Minutes 
Public Access to the Courts 
2/24/06 
Granite State Independent Living 
Attendance: Cheryl Killam, Claudia Nixon, Clyde Terry, Ralph Littlefield, Ken Barnes, 
Ginny Martin, Al Cantor. 
The committee met to review the draft of the recommendations to be presented to the 
commission. 
Report to the Citizens Commission on State Courts 
From the Research Committee on Access to the Courts 
February 28, 2006 
I. Our first priority has two equal sub-parts. 
A. All Courts in the State of New Hampshire will meet or exceed the 
requirements for compliance with Federal and State laws pertaining to 
accessibility. Currently there is one courthouse that is not accessible, and 
the majority of the courthouses in this state have some areas that are not 
accessible. All court facilities shall have provisions for: 
• Compliance with all applicable building codes for the removal of all 
structural barriers that prevent or impede physical access. 
• The deployment and usage of effective and accessible methods of 
communication such as NH Relay, Telecommunication Devices for the 
Deaf (TTY), Assistive Listening Devices (ALDs), Computer Assisted 
Real-time Translation services (CART), Video Relay Services (VRS), 
accessible (508-compliant) websites and alternative formats for all printed 
materials (large print, Braille, audio-tape and computer disk). 
• The removal of language barriers for non-English speaking citizens by 
providing translation services, Oral or Sign Language Interpreters, and 
translated written materials. 
• Discrete funding sources for payment for communication access and for 
support of annual disability sensitivity training. 
Rationale: Accessible court facilities are required by the 
Federal Law, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In May 

of 2004 this was upheld by the Tennessee v Lane US Supreme Court 
Decision. 
• The following laws require accessible buildings and programs: 
.. The Rehabilitation Act - Section 504 
.. The Americans with Disabilities Act 
- Title II Regulations 
- Title III Regulations 
- The ADA Standards for Accessible Design 
.. The NH State Building Code - NH RSA 155-A 
.. The New Hampshire State Fire Code - NH RSA 153:5 
.. The Architectural Barrier-Free Design Code for the State of New 
Hampshire 
• Effective and Accessible Methods of Communication are required by 
the following laws: 
.. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 - Nondiscrimination on the basis of 
a disability – Section 504 
.. Electronic and Information Technology Access - Section 508 of 
the Rehabilitation Act 
• Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act 
.. Title VI of the U.S. Civil Rights Act 
.. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 
.. NH Interpreter Law RSA 521-A 
.. NH Interpreter Licensure Law RSA 326-I 

I. B. Fund full staffing for traditional civil legal services. 
Rationale: Meaningful access to the New Hampshire Courts is limited by the 
inability of many people to pay for traditional legal services. Economic and 
procedural barriers present challenges for a growing percentage of our 
population. It is estimated that among low-income citizens, only a small 
fraction of those involved in civil matters have their legal needs met by the 
current levels of legal assistance services. Moreover, a growing segment of 
the moderate- and middle-income communities find themselves unable to 
afford or access conventional legal representation. 
Because of this inability, many people forgo the justice system, even when 
they face problems in their lives that could be addressed by the legal system. 
They know they cannot afford a large retainer, so they never even begin to 
pursue their potential legal claims. 
Another option for low-, moderate-, or middle-income people who cannot 
afford to pay the cost of legal services is to represent themselves in court. The 
rise in the number of pro se litigants has many negative effects: pro se parties 
are not trained in the law and hence do an inadequate job of representing 
themselves; justice is compromised; and litigants are deprived of their full 
rights. The growth of untrained litigants also serves to undermine the smooth 
functioning of the courts by introducing delays and inefficiencies – a process 
that adds further to the legal costs for all. 
We have come to realize that, before we suggest new and innovative 
methods and strategies for dealing with economic barriers to legal access, we 
should recognize that our current network of civil legal assistance is excellent, 
and in many ways a model in terms of the quality of representation and the 
level of cooperation among providers. That being said, the system is woefully 
overburdened, and by some estimates only 20% of the low-income people 
who need legal services are receiving them. This is a delivery system that is 
tried and true – but lacks the resources to achieve full success. We urge that 
there be a commitment to full funding. 

