On the corner of Ferry and Capitol you can’t miss the make-shift campgrounds. A dozen tents, an indoor meeting dome, and forthcoming food donations maintain the Occupy-Lifestyle. With the highway as their view and the post office as their next door neighbor, the occupiers have established their headquarters.

http://animoto.com/play/oynbMW1WJICKe81nwA1Hsg

The post Occupy Little Rock – a photo essay appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.

Bill Quigley teaches at Loyola University New Orleans College of Law, is the Associate Legal Director at the Center for Constitutional Rights, and volunteers with the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti. Amber Ramanauskas is a lawyer and human rights researcher

Haiti, a close neighbor of the United States with a population of more than nine million people (700 plus miles from Miami), was devastated by earthquake on January 12, 2010.  Hundreds of thousands of people were killed and many more wounded.

Before the quake, Haiti was already the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere and one of the most impoverished in the world.  After?  Conservative estimates for the cost of reconstructing Haiti are nearly $14 billion.  The Inter-American Development Bank confirmed the earthquake is 鈥渓ikely to be the most destructive natural disaster in modern times.鈥�^[1]

The United Nations Special Envoy to Haiti estimated in June 2011 that international donors gave Haiti  more than $1.6 billion in relief aid since the earthquake (about $155 per Haitian) and  more than $2 billion in recovery aid (about $173 per Haitian) over the last two years. Before the earthquake, international donors were giving Haiti assistance at a rate of approximately $92 per person per year (these rates count expenditures on U.N. troops).  International assistance after the earthquake was four times as large as the Haitian government鈥檚 annual budget.^[2]

But two years later, more than half a million people remain homeless in hundreds of informal camps; a majority of the tons of debris from destroyed buildings still lays where it fell; and cholera, a preventable disease, was introduced into the country and has become an epidemic, killing thousands and sickening hundreds of thousands more.^[3]  Haiti today looks like the earthquake happened two months ago, not two years.

Haitians ask the same question as the US Congress: 鈥淲here is the money?鈥�

Where did the money go?

It turns out that almost none of the money that the general public believed was going to Haiti actually went directly to the country.  Only one percent of the money went to the Haitian government.  Likewise extremely little went to Haitian companies or Haitian non-governmental organizations (NGOs).  Haitians, by and large, were not even consulted about the relief efforts.  Most of the money that was spent went to outside governments, international aid agencies, and big, well-connected non-governmental organizations.  Some went to for-profit companies whose business is disasters.  A lot of the pledged money has never been actually put up.  And a lot of the money that was put up has not yet been spent.

Haitians, whether through their Haitian government, Haitian NGOs, or Haitian companies, have had no control over how the money in Haiti has been spent.   Despite a near total lack of control, it is likely that the failures in Haiti will be blamed on the Haitians themselves in the typical 鈥渂lame the victim鈥� fashion.  Haiti will be blamed by the international community despite poor planning, poor execution, and the siphoning of funds by international NGOs and private companies.

This article illustrates some of these problems.  For those who wish to delve into more depth, an excellent source of information on this topic is the Center for Economic and Policy Research.  It has a project called 鈥淗aiti Reconstruction Watch鈥� that tracks developments in detail.  The Janet Reitman article in Rolling Stone provides a good overview of the situation, and Haiti grassroots watch provides on-the-ground reports.

Little Aid Went to the Haitian Government or the Haitian People

The Haitian government was bypassed in the relief effort.  Haitian contractors received few contracts.  It would appear the Haitian people were not consulted about the best way to spend the money.[4]

Examine the aid provided by the U.S.  Immediately following the earthquake, the U.S. allocated $379 million in aid and sent in 5000 troops.^[5]  The U.S. ultimately sent 22,000 military members to Haiti. ^[6] The U.S. has allocated nearly $2.93 billion to Haiti earthquake relief and reconstruction, roughly $1.642 billion for relief and $1.140 billion for reconstruction.^[7]

For example, it was quickly discovered that of the $379 million in initial US money for Haiti, most was not really going directly, or in some cases even indirectly, to Haiti.  The Associated Press (AP) documented as early as January 2010 that 33 cents of each of these US dollars for Haiti was actually given directly back to the US to reimburse ourselves for sending in our military. The U.S. almost completely bypassed the elected government of Haiti and sent less than one cent of each dollar of aid to the government.  Forty-two cents of each dollar went to private and public non-governmental organizations like Save the Children, the U.N. World Food Programme and the Pan American Health Organization.^[8]

International assistance generally followed the same pattern.  The U.N. Special Envoy for Haiti reported that of the $2.4 billion in humanitarian funding, 34 percent was given back to the donor鈥檚 own civil and military entities for disaster response; 28 percent was given to U.N. agencies and non-governmental agencies for specific U.N. projects; 26 percent was given to private contractors and other NGOs; six percent was provided as in-kind services to recipients; five percent was given to the international and national Red Cross societies; and one percent was provided to the government of Haiti.[9]  In terms of Haitian NGOs, not a single one was included in the funding for the first U.N. appeal. In the second U.N. appeal, Haitian NGOs accounted for four-tenths of one percent of the funds.^[10]

