Florida Supreme Court SC14-1637 ADA TITLE II Accommodation Request

Page 1 of 1
Neil Gillespie
From:
Sent:
Subject:
<noreply@myflcourtaccess.com>
Tuesday, December 16, 2014 3:51 PM
Filing 21643333 Processed - Appellate Courts
Dear Neil J. Gillespie:
This email verifies the processing of your NOTICES NOTICE OF FILING; BRIEFS APPENDIX/ATTACHMENT TO BRIEF; BRIEFS
APPENDIX/ATTACHMENT TO BRIEF; BRIEFS APPENDIX/ATTACHMENT TO BRIEF; BRIEFS APPENDIX/ATTACHMENT TO BRIEF; BRIEFS
APPENDIX/ATTACHMENT TO BRIEF; BRIEFS APPENDIX/ATTACHMENT TO BRIEF; BRIEFS APPENDIX/ATTACHMENT TO BRIEF; BRIEFS
APPENDIX/ATTACHMENT TO BRIEF; BRIEFS APPENDIX/ATTACHMENT TO BRIEF; BRIEFS APPENDIX/ATTACHMENT TO BRIEF by the
Office of the Clerk, Supreme Court of Florida.
Status: Docketed
Florida Courts E-Filing Portal Reference Number: 21643333
Filing Date/Time: 12/16/2014 09:35:07 AM
Case Number:
Case Name: NEIL J. GILLESPIE vs.THE FLORIDA BAR
Documents
#
Document Type
Status
Filing Date Not Docketed Reason
Your Attachment
NOTICES NOTICE OF FILING
Accepted
12/16/2014
NOTICE OF SUBMITTING ADA

TITLE II REQUEST.pdf
BRIEFS
APPENDIX/ATTACHMENT TO
BRIEF
Accepted
12/16/2014
Gillespie ADA request letter to

Silvester Dawson, ADA
Coordinator, Supreme
Court.pdf
BRIEFS
BRIEF
Accepted
12/16/2014
Gillespie ADA request to

Florida Supreme Court, SC141637.pdf
BRIEFS
BRIEF
Accepted
12/16/2014
1. The ADA-One Avenue to

Appointed Counsel Before a
Full Civil Gideon.pdf
BRIEFS
BRIEF
Accepted
12/16/2014
2. Social Security Admin

disability notice letter August
23, 1993.pdf
BRIEFS
BRIEF
Accepted
12/16/2014
3. Social Security Admin

disability letter August 1,
2012, no review needed.pdf
BRIEFS
BRIEF
Accepted
12/16/2014
4. ER report Hahnemann U.
Hospital Phila, Aug-20-1988,
661k.pdf
BRIEFS
BRIEF
Accepted
12/16/2014
5. C.A.11-No.12-11213-C
Amended Disability MotionAug-09-2012, PACER.pdf
BRIEFS
BRIEF
Accepted
12/16/2014
6. C.A.11-No.12-11213-C
Amended Disability MotionAug-06-2012, PDF.pdf
10
BRIEFS
BRIEF
Accepted
12/16/2014
7. ABA Journal, Brain injury

suspension for lawyer;
couldn't stick to tasks
(comp).pdf
11
BRIEFS
BRIEF
Accepted
12/16/2014
American Bar Assn. Civil Right

to Counsel in State Civil
Proceedings.pdf
Fees
Memo:
This is a non-monitored email. If you have questions about this filing, please contact the Office of the Clerk, Supreme Court of Florida,
at Support or 850 488 0125.
Thank you,
Office of the Clerk
Supreme Court of Florida
12/17/2014
Filing # 21643333 Electronically Filed 12/16/2014 09:35:07 AM
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

STATE OF FLORIDA
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Petitioner pro se (nonlawyer),
CASE NO.: SC14-1637
vs.
THE FLORIDA BAR,
Respondent.
_________________________________ /
PETITIONERS NOTICE OF SUBMITTING ADA TITLE II ACCOMMODATION REQUEST
To Include The ADA Amendments Act 2008, and WAIVER OF CONFIDENTIALITY
1.
Petitioner Neil J. Gillespie, an indigent, disabled nonlawyer reluctantly appearing pro se,
henceforth in the first person, gives Notice of Submitting ADA Title II Accommodation Request
To Include The ADA Amendments Act 2008, and Waiver of Confidentiality, to Silvester
Dawson, Marshal, ADA Coordinator for the Supreme Court of Florida, and states,
2.
The ADA TITLE II ACCOMMODATION REQUEST means the,

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) Public Law 101-336
Signed by President George Herbert Walker Bush on July 26, 1990
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990
And Major Amendments to the ADA 1990,
ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) Public Law 110-325
Signed by President George W. Bush on September 25, 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADA_Amendments_Act_of_2008
3.
On December 15, 2014 I submitted my ADA TITLE II ACCOMMODATION
REQUEST, with cover letter to Mr. Dawson, and supporting exhibits, as attached hereto.
4.
From my cover letter to Mr. Dawson, December 15, 2014,
My ability to function in real-time in a legal proceeding is severely impaired, making court

