by RICH CASSIDY on AUGUST 10, 2010
Last Saturday afternoon, I attended “A Conversation with Larry Tribe,” an ABA Annual Meeting program sponsored by the ABA’s Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities.
Larry Tribe is one of the leading constitutional law scholars in the United States. A Harvard Law School professor, he holds the unusual status of “University Professor,” an honor conferred on fewer than 60 professors in the University’s long history. He is the author of more than 115 books and articles, including the most cited legal text since 1950, “American Constitutional Law.”
Tribe has taken a leave from Harvard to serve in a newly created post as Senior Counselor for Access to Justice to the U.S. Department of Justice. As noted in my August 5 post, “American Bar Association 2010 Annual Meeting Preview,” his presentation was billed as a discussion of “the [Justice] Department’s new access to justice initiative, addressing indigent defense, representation for members of the middle class and the poor, and the legal needs of the most vulnerable members of society.”
As access to justice is a major interest for me, I was eager to hear what Professor Tribe had to say, and I was not disappointed.
Before he got to the meat of the discussion, his interviewer, American Constitution Project President Virginia Sloan, noted that Tribe, in order to keep his commitment to speak to us, had missed the swearing in of one of his former students and research assistants, Elena Kagan, as the newest member of the United States Supreme Court, by another, President Barack Obama.
And as I suspected he might do, Professor Tribe spent a moment talking about PERRY v. SCHWARZENEGGER. He noted his personal enthusiasm for the decision, and pointed out that this was not the official position of the U.S Department of Justice. In fact, he mentioned, some feel that the Department’s undoubted obligation to defend a duly enacted federal statute, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), might conflict with supporting the Perry decision on appeal, even if the Attorney General and the President believe that the trial court’s decision is correct.
Then Tribe went on to the main course. He noted the breadth of the scope of his new assignment which includes access to justice in both the civil and criminal arenas. He said he had been charged with improving the availability and quality of indigent defense; enhancing civil legal representation of those without great wealth, including the middle class as well as the poor, promoting less lawyer-intensive and court-intensive solutions when possible; focusing with special care on the legal needs of the most vulnerable among us; working with federal, state and tribal judiciaries in strengthening fair, impartial and independent adjudication; exchanging information with foreign ministries of justice and judicial systems on our respective efforts to improve access, and encouraging the development of more thoroughly evidence based solutions to problems in the delivery of legal services.
Most exciting from my perspective, was word that the Office of the Vice-President is leading an effort to improve access to justice for a broadly defined “middle class.” It is important to realize that, given the narrow range of persons entitled to services of Legal Services Corporation supported legal services, the middle class is a very large group indeed. He discussed this effort and encouraged the ABA Delivery of Legal Services Committee to provide him with the suggestions to help shape this effort. As I chair that Committee, you can be sure we will take advantage of his suggestion. It you have thoughts about how the federal government can increase access to justice for the middle class, please send them our way.
Tribe also noted that he is urging all states, through their chief justices, to establish access to justice commissions. Apparently, a large number of states — some 25 — have yet to take this basic step.
He went on to note that his office is looking for litigation in which the Justice Department might intervene to promote access to justice.
In response to questions, he said that he thought the idea that a broad-based “Civil Gideon” to extend the right to counsel at government expense to a broad range of important civil cases, is a non-starter in the Obama administration. Given the practical difficulties and expense of such a move, that did not surprise me.
All in all, it is a delight to me that such a powerful, articulate defender of access to justice is active within the Department of Justice.
Professor Tribe, thanks for your efforts,
Rich Cassidy