Today, Turner and I were with each other again. The two of us spent our morning in the office of Patricia Wise at Niehaus Wise & Kalas. Ms. Wise explained to us that she does most of her work in employment law, and she tends to represent the side of the employer when she has cases. The case we looked at this morning was one in which an employee of an organization claimed sexual harassment and racial discrimination against another employee in a higher, supervisory position.
I learned that there are many factors that determine the steps that she recommends her clients to take. In this case, Ms. Wise first asked the organization to remove the employee in the higher, supervisory position from the job position in any way possible; this was accomplished through the employee voluntarily retiring. Next, Ms. Wise found out that the employee claiming sexual harassment and racial discrimination requested leave from her job. This factor prompted Ms. Wise to recommend paying in full for the employee's leave for as long as the employee in question wished. A side note: had the employee not asked and wanted for leave, Ms. Wise wouldn't have offered it. She just wanted to get anything that the employee wanted. Ms. Wise also recommended the organization to pay for the employee's counseling when she asked for it.
All of these recommendations that Ms. Wise gave were to avoid one thing: lawsuit. The organization is already at fault because the sexual harassment and racial discrimination came from one of its employees in a supervisory position over other employees. To me, it seemed that Ms. Wise wanted to make the plaintiff (the employee accusing the organization) as happy as possible so that the organization would be faced with an expensive lawsuit. This was a good example of a case that shows Ms. Wise's decision making process in what she would do when one of her employers is faced with a lawsuit from one of its employees.
Ms. Wise also talked about a case she had as a member of the Board of Professional Conduct of the Ohio Supreme Court. She will be traveling to the Ohio Supreme Court later this month to decide this case in which a county bar association filed a complaint against a lawyer who had failed to deposit payment for a client's legal services in his IOLTA (a lawyer's client trust) and furthermore failed to provide receipts of payment to the client, thus resulting in the inability of the lawyer to refund his client after not actually representing his client. Although it sounds strange, the bar is self-policing by a board of its members. Ms. Wise explained to us that if there was no one to hold law license holders accountable for their actions, there would be disregard and disrespect for the rules by which a lawyer must abide. Therefore, the Board of Professional Conduct of the Ohio Supreme Court is absolutely necessary to maintain the integrity and accountability of the Ohio bar and to hear grievances regarding its members when a party comes forward with one.
Later that day, Turner drove me to Downtown Toledo so we could talk to Joe Tafelski from the Center for Equal Justice, consisting of Advocates for Basic Legal Equality (ABLE) and Legal Aid of Western Ohio (LAWO). Although we had less time there than the amount of time we had at Ms. Wise's office, I still was able to gain some perspective about the civil law services that the Center for Equal Justice provides for those who cannot afford lawyers. Mr. Tafelski said that because more individuals ask for help than they can accommodate, they are faced with no choice but to turn away two to three individuals for each one they accept. Services with which they help may include bankruptcy, divorce, employment law, child support, and unemployment benefits, just to name a few. I realized after talking with Mr. Tafelski that this is a very important organization because so many individuals need lawyers but are unable to afford one. The organization is really able to help those in poverty regain control of their lives with their free of charge civil legal services.
We ended the day by taking a tour of the Center for Equal Justice facility and visiting Legal Aid Line workers, ABLE lawyers, and LAWO lawyers.
All in all, today, I received perspectives of the legal system from two more individuals, and I still have many viewpoints that I need to see.
Very interesting stuff, Poom. I wonder why ABLE is needed? Since everyone is entitled to a court appointed lawyer, why would anyone need to go to ABLE? Where do those court appointed lawyers come from?
ReplyDeleteThat's a great question, Mr. Boehm! As stated in the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." In simpler English, this means that the accused have a right to a lawyer in a criminal prosecution as stated. You were right in saying that everyone is entitled to a court appointed lawyer, but note that the right is only present for criminal cases. You specifically mention a "court appointed lawyer;" this is a consequence of making it a constitutional right for the accused to have "Assistance of Counsel for his defence." Obviously, if a lawyer to defend the accused in a criminal prosecution is made a right, the government must pay for it. However, as mentioned, this is only in criminal cases. ABLE and LAWO is needed for those in poverty needing help with civil law services (see paragraph 5). I admit that perhaps I should have been more clear in stating that ABLE and LAWO only provide civil law services, and cannot assist those needing help with criminal law. People in poverty need civil law services, too. Perhaps it may be help with divorces and dissolutions. People may need help with unemployment law and getting benefits. Those being discriminated against in the workplace or while trying to get a job may ask a lawyer for help with employment law. These are all just a couple of examples of what ABLE and LAWO can help with.
DeleteFor your next question, court appointed lawyers either come from the public defenders' office or are lawyers in private practice that are hired by the court. Judge Helmick explained to me that the latter occurs in addition to getting lawyers from the public defenders' office because there are just too many cases for the public defenders' office to handle.