appearances without counsel impossible. Outside of proceedings I become confused with legal
matters. This disability substantially increases the time needed to complete legal work required
in the case, beyond established time limits, resulting in loss of participation in court activities.
In the past courts, judges, attorneys, law firms, and court employees have abused their position
of power and dominance over me for advantage, knowing I am especially vulnerable because I
am disabled with mental and physical impairments. This began with Mr. Rodems misconduct
and criminality. It has taken me a long time to unravel the confusion caused by abuse of power.
Unfortunately matters involving me appear to present political questions, and not legal questions
for a court to hear, and therefore are not justicable under the political question doctrine.
Unfortunately it appears the Florida Court system has refused to acknowledge or follow the
ADA Amendments Act 2008. Instead, Florida Courts rely on the out dated ADA 1990. The old
ADA may have sufficed for a represented litigant, but certainly not a disabled pro se litigant.
5.
A law review, The ADA: One Avenue to Appointed Counsel Before a Full Civil Gideon,
Seattle Journal for Social Justice: Vol. 2: Iss. 2, Article 30, by Brodoff, Lisa; McClellan, Susan;
and Anderson, Elizabeth (2004), http://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sjsj/vol2/iss2/30, found
a right to Appointed Counsel under the ADA 1990; the 2004 review was written four years prior
to the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.
6.
The American Bar Association (ABA) recently added a "Civil Right to Counsel" page,
"Law Governing Appointment of Counsel in State Civil Proceedings", with 50 research reports,
one for each state detailing existing authority for appointment of counsel in various types of civil
proceedings. There is also an Appendix: International Law Relating to Appointment of Counsel
in Civil Proceedings.
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_aid_indigent_defendants/initiatives/civil_right_to_counsel.html
From the Forward: "It is a commonplace for courts throughout the United States to
announce, "there is no right to counsel in civil cases in this state." Yet, in truth, in every
state there are at least a few categories of civil cases in which indigent litigants have a
right to counsel. Indeed in some jurisdictions there are many such rights. It also is not
unusual for state law to grant judges a discretionary power to appoint counsel for such
litigants in still other kinds of cases, or even for all civil cases."
The ABA state report shows Florida is authorized to appoint counsel in civil proceedings in any
situation to protect a litigants due process rights. The ABA Directory of Law Governing
Appointment of Counsel in State Civil Proceedings Florida, page 16:
Law Addressing Authorization or Requirement to Appoint Counsel in
Civil Proceedings Generally
State Statutes and Court Decisions Interpreting Statutes
Fla. Stat. 29.007 (2011) (Court-appointed counsel) provides:
For purposes of implementing s. 14, Art. V of the State Constitution [relating to funding
of the judiciary], the elements of court-appointed counsel to be provided from state
revenues appropriated by general law are as follows:
(1) Private attorneys appointed by the court to handle cases where the defendant is
indigent and cannot be represented by the public defender or the office of criminal
conflict and civil regional counsel.
(2) When the office of criminal conflict and civil regional counsel has a conflict of
interest, private attorneys appointed by the court to represent indigents or other classes of
litigants in civil proceedings requiring court-appointed counsel in accordance with state
and federal constitutional guarantees and federal and state statutes.
...
This section applies in any situation in which the court appoints counsel to protect a
litigants due process rights.
A private attorney appointed by a court pursuant to 29.007 (2011) shall be
reimbursed for reasonable and necessary expenses incurred during representation. Fla.
Stat. 27.5304 (2011). Fla. Stat. 27.5304 lists the fat fees to be awarded to private
attorneys. Counsel may seek compensation in excess of the fat fees listed in 27.5304
only if compensation on an hourly basis at a rate of $75.00 would be at least double the
fat fee. Justice Admin. Comm'n v. Shaman, 59 So. 3d 1231 (Fla. App. 2011).
Also see Fla. Stat. 29.007 (2011) and the 2014 29.007, which appears unchanged, attached,
Subsections (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7) apply when court-appointed counsel is appointed;
when the court determines that the litigant is indigent for costs; or when the litigant is
acting pro se and the court determines that the litigant is indigent for costs at the trial or
appellate level. This section applies in any situation in which the court appoints counsel
to protect a litigants due process rights. The Justice Administrative Commission shall
approve uniform contract forms for use in processing payments for due process services
under this section. In each case in which a private attorney represents a person
determined by the court to be indigent for costs, the attorney shall execute the
commissions contract for private attorneys representing persons determined to be
indigent for costs.
The ABA report shows Florida is authorized to appoint counsel in Specific Types of Civil
Proceedings, page 2,
Law Addressing Authorization or Requirement to Appoint Counsel in
Specific Types of Civil Proceedings
1. Shelter
Federal Statutes and Court Decisions Interpreting Statutes
The federal Fair Housing Act, contained within Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of
1968, provides that [a]n aggrieved person may commence a civil action in an
appropriate United States district court or State court. 42 U.S.C. 3613 (a)(1)(A).
Further, [u]pon application by a person alleging a discriminatory housing practice or a
person against whom such a practice is alleged, the court may-- (1) appoint an attorney
for such person. 42 U.S.C. 3613(b).
On December 10, 2013 I filed a civil rights complaint against McCalla Raymer LLC, et al. and
others with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR). The meritorious complaint
was essentially ignored and wrongly dismissed.
7.
The U.S. Eleventh Circuit has a duty and authority to make a Non-Criminal Justice Act
Counsel Appointment. The U.S. Eleventh Circuit adopted provisions for furnishing
representation for persons financially unable to obtain adequate representation in cases and
situations which do not fall within the scope of 18 U.S.C. 3006A, as amended -- but in which
the court believes that the interests of justice will be served by the presence of counsel.
See Addendum Five, U.S. Eleventh Circuit, Rev.: 8/07, found online,
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/attorney-info/criminal-justice-act
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/courtdocs/clk/RulesAddendum05AUG07.pdf
ADDENDUM FIVE
NON-CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT COUNSEL APPOINTMENTS
The court adopts these provisions for furnishing representation for persons financially
unable to obtain adequate representation in cases and situations which do not fall within
the scope of 18 U.S.C. 3006A, as amended but in which the court believes that the
interests of justice will be served by the presence of counsel.
(a) Determination of Need.

In determining need for appointment of counsel, the court shall generally be governed by
the guidelines outlined in 18 U.S.C. 3006A.
(b) Appointment of Counsel.
(1) Counsel shall be selected from the same panels of attorneys designated or approved
by the district courts of the Eleventh Circuit as described in Addendum Four, which are
hereby approved by this court, or from a bar association, legal aid agency, or other
approved organization. In addition, any judge of this court may appoint competent
counsel not otherwise included in the preceding categories.
(2) Any person seeking relief under 29 U.S.C. 621, 42 U.S.C. 1981, 42 U.S.C.
1982, 42 U.S.C. 1983, 42 U.S.C. 1985, 42 U.S.C. 1986, 42 U.S.C. 2000a, 42
U.S.C. 2000d, and 42 U.S.C. 2000e or in such other cases as the court shall determine
to be appropriate may be eligible for representation. The court may approve such
representation on a determination that the interests of justice so require and that the
person is financially unable to obtain representation.
8.
Currently I have six ADA TITLE II ACCOMMODATION REQUESTS pending,

