Matthews Bark Criminal Defense
Attorney Matthews Bark – New law to make taking pictures of marked ballots legal
Source : WDTH News
By : Tyler Utzka
Category : Attorney Matthews Bark , Matthews Bark Criminal Defense
Under Ohio law, it’s illegal to take pictures of a completed ballot. It’s a rule that differs from state to state and is getting some voters in trouble. State Representative Niraj Antani, is looking to change that for the Buckeye state by introducing House Bill 609 on Tuesday. “We think that it’s a first amendment right to show who you’re voting for on your own ballot and that should be legal,” Rep. Antani said, “Right now, county prosecutors are not prosecuting for this crime. So we really shouldn’t have laws on the books that aren’t being prosecuted. ”
The current law was made a long time ago to prohibit bribery, Antani said, so those paying for votes couldn’t get the photographic proof. According to him there’s already statutes in place for that. Voters like Kurt Hamler support the new legislation. “Everybody says who they’re voting for already so if they’re tweeting out a picture, a selfie and their ballot it’s not a big deal to me,” he said.
For Katie Ahrens of Dayton, she doesn’t think it’s necessary. “You don’t need to be just tweeting or snapchatting a picture with your ballot,” she said. “I don’t see what that does for our society.” Although it is technically illegal, Ohio Secretary of State, Jon Husted said he’s unaware of anyone being prosecuted for it.
“I think we have bigger things to worry about than selfies with ballots,” Secretary Husted said. Currently the legislature is not in session. Representative Antani said if the bill doesn’t get passed this year, it will have to be reintroduced next year.
Read more: wdtn.com/2016/10/26/new-law-to-make-taking-pictures-of-marked-ballots-legal/
Attorney Matthews Bark – 5 Things That Are More Lethal Than Legal Abortion
Source : Huffington Post
By : Michelle Tang
Category : Attorney Matthews Bark , Matthews Bark Criminal Defense
This week, the Supreme Court will wade into the battle against reproductive rights and legal abortion. In Texas, lower courts have upheld rigorous restrictions on how clinics that perform abortions must be structured, citing concerns for the safety of the procedure and for women’s lives. If you are wondering about the case itself, the New York Times has a nice article for your perusal.
Now, I’m all for safety. I think we should absolutely ensure our healthcare is safe and affordable because even if you don’t care about healthcare access as an intrinsic part of being a good person, making sure people can access affordable health care ends up costing everyone less in the long run. But this case is not really about the safety of a medical procedure. According to the same New York Times article, even the proponents of the SB5 case admit that it is about restricting access to legal and safe abortion in an effort to eliminate it. I get why some people aren’t super fond of abortion, but it makes me angry that they are using a false claim on the procedure’s safety in order to work around the system. It reminds me of kids taking all the marbles and going home.
But do we really know that legal abortion is safe? According to a study from the National Institute of Health legal abortion has a .0006% mortality rate or 0.6 deaths per 100,000 procedures. This is a nice, neutral source to get a baseline.
Based on the .0006% rate from the National Institute of health, here are 5 things more likely to kill you than legal abortion in the US:
1. Being hit by lightning. According to NOAA , you have a 1 in 12,000 (or .0008%) chance of being hit by lightning in the US over your lifetime. Honestly, maybe they should spend some time worrying about this in Texas, given their spectacular weather!
2. Pegging out from using your cellphone while driving. Things like texting, making a restaurant reservation on Open Table, seeing who liked your latest hamster picture on Facebook or trying to answer your phone when it fell between the seats, fall into a category called “Distracted Driving.” According to the US Department of Transportation, it kills 6,000 people in the US per year. This makes it 3 times more likely you’ll die using your cellphone in the car than you would having a legal abortion – the odds are at .0019% per year. Keep your eyes on the road, people!
3. Dying in a work-related accident. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics you are just over 5 times more likely to die at work (3.3 deaths per 100,000 people or .0033%) than you are to die from a legal abortion. Wouldn’t that totally suck? It’s one thing to spend your time being nice to people to generate that positive Yelp review, but dying at work?
