SPEECH
The Honorable Janet Reno,* Attorney General of the United States
I am privileged to be here tonight because I have a fond feeling for the New England School of Law.(1) I recruited some wonderful prosecutors from this law school. You do a magnificent job.
On the east wall of the Justice Department building in Washington appears this statement: "The common law is the will of mankind issuing from the life of the people framed through mutual confidence and sanctioned by the light of reason."(2) But too many people in America do not know the law, and it certainly does not issue from them. The first issue I want to address is how we make the law real for all Americans.
The American Bar Association has estimated that perhaps eighty percent of the poor do not have access to courts, much less to lawyers. For those people, the law is worth little more than the paper it is written on.
Lawyers decide great issues that affect a large number of people, but for many people in this country, grinding, weary, day-to-day issues that could use adjudication are never resolved and the frustrations of living only build. For them, too often the Constitution and our rule of law is hollow; this is true not just for the disenfranchised poor, but also for the middle class. I do not think we should wring our hands and say that we cannot solve the problem. Tonight, I challenge each of us to begin working toward specific solutions.
First of all, it is imperative that lawyers speak so that the law is more easily understood. Winston Churchill said that we should start using small, old words. We should simplify language so that people can read the law and apply it for themselves, so that they can be more self-sufficient in the law. We should make it easy to apply the law. If one of your family friends or family members has had to struggle through the morass of Social Security, you know what I mean. Social Security jargon uses "title this" and "title that" and "this label" and "that label." Frustrated and in despair, ordinary Americans often give up, failing to pursue appropriate remedies.
I saw the same thing with Hurricane Andrew as people dealt with insurance adjusters and insurance claims and tried to understand what the written word of their insurance policy meant. You see it all the time in landlord-tenant cases when the landlord will not repair the toilet that is leaking into the kitchen below. The landlord gets away with ignoring the tenant's complaint because the tenant does not know how to get through the complicated process of securing his or her rights.
Administrative structures can be developed that make it easier for citizens to use the law. Let me give you an example. In 1963, when I started practicing law, one of the most difficult things I had to do was charge a woman a fee when she came to me seeking help with collecting child support. She had barely enough money to get by until the next month. It seemed plainly wrong.
One of the things that I think government has done that makes sense is to develop a child support collection system throughout this country. We need to improve it and make it far more effective, but we have come a long way since 1963. It is a blessing that parents do not have to pay to collect something that is so precious and necessary as child support.
Now granted, it gets frustrating. You have no idea what it is like to have a woman call you on a Sunday night and scream at you because she cannot pay her rent and is about to be evicted. But it is also wonderful when people stop you on the streets and say: "Thank you. I could not have done it without you. My child has gone to college. You made a difference." Lawyers have got to start thinking in those terms, rather about than the large deal they made or the great case they won in court.
Administrative structures can automate much of the court system. It has always frustrated me to see a judge, who said he did not have time to listen to a victim, sit there and carefully pencil in his calendar from case to case.
We can do so much if we realize that we need to put people first in the system. We must make sure that victims in our court system are heard. It should not be that difficult to develop a process by which they can be heard in an appropriate way and by which their restitution claims can be considered.
For too many people in the criminal justice system, victim compensation and restitution are just a minor item. It should be a major item if we are going to put people first and make the law real for all Americans. We must consider the court system in the context of a larger system.
Ten years ago, in Miami, if you wanted to get a protective order, you had to go to a police department. Too often, a person went to the wrong police department or was directed to the wrong office. In one tragic instance, a person died because she did not get a protective order in time.
We should develop domestic violence centers where police are trained in the issue of domestic violence, where counselors are prepared, where people understand the problem, where courts are sensitive to the issue, and where prosecutors are trained to address the problem. Together, they would work with public defenders assigned to the system. The whole place could be "one-stop shopping." But one of the things that I have learned is that America is a vast nation and that there are many people in rural areas in this state for whom this system would not work.
Let us use sensible automation. For example, let us establish two-way video systems in the next ten years that make the person in that rural county available to the judge and to the counselor through closed-circuit television. Let us be bold. Let us think in terms of technology that puts people first.
Does the average person know what "federalism" means? The average person does not understand that when he or she gets a protective order in one court and then moves to another state, he or she must get another protective order and start all over again in the second state. We must automate the protective orders system so that it is available, makes sense, and puts people first. Let us develop a system of full faith and credit in which the protective orders of states are standardized to preserve the principles of federalism.
