys more accessible to unrepresented litigants in landlord–tenant court. The D.C. Law Students in Court program received a grant to help support this project by adding legal staff.
Other supported programs include Women Empowered Against Violence, which will use its grant to send attorneys to the District’s new Victim Service Center in Fort Totten, and a partnership between Ayuda and the Asian Pacific American Legal Resource Center for a multilingual intake and referral system. Still another grant will support the expansion of the Health Access Project of the Children’s Law Center into Wards 7 and 8, by staffing lawyers at medical clinics in Southeast.
For a complete list of grantees, visit www.dcbarfoundation.org. —J.R.
Domestic Violence Victims Obtain Protection Orders More Readily
Victims of domestic violence in the Sixth and Seventh Police Districts had no recourse but to wait until morning, when the courthouse opened, to seek a protection order. That is, until May, when a pilot program was launched allowing residents to file protection orders at night and on weekends.
The After Hours Temporary Protection Order Pilot Program is the result of a joint effort of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, the D.C. Office of the Attorney General, the Metropolitan Police Department, and Survivors and Advocates for Empowerment (SAFE).
“The wonderful thing about this collaboration . . . is that we can all deploy our resources in a coordinated way to prevent victims from waiting in fear until the court opens,” said SAFE Co-executive Director Elisabeth Olds in officially announcing the program on April 30, along with D.C. Attorney General Linda Singer, D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier, and Superior Court Chief Judge Rufus G. King III.
Under the program, a victim of domestic violence can obtain an emergency temporary protection order (ETPO) during court off-hours that will remain in effect until the end of the next business day.
Those who want to obtain an ETPO will be taken to the Seventh District police station, where police officers and SAFE advocates will guide them through the process. An assistant attorney general will review the petition, and a police officer will contact a Superior Court judge who, after speaking with the victim, will determine whether or not to issue the order.
More than half of those filing protection orders in the city live in the Sixth and Seventh Districts.
According to Lanier, the police department used to be the only resource for victims of domestic violence during the court’s off-hours. The pilot program will allow for the “freeing up [of] officers to come to the aid of more residents,” in addition to providing victims “the crisis intervention, advocacy, and support services they need no matter the time of day or night.”
This is not the first time the Superior Court, Metropolitan Police Department, Attorney General’s Office, and advocacy community have worked together to address domestic violence. The Superior Court’s Domestic Violence Intake Center and a satellite intake center at Greater Southeast Hospital are also the results of their collaboration. —K.A.
Family Law Section Hosts Bench and Bar Dialogue
On April 24 members and administrative staff of the family court of the D.C. Superior Court met with members of the D.C. Bar Family Law Section at Arnold & Porter LLP to discuss issues and trends, as well as the progress of several new court initiatives.
The program was moderated by section steering committee member Laurie Kohn, associate professor of law and codirector of the Domestic Violence Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center.
Presiding judge Anita Josey-Herring provided an overview of the family court’s recent developments.
Judge Linda Turner, of the domestic violence unit, updated the audience on the system developed in conjunction with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia to ensure that civil protection orders are being enforced.
Deputy presiding judge William Jackson outlined the new e-filing program begun by the D.C. Office of the Attorney General for juvenile cases. He also spoke about collaborating with the office on an initiative to reduce teenage truancy.
Judge Cheryl Long, who handles particularly complicated domestic relations cases, said that she wants to try cases as soon as they are ready. She urged practitioners to contact her chambers if they have questions regarding any unusual aspects of a case.
Long also called for a better way of handling uncontested divorces. Often pro se parties will not know how to fill out their forms to alert the court that a divorce is uncontested. Ideally, said Long, these cases should be calendared within 30 days of the court’s realization of the uncontested status.
Judge Michael Ryan discussed efforts to learn from other jurisdictions how to make the domestic relations process more predictable for parties. Acknowledging that 80 percent of all parties are unrepresented, he said that strategies need to be developed that will be equally effective for represented and unrepresented parties.
Judge Odessa Vincent praised a recently initiated pilot program that aims to relieve intrafamily conflict in contested-custody cases. The program educates parents on the effects that mutual rancor can have on their children, and helps reduce tension through sessions with mental health professionals and mediation.
Dianne King, the family court division director, talked about her role in helping the court’s information technology personnel roll out a new electronic case management system. —J.R.
