The Experts below are selected from a list of 31605 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Yunchien Chang - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
pro bono is pro low bono is low qualitative and quantitative analysis of lawyers Legal Aid participation
Social Science Research Network, 2020Co-Authors: Chingfang Hsu, Kanhsueh Chiang, Yunchien ChangAbstract:This article develops a theory on the Legal profession’s participation in providing services to indigent clients. Our theory is based on two factors: whether lawyers have successful practices, and whether the Legal Aid delivered to indigent clients is free or below market price. Pro bono signals moral high ground in the profession. Conversely, a regime in which Legal assistance is provided at a discounted market price, an under-explored area in the literature, attracts less competitive attorneys, and doing Legal Aid cases is perceived as signifying incompetence in professional capacity. Using a unique, comprehensive data set on all Legal Aid lawyers in Taiwan (nearly 4,000), two nationwide attorney surveys, and 143 in-depth interviews with practicing lawyers across the country, we offer the first comprehensive empirical analysis of Legal Aid lawyers and explain that the design of a Legal Aid regime attracts lawyers of different hemispheres into the endeavor.
Lukas Mueller - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
unentgeltliche rechtspflege court grants of Legal Aid and Legal Aid
Social Science Research Network, 2015Co-Authors: Lukas MuellerAbstract:German Abstract: Dieser Artikel liefert nutzliche Informationen zur unentgeltlichen Rechtspflege nach der Schweizer Zivilprozessordnung. Es werden der Umfang, die Voraussetzungen und das Verfahren fur die unentgeltliche Rechtspflege erlautert. English Abstract: This article provides a useful outline on court grants of Legal Aid and Legal Aid according to the Swiss Code of Civil Procedure. This outline explains the extent, the Legal prerequisites and the procedure which is necessary in order to receive court grants of Legal Aid and Legal Aid.
Aaron Halegua - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
who will represent china s workers lawyers Legal Aid and the enforcement of labor rights
Social Science Research Network, 2016Co-Authors: Aaron HaleguaAbstract:In the past decade, China has made considerable progress in legislating new Legal protections for workers, expanding access to arbitration and courts, and expanding the government-operated Legal Aid system. But how do they fare in this process? Are they able to find Legal representation? This report explores the scope of workers’ current Legal needs, trends in the mediation and litigation of labor disputes, the landscape of Legal service providers, and the size of the “representation gap” between Legal needs and services. The report is based on over 100 interviews, observations of Legal proceedings, and extensive documentary research. An original analysis of over 30,000 court judgments was also conducted in collaboration with Legal Miner, a Chinese data analytics company.After the Introduction, Section II describes seven prevalent work-related Legal issues facing Chinese workers: (1) a lack of written labor contracts; (2) the use of labor dispatch and subcontracting arrangements; (3) unpAid wages; (4) employers’ failure to make pension or social insurance contributions; (5) the prevalence of workplace injuries and occupational disease; (6) difficulties in enforcing judgments; and (7) pregnancy discrimination. Section III of the report then introduces China’s Legal mechanisms for addressing these issues, the growing number and variety of labor disputes, and how workers fare in this system. Section IV describes and evaluates the various providers of Legal services for workers, including private lawyers, government-sponsored Legal Aid, Legal Aid through the trade union, pro bono Legal services, “barefoot lawyers,” basic-level Legal workers, law school clinics, bar associations, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Section V then discusses the representation gap in Legal services that remains, including an original analysis that quantifies how many workers are unrepresented in court litigation. Section VI proposes a series of eight strategies to narrow the representation gap by either reducing the “demand” for services (decreasing labor violations the first place) or increasing the “supply” of quality Legal services. Section VII concludes by identifying potential areas for further research.
Neil Rickman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the impact of legislation on the outcomes of civil litigation an empirical analysis of the Legal Aid sentencing and punishment of offenders act 2012
Social Science Research Network, 2019Co-Authors: Paul Fenn, Neil RickmanAbstract:The Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO) came into force in England and Wales in 2013, Part 2 of which brought a number of reforms to the costs and conduct of civil litigation. The current paper seeks to provide the first empirical evaluation of LASPO Part 2. We begin by discussing and presenting the types of data that are required for the evaluation given the difficulties caused by the changing mix of pre- and post-LASPO rules applying to settled claims. We then present graphical and regression analysis to show that LASPO appears to have had a statistically significant effect on settlement behaviour and on the overall costs of litigation, at least in relation to the types of claim and data sources considered here. There are fewer claims, and their recovered base costs, damages and use of formal Legal proceedings have all diminished. In our conclusion we put these results in context of the declared objectives of the reforms, speculate on what may have caused the behavioural shifts we observe, and comment on ways to develop the research.
-
standard fees for Legal Aid an empirical analysis of incentives and contracts
Social Science Research Network, 2007Co-Authors: Paul Fenn, Alastair Gray, Neil RickmanAbstract:This paper asks whether lawyers respond to financial incentives in ways that are consistent with predictions from contract theory. It uses data collected from before/after the introduction of standard fees for Legal Aid lawyers in England and Wales. For some inputs (not all), these substituted fixed price contracts for retrospective fee-for-service remuneration. We consider the effects of these new contracts on case-level inputs and examine the extent of substitution across inputs remunerated by fixed prices and fee-for-service. We find that lawyers' responses were consistent with theory: (i) high-powered incentives for cost-reduction lowered inputs that may have been difficult to monitor, and (ii) substitution across inputs took place in line with multitask agency. Our results have implications for Legal Aid expenditure control, and current policies on personal injury litigation, as well as providing empirical evidence on the effects of remuneration contracts. Copyright 2007 , Oxford University Press.