This law school has a tremendous tradition of pro bono service, and I congratulate you for that. I hope you carry that spirit into the private sector. I think we can do much more to make pro bono service available in a sensible way.
I recently announced a pro bono policy in the Department of Justice, encouraging lawyers in the Department to contribute fifty hours of pro bono service. But they do not know how to do it or where to go. They are afraid of conflicts. They are afraid of liability issues. They want to be trained.
Just think of what we can do if we work with bar associations across the country to develop organized pro bono services where conflict issues and liability issues are addressed, where lawyers are trained in what they are going to be doing so that they need not have trepidation about it. We can do so much if we organize it the right way and make it available. Most lawyers to whom I've talked are willing to contribute service if they know how to do it in an efficient and ordinary way.
Law firms must develop new attitudes. Let's be creative. A law firm may have big clients and make a lot of money, but why not develop a satellite law firm that provides volume practice, with individuals trained in domestic relations, small real estate and property matters, and probate matters. In this way qualified paralegals can free up time, allowing attorneys to talk with the client who is lost about what to do.
Lawyers are not trained to do that. Few lawyers are good at letting people cry on their shoulders, and it frustrates people when they come in and get legal mumble-de-buck, when what they want is for somebody to sit there and explain to them what is going to happen.
If we organize small law offices correctly, in terms of volume and in terms of people who are skilled in handling the specific issues, we can put people first. But then we will hear from lawyers who say, "It is not my business. I want to be a successful litigator. Sorry, but I am not into pro bono service."
We are all responsible for this one very critical issue. Those ordinary citizens who have been frustrated at every turn in their quest for justice are going to begin to lash out at the institutions we hold dear because those institutions have failed them. If we do not worry about those people whose quest for justice has been frustrated and who have dropped out of the system, we are not going to have a work force with the skills that make this country a great nation. All of us, whether we care about pro bono service or not, must care about an educated, informed citizenry that can continue the traditions of this great nation.
So we are in it together, and we must all support legal services and pro bono programs. We must make the difference, and I think we can. One area that I have urged law schools and universities to explore and that I urge the New England School of Law to explore is the concept of a four-year degree in community advocacy. Such a program would train lawyers and advocates in problem-solving and conflict resolution. I see this community advocate as someone who focuses on a particular community, someone who wants to serve in the inner city and goes to an inner city university for schooling to address the problem. Let's train lawyers and advocates in community advocacy, in landlord-tenant issues, welfare issues, pothole issues, vacant lot issues, how to get the abandoned car moved, guardianship issues when the grandmother wants to adopt a grandchild because the mother is a crack addict, Social Security issues, Medicaid issues, Medicare issues, and delinquency issues.
Law schools, for the most part, do not teach that kind of ground-level advocacy, but a significant part of our population desperately needs good, solid, day-to-day advice for which they might be able to pay a little. A person trained in community advocacy could perform many extraordinary services. Lawyers do much, but we must expand our advocacy to address the problems of all people in this nation before their frustration causes them to drop out or lash back.
I am talking about problem-solving. As lawyers, we must think more than ever as problem-solvers.
Have you ever gone to a doctor, feeling worried about what he or she is going to say about your situation--and fearing the possibility of surgery? Or have you consulted with your accountant, thinking that you will have to pay through the nose, that it's going to be complicated, and that you will be audited?
But the doctor says, "Well, let's sit down and talk about it. Here is what you have to do, and we can work all of this out." The accountant advises, "I think we can handle this in a very effective way." They are kind, they are considerate, and they solve your problems. You walk away feeling like the weight of the world has been lifted from your shoulders.
But too many people cannot afford the type of lawyers who provide that good advice, and I think we focus too much on the courtroom and the legal--theoretical--issues. The prosecutor and the public defender think they have won their battles when they either win a conviction or win on a motion to dismiss. Too often, that public defender watches the client walk out of the courtroom with an addiction worse than any prison and does nothing to solve the ultimate problem that brought the client there in the first place. The client will be back.
We see it when we file suit against the government to reform something and there is a dollar sign on it. The lawyer walks away with the judgment, but does not follow through with the county to say, "Look, here's how you can restructure your budget to make sense, while meeting your other obligations, and this is what you can do in terms of preventative programs avoid the problem in the first place."
Let us be problem-solvers as well as judgment-getters. Too many judgments are sitting there idle because the lawyer did not follow through and implement them. When we litigate and win, let us set up structures that then work for others.