Symposium Analyzes Effectiveness of D.C. Judicial System
On April 20 the Council for Court Excellence, in conjunction with the University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law, held a symposium at the school on the District’s judicial and prosecutorial systems in relation to the principles of home rule.
Following the welcoming remarks, Steven Schneebaum, a shareholder with Greenberg Traurig LLP, sketched a brief history of the court system. The District’s uncertain legal status—the District is treated like a state in some circumstances but not in others—is reflected in the treatment of the court system and the interpretation of its criminal laws. According to the Supreme Court, the sovereign in D.C. criminal cases is sometimes the District itself and sometimes the United States.
The first panel fleshed out the topic of judicial appointments. Charles Miller, senior counsel with Covington & Burling LLP, emphasized the importance of the Judicial Nomination Commission, which draws up a list of candidates for each vacancy. So far, said Miller, there is no indication that this merit system needs to be discarded. If the mayor selected judges, there would be worries over the possible effects of political influence. Further, if the District created its own selection process, it would need to fund the selection infrastructure.
Retired Superior Court judge Gregory Mize pointed out that notwithstanding its drawbacks, the current system has political inertia on its side. He agreed with Miller that handing over judicial selection to mayoral appointment or election would present its own set of problems.
Patricia Worthy, former chair of the Judicial Nomination Commission and now a professor at Howard University School of Law, observed that “we have the finest bench anywhere in the country.” She pointed out several flaws in the selection system, including the president’s and Senate’s lack of interest in District affairs and the inefficiency of the confirmation process.
Daniel Rezneck, senior assistant D.C. attorney general, countered that the present system actually works quite well and doesn’t need replacement. The District is itself the most common party before the Superior Court and Court of Appeals, he said. Thus, it makes sense to keep the D.C. government out of the judicial selection process.
D.C. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton provided the keynote address during the lunch break. She explained that the District’s lack of full control over its judicial system reflects the District’s legal status in general. Presidential selection of judges shows lack of respect for D.C. citizens, said Norton.
The second panel discussion focused on the prosecution of violations of the D.C. Code. John Payton, former D.C. corporation counsel and current partner with WilmerHale, pointed out that the District of Columbia lacks a unified prosecutorial system because many crimes are handled by the U.S. attorney rather than the D.C. attorney general. Why should a government other than the D.C. government be responsible for prosecuting D.C. Code violations? he asked.
Robert Spagnoletti, D.C. attorney general from 2003 to 2006 and now a partner with Schertler & Onorato LLP, emphasized the complexity of the prosecutorial function in the District. Any one crime may implicate the jurisdiction of both the attorney general and U.S. attorney. The overlap between the matters handled by each office is considerable.
Joseph diGenova, a founding partner of diGenova & Toensing, LLP, who served as a U.S. attorney for the District from 1983 to 1988, said that several questions must be satisfactorily addressed before Congress will seriously consider handing over greater judicial independence to the District. First and most important, where will the District put its prison? Second, what role will the marshal service have? Finally, who will pay for the judicial system?
Angela Davis, a professor of law at American University, focused on the importance of prosecutorial accountability and transparency in the prosecutor’s office. Prosecutorial misconduct occurs far more frequently than many realize, she observed. —J.R.
Bar Members Must Complete Practice Course
New members of the District of Columbia Bar are reminded that they have 12 months from the date of admission to complete the required course on District of Columbia practice offered by the D.C. Bar’s Continuing Legal Education Program.
D.C. Bar members who have been inactive, retired, or voluntarily resigned for five years or more are also required to complete the course if they are seeking to switch or be reinstated to active member status. In addition, members who have been suspended for five years or more for nonpayment of dues or late fees are required to take the course to be reinstated.
New members who do not complete the mandatory course requirement within 12 months of admission receive a noncompliance notice and a final 60-day window in which to comply. After that date the Bar automatically suspends individuals who have not attended and forwards their names to the clerks of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, and to the Office of Bar Counsel.
Suspensions become a permanent part of members’ records. To be reinstated one must complete the course and pay a $50 fee.
The course is $190. The next course dates are June 12, June 12, July 7, and August 7. Advance registration is encouraged.
For more information or to register online, visit www.dcbar.org/membership/mandatory-course.
Julie Reynolds and Kathryn Alfisi are staff writers with the D.C. Bar. They can be reached by e-mail at jreynolds@dcbar.org and kalfisi@dcbar.org.
