Lawyers in Paradise
Price of Paradise · Hawaii Public Radio · aired 1994-12-04
Guest host: Peter Adler. Guests: Jim Paul (attorney); Karen Holt (attorney); Coralie Chun Matayoshi (attorney)
Duration: 00:48:04

[Note: Single-part recording. Show ended early at approx. 43:50 due to power outage; announcer stated 'Due to technical problems caused by a power outage, the remaining portion of Price of Paradise has been impaired.' No normal sign-off. Silence tail: ~255s.]

[00:00:02] Peter Adler: Good morning and welcome to the Price of Paradise Radio Show. I am not Randy Roth. My name is Peter Adler and I am the host for this Sunday morning. And sitting with me are three guests, Jim Paul, Karen Holt, and Coralie Matyoshi. And our topic today is lawyers, are they doing enough for the community or parenthetically, are they doing too much. Coralie, do you do you think uh this seems to be a nationwide phenomena. Do you think it's any different here in Hawaii that there's any more intensity to the the attitudes towards lawyers than any place else?

[00:01:20] Coralie Chun Matayoshi: No, I don't think so. I think that people all over across the country hate lawyers. And I think it is Jim said that we are the messengers and and it is largely because the system is adversarial and somebody has to lose. And so we are trying to, you know, inject more ADR where there might be a win-win situation. I think that we should have more education um in the schools as to how to resolve problems before they're they um you know, get into a lawsuit situation. I think people are too litigious as well. Um if people would get back to their communities and resolve their problems old fashion way. Uh I think we'd all be better off.

[00:01:55] Peter Adler: Do we have too many lawyers in this state? We have, I think, 6,000, close to 5 to 6,000 lawyers and maybe half of those are really active. Is that too many for the population we have?

[00:02:04] Coralie Chun Matayoshi: There are quite a few lawyers. Um I think that though, um the ones that are serving the poor are too few. Um we have a lot of graduates out of law school that don't have jobs, but yet there's so much of a legal need and I know you'll talk about the Spanburg report later on. If we had some kind of job core or training program or something to get those lawyers that are eager and willing to serve um into the lower income area, that would really help. Although you know, you graduate from law school, you need to make a living yourself. You can't expect the lawyers to just go out and work for free.

[00:02:35] Peter Adler: Mhm, Jim, how about you? I I heard a an attorney in private practice once say that the problem is not that they're they're too many lawyers, he said that the problem is there's not enough lawsuits. What what what about what are you what what do you think in terms of the population that we have and the kinds of issues that get brought brought up by people in this state? Do we have too many attorneys?

[00:02:55] Jim Paul: Well, surely when you compare the number of lawyers per capita in Hawaii uh 20 years ago to today, the number has uh uh more than doubled. When you compare us to California, uh which may be no good comparison, or there may be no good reason to do it, we're certainly not uh not unique. We're in the ballpark. When you compare us to a country like Japan, uh which has uh almost no lawyers in comparison to the numbers that we have here, I mean the question uh becomes obvious. Why do we have so many lawyers? Um and I don't think there is any great mystery. I think uh it's an interesting field, it's an exciting field, it can often be a financially rewarding field. Uh if you want to, if you are a person who really wants to bring about some change, um law school is where a lot of people go. Uh it doesn't trouble me too much that uh the numbers have increased. Uh I think it's a rather self-policing profession um in terms of uh numbers and jobs. As Coralie said, there are unfortunately, apparently, an increasing number of lawyers who cannot find jobs in the fields that they have wanted to. Uh I think that's evidence that, as I say, it's somewhat self-policing.

[00:04:12] Peter Adler: Karen, uh Jim said that a lot of people go into law because they see it as a way of making changes. Is that your perception that law, I mean, the public perception is that lawyers gum things up, they get things stuck, they stall things. Do you perceive the law as being the vehicle for accomplishing social change?

[00:04:29] Karen Holt: Oh, definitely. Um Can you give some examples of how that how that works and when that works and when it doesn't work?

[00:04:37] Peter Adler: Oh jeez, Peter. I'm sorry. Too hard a question for a Sunday morning.