Supreme Court of Florida, Gillespie v. The Florida Bar, SC14-1637
The Florida Bar, UPL Investigation of Neil J. Gillespie, Case No. 20133090(5)
The Florida Bar, Complaint Danielle Nicole Parsons, File No. 2014-30,525 (9A)
Second DCA, Gillespie v. Barker Rodems & Cook, et al, 2D14-5388
Hillsborough County, 13th Circuit, Gillespie v. Barker Rodems & Cook, et al, 05-CA-7205
Marion County, Fifth Circuit, Reverse Mortgage Solutions v. Gillespie, 13-00115-CAT
The Marion County case is the wrongful foreclosure of my home on a federal HECM reverse
mortgage. Currently there are two federal court orders permitting me to litigate this foreclosure
in federal court. U.S. Judge Wm. Terrell Hodges, in Order Remanding Case (Doc 19), [fn1, p.4],
This Order should not be interpreted as a ruling concerning whether, or to what extent,
Mr. Gillespie can sue HUD in a separate action. Rather, this Order is limited to whether
the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the specific action that has been removed to
this Court".
The U.S. Eleventh Circuit entered a favorable Order July 25, 2013 that states in relevant part:
"Should Gillespie wish to petition for mandamus relief, he may file a separate petition for
a writ of mandamus or prohibition with this Court. See 28 U.S.C. 1651;
Fed.R.App.P.21".
So there are two federal court orders permitting this case in federal court, which is required due
to the subject matter, a disputed federal Home Equity Conversion Mortgage, or HECM.
A HECM does not require a homeowner to make mortgage payments as a conventional
mortgage does. Instead, a HECM does not become due and payable until the last
surviving homeowner dies or no longer lives in the home. 12 U.S.C. 1715-z20(j)
Safeguard to prevent displacement of homeowner. The HECM becomes due and payable
in full "if a mortgagor dies and the property is not the principal residence of at least one
surviving mortgagor....and no other mortgagor retains title to the property." 24 C.F.R.
206.27(c).
I am one of two surviving HECM mortgagors, and the only surviving homeowner living
in the home, alone, in substantial compliance with the HECM Note, making this
foreclosure of a HECM premature. My bother Mark Gillespie of Fort Worth Texas is also
a surviving borrower, but he does not live in the home. The HECM becomes due and
payable in full "if a mortgagor dies and the property is not the principal residence of at
least one surviving mortgagor....and no other mortgagor retains title to the property." 24
C.F.R. 206.27(c). Mortgagor Ms. Gillespie died in 2009.
But I am a surviving borrower or mortgagor living in the home as my principal residence,
and retain title to the property. Therefore I dispute the Plaintiffs allegations in its
"Verified Complaint to Foreclose Home Equity Conversion Mortgage". That means a
substantial disputed issue of federal HECM law is a necessary element of the Plaintiffs
state law foreclosure claim that this HECM is due and payable. The district court has
subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and the U.S. Constitution, Article III,
Section 2 for "all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, [and] the laws
of the United States...".
The Florida Commission on Ethics entered January 29, 2014 seven Orders showing, inter
alia, an attorneys representation which resulted in the settlement of [my] home
mortgage dispute.
As of today the Ethics Commission has not provided a copy of the settlement of my home
mortgage dispute, so that is a matter for further inquiry.
The above is from my letter November 14, 2014 to Curtis Wilson, Esq., McCalla Raymer, LLC,
objection to Hearing on Case Management Conference (CMC) on all pending motions. Mr.
Wilson responded by setting the CMC for hearing December 18, 2014 at 10:00AM.
Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. v. Neil J. Gillespie, et al., case no. 2013-CA-115.
Marion County Circuit Court, Fifth Judicial Circuit Florida
9.
I waive hereby confidentiality. A persons ADA information is confidential and protected
from public disclosure like any other private medical information. I find the public disclosure of
my private medical information contained in this ADA Title II Accommodation Request
objectionable just as any reasonable person would find it objectionable. In my view this is a
wrongful intrusion into my private life, in such manner as to outrage or cause mental suffering,
shame, or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities. Initially I made the information public
after Hillsborough Judge Martha J. Cook wrongly put my HIPAA-protected ADA medical
information on the public court record in Hillsborough Case No. 05-CA-7205 to benefit the
Defendants Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA et al, and Ryan Christopher Rodems; and to stop the
ongoing damage to my case caused by Mr. Rodems misuse of my HIPAA-protected medical
information learned by him and his law firm during their former representation of me in the same
or substantially same matter, theft of $7,143 by Rodems firm from my settlement in the
AMSCOT case, as well as for the public benefit of other persons who are either in a similar
situation, or may encounter one in the future.
10.
It has recently come to my attention that Floridas judicial branch of government does not
accept or follow the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, which was a major amendment to the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Tellingly Floridas judiciary, including the
Florida Supreme Court, pretend to support the civil rights of persons with disabilities by
proclaiming its support of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). But that law is
long outdated. The current state of the law is reflected by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.
11.
In Marion County, where I live, a Fifth Circuit Administrative Order A-2010-12-A
specifically referred to the Americans With Disabilities Act 1990 (ADA) as Public Law 101336 and not to the current ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) Public Law 110-325.
Fifth Circuit Administrative Order A-2010-12-A was signed October 14, 2011 by Chief Judge
Daniel B. Merritt, Sr., long after the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 was the law of the land.
12.
The nine page Fifth Circuit Administrative Order A-2010-12-A is found online here,
http://www.circuit5.org/c5/wp-admin/ao/A2010-12-A.pdf
and is part of the internal grievance procedure that shall apply to all courts within the jurisdiction
of the Fifth Judicial Circuit. The purpose of this internal grievance procedure is to DENY THE
CIVIL RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES.
13.
Fifth Circuit Administrative Order A-2010-12-A further denies the Civil Rights of
Persons With Disabilities by wrongly appointing Grace A. Fagan, General Counsel of the Fifth
Circuit, as the ADA Coordinator for the Fifth Circuit and all complaints shall be sent directly to
her at the Hernando County Courthouse, 20 N. Main Street, Brooksville, FL 34601.
14.
Attorney Grace A. Fagan is not listed in the Directory of Florida Courts ADA
Coordinators, revised 02/07/12 which is nine months after Chief Judge Merritt signed Fifth
Circuit Administrative Order A-2010-12-A into law. The Directory of Florida Courts ADA
Coordinators is found linked on the Office of State Courts Administrators (OSCA) website,
http://www.flcourts.org/core/fileparse.php/243/urlt/ADA_directory.pdf
15.
On information and belief, Attorney Grace A. Fagan opposes the civil rights of persons
with disabilities, and has obstructed my ADA TITLE II ACCOMMODATION REQUEST

submitted December 10, 2014. Ms. Fagan has been evasive and disrespectful, has refused to
answer ordinary questions about the court/circuits civil procedures, how to schedule a hearing,
or provide information on court reporters. Access to the ADA Title II Accommodation Request
form was denied due to a disabled online link to the form on the Fifth Circuits ADA web page.
Tellingly Ms. Fagan has not responded: Are you prejudiced against civil rights, Ms. Fagan?
16.
Unfortunately there are no standards for the position of ADA Coordinator, and the job is
generally an add on responsibility to someone in another existing position. The ADA