4. Death by colonoscopy. Please note that I am all for screening, so please don’t take this as some kind of admonition to NOT get screened for cancer. But the odds of dying after a complication from a colonoscopy are at 1 in 16,318 according to an article from Annals.org. Even though a colonoscopy is 10 times more deadly than legal abortion, it’s still just mouse nuts – there’s only a .0061% chance of death by colonoscopy. So if your doctor says to get a colonoscopy, but you think it sounds kind of icky, please don’t use this blog as your reason to not do it.
5. Having a baby. Actually carrying a baby to term in the US is 90 times more likely to kill you than having a legal abortion. Seeing as how childbirth is the advocated alternative to abortion, doesn’t that underscore that the Texas case has nothing to do with women’s safety? According to a publication from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, there is a 1 in 1,800 chance of maternal death (.056%) for US women. The good news for us is that this is almost 10 times better than the overall maternal death rate worldwide (0.53%) and we are totally doing better than Uzbekistan (.09%), although Uruguay has us beat (.03%).
But what about illegal abortion? While you are more likely to be hit by lightning than you are to die from a legal abortion, the death rate from illegal abortion is ridiculously high. Because it was illegal, there are only estimates for the illegal abortion death rate in the US from the days before Roe v. Wade. By using compiled numbers provided by the ProChoice Institute, the death rate for illegal abortion prior to Roe vs. Wade was at .42% – 700 times the death rate for legal abortion. That means that statistically, 5,000 women per year or 210,000 women have NOT DIED since abortion was made legal 42 years ago. Contrast that to the 7 women per year who have died from complications due to legal abortion.
Don’t insult the intelligence of the American people by pretending that the SB5 court case is about safety. If you assume that the 7 women per year that die from complications due to legal abortion are spread equally throughout the 50 states, Texas is legislating to save one-seventh of one women per year from legal abortion at the cost of 100 Texan women per year that die when abortion is illegal. Just own that you just don’t like abortion and fight it directly. Don’t pretend we can’t do math.
And if you really want to save lives – both the already born ones and the unborn ones – spend effort, time and money on programs that educate people on ways to prevent conception. Make it easier, not more difficult, to get birth control to avoid not only abortion but that hidden killer – maternity. Also, don’t text and drive.
Read more : huffingtonpost.com/michelle-tang/5-things-that-are-more-le_b_8630572.html
Matthews Bark Criminal Defense – Apple tells Supreme Court that Samsung case is ‘legally unexceptional’
Source : C-NET
By : Shara Tibken
Category : Attorney Matthews Bark , Matthews Bark Criminal Defense
Apple sure isn’t impressed by Samsung’s Supreme Court plea. On Thursday, the iPhone maker filed its response to Samsung’s request for the US Supreme Court to examine the patent infringement suit between the two electronics giants. And shocker, it doesn’t want this thing to drag out. Apple argued that the case is “legally unexceptional” and asked the court not to “prolong” the battle against Samsung. It also said the case doesn’t present a question that’s important enough to require resolution by the nation’s highest court.
“Samsung had its day in court — many days, in fact — and the properly instructed jury was well justified in finding that Samsung copied Apple’s designs and should pay the damages that the statute expressly authorizes,” Apple’s filing said. In mid-December, Samsung filed a request with the Supreme Court asking it to re-examine the decision. The trial, which ended in 2012, cast a light on the design of some of the world’s most popular phones and resulted in Samsung ultimately having to pay Apple $548 million.
A Supreme Court review of the case could potentially redefine design patents and limit patent trolls from cashing in on intellectual property. The case has drawn the attention of dozens of legal experts, nonprofit organizations and technology companies, which together filed six amicus, or “friend of the court,” briefs in support of Samsung, urging the Supreme Court to consider the case. If the Supreme Court decides to take the case, its eventual decision could also have a ripple effect on the technology industry and the kinds of gadgets you’ll be able to buy. Samsung and some of Silicon Valley’s biggest players have argued that the lower-court ruling as it stands may have a devastating impact on the introduction of new products, because of a heightened fear of legal challenges. Apple said it was doing what was necessary to defend its intellectual property and the value of its blockbuster iPhone franchise.
