Pro
Bono Council
Next Meeting: December 8, 2005 at Noon
Pro Bono Council Meeting
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
MSBA
In attendance: Karen Canon, Emily Cooper, Janine Laird, Jean Lastine,
Theresa Murray Hughes, Candee Goodman, Michael Vitt, Caroline Palmer,
and Steve Hirsh
Karen Canon called the meeting to order and the minutes from the August
9, 2007 meeting were approved.
Karen reported that the Legal Assistance to the Disadvantaged (LAD)
Committee approved Pro Bono Council becoming a formal subcommittee of
LAD. LAD asked Pro Bono Council to review its charter and see if any
changes need to be made to reflect this new status. Karen reviewed the
main objectives of Pro Bono Council: 1) serve as a voice for pro bono;
2) serve as a strategy/policy arm for pro bono; 3) review current statewide
initiatives and develop its own; and 4) be a full partner in state planning
body. The group discussed whether these objectives were inclusive enough
for other LAD members and felt that nothing would be changed about the
objectives this year. At the next LAD meeting Pro Bono Council will
see if any additional LAD members would like to join.
Karen reported that LAD is planning to revisit the issue of mandatory
(unified) pro bono reporting. A LAD subcommittee was formed to study
the issue. The group decided to invite the subcommittee to join with
Pro Bono Council (since there was cross-over in membership anyway and
the issue is of interest). A meeting date was set and the subcommittee
members will be invited, along with Nancy Kleeman, Tom Mielenhausen
and Cathy Haukedahl, all of whom have past experience with the issue.
Caroline Palmer will get a MJF student to research current state trends
in mandatory reporting.
The group also discussed whether the new LAD publications subcommittee,
which is designed to increase media visibility for legal services and
pro bono issues, would also be a good fit with Pro Bono Council but
it was decided that the issue was broader than pro bono and therefore
better left as a separate subcommittee.
Emily Cooper and Theresa Murray Hughes raised the possibility of planning
a joint meeting for the Pro Bono Roundtable and the Minnesota Volunteer
Attorney Program coordinators. One of the topics discussed was how to
roll out a pro bono program in a law firm and make it effective. The
program could get CLE credit to make it more attractive to attendees
and include a lunch in which the two different groups could mingle.
Two potential dates were considered: March 11 and April 8. The date
will be selected at the November meeting.
Emily also reported that the new ProJusticemn.org rollout is on track
for the end of October and that there is a pro bono resources folder
that could use content. All in attendance were asked to send her pro
bono policies and other relevant materials to include in the online
folder.
The next Pro Bono Council meeting will be Tuesday, November 27 at 11:30
a.m. at the MSBA.
Pro Bono Council Meeting
Thursday, August 9, 2007
MSBA
In attendance: Karen Canon, Brad Thorsen, Emily Cooper, Jean Lastine,
Mary Durand, Theresa Murray Hughes, Caroline Palmer, Steve Hirsh; Janine
Laird (telephone).
Karen Canon called the meeting to order and the minutes from the May
30, 2007 meeting were approved.
Karen reported on her meeting with Legal Assistance to the Disadvantaged
(LAD) committee co-chairs Pat Burns and Cathy Haukedahl. LAD will take
up the issue of Pro Bono Council becoming part of LAD at LAD's September
11, 2007 meeting. The thought is that Pro Bono Council would become
a standing committee of LAD. This would provide more staff support to
Pro Bono Council and its work would be more closely tied into LAD initiatives.
Pro Bono Council might be the first stop for new initiatives, rather
than having LAD creating new subcommittees. The group discussed what
form Pro Bono Council should take if it becomes part of LAD - continue
the joint venture structure or become more of a typical LAD subcommittee
that members join. Theresa Murray Hughes said the pro bono coordinators
said it made sense to have a "hybrid" structure - keep the
agreement but there are additional groups that could take part. There
was further discussion about whether to keep the agreement since a LAD
member can join any subcommittee - perhaps creating a charter or mission
would work. Everyone would feel welcome. On a practical level if Pro
Bono Council is part of LAD it can still keep its identity but will
work with LAD to pursue initiatives that can go to the bar assembly.
The group then considered the Hennepin County Bar Association/Hennepin
County Bar Foundation/Volunteer Lawyers network report regarding hiring
a pro bono coordinator at the HCBA to increase mid-size and small firm
involvement. The proposal was considered by the VLN executive committee.
There are many questions about the position including how it will be
funded, where it will be housed (not at VLN), it could create conflicts
with other programs. There was a hope that firms would step up to provide
the funds rather than seeking from sources that are already supporting
legal services and pro bono programs. It wasn't clear that the small
and mid-sized firms want this position to exist. VLN will continue to
discuss it but is not taking it on at this time. VLN is, however, trying
to do recruiting in mid-size firms.