Coordinator for Marion County is listed as Tameka Gordon in the Directory of Florida Courts
ADA Coordinators, but Ms. Gordon has not responded to my request for accommodation. I
emailed Ms. Fagan December 12, 2014 and got no response:
Today I attempted to contact Tameka Gordon by telephone at (352) 401-6701, but was
greeted by the voice mail of another person. Does Ms. Gordon have another ADA
telephone number? Has Ms. Gordon been replaced as ADA Coordinator by another
person? This paragraph is not a records request, but related to the Americans with
Disabilities Act, of which you are the ADA Coordinator for the Fifth Judicial Circuit.
One tactic of Ms. Fagan in denying access is to misappropriate every query as a records request,
and deny the existence of public records. Ms. Fagans behavior is opposite to the duties of an
ADA Coordinator; Fagan seeks to deny disability accommodation, not coordinate access.
17.
Competency is another issue with ADA Coordinators. If an ADA Coordinator makes a
legal decision about an ADA TITLE II ACCOMMODATION REQUEST, it might be UPL, the
Unlicensed Practice of Law for a nonlawyer. If an ADA Coordinator makes a medical evaluation
of a Person with a Disability regarding an ADA TITLE II ACCOMMODATION REQUEST, it
might be UPM, the Unlicensed Practice of Medicine unless the person is a doctor.
Access is not a convenience when it works best for them. Access is my civil right.
- Florida attorney Stephanie Woodward
18.
The Supreme Court of Florida unofficially recognized the deficits in the current ADA
Coordinator scheme for ADA Title II, as reported in The Florida Bar News, March 1, 20141,
Court urges all bars to get right with the ADA By Jan Pudlow, Senior Editor
One woman in a wheelchair excluded from a voluntary bar social gathering in a
1
Court urges all bars to get right with the ADA, By Jan Pudlow, Florida Bar News, Mar-01-14
http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/JN/jnnews01.nsf/8c9f13012b96736985256aa900624829/06
61ffcdbeb0dffc85257c890046538a!OpenDocument
9
basement wine cellar without an elevator sparked a strong directive from the Florida
Supreme Court: All bar meetings must be accessible to all.
Stephanie Woodward recently moved from Syracuse, N.Y., to Miami, passed the Florida
bar exam, and awaits approval of her character and fitness check so she can be a fullfledged member of The Florida Bar.
As a baby lawyer new to town, she is anxious to make connections in the legal
profession. So she was excited about an invitation to attend a Dade County Bar
Association Young Lawyers Section event called An Evening with the Judges
described as an informal gathering to promote communication among the legal
community and the bench.
Sure, she was welcome, even though shes not officially a lawyer yet, the Dade YLS
president assured her.
But there was a big problem: The January 23 event was being held in the wine cellar
a former bomb shelter of the restaurant Le Chat Noir, at 2 South Miami Avenue. There
are a lot of steps and no elevator down to the wine celler. And Woodward has a mobility
disability and uses a wheelchair.
If I hadnt thought to ask, I would have shown up in a wheelchair and seen a set of
stairs, which would be embarrassing, Woodward said.
I think its a big deal for me to get in anywhere, not just local bar events. Access is not a
convenience when it works best for them. Access is my civil right.
Chief Justice Ricky Polston agrees. When Woodwards excluding experience came to his
attention, the entire court gathered for conference, resulting in strongly worded letters
Polston sent on February 3 to voluntary bars and leaders at The Florida Bar.
Benign neglect, oversight, or indifference which produces this type of discrimination is
simply not acceptable and will not be tolerated, Polston wrote.
What followed as described in the Florida Bar News Story shows a two-tier policy by the
Supreme Court of Florida: Chief Justice Polston and Justice Fred Lewis personally jumped into
action to provide ADA Title II Accommodations to a fellow lawyer to attend a drinking party
with judges in Dade County, a lawyer not yet admitted to The Bar. In taking this action, Chief
Justice Polston and Justice Fred Lewis personally failed to follow what ordinary persons with
disabilities might face, the Dade County ADA Coordinator, or the Florida Courts Statewide
10
ADA Coordinator, Debbie Howells. I have spoken to Ms. Howells. She does not appear to
understand that disability accommodation law is civil rights law.
Violation of the ADA 1990 and ADAAA 2008 by the Florida Judiciary Violates
The Civil Rights of Persons with Disabilities
19.
The Office of State Court Adminstrator (OSCA) housed in the Supreme Court of Florida
building, provides ADA Information on the Florida Courts website,
http://www.flcourts.org/administration-funding/court-administration/ada-information.stml
Unfortunately, OSCA does not mention the ADA Amendments Act of 2008,
ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) Public Law 110-325
Wikipedia: The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-325, ADAAA) is an
Act of Congress, effective January 1, 2009, that amended the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 (ADA) and other disability nondiscrimination laws at the Federal level of the
United States. Passed on September 17, 2008, and signed into law by President George
W. Bush on September 25, 2008, the ADAAA was a response to a number of decisions
by the Supreme Court that had interpreted the original text of the ADA. Because
members of the U.S. Congress viewed those decisions as limiting the rights of persons
with disabilities, the ADAAA effectively reversed those decisions by changing the law. It
also rejected portions of the regulations published by the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) that interpret Title I (the employment-related title) of the ADA. The
ADAAA makes changes to the definition of the term "disability," clarifying and
broadening that definitionand therefore the number and types of persons who are
protected under the ADA and other Federal disability nondiscrimination laws. It was
designed to strike a balance between employer and employee interests.
The ADAAA requires that courts interpreting the ADA and other Federal disability
nondiscrimination laws focus on whether the covered entity has discriminated, rather
than whether the individual seeking the law's protection has an impairment that fits
within the technical definition of the term "disability." The Act retains the ADA's basic
definition of "disability" as an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life
activities; a record of such an impairment; or being regarded as having such an
impairment. However, it changes the way that the statutory terms should be
interpreted.[1]
The Florida Constitution, Article I, Section 2, guarantees every person Basic Rights
SECTION 2. Basic rights.All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before
the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life
and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and
11
protect property; except that the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of
real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship may be regulated or prohibited by law.
No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or
physical disability.
The Florida Constitution, Article I, Section 21, guarantees every person access to courts for
redress of any injury, where justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay.
SECTION 21. Access to courts.The courts shall be open to every person for redress of
any injury, and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay.
Under section 454.18 of the Florida Statutes, any person, whether an attorney or not . . . may
conduct his or her own cause in any court of this state.
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees every person a right to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The Florida Constitution, Article I, Section 9, guarantees every person due process.
SECTION 9. Due process.No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property
without due process of law, or be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense, or be
compelled in any criminal matter to be a witness against oneself.
Due Process, Legal Information Institute, article written and submitted by Peter Strauss.
The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the
federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due
process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven
words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These
words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government
must operate within the law ("legality") and provide fair procedures... Introduction.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process
Florida Constitutional Law, 10A Fla. Jur 2d Constitutional Law 480 (2007)
12
The guaranty of due process of law extends to every type of legal proceeding. Pelle v.
Diners Club, 287 So. 2d 737 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1974); Tomayko v. Thomas,
143 So. 2d 227 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1962). Whenever life, liberty, or property
rights are involved in any official action, the organic requirements of due process of law
must be afforded, whether such action is the exercise of the powers of government by
governmental departments, State ex rel. Barancik v. Gates, 134 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 1961);
Williams v. Kelly, 133 Fla. 244, 182 So. 881 (1938) or a duly authorized administrative
or ministerial function or duty. State ex rel. Barancik v. Gates. The constitutional
guaranty of due process of law applies not only to court and administrative procedures,
but also to legislative acts. Williams v. U.S., 179 F.2d 644 (5th Cir. 1950), cert. granted,
340 U.S. 849, 71 S. Ct. 77, 95 L. Ed. 622 (1950) and judgment aff'd, 341 U.S. 70, 71 S.
Ct. 581, 95 L. Ed. 758 (1951) (implied overruling on other grounds recognized by, U.S.
v. McDermott, 918 F.2d 319 (2d Cir. 1990)) and (overruling on other grounds recognized
by, Brzonkala v. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 169 F.3d 820, 136
Ed. Law Rep. 15 (4th Cir. 1999)).
Florida Constitutional Law, 10A Fla. Jur 2d Constitutional Law 483. (2007)
Due process encompasses both substantive and procedural due process. McKinney v.
Pate, 20 F.3d 1550 (11th Cir. 1994); M.W. v. Davis, 756 So. 2d 90, 25 Fla. L. Weekly
S334 (Fla. 2000); State v. O.C., 748 So. 2d 945, 24 Fla. L. Weekly S425 (Fla. 1999).
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED December 16, 2014.
8092 SW 115th Loop

Ocala, Florida 34481
Email: neilgillespie@mfi.net
Phone: 352-854-7807
Certificate of Service
I certify that the foregoing document has been furnished to the names shown below by email only through the Florida Courts E-filing Portal today December 16, 2014.
John F. Harkness, Executive Director, The Florida Bar, jharkness@flabar.org
Adria E Quintela, Director of Lawyer Regulation, The Florida Bar, aquintel@flabar.org
John Anthony Tomasino, Clerk of the Supreme Court, tomasino@flcourts.org
Neil J. Gillespie
13
VIA Email: dawson@flcourts.org

Mr. Silvester Dawson, Marshal
ADA Coordinator, Supreme Court
500 S. Duval Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1900
December 15, 2014

I hereby waive confidentiality in this
matter, Neil J. Gillespie
Request for Accommodation Under Americans with Disabilities Act 1990 (ADA) and the
ADA Amendments Act 2008, For Counsel Appointment Without Conflict of Interest.
RE: Neil J. Gillespie vs. The Florida Bar, SC14-1637
Dear Mr. Dawson:
This is a request for disability accommodation in SC14-1637 captioned above.
Please find enclosed a written request for appointment of counsel w/o conflict under the ADA on
a Florida State Court Systems ADA form, slightly modified to reflect the Florida Bar is part of
the Supreme Court of Florida. Supporting documents are also enclosed:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
The ADA: One Avenue to Appointed Counsel Before a Full Civil Gideon (law review)
Social Security Administration disability notice letter August 23, 1993
Social Security Administration disability letter August 1, 2012, no review needed
ER report Hahnemann University Hospital Philadelphia, August 20, 1988
C.A.11-No.12-11213-C Amended Disability Motion - PACER, August 9, 2012
C.A.11-No.12-11213-C Amended Disability Motion - PDF, August 6, 2012 (easier to read)
ABA Journal, Brain injury suspension for lawyer; 'I couldn't stick to tasks (composite)
My ability to function in real-time in a legal proceeding is severely impaired, making court

appearances without counsel impossible. Outside of proceedings I become confused with legal
matters. This disability substantially increases the time needed to complete legal work required
in the case, beyond established time limits, resulting in loss of participation in court activities.
In the past courts, judges, attorneys, law firms, and court employees have abused their position
of power and dominance over me for advantage, knowing I am especially vulnerable because I
am disabled with mental and physical impairments. This began with Mr. Rodems misconduct
and criminality. It has taken me a long time to unravel the confusion caused by abuse of power.
Unfortunately matters involving me appear to present political questions, and not legal questions
for a court to hear, and therefore are not justicable under the political question doctrine.
Unfortunately it appears the Florida Court system has refused to acknowledge or follow the
ADA Amendments Act 2008. Instead, Florida Courts rely on the out dated ADA 1990. The old
ADA may have sufficed for a represented litigant, but certainly not a disabled pro se litigant.
C.A.11-No.12-11213-C Amended Disability Motion - PACER (251 pages) Scribd
http://www.scribd.com/doc/102585752/Amended-Disability-Motion-12-11213-C-C-A-11