In August of 2010, the US Congressional Research Office reported that the US planned to reimburse U.S. governmental agencies for $1.5 billion in relief and disaster assistance funding for Haiti.  Of this amount, $655 million was allocated to the Department of Defense; $220 million to the Department of Health and Human Services to provide grants to individual American states to cover services for Haitian evacuees; $350.7 million to United States Agency for International Development (USAID) International Disaster Assistance (IDA); $150 million to the US Department of Agriculture for emergency food assistance; $96.5 million to the State Department Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities; $45 Million to U.S. Coast Guard Activities; and $15 million to the Department of Homeland Security for immigration fees.^[11]

Haitian companies capable of providing relief and reconstruction services were bypassed entirely in the relief process, just as the Haitian government had been.  The Center for Economic and Policy Research analyzed each of the 1490 contracts awarded by the U.S. government  from the time following the January 2010 earthquake until April 2011 and found only 23 contracts went to Haitian companies.  Overall, the U.S. had awarded more than $194 million to contractors, $4.8 million to the 23 Haitian companies, about 2.5 percent of the total.  On the other hand, contractors from the Washington, D.C.-area received $76 million, 39.4 percent of the total.^[12]

Haitian civil society was shut out of the process as well. Not only did Haitian NGOs not receive any real percentage of the relief funds, but it was also clear from the very beginning that the international community was not really trying to listen to Haitians.  Refugees International reported in early March 2010 that locals were experiencing a difficult time gaining access to the international aid operational meetings concerning Haiti occurring inside the U.N. compound.  According to Senior Advocate Patrick Duplat and Consultant Emilie Parry, both of Refugees International, 鈥淗aitian groups are either unaware of the meetings, do not have proper photo-ID passes for entry, or do not have the staff capacity to spend long hours at the compound.鈥� ^[13]  Others reported that these international aid coordination meetings were not even being translated into Creole, the language of the majority of the people of Haiti.^[14]

Another example of the exclusion of Haitians is the Haiti Neighborhood Return and Housing Reconstruction Framework drafted in September 2010 by the Interim Haiti Redevelopment Commission.  The framework, which was supposed to guide reconstruction, was not even published in draft form in Creole so local people could review it; did not realistically address the needs of Haitian renters (who accounted for more than half of the people displaced); and did not incorporate input from internally displaced people (the hundreds of thousands of Haitians in homeless camps) were not even consulted. ^[15]

Little of the US Haiti reconstruction money has been spent

A May 2011 United States Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO) report on the $918 million allocated by Congress for Haiti reconstruction found that there were many plans for the money but only 20 percent or $184 million had even been obligated. Most of this money, $120 million, was transferred to the Haiti Reconstruction Fund.^[16]  Nearly two years after the quake, less than one percent of the $412 million in US funds specifically allocated for infrastructure reconstruction activities in Haiti had been spent by USAID and the U.S. State Department. Only 12 percent has even been obligated according to a November 2011 report by the U.S. GAO. ^[17]

Private NGOs and Companies Scramble for Haiti Money

From the very beginning the disaster in Haiti was looked upon as a business opportunity.

Less than a month after the quake hit, the US Ambassador Kenneth Merten sent a cable titled 鈥淭HE GOLD RUSH IS ON鈥� as part of his situation report to Washington.  In this February 1, 2010 document, made public by The Nation and Wikileaks, Ambassador Merten reported the President of Haiti met with former General Wesley Clark for a sales presentation for InnoVida Holdings LLC, a Miami-based company that builds foam core houses.^[18]

Capitalizing on the disaster, Lewis Lucke, a high ranking USAID relief coordinator, met twice in his USAID capacity with the Haitian Prime Minister immediately following the quake.  He then quit the agency and was hired for $30,000 per month by a Florida corporation, Ashbritt, and its prosperous Haitian partner to lobby for disaster contracts.  Lucke said 鈥渋t became clear to us that if it was handled correctly the earthquake represented as much an opportunity as it did a calamity.鈥�^[19] Ashbritt and its Haitian partner were soon granted a $10 million no-bid contract.^[20]  Lucke said he was instrumental in securing for Ashbritt an additional $10 million contract from the World Bank and another smaller one from CHF International, both before their relationship ended in court when Lucke sued Ashbritt and his Haitian partner for nearly $500,000 in bonuses for the contracts he had helped them land.^[21]

Other private groups in the U.S. also began lobbying for a share of the Haiti money immediately following the quake.  In January, the US military had to suspend medical evacuations of critically injured Haitians to hospitals in Florida after officials there formally asked the US to pay some of the medical costs of care.^[22]  Florida was ultimately reimbursed more than $5 million in Haiti relief funds for helping Haitians.  The Orlando Sanford Airport, which handles a million visitors a year, received $583,000 in federal funds for receiving 9500 evacuees plus volunteers and staff.  Federal relief funds reimbursed the airport for $32,000 in new carpets, $160,000 in landing and ramp fees, more than $23,000 for the CEO鈥檚 time on the scene, and $223,000 in other staff time. ^[23] Contrast this with the Miami International airport that handled more than four times as many flights (12,000 passengers) and did not request similar federal funds.