Samsung said in a statement Thursday that Apple “stands alone” in opposing a Supreme Court review of the case. “If the legal precedent in this case stands, innovation could be diminished, competition could be stifled and opportunistic lawsuits could have negative effects throughout the US economy,” the company said.
Read More : cnet.com/news/apple-tells-supreme-court-that-samsung-case-is-legally-unexceptional/
Attorney Matthews Bark – Law Journal Parent Buys UK Legal Publication
Source : Newyork Law Journal
By : Nell Gluckman
Category : Attorney Matthews Bark , Matthews Bark Criminal Defense
ALM, the parent company of the New York Law Journal, has acquired the British publication Legal Week for an undisclosed price from Incisive Media, a U.K.-based business-to-business publisher.
ALM, which publishes The American Lawyer, Corporate Counsel, The National Law Journal, and other legal and business publications in addition to the New York Law Journal, said the deal is its fourth acquisition since the company was purchased by the private equity firm Wasserstein & Co. in July 2014.
“This acquisition is an important next step as we expand our offerings into key international markets,” said Bill Carter, CEO of ALM. “Legal Week has a strong audience base in Europe and Asia, and an impressive collection of industry events.”
ALM acquired Kennedy Consulting Research & Advisory in 2014, and it bought the legal and insurance publisher Summit Professional Networks and China Law & Practice magazine in 2015. For its acquisition of Legal Week, ALM was advised by Jones Day, which has a longstanding client relationship with Wasserstein & Co. Incisive was advised by the London-based firm Macfarlanes. Aside from publishing legal news and analysis, Legal Week organizes events, including Legal Week Private Client Forum, Trust & Estates Litigation Forum and Strategic Technology Forum, among others.
Read more: newyorklawjournal.com/id=1202746861624/Law-Journal-Parent-Buys-UK-Legal-Publication#ixzz3x65eBYiY
Matthews R Bark – Lawyer takes legal education council to court over law school rejection
Source : Jamaica Gleaner
By : Barbara Gayle Justice Coordinator
Category : Matthews Bark Criminal Defense, Matthews R Bark
Owen Roach is contending that the law degree he obtained in 2001 from Middlesex University is of equivalent rating to the LLB offered at the University of the West Indies (UWI).Lawyers who are already called to the bar in the UK or a Commonwealth country are required to do a six-month programme before they can be allowed to practice law in Jamaica. Roach is seeking leave to go to the Judicial Review Court to quash the council’s decision not to admit him to Norman Manley for the September 2015 academic year.
The application is set for hearing on October 13. He is also seeking an expedited hearing for judicial review. Roach, who is a barrister residing in London, obtained a joint double major Bachelor’s degree in law and politics at the Middlesex University in the United Kingdom. He is a citizen of Montserrat and therefore a citizen of CARICOM and is expected to apply to the Law School in Jamaica, he states in court documents. Roach, who is being represented by attorney Seymour Stewart, is seeking an order of certiorari to quash the council’s decision that his degree is not of equivalent rating to the LL.B offered at the UWI.
He is also seeking a declaration that the said degree is of equivalent rating with the LL.B offered by the UWI and that he is eligible for admission into the Law School. Roach is asking the court to grant him an order of mandamus to compel the respondent to process his application for the academic year to commence in September 2015 and treat it as an application for the academic year to commence in September 2016. The court will also be asked to grant declarations that the council’s decision to refuse Roach’s application to the Law School was irrational and unreasonable. Roach is asking the court to find that the decision of the Council of Legal Education to reject his application is disproportionate to its objective to maintain its reputation and integrity. Roach will be seeking permission that he be allowed to take part in the application by way of live video link or any other electronic means by which he may be seen and heard.
