Minnesota State Bar Association

MSBA Legal Assistance to the Disadvantaged Committee
Pro Bono Council Task Force
Meeting Minutes Archives, 2004-05
Back to Committee Website

Pro Bono Council
Meeting Notes
Monday, June 12 at Minnesota State Bar Association
12:00 noon

In Attendance: Karen Canon (chair), Brad Thorsen, Jean Lastine, Caroline Palmer, Mary Durand, Bruce Beneke; by telephone: Michelle Garnett McKenzie, Bill Thompson and Patty Murto. Guests: Pam Wandzel and Steve Hirsh.

Karen Canon called the meeting to order. The minutes from the April 6, 2006 meeting were approved. Brad Thorsen pointed out that there may be some corrections to his Spanish hotline report in the minutes based on Pam Wandzel's presentation on the current agenda.

Jean Lastine and Patty Murto reported on the data collection reporting. No reports had been received although the deadline had passed. They had not received any questions. Canon will send out a reminder to turn in the reports.

Caroline Palmer gave an update of Minnesota Volunteer Attorney Program activities. The technical needs assessment report has been completed and will be presented to the participants. The report will be shared with the LSAC and LTAB boards. Palmer will be working with the participants to identify priorities in order to move forward and prepare funding applications. Palmer will also coordinate with the Minnesota Legal Services Coalition in order to avoid duplication of efforts. Palmer reported that the MSBA will be hiring a Pro Bono Manager who will be responsible for MVAP and ProJusticeMn.org. An initial meeting to explore the development of Hotdocs documents to be shared by ProJustice and PracticeLaw is being planned.

Wandzel gave an update on the activities of the Spanish Hotline (Linea Legal Latino). A half-time person has been funded to work on the hotline. There have been 232 client intakes since inception. The hotline is available to call in on Tuesdays from 11 to 1. In June the time will expand to three hours. On Thursdays from 11 to 1 there is a walk in clinic (referrals from the call-in time). Wandzel gave an overview of cases; 50 percent of the cases come from Hennepin County and 50 percent come from Ramsey County. There have been no calls from greater Minnesota yet. The highest number of cases are family law, employment law and immigration law. The Minnesota Hispanic Bar has awarded a grant to the hotline and a student has been hired to do follow-up. Harvard will be doing an analysis of the hotline's activities. CLUES and the Mexican Consulate would like to make the hotline a model in consulates across the United States. The goal is to bring the manager up to three-quarter time. There is a core group of 19-27 volunteers (need to be fluent in Spanish). Referrals are made to the Thursday clinic or to Legal Aid, SMRLS, Centro Legal and others. The clinic usually has 3-4 attendees. There are as many as 11 phone calls on Tuesdays. Income eligibility is up to 300%. The hotline will eventually be opened up beyond Hennepin and Ramsey counties but can't open up too far without having processes in place. Most referrals are income-eligible. Lastine offered materials in certain legal issues in Spanish. The Spanish Hotline advisory board meets regularly and anyone is welcome to attend their meetings. VLN is the fiscal agent.

Mary Durand reported that Chrysalis is in the process of translating materials and brochures for their website.

Palmer reported that LAD will be considering a request by MCLE to postpone MSBA policy committee and assembly consideration of the Pro Bono CLE proposal in order to determine whether MCLE can come up with alternatives that are better incentives than the pro bono CLE will offer. LAD will have an emergency phone conference to determine next steps.

Thorsen reported on the efforts of the LAD Emeritus Rules subcommittee. There has been one meeting and an intern has been asked to conduct research and analysis of different state rules. It was suggested that retired judges be enlisted to help to effort. The next meeting of the subcommittee is July 17.

The group then discussed goals for the Pro Bono Council for 2006-07. Palmer reported on the Pro Bono Report project and enlisted the support of the Council in helping to develop the report. The group decided to monitor the hotline discussion coming out of Hennepin County Bar Association that will likely be followed up in the LAD committee. The group decided that data collection efforts would continue as well.

Thorsen announced that VLN has a new Youth Legal Clinic in collaboration with Youth Link. The clinic will serve homeless youth.

The next Pro Bono Council meeting will be September 11, 2006 at 12 noon at the MSBA.

In Attendance: Karen Canon (Chair), Mary Durand, Gary Liebmann, Janine Laird, Brad Thorsen, Theresa Hughes, Cathy Haukedahl, Jean Lastine, Candy Goodman, Bruce Beneke, Nancy Mischel (MSBA staff) and Caroline Palmer (MSBA staff); by telephone: Gail Baker, Sarah Shella-Stevens.

Karen Canon (Chair) called the meeting to order and there was a brief discussion of the minutes from the March 2, 2005 meeting.

Karen reviewed the Joint Venture Agreement and the status of organizational approval. She reported that Volunteer Attorney Program (VAP) in Duluth has agreed to join. Mary Durand said that Chrysalis was excited about it and that their board would meet soon to approve it. Nancy Mischel reported that the Minnesota State Bar Association will join. Brad Thorsen reported that Volunteer Lawyers Network (VLN) approved the concept and the agreement. Jean Lastine reported that the Central Minnesota Legal Services (CMLS) board agreed to it. Candee Goodman reported that there is a consensus among the Professional Pro Bono Coordinators of Minnesota that they should have a representative (Theresa Hughes). Minnesota Justice Foundation has a meeting on May 21 and expects to approve it. Bruce Beneke will take the agreement to the Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services (SMRLS) board on June 4. Caroline Palmer will follow up with Children's Law Center and Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights to see if they would still like to sign on; the LegalCORPS board still needs to approve it.