Theresa indicated that the firms are interested in working on more
immigration issues, particularly workplace enforcement. Steve Hirsh
offered to have Susan Koberstein, the immigration coordinator at the
Coalition, contact Theresa to discuss it further.
The next Pro Bono Council meeting will be Tuesday, October 2 at 12
noon at the MSBA.
Pro Bono Council Meeting
Thursday, January 11, 2007
MSBA
In attendance: Karen Canon, Janine Laird, Mary Durand, Bruce Beneke,
Emily Cooper, Brad Thorsen, Jean Lastine, Caroline Palmer, Steve Hirsh,
Theresa Hughes; by phone: Patty Murto; guest: Professor Deborah Schmedemann.
Karen Canon called the meeting to order and the minutes from the November
2, 2006 meeting were approved. "Community" was changed to
"committee" in the fourth paragraph.
Professor Deborah Schmedemann presented preliminary results from her
Pro Bono Perceptions study of William Mitchell College of Law 2001-04
graduates. She distributed the results and a discussion followed. The
presentation will be included with the meeting minutes and distributed
to the entire Pro Bono Council membership.
Canon then led a discussion of the Pro Bono Council's role (acting
as a voice for pro bono, coordinating, planning, serving as an advisory
group). Canon reviewed the chart created with Caroline Palmer outlining
the different bodies that impact pro bono in the state. The chart will
be included with the meeting minutes and distributed to the entire Pro
Bono Council membership. There was additional discussion about the Pro
Bono Council and MVAP relationship as well as how to expand the Pro
Bono Council membership.
Cooper gave an update on MVAP activities with regard to CLE scholarships
and ProJusticeMn.org. Cooper also mentioned that the MSBA will be automatically
signing on legal services and pro bono staff to PracticeLaw.org. Thorsen
expressed concern that pro bono volunteers were not included in this
initiative. Palmer responded that is an eventual goal but is dependent
on staffing issues (the MSBA is currently hiring a new Practicelaw director)
and technology capabilities, both of which are in process.
The next Pro Bono Council meeting will be Thursday, March 8, 2007 at
12 noon at the MSBA.
Pro Bono Council Minutes
September 11, 2006
In attendance: Karen Canon (chair); Malinda Schmiechen, Mary Durand,
Theresa Murray Hughes, Brad Thorsen, Janine Laird, Jean Lastine, and
Kari Wangensteen (phone); Jessie Carlson (Minnesota Legal Services Coalition);
Emily Cooper and Caroline Palmer (MSBA staff).
Karen Canon moved approval of the minutes from the June 12, 2006 meeting.
The minutes were approved.
Jessie Carlson from the Minnesota Legal Services Coalition requested
suggestions for trainings from the group. The Coalition holds about
12-15 trainings a year worth up to 8 CLE credits. The Coalition will
have its next biannual state conference in 2007. The trainings are on
civil law and poverty law issues. The trainings are open at a discounted
rate to volunteer attorneys and to staff from other LSAC programs. Volunteers
are allowed to attend for free and programs send in a voucher to pay
for the volunteer at the legal aid rate. Suggested topics included the
new child support law, issue spotting, how to supervise law students,
immigration and criminal representation.
Canon reported on the data collection project. Reports are still being
collected.
Emily Cooper introduced herself as the new MSBA Pro Bono Manager. She
will serve as the MVAP Executive Director and work on ProJusticeMn.org.
She gave an update on the ProJustice usability study and she is developing
a work plan for ProJustice.
Caroline Palmer reported on the MSBA's Pro Bono Report that will be
published in June 2007. She solicited volunteers for an advisory committee
and Jean Lastine volunteered to join.
The group discussed goals and initiatives for the coming year. Canon
will send around the original list of goals and initiatives to revisit
and make decisions for the work in the coming year.
Palmer and Brad Thorsen briefly reported on the LAD proposals addressing
CLE credit for pro bono and emeritus/pro bono practice rules.
Palmer reported that the LAD statewide access subcommittee had its
first meeting and will be meeting again. Mary Durand reported that Hennepin
County Bar Association is working on a pilot project. More details at
the next meeting.
The next Pro Bono Council will be Thursday, November 2 at the MSBA.
