December 27, 2011
 
Texas Family Lawyers:
 
Last week I wrote you about the Supreme Court’s Task Force on Uniform Forms, the fact that we have discovered that the forms project is just one part of the Access to Justice Commission’s seven-point plan to help pro se litigants perform do-it-yourself family law cases and that their efforts extend far beyond family law.
 
The Family Law Section of the State Bar, in partnership with the Texas Family Law Foundation, has expressed its strong opposition to these efforts.
 
What steps has the Section leadership taken? The actions described below began with the forms project, but, following discovery of the seven-point plan, now are being extended to the entire project.
 
We have made repeated direct contacts with the Texas Supreme Court and the State Bar of Texas to express our opposition to the forms project. In addition, we have forwarded to the Court and Bar Board many of the expressions of opposition to the project that we have received from lawyers all over Texas. Based on these communications, it seems some members of the Court may not have understood the full scope of the activities being pursued by the Commission and that the Bar leadership was virtually unaware of the wide range of the Commission’s plan.

Whether the Court and the State Bar will act to alter the Commission’s plans is an open question.

Section leaders met with the Task Force in early September and again in October to discuss their project and express the Section’s unequivocal opposition to it. Unfortunately, the Commission’s leaders and staff have been as unresponsive to our efforts as they were in setting up the seven-point plan without requesting input from, much less the approval of, any section of the Bar before starting a project that will have serious impact on the public and the Bar.

Section leaders have attended many meetings of local Bar organizations where the attorneys present expressed strong opposition to the forms project and many of them are making their opposition known to the Court and Bar. A number of judges with family law jurisdiction have also stated their opposition and are now beginning to make their concerns known to the Court.

State Bar President Bob Black extended his hand by participating in repeated discussions and meetings with the Section leadership (and others) and he shares many of the concerns we have expressed. On December 13th, President Black wrote Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson requesting a delay in the project and asking that the Court obtain the input of the Family Law Section. President Black also notified the Court that these issues will be placed on the agenda of the State Bar Board meeting to be held in Bastrop on January 19th and 20th. We very much appreciate him taking these actions and we plan to address the Bar Board in January.

The Court has appointed Justice Debra Lehrmann as a liaison to the Section on these issues and she has contacted Section leaders to discuss our concerns and her views on these issues. Early on, we focused on making sure she fully understood the scope of the Commission’s intentions and the extent of and reasons for our opposition. At this point in time, I cannot say with certainty that Justice Lerhmann shares the concerns of the Family Law Section.

Based on over 1000 pages of records we obtained through an open records request to the Bar and our discussion with others active in State Bar matters, we have additional concerns about the operation of the Access to Justice Commission. Some of those concerns may be resolved once we have more information and we do not intend to act in haste or without being fully informed, as we do support the Commission’s original mission. But, we intend to make specific requests to the Bar (and the Court, if needed) for changes in the way the Commission operates in order to secure greater transparency and increased accountability to and involvement of the Bar, should our concerns be well-founded.

Had our proposals been in effect when the Commission began thinking about this project, much of the controversy it has caused could have been avoided, the Court would have been informed more fully about the issues and the views of Texas lawyers prior to making its decisions, and the State Bar Board and its constituents would have been apprised in advance of the Commission’s work and allowed to address it before it began. I will have more information on our proposals when they are finalized.

The Section leadership also is beginning to reach out to the other sections of the Bar to make them aware of the seven-point plan. Each section can and will make its own decisions regarding whether and how the interests of the public and its clients may be affected by the Commission’s plan. But, first they have to know about it.
 
The Section leadership is planning additional activities in opposition to the Commission’s seven-point plan. I will continue to update you on our activities as time goes on.
 
Yours truly,
 

Thomas L. Ausley, Chair
Family Law Section, State Bar of Texas