An execution copy of the Joint Venture Agreement should be signed by all the participating organizations by July 1.

The role of the MSBA in the Pro Bono Council was discussed. The MSBA can be a meeting site but can no longer provide lunch, so participants will need to bring lunch. There was also discussion of rotating the meeting sites and each host could provide lunch. An initial meeting will be organized for September 2005 and the Council will meet at least quarterly. The Council will need to appoint a chair and a secretary to take minutes. Caroline Palmer will send out the agenda and post the minutes to the website.

The discussion turned to the number of Coalition representatives on the Pro Bono Council. Jean reported that the Coalition directors will be meeting in two weeks and will review the Joint Venture Agreement. The directors want three representatives in order to ensure geographic representation. Candee asked whether the three representatives would cover rural perspectives and Jean replied that the Coalition covers a large part of the state and different delivery models. It was decided that the Coalition will have three representatives.

The discussion returned to meeting sites. Karen and Brad stated that VLN and VAP have had joint board meetings in Hinckley, but it has been hard to get everyone together. Jean said that the Coalition used to rotate CLE presentations but now board tends to meet in Minneapolis or sometimes St. Cloud. Gail Baker observed that the ability to participate by telephone is important and Candee noted that a meeting site should have a phone conference capability.

When Caroline sends around the Joint Venture Agreement she will ask everyone to ratify, execute and return it by July 1. Each organization will need to identify their representative to the council. A meeting date will be set in September. A preliminary agenda will be developed and will include elections, meeting locations, a review of mission and goals, and setting priorities. An e-mail listserv will also be set up.

Karen will draft a final report of the Pro Bono Council Task Force and will provide it to the Supreme Court Planning Commission to include in their report. A verbal report will be given at the next Legal Assistance to the Disadvantaged (LAD) Committee on May 10.

Bruce recognized Karen and Candee for their leadership in pulling together the Pro Bono Council.

Pro Bono Council Task Force
Meeting Notes
Wednesday, March 2, 2005
12:00 noon

In Attendance: Karen Canon (Chair), Lora Mitchell, Janine Laird, Gary Liebmann, Brad Thorsen, Jean Lastine, Cathy Haukedahl, Steve Wolfe (for Bruce Beneke), Candee Goodman, Nancy Mischel (MSBA staff), Caroline Palmer (MSBA staff); by telephone: Bill Thompson, Sarah Shella-Stevens.

Karen Canon (Chair) called the meeting to order and there was a brief discussion of the minutes from the January 5, 2005 meeting.

There was no formal agenda for the meeting. Karen stated that the meeting would be focused on reviewing a draft joint venture agreement for Pro Bono Council participants to sign and discussing the relationship between Minnesota Volunteer Attorney Program (MVAP) and the Pro Bono Council. Lora Mitchell presented an agreement drafted by Ruilin Li at Fredrikson & Byron (pro bono). Each participating organization would sign the agreement and keep an updated Schedule A as participants change.

Part One outlined the term of the agreement, which is for five years with an automatic one year renewal.

Part Two encompassed formation, membership, voting, admission of new participants, and objectives and timelines. Volunteer Lawyers Network (VLN) and the Volunteer Attorney Program (VAP) would have two voting members; other participants may appoint one member. The initial members will meet to decide whether there should be any changes in the membership of the Council. Each member would have one vote and the Council would act by majority vote. New participants would be admitted by executing and agreeing to be bound to the agreement. The objectives and timelines section included the following: "serve as an umbrella organization and voice for local pro bono programs," "function as the strategy and policy arm of pro bono in Minnesota," "review current statewide pro bono initiatives and develop new initiatives to ensure eligible clients across the state receive the services of volunteer lawyers," and "be a full partner in the state legal services planning process/body." It was decided that the word "timeline" should be taken out.

The remaining parts of the agreement included termination and agreement, expenses, and miscellaneous provisions.

Lora explained that VLN and VAP would have two members each as an acknowledgment of how many clients they serve. Cathy Haukedahl asked why the Coalition would have only one representative because the service area covers much of the state. Karen clarified that it was anticipated that the Coalition would have more than one member and that had been left blank on the draft. Jean Lastine stated that the issue of representation would be discussed at the next legal services directors meeting on April 22, 2005. Candee Goodman wondered whether Anoka County Judicare would be considered truly pro bono and Cathy explained that although judicare is a different model it is still private attorney involvement (PAI). The volunteer attorney is paid a low rate but only up to a certain amount of time. Jean added that Anoka requires that an attorney be paid for 10 hours, then provide five to 10 hours pro bono; if the case needs more time the attorney must appeal to a board for more payment. Cathy added that Legal Aid Service of Northeastern Minnesota has a similar approach and that if there wasn't judicare in some places there would not be any service. Cathy added that the Coalition really has PAI across the state. Jean stated that she thought the Coalition should have two representatives. Jean also explained the new relationship between Central Minnesota Legal Services (CMLS) and Anoka Judicare and that they are looking at setting up a self-help center in the Anoka County courthouse. She added that the Pro Bono Council should connect with the Minnesota State Bar Association (MSBA) Pro Se Committee.

