| Bar Bulletin |
May,
2003 |
|
MSBA News |
|
MSBA Board Supports
Gideon Amicus Curiae Brief
On April 22, 2003,
after significant discussion and consideration, the Board of Governors of
the Maryland State Bar Association authorized the filing of an Amicus
Curiae Brief in the case of Frase v. Barnhart which addresses the
issue of right to counsel in certain limited civil cases. The Court of
Appeals of Maryland granted certioriari on this matter on April 9, 2003.
The Charter of the
Maryland State Bar Association charges the Association with, among other
things, facilitating the administration of justice. MSBA has a long and
proud tradition of supporting access to justice for all citizens and
carrying out the legal profession’s responsibility to promote public
respect for the rule of law.
MSBA is very
concerned over the unmet need for legal services on the part of many
disadvantaged Marylanders. The Association strongly favors access to
justice for all citizens. Empirical studies have consistently shown that a
person’s success in Court depends to a great extent on that person having
a lawyer and the effectiveness of that lawyer. The unmet need for legal
services is a societal problem. It is a problem of all Marylanders, not
solely the lawyers of Maryland. MSBA asserts that the burden for the
provision of services and resources to meet this unmet need must be borne
by all Marylanders.
MSBA’s Board of
Governors approved the following Statement of Argument for inclusion in
its Amicus Curiae Brief on April 22, 2003:
RESOLUTION:
Pursuant to Standing Rule B (Briefs Amicus Curiae) of the MSBA
Procedures and Policy Manual, the Board of Governors authorizes the filing
of an amicus curiae brief in the case of
Frase v. Barnhart
which will incorporate the points made in the following Summary of
Argument and authorizes the Executive Committee to provide the final
review and approval of this amicus curiae brief.
Summary of Argument
A person’s ability
to assert fundamental rights should not be a function of one’s financial
status. An indigent person’s inability to obtain legal representation can
imperil fundamental rights and can undermine confidence in the equal
administration of justice. To function fairly, the adversarial system of
justice depends on the essential role of lawyers as advocates. The notion
that lawyers make a difference in ensuring just outcomes is borne out by a
number of empirical studies. Society as a whole benefits when legal
representation is available to citizens to assert fundamental rights,
without regard to their financial condition.
Access to justice
is not solely the province of lawyers and should not be solely the
responsibility of the private bar. The State of Maryland and the Maryland
bar have a proud tradition of extending legal representation to those in
need. In reality, there are still many of Maryland’s
disadvantaged citizens who have fundamental legal needs which go unmet.
Recognition of a right to counsel in certain limited civil cases involving
fundamental legal rights for indigents will address some of the unmet need
and will reemphasize the obligation of society to craft responses to meet
that need. If the Court extends Gideon-type rights, the burden for
provision of such and resources for must be borne by all Marylanders, not
just those in the legal profession.
|