He contends that the council failed to take into account the fact that Middlesex University is listed as one of the conferring institutions mentioned at appendix 8 of the 1996 Report of the Review Committee on Legal Education in the Caribbean. According to Roach, the council has failed to recognise that there is no essential or material difference between the academic standard required of him to be called to the Bar in England & Wales and the Eastern Caribbean and that in Jamaica. He said the council has failed to take into account the fact that the General Council of the Bar in England & Wales has a similar system of assessing the core content of law degrees before admitting applicants to the bar in England & Wales. Roach disclosed that he tried to resolve the matter with the council since March 2015 when the adverse decision was made but without success and there is no alternative form of redress.
Read More : jamaica-gleaner.com/article/news/20150923/lawyer-takes-legal-education-council-court-over-law-school-rejection
Matthews Bark – An Abortion Option Returns to El Paso After Long Legal Battle
Source : Texasobserver
By : Alexa Garcia-Ditta
Category : Matthews Bark Criminal Defense, Matthews R Bark
For the last 17 months, West Texans seeking abortion services have had two options: travel hundreds of miles to a San Antonio clinic, or cross the state line into New Mexico for the procedure. Now, after a prolonged legal and bureaucratic battle over provisions of Texas’ omnibus anti-abortion law, an El Paso abortion clinic has reopened and will provide abortion and other reproductive health services beginning next week. Reproductive Services closed in April 2014 after its physician lost her admitting privileges at a local hospital, one of the new requirements under House Bill 2, the omnibus law passed in 2013. That restriction, plus another that mandates Texas abortion clinics make expensive modifications to their facilities to in order to operate as ambulatory surgical centers, is at the heart of an ongoing legal challenge to the constitutionality of the law. Reproductive Services is one of several independent abortion providers suing the state.
Alyssah Roth, board president of the nascent West Fund, which provides financial assistance to West Texans seeking abortions, said the clinic’s reopening means West Texans won’t have to leave the state for care. She said patients who call her organization’s hotline have so far predominantly gone to the newly opened Whole Woman’s Health in Las Cruces, New Mexico, for their abortions. While attorneys for the state have argued that going to New Mexico is an acceptable option for West Texans, and thereby maintain that the law does not create significant obstacles to accessing care, plaintiffs say that that forcing women to travel for an abortion services creates an undue burden by adding practical and logistical barriers such as transportation costs and child care expenses. “Even though [Las Cruces] is only half an hour away, some people still don’t have cars, or have time to take off work,” Roth said. “Some people can’t leave Texas.”
In addition to abortion care, Reproductive Services will provide family planning, contraception and gynecological care. Historically, the clinic has served approximately 2,000 patients per year. “[Reproductive Services] will be more a low-cost facility where people can go … versus a primary care doctor,” Roth said.
Two years’ worth of legal back-and-forth over HB 2 has put abortion access across Texas in limbo. Since the law began to take effect in October 2013, more than half of the state’s abortion clinics have shuttered, leaving regions such as the Panhandle, East Texas and parts of the Texas-Mexico border without a legal abortion provider. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has twice upheld the law’s admitting privileges and ASC restrictions, but two emergency interventions by the Supreme Court of the United States have temporarily blocked HB 2 from taking full effect. The most recent decision from the high court left in place a lower federal court’s injunction halting the surgical center requirement statewide and blocking the admitting privileges requirement from taking effect at Reproductive Services in El Paso and Whole Woman’s Health in McAllen.
After initially denying Reproductive Services a license to reopen following the Supreme Court’s injunction, the Texas Department of State Health Services reversed its decision in late August when an Austin federal judge threatened to hold the agency in contempt of court. “Reproductive Services reopening their doors means the women of El Paso and West Texas can once again access safe and legal reproductive health care options that they need and deserve,” Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement. The New York organization is representing Reproductive Services and other Texas abortion providers in the case against HB 2. In late August, the Center for Reproductive Rights formally asked the Supreme Court to take up its case against HB 2. A decision from the high court is expected in October.