Candee asked whether Pro Bono Council will not be going after funding and Karen answered that we don't want to foreclose that option, but initially, no. The Council should not encroach on current funding resources.

Karen asked if the task force had any questions about length of terms for participants and Candee stated that the term length could always be changed. Brad Thorsen asked about withdrawal and Karen agreed that there should be a section on withdrawal, that any member could give notice in writing.

Potential participants should take the draft agreement to their boards. Candee asked how the MSBA would fit in and whether there should be a MSBA presidential appointment for Pro Bono Council membership. Caroline provided an explanation of MVAP and her role with LegalCORPS (executive director of both). MVAP could act as a fiscal agent for Pro Bono Council or coordinate services and resources with Pro Bono Council. After discussion it was determined that MVAP would not itself be a "member" of the Pro Bono Council but that the services and missions of the two organizations should be coordinated to avoid overlap.

Karen stated that participants should have some level of decision making authority but that there probably wouldn't be a lot to vote on, it would involve taking positions on matters such as the LSAC/LTAB form, mandatory reporting or other issues effecting pro bono. Karen also explained that Pro Bono Council would not be a task force under the MSBA Legal Assistance to the Disadvantaged Committee (LAD) but rather would be an independent body. It would not exist under the auspices of the MSBA but we definitely wanted some form of affiliation. Jean stated that the decision makers have to be at the table and there should be an awareness of involvement and inclusiveness.

Sarah Shella-Stevens stated that the task force should get input from the MSBA about how it wants representation and Candee added we should find out what the MSBA wants to get from Pro Bono Council. Candee explained her role with the law firm pro bono coordinators and it was decided that Candee should ask the coordinators what, if any, their role should be in the Council.

Cathy wondered what the focus is: Pro bono in general? Legal services? Somewhere in between? Is the definition of pro bono in Rule 6.1 what we define as pro bono for the Council? Karen said the members identified to date clearly fit Rule 6.1.

Karen stated that another change to the agreement would be the addition of an advisory group. The agreement with its proposed changes would be sent around for comment and participants were urged to discuss the draft agreement with their boards.

Jean observed that Pro Bono Council has to be the place for pro bono and that will be the challenge for the group.

Karen stated that other potential participants would receive a revised copy of the agreement once comments have been received.

The next Pro Bono Council Task Force meeting will be held on Monday, May 2, 2005 at 12 noon at the MSBA.

Pro Bono Council Task Force
Meeting Notes
Wednesday, January 5, 2005
12:00 noon

In Attendance: Karen Canon (Chair), Lora Mitchell, Janine Laird, Gary Liebmann, Brad Thorsen, Colleen Beebe, Pat Burns, Michelle Garnett McKenzie, Jean Lastine, Cathy Haukedahl, Bruce Beneke, Candee Goodman, Nancy Mischel (MSBA staff), Caroline Palmer (MSBA staff); by telephone: Patty Murto, Sarah Shella-Stevens, Gail Baker.

Karen Canon (Chair) called the meeting to order and there was a discussion of the minutes from the November 17, 2004 meeting, specifically the four models drawn up by Candee Goodman with a focus on the second model which proposes a non-profit version of an LLC or joint venture with staff and policy advising responsibility. This entity could provide statewide services, but would be "owned and funded" by current local providers who wish to participate. This would be similar to joint programs or personnel funded by the Legal Services Coalition and MSBA.

There was no formal agenda for the meeting. Karen proposed further discussion of the concept of getting the Pro Bono Council launched and what the joint venture would look like. A joint meeting of the Volunteer Lawyers Network (VLN) and Volunteer Attorney Program (VAP) boards will be held on January 14 and there will be discussion of the Pro Bono Council. We should follow up with VLN and VAP about their meeting.

Jean stated that the Minnesota Legal Services Coalition (Coalition) would like a representative on the Pro Bono Council and brought up concerns about having different perspectives and geographic locations represented. Discussion followed about geographic distribution and whether every coalition member would want representation on the Pro Bono Council.

Candee noted that Pro Bono Council should include some Coalition members but a lot of people will think they should have representation. We should agree on criteria for membership. Karen wondered whether membership meant individuals or organizations. Patty Murto stated that each large law firm that hires a pro bono coordinator should participate because this coalition should primarily be made up of people doing pro bono. Candee pointed out there are seven coalition member programs and Patty suggested making three spots for them. Candee noted this would satisfy Jean's request for representation.

Karen stated that we cannot have a 50 person board, there has to be a limit, and wondered about representation for programs that have a pro bono component like Minnesota AIDS Project. Michelle Garnett McKenzie observed that it would depend on the model, the types of grants an organization received and whether the program is part of another nonprofit organization. Karen stated that eventually nonprofits should be included on the Pro Bono Council but that decision should be left to the actual Council to decide. The situation is not that different than that of the Coalition programs.