[00:04:42] Karen Holt: Um Yeah, I think an awful lot of people who go to law school want to want to to effect some kind of social change. Um Most of us do, I don't care where you are. Doctors go to medical school for that reason, nurses go to nursing school for that reason. Um the law affords you more opportunities, I think, sometimes to do that kind of thing because we are a nation of laws and uh if you pick up your your paper, um practically every story on the front page usually has something to do with with with the law. So, it's it's a good entry into a life of public service, into um into uh the the halls of of uh of policy making um where decisions are made for our whole society. So, I think that there is a certain amount of what could be characterized as altruism among a lot of people who go to law school, and then you have the contingent who just want to go out and make a million dollars and and buy a fancy car and you know live in a fancy house, um which is in my opinion, not a whole lot different from many other profession. Uh But I would say that that um I I am trying desperately to think of specific examples here, Peter. Oh well, we'll come back to some of those, but I I I would say that that, you know, the attorneys whom I know who have taken who have have kept that altruism, who have carried it beyond the halls of academia, um have made a tremendous difference in a lot of people's lives from Haptichlore suits brought by people like Sherry Broder to the recent settlement, um on behalf of the Hawaiian homelands, um regarding uh ceded lands. Um these are decisions that that you know, may alienate some parts of the the community and and may please others, but attorneys are in a position to benefit a lot of people. If if they use their their skills for good instead of evil and many of them do.

[00:06:26] Peter Adler: Good. Just a reminder that you're listening to the Price of Paradise Radio Show. We're talking this morning with Jim Paul, Karen Holt, and Coralie Matyoshi about lawyers and do they do enough for the community. Coralie, what are the obligations if any? Are there ethical obligations or any written specific written obligations that attorneys who come into practice must have in and in terms of performing work for the community? Are there specific obligations or are there general obligations? What might those be?

[00:06:55] Coralie Chun Matayoshi: Well, as an attorney of course you are an officer of the court and you're you're supposed to uphold the justice system and we um we just added a a rule which requires um lawyers to um apprise people of the opportunity to seek ADR which is alternative dispute resolution um avenues instead of litigation. Um we also, the Supreme Court just imposed um ABA Model Rule 6.1 which has as an aspirational goal 50 hours of uh pro bono to the community um as part of your obligation as an attorney.

[00:07:32] Peter Adler: And aspirational but it's not a requirement.

[00:07:34] Coralie Chun Matayoshi: No, it's not and there's been lots of debate throughout the years as to whether uh it should be a mandatory requirement. Um there would be a lot of policing if it was mandatory. Um people would have their your your license yanked if they didn't fulfill such requirements. There's constitutional implications as well.

[00:07:52] Peter Adler: Now, nobody goes around and says plumbers have an obligation to do uh free things for the community or electricians or uh I'm not sure if doctors have it. Jim, why why would lawyers have some obligation to to do pro bono? I mean, what's what's the rationale for that?

[00:08:09] Jim Paul: Well, for the plumbers and the electricians, and I want one of the plumbers, and for the doctors who are listening, I'm not at all sure that that somebody hasn't said that they two have an obligation. For lawyers, for me personally, the the root uh of uh a lawyer's obligation uh to be involved in public service has to do with the monopoly that we have. Mhm. Uh it is a club, however you want to define it, uh and the the the bar is high to get in. But once you are in, you and only you are entitled by our government to practice law. You and only you can walk into court, can file a lawsuit, can walk into court and represent clients. It is a monopoly. And with that uh privilege to be part of the monopoly, comes some obligations I think. Mhm.

[00:09:00] Peter Adler: The the question as Coralie said, which has been uh somewhat say uh uh debated beyond belief uh with uh emotion uh uh you cannot describe is the what is the extent of that obligation that that that goes with uh being granted the privilege of being part of this monopolistic organization. Coralie, let's go back to you. What are the arguments on the other side of that that you would hear from members of the bar? You're in the position of hearing both sides as executive director of the Bar Association. There's Jim's articulate some of the arguments in favor of that kind of mandatory requirement. What what are some of the people who oppose it say?

[00:09:36] Coralie Chun Matayoshi: That it might be akin to slave labor and therefore unconstitutional. Mhm. Um I think we have to realize that this is a societal problem. Um unlike the medical field where there there are mandates on the part of employers to um contribute to uh medical care, there's nothing on the part of employers or society to contribute to anybody's legal needs. Um it's only um you know the subsistence types of things like um food stamps and everything, but there's no obligation for um for us to uh have those rights enforced.

[00:10:13] Peter Adler: Karen, are there any estimates, or maybe any of you, are there any estimates on how much pro bono time is actually put into the community by lawyers? And when we say pro bono, we're really talking about free or very low-cost assistance to people who who couldn't otherwise afford it or for some larger community purpose.

