Not exact matches
«
As a State Senator,» he explained, «I will fight for the
things that matter
to New Yorkers: strengthening rent laws and preserving affordable housing, increasing
access to quality schools, safeguarding the environment, promoting economic and social
justice, preventing violence in our communities, and creating a fairer and more accessible political process.»
I promised at the beginning of this podcast that I want
to talk about our member benefit initiative, just
as voting and veterans and education are very basic, that's how we feel about member benefits, and we are going
to be looking back
to basics that the ABA does incredible
things for
access to justice for the legal community, for the court system, but we are going
to also do incredible
things for our members and potential members.
This of course is a worthwhile goal, but it is important
to remember that it is not the same
thing as increasing
access to justice.
As these Initiatives unfold, we are increasingly convinced of the interplay between the two: that opportunities, transformations, and cultural shifts engendered by innovation can be leveraged towards positive changes in
access to justice, and conversely, that
access to justice can grow through, amongst other
things, a reinvention of the delivery of legal services.
Insofar
as this development helps individuals like the claimants in this case who are, somewhat arbitrarily, deprived of
access to justice, it can only be a good
thing.
Most experts agree that the arrival of online courts can be good
thing in
as far
as it 1) can simplify
access to Justice, and 2) can speed up procedures.
However, the preamble
to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct does addresses
things lawyers should do
as public citizens, like improve
access to justice, the administration of
justice, and the public's perception of the legal system.
Doing
things as we have always done them has created a crisis of
access to justice (or inaccessibility of
justice).
Mostly, the right of
access to courts (which the parties tended
to refer
to as access to justice, although —
as the provinces pointed out —
access to justice involves many different
things) was said
to flow from the constitutional principle of the Rule of Law, which the Supreme Court has long recognized, albeit giving it a very narrow meaning.