Bruce Beneke stated that he liked the inclusive spirit of the last Pro Bono Council meeting. The group should be a voice for statewide issues and therefore we should err on the side of involving anybody who works with a group who does pro bono; in the beginning we should err on being inclusive. If the Pro Bono Council gets too unwieldy then that can be addressed by the Council itself. Sarah Shella-Stevens added that it should be inclusive under the Rule 6.1 definition. Patty stated that business law pro bono should be included but there is a danger of the group getting too large which would force smaller groups out of the big group. She stated that the Coalition should have one member. Jean stated that the Coalition may ask for more than one member but not membership for all seven Coalition programs.

Candee asked whether we want to make a recommendation on size. She stated that the Council should be initially 10-15 people. Cathy Haukendahl suggested that rather than setting a number we should just decide on the types of organizations should be involved. Jean noted that lots of organizations use volunteers. Patty stated that the organizations should be LSAC/LTAB funded to be a Council member, such as Coalition, VLN, MVAP, Minnesota Justice Foundation (MJF), Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights, Children's Law Center, Chrysalis, LegalCORPS, pro bono coordinators from the large law firms. Patty also mentioned judges who are chairs of their district pro bono committee. Candee agreed that is a group with whom we need to create a relationship. She suggested that the Legal Assistance to the Disadvantaged (LAD) Judiciary Subcommitee (Ed Cassidy and Judge Lloyd Zimmerman) would help to select or rate districts for involvement.

Colleen Beebe suggested involvement for the Immigrant Law Center which uses volunteer lawyers and also a lot of students. Patty expressed a concern about getting into specific areas of law and involving projects that aren't staffed but use volunteers. Karen added that the Pro Bono Council should target a specific area and partner with a group on a specific grant to benefit from their expertise. Gail noted that individual legal programs should be brought to the table. Karen stated that this brings us back to the question of inviting individuals versus organizations and whether we should have a client representative on the Council.

Colleen mentioned that there is a group of Christian attorneys who hold walk-in clinics in the Twin Cities. Candee noted that we should limit membership to groups with whom we have some familiarity. Brad observed that depending on who you choose from an organization there is a different perspective. Karen said we should leave that to the organizations themselves. Patty added that each organization must have one member from its board, a staff member and a volunteer involved with the Council. Jean noted that it depends on what the Council wants to do - we need to have decision makers at the meetings.

Janine Laird stated that membership issue begs the question, what will the Pro Bono Council do?

Candee noted that volunteers would not know the different perspectives of the organization, they'd have to go out and talk to volunteers. A client representative doesn't speak for all volunteers. Gary Liebmann stated that volunteers bring to the table the conversation of what could be done to get more people involved but he wasn't sure how someone like him could speak for others. Both Janine and Sarah stated that at least that one voice would be there.

Lora Mitchell wondered who is going to be part of the management of the Council. Karen stated that there would be some sort of joint venture agreement for grants. Michelle suggested an advisory board. Lora stated that the large law firms could send a lawyer representative although Candee also knows what her lawyers are looking for, what would motivate them, so in a way it would be the same representation. Candee added that nothing says that after six months the Council can decide who should come on board.

Cathy pointed out that there is a heavy Twin Cities imbalance because all the big law firms are based in the Twin Cities.

Bruce pointed out that the Council will be primarily a leadership group, a group that provides input. Otherwise leave it to the discretion of the program leaders about how they will bring in their input. Karen added that an advisory group to the Council could meet one or two times a year. Bruce noted that we could ask the LAD committee or the MSBA to designate a representative. Karen added that there should be a MSBA relationship, that they can provide staff, meeting space, start-up support. Jean noted that the MSBA sends representatives to the American Bar Association (ABA) on pro bono issues. Candee added that MSBA can take minutes, set up meetings, keep track of volunteers, and keep a liaison role to Minnesota Volunteer Attorney Program (MVAP) and LegalCORPS.

Brad wondered whether the LAD committee should have a representative and Jean added perhaps one of the LAD co-chairs should always be a member. Lora asked what about having the MSBA agree to the joint venture. Bruce responded that the MSBA has to be involved and the group should focus on working out that relationship as it goes along. Karen stated we should go back and look at MVAP, what role should MVAP play vis a vis the Pro Bono Council. Patty stated that Pro Bono Council should have decision-making input into MVAP's budget.

Lora stated that she would find someone at Fredrikson help out on drawing up a joint venture agreement and Karen offered to work on the agreement as well. Candee stated that for the next Pro Bono Council Task Force meeting we should look at a draft agreement, mission statement (the four functions), and identify who the agreement would be sent to.

The next Pro Bono Council Task Force meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 2, 2005 at 12 noon at the MSBA.

Pro Bono Council Task Force
Meeting Notes
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
12:00 noon

In Attendance: Karen Canon (Chair), Bruce Beneke, Gail Chang Bohr, Mary Durand, Jean Lastine, Cathy Haukedahl, Brad Thorsen, David Galle (in lieu of Lora Mitchell), Candeee Goodman, Bill Thompson (phone), Sara Stella Stevens (phone), Nancy Mischel (MSBA staff)

The group revisited the four proposed functions of the Pro Bono Council as set out in Karen's 9/27 "List of Suggested Tasks and Functions for the Pro Bono Council." After discussion, it was decided that the second function "oversight of pro bono delivery system" should be renamed so there was no implication that the Pro Bono Council would have supervisory authority over pro bono programs. With that change, the group adopted the four primary functions as set forth on the list. The specific "tasks" listed under each function were not part of the resolution and had only been left in from the original list produced at the first meeting. Any action on specific tasks would be left to the PBC.