The American Red Cross reported receiving $486 million in donations for Haiti as of June 2011.  According to a two-year update published in January 2012, it either spent or signed agreements to spend two-thirds, or $330 million, on relief and recovery efforts, though specific details are unclear.^[24]  Within weeks of the earthquake, the American Red Cross, which before the disaster had 15 people in Haiti, had raised nearly $200 million for relief operations there.  Partners in Health, which pre-earthquake had 5000 people working in Haiti, raised about $40 million.^[25] The CEO of American Red Cross is paid a salary of over $500,000 per year.^[26]  As of August 2011, the American Red Cross had spent less than half the money it raised for relief and reconstruction in Haiti.^[27]  In March 2010, the Associated Press reported that 鈥淸t]ens of millions鈥ent to U.S.-based aid groups. While much of that bought food and other necessities for Haitians, it often did so from U.S. companies 鈥� including highly subsidized rice growers whose products are undercutting local producers, driving them out of business.鈥�^[28]

In an excellent article, Rolling Stone reported on a $1.5 million contract to the New York based consulting firm Dalberg Global Development Advisors.  According to Smucker, an anthropologist specializing in Haiti who briefed the group, Dalberg鈥檚 team 鈥渉ad never lived overseas, didn鈥檛 have any disaster experience or background in urban planning鈥� never carried out any program activities on the ground,鈥� and only one of them spoke French.  Despite this, the group was assigned the task of assessing a specific land area where the U.S. hoped to create new communities in an attempt to depopulate Port-au-Prince.  USAID reviewed Dalberg’s work and found “One of the sites they said was habitable was actually a small mountain…It had an open-minded pit on one side of it, a severe 100 foot vertical cliff, and ravines…it became clear that these people may not even have gotten out of their SUVs.”^[29]

An example of the politicization of this process can be found in the $8.6 million joint contract for the removal of debris in Port Au Prince between the USAID Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance with the private companies CHF International and Project Concern International (PCI).^[30] CHF International is a politically well-connected international development company with an annual budget of over $200 million.[31] The CEO was paid $451,813 in 2009.^[32] PCI is an international aid group with an annual budget in excess of $30 million whose CEO earned $263,219 in compensation in 2009.^[33]  CHF鈥檚 connection to politicians is its board secretary, Lauri Fitz-Pegado, a partner with the Livingston Group LLC.  The Livingston Group performs lobbying and government relations services and is headed by former Republican Speaker-designate for the 106^th Congress, Bob Livingston.^[34]  Ms. Fitz-Pegado was appointed by President Clinton to serve in the Department of Commerce, and she served as a member of the foreign policy expert advisor team on the Obama for President Campaign.^[35]  According to Rolling Stone, CHF 鈥渨orks out of two spacious mansions in Port-au-Prince and maintains a fleet of brand-new vehicles.^[3

Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton announced a fundraising venture for Haiti on January 16, 2010.^[37]  As of December 2011, the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund had received more than $54 million in donations.^[38]  It has partnered with several Haitian and international organizations.  Though most of its work appears to be legitimate, it has donated $2 million to those constructing a $29 million luxury hotel in Petionville.^[39]

The reconstruction has been exceedingly slow. A report issued by the International Red Cross in December 2011 revealed that more than 100,000 homes had been completely destroyed and another 200,000 badly damaged.  As a result, 1.5 million people, 20 percent of the Haitian population, required shelter after the earthquake.  The international community responded by providing hundreds of thousands of tarpaulins (two tarps per family) by May 2010, three-and-a-half months after the earthquake.  Though few homes are being repaired, small, temporary shelters measuring approximately 12 feet by 16 feet are being constructed at a rate of about 7000 per month.  With more than half a million people still under tarps, permanent shelter is an ongoing need.^[40]

An April 19, 2011 audit by the USAID Office of the Inspector General (OIG) that examined USAID鈥檚 efforts to provide transitional housing found that grantees completed only 7179 transitional shelters, 22 percent of their target number, and some of those shelters were substandard.  USAID made 16 grants for shelter totaling $138.6 million, but only $37.8 million had been disbursed as of January 1, 2011.  USAID-issued grants were based on unsolicited non-competitive proposals and the largest were awarded to Catholic Relief Services, World Vision, and Cooperative Housing Foundation International.^[41]

Critics of the non-governmental organizations abound.  According to Nigel Fisher, the U.N.鈥檚 humanitarian officer in Haiti, 鈥渢he NGOs still have something to respond to about their accountability, because there is a lot of cash out there. But what about the $1.5 to $2 billion that the Red Cross and NGOs got from ordinary people, and matched by governments, etc.? What鈥檚 happened to that? And that鈥檚 where it鈥檚 very difficult to trace those funds.鈥漑42]

The International Community and Haiti

International efforts to assist Haiti have been characterized by the same themes of bypassing the Haitian government and funneling charitable giving through international public and private non-governmental organizations.

