LAW’s Participation Helps Victims of Domestic Violence
Lawyers’ Association for Women Wins as Amicus Curiae in Matthews v. Pickett Co.
By Christina Norris
A New Name For Pro Bono
By Jackie Dixon, Chair
The New Rule on Continuing Legal Education Credit for Pro Bono Hours
By Linda Warren Seely
Legislature Sees Need for Increased civil legal assistance
New Pro Bono Coordinator Joins the Staff at Memphis Area Legal Services
By Linda Warren Seely
Open Season on Orders of Protection
By Iska Hoole
Domestic violence effort tops access to justice agenda
By Bill Haley
U.T. Begins New Pro Bono Opportunity
By Christy Carter
Update on Special Education Seminars
By Gary Buchanan
PRO BONO AWARD WINNERS ANNOUNCED AT TENNESSEE BAR ASSOCIATION ANNUAL MEETING
By Stephanie D. Smith
In a historic decision, the Tennessee Supreme Court held in June 1999 in Matthews v. Pickett Co., that law enforcement agencies are liable for any damages proximately caused by negligent enforcement of orders of protection. This ruling will increase the effectiveness of orders of protection issued to victims of domestic violence. The Lawyers’ Association for Women [LAW], in partnership with the Tennessee Lawyers’ Association for Women [TLAW] and the Tennessee Task Force Against Domestic Violence [Task Force], participated as amicus curiae in the Matthews case, represented by the author. Joe Johnston, counsel for Mary Matthews, the plaintiff, wrote to LAW to express his thanks “for your support and enthusiasm in getting this matter addressed by the Tennessee Supreme Court.”
The facts of the case were egregious. Mary Matthews obtained an order of protection after her estranged husband, Bill Winningham, assaulted, beat, and sexually violated her. The order prohibited Winningham “from coming about [Matthews] for any purpose and specifically from abusing, threatening to abuse, or committing any acts of violence upon her.” The order further provided that Winningham “shall be arrested by a law enforcement officer without a warrant if that officer has reasonable cause to believe that [Winningham] has violated or is violating this order.”
The night before the hearing on their pending divorce, Winningham tried to break into Matthews’ house, threatened to kill her, lit firecrackers under her propane tank, and she repeatedly called the sheriff’s department until Winningham cut her telephone line. Two sheriff’s deputies arrived at her house an hour after her last call. Although they saw Winningham, they did not arrest him. Instead, they took Matthews to the court-house to swear out a warrant. When the deputies were told that no warrant was necessary to arrest Winningham for violating the order of protection, they drove Matthews back to her house and found that her car had been riddled with bullets. They still refused to arrest Winningham and took Matthews out of the county. When the deputies returned, they saw Winningham leaving Ms. Matthews’ home but did not stop him or question him. After the deputies left, Matthews’ house burned to the ground, destroying all of her personal property and her two pets.
Ms. Matthews brought suit in U.S. District Court seeking damages from the deputies for negligence in enforcing the order of protection. After a bench trial, Judge Morton held that “despite an abundance of probable cause to arrest Mr. Winningham for violating the order of protection, the deputies failed to arrest [him]” and “went home and went to bed.” However, the U.S. District Court, applying Tennessee law, found Matthews’ action barred by the public duty doctrine, a general immunity grated governments against civil damage suits for failure to protect citizens from criminal acts, such as drunken driving.
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit certified the question to the Tennessee Supreme Court. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the matter. The oral argument of this case was heard in Paris, Tennessee, before several hundred high school students. Justice Holder and Justice Barker asked most of the questions. When the attorney for amicus curiae Tennessee Municipal League argued that arresting Winningham would have made no difference because he would have been immediately released on bond and then would have been angrier still, Holder queried, “So you don’t agree with the mandatory arrest law enacted by the legislature?” After the same attorney argued that allowing liability in this case would simply be a windfall for the insurance company insuring Ms. Matthews’ house, Justice Barker asked “Why should an insurance company have to pay for negligence of the sheriff’s deputies?” After the argument, a Picket County Sheriff in the courtroom approached Christina Norris to say that he teaches at the law enforcement academy and that he was glad to hear LAW’s argument because a favorable ruling in the case “would help the good officers.”
In an opinion authored by Justice Holder, the Supreme Court held that a special duty exception applies in this case to negate the immunity created by the public duty doctrine. The court held that the order of protection issued to Ms. Matthews was specifically for the purpose of protecting her from Winningham. When Ms. Matthews later contacted the sheriff’s department and requested their protection, she was relying on the order of protection. The court held these facts sufficient to create a special duty exception to the public duty doctrine.