Candee Goodman presented a memo listing four different models that that could be considered for the Pro Bono Council (see attached). The four models are 1) informal group, 2) non-profit version of a joint venture, 3) statewide 501(c)(3), and 4) foundation model. The fourth model is similar to what has been adopted in Indiana.

Bill Thompson asked whether we could consider implementing the 4th model right away and worry about funding later. Bruce Beneke saw two problems with it: 1) we already have LTAB dishing out money and a new pro bono "foundation" may be duplicative, and 2) asking the judicial districts to take on a bigger role is not likely to happen. Bill stated that the advantage of the statewide foundation model linked to the judicial districts was that it would ensure regional representation, which should be a key element in any statewide pro bono effort. Cathy Haukedahl agreed that regional representation was key but noted that it could be built into the other models as well.

Gail Chang Bohr noted that the funding is important and we would have to make clear what is "in it" for existing pro bono organizations.

Bruce stated that the second option was not unlike the existing Coalition model which has worked well for Legal Aid. Participating organizations benefit greatly from the cooperation and can do joint grants to get new funding. Bill agreed that the foundation model was attractive primarily because of the regional representation but that could be built into the joint venture model.

Jean Lastine pointed out that under the statewide 501(c)(3) model in number 3, housing staff attorneys in pro bono provider offices may not be necessary since the staff component was already in place in all the Legal Aid offices where all of the pro bono programs were housed other than VLN and VAP. Karen noted that the purpose of the PBC was to expand existing pro bono models and that it wasn't clear that the Legal Aid programs had enough resources to devote to pro bono.

Brad Thorsen wondered if the 501(c)(3) model was the easiest for getting funding. Bruce and Jean said that was not necessarily the case. The Coalition has been very successful in getting grants by using a single fiscal agent.

Bruce noted that there were lots of good models for successful pro bono programs in many parts of Minnesota. In some of SMRLS counties, 72% of the private bar participates in pro bono.

Gail stated that Children's Law Center used staff attorneys to assist volunteers and that it worked well. Bill said that one of the functions of the PBC should be to provide statewide resources, not just have staff provide resources but use metro resources for underserved areas.

At the next meeting - January 5, 2005 - there will be continued discussion about how we could implement the "joint venture" model and what possible membership would be.

To: Pro Bono Council Task Force

From: Candee Goodman

Date: November 17, 2004

Listed below are four different models that could be considered for the Pro Bono Council.

1. Informal Group. This group would be comprised of all pro bono providers and would be a policy advising group or just a group that meets periodically to discuss issues and provide input, when requested, to groups such as IOLTA, LSAC and the Minnesota Supreme Court.

2. Non-Profit version of an LLC or joint venture with staff and policy advising responsibility. This entity could provide statewide services, but would be "owned and funded" by current local providers who wish to participate. This would be similar to joint programs or personnel funded by the Legal Services Coalition and MSBA.

3. Non-Profit Model. This could be a statewide 501 c (3) organization, independent but somehow connected with MSBA. This would be like LegalCorps or MVAP. It would have staff attorneys housed throughout Minnesota at pro bono provider offices, but hired by the non-profit and responsible, with Board representation from the various groups, to develop policy and receive funding.

4. Pro Bono Foundation Model. Twenty-one members appointed by the Supreme Court (they would pick eleven) and MSBA (they would pick ten) and include an Executive Director and staff attorneys. It's a Foundation, but it would have input from judiciary districts throughout Minnesota who would locally decide on need and implementation. They would be a funding source. Participating pro bono providers could submit requests for funding. The Foundation would give out money, set policy and set criteria for the best way to deliver legal services by volunteer attorneys. Indiana has adopted this model.

Pro Bono Task Force Council
Meeting Notes
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
12:00 noon MSBA Offices

In Attendance: Karen Canon (Chair), Joe Dixon, Pat Burns, Gary Liebmann, Steve Reyelts, Janine Laird, Gail Chang Bohr, Bruce Beneke, Jean Lastine, Cathy Haukedahl, Mary Durand, Brad Thorsen, David Galle (in lieu of Lora Mitchell), Candeee Goodman (late), Gail Baker (phone), Sara Stella Stevens (phone), Nancy Mischel (MSBA staff)

Karen Canon gave a summary of the first three meetings. The Task Force came up with a laundry list of possible tasks and functions for the Pro Bono Council at its first meeting, discussed structure options as reviewed by Bricker Lavik’s subcommittee at the second meeting, and reviewed MVAP as a possible “entity” for the Pro Bono Council at the third meeting. We also discussed four broad categories of primary functions for the PBC at the third meeting and decided that what the council did would in part be informed by who participated. Karen then opened up the meeting for discussion of “who” the PBC would be.

Jean Lastine stated that it should be as inclusive as possible so that there is broad “membership” or participation in the Pro Bono Council by all organizations using volunteer attorneys to deliver legal services to the disadvantaged.

Steve Reyelts noted that it was important to have participation of local programs and including client participation should also be considered to make sure the PBC addressed local concerns.