December 15, 2014

Page - 2
C.A.11-No.12-11213-C; Judge Isom AFFIDAVIT Disability Motion (104 pages), July 30, 2012
https://www.scribd.com/doc/101764386/Affidavit-Conflict-Not-Disclosed-Judge-Claudia-Isom
C.A.11-No.12-11213-C; CM-ECF Notice, Disability Motion (84 pages), July 27, 2012
https://www.scribd.com/doc/102594266/Notice-of-CM-ECF-Prohibition-by-the-District-Court
Right to Counsel, Conflict-free counsel, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_counsel
Whether counsel is retained or appointed, the defendant has a right to counsel without a conflict
of interest *. If an actual conflict of interest is present, and that conflict results in any adverse
effect on the representation, the result is automatic reversal.[17] The general rule is that conflicts
can be knowingly and intelligently waived,[18] but some conflicts are unwaivable. [19]
*Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988), conflicts of interest
[17] Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776 (1987); Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980);
Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (1978).
[18] See United States v. Curcio, 680 F.2d 881 (2d Cir. 1982).
[19] See, e.g., United States v. Schwarz, 283 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2002); United States v.
Fulton, 5 F.3d 605 (2d Cir. 1993).
ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Wikipedia
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990
Proclamation for the ADA by Justice Canady, 20th Anniversary ADA 1990
http://www.flcourts.org/core/fileparse.php/243/urlt/Proclamation-ADA.pdf
ADA Information OSCA, Office of State Courts Administration
http://www.flcourts.org/administration-funding/court-administration/ada-information.stml
ADA Information OSCA, Accessibility Statement, The Rehabilitation Act of 1973
http://www.flcourts.org/administration-funding/court-administration/accessibility-statement.stml
Court urges all bars to get right with the ADA, Florida Bar News, March 1, 2014
http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/JN/jnnews01.nsf/8c9f13012b96736985256aa900624829/06
61ffcdbeb0dffc85257c890046538a!OpenDocument
The U.S. Eleventh Circuit has a duty and authority to make a Non-Criminal Justice Act Counsel
Appointment. The U.S. Eleventh Circuit adopted provisions for furnishing representation for
persons financially unable to obtain adequate representation in cases and situations which do not
fall within the scope of 18 U.S.C. 3006A, as amended -- but in which the court believes that
the interests of justice will be served by the presence of counsel., See Addendum Five, online,

December 15, 2014

Page - 3
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/attorney-info/criminal-justice-act
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/courtdocs/clk/RulesAddendum05AUG07.pdf
Sandy DAlemberte, Tributaries of Justice: The Search For Full Access, 25 Fla. St. U. L. Rev 631
http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/253/dalember.pdf
"Some court opinions hint that access to legal representation in civil cases might be a
constitutional entitlement. footnote 58, See In re Amendments to Rules Regulating The
Florida Bar1-3.1(a) and Rules of Judicial Administration2.065 (Legal Aid), 598 So.
2d 41, 43 (Fla. 1992) (noting that "the right to counsel is no longer limited to criminal
cases")."... Section V. Tributary Four: A Civil Gideon Fund From A Service Tax...
American Bar Association (ABA), Civil Right to Counsel, in State Civil Proceedings
Enclosed is a three page composite for the ABA Civil Right to Counsel in State Civil Proceedings,
for a counsel appointment to protect an indigent civil litigants due process rights.
If you require anything else, please contact me. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115th Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
Telephone: (352) 854-7807

Email: neilgillespie@mfi.net
Service list, by email only

cc: John F. Harkness, Executive Director, The Florida Bar
cc: Adria E Quintela, Director of Lawyer Regulation, The Florida Bar
cc: John Anthony Tomasino, Clerk of the Supreme Court
Enclosures
FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
ADA T IT LE II ACCOMMODAT ION REQUEST FORM1

June 28, 2010
RIGHT TO AN ACCOMMODATION
If you are an individual with a disability who needs an accommodation in order to participate in a
court proceeding or other court service, program, or activity, you are entitled, at no cost to you,
to the provision of certain assistance. Requests for accommodations may be presented on this
form, in another written format, or orally. Please complete the attached form and return it to
Silvester Dawson, Marshals Office, 500 S. Duval Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399, 850.488.8845
(phone), 850.921.2775 (fax), dawson@flcourts.org (e-mail) as far in advance as possible, but
preferably at least seven (7) days before your scheduled court appearance or other court
activity.
Upon request by a qualified individual with a disability, this document will be made
available in an alternate format. If you need assistance in completing this form due to
your disability , or to request this document in an alternate format, please contact
Silvester Dawson, Marshals Office, 500 S. Duval Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399,
850.488.8845 (phone), 850.921.2775 (fax), daws on@flcourts .org (e-mail).
ADA ACCOMMODATIONS PROVIDED BY FLORIDA COURTS

Pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act the Florida State Courts System will
make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, and procedures; furnish auxiliary aids and
services; and afford program accessibility through the provision of accessible facilities, the
relocation of services or programs, or the provision of services at alternative sites, as appropriate
and necessary.
Examples of auxiliary aids or services that the State Courts System may provide for qualified
individuals with disabilities include:
Assistive listening devices

Qualified ASL or other types of interpreters for persons with hearing loss
Communication access real-time translation / Real-time transcription services
Accessible formats such as large print, Braille, electronic document, or audio tapes
This form was developed for use by individuals with disabilities who may require a modification
in a policy, provision of an auxiliary aid or service, or assignment to an accessible location in
order to participate in a court proceeding or other court service, program, or activity that is
covered by Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Court employees with disabilities who
need a reasonable accommodation to be able to perform the essential functions of their jobs
should contact their immediate supervisor, the ADA coordinator for their court, the OSCA Office
of Personnel Services, or the State Courts ADA Coordinator.
Qualified readers
Accommodations that are granted by the state courts are made at no cost to qualified
individuals with disabilities.2
AIDS/SERVICES COURTS CANNOT ADMINISTRATIVELY GRANT AS ADA

ACCOMMODATION S
Examples of aids or services the Florida State Courts System cannot provide as an
accommodation under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act include:
Transportation to and from the courthouse

Legal counsel or advice
An official transcript of a court proceeding
Personal devices such as wheelchairs, hearing aids, or prescription eyeglasses
Personal services such as medical or attendant care
Readers for personal use or study
Additionally, the courts cannot administratively grant, as an ADA accommodation, requests that
impact court procedures within a specific case. Requests for an extension of time, a change of
venue, or participation in court proceedings by telephone or videoconferencing must be
submitted by written motion to the presiding judge as part of the case. The judge may consider
an individuals disability, along with other relevant factors, in granting or denying the motion.
Furthermore, the court cannot exceed the law in granting a request for an accommodation. For
example, the court cannot extend the statute of limitations for filing an action because someone
claims that he or she could not make it to the court on time due to a disability, nor can the court
modify the terms of agreements among parties as an ADA accommodation.
Finally, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) does not require the court system to take any
action that would fundamentally alter the nature of court programs, services, or activities, or
that would impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the courts.
Please note that providing accommodations for some individuals with disabilities who appear in
the courtroom as part of their employment duties or professional practice is a responsibility that
appropriately may be shared by the individuals employer and the courts. Title I of the
Americans with Disabilities Act requires employers of 15 or more employees and Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act requires all state and local government employers to provide
reasonable accommodations to qualified employees with disabilities. In addition, Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, covers recipients of federal funding, and requires all
covered organizations to provide accommodations for their employees. These responsibilities
are concomitant with the courts responsibility under Title II of the ADA. It is to everyones
benefit when employers and the court system work together to ensure that reasonable
accommodations for individuals with disabilities are provided in the most efficient and cost
effective manner.
Florida State Courts System
Page 2
ADA Accommodation Request Form
DOCUMENTATION OF THE NEED FOR AUXILIARY A IDS AND SERVICES

