Effects of crime on children

Today in the courthouse, something I observed almost brought me to tears. Sitting outside a courtroom was a mother with her young son (probably about 2 years old). A man in handcuffs escorted by two officers exited the courtroom. Upon seeing the man, the child jumped from his mother's lap crying and started chasing after the man yelling "Daddy, daddy!"

The child was too young to completely grasp the situation but knew that his father was being taken away from him.

Meshing cultural beliefs and traditions with the legal system

December 8, 2009 the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel published an article titled "Man found guilty in spousal rape case." This article discussed a case where a Hmong man kidnapped, raped, and then forced a 12 year old to marry him with the permission of the girl's parents.

Here is the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article

Richard Wanglue writes an article defending Hmong tradition and asking courts to try and understand the Hmong culture.

One Hmong's perspective

Mr. Wanglue brings up a good point about how culture plays an important role in the actions of people and as a country of immigrants we should be open to many different perspectives. And honestly, he may have a very good case in regard to the dowry money asked of the groom's family. But I feel that he misses the importance of also following state and federal laws. And in the case of forcing a 12 year old to have sex and keeping her against her will, it is a very clear violation of state and federal laws.

So although I really don't think the courts lacked an understanding of the Hmong culture in making this decision, I do think it is important we don't forget that perspectives can be very different in different cultures.

Supreme Court Takes Texting Case

Click on the title of this post to read the story in the New York Times, "Supreme Court Takes Texting Case" that deals with privacy in regard to work provided electronic devices. It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules. And I predict that as a result we will see clearer technology use policies in many companies.

My legal journey

My interest in the legal field has only been solidified in the last month as I have observed in court and had the chance to interact with both attorneys and clients. And this experience thus far has also developed in me an interest in public interest law. These are the clients that most need us. And although there are a few difficult ones, overall they are so appreciative to the services we provide. I have enjoyed most of my conversations with clients even as we discuss very difficult topics because I get the chance to see the world through a different perspective and make a difference in their daily life.

Tuesday when I went home with all the talk about a huge snowstorm Tuesday night, a part of me really hoped that the snow wouldn't close the office so that I could help two clients that I knew wouldn't get the help if I couldn't make it into work that day. So although I would have loved to be able to laze around in my pajamas all day with a good book, I felt a strong desire to be able to help these two clients who really needed a little help.

Additionally, this job has opened my eyes to some different career paths for an attorney. One that has especially interested me is the job of a guardian ad litem whose job is to advocate for the children who without GALs would have no voice in the whole process.

So I really look forward to the months and years ahead of me.

Speakers of languages other than English

Today I had a chance to sit in on my firm's family law priority meeting where attorneys discussed areas of the legal system that needed improvement with our clients in mind.

One of the topics that most interested me was a discussion on the challenges in the legal system faced by non-English speakers. Feeling that this is a very worthy topic for my blog, I would like to summarize what was said.

First, in my courtrooms Judges and Commissioners do not allow attorney's own interpreters to sit at the table with their client. Instead all communication goes through the court appointed interpreter. And it makes sense that the court appointed interpreter doing all of the translator for what is said on record. But what about private conversations between attorney and client? Especially if it is only one court appointed interpreter translating for both the petitioner and the respondent, this really takes away the opportunity for private conversations.

Secondly, when the court only appoints one interpreter for both parties, it often forces both parties to sit closer so that the interpreter can be close to both parties. In some cases that may not be as big of an issue but in cases of domestic violence the last thing we want is for the petition to be forced to sit close to the respondent. Additionally, for the client who talks to the interpreter instead of the judge, that forces that client to basically look at the opposing party. This could greatly affect the testimony given by either party. In observing domestic abuse injunction hearings, I have seen this first hand and see what an awkward position this puts on the petitioner. Several attorneys have seen a system in courtrooms where the interpreter sits away from both parties and uses headphones to communicate, allow for a safer distance between parties and also allowing the parties not to get confused switching between English and their native language if they have some knowledge of English. So this would be one way to solve this problem. Additionally, if an interpreter was only allowed to translate for one party it would also solve this problem.

Thirdly, many attorneys brought up a concern about how to handle an interpreter that doesn't accurately translate. Being allowed to have your own interpreter at the table with the attorney and client would be one way to correct any mistranslations or clarify if it was clear a client was not understanding. Any inaccuracy in translation can make a big difference in the testimony of a client.

Finally there was a concern about the additional costs that arise from being someone who needs interpretation. It was brought up that Guardian ad litems charge for the cost of interpretation services when interviewing clients. This is a cost that English speakers do not have to pay. With many of the non-English speakers being very poor this puts them at a distinct disadvantage.

Because of these issues, many non-English speaking clients come out of trial not entirely sure of what happened and at a clear disadvantage to their English speaking counterparts. I hope that they are issues we as a society will be able to address and fix as we try to make legal help more accessible to all.