[00:10:33] Karen Holt: Well, I think Coralie and I were talking about this the other day and I've heard estimates ranging from 10% all the way to 20%. Uh and 20% of the whole bar, that all of the attorneys uh provide some kind of of of uh free assistance to people. Um Or 80% aren't, that's another way of saying. Well yeah Peter. Sorry. Mhm. Um and I and I think that the the hope among the profession is all of us, I'm sure at this table, is that that that number will increase. Um

[00:11:02] Jim Paul: I mean of course when you ask the question immediately uh you need to we need to wrestle with the definition of pro bono services of course. Right. Right. And when we talk about public service, we're talking about something that's very, very broad. When you talk about pro bono legal services, uh we're talking about actually delivering legal services. Uh There have been studies done around the country trying to measure that, and of course uh many lawyers think it's nobody's business to know uh who they perform free legal services for. And in and many lawyers I think quite understandably, jealously guard that privacy, but the studies that I have seen uh take it up as high as close to 50% of the lawyers uh at some time during the year provide what most would agree would be free services. But but most of the studies I think are in the range that Karen suggests, lower than that, somewhere in the 20% to 30% range, but it's very difficult to to measure. No one can accurately measure it.

[00:11:56] Coralie Chun Matayoshi: And a lot of uh lawyers um serve on a number of nonprofit boards and do provide legal services. I've drafted a lot of bylaws in my lifetime and and that that is giving to the community. Um being on hand for nonprofits who do serve the the legal community and otherwise, that's that's pro bono.

[00:12:15] Peter Adler: Jim, and just a minute I'm going to ask you to if you would give us a little flavor of the kinds of uh discussions that happen and a little bit of the history of the the efforts uh by you, Sheryl Nicholson and others in 1988 and 89 to try and enact these the rules and which are now there at least in part and uh But before we do that I just want to put a reminder out that uh we want to encourage people to call in if you have questions, you have comments, uh please call us 955-8821 is the number. Neighbor islands please call collect.

[00:12:53] Jim Paul: Well, it is uh it is old history to go back uh that far, but essentially I think what you're asking is um what's happened in the last few years in terms of the movement to actually require that lawyers deliver uh certain pro bono services uh on an annual basis. In a 1986, I believe it was, the judiciary of the state established a a judicial conference, which is every judge in the state meets once a year with an equal number of lawyers, one third of which change each year. And at that very first conference, a resolution was adopted uh by the conference that the Supreme Court should investigate uh what it could do to increase the pro bono activities of all the lawyers in the state. The Chief Justice uh assigned that task to the Supreme Court's judicial administration committee, and the Judicial Administration Committee came up with a report in November of 1988 that presented two models. One was a voluntary model and one was a mandatory model. Uh and um the the long and the short of it is is that the uh Supreme Court's Judicial Administration Committee, which is made up of lawyers and judges at that time, recommended to the Supreme Court that it adopt uh a very modest uh model that had the word mandatory in it. Uh the Supreme Court then uh uh took the matter again to its judicial conference in 1988, and uh the Judicial Conference uh voted about, I believe it was three to two, to recommend that in fact, the mandatory model be adopted and tried on a on a two-year basis. The Supreme Court then held some uh open hearings on the issue uh which were very interesting. Uh and the Supreme Court uh asked the Bar Association uh uh to please give it uh uh its input and the Bar Association in a series of meetings which uh uh uh were remarkable uh refused to uh to endorse it. All right. And that's that's where it it stands uh pretty much to this day.

[00:15:01] Peter Adler: And and Coralie, I presume that the the debate is still there about whether this should be, how mandatory this should be, how much uh coercion there should be to force lawyers to do this. I presume this is all sort of sitting there to ready to spring out and do you see that happening? Is it is there more debate coming?

[00:15:15] Coralie Chun Matayoshi: It is happening. It there is more debate, although, you know, we just recently became a mandatory bar and people are kind of sick of being mandatory. Mhm. Um we are trying to work on a stronger voluntary system because a lot of people believe including myself that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. We don't want people to be forced into um providing not so good legal services. If you don't want to give legal services it's hard to force somebody, it's like telling a doctor who's tired or or or whatever to operate on somebody. I don't think you'd want that kind of legal services. So, we want to try to you know instill the kind of um um belief in people that they should give from the heart and and not from from up above and telling them that they have to do it.

[00:16:05] Peter Adler: In a in a few minutes, we're going to look at some of the other side in that of this whole issue that has to do with the needs of the community and what what's going on in the community and take a look at look at it from that angle. But first, we have a number of callers. Bill from Honolulu.