If an individual has a disability that is not obvious, or when it is not readily apparent how a
requested accommodation relates to an individuals impairment, it may be necessary for the
court to require the individual to provide documentation from a qualified health care provider in
order for the court to fully and fairly evaluate the accommodation request. These information
requests will be limited to doc umentation that (a) establishes the existence of a disability; (b)
identifies the individuals functional limitations; and (c) describes how the requested
accommodation addresses those limitations. Any cost to obtain such documentation is the
obligation of the person requesting the accommodation.
Page 3
FLORIDA STATE COURTS SYSTEM TITLE II ADA ACCOMMODATION REQUES T FORM

Please return this completed form to Kevin White, Marshals Office, 500 S. Duval
Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399, 85 0.488.8845 (phone), 850.921.2775 (fax),
whitek@flcourts.org (e-mail) as far in advance as possible, but preferably at least seven
(7) days before your scheduled court appearance or other court activity.
12
15
2014
1. Date request submitted: ______/______/______

2. Person needing accommodation
Neil J. Gillespie
Name: _________________________________________________________________
Are you (please check one of the following seven options):
[ ] Defendant
[ ] Litigant/Party
[ ] Witness
[ ] Juror
[ ] Victim
[ ] Attorney
Appellant/Petitioner
[X] Other (please specify): __________________________________________________

3. Contact information for person needing accommodation
SW 115th Loop
Street or P.O. Box: 8092
________________________________________________________
Ocala
City: ___________________________________________________________________
Florida
34481
State: ___________________________________ Zip Code: _____________________

Telephone Number (include area code): 352-854-7807
______________________________________
neilgillespie@mfi.net
Email Address: ___________________________________________________________

4. Person making request (if other than the person needing the accommodation)
n/a
Name: _________________________________________________________________
Telephone Number (include area code): n/a
______________________________________
n/a
Email Address: __________________________________________________________

Relationship to person needing an accommodation: n/a
____________________________
5. Case information (if applicable)
Neil J. Gillespie vs. The Florida Bar
Style of case (case title), if known: __________________________________________

SC14-1637
Case number, if known: __________________________________________________

Chief Justice, Justices of the Supreme Court
Judge, if known: ________________________________________________________
Now and for the duration of this matter.
Date accommodation needed: ______________________________________________

24/7
Time accommodation needed: ______________________________________________

Location (courthouse/courtroom) accommodation needed: all
_______________________
the duration of this matter.
Duration for which the accommodation is requested: For
____________________________
Type of case, if known (please check one of the following ten options):
Page 4
[ ] appeal
[ ] circuit criminal
[ ] circuit civil
[ ] probate, guardianship, or mental health

[ ] traffic court
[ ] small claim
[ ] family court
[ ] county criminal
[ ] county civil
Petition Mandamus
[X] other (please specify) ____________________
Type of proceeding, if known (please check one of the following six options):
[ ] arraignment
[ ] bond hearing
[ ] hearing
[ ] trial
[ ] appellate oral argument
Petition for Mandamus, Bar Rule 1-14.1 ACCESS TO RECORDS
[X] other (please specify) __________________________________________________

6. Accommodations requested
brain injury, etc
Nature of disability that necessitates accommodation: Traumatic
___________________________
see Amended Disability Motion, US 11th Circuit, 12-11213-C, Neil J Gillespie
________________________________________________________________________
Accommodation requested (please check one of the following six options):

[ ] Assistive listening device (Assistive listening systems work by increasing the
loudness of sounds, minim izing background noise, reducing the eff ect of distance, and
overriding poor acoustics. The listener uses a receiver with headphones or a neckloop
to hear the speaker.)
[ ] Communication access real-time translation/real-time transcription services (CART
is a word-for-word speech-to-text interpreting service for people who need
communication access. A rendering of everything said in the courtroom will appear on
a computer screen. CART is not an official transcript of a court proceeding. )
[ ] Sign Language Interpreter (Please specify American Sign Language, oral
interpreter, signed English, or other type of signing system used by persons with
hearing loss.):_______________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
[ ] Assignment to a courtroom that is accessible to a person using a mobility device
(Please specify wheelchair, scooter, walker, or other mobility device that is used.):_
___________________________________________________________________
[ ] Provision of court documents in an alternative format (Please specify Braille, large
print, accessible electronic document, or other accessible format used by persons who
are blind or have low vision.): _________________________________
Counsel Appointment w/o conflict, see
X
[ ] Other accommodation (please specify): _____________________________________
"The ADA: One Avenue to Appointed Counsel Before a Full Civil Gideon,"
________________________________________________________________________
Seattle Journal for Social Justice: Vol. 2: Iss. 2, Article 30, copy enclosed.
________________________________________________________________________
The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-325, ADAAA), also see
________________________________________________________________________
Amended Disability Motion, US 11th Circuit, 12-11213-C, Neil J Gillespie enc.
________________________________________________________________________
7. Use the Submit Button (immediately following) to send us your request:

[ ] Submit Request
8845
Page 5
THE FOLLOWING SECTIO N IS TO BE COMPLETED BY COURT PERSONNEL ONLY

8. Date request was received: ______/______/______
9. Additional oral or written information requested?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
If so, describe information: ____________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________
10. Describe the accommodation(s) granted by the court: ______________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
11. Indicate the duration the accommodation will be provided: __________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
12. If an accommodation is denied, indicate reason(s) for denial:3
[ ] Based on the information provided, it appears the person does not have a disability as
defined by the ADA
[ ] Requested accommodation does not directly correlate to functional limitations
[ ] Request relates to a service, program, or activity outside the court system (transportation,
legal representation, mental health counseling, parenting course, etc.)
[ ] Request is for an aid/service the courts cannot administratively grant as an
accommodation pursuant to Title II of the ADA (official transcript, extension of time, etc.)
[ ] Requested accommodation would result in an undue burden
[ ] Requested accommodation would result in a fundamental alteration
[ ] Other (please specify): _____________________________________________________
13. Remarks: __________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
14. Court staff responding to request: ______________________________________________
15. Date person notified of determination: ______/______/______
If the request is denied, granted only in part, or if an alternative accommodation is granted,

Rule of Judicial Administration 2.540 requires the court to respond in writing to the individual
with a disability. Transmittal of a copy of this section of the accommodation request form by
email or by U.S. Mail delivery is one means of providing the written response required by rule
2.540. If an accommodation is denied due to a finding of undue burden or fundamental
alteration, the Americans with Disabilities Act requires that such determination be made in
writing by the chief judge or chief judges designee.
Page 6
Seattle Journal for Social Justice

Volume 2 | Issue 2
Article 30
5-1-2004
The ADA: One Avenue to Appointed Counsel

Before a Full Civil Gideon
Lisa Brodoff
Susan McClellan
Elizabeth Anderson
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sjsj

Recommended Citation
Brodoff, Lisa; McClellan, Susan; and Anderson, Elizabeth (2004) "The ADA: One Avenue to Appointed Counsel Before a Full Civil
Gideon," Seattle Journal for Social Justice: Vol. 2: Iss. 2, Article 30.
Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sjsj/vol2/iss2/30
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Publications and Programs at Seattle University School of Law Digital Commons.
It has been accepted for inclusion in Seattle Journal for Social Justice by an authorized administrator of Seattle University School of Law Digital
Commons.
609
The ADA: One Avenue to Appointed Counsel