Pro Bono Council
Meeting Notes
Thursday, February 9, 2006 at MSBA
12:00 noon
In Attendance: Karen Canon (chair), Jean Lastine, Janine Laird, Brad
Thorsen, Caroline Palmer, Mary Durand, Theresa Hughes, by telephone:
Patty Murto, Kari Wangensteen; guest: Professor Deb Schmedemann and
Mary Schmedemann; MSBA staff: Guen Easley
Karen Canon opened the meeting and welcome Professor Deb Schmedemann
to present on her findings so far in her one-year sabbatical project
studying pro bono publico. Deb introduced her daughter Mary who is helping
her with some of the analysis. Deb gave a review of her research so
far and handed out a summary of her recent findings. She is not prepared
to share this information with the broader public yet but she reviewed
some information collected from Professional Responsibility students
about how likely it was that they would take a case, depending on who
asked (bar leaders, law firm partners, friends), and the result was
that partners or friends carried more weight. She also reviewed questions
asked about the type of assistance a legal services agency could provide
to a volunteer (manual, staff attorney mentor, and experienced co-counsel
being the top three answers) and the most appealing ways to do pro bono
work (brief advice, working on a precedent-setting case, and advising
a public interest organization being the top three answers). The group
discussed several of Deb's findings and found her report to very helpful
so far. Deb will continue her research and will communicate with the
Pro Bono Council about her findings. It is anticipated that Deb will
present on her research to the Legal Assistance to the Disadvantaged
Committee as well.
The group then reviewed the data collection sheet presented by Jean
Lastine and made several suggestions to change the format and some of
the data collected. Once the changes are made the data collection sheet
will be sent to LSAC recipients for data collection during March and
April 2006.
Having run out of time the group decided to postpone discussion of
the MVAP tech project, ProJustice, the LAD CLE Credit for Pro Bono,
and Katrina Relief activities until the next meeting.
The next Pro Bono Council meeting will be April 6, 2006 at 12 noon
at the MSBA.
Pro Bono Council
Meeting Notes
Wednesday, August 3, 2005 at MSBA
12:00 noon
In Attendance: Karen Canon (Chair), Janine Laird, Brad Thorsen, Theresa
Hughes, Jean Lastine, Bruce Beneke, Caroline Palmer (MSBA staff), Nancy
Mischel (MSBA staff) and Candee Goodman (guest); by telephone: Patty
Murto, Mary Durand, Doug Johnson.
Karen Canon (Chair) called the meeting to order and explained that
as chair of the Pro Bono Council Task Force she had called this special
meeting and, absent objection, would serve as chair for purposes of
today’s meeting. At the first “official” meeting on
September 30, 2005 officers will be elected and other operating procedures
will be decided. Karen reiterated that the purpose of Pro Bono Council
(PBC) (which went into effect on July 1, 2005) is to serve as the voice
of pro bono. PBC will not compete for the limited funds available to
its constituent organizations and is not a 501(c)(3) organization. The
reason Karen called this meeting is to address the upcoming Legal Services
Advisory Committee (LSAC) deadline (September 9, 2005) and discuss three
specific projects that will be proposed by groups seeking funds, specifically
the MVAP technology initiative, the hotline for Spanish speakers, and
the possibility of statewide hotline feasibility study.
It still needs to be determined whether Children’s Law Center
will be joining the PBC. Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights will not
join right now but may do so in a year. They are interested in serving
in an advisory function.
Karen asked Caroline Palmer to give a report on the MVAP technology
initiative. Caroline explained that she and Nancy Mischel are working
on an initiative that originated out of the Legal Assistance to the
Disadvantaged Committee (LAD). Many of the non-LSC programs do not have
adequate computer hardware or software to efficiently manage their programs.
A few years ago the Minnesota Legal Services Coalition (Coalition) obtained
a Bush Foundation grant to assist their programs and Nancy and Caroline
have been reviewing the application and reports to aid in development
a needs assessment grant. Sue Ponsford from MAP for Nonprofits is currently
putting together a proposal of costs for their office to conduct site
visits at each of the roughly 20 non-LSC offices to evaluate current
equipment and make recommendations based on program needs. MVAP will
request a grant from LSAC in the amount of $10,000 to $12,000 to fund
this project. Once the LSAC funds are secured additional funders will
be approached for capital grants to help programs actually implement
the technology recommendations made by MAP for Nonprofits. Bruce Beneke
stated that from a Legal Services Commission point-of-view it is a terrific
idea, the commission emphasized technology and collaboration. Bruce
stated that the Coalition would provide a letter of support.
Caroline and Nancy will contact each of the eligible programs to inform
them of this project and request letters of support. Caroline asked
whether the PBC could also write a letter of support which led to a
discussion of whether PBC could do so under the Joint Venture Agreement.
During the Pro Bono Council Task Force deliberations concerns were raised
about the PBC competing for funds and whether PBC support of individual
grants would create a perception of competition. Some groups were skittish
about joining because of this potential conflict. Karen stated there
could be projects upon which all the PBC members agree and in the case
of the MVAP technology initiative that agreement is there and fits paragraph
2.5(c) of the Joint Venture Agreement. Candee Goodman stated that it
was too early for the PBC to place a “stamp of approval”
on projects and that we first needed to develop a working relationship
and foundation of trust. The PBC decided to revisit the process of supporting
specific projects in the future.