Joe Dixon proposed that any group providing some level of pro bono could be a “member” of the Pro Bono Council but that we would need to establish a smaller governing body composed of representation of existing programs. It would not be practical to give every single program that had some pro bono component a “seat” on the governing body because it would be too large and probably too skewed towards metro programs. There was then a general discussion of options such as voting/nonvoting membership and how that would be determined (based on closed cases or some other measure of what role an organization plays in the overall delivery system). Bruce Beneke pointed to the Coalition experience where it was decided that everyone should get an equal voice and not get hung up on a formulaic approach. Karen Canon and Joe Dixon commented that the Coalition model is hard to import to the pro bono world where you have vast numbers of programs with vastly differing sizes, structure, mission, geography, etc. – not just 6 programs all doing the same thing and covering the entire state.

Candee suggested that a possibility would be to have the Supreme Court and MSBA each appoint half the members (to ensure diverse representation) and the primary pro bono providers appoint the other half. Mary Durand said that perhaps every “member” organization should have some voice on important topics, but most issues would be left to the governing body.

Joe Dixon offered that instead of getting hung up on a formula, why not try and get representation of the constituent groups by category. The following “categories” of groups or people possibly to be included for Pro Bono Council membership were then suggested by various folks:

Other considerations should be to make sure we include ethnic and geographic mixes. Sarah noted that a link to the judiciary is critical. A suggestion was made that the council could be chaired by a Supreme Court member.

At the next meeting – November 17, 2004 – there will be a discussion about what the Pro Bono Council will do in the context of the structure and the membership.

Candee Goodman agreed to put together a couple of models for Pro Bono Council membership and Joe Dixon said he would review them. We will then look at the categories of proposed functions and see which of the models might best fit with those functions.

In Attendance: Members: Karen Canon (Chair), Joe Dixon, Gail Baker, Colleen Beebe, Candeee Goodman, Steve Reyelts, Paul Thibeault, Janine Laird, Gail Bohr, Bruce Beneke, Jean Lastine, Cathy Haukedahl, Mary Durand, Doug Johnson, Brad Thorsen
Guests: Tom Conlin (Co-Chair of LAD), Jerry Lane, Sara Stella Stevens, Gary Hird

Jean Lastine summarized the MVAP materials, including the 2004-2005 MVAP projects and budgets from 2002-2005. The MVAP proposals were drafted by Nancy Kleeman and approved by the MVAP board during the annual meetings, which lasted about 15 minutes. It is not clear who will be staffing MVAP now that there are two new positions at the MSBA. The MVAP expenses and projects have remained fairly stable over time, changing only as technology has changed. Most of the budget is used for probono.net (used to be the Desk Manual), the newsletter, VAP coordinator meetings and sending VAP coordinators to ABA Conference.

There was some discussion about what MVAP did. Janine Laird asked who had input into the proposal. The answer was no one besides Nancy Kleeman. Jerry Lane explained that MVAP was set up as a 501(c)(3) by MSBA to serve fiscal agent for grants from IOLTA and LSAC since MSBA was not eligible. It was a way to get money to fund the projects that supported pro bono that were under Nancy Kleeman (but did not fund her salary). The general consensus was that non-Coalition people really don’t know much about MVAP and don’t get much out of it. Gail Baker said that as former director of Legal Assistance in Olmsted County who was there at the start of MVAP thought it was a great benefit to the pro bono programs. Mary Durand thought the coordinator meetings, which have been expanded to include non-Coalition program directors, were useful as well as projustice.mn

The group agreed it would be useful to see the MVAP mission statement if there was one.

2. Karen Canon handed out the list of tasks and functions for the Pro Bono Council that the Task Force had come up with in the first meeting. The 25 possible items were categorized into four areas corresponding to the proposed mission statement for the PBC (see attachment):
1. Voice of Pro Bono. 2. Oversight of Pro Bono Delivery System. 3. New Statewide Pro Bono Projects. 4. Promote Private Attorney Pro Bono Involvement.

There was some discussion on whether these four categories or functions would be included in the Pro Bono Council.

Joe Dixon stated that the list was a useful starting point and that the primary focus of the Task Force should be on what the Pro Bono Council actually will do. Cathy Haukedahl said that a fundamental issue to be decided is whether the PBC would serve as a “voice” for pro bono and a coordinator for pro bono providers to come together or if it would be involved in program development and provide services.

Tom Conlin suggested an example for the Pro Bono Council would be to function as an organization such as the National Safety Council. It would provide commentary and feedback and would be the “expert” that other agencies or funders would turn to in the ongoing discussion on legal services delivery when it came to issues involving pro bono. Steve Reyelts thought the Pro Bono Council should do more than just take positions or “monitor” pro bono but should implement programs and changes, be more “aggressive” to make things happen. Candee pointed out that if the pro bono is to be a “full partner” in the legal services delivery to the disadvantaged, a Pro Bono Council is necessary to serve as the “voice” when there are issues that effect pro bono.

Bruce Benecke pointed out that what functions the PBC would take on in part would depend on the decisions made regarding membership and structure of the PBC. It was difficult to separate the functions issue from the membership/structure issue.