Read More : texasobserver.org/an-abortion-option-returns-to-el-paso-after-long-legal-battle/
Attorney Matthews Bark – Legal, ethical response needed from US, Europe on Mideast refugee crisis
Source : News Stanford
By : Clifton B. Parker
Category : Attorney Matthews Bark , Matthews Bark Criminal Defense
The United States should join Europe in providing safe havens for the Middle East refugees, a Stanford expert says.James Cavallaro, a Stanford professor of law, says that a globally coordinated humanitarian response is required to deal with the hundreds of thousands of refugees arriving in Europe from the war-torn Middle East. He is the director of the International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic and head of the Stanford Human Rights Center. Cavallaro, who wrote a recent blog post on the issue, recently spoke to the Stanford News Service about the refugee crisis:
European governments can act aggressively to provide a coordinated response to ensure that every person entering Europe is provided with the guarantees that international law requires and recommends: non-return; emergency relief, as needed; cooperation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; and an individualized determination of whether the person qualifies for refugee status. First and foremost, European states are bound by Article 33 (1) of the 1951 Convention, which requires that “No Contracting State shall expel or return (‘refouler’) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”
That is a minimum required by international law. Beyond that, there should be structural changes that allow Europe to respond legally and ethically to future crises. Reinforcing maritime fleets to respond to drownings; closing borders, as several states have recently done; or prosecuting migrants, as Hungary has threatened, however, are not adequate responses to the crisis. A coordinated, humanitarian strategy is what is needed.
Can the United States do anything?
The United States can do an enormous amount of good – or not – to respond to this crisis. For context, it should be noted there is the view that the United States is responsible for the destabilization of Iraq and Syria. From this assessment, a clear moral and legal responsibility to provide for those fleeing the chaos would be due. Whatever you may think about that assertion, there is, no doubt, a great deal more that the United States could do in terms of providing for the many refugees of the crisis. Recently, the U.S. Secretary of State pledged to increase the number of refugees (from the entire world) it takes in from 70,000 to 100,000 a year. While of enormous consequence to the 30,000 additional refugees, these numbers are relatively small when compared with the burden other states shoulder. Sources place the number of Syrian refugees in Turkey at 1.9 million, in Lebanon at 1.1 million and in Jordan at 630,000. In addition to receiving more refugees, there is much more that can be done by the United States and other powerful nations to enable people to prosper in their home states.
Why is the crisis just hitting Europe now?
This is due to a series of factors coming together in a highly visible part of the world: Europe. For one, there is the permanent global crisis, caused by wars, conflict, severe economic deprivation and other disruptions. Last year, the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) placed the number of those forcibly displaced worldwide at an unprecedented 59.5 million – up from 51.2 million people in 2013. Flows of migrants and refugees have undoubtedly increased regionally because of the war in Syria, the rise of ISIL and the resulting unrest in the region. The Mediterranean has long been a route through which migrants and refugees have attempted to enter Europe in search of stability, safety and opportunities. Their journey, however, has been far from safe. The International Organization for Migration reports that in 2015, 2,748 migrants have died trying to cross the Mediterranean (of a total of 3,776 deaths of migrants worldwide).
In addition to the desirability of Europe, another important “push” factor has been the intensification of the crisis in Syria and Iraq. The civil war in Syria has been going on for several years now, and the latest war in Iraq began with the U.S. invasion in 2003. But the rise of the Islamic State, which can be traced to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, among other factors, is relatively recent. Extreme abuses by the Assad regime, combined with the increase in strength of the Islamic State and its control of large swaths of territory, have led hundreds of thousands to flee Syria. For years, those refugees, and others from Iraq, have gone to neighboring countries. But increasingly, more are fleeing through Turkey and into the European Union.
What’s the difference between a refugee and a migrant?