The defendants argued that any damages should be extended only to liability for personal injury, not property damage. The Court disagreed, holding that if a special relationship exists, immunity is removed and the provisions of the Government Tort Liability Act control the cause of action. Thus the defendants may be liable under the GTLA for any damages proximately caused by the breach of the special duty.
Kathy England Walsh, the Executive Director of the Tennessee Task Force Against Domestic Violence, thanked LAW on behalf of the 50,000 women and children served this year in 50 shelters across Tennessee. She believes this case will have a far-reaching impact in increasing the seriousness given by law enforcement officers to orders of protection.
The charter of LAW states that one of the purposes of the organization is to participate as amicus curiae in cases involving issues significant to women. n
Christina Norris, an attorney in Nashville, is one of the founding members of LAW.
The Tennessee Bar Association’s Pro Bono and Access to Justice committees have merged. The new committee is known as the Access to Justice Committee. The merger was effective at the beginning of the current “bar year” in June. TBA President Randy Noel says that the idea behind the merger was to broaden the scope of the important work of what had been the Pro Bono Committee. The newly merged committee will continue to focus on pro bono issues, and will also concentrate on a variety of other issues including legal services, community education, pro se litigants and the numerous issues involved in providing legal assistance to those segments of our population who cannot afford to pay for them.
Last December, the Rules of the Supreme Court of Tennessee were amended and several sections to Rule 21 dealing with the Commission on Legal Education were changed or added. This article deals specifically with a new section that was added. Section 4.07(c) under Rule 21 states that:
The Commission may, in its discretion, award:
(c) ethics and professionalism credit at the rate of one hour of credit for every eight billable hours of pro bono legal representation provided through court appointment, an organized bar association program or legal services organization, or of pro bono mediation services as required by Tennessee Supreme Court …
In the comments to the discussion draft of the amendment when it was originally proposed in August 1997, the commission indicates that this provision was created to recognize the fact that “actually meeting our ethical obligations as attorneys is more important than simply knowing what they are.” The comment goes on to say that the intent of the amendment is to “recognize and reward attorneys involved in pro bono programs, and to encourage the development of such programs…”
Now that the rule is in effect, it is incumbent upon administrators of the various pro bono projects to certify to the commission that attorneys have provided pro bono hours. And it is now more important than ever that attorneys who are providing pro bono representation accurately report to the program coordinator the hours of service they are providing. Although there is currently no required format or time frame for the coordinators to make their certification to the commission, several programs have devised their own forms. A program coordinator with a similar pilot project in Vermont simply sends a letter detailing who did what, when and for how long. The commission has indicated that whatever form the coordinators choose to use will suffice for their purposes, or at least, that is currently correct.
The bigger concern is to ensure that the volunteer attorneys send to the coordinators accurate information regarding the cases they handle. While most of the attorneys send in Closing Case Memos, many forget to include information about the number of hours they spend on the case. For the past several months, our program has been sending the closing memos back to the volunteer attorney and requesting that the attorneys include information about the number of hours spent plus their Board of Professional Responsibility Number. West Tennessee Legal Services has been submitting monthly statements on our form to the commission and there have been no problems with our method of reporting.
A question that has recently arisen involves cases that attorneys have accepted via appointment by a court where they are entitled to payment that is below market rate and capped. Pro Bono coordinators generally report these cases as pro bono to the various funders of their programs and the question was posed to the commission about whether or not these types of cases will qualify for ethics and professionalism credit under new Rule 21 §4(c). The preliminary answer from the commission’s executive director, Mr. Shearon, indicated that the commission was not inclined to award credit for hours for cases where an attorney is compensated in any fashion.
Working tenaciously, quietly and effectively, advocates for the poor in Tennessee scored a major coup this year. Legislation was enacted to add a $1 fee to the fines paid by speeders and other traffic and parking violators. The bill was sponsored by Senator Douglas Henry (D-Nashville), Representative Matt Kisber (D-Jackson), and is dedicated to the support of civil legal assistance. Other sponsors included: Senators Thelma Harper, Bobby Carter, Roscoe Dixon and Randy McNally, and Representatives Steve McDaniel, Larry Scroggs, Kim McMillan, Keith Westmoreland, Ronnie Cole, Rep. Sherry Jones, Randy Rinks, Edith Taylor Langster and Barbara Cooper.