[00:16:17] Caller: Yes. Good morning. Good morning. It's it is a wonderful morning here. Um Yeah, I'm calling. I'm reacting to the uh your opening statement or the opening statements regarding uh the positions of attorneys in in society and how uh they're looked at negatively and the comments that were made that they're looked at negatively because they're messengers of bad news. And uh that they have to they're the they're the fight and there's winners and losers. And then that the attorneys in in that um from that perspective come out rather blameless and um as essentially good guys. And I I don't think that that's really the uh that's really the case. I think uh the negative image that attorneys have is uh to a degree, um economic. Uh to degree, because attorneys um it's in their own interest to uh promote and to prolong fights in society. They uh my experience with them has been that um uh there is a degree to which they promote creating problems, having people look for problems so that they can then uh be the uh the defender of the white knight. Mhm. And get paid for it. Mhm. Um when Well, let's let's let's just let's just check that out. Karen, Jim, and Coralie, do you see that going on? I I think what he's saying is that there are attorneys out there who are sort of churning these conflicts around and pushing them and promoting. Is that what you're saying, Bill? Um there is that element that's out there. That's not necessarily all that's there, but uh but that's definitely there.

[00:17:58] Coralie Chun Matayoshi: Well, I have to say I I I can churn a conflict from now until the year 2010 and I won't earn a dime more because I'm on a salary and my clients uh um are too poor to pay for legal help. Um So I certainly have a strong personal interest in trying to resolve problems. I would say you're right, um Bill. There are people out there who who will uh try to to run up the bill and and I don't know that again, I I really want to emphasize. I'm not sure that's a problem that's just endemic to lawyers. Um I don't know when the last time you tried to get a car repaired was, but you you don't know whether you know the the spark plugs were really changed or or whether somebody actually ran up the bill. Um So, I think it's sort of in some way you're talking about a human failing that is uh generic. It isn't necessarily something that that only lawyers um uh have to cop to. I again, I I would agree with you. There are lawyers out there and all the lawyers at this table certainly know many of them who uh who who do fall into the category you're talking about.

[00:19:00] Speaker 1: thinking about and um, I, I, I can't say that it's going to change soon, unless we all have some major revelation about becoming selfless and and uh, and purely uh, um, altruistic in our profession. But, but I think we would all like to see fewer of those folks out there. because those who aren't like that, and I would say that's, in my opinion, the majority of the attorneys whom I practice with or against, those who aren't like that, um, really do end up with a with a sometimes with an undeserved bad reputation.

[00:19:31] Peter Adler: Bill, thank you for calling this morning. We need to move on. I, I want to go back and start to pick up a couple of other things. Jim and Carly, could you say a little bit about some of the things that, uh, and just examples, if you will, of of things that lawyers are doing to meet the pro bono requirement and maybe even go beyond that, where we're talking as if they don't do anything, but we know around this table that, in fact, there is a lot going on. Give us some examples if you can. Carly?

[00:19:54] Carly: Well, there's a lot of pro bono happening. Um, in our December Bar Journal, um Judy Soban, who's executive director of Hawaii Lawyers Care, tells about a lot of the pro bono efforts that are going on. Um, there's about 800 lawyers at Hawaii Lawyers Care that volunteer, um, to do pro bono. We, uh, Hawaii Lawyers Care just instituted neighborhood clinics and are helping people in four um Oahu locations and as well as the West Hawaii, Hilo, Maui, and Kauai. There are clinics that, um, help people, um, with self-help advice, um, and, um, direct legal services. Uh, they, they range from civil law, creditor-debtor, consumer law, and housing concerns. Um, we do, the Hawaii State Bar Association has a a lot of, um, we have homeless clinics, um, on the two areas. Uh, we have our Ask a Lawyer program, which, um, has thousands of callers a year.

[00:20:54] Carly: We have our lawyer referral service, um, which gets about 18,000 calls a year. And as a bar association, we do a lot, um, of things that that help educate people, and they their dues that are paying for this. So lawyers are contributing, um, money as well as time to fulfill these projects.

[00:21:13] Peter Adler: Just a reminder before we go on that you're listening to the Price of Paradise radio show. We're talking this morning with Carly Motoyoshi, Jim Paul, and Karen Holt about lawyers and their what they do for the community. Jim?

[00:21:25] Jim Paul: To, uh, answer the question a little further, Peter. I, I think of Bill Dodd, former President of the Bar Association, who in a very principled way is very adamantly against any mandatory requirement. But if Bill were here, he would, um, and I can hear him speaking now, talk about historically how, um, every, in his view, active practicing lawyer, uh, in a private way, has some clients that they, uh, they probably regularly deal with who cannot afford to pay for the services, and, uh, the lawyer chooses to assist that person for whatever reason on their own. Many lawyers, as Carly said, also work for non-profit organizations, render some assistance of some type that they feel comfortable with to non-profit organizations that can take various forms.

[00:22:11] Jim Paul: We all know lawyers who provide services, for example, to, uh, churches, uh, other neighborhood and community organizations, to to neighbors. Um, again, and we come back to the definition of what it means to provide pro bono services, but, uh, there's no question that lawyers like others in the community do, uh, do from time to time, often in a very private way.