Jerry Lane made a proposal to remove the word “enforce” from “monitor and enforce the plan that comes from the Legal Services Commission. The group agreement and “enforce” was changed to “support efforts to implement” (attachment was been revised accordingly).

It was agreed that the dialogue on functions for the Pro Bono Council should continue and we would be coming back to the “list” at future meetings. The next meeting would be devoted to what the make-up of the Pro Bono Council should be (i.e. membership, as opposed to “structure”).

Next meeting was set for October 20th at noon at the MSBA. Oct. 27th is the next meeting of the Legal Services Planning Commission Pro Bono Subcommittee. It was noted that the last LSPC meeting was December 15th .

The Chair noted that it was Brad Thorsen’s birthday and there was a feeble attempt to sing Happy Birthday. The meeting was adjourned.

Develop and implement new projects on a statewide basis that will meet critical needs, improve program efficiency, etc.

Attendance: Coleen Beebe, Gary Hird, Gail Chang Bohr, Pat Burns, Karen Canon, Joe Dixon, Mary Durand, Candee Goodman, Cathy Haukedahl, Janine Laird, Jean Lastine, Gary Liebmann, Lora Mitchell, Patty Murto and Brad Thorsen. Bricker Lavik also attended.

The only change to the minutes was to add Patty Murto who was present at the meeting. Karen will work with Janny to get the minutes and meeting notices on the web site and also make sure that Bricker is included.

Bricker Lavik gave a report from the Pro Bono Council structure subcommittee. Subcommittee members were Mary Durand, Cathy Haukedahl, Brad Thorsen, Patty Murto and Bricker Lavik. Bricker reported that the “structure” subcommittee had met and reviewed various options (see attached Council Stucture Options). The options considered were either informal, unincorporated association or a separate 501c3 with possible affiliation with MSBA, MVAP or the Supreme Court.

Bricker noted that the Coalition model of an informal association was discussed and that the model has worked well for the staffed Legal Aid programs. The consensus of the subcommittee was that a more formal structure was needed for pro bono. There was concern about not rushing into it, as opposed to taking the time to meet and make decisions concerning who would be on such a group and their purpose. Affiliations for this group could include MVAP or MSBA. To summarize, the majority of the subcommittee supported having the Pro Bono Council as a 501c3 with a group to meet to talk about the makeup with possible MSBA affiliation, of some kind. It was noted that it would be difficult to house a pro bono council under the Supreme Court.

Cathy Haukedahl indicated that she did not support an independent 501c3 at this point because she felt it was premature without discussion on the purpose and structure and that there was another layer of bureaucracy that we might be inventing. She also indicated that funding could be a problem as funders seem to like collaboration more than proliferation of new organizations. However, she was not opposed to the pro bono groups coming together, but perhaps not yet convinced of what form the group would take.

Patty Murto was strongly in favor of a 501c3, as a separate entity, because pro bono has been “less than a stepchild” and she wants to make sure that pro bono survives the Legal Services Commission and that it actually agrees to move and make a difference in serving poor people and improve the twenty percent that, to date, is as high a percentage it can be for serving low income people.

Jean Lastine asked about the MSBA staff positions for Access to Justice and Pro Bono and she stated that we should consider what role those new positions would play for the Pro Bono Council. Karen Canon indicated that nothing had been worked out with the MCBA as of yet but that we hoped the new Pro Bono Director could be staff support for the new Pro Bono Council.

Karen noted that the consensus seemed to be that while ultimately a separate 501c3 would be necessary, we should not rush to form it immediately and should take some time to sort through the issues of mission and leadership. She did point out, however, that Steve Reyelts and the Pro Bono Subcommittee of the Legal Services Commission had requested that we have a recommendation that he could incorporate into his report back to the full Legal Services Commission near the end of September. Karen offered to take the comments from today and to summarize those for his committee.

Patty Murto indicated that her concern was that after the Commission expires, pro bono will not be on anyone’s agenda and it may not continue to be a focus. Gary Hird indicated that there would be an ongoing body and that part of that initiative would include pro bono. Gary went on to say that the reason he thought the Legal Services Coalition is so successful is because they are meeting and talking with each other and collaborating. He thinks there is a need for this to be done for pro bono as well.

Mary Durand said that the legal aid programs are more alike than the pro bono programs, including their purpose and mission. She strongly supports having a separate 501c3 to focus on statewide issues. She does not think it would be that much more work than having an unincorporated association.

Bricker’s focus is on getting the pro bono groups together to serve poor people better and to get the 24,000 lawyers in Minnesota to do their share. He does not consider it a level of bureaucracy, but rather a voice. He used LegalCorps as an example of what can be done right now in creating a new entity.

Coleen Beebe asked about the structure of MVAP. Brad Thorson indicated that there was some interest in revamping the MVAP Board and changing the mission and using that as an entity. There was some discussion about what the funding for MVAP was going for and who had been involved in setting their priorities. No one in the room seemed to have a good handle on it. They were sure that MVAP was set up to raise money for pro bono, but their concern was that no one in the room was aware of what its focus was right now.

Brad also pointed out that whether or not an organization is a 501c3 is really immaterial. It is easy to set up a 501c3 and keep it qualified whether or not the organization ever does anything. The key is not the structure but rather what the organization does.