In a January 2010 meeting in Montreal, members of the international community agreed to launch a ten year rebuilding campaign for Haiti.  But they refused to commit specific amounts of money or plans until concerns about mismanagement and the ability of Haiti鈥檚 government were resolved.  Experts suggested making the U.N. the clearinghouse for the money and closely tracking it. ^[43]

At a conference in March 2010, U.N. countries pledged to donate $5.3 billion over two years and a total of $9.9 billion over three years or more.  The money was to be deposited with the World Bank and distributed by an internationally controlled fund to be co-chaired by Bill Clinton and Jean-Max Bellerive, then the Haitian Prime Minister.^[44] The Interim Haiti Reconstruction Commission (IHRC) was subsequently created by the executive order of Haitian President Preval to exist for a period of 18 months beginning on April 21, 2010.^[45]

This money effectively bypassed all the Haitian public governmental bodies. ^[46]

President Bill Clinton reported that by July 2010, only ten percent of the pledges had been given to the IHRC.^[47]

As of July 2011, the Miami Herald noted that of the $3.2 billion in projects approved by the IHRC only five had been completed for a total of $84 million.[48]

The IHRC was supposed to have an equal number of Haitian and international members for voting purposes (half Haitian representatives and half representatives of donors which pledged more than $100 million), have an audit and performance office with expedited authority to issue title to lands, give the President of Haiti authority to veto decisions within ten business days of notice, and barring presidential veto, the actions will be deemed confirmed.  Upon its demise, the power and authority of the IHRC was supposed to cease and be transferred to the government of Haiti. ^[49]

At the December 2010 board meeting, the twelve Haitian members of the IHRC complained of a lack of communication between the IHRC staff and Executive Committee and themselves.  President Clinton agreed that more communication would be forthcoming but said the Haitian board members needed to provide more support to the IHRC.^[50]

Rolling Stone quoted a senior international aid official as saying 鈥淏ehind closed doors, the feeling of the Haitian government was this was just another foreign group they鈥檇 given permission to come in and take over their country.  But what could they do?  The Haitian government knew it didn鈥檛 have the capacity to tackle this reconstruction on its own.鈥� ^[51]

One year after the earthquake, Oxfam criticized the IHRC, saying it had neither the staff nor the technical capacity to lead the reconstruction. ^[52]

Feeling that they functioned solely as rubber stamps, the Haitian members complained of being 鈥渃ompletely disconnected from the activities of the IHRC鈥�; given no background information on the projects they were supposed to fund; given no time to 鈥渞ead, nor analyze, nor understand- and much less respond intelligently- to projects submitted鈥�; no follow-up on the previously approved millions in funds; and not knowing the names of IHRC consultants nor their respective tasks.鈥�  As if to prove their point, the IHRC meeting held in December 2010 in the Dominican Republic, continued despite the absence of co-chair and Haitian Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive.^[53]

In May 2011, when only five months remained on its original mandate, the GAO deemed the IHRC 鈥渘ot fully operational.鈥�  Among the reasons cited for the IHRC鈥檚 operational impediments were 鈥渄elays in staffing the commission and defining the role of its Performance and Anticorruption Office–which IHRC officials cited as key to establishing the commission as a model of good governance.鈥�  At the time of the audit, IHRC had approved projects estimated at $3 billion, only 30 percent of the total of donor pledges. The audit also found that the IHRC failed to direct funding to projects prioritized by Haitians.  For example, the Haitian government identified almost equal funds for agriculture and rubble removal, but the IHRC approved seven times more funding for agriculture projects.  While the Haitian 鈥淎ction Plan鈥� outlined a need for more than $800 million to rebuild and improve Haitian government institutions the IHRC approved only $113 million.  On the other hand, IHRC approved $680 million in road construction projects while the Haitian鈥檚 鈥淎ction Plan鈥� estimated that they only needed $180 million. As a result of the IHRC鈥檚 disregard for priorities set by the Haitian people, the GAO audit found that the IHRC approved projects may not be 鈥減roviding the assistance that is most urgently needed.鈥�  The IHRC does not have the power to tell donors which areas to fund and has difficulty convincing donors to pledge to the areas needed like rubble removal.^[54]