[00:22:34] Peter Adler: Just a, just a personal thought and that is that America has a tremendous tradition of volunteerism and taking care of the community, and things. This is something that doesn't happen in other countries, so we're talking about an impulse that's already there and how to organize that in kind of a modern society. Uh, let's take another caller. We have David from the Big Island. David, good morning.

[00:22:52] Caller: Yeah, good morning. Um, as as I see it, anybody in business, or anybody who has to deal with the public, either pays a tremendous amount of money for liability insurance, or they or they quit, they go out of business. And I, I see this this litigious attitude, uh, really destroying our country or or, you know, the medic profession and and all sorts of small businesses. Now, your, your guests say that they're not responsible, that they're just the messengers. Uh, I, if that's true, I want to know who is responsible. And if it's only part of the the legal profession, uh, your guests also said that they're self-policing. Uh, in what way do they police themselves to to to end this litigiousness?

[00:23:41] Peter Adler: Good, good, good question. Maybe, uh, Carly, could you say that? What what are the efforts? You're talking now, not about pro bono, but about the general monitoring and your association plays a very strong role in that, and you have a mandate from the court to do that. What are the mechanisms by which lawyers are regulated or policed to make sure the excesses don't happen?

[00:23:59] Carly: Well, we're talking about a a code of professional res, well, actually we have a code of professional responsibility already, but it's guidelines for, um, civility and courtesy in the legal, uh, profession right now, and just trying to get on the same wavelength to make sure that everybody knows what is expected. And what we found as we went through hearings was that there are aren't that many, there are only a few that are making, um, that are not civil, and, um, you know, it it it's it's it's it's just a few.

[00:24:32] Peter Adler: Are there mechanisms, Karen? Are there mechanisms around by which you as a lawyer are regulated in terms of uh, if you do something that's unethical, what happens to you?

[00:24:42] Karen Holt: Well, sometimes you lose your case, which is a a bad outcome. Um, I think you you you earn the scorn of good lawyers, which is a big problem.

[00:25:11] Peter Adler: Can you be brought before some regulatory body?

[00:25:13] Karen Holt: There's an office of disciplinary council, uh, which can and has issued sanctions against lawyers, even disbarred them. You have to do pretty serious stuff before that happens. But there is at least a regulatory, uh, uh authority who is in responsible for doing that. Um, I, I guess I wanted to answer, though, David one of your other, uh, points. Um, you know, you, you asked about how we can end the the litigiousness in our community. Great. And, um, that's a tough question for me. Uh, I, I like you, would like to see far fewer people resort to beating each other in a court or beating up each other in a courtroom to solve their problems. And I don't really know what the answer to that question is. Um, Jim mentioned earlier that, for example, in Japan, you have virtually no attorneys. Now, in Japan, if the airline crashes, the head of the airline commits ritual suicide.

[00:26:05] Karen Holt: So, you know, they they have a very different Suggesting that lawyers do that if they lose a case. Oh, I'm sure many of our audience would would buy into that. But, um, just as an a very extreme example, you know, that that's a way in which, uh, uh, a debt is paid for something that went wrong. I, I don't know a whole lot of Americans who would be willing to to sacrifice in that way for, for something that that was the fault of the company. So, I think you ask a really interesting question, and it really goes to the very heart of of of the way that that that our society works here in America.

[00:26:44] Karen Holt: It's premised on the adversarial system, which is often a nasty system. And, uh, and, you know, it it it works a lot of times, but it it leaves a lot of bodies by the side of the road. Personally, I think that if more of us took individual responsibility for solving our own problems, call up the guy instead of calling up your lawyer, you know? Try, try to deal directly with the problem. Uh, I, uh, I, I think that, um, uh, we might have fewer court cases, we might have less liability insurance, and I think ultimately, we'd have fewer lawyers.

[00:28:12] Peter Adler: Okay, let, let's take another call. Uh, thank you for calling. Thank you.

[00:28:23] Caller: Nora, are you still there?

[00:28:25] Peter Adler: Hello.

[00:28:27] Caller: Nora, thank you for being patient with that. Oh, that's all right.

[00:28:30] Peter Adler: Go ahead. You have a comment or a question?