I think it is important that law schools, law firms, and the Department of Justice do everything possible to train lawyers to negotiate and to solve problems. We must show lawyers the economics of litigation, so that they understand that if they take their client to trial, it may often be less beneficial than if they work out the problem in the first place.
To that end, the Department of Justice has established an alternative dispute resolution initiative that is now spreading across the country as we train United States Attorney's Offices and client agencies in the skills of negotiation and dispute resolution.
One of the most imperative issues that lawyers face in this country is how we create community. How can we listen to people in neighborhoods--those who are most affected by the laws we are trying to apply?
For too many people, community has fallen away in this nation. Children and families are at risk and alone. Children walk the streets with their peers during the afternoons and in the evenings without adult supervision. This is true even of middle-class children because both parents work and often put money ahead of supervising their children.
As a result, many people in this country have no voice. The level of repeat violence begins to rise, broken neighborhoods increase, and polluted areas in inner cities worsen.
Using the principles of federalism, let us reaffirm what we have talked about. Rather than the federal government going into a community and saying, "This is the way you should conduct your law enforcement operation," let us form a partnership between federal prosecutors and state and local prosecutors in law enforcement. At the Department of Justice, we are reaching out to the local government so that we can hear from the people what their problems are, what their priorities are, and how we can work together to solve them.
For example, today I listened to the Housing and Urban Development Inspector General describe how he involved state and local government, as well as residents, in developing safe-home initiatives in public housing.
The whole concept of community policing in President Clinton's commitment to put 100,000 police officers on the streets of this nation involves police officers who will listen to the people they serve, become known by the people they serve, and put those people first. Let us pursue that.
President Clinton has defined and redefined the Community Reinvestment Act to listen to people in the neighborhoods about where we need to invest these funds and how to begin to reweave the fabric of community around children and families at risk.
We must listen to the people to learn what to do about the economic messes that have developed in disenfranchised neighborhoods. These neighborhoods are without a voice because nobody has gone to the county commission to demand correction. We can do much.
Finally, we must focus on community justice. I will speak about the community I know. If you talk to many people in Miami, you soon learn that they have never been in the courtroom or that if they have, it was a crowded courtroom. They had to take two buses or drive a long way to get there. It was a frustrating experience. They were there for seconds and did not understand the proceedings. If they returned for the case after it had been continued once, it was often before another judge who did not know them and did not understand what had gone on before.
I have proposed that a state conference of Chief Justices develop model projects based on community justice.
In my vision of America, community police officers know a specific neighborhood and work with the residents and the system to resolve the horrors of repeat violence, youth drug involvement, and other problems associated with these phenomena.
I see police officers working with a judge who is assigned to that neighborhood and a community prosecutor who knows that neighborhood, together with community correctional officers who work with the police to bring young persons back to the community or to bring adults back to the community to share their stories of success. I see the police officers, the judges, the lawyers, and the schools working with a local clinic to address the issues of domestic violence in a comprehensive way. I see a community where the judge has time to supervise and to make sure that the services are being delivered, where people know their judge, where they can talk to their judge and say, "Your Honor, he deserves another chance" or "Your Honor, this kid has caused too many problems, we've given him too many chances," and then track and follow up on that kid. America is a land of people. Communities must come first in our legal system.
We can do much if we make our government closer and more real to the people we serve. We must commit to diversity in this country. We must give people an opportunity to compete, and we must give everyone the opportunity to be part of their government.
There has been a lot of talk about affirmative action in this state, but I daresay that nobody in this room has succeeded--United States Attorneys, or judges--nobody in this room ever got there without somebody helping them along the way.
We can make a difference, but it requires putting people first, solving people's problems, giving people a forum in which their problems can be solved--where they believe that they have some control over their lives and destinies, and where they see a light at the end of the tunnel.
We can do much in this new and modern age of technology that challenges the mind and staggers the imagination. But, we must recognize that nothing--nothing--can be substituted for the people and the law, that the people are part and parcel of the strong and vibrant institution we prize, and that the law issues from them.
Thank you and good night.
* Janet Reno, A.B. Cornell University, 1960; LL.B. Harvard University, 1963, was nominated by President Clinton on February 11, 1993, confirmed by the Senate and sworn in on March 12, 1993. Prior to assuming her post as the 78th Attorney General, Ms. Reno was the prosecutor for Dade County, Florida
1. This speech was delivered on May 20, 1996, at the 1996 New England School of Law Barrister's Ball.