II. Commit New Hampshire to a “Civil Gideon,” – that is, to recognize that, 
in the same way that criminal cases that may result in the loss of liberty 
compel the state to provide an attorney for a defendant, so too should 
civil cases that could result in significant loss – such as the custody of a 
child or the loss of a home – compel the state to provide legal 
representation to those who could not otherwise afford it. 
Rationale: This in many ways defines who we are as a society. Should people 
lose custody of their children or be evicted from their homes simply because 
their legal opponent has more money? This recommendation is not a 
particular strategy so much as it is a philosophical commitment to a fair 
society, with liberty and justice for all. 

III. Support and promote a variety of means of obtaining and improving 
access to justice, including: 
a. Encouraging alternative dispute resolution (ADR); 
b. Promoting the development and use of legal insurance; 
c. Creating a committee to study access to justice issues, including an 
assessment of specific legal needs in particular areas, and how best 
to address them; and 
d. Creating a Statewide Citizens’ Advocate, to look out for the legal 
needs of the average resident of New Hampshire. 
e. Streamlining court scheduling and promoting greater use of 
technology for court conferences and hearings. 
Rationale: We must do all we can to provide citizens with ways to get fair 
resolution to their legal issues in the most effective, expeditious, and efficient 
way possible. If a client can avoid costly and time consuming court costs by 
problem-solving through alternative dispute resolution, justice will be served 
and the burden on the court system and our citizens will be reduced. 
In addition, we urge the creation of a system of legal insurance, whereby 
for a reasonable premium, average people would have access to a lawyer to 
advise them on their rights and duties and to assist them in advocating for 
their legal interests. Legal insurance would help people with moderate and 
middle incomes who are unable to afford private lawyers to represent them, 
but who are ineligible for the system created to assist the State’s low-income 
population (New Hampshire Legal Assistance, Legal Advice & Referral 
Center, and the Bar’s Pro Bono Program). Legal insurance could be like 
health insurance, helping the average person out when the need arises (which 
presumably would be a lot less often than health needs). The premiums could 
be paid by the State, employers, and/or individuals on a sliding scale. 
At the least, we would encourage the State to create a system of 
catastrophic legal insurance, provided free to those who could not otherwise 
afford it. This would be akin to catastrophic medical insurance: there are clear 
parallels, in that only a very few in our society could afford the very large out-
of-pocket costs of either a medical or legal disaster. Perhaps it is time to 
encourage the development of a vehicle so such insurance is universally 
available. 
The Committee also recommends that the State create an Office of the 
Citizens’ Advocate, to make the kind of work our (and other) committees are 
doing sustainable into the future. The Citizens’ Advocate could be modeled 
on the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) Consumer Advocate (for utility 
issues) [and the Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Unit (some 
consumer issues)], or on similar programs adopted in other states. 

The Citizens’ Advocate would work to assure that the justice system 
meets the legal needs of the average person. The Office would monitor the 
system and advise the courts as to whether there are any procedural 
improvements that the court system can make (like the suggestion for case 
managers), including changes that might be necessitated by changes in NH’s 
population (e.g., the need for language interpreters) or by changes in types of 
cases filed. The Advocate’s staff would also evaluate trends in legal issues 
and court results which might have widespread impact on litigants and the 
community. As to the latter issues, the Advocate’s Office might recruit 
volunteer attorneys willing to take on systemic advocacy on behalf of average 
citizens.1 Or such issues could be referred to advocacy organizations such as 
New Hampshire Legal Assistance (if the client is low-income), the 
Disabilities Rights Center (if the client has a disability), consumer groups, 
etc., to be approached from a class-wide or systemic perspective. We 
recommend that, in addition, the Citizens’ Advocate be authorized to bring 
cases on its own, in order to help average citizens to address particular issues 
they could not otherwise afford to address. 
The Office of the Citizens’ Advocate should also undertake a systematic 
study, in detail, of exactly what kinds of legal needs are not being served 
adequately in different parts of New Hampshire. In which geographic areas, 
at which income levels, for which types of legal issue, are the unmet needs the 
greatest? The study should include, in addition to the needs of people who 
choose to represent themselves, the legal needs of people who despair of even 
entering the legal system because they know they cannot afford to pay for the 
legal representation necessary to have a fair chance to vindicate their rights. 
Some legal areas (e.g., family law) seem to have a high number of parties 
unable to afford legal representation, but other legal problems no doubt exist 
where people would be better off if they could obtain legal representation but 
do not have access to it because of a disability or financial, language, or 
cultural barriers. The proposed study committee would assess where the 
needs are, and analyze what kind of solutions might best address each 
particular need. The Citizens’ Advocate would then lead the effort, along 
with the court system, to make the necessary solutions a reality. 
1 Many legal issues affect large numbers of people in similar ways. Some 
of these can be efficiently addressed by the recruitment of a panel of private 
lawyers who would be willing, pro bono, to bring a systemic challenge to 
particular procedures or practices. The private bar ordinarily would not accept 
such cases, because they require a large investment of unpaid attorney time. 
But in the spirit of public service, we believe a number of attorneys would be 
willing to cooperate with the Citizens’ Advocate and accept cases that could 
potentially benefit a great many people who otherwise could not afford legal 
representation. This could greatly increase the enforceability of legal rights 
beyond what the current staff of legal services organizations can provide. 