[00:28:32] Caller: Oh yes, I have a question please. Um, I uh happen to be an old lady. I'll be 83 in a couple of months and I was in Queen's hospital 6 months ago, and with a broken back. And while there, through their negligence, um, I fell out of bed and broke my wrist. And, um, I have no relatives of any kind. And right now I had gone to see a hand doctor here about two weeks ago and he told me that I would not regain the use of my wrist for another 6 months if, uh, and and he thought perhaps it it would not be like it was before. So I had called the US State Bar Association to ask if they knew of any attorneys that might want to go ahead and negotiate with the Queen's Hospital because they have, I know, retainers, lawyers as a that they retain and I know that they're well versed in in in, um, being a legal, legal, uh, legalese, I should say. And so consequently, at my age, they could postpone any lawsuit time and time again.

[00:30:23] Peter Adler: Were you able to get some help?

[00:30:24] Caller: No. The the US the Hawaii State Bar Association told me they know of know of nobody who did pro bono work, and I called Ask a Lawyer and I left my name and a small message and I never heard from them because I I got a I got a recording.

[00:30:42] Peter Adler: We we just happen to have someone here who might be able to steer you to the right place. Oh good, I I heard Carly or somebody say there were 800 attorneys. Who, Carly, who might Marion call?

[00:30:55] Carly: Marion, you should call Hawaii Lawyers Care. Um, I'm not sure what the number is. Look it up. Nora, right? Beg your pardon. Your name is Nora, is that right? No, Marion. Excuse me. Okay, and the other place you should call is the University of Hawaii Elder Law Project.

[00:31:09] Caller: No, I had called them once before about a, uh, um, a rental litigation, and they couldn't help me at all. So, uh, I Keep with the lawyer's phone number.

[00:31:21] Jim Paul: Nora, uh, uh I'm sorry, uh Marion, uh I think your call brings up a larger issue, uh, as the previous caller, David, the six, uh, was, uh was saying. In his perception, there's too much litigation. In my view as a lawyer, it always comes down to a case by case basis, and in your case, you need some representation, and perhaps that might develop into litigation. And, uh, when you get down onto a specific case, uh, you have to analyze it on a case-by-case basis. But the larger issue I think is access to legal representation. Who has it and who doesn't. And I think there is little dispute that over the years, access has been increasingly restricted to those who can afford it and who are wealthy.

[00:32:00] Peter Adler: Marion, we we're going to need to move on, I'm sorry. I was going to say, I I live on $500 a month social security, that's it. I can't hire anyone. I haven't got anybody to take care of me. I'm in I'm still bedridden, and I was hoping I could find somebody who would at least talk to them, negotiate and see if they can't come up with some help, pay for some help for me.

[00:32:23] Carly: Okay, Marion. There there's a, a referral service, I think Carly just mentioned it. It's Hawaii Lawyers Care, and the number is 528-7046. It's called Hawaii Lawyers Care. Wait a moment. 5 528 8 528 7046. 7046.

[00:32:42] Peter Adler: Marion, thank you for calling this morning. We're going to move on.

[00:32:45] Karen Holt: Thanks.

[00:32:46] Peter Adler: Karen, I want to I want to Marion represents a lot of different kinds of people that are out there that are living on fixed incomes or in hard times and having problems and I guess you you're you're in the trenches and on the front lines and at the Legal Aid Society, you and your colleagues deal, is this untypical of the kinds of things that that, uh, you see, people looking for lawyer trying to find, find help and, you know, maybe getting it, maybe not?

[00:33:09] Karen Holt: Oh, there are a lot of people out there who who, uh, who can't find lawyers and, and need them. Um, I would say that the vast majority of people who come to see us have some kind of a family problem, um, they need a divorce or they have a problem with child custody. Uh, the next highest number of people who come to see us have some kind of economic problem. They are having trouble making sure that their amount of wage that they're being paid is correct under our law. Um, they are having trouble with food stamps or other kinds of public assistance, or in many, many cases, um, they they have huge medical bills and, uh, are having a difficult time paying them and and don't know where to turn.

[00:33:45] Karen Holt: That's especially true of of uh, older folks like Marion. Um, so we help a lot of those people. Uh, we also have folks who, uh, um, who have problems involving land, uh, title, and those are hard cases to to deal with.

[00:33:59] Peter Adler: Now, the let me, let me put out what the impression I have is, and that is that, uh, Legal Aid Society is an agency that and one of a number of agencies, but perhaps the biggest that provides a lot of legal aid to to people who are, uh, on in the low income or in the gap group area, but primarily low income. And that you're dealing with a tidal wave of cases, and in fact, Legal Aid Society's been under terrible pressures, has not enough money, has not enough resources. Is that, in fact, the case for you and the other agencies that are operating in this field?

[00:34:28] Karen Holt: Absolutely. Um, Legal Aid is one of about 10, uh, private, nonprofit, uh, providers of legal services, and, um, all of us are really, really hurting very badly.