Long-time legal aid advocates Stewart Clifton and Mike Murphy coordinated this masterful effort. It received early and constant backing from the Tennessee Bar Association, which made the bill part of its legislatively-endorsed package.
The legislation is expected to generate several hundred thousand dollars annually adding to the $1.6 million in state funding, which comes from the Civil Legal Representation of Indigents Act of 1995.
The funds are administered by the Administrative Office of the Courts that makes grants to local legal services programs in proportion to the poverty population in that area. The new legislation also includes establishment of a new advisory body, with TBA representation, to advise the AOC. TBA Immediate Past-President, Pamela L. Reeves said “There is no higher calling among the bar than providing access to our justice system. I am proud that we are able to make a contribution in this area.”
TBA Executive Director, Allan F. Ramsaur, credited Clifton with the “heavy lifting” involved in this year’s efforts. “Except for a few kind words here and there, the legal services programs and in particular, Stewart Clifton, made this legislation possible,” said Ramsaur.
The legal services programs mounted perhaps their most effective effort ever at reaching community leaders and lawmakers through volunteer board members, staff and clients. Lobbying for local funding for legal services programs is one of the few areas of legislative work not presently restricted by the Legal Services Corporation Act.
After several months of a part-time pro bono coordinator, Memphis Area Legal Services has finally been able to hire a full-time attorney for their pro bono position. Tina L. Perrusquia (pronounced Paris-kee-a), a 1998 graduate of the University of Memphis School of Law, has been working in the position since July 1999 and she says she finds the work “interesting.” Ms. Perrusquia has been able to recruit six new attorneys to handle cases and has been able to make referrals to them. “I really like the work that legal services as an organization does. It has been a good experience to be able to work toward facilitating the needs of the client with a volunteer,” states Perrusquia. “I find it is very rewarding to help people in need,” she adds.
Originally from Marion, Arkansas, Ms. Perrusquia is married to a reporter at The Commercial Appeal and is the mother of a bouncing baby boy, Paul. She can be reached at 901/523-8822, ext. 248.
“Your Honor, if you grant this order of protection, my client won’t ever be able to own a gun or hunt and fish again!” This argument is a new trend in defending an alleged abuser against an order of protection, and the strategy is working.
If you work with victims of domestic violence, you need to know how to shoot down this lame duck argument before it has time to get off the ground. The truth is that neither Tennessee nor federal law permanently dispossess a person who is subject to an order of protection of the right to possess and to buy firearms or of the right to carry a handgun. However, a person cannot possess or buy firearms or carry a handgun while that person is subject to an order of protection. When the order of protection expires, so does the ban on the possession and buying of firearms and the ban on carrying a handgun.
It might be a good idea to remind an opponent and the court that there is a reason for the defendant to be temporarily deprived of his or her right to possess and to buy firearms and to carry a handgun — to protect lives.
Confusion on the issue of orders of protection and the right to bear arms may have occurred because of permanent restrictions placed on firearms when a person is convicted of particular criminal offenses. If a person is convicted of the misdemeanor crime called “domestic violence offense,” then the person is permanently deprived of his or her right to possess and to buy firearms. That person is also forever unable to carry handguns. Of course once convicted, the person should not have a handgun to carry. In addition, a handgun permit can not be granted to a person who has been convicted of stalking.
The following is a more detailed explanation of the laws that relate to orders of protection, domestic violence, and the right to bear arms. Always keep in mind that restrictions placed on firearms as a result of an order of protection last only as long as the order. Permanent restrictions placed on firearms occur only when a person is convicted of certain criminal offenses.
Seizure of Weapons: Under Tennessee Law, there are two instances when a law enforcement officer can seize weapons in the context of a criminal offense involving domestic abuse:
1. “If a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a criminal offense involving domestic abuse … has occurred, the officer shall seize all weapons that are alleged to have been used by the abuser or threatened to be used by an abuser in the commission of a crime.” Tenn. Code Ann. §36-3-620(a)(1) (Supp. 1998).
2. “Incident to an arrest for a crime involving domestic abuse … a law enforcement officer may seize a weapon that is in plain view of the officer or discovered pursuant to a consensual search, if necessary for the protection of the officer or other persons.” Tenn. Code Ann. §36-3 620(a)(2). Note that if the weapon is needed by the victim for self-defense, the law enforcement officer is not required to remove the weapon. Tenn. Code Ann. §36-3-620(a)(2).