Gail Chang Bohr was interested in looking at funding and competition issues and was concerned about those, but she indicated the value in looking at mandatory pro bono and doing more pro bono in the rural areas. Bricker pointed out that funding should not be an issue because he would look at this as an entity that would go after new money, not any existing funding. He pointed out that he did not think pro bono was getting very much funding and that there probably could be a way to bring more money to the table if everyone was working together.

Patty Murto and Gail Bohr have both talked with the Bush Foundation about its initiatives and vision for a statewide entity and how it would be coordinated. It appears that there is Foundation interest in looking at funding a possible pro bono initiative on a statewide basis.

Patty Murto gave some background and history since 1981 for how LSAC and LTAB money was organized and what the fifteen percent going for pro bono programs was initially thought to do. Her view is that the commitment to pro bono has not remained as strong as the commitment to staffed legal services programs.

Cathy Haukedahl said that she is in favor of having a “voice” for pro bono and that if that ultimately a 501c3 is set up for that purpose that would be fine. She reported that she had reviewed Bricker’s white paper on funding and had written a response indicating some corrections and changes.

Joe Dixon pointed out that the success of the Coalition is their willingness to work together, even though individually they all had interests that would not be benefited by coming together. One of the strengths and weaknesses of pro bono today is its diversification – but there needs to be a stronger voice. Joe suggested that nothing is stopping the pro bono organizations from starting a similar collaboration today and that we focus on what we want to achieve and start doing it.

Pat Burns pointed out that in formalizing this group’s efforts we would need to address MVAP because their mission and purpose is so much like what this group would be. We would need to take this issue on when we talk about how to organize. Cathy Haukedahl agreed that MVAP needs rejuvenation.

Karen Canon asked if we could talk about an agenda and a meeting schedule going forward. Jean Lastine and Cathy Haukedahl agreed to do a review of MVAP including its budgets developed the last few years and what it currently is funded to do and report at the next meeting. Karen Canon indicated that she would do a summary of this discussion for Steve Reyelts’ subcommittee.

Karen indicated that the next meeting would be on the MSBA website, probably under our own icon, for this committee’s work. For the next meeting, we will also examine the list of possible work for the Pro Bono Council and prioritize them. In addition, we will look at the MVAP structure.

We tentatively set the next meeting for 8:00 a.m. on September 29, 2004 in St. Paul at the Judicial Center, before the full legal services commission meeting scheduled at 9:30 a.m. in St. Paul. It was noted that is Brad Thorsen’s birthday

A meeting of the Pro Bono Task Force was called to order at 12:15 p.m. on August 17, 2004.

Attendance: Committee members attending the meeting included Gary Hird, Bricker Lavik, Jeanine Laird, Karen Canon, Candee Goodman, Gary Liebmann , Kathy Haukedahl, Jean Lastine, Bill Thompson, Lora Mitchell, Brad Thorsen, Joe Dixon and Mary Durand. Participating by phone were Gail Baker and Steve Reyelts.

Introductions were made by all participants, both in person and on the telephone.

Karen Canon, as Chair, provided some background and history. She also referenced the handout materials that will be sent out to members not present at today’s meeting. She discussed the coordination between the LAD Committee and the Commission Pro Bono Subcommittee and the work of this Task Force to create an entity to continue after the Commission expires in December 2004.

History: Bricker Lavik had a handout and shared with the committee members the white paper on pro bono funding from 2003/2004.

Discussion: Bricker Lavik explained the Keystone concept and structure that was proposed as part of the Commission work.

Steve Reyelts discussed the timeline and deadline for the Commission’s Pro Bono Committee. He asked that the Pro Bono Council Task Force have a recommendation that he could present as part of his report back to the Commission regarding the structure and function of a pro bono council.

There was consensus that there could be a need for a Pro Bono Council, if we could articulate a structure and function. To that end, the following suggestions were given by the committee members:

A motion was made and unanimously passed to ask Bricker Lavik to chair the subcommittee on structure. His committee will take a look at identifying what possible structures a Pro Bono Council could take with a specific recommendation. Some possible structure options could include: affiliation or committee of MSBA, a project under the Minnesota Supreme Court, a separate 501 C3 entity, an informal body, or MVAP.

Volunteers for the structures committee included Bricker Lavik, Kathy Haukedahl, Patty Murto, Brad Thorsen and Mary Durand.

Joe Genereux, (participating by phone for just a few minutes), said that LegalCorp could help provide a lawyer to assist with the incorporation, if that is proposed.

Steve Reyelts asked that this task force interim report and recommendation be finalized before his meeting of the Pro Bono Committee of the Legal Services Commission, scheduled about September 21, 2004.

Gary Hird suggested that we continue to meet in Minneapolis. This was agreed to by everyone. Others can participate by phone, if they are unable to attend in person. We also talked about backup space for meetings, if we cannot use MSBA. The Dorsey law firm is available as well as Fredrikson and Byron.

At the next meeting we will start talking about possible projects and timelines.

Steve informed the Task Force that the consensus of the Commission is that pro bono be a “full partner.” They have dropped the reference to “equal partner.”

We talked about the next meeting date, probably the second week in September. We agreed that morning meetings would be preferred. We will be meeting about 8:00 a.m. We tentatively scheduled the next meeting for September 8th at 8:00 a.m. at MSBA.