As of the time of this article鈥檚 publication, the current status of the IHRC is still up in the air.  The 18 month mandate for the commission was due to end Friday October 28, 2011.  As of October 22, 2011, no request from Haitian president to extend it was received.^[55]  The IHRC website shows its last action as August 17, 2011.  Its board minutes have not been updated since December 2010.  The link for latest news is blank.  An email to its press contacts has not been responded to.  In July 2011, Martelly announced he intended to extend the mandate of the IHRC for another year.  The Miami Herald noted in July 2011 that of the $3.2 billion in projects approved by the IHRC only five had been completed for a total of $84 million.^[56]  The IHRC website now contains a notice that because its mandate expired October 21, 2011: 鈥淣OTICE: Please kindly note that the mandate of the IHRC expired on October 21, 2011. Pending a decision of the Haitian Parliament regarding the future of this institution, a team is currently dealing with day-to-day business.  The (re)submission of project proposals remains closed until further notice.  Proponents who have not yet been informed of their project鈥檚 status will shortly be contacted by the projects team鈥�

Haiti Reconstruction Fund

The HRC is but another piece of the larger puzzle of where the money comes from, where it goes, and who knows what is going on.

The Haiti Reconstruction Fund (HRF) is yet another entity involved in the process.  As of September 30, 2011, the HRF reports pledges of $352 million in grants from donors to Haiti to be funneled through the HRF.^[57]  The HRF 2010-2011 annual report, issued after 12 months of work, states the HRF has been able to 鈥渕obilize over US$350 million for housing, debris removal and management, disaster risk reduction, regional development, budget support, job creation, agriculture, and education.  The funds have been mobilized, coordinated and allocated in support of priorities set by the Government and its recovery commission.鈥�^[58]

The HRF is administered by the World Bank as a pipeline for specific money to Haiti that has to go through one of three organizations 鈥� the Inter-American Development Bank, the United Nations, or the World Bank.  The HRC is governed by a board made up of one representative from Haiti and representatives of the major donor countries, those that have donated at least $30 million.

It is interesting to note that the HRF Steering Committee met only once during the period from July 2011 to September 2011, and that meeting was 鈥渋n conjunction with鈥� the seventh IHRC Board meeting on July 22^nd, 2011, illustrating the overlap of those in charge of both institutions.^[59]

The HRC and the IHRC were designed to work together.

Projects are to be first approved by the IHRC and then the HRF; then the donors actually choose what projects get the money, how the funds are to be dispersed, who will spend the money and how it will be accounted for.  With the IHRC suspended, it is not clear how the HRC will operate.

The most recent report posted by the HRC indicated that of the $352 million pledged by donors, $270 million has been allocated, and $222 million has been disbursed to approved projects.^[60]

What to Do

Haitians, whether through their government, Haitian NGOs, or Haitian companies, have had almost no control over how the money donated to Haiti in the wake of the earthquake has been spent.

Despite a near total lack of control, it is likely that the failures in Haiti will be blamed on the Haitians themselves in the typical 鈥渂lame the victim鈥� fashion.  Haiti will be blamed by the international community despite poor planning, poor execution, and the siphoning off of funds by international NGOs and private companies.

The U.N. Special Envoy to Haiti suggests the generous instincts of people around the world must be channeled by international actors and institutions in a way that assists in the creation of a 鈥渞obust public sector and a healthy private sector.鈥漑61]  Rather than giving the money to intermediaries, funds should be directed as much as possible to Haitian public and private institutions.  A 鈥淗aiti First鈥� policy can strengthen public systems, promote accountability, and create jobs and build skills among the Haitian people.^[62]  These are the people who will be solving their problems when the post-earthquake relief wave is spent.

The post Haiti: Where is the Money? appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.

I was recently reading an out of state ethics opinion where the lawyer involved was facing disbarment.[1]  The crux of the opinion, and the source of the lawyer鈥檚 proverbial hot water, was that he had failed to adequately involve his clients in their case.  He was accused of failing to include them in settlement talks and failing to provide them with notice of the settlement agreement until it had already been entered by the court.  He now faces the very real possibility of losing his law license, not to mention having to pay back millions of dollars in attorney鈥檚 fees.

Of course most lawyers would never dream of settling a client鈥檚 case without first discussing the settlement offer with the client.  We do, however, sometimes forget to involve clients in their cases as fully as possible.  Lack of lawyer attentiveness to client needs can range from not promptly returning a client鈥檚 call, to failing to keep a client informed of the status of his or her case, to not fully explaining the legal process or potential legal outcomes of an issue.

We, as lawyers, must remember that, although we know exactly what is happening and what to expect next during the legal process, most clients do not.  What may seem a simple or routine legal matter to us, can appear very complex to a client (and will most definitely be unique to him or her).  A lawyer does best to remember that, to a client walking through the door, there is no such thing as a simple or routine matter.  She sees only a legal problem, her legal problem, and she wants you to solve it 鈥� but she wants more than that too.  She also wants to understand her legal problem and wants to know how you are working to solve it.  She wants, and expects, a lawyer who will communicate with her.

For guidance on what is expected of an attorney when it comes to client communication, one can look to Rule 1.4 of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct.  Rule 1.4 requires all lawyers to: (1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent is required; (2) reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished; (3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of their his or her legal matter; (4) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and (5) explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.

