Unbundled Legal Services: Untying the Bundle in New York State
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Access to the legal system is an inherent right of citizenship, yet far too many New Yorkers are currently denied this right because they lack economic resources. --Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye (1) INTRODUCTION The unmet legal needs of the poor and middle-class in New York State and throughout the country are well documented. (2) Nearly three-fourths of low-income Americans and two-thirds of moderate-income Americans with identified legal needs either ignore their problem or try to resolve it without assistance. (3) For many of these individuals, timely legal help could prevent unemployment, eviction, or the failure of small business. Despite this fact, legal services budgets continue to be cut and thousands of potential clients are turned away each year. (4) This occurs in New York State, which has the seventh highest poverty rate in the United States. (5) Legal services offices cannot meet the need of the indigent, and sizable middle-income population cannot afford private attorneys. (6) A legal right is meaningless without access to the judicial system. Civil justice leaders, therefore, have looked for new ways to deliver legal services including unbundling. Unbundled legal services is practice in which the lawyer and client agree that the lawyer will provide some, but not all, of the work involved in traditional full service representation. Clients choose the legal assistance according to their needs and perform the remaining tasks on their own. Unbundling has been described as ordering a la carte, rather than from the full-service menu. (7) A client might hire lawyer for trial representation, but not for court filings, discovery, and negotiations. Unbundled services can take many forms, including telephone, Internet, or in-person advice; assisting clients in negotiations and litigation; assistance with discovery; or limited court appearances. (8) For many clients, these limited engagements make lawyer's services affordable. Unbundled legal services is touted as new concept, although lawyers have been providing it for years in estate planning and mediation. (9) Outside the courtroom, legal services are commonplace. Clients often seek lawyer's advice before negotiating agreements, or ask lawyer to draft document based on an agreement reached without the lawyer's assistance, or bring an agreement prepared by an opposing counsel to lawyer for review. In each of these scenarios, the lawyer is asked to perform discrete legal task, rather than handle the entire matter. Business lawyers have provided services to sophisticated clients for decades. These clients are often either repeat players with some knowledge of the law (10) or in-house lawyers who require the specialized expertise of outside counsel. The concept is more recent in the litigation context. (11) A variety of players provide services, including pro se clinics, community education programs, and some courthouses. (12) Unbundling has received great deal of attention. Everyone concerned with access to justice is looking at it, talking about it, holding conference about it, or implementing it. In October 2000, the Maryland Legal Assistance Network convened national conference on legal services, with attendees from thirty-four states, the District of Columbia, Canada, and Russia. (13) The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Delivery of Legal Services has an unbundled website to educate lawyers, court administrators, and the media. (14) In Arizona, at the Maricopa Self-Service Center, litigants can consult list of attorneys who provide legal services. (15) In May 2001, the American Bar Association's Ethics 2000 Commission submitted its proposed changes to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which will clarify and encourage the use of legal services. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,012 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».