Streamlining court scheduling to eliminate the “cattle call” of attorneys 
and litigants would reduce the amount of down time at the courthouse for 
attorneys and litigants and the resulting associated costs. Current scheduling 
practices, which do not provide litigants with specific hearing times, drive up 
the cost of representation and can translate into lost wages and/or increased 
child care expenses for litigants, both pro se and represented. At the same 
time, certain hearings may lend themselves to telephone and/or video 
conferencing, reducing time and cost in travel to the courthouse.

IV. Create ways to support pro se litigants, including: 
a. Creating a public education program to educate people who may have 
legal claims about the court’s procedures; the resources available to 
them; and legal issues that people should consider in evaluating their 
legal needs. One such resource is “unbundled” legal services, where 
attorneys are permitted to work with a client on a portion of a legal case, 
even if they do not handle the entire case; 
b. Expanding the “case manager” system, ideally with a well-trained 
case manager in each court, who would interview clients, and either refer 
the client to legal services providers, recommend and facilitate alternative 
dispute resolution, or provide procedural guidance and support if the 
client chooses to move forward pro se; 
c. Encouraging the use of non-lawyer professionals to provide simpler 
law-related services within their areas of competency; 
d. Helping people involved in uncontested divorces to handle their own 
cases, by developing an “uncontested divorce kit” and providing 
paraprofessional support to guide people through the court process. 
Rationale: Our conclusion is that a little bit of a lawyer is better than none at 
all. Keeping in mind that the ultimate ideal is to have full representation by an 
attorney with a thorough and integrated knowledge of the client and his/her 
needs, the fact is that a shrinking percentage of the population is in a position 
to hire an attorney in that manner. Until the day arrives when New Hampshire 
can achieve the ideal, we should not pretend that the pro se population will go 
away; instead, we need to find ways to support and facilitate the pro se 
process. 
Encouraging attorneys to provide unbundled services (in appropriate 
circumstances) will provide critically important representation to many 
litigants who otherwise would not have a lawyer at all. Additionally, building 
a “case manager” system would be a cost-effective way to triage pro se cases, 
deflecting many from the court system (and increasing the efficiency of those 
that remain). For certain legal issues, a lay person can handle many tasks on 
her own, with assistance/guidance from a lawyer or paraprofessional. Such 
assistance should be made available, ranging from the development of a “kit” 
(as for uncontested divorces) to guide people, to a clinic where attorneys, in 
person, walk the party through the necessary forms and other filings. 

V. Explore and encourage innovation in how regular legal services are 
billed, including: 
a. Alternatives, where appropriate, to a billable hour system; and 
b. Fee-shifting and fee-sharing in family law cases, where one party has 
access to much greater financial resources than the other. 
Rationale: Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer and others argue that the 
billable hours system puts lawyers on a treadmill and seriously impacts their 
ability to perform pro bono work and other public service. Some argue that 
hourly billing also creates a gap between the value of services and their cost – 
which can result in higher costs for those who are indeed paying for legal 
services, or who hope to. We recommend that the Bar encourage and explore 
other structures for compensation, including “value billing” (setting a flat fee 
for performance of a specific task or completion of a particular project). 
We also recommend fee-shifting and fee-sharing in family law disputes – 
where one party has access to much greater financial resources than the other 
– as a way of fairly sharing family assets between both parties, but also as a 
way to de-escalate legal disputes and encourage settlement. 
The committee felt that it had completed its work. If anyone wanted to submit 
any last minute changes please get them to Ken Barnes so they maybe 
included into the submitted draft. The next meeting will be at the State House 
on March 13, 2006. The Committee adjourned. 
Text Box: G:\kjb\NH Bar\Report from the Access Sub-Committee 3-1-06.doc