The following are simple steps that every lawyer can take to satisfy the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct when it comes to communicating with clients.  By taking these steps, lawyers can also help to ensure that clients understand the legal system and appreciate the work that goes into a legal matter.  These steps may also help avoid a malpractice lawsuit down the line, or a client complaint to the Committee on Professional Conduct.

Return Phone Calls.  One of the top complaints by clients about their lawyers is that lawyers do not return phone calls or keep them updated on the progress of their case.  In the busy day-to-day activities of a law office, client calls can sometimes get lost.  They stack up in voicemails, on sticky notes, or computer call logs.  Most lawyers legitimately plan on getting back with clients in a timely manner, but fail to because they get caught up in other things 鈥� filing deadlines, trial preparation, legal research, drafting pleadings, etc.  The best way to ensure that calls are returned on time is for the lawyer to develop a routine: block out time each day to check phone messages and return calls.  If you cannot get back to a client the same day you receive a call, seek another solution. Have a member of your staff or another lawyer in your firm call the client back in order to acknowledge  her call and let  her know when you will be getting back to her.  Also, if you cannot return a call right away, consider utilizing technology such as email or smart phones to communicate with clients. Be mindful of confidentiality, however, and ensure that you are sending information, with the client鈥檚 authorization, to a secure address to which only the client has access.

Say It In Writing.  Lawyers should also send out periodic letters keeping clients updated on the status of their case.  Not only will a letter keep a client informed of her legal matter, it is likely to avoid unnecessary and time consuming client phone calls (which often occur because clients want to know the status of their cases).  A letter should always be mailed with copies of pleadings that are filed or received on behalf of clients.  Letters should also be sent when something new develops in a client鈥檚 case.  If nothing has happened in your client鈥檚 case for awhile, the first thing to do is ask yourself, 鈥渨hy not?鈥�  Is there something that you, as the lawyer, could be doing to expedite the legal process and move the client鈥檚 case along?  If not, and there is a legitimate lull in the case, send an update letter to the client on at least a monthly basis as a reassurance that you have not forgotten about  her and her legal problem.  The letter can be very short, but it is guaranteed to garner attention and appreciation from your client.

Explain the Law and Legal Process.  Clients come to us seeking information and assurance. Our job is to explain the law and how it will be applied to a client and his or her unique legal problem.  Lawyers need to explain the legal process and let clients know the different possible outcomes of their cases.  Lawyers should remember that clients are unfamiliar with the judicial system.  Clients are also likely to be extremely anxious or upset regarding the legal matters they are coming to us to handle.  This often means that what we tell clients in meetings is soon forgotten or may be misconstrued.

To avoid confusion by the client pertaining to what you went over, either over the phone or in a face-to-face meeting, it is beneficial to follow-up the verbal communication with a letter stating what you discussed, and explaining the law in easy-to-follow laymen鈥檚 terms.  You should also explain to the client how the legal system will work in her particular matter.  Tell her when and why documents will need to be signed, when court appearances may be necessary, and what to expect if she does go to court.  Let the client know the possible outcomes of her legal problem.  This allows her to be more involved in the handling of her case, and may lessen the surprise if she receives an unfavorable legal decision.  It may also be helpful to develop written legal materials, such as fact-sheets and brochures, for common client questions or legal problems.

We, as lawyers, sometimes tend to forget that, although our client鈥檚 case may be just one of many (sometimes many, many) legal matters we are currently handling, it is often a life-altering event for the client.  The client, who often has no idea how the legal system works, is dependent on the attorney for current case information, an explanation of the law, and a fair assessment of her case.  A lawyer鈥檚 failure to effectively communicate with her client can greatly increase a client鈥檚 fears and frustrations.  It adds to a client鈥檚 skepticism and gives lawyers a bad reputation.  In order to ensure a client鈥檚 trust in both the lawyer and legal system, and to meet our ethical obligations, lawyers can and should follow the aforementioned simple steps to adequately inform and involve clients in their legal matters.

The post An Attorney’s Responsibility: Communication is Key to Good Client Relations appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.

Expungement is the legal process by which a citizen can clear his or her record of a prior criminal conviction and start fresh. In Arkansas, when an individual鈥檚 record is expunged, the 鈥渃onduct shall be deemed as a matter of law never to have occurred, and the individual may state that no such conduct ever occurred, and that no such records exist.鈥漑i] Expungement allows a person to tell an employer that he or she has not been convicted of a crime; to become eligible for student loans, housing assistance, professional licenses and certificates; to secure credit; and to stop the embarrassment and fear that would otherwise be associated with background checks.

In Arkansas, expungement is a statutory right granted by the legislature. Apart from statutes that specifically provide for expungement, the courts have no power to expunge an individual鈥檚 record.[ii] The Arkansas legislature has provided a number of instances where individuals can get their records expunged pursuant to a specific statute. The following is a short explanation of some of the charges and convictions that can be expunged in this state.