-
the reform of Legal Aid in england and wales
Fiscal Studies, 2005Co-Authors: Neil Rickman, Paul Fenn, Alastair GrayAbstract:Legal Aid expenditure has risen dramatically in recent years, prompting attention from successive governments. A prominent theme of past and present government reform proposals has been the shifting of risk away from the taxpayer towards lawyers, clients and insurers by altering the means by which Legal Aid lawyers are pAid. This paper explores this theme by presenting information on Legal Aid expenditure trends over the last two decades and then considering whether payment mechanisms have contributed to this performance. Finally, it reviews previous and current reform proposals in this area. It concludes that, because risk-shifting also alters incentives, it is essential that reform recognises and monitors these.
Joshua L Boehm - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the earned income tax credit low income workers and the Legal Aid community
Columbia Journal of Tax Law, 2019Co-Authors: Adam S Chilton, Jonathan Schneller, Joshua L BoehmAbstract:The Earned Income Tax Credit (“EITC”) is the largest U.S. welfare program, with twenty-four million low-income Americans receiving $60 billion of disbursals in 2009. Through the EITC, working Americans with little or no tax liability can receive up to nearly $6,000 in refundable tax credits each year. Over the past two decades, policymakers have increasingly favored the EITC over direct-transfer welfare programs, citing its lower administrative expense (as recipients “self-certify” by filing taxes) and incentives for recipients to work. Despite its political appeal, the EITC suffers deep structural flaws. Largely because EITC claimants have little guidance in navigating the difficult filing process, they are subject to high rates of IRS audits and rescission of benefits with penalties and interest. This proliferation of EITC-related controversies has created an immense need for Legal assistance, yet low-income tax law largely remains a peripheral concern within the Legal Aid community. In this article, we suggest a comprehensive and achievable set of reforms that the IRS and Legal services organizations can enact to improve the EITC’s efficacy and fairness. We first describe how the complexity of EITC eligibility criteria creates a tremendous burden for low-income Americans, as they frequently lack advice in tax filing and cannot afford Legal representation in the event of a controversy with the IRS. We then outline measures that the IRS should implement to make the EITC more accessible and understandable to those qualifying for the credit, reducing the chance of an audit and loss of benefits. In particular, we focus on improving the tax filing process, making EITC audits more manageable for recipients, instituting less adversarial procedures for EITC-related Tax Court proceedings, and changing certain organizational structures within the IRS. Finally, we propose several practical ways that the Legal Aid community can enhance its support of EITC recipients confronting an IRS audit or Tax Court action. Most importantly, we argue that EITC assistance warrants greater Congressional funding and higher strategic and budgetary priority within Legal Aid organizations, given that the EITC is now far larger than the direct-transfer welfare programs on which Legal Aid lawyers have traditionally focused. * Law clerk, Justice Elena Kagan, U.S. Supreme Court. ** Ph.D. candidate, Harvard University Department of Government. *** J.D., Harvard Law School, 2012. The authors would like to thank Senior Lecturer Jeanne Charn of Harvard Law School, Dean Martha Minow of Harvard Law School, Tamara Borland, Director of the Low Income Tax Clinic at Iowa Legal Aid, and James J. Sandman, President of the Legal Services Corporation, for their helpful comments and suggestions. 2012] THE EITC, LOW-INCOME WORKERS, & THE Legal Aid COMMUNITY 177
-
the earned income tax credit low income workers and the Legal Aid community
Columbia Journal of Tax Law, 2012Co-Authors: Jonathan P Schneller, Adam S Chilton, Joshua L BoehmAbstract:The Earned Income Tax Credit (“EITC”) is the largest U.S. welfare program, with twenty-four million low-income Americans receiving $60 billion of disbursals in 2009. Through the EITC, working Americans with little or no tax liability can receive up to nearly $6,000 in refundable tax credits each year. Over the past two decades, policymakers have increasingly favored the EITC over direct-transfer welfare programs, citing its lower administrative expense (as recipients “self-certify” by filing taxes) and incentives for recipients to work. Despite its political appeal, the EITC suffers deep structural flaws. Largely because EITC claimants have little guidance in navigating the difficult filing process, they are subject to high rates of IRS audits and rescission of benefits with penalties and interest. This proliferation of EITC-related controversies has created an immense need for Legal assistance, yet low-income tax law largely remains a peripheral concern within the Legal Aid community. In this article, we suggest a comprehensive and achievable set of reforms that the IRS and Legal services organizations can enact to improve the EITC’s efficacy and fairness. We first describe how the complexity of EITC eligibility criteria creates a tremendous burden for low-income Americans, as they frequently lack advice in tax filing and cannot afford Legal representation in the event of a controversy with the IRS. We then outline measures that the IRS should implement to make the EITC more accessible and understandable to those qualifying for the credit, reducing the chance of an audit and loss of benefits. In particular, we focus on improving the tax filing process, making EITC audits more manageable for recipients, instituting less adversarial procedures for EITC-related Tax Court proceedings, and changing certain organizational structures within the IRS. Finally, we propose several practical ways that the Legal Aid community can enhance its support of EITC recipients confronting an IRS audit or Tax Court action. Most importantly, we argue that EITC assistance warrants greater Congressional funding and higher strategic and budgetary priority within Legal Aid organizations, given that the EITC is now far larger than the direct-transfer welfare programs on which Legal Aid lawyers have traditionally focused.