Weapons that were seized under number 1 above, can be sold or used for legitimate law purposes, as detailed by Tenn. Code Ann. §39-17-1317. Tenn. Code Ann. §36-3-620(b). Weapons seized under number 2 would be returned at the end of the case. Tenn. Code Ann. §36 3-620(b). The term “weapon” is defined in Tennessee law as a firearm, “an explosive, a machine gun, a short-barrel rifle or shotgun, a firearm silencer, a switchblade knife or knuckles, or any other implement for infliction of serious bodily injury or death which has no common lawful purpose.” Tenn. Code Ann. §36-3-601(10) & 39-17-1302(a) (1997).
Sale and Possession of Firearms: Tennessee law also prohibits the sale of firearms to people who are ineligible to be sold firearms under federal law. Tenn. Code Ann. §39-17-1316(a)(1) (Supp. 1998). Federal law prohibits the transportation, possession or receipt of firearms or ammunition for firearms, that have been in interstate commerce or have affected interstate commerce, to a person who is subject to an order of protection. 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(8)(Supp. 1999) and 921(17)(a). More specifically, the possession, sale, or receipt of firearms is prohibited to a person who is subject to a court order that:
(1) Was issued after a hearing of which the person received actual notice, and at which the person had an opportunity to participate;
(2) Restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of the person or child of the intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and either
(3) Includes a finding that the person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the intimate partner or child; or
(4) By its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury. 18 U.S.C §922(g)(8).
When the order of protection expires, so does the prohibition against the possession and buying of firearms. 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(8). Also, the federal prohibition only extends to an abuser who is an intimate partner of his or her victim. Intimate partner is defined as “the spouse of the person, a former spouse of the person, an individual who is the parent of a child of the person, and an individual who cohabitates or has cohabitated with the person.” 18 U.S.C. §921(32). Under Tennessee law, orders of protection can be granted to a broader group of people, so in some situations the federal prohibition on the possession and buying of firearms will not apply. Tenn. Code Ann. §36-3-601(9) (Supp. 1998).
The federal prohibition also will not apply when an order of protection does not include either a finding that the person is a threat to the victim’s physical safety or does not explicitly prohibit the use or threatened use of force against the victim. All drafters of orders of protection should take special note of this requirement.
Handgun Carry Permits: Tennessee law prohibits the issuance of a handgun carry permit to a person “currently subject to any order of protection.” Tenn. Code Ann. §39-17-1351(c)(8). When the order of protection expires, so does the prohibition on being able to carry a handgun. Of course the applicant for the handgun carry permit must also meet the statute’s other requirements. A person convicted of the offense of stalking or of the misdemeanor crime of domestic violence cannot obtain a handgun carry permit. Tenn. Code Ann. §39-17-1351(c)(16) & (18).
In addition, a handgun permit will be suspended once a person becomes subject to an order of protection. Tenn. Code Ann. §39-17-1352(a)(7)(1997). Presumably the permit would be reinstated by request once the order of protection expires. Tenn. Code Ann. §39-17-1352 (1997).
Domestic Violence Offense: Under Tennessee law, there is a crime called a “domestic violence offense.” Tenn Code Ann. §40-14-109 (1997). The same crime is termed in federal law a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.” 18 U.S.C. 921(33) (Supp. 1999). To be a domestic violence offense, the offense must be a misdemeanor that has as one of its elements the use or attempted use of physical force or the threatened use of a deadly weapon. In addition, the person who committed the offense must be :
1. A current or former spouse, parent or guardian of the victim;
2. A person with whom the victim shares a child in common;
3. A person who is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian;
4. A person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim.
Tenn. Code Ann. §40-14-109(a) & 18 U.S.C. 921(33).
One repercussion of being convicted of the state or federal offense of domestic violence is that the person will never be able to possess or buy a firearm of any kind. 18 U.S.C. §922 (g)(9). If the defendant wishes to plead guilty or proceed pro se, Tennessee law requires that the judge inform the defendant that once convicted of this offense he or she will never be able to possess or buy a firearm and that it is a federal offense to do so. Tenn. Code Ann. §40-14-109(b) &(c). Tennessee law also prevents a person convicted of the above offense from obtaining a handgun carry permit and revokes a permit already issued. Tenn Code Ann. §39-17-1351(c)(16) & 39-17 1352(a)(1).
Hunting and Fishing: A person who is subject to an order of protection can hunt and fish in any manner that does not require the use of a firearm. Besides shooting fish in a barrel, no type of fishing is prohibited. As to other game sports, I guess this is the time to brush up on bow hunting and boomerangs.