Misdemeanors can be expunged when an individual has completed the actions required by the court.[iii] Misdemeanor such as negligent homicide, battery in the third degree, indecent exposure, public sexual indecency, sexual assault in the fourth degree, domestic battering in the third degree, or driving while intoxicated, require an individual to wait until five years have passed since the conviction to seek expungement.[iv] If, for any criminal offense, the charges are subsequently deemed nolle prossed (dismissed), or the individual is acquitted at trial, a person is then eligible to have records relating to the case expunged.[v] Individuals who plead guilty, nolo contendere, or are found guilty of possession of a controlled substance can have their conviction expunged if the individual has never before pleaded guilty nor been convicted of possession of a controlled substance.[vi]

Expungement is also permitted when an accused enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere prior to an adjudication of guilt, and the individual has not been previously convicted of a felony. Expungement, however, is only permitted under these circumstances if the defendant is placed on probation for a period of not less than one year and has not been fined in excess of $3,500.00. An individual who is a habitual offender, has committed a serious felony involving violence, or is found guilty of or pleads guilty or nolo contendere to a sexual offense, incest, or child pornography shall not be eligible for expungement.[vii]

Arkansas does not, however, provide a method by which exonerees may have their records expunged. An exoneree is person who has been legally found wrongfully convicted. Astonishingly, most states refuse to expunge the criminal records of exonerees. Employers often decline jobs to exonerees because of their prior convictions, even once the circumstances are explained. The State of Arkansas allows people who have pleaded guilty to a crime to be eligible for expungement; however, a person whom the State has recognized was wrongfully convicted has no opportunity for expungement. The purpose behind legislatively-provided methods of expungement is to provide a party with a fresh start, without the encumbrances and hindrances of a criminal record. Where an individual has suffered the constraints of wrongful imprisonment, the legislature should provide a method by which the exoneree can free himself or herself from the stigma of a wrongful conviction.[viii]

Arkansas needs to remedy this injustice by providing a means for exonerees to have their criminal records expunged.  In doing so, Arkansas will act as an example to other states regarding the appropriate way to treat those whom our justice system has failed.

The post Fractured Justice: No Expungement for Exonerees appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.

When I graduated from college with a degree in Political Science, I soon realized that, like the many others that had not already landed a job, there were little options in my field other than going to law school or graduate school. I began to search for jobs in any field. I just needed a job; any job. One month after graduation, I found one. It was a great job for a heating and air conditioning company. I worked with great people, made great money, and had a great supervisor. Eventually, though, I realized that was not the place for me. So again I was back to the drawing board. I soon realized the truth in the statement, 鈥淚t is not about what you know, but whom you know.鈥� Through friends, I secured a job at a city-sponsored non-profit organization that provided housing for the needy. My first exhilarating experience was assisting a mother of four children who was also a victim of domestic abuse. I loved the mission behind the housing authority, and it was there that my interest in non-profit work grew.

After leaving the housing authority, I went to work for another non-profit organization. It provided child care assistance to parents that could not afford the costly expense of having a safe, secure, and state-regulated facility look after their children while they earned a living or pursued an education. In my time with this organization, I assisted a woman whose ex-husband, the father of her child, killed her parents and older son. When I began law school, I could not help but have non-profit organizations on the forefront of my mind. In fact, currently I work for a great non-profit, and eventually my goal is to serve as general counsel for a large non-profit organization.

Through my years of working for various non-profit organizations, their ample importance became apparent to me. Non-profit organizations provide some of the major necessities of life: food, shelter, education, and child care assistance, just to name a few. There are other non-profit organizations that enhance the quality of lives, such as organizations that help mend broken marriages, assist blended families in adjusting to their roles as stepchildren and stepparents, and allow children to participate in extracurricular activities through their local YMCA.  Almost everyone will come into contact with a non-profit, whether you need its services, choose to volunteer, or donate money. Nevertheless, many of us discount the value of these organizations in our lives.

When analyzing the economy, most analysts overlook the non-profit sector. However, non-profit organizations contribute to the economy just as much their profit-making counterparts. They employ 10.5 million workers鈥昻early ten percent of the private workers in the United States; they generate eight percent of the GDP; and they produce approximately $700 billion in annual revenues.[1] Non-profit organizations provide jobs, and these jobs, in turn, provide services that are a necessity to some, and an increase in the quality of life for others. The people who work for profit-making companies are, generally, the same type of individuals who work for non-profit organizations. They work to make a living.  They work to provide for their families. The only difference is that their work is going to the 鈥済reater good.鈥� The reason they may have taken a pay cut to work for a non-profit organization is because they agree with the mission behind the organization.