Often, those who favor restrictive immigration policies will refer to those fleeing situations of war and violence as “migrants,” while those who favor more humane responses will term those seeking resettlement “refugees.” “Migrant” is a broader, more generic term that may refer to any person who transits from one area to another, generally (though not always) across borders. In international law, a migrant worker, for instance, is a person who has left his or her home state. A refugee, by contrast, is a person who flees danger and seeks protection. The relevant standard, from the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention, establishes that a refugee is someone who is outside of her or his country of origin and unable to return because of “a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.” Another important term is “IDP,” which stands for internally displaced person. This is someone who flees a situation of danger or instability but remains within her or his own country. Like refugee, IDP is a legal term, with legal consequences that flow from the classification. Generally, the main consequence is that states are barred from forcibly returning individuals to situations of great risk of harm.
Read more: news.stanford.edu/news/2015/september/refugees-global-ethics-091615.html
Matthews R Bark – Criminal justice delays grow as legal aid boycott takes hold
Source : The Guardian
By : Owen Bowcott
Category : Matthews Bark Criminal Defense, Matthews R Bark
Delays are beginning to build up in the criminal justice system as a boycott of legal aid cases by solicitors gradually takes effect. The Ministry of Justice’s legal service, the Public Defender Service (PDS), has been deployed to provide emergency cover in cases where lawyers are refusing to provide representation. South Yorkshire police and other forces have confirmed that cases are backing up in custody suites and interview rooms. Solicitors, who are protesting against 17.5% cuts in legal aid fees and the restructuring of their profession, claim their action across England and Wales is already having a significant impact. The Ministry of Justice denies it is causing serious disruption. The PDS, which has only about 30 directly employed lawyers, was last used in an attempt to undermine a walkout by barristers last year over cuts to fraud case fees. It has offices in Wales, Cheltenham and Darlington.
Solicitors, who have been refusing to accept fresh legal aid work on reduced rates that came into force on on 1 July, claim that the Defence Solicitor Call Centre (DSCC), which allocates cases, is in a state of chaos. Bill Waddington, the chair of the Criminal Law Solicitors Association (CLSA), said: “Cases are backing up in the police stations because they can’t find lawyers to represent suspects. It’s absolute chaos in the DSCC because they can’t give out cases [to lawyers]. Many people are being bailed by police because officers know they can’t find anyone to take on cases.”
Trials have not yet been affected, the solicitors concede, but some magistrates courts are said to be sitting longer, sometimes into the early evening, since there are few lawyers around to defend the accused. Being lawyers, the protesters refuse to describe their action as a strike since, they point out, duty solicitors on rotas are honouring their contracts to represent suspects on first appearance.
In Bristol, a murder case has had to be adjourned for several weeks so the defendant can get representation. A spokesperson for South Yorkshire police, who confirmed that the solicitors’ action was having an impact, said: “We continuously endeavour to reduce the time individuals spend in custody in order to provide a more efficient service. Any delays in legal advice are directly contrary to these goals and the welfare of the people who ask for their service.” Jon Black, the president of the London Criminal Courts Solicitors’ Association (LCCSA), said: “The DSCC only give out one case at a time. This action is having an impact. A lot of barristers are informally backing us.” A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “The courts have been sitting as usual and the vast majority of cases requiring a solicitor at the police station have been picked up within an hour.”
Chris Eyre, chief constable of Nottinghamshire and the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for criminal justice, said: “We understand that as a result of the legal aid strikes there has been some isolated disruption in some custody suites in forces in England and Wales, with those taken into custody having to wait longer to get legal advice or be interviewed. There is no evidence at this stage that disruption has been widespread.” In a separate development, the Ministry of Justice has loosened restrictions on whether victims of domestic violence are entitled to legal aid in family cases. Victims must have suffered domestic violence within the previous two years to qualify for legal aid. A technical rule has meant once that time period elapsed, even after a case had started, then legal aid was withdrawn – sometimes just before a hearing.
The MoJ has now said that once support has been granted it will remain for the duration of a legal dispute. The change was immediately welcomed by the Law Society and Resolution, the body representing lawyers working in the family courts. Andrew Caplen, the president of the Law Society, said: “Legal aid is a lifeline for victims of abuse and access to justice is essential in these cases. … Legal aid cuts have resulted in radical consequences for access to justice with the worst impact affecting the poorest and most vulnerable sectors of society.