[00:34:39] Peter Adler: Why is that? Why is that? What I mean, what's happening in Legal Aid Society? It's it's it's it's a monetary problem. Um, we just had to lay off 20% of our staff.

[00:34:48] Karen Holt: Uh, we have 50% of the number of attorneys that we had 10, 15 years ago. Um, there are only 40 lawyers in the state who are paid to do law in behalf of people who can't afford it. 40 lawyers in the state for the for the number of of people who can't afford it, is is is a very low percentage per capita of attorneys. And it isn't going to get better. Um, with our new Congress, uh, we are are really, really quite worried because the the new leadership in Congress wants to target certain what they view as unnecessary and frivolous programs, social welfare programs, and, uh, legal services for poor people is probably going to be on that hit list of about 15 programs.

[00:35:28] Karen Holt: It's very likely that federal funding for legal services nationally will be cut very soon, and that's at least half of Legal Aid's budget. So, you know, our our problem, like that of many of our clients, is that our income stream is very, very dubious. The attorneys, the paralegals, the secretaries who work for Legal Aid earn a fraction of what people in private practice earn, and we do it because we want to. This isn't some kind of sentence. But, uh, we are our numbers are becoming, uh, smaller and smaller because of of the many financial problems that are out there. Um, I guess I I I think that I I view um, this is an opportunity, actually, for, uh, for members of the private bar to start, um, becoming our partners.

[00:36:14] Karen Holt: I've had some wonderful experiences working with private attorneys, one of Jim Paul's partners and I worked several years ago on on a a real good case. Um, and, uh, we need you guys. So, if there are any attorneys are up at 8:00 in the morning on Sunday, I, I hope that that you can join in. Also, though, on a political level, um, if the federal funding dries up, we are a lot of us are going to go down the tubes unless the state can assist, and any words anybody can put in along those lines would be real helpful.

[00:36:41] Peter Adler: Just a reminder, you're listening to the Price of Paradise radio show. We're talking this morning with Carly Motoyoshi, Jim Paul, and Karen Holt. We're talking about lawyers, and what's going on in terms of the relationships with the community, and what the community needs are, and do lawyers meet those? Neighbor Island listeners, please call us at 955-8821 and call collect. Jim, comment on that?

[00:37:03] Jim Paul: Well, as, uh, as Karen says, the the Legal Aid Society of Hawaii is the primary agency where people who cannot afford it, uh, come to get services, and the funds have been cut back, uh, significantly in recent years, and the outlook is not good. My recollection is that both Newt Gingrich, uh, soon to be Speaker of the House, and uh Bob Dole, have made it very clear over the years that, in their view, the federal government should not be funding, uh, such uh, services through the Legal Services Corporation. Now, what will actually happen, we'll see, but the outlook is not good. And the fact is, uh, that under any definition of need, uh, that I'm aware of, that the, uh, there is a substantial and a growing need, uh, unmet need for legal representation among people who cannot afford it, and uh, and and uh, uh, increasingly only those who can afford it can get access to legal representation.

[00:37:58] Jim Paul: And it is a growing problem in this society, and voluntary efforts by lawyers have not met the need. Uh, and the primary, uh, argument that uh is raised by people who are against any sort of mandatory, any notion of mandatory pro bono services is, let's do it through voluntary efforts. Let's encourage voluntary efforts. Uh, we've been hearing that, uh, for 200 years, uh, we've been hearing it certainly for the last five, six, eight years, and it hasn't worked. Uh, and I dare say it will not work. So what are we going to do? What is the responsibility for lawyers? Uh, if if what I say is true, that there's an unmet need for legal representation, and I don't think there's any good faith dispute about that, what is going to happen if voluntary efforts do not work?

[00:38:47] Peter Adler: I want to take a a phone call. We're going to come back to this theme. Nora from Honolulu, you're on the air.

[00:38:55] Caller: Hello, hello.

[00:38:56] Peter Adler: Hello, Nora.

[00:38:57] Caller: Yes.

[00:38:58] Peter Adler: Good morning. Do you have a question? Do you have a comment?

[00:39:00] Caller: I have comments. There was an article in the um, paper about a month ago saying, if you want to go to court, there one thing you need is lots of money. I'd say only way to win a case. I was a a plaintiff in an action not too long ago. I had a very, very good case, with um, witnesses, all sorts of documents. I was not allowed once to open my mouth. Women in this state are very vulnerable. They are all fall through the cracks. It doesn't matter what they need. If you are not working, you are not eligible for, uh, any sort of assistance, uh, beyond what you already have the lawyers make deals with this very, very well known in the whole nation the state of Hawaii is known as the old boys network and they stick together.