With the economy in a downturn and for-profit industries reducing the number of positions created, non-profit organizations are increasing the number of positions in their organizations. Over the last three to four years, non-profit organizations have grown over five percent, while for-profit industry growth has declined over eight percent.[2] It could be argued that the increase among non-profit organizations is a result of the downward slope in the economy: people losing their jobs are starting to depend on the services that these organizations provide. This is a valid argument. Nonetheless, whether or not the economy is in a recession, there is still a huge need for these organizations. They supply education from a preschool level to a university level; they showcase the arts to the underprivileged; and they are often a safe haven to victims of domestic violence.

If given the chance to support any non-profit organization in any fashion, whether it is donating, volunteering, or having the privilege to work for them, I urge you to do so with excitement. These organizations need your support, and if you spend any amount of time involving yourself with them, I am sure your life will be enhanced because of it. Non-profit organizations need all of the support they can receive, but, more importantly, our society needs non-profit organizations.

The post Support Non-profit Organizations appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.

This past semester of law school I was introduced to Critical Race Theory (CRT) for the first time. Although I just found out about CRT, its definitive start happened in the mid 1970鈥檚 through the scholarship of Derrick Bell and Alan Freeman.[1] Today CRT has spawned numerous subgroups like Latino CRT (鈥淟atCrit鈥�), Asian and Pacific American CRT, and Queer CRT (鈥淨ueer-crit鈥�), each with a specific focus.

There is no canonical set of doctrines or methodologies that all CRT authors subscribe to.[2] There are, however, two common goals that connect them.[3] The first is to understand how a regime of white supremacy and its subordination of people of color has been created and maintained in America; and, in particular, to examine the relationship between that social structure and professed ideals such as the 鈥渞ule of law鈥� and 鈥渆qual protection.鈥漑4] The second is a desire not merely to understand the vexed bond between law and racial power but to change it.[5] Basically, CRT asserts that the law plays an important role in constructing and maintaining social domination, and subordination of nonwhites.[6]

As CRT progresses towards accomplishing the two interests set out above, there are also thematic elements that most CRT scholars believe.[7] First, that racism has become so ordinary in American society that the ordinariness protects it from serious criticism.[8] Insisting on rules, for example, which highlight equality and promote treatment that is the same across the board, only seems to remedy blatantly racist actions like hiring a white high-school dropout over a black Ph.D. graduate.[9]  Conviction rates between races, meanwhile, remain blatantly disparate.[10] Second, CRT scholars believe that racism serves such important psychic and material interests that there is little incentive to eradicate it.[11] Their final belief is that race itself is a social construction; that it is a product of social thought and relations.[12]

One recent example that brings all these ideas together comes from the ongoing debate over Arizona Revised Statute 搂15-111.[13] This statute prohibits courses or classes that promote the overthrow of the United States government; promote resentment toward a race or class of people; are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group; or advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.[14] The policy behind the statute is a belief that public school pupils should be taught to treat and value each other as individuals, and not be taught to resent or hate other races or classes of people.[15]

Although some might find this statute ambiguous enough to exclude the singling out of one race, the roots of the statute are more racially focused. [16] Tom Horne, the current Attorney General for the state of Arizona, was Arizona鈥檚 State Superintendent of Public Instruction from 2003 to 2010.[17] Mr. Horne vociferously pushed for the bill since 2007, with the goal of terminating the Mexican American Studies Program (MASP) within the Tucson Unified School District (TUSD). [18] During the final hours of Mr. Horne鈥檚 position as Superintendent鈥昦nd right before John Huppenthal, the new and current Superintendent of Public Instruction was sworn in鈥昅r. Horne declared the TUSD in violation of Arizona Revised Statute 搂15-111.[19]

One of the first things that John Huppenthal did in his new position was to launch an independent study of MASP and visit some of the classes to determine if it truly was in violation of the statute.[20] Mr. Horne did not visit a single class before he determined that the program was in violation of 搂15-111. The act of visiting classes seems like a reasonable response to the myopic aims of Mr. Horne.[21] However, even though the study came back with a finding that not a single course within MASP violated 搂15-111, Mr. Huppenthal still found MASP, and correspondingly TUSD, in violation of 搂15-111.[22]

Why has this debate been allowed to continue this long? The MASP can be analogized to any number of programs within the TUSD.[23] For example, African American Student Services, Asian Pacific American Student Services and Critical Languages, and Native American Student Services, are all programs currently within TUSD. [24] Nevertheless, a $15 million dollar budget cut is at stake for a district that is comprised of approximately 60% Hispanics.[25] Even if you do not believe that the motivations underlying the actions of Mr. Horne and Mr. Huppenthal were racist, the outcome of those actions certainly is.

I wonder, in the eyes of Mr. Horne and Mr. Huppenthal, how being Mexican is so different from being Caucasian, Asian, or Native American. Why is a Mexican studies program being singled out? I believe it is because racism has become so ordinary that certain people, and states like Arizona, do not even fight it anymore. There is some material benefit that racism serves for them.

The post Tucson School District: Pulling the Plug on its Mexican American Studies Program appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.