“We are pleased that the government has fixed this unconsidered technicality – one which was causing serious injustice to some victims of abuse. But the over-strict tests required by the regulations still mean some survivors are excluded from accessing legal aid for family law disputes against an abusive ex-partner or relative, and we hope the MoJ will continue to work with us to resolve these problems.” Elspeth Thomson, of Resolution, said: “It’s great that the government has listened to legal aid practitioners and made these much-needed changes so victims can be assured of support throughout their case, but we still have a long way to go. “Many domestic violence victims struggle to gather the evidence they need to get legal support and many more don’t even know that legal aid is still available. People’s health and lives are potentially in danger because of the difficulties they face in getting the legal support they need to get themselves out of an abusive relationship. While this is a welcome step, the government needs to do more.” The change was made by the legal aid minister, Shailesh Vara. A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “This government is absolutely clear that victims of domestic violence must receive legal aid in order to break free from abusive relationships. “Organisations including Rights of Women, Women’s Aid and Resolution pressed for loopholes in the legal aid system to be closed so that funding is not withdrawn prematurely in certain circumstances. “Having listened carefully to their arguments, ministers have agreed to amend the rules so that victims of domestic violence can be confident they will receive the support they need.”
Read More : theguardian.com/law/2015/jul/08/criminal-justice-delays-legal-aid-boycott
Matthews Bark Criminal Defense – Law on free legal services in offing
Source : New Vision
By : Pascal Kwesiga & Jacquiline Emodek
Category : Matthews Bark Criminal Defense, Matthews R Bark
The ministry of justice and constitutional affairs is crafting a law to establish a fully-fledged institution to coordinate the provision of free legal aid services. According to the Justice Centers Uganda – a government program through which free legal services are delivered – the ministry is waiting for the cabinet to approve a policy on legal aid before sending a draft law to parliament. However, the policy, according the national coordinator of Justice Centers Uganda, Christine Nsubuga, has been before cabinet since 2012. The piece of legislation, she said, will be presented to parliament after the policy and principles that would govern it have been passed. “The cabinet has asked us to justify the need for this law and a national institution to handle legal aid. We have given them our justification but I think the media and the people yearning for justice need to play their part.”
Case backlog issue
The draft law, according to Nsubuga, seeks to set up an agency that will be well staffed and establish more centers across the country to provide free legal services to the people who cannot afford to pay for them. The chief registrar of the courts of judicature, Paul Gadenya, said the legal aid project is one of the suitable measures of bringing down the case backlog, for the current justice system cannot effectively deal with the cases. “Ninety-seven per cent (97%) of court users cannot afford services of lawyers. 10% of the cases are handled through alternative dispute resolution,” he added. He explained that 172,000 cases are pending in the justice system, and that 7, 894 cases are pending trial in the High Court. Of 7,894 cases in the High Court, Gadenya said only 1,300 stand chance of being cause-listed for trial. “This means the rest have to wait for another five years to have their cases cause-listed.” He was speaking at a workshop organized by Justice Centers Uganda to update journalists on the activities that have been undertaken under the program.
More paralegals, lawyers
Once the draft law has been passed, the number of paralegals and lawyers working in the Justice Centers Uganda will be upped, and that this will reduce the case backlog in courts, according to Nsubuga. Currently, the Justice Centers Uganda has three paralegals and four advocates. The Government legal aid program is delivered through seven centers in Mmengo, Fort Portal, Hoima, Masaka, Lira, Tororo and Jinja. “When the law is passed the number of paralegals and lawyers will be increased and we want to take our services up to parish level,” Nsubuga said. Since the programme started in 2009, she explained, they have realized there are thousands of Ugandans who have tried to secure justice in courts of law in vain due to the high fees involved. Andrew Mwayi, the head of Mmengo center said they receive about 75 cases daily, but only three of these are pursued due to limited financial resources and staff. Nsubuga refuted claims that providing legal aid is an expensive scheme for government. She explained that “a research” done by the Justice Centers Uganda showed that it costs them between sh500, 000 and sh700, 000 to dispose of a case. “We also found out that Ugandans pay private lawyers sh2.4m in the north, about sh20m in Kampala depending on the law firm and sh2.3m before a case is closed.”