[00:38:24] Caller: I was hit by a car. I was very, very badly injured, injured for life. I received no compensation because the lawyers made deals with each other. And it is very, very common in the state. I'm not the only one.

[00:38:43] Peter Adler: Let let me turn to the to our guests and and see if they might uh talk a little bit about that, not so much about your individual case, but about the the general problem again of folks like you. What's going to happen to folks like Nora in the future if what Karen says is true, that legal aid is in dire jeopardy, politically and and may lose a lot of its core funding. We're in fact, we and we don't see a lot of uh pro bono coming, if we don't see more pro bono coming, what's going to happen? What's going to happen to folks like Nora?

[00:39:12] Jim Paul: Uh, can I ask a question? Nora, were you represented by a lawyer in that case?

[00:39:16] Caller: No.

[00:39:17] Jim Paul: You were not? And you

[00:39:19] Caller: The uh, the defendant was, uh when the roll call was, uh, uh, um, called, uh, I was there and answered the call, the defendant and his lawyer were not there. They came, uh, the lawyer came in about 10 or 15 minutes later, he went over to the clock on the wall, and he turned it back to the time of his entrance. I went over to the clerk and I very pleasantly said, I don't know if this is any consequence, but Mr. So and So altered the clock.

[00:39:59] Peter Adler: Well, Nora, do I understand

[00:40:01] Caller: So this clerk said, oh, for goodness sake, go and sit down. That was only preliminary roll call.

[00:40:09] Peter Adler: So you could not afford to have a lawyer, is that right? And you were trying to represent yourself.

[00:40:14] Caller: Well, I didn't know that you had that it was necessary to have a lawyer if you had a good case. I mean, I had a case, but uh,

[00:40:26] Peter Adler: Well, Peter, your question and Nora, if I might, uh, interrupt, Peter's question is what, what's ultimately going to happen if uh, people like yourself cannot find legal representation. What's going to happen? And obviously, the ultimate answer is when the revolution comes, they're going to get the lawyers.

[00:40:44] Caller: Those lawyers stick together. Well, when I tried to get another lawyer after my accident, I I want I knew my lawyer was not working in my benefit. So I could not get another one. They would not become involved. You stick together.

[00:41:08] Peter Adler: Nora, is your case all done now? Is is there a final decision in your case?

[00:41:13] Caller: The the case was dismissed.

[00:41:20] Peter Adler: It was dismissed. Okay. You might want to try calling Hawaii Lawyers Care also. If there's any chance that you could refile your case, Well, did you call

[00:41:28] Caller: I called everybody. I

[00:41:29] Peter Adler: Well, did you call Hawaii Lawyers Care?

[00:41:31] Caller: that attorney uh I mean the uh Okay. Let me give you a phone number. Do you have a pencil? Always have. Okay. Um that you need to call Hawaii Lawyers Care.

[00:41:41] Peter Adler: The number is 528-7046. I know I know that. I've called them. Okay. If your case isn't actually finally finished, it might be possible to find you a lawyer who would help you on your case. Nora, thank you for calling. We're going to move on and uh we need to take a call from Elizabeth, who's a visitor from Pennsylvania. Elizabeth, our time is running down, so I'm going to ask you to be very brief.

[00:42:04] Caller: Okay. Um I'm Elizabeth Sins, and I'm from Pennsylvania visiting Hawaii with the AMA conference, which is going on. Um that's the American Medical Association. And um I'm very pleased to say that I'm part of a group that provides uh free or reduced price care. Uh almost almost every physician in the country provides that kind of care to um patients every day. And um I'm very pleased to see that there are some lawyers who are also doing pro bono work. I think that's wonderful. But um I'm I'm interested uh why you think uh attorneys can't agree that providing uh free or reduced price uh services is not important given that our constitution and bill of rights guarantee us representation, uh legal represent legal representation in courts uh when physicians have been easily able to agree that providing medical care is important.

[00:42:58] Peter Adler: Um I do believe that the guarantee is for criminal issues. I don't know that it is for civil, but uh, Jim?

[00:43:04] Jim Paul: That's basically correct. Um, as I understand Elizabeth, your question is why you said why don't lawyers uh, why can't they agree it's it's important. I think again it's it's very hard to generalize about that. Obviously, most lawyers do think it's important. The question is how do they choose to spend your time. You choose to spend your time uh apparently doing certain delivering certain medical services free on a pro bono basis and and you're to be commended for that. Uh uh the why do lawyers as a group as a bar association uh not uh agree that they should impose upon themselves some minimum requirement to deliver pro bono services.

[00:43:50] Peter Adler: Due to technical problems caused by a power outage, the remaining portion of Price of Paradise has been impaired. We apologize for the inconvenience.