Iska Hoole is a staff attorney with Legal Services in Tullahoma, where she represents domestic violence victims in a variety of civil legal matters, including Order of Protection proceedings.
Jackie Dixon has headed pro bono efforts at the Tennessee Bar Association for the past two years. Since June, she has been chair of the Access to Justice Committee. She recently outlined the ambitious agenda the committee has undertaken in 1999 – 2000: “In addition to our ongoing projects, we have embraced a significant new project for the coming year,” Dixon said. “We plan to produce six or seven CLE programs all across Tennessee focusing on Domestic Violence Law and Practice.”
Dixon reports that her TBA committee is working closely with the Tennessee Task Force Against Domestic Violence, the eight legal services organizations of Tennessee, and The Tennessee Lawyers Association for Women (T-LAW) in planning a far-reaching effort to support volunteer lawyers across the state who represent domestic violence victims. “We hope to help volunteer lawyers help battered women by getting involved earlier in the legal process,” Dixon explained. “The law around domestic violence has become increasingly complex.”
The domestic violence CLE events will be offered in February and March. The committee, explains Dixon, hopes to make the training accessible to a large number of practitioners, and thus will repeat the day-long event in seven areas: Memphis, Jackson, Nashville, South Central Tennessee, Chattanooga, Knoxville, and Johnson City. Attendees will be given a comprehensive and up-to-date practice manual, which is being compiled by the Tennessee Task Force Against Domestic Violence with input from Domestic Violence Specialists around the state.
“We hope these events will reach at least 200 attorneys, and give them the tools to understand domestic violence and be more effective in cases where domestic violence is an issue. We also hope these seminars will help recruit new volunteers to the pro bono effort in Tennessee,” Dixon said. She explained that the Access to Justice committee has identified this issue because of the tremendous need for attorneys to take pro bono divorce cases involving domestic violence, a topic which often scares volunteer attorneys.
The Access to Justice Committee will continue its on-going projects this year as well, Dixon noted. One of those projects is publishing the biannual Tennessee Volunteer Attorney Newsletter. Another is sponsoring annual awards for Pro Bono Attorney of the Year, Pro Bono Student of the Year, and Public Interest Lawyer of the Year. Dixon noted that the committee has decided to announce these awards at the TBA’s mid-winter meeting so that students will get recognized during their scholastic year, instead of after it ends, and because the Nashville venue will make it easier for the winners of the awards to attend. The committee is also working on enhancing the connection between student pro bono groups at the state’s law schools and volunteer attorneys around the state.
During the past year the committee co-sponsored a series of CLE events on Special Education Law and Practice. Held in Johnson City, Knoxville, Nashville and Memphis, these events were co-sponsored by the Tennessee Association of Legal Services and Tennessee Protection and Advocacy (a non-profit advocacy group on disability law and policy issues). Dixon explained that the success of this collaborative venture was part of what motivated the committee to try the joint venture on Domestic Violence Law and Practice.
Dixon expressed her appreciation for the support given to the Access to Justice committee by TBA’s new director Allan Ramsaur, and staffers Stephanie Smith, Ginny Lynch and Suzanne Robertson. “Much of what we have accomplished this past year is due to increased support from the TBA staff,” Dixon stated. “The newsletter’s look and timeliness has improved. Committee meeting notices are sent out timely, and assistance with planning and scheduling our CLE events has been integrated into the TBA’s broader agenda. We are very excited about the coming year, and the challenges and opportunities for increasing pro bono activity in the Volunteer State,” Dixon concluded. n
Bill Haley is Executive Director of Legal Services of South Central Tennessee. He has been editor of the Tennessee Volunteer Attorney since its inception in 1994.
U.T. Pro Bono is a student-directed, community service organization of the University of Tennessee College of Law. U.T. Pro Bono serves as a resource for attorneys of pro bono clients by providing student law clerks for research and investigatory assistance during that pro bono representation and provides assistance to persons in need of legal assistance more directly with the direct supervision of an attorney through the various projects employed.
This summer marked the beginning of a new project for U.T. Pro Bono. In cooperation with and with the financial assistance from Knoxville Legal Aid Society (KLAS), U.T. Pro Bono began its Domestic Violence Program. As part of this program U.T. Pro Bono Domestic Violence Coordinators assist in the training and recruitment of volunteers to aid KLAS in providing orders of protection; and provide research assistance to KLAS’ attorneys working on domestic violence cases.