Link : newvision.co.ug/news/668119-law-on-free-legal-services-in-offing.html
Matthews Bark Criminal Defense – New York’s Attempt to Diversify Legal Profession
Source : City Limits
By : Latoya Joyner
Category : Matthews Bark Criminal Defense, Matthews R Bark
As an African-American and proud Bronxite, the New York Legal Education Opportunity Program (LEO) changed my life. It introduced me to the legal profession and helped to guide me towards assisting Bronx families from the “People’s Court” in New York Civil Court to the “People’s House” in the New York State Assembly. But for those that came after me, this opportunity wasn’t available and many were unable to experience law in the same rewarding way that I did.
The LEO program was first introduced by former New York State Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye – its primary goal was to help ensure diversity in the legal community and serve those individuals that have traditionally been under-served in the legal profession. Its core model includes a six-week summer program that assists minority, low-income and educationally disadvantaged students. Free of charge, students like me were granted access to academic courses, textbooks, dormitory rooms and meal plans. After I participated in the program, I went on to study law at the University at Buffalo Law School, where I served as the associate editor for the Buffalo Journal of Gender, Law and Social Policy. I also interned with the New York State Division of Human Rights in the Bronx, where I helped to investigate housing discrimination claims – a real problem for families and residents in the 77th Assembly District. The LEO program helped to influence my decision to become an attorney. I wanted to help Bronx residents and families that were unable to seek out this help themselves. I still serve the community in this capacity as a member of the New York State Assembly.
But lately, the New York State Judicial Institute – the functioning body that helps to institute legal and justice-related educational programs – has not received sufficient funding for the LEO program to operate. It pained me to find out that this great opportunity was lost due to fiscal constraints. Year after year, I was approached by peers and colleagues who sought my advice on how to become prepared for law school. Without hesitation, I encouraged them to apply to the LEO program. The lack of funding to this vital opportunity program has led to an unwanted and unnecessary domino effect that can bar minority and low-income students from becoming law school ready and possibly passing the New York State Bar Exam. I commend Speaker Carl E. Heastie for granting my request to fund the LEO program in this year’s state budget and his commitment to opportunity programs. New York State has one of the most diverse populations and yet, the legal profession – meant to represent their interests – is not. While there has been progress among the diversification of law firms, there has been little movement at the senior level. Minority and women attorneys do not hold a real voice among the most senior leadership bodies at signatory firms, according to the New York City Bar Association’s 2013 Diversity Benchmarking Report. Also, “people of color and women are significantly under-represented on the bench,” the New York State Bar Association highlighted in a 2014 report. More shocking is that women make up nearly 52 percent of the entire New York State population, but men make up a 65 percent slice of the attorneys in the Empire State.
The statistics are not better nationwide. Eighty-eight percent of attorneys are white, said the American Bar Association. Meanwhile, black, Hispanic, and Asian Pacific Americans make up 4.8 percent, 3.7 percent and 3.4 percent of the legal profession, respectively. And for the incoming class of students, less than one-third are considered minority enrollment. Former Chief Justice Kaye has said previously that a diverse bench gives the belief that the public has a stake in the justice system. In my opinion, the same premise can be applied to the legal profession and those representing our youth, our community members and our families. The LEO program can help us achieve this goal. As a member of the New York State Bar, this opportunity program truly helped to open up doors for me, as I transitioned from the court room to the Assembly Chambers.
Link : citylimits.org/2015/04/06/attempt-to-diversify-legal-profession-still-88-percent-white/
Matthews Bark Attorney, Criminal Defense, Family Law Attorney 