Candee then described the hotline project for Spanish speakers. Pam
Wandzel at Fredrikson & Byron was contacted by CLUES about starting
a clinic. The new Mexican Consulate is housed at CLUES and even though
it isn’t set to open until September already legal requests are
pouring in. Pam contacted Candee because of her experience with Neighborhood
House, where they are now doing a mini hotline. Now the project has
expanded to include Minnesota Hispanic Bar Association (MHBA), Volunteer
Lawyers Network (VLN), Minnesota Justice Foundation (MJF), Volunteer
Attorney Program (VAP) and the court’s self-help center. The groups
are creating a hotline that will be accessible to the public on September
1, 2005. It will be open Monday through Friday, 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. Every
Thursday attorneys will be available to meet with the public for advice
and referral service. MJF has approximately 30-40 students who speak
Spanish fluently and CLUES will provide office space and some staff
assistance. VLN will train students on how to run the hotline. The hotline
will cover all issues including family law.
Jean Lastine suggested that when they are ready to go beyond advice
and referral that a model be followed like the program currently conducted
by VLN, Central Minnesota Legal Services (CMLS), US Bank and Dorsey
& Whitney at the Brian Coyle Center in Minneapolis. Candee replied
that they are not ready yet and will not start out with cases. MHBA,
however, does have about 100 lawyers willing to do some cases.
Mary Durand stated that Chrysalis offers bilingual clinics for women
and would like to be involved in the hotline. Candee invited Mary to
join the planning group for the hotline.
The hotline planners are working with VLN and VAP on a proposal to
LSAC. VLN will act as the fiscal agent and the request will be for $75,000
to $100,000 for (1) staffing the pilot project and expanding it beyond
advice and referral and (2) planning and evaluation of the hotline as
a model for other underserved communities or eventually for a statewide
hotline. The hotline initially will be staffed pretty much by volunteers
but CLUES and Consulate will be helping out by providing staff as well.
Jean noted that even though the hotline will be in Ramsey County it
will go beyond. CMLS, Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services (SMRLS)
and Mid-Minnesota Legal Assistance (MMLA) all have Spanish speakers
on staff and raised a concern about having multiple hotlines.
Bruce Beneke introduced the third project on the agenda. By way of
background, Bruce described SMRLS current efforts to pilot a hotline
with a centralized intake for screening, advice and referral in 28 rural
counties and has a lot of Spanish-speaking staff. Language access is
a key issue. A lead attorney in the service area determines acceptance
of cases and makes staff assignments. Gary Hird heads up this project.
Bruce added that the Legal Services Commission recommended that the
idea of one statewide entry point be studied. In a recent meeting he
had with Jerry Lane and Jim Baillie and others about the distribution
of the LSAC money he suggested a planning grant, but the Coalition and
SMRLS would not apply for it, instead staffed programs, pro bono and
the MSBA could work on it together, and MVAP would be the applicant.
Bruce asked Gary Hird to put together a handout on the statewide hotline
planning process and copies were distributed to the PBC. The proposed
study would cost about $50,000 to $100,000.
Patty Murto stated that VAP has run a hotline in Northeast Minnesota,
with one phone number for the region. It is not an 800 number, however,
and in VAP’s grant to LSAC funds will be requested to set one
up. Patty questioned the neutrality of MVAP and asked Bruce whether
the Coalition would match dollar for dollar the money for a study from
the new state funding it received. Jean stated that the Coalition would
consider putting in money. Bruce stated that this is a point of tension
and there was discussion of whether the law states that the 15 percent
is exclusively the domain of non-LSC programs. It was determined by
the PBC that the law does not explicitly state as much and there was
a difference of view regarding legislative intent. Mary stated that
it would be logical to split the funding obligation for a hotline study
to mirror the LSAC funding distribution, with 85 percent coming from
the Coalition and 15 percent from non-LSC programs.
It was determined that PBC members return to their groups to discuss
this further. Candee observed that part of the problem that should be
considered in a planning grant is there are a lot of things everybody
is doing in their own world, there are mini hotlines all around. Karen
stated that she still didn’t see the connection between the proposed
hotline study and pro bono and that the PBC is not the body to decide
the best delivery system but rather how best to support pro bono in
being a better partner in the delivery system, using pro bono resources.
Bruce stated that everyone is working toward the same thing and there
are so many different ways into the system. The Legal Services Commission
promoted equal access and increased access to the system. Patty and
Karen stated that the hotline study proposal is a staff model and Bruce
replied that it doesn’t have to be, the question is what is the
best way to do it?
The next Pro Bono Council meeting will be September 30, 2005 at 12
noon at the MSBA.
-
Last Updated 11/21/05-