U.T. Pro Bono anticipates a broadening of the Domestic Violence Program this fall by assisting in the creation and implementation of new programs that will work towards KLAS’ goal of providing orders of protection to those in need.
In addition to the Domestic Violence Program, U.T. Pro Bono has implemented its Homeless Project, which allows students to assist in the legal representation of individuals who are temporarily or permanently displaced. Generally, assistance is provided to those with social security, disability, housing, healthcare, food stamp and minor criminal law needs.
Other projects that we anticipate launching this fall are: a Mentoring Program, which would allow students to work more closely with and receive guidance from pro bono attorneys while offering assistance; and an Uncontested Divorce Clinic Program, which would provide a much needed resource in the area for those who have uncontested divorces, but are unable to pay the costs of legal representation.
A new round of special education seminars is planned as a follow-up to the well-received seminars offered in May of this year. The May seminars were attended by 53 attorneys in Johnson City, Knoxville, Nashville, and Memphis. The next round is planned for November. There is also a plan to make special education training available on-line through the Tennessee Bar Association.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is the federal law that assures a free appropriate public education for children with disabilities. The modus operandi of the act is the individualized education program (IEP) developed in a meeting between the parents and school personnel. If the parents disagree with the school’s recommendations for the IEP, they may request an administrative hearing before a Tennessee Department of Education hearing officer. The hearing officer’s decision may be appealed to federal court for a de novo review of the administrative record, supplemented by additional evidence at the request of the parties. Court awarded attorneys’ fees are available to the parents if the child is the prevailing party.
There is a great need for attorneys who can represent children with disabilities in special education matters. The purpose of the seminars is to train attorneys in all areas of the state who may be interested in handling these cases. Interested attorneys should contact Gary Buchanan with Tennessee Protection & Advocacy Inc., at 615-298-1080; Linda Seely with West Tennessee Legal Services, at 901-423-0616, or Bill Haley with Legal Services of South Central Tennessee, at 931-381-5533.
Congratulations go out to the recipients of the 1999 Pro Bono Awards! The Tennessee Bar Association Pro Bono Committee, under the leadership of Jackie Dixon, took on the difficult task of awarding the 1999 Law Student Volunteer Award, the 1999 Public Service Attorney of the Year, and the 1999 Harris Gilbert Pro Bono Attorney of the Year.
Cinnamon Davis was awarded the 1999 Law Student Volunteer Award. Ms. Davis, a student at Vanderbilt Law School, had not only been active in the student-run Vanderbilt Legal Aid Society, but had played an integral role in rejuvenating the society. She organized two new and most effective volunteer programs — The Tennessee Justice Center (a student clerk placement program), and the beginnings of a prison project. A colleague stated “[Ms. Davis] never looked for applause, she always listened to other’s ideas, and was definitely concerned in the most honest way . . . Her actions and thoughts are genuine, giving and inspirational to be around.”
The 1999 Public Service Award recipient is Pam Ford Wright. Ms. Wright, a graduate of the University of Tennessee and Duke University Law School, has devoted her entire career to the peerless representation of the indigent. An attorney with West Tennessee Legal Services, she is known not only for the commitment she has shown to her clients, but also because of her commitment to strengthen the advocacy of others, particularly in the fields of TennCare for Tennessee’s families and Medicare for Tennessee’s senior citizens. Her advocacy on TennCare has directly and concretely affected more than one-quarter million Tennesseans who depend on that program for life-saving access to health care. Ms. Wright is also Tennessee’s acknowledged expert on the complexities of Medicaid in long term care situations, and was one of the first Tennessee lawyers to receive certification in elder law. She is said to be a “dedicated, kind and compassionate human being. No client, rich or poor, could hope to have a better advocate.”
To quote Chief Justice E. Riley Anderson, while speaking at the 20th Anniversary celebration of Rural Legal Services of Tennessee, “The county had a legal aid program before RLST arrived – it was called Dorothy Stulberg, the 1999 Harris Gilbert Pro Bono Attorney of the Year.” Ms. Stulberg was chairman of the board of RLST from 1976 to 1999. She has contributed greatly to her community of Oak Ridge — she established the area’s community action program (and later directed it), and the Neighborhood Youth Corps (and later directed it). She has traveled the gamut of legal representation — assisting many of the county’s most disadvantaged families while handling landmark litigation such as convincing Tennessee high school athletics authorities to end girls half-court basketball. Through her life and practice, she has exemplified how an attorney can use personal and professional skills to the benefit of the community.