Before a Full Civil Gideon
Lisa Brodoff, Susan McClellan & Elizabeth Anderson1
The United States is witnessing a growing advocacy for universal civil
Gideon,2 the constitutional right to free legal counsel for low-income
people involved in civil litigation.3 The right to counsel has long been
recognized in the criminal context in this country.4 In the civil arena,
however, those who cannot afford to hire attorneys are left to fight to
protect their rights on their own, sometimes against legally represented
federal, state, and local governments attempting to take away their homes,
assets, income, children, or health care.5
This fight for a broad-based right to counsel in the civil arena will likely
be long and hard, with success far from guaranteed. In recent decisions on
both coasts, courts have avoided reaching the civil Gideon issue. For
example, the Maryland Court of Appeals, the states highest court, when
given the opportunity to decide whether its state constitution supports
providing attorneys to indigent civil litigants, instead ruled on the
underlying claim.6 In Washington State, a brain-injured litigant directly
raised the issue of a civil right to counsel when the government sues
individuals, but the Court of Appeals found the case moot because the lowincome defendant died while the case was on appeal.7 These cases indicate
that the courts, at least in the short term, may be reluctant even to reach the
merits of the civil Gideon issue, let alone find a sweeping right to free
representation.
In the meantime, low-income clients, unable to afford representation or
to find free legal assistance that they desperately need to protect their rights,
are going to state and federal courts and administrative hearings on their
own. These clients are being evicted, having their homes foreclosed, and
610 SEATTLE JOURNAL FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE
losing health care and public assistance. Until the larger battle for free civil
representation is fought and won, the legal community must seek other
remedies for low-income clients that, although not sweeping in nature, may
provide relief for at least the most vulnerable and those least able to
represent themselves.
Who are the litigants least able to represent themselves in court, who
would be denied access to our system of justice unless provided with an
attorney to advocate for them? Are there litigants who, once inside the
courtroom, simply cannot understand what is happening or cannot
meaningfully participate in the proceedings, not because they lack
education or experience, but because mental or physical disabilities impair
their understanding? Any attorney who has represented disabled clients in
court, or any judge who has seen litigants with these disabilities attempt to
put on a case or defense, knows that the answer to this question is
frequently a resounding yes.
Certain mental disabilities prevent a person from comprehending what is
happening in the courtroom or mustering a case. Some examples come
readily to mind: mental retardation, dementia, schizophrenia, and severe
depression.8 Similarly, certain physical disabilities sap energy or vitality to
the extent that a person is unable to participate meaningfully in court.
Some individuals with brain injuries, terminal illnesses, Parkinsons
disease, multiple sclerosis, AIDS,9 apraxia,10 and end-stage alcoholism11
may qualify. Simply put, clients with these disabling conditions may be
denied access to our justice system without legal representation.
Most people easily understand why clients with physical disabilities,
such as blindness or hearing loss, need accommodations to get in the
courthouse door and to participate meaningfully in the justice system. For
instance, some deaf individuals are denied access to justice through denial
of a sign-language interpreter in the courtroom.12 Only an interpreter can
translate the conversation in the proceeding and allow the hearing-impaired
person to have her voice heard. Similarly, a person with impaired vision
ACCESS TO JUSTICEA CALL FOR CIVIL GIDEON
One Avenue to Appointed Counsel Before a Full Civil Gideon 611
may be unable to read critical court documents and exhibits without

accommodations such as Brailled materials, large-printed court documents,
or human readers.13 Without these accommodations, including human
accommodations like readers and interpreters, civil litigants with these
disabling conditions would lose their day in court because they would not
be able to communicate with the court or to understand fully the case and
its consequences.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)14 is the central law
recognizing this reality for those with such disabilities.15 Complementing
the ADA and its predecessor, the federal Rehabilitation Act,16 some state
anti-discrimination statutes17 provide enhanced protections for individuals
with disabilities in the court system.18 These state and federal laws require
that sign-language interpreters, readers, large print documents, widened
doorways, and wheelchair ramps be provided to people with disabilities
whose access to the system would otherwise be blocked.
In this article, we argue that people whose disabilities prevent them from
understanding the proceedings or vigorously participating in their cases
need accommodations to access the court system, just as do those with
disabilities that require ramps, interpreters, and readers. We argue that the
only reasonable accommodation under Title II of the ADA, under the
Rehabilitation Act, and under state anti-discrimination statutes for litigants
with these disabling conditions is an attorney. Only an attorney can provide
the knowledge, energy, strategy, translation, and understanding to mount a
case or provide a defense for those whose disabilities block their ability to
do so pro se.
Using the ADA to argue for free legal representation as a courthouse
accommodation for certain disabled individuals is both more restrictive and
yet broader than arguing for a full civil Gideon. By definition, ADA
accommodations are available only to persons with perceived or actual
disabilities that affect their ability to participate in the judicial system.
Arguments for a civil Gideon right to counsel for civil litigants does not
VOLUME 2 ISSUE 2 2004
restrict that right only to disabled individuals. Rather, a full civil Gideon
would provide counsel to all litigants who are unable to afford their own
attorney, regardless of disability. On the other hand, the ADA affords a
broader remedy because its provisions are not needs based; that is, ADA
accommodations are available to rich and poor alike, and are not restricted
by a litigants ability to pay for an attorney accommodation.19 No financial
application is required to receive an ADA accommodation.
The likely reality, however, is that those disabled individuals who need
legal representation to defend or to pursue a claim, and who have the
financial means to hire private counsel of their own choice will do so, even
if, theoretically, they may be provided an attorney as a reasonable
accommodation by the courts free of charge. Finally, individuals with
disabilities are by and large more likely to be poorer than the population as
a whole.20 Thus, the impact of providing legal representation as an
accommodation will most likely benefit those who are financially most in
need.21 As a result, we argue that all civil litigants with disabilities that
prevent them from understanding or participating in the legal system should
receive appointed counsel.
The first section of this article discusses the basic arguments and
procedures for proving a disability under the ADA and seeking legal
representation as a reasonable accommodation for clients in courts. The
second section addresses representation for clients in administrative
hearings. In administrative hearings, clients with disabilities are most often
left to fight alone for rights to food (such as Food Stamps), income (such as
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, General Assistance,
Supplemental Security Income, and Social Security), and health care (such
as Medicare and Medicaid). The third section discusses additional policy
arguments supporting the case for legal representation under antidiscrimination laws. The final section suggests ways to present these
arguments to courts so that eligible litigants can access free legal
representation in appropriate cases.
I. COURTS VIOLATE THE ADA BY DENYING APPOINTED COUNSEL AS

A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION FOR CERTAIN DISABLED CIVIL
LITIGANTS.
More than 49.7 million Americans, roughly one in five of the 257.2
million people in the United States age five or older, have mental or
physical disabilities or other long-lasting impairments.22 Before the
enactment of the ADA, Congress recognized that current laws were
inadequate to combat the pervasive problems of discrimination that
people with disabilities are facing.23 As a result of this discrimination,
Congress enacted the ADA in 1990, seeking to provide a clear and
comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination
against individuals with disabilities.24
Title I of the ADA addresses discrimination in employment and applies
to persons engaged in an industry affecting commerce who have at least
fifteen employees (the United States and bona fide private membership
clubs other than labor unions are exempt).25
Title II addresses
discrimination in public services and applies to state and local governments,
their departments, agencies, and other instrumentalities.26 In fact, Title II
covers all public agencies, regardless of whether they receive federal
financial assistance.27 Title III of the ADA addresses discrimination in
places of public accommodation and services operated by private entities.28
Businesses governed by Title III include banks, restaurants, supermarkets,
hotels, shopping centers, privately owned sports arenas, movie theaters,
private day-care centers, schools and colleges, accounting or insurance
offices, lawyers and doctors offices, museums, and health clubs.29 Title
IV of the ADA addresses telecommunications, including closed captioning
and relay services for people with hearing impairments.30
Denying appointed counsel for certain disabled civil litigants violates
Title II, the Public Services section, of the ADA.31 Title II prohibits
discrimination against disabled individuals in public services.32
Specifically, Title II provides that, no qualified individual with a disability
shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be

denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public
entity,33 or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.34 State
courts, as public entities, must comply with Title II of the ADA35 by
ensuring that all of their services, programs, and activities are available to
qualified individuals with disabilities. Federal courts must meet the same
standard under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.36 In fact, Title II of
the ADA was expressly modeled after37 sec. 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 197338 and extends those principles to state and local governments.39
Failing to make state court facilities available to disabled individuals
violates the ADA, while failing to make federal court facilities available
violates the Rehabilitation Act.40
The critical importance of the ADA in providing individuals with
disabilities access to the justice system is clearly illustrated by the facts and
legal arguments in Tennessee v. Lane,41 which is currently awaiting a
decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. The State of Tennessee charged
George Lane, a paraplegic who requires a wheelchair to ambulate, with two
criminal misdemeanors and summoned him to court to appear and answer
the charges.
When George Lane showed up at the Polk County Courthouse
with a crushed hip and pelvis, he had a problem. His hearing was
on the second floor, there was no elevator, and the judge said he
had better get upstairs. Mr. Lane, both of whose legs were in
casts, somehow managed to get out of his wheelchair and crawl up
two flights of stairs. On a pain scale of 1 to 10, it was way past
10, he says.
While Mr. Lane crawled up, he says, the judge and other
courthouse employees stood at the top of the stairs and laughed at
me. His case was not heard in the morning session, he says, and
at the lunch break he crawled back down. That afternoon, when he
refused to crawl upstairs again, he was arrested for failing to
appear, and put in jail.42
Mr. Lane and another plaintiff, a wheel-chair bound court reporter who
could not work in many Tennessee courtrooms because they were
inaccessible, sued the state on behalf of a class of physically disabled
persons. They argued for injunctive relief and damages under Title II of the
ADA. The State argued that Eleventh Amendment immunity applies,
thereby protecting the State from private suits for money damages. The
Sixth Circuit held that the Eleventh Amendment immunity of the states to
private damages suits did not apply to claims under Title II of the ADA,
when the claim involved the Due Process Clause.
Parties in civil litigation have an analogous due process right to be
present in the courtroom and to meaningfully participate in the
process unless their exclusion furthers important governmental
interests. . . . These guarantees are protective of equal justice and
fair treatment before the courts. The evidence before Congress
when it enacted Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act
established that physical barriers in government buildings,
including courthouses and in the courtrooms themselves, have had
the effect of denying disabled people the opportunity to access
vital services and to exercise fundamental rights guaranteed by the
Due Process Clause.43
In this article, we argue that the denial of equal justice and fair treatment
before the courts applies with equal vigor when a persons mental or
physical disabilities prevent him not from mounting the stairs to the
courtroom, but from mounting the case itself. Here, the appropriate and
reasonable accommodation is attorney representation rather than elevator
access to the court proceedings.
The failure to make court facilities available to disabled individuals also
violates the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD).44
Generally, WLAD bans discrimination on the basis of any sensory, mental,
or physical disability.45 Further, the WLAD makes the right to be free
from discrimination a civil right46 and protects the right to the full
enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or
privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or

amusement.47 The ADA provides guidance for interpreting a public
entitys obligations under WLAD.48
To prove that a public program or service violates the ADA, a litigant
need only show that (1) she is a qualified individual with a disability; (2)
she was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of a
public entitys services, programs, or activities, or was otherwise
discriminated against by the public entity; and (3) such exclusion, denial
of benefits, or discrimination was by reason of his [or her] disability.49
After a litigant establishes discrimination by a public entity under Title II,
the court must determine the appropriate remedy.50
The ADA provides three ways to prove that a litigant is a qualified
individual with a disability. A person with a disability is defined as
someone who has (A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially
limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; (B) a
record of such an impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an
impairment.51
Once a litigant proves a disability, she must prove that the disability
excluded her from participating in or denied her the benefits of the courts
services, programs, or activities. The regulations require that these services,
when viewed in [their] entirety, be readily accessible to and usable by
individuals with disabilities.52 Exceptions exist only when compliance
results in undue financial or administrative burdens or results in a
fundamental alteration in the program.53 The public entity must also
provide notice to individuals with disabilities of the protections against
discrimination assured them and disseminate sufficient information to
those individuals to inform them of the rights and protections afforded by
the ADA.54 Altogether, the program access requirement of Title II should
enable individuals with disabilities to participate in and benefit from the
services, programs, or activities of public entities in all but the most unusual
cases.55 Trial courts, as services within the meaning of Title II,56 must
provide these protections.
The third step in establishing disability discrimination under Title II
requires showing that such exclusion or denial of a service or benefit was
by reason of an individuals disability.57 Courts fail to make their services
accessible to litigants who are not able to use the system effectively because
of mental or physical impairments. Meaningful access does not exist when
a litigants inability to understand or to participate in proceedings because
of a disability surpasses the mere confusion many lay persons experience
when participating in the legal system. As the Honorable Robert W. Sweet,
in proposing full civil Gideon, has noted:
As every trial judge knows, the task of determining the correct
legal outcome is rendered almost impossible without effective
counsel. Courts have neither the time nor the capacity to be both
litigants and impartial judges on any issue of genuine complexity.
As recognized by the Lassiter dissent, By intimidation,
inarticulateness or confusion, a [litigant] can lose forever the right
she sought to protect.58
When confusion stems from a disability, Judge Sweets admonition
carries even more force. A disabled litigant may be physically present in
the courtroom but have little understanding of the law and proceedings and
little ability to advocate for her rights. A factual showing that a litigant
does not understand proceedings and cannot meaningfully participate
because of a disability compels the court to consider providing reasonable
accommodations.59 A public entity, including a court, must reasonably
accommodate a qualified individual with a disability.60 Mere equality of
treatment is insufficient.61
Upon receiving a request for an accommodation, a public entitys duty is
well settled by state and federal case law and by the applicable
regulations.62 First, the public entity must undertake a fact-specific
investigation to determine what constitutes a reasonable accommodation
and must provide the criteria by which to determine whether the evaluation
is adequate.63 The ADA and the Rehabilitation Act attempt to provide
whatever services or actions are necessary to ensure that disabled persons
are not discriminated against as a result of their disabilities. One court
noted, mere speculation that a suggested accommodation is not feasible
falls short of the reasonable accommodation requirement; the Acts create a
duty to gather sufficient information from the disabled individual and
qualified experts as needed to determine what accommodations [are]
necessary.64
Necessary accommodations include effective courtroom communications: a public entity shall take appropriate steps to ensure that
communications with applicants, participants, and members of the public
with disabilities are as effective as communications with others.65
Appointment of counsel, which would allow the individual with a disability
to communicate with the court, could qualify as a reasonable
accommodation because it is similar to the following sample aids and
services provided in the regulations:
1.
Qualified interpreters, note takers, transcription services,

written materials, telephone handset amplifiers, assistive
listening devices, assistive listening systems, telephones
compatible with hearing aids, closed caption decoders,
open and closed captioning, telecommunications devices
for deaf persons (TDDs), videotext displays, or other
effective methods of making aurally delivered materials
available to individuals with hearing impairments [for
example, talking calculators and real time transcription];
2.
Qualified readers, taped texts, audio recordings, Brailled

materials, large print materials, or other effective methods
of making visually delivered materials available to
individuals with visual impairments;
3.
Acquisition or modification of equipment or devices; and

other similar services or actions.66
This extensive list and the final, separate category for other similar
services or actions suggest a broadly-based evaluation of appropriate
auxiliary aids and services. These services include the assistance of trained
individuals, such as sign-language interpreters for the deaf and readers for
the blind. Appointed counsel for some litigants with certain disabilities
would serve the same interpretive function and would allow the litigants to
participate in the proceedings.
Appointed counsel would not be necessary for all litigants who suffer
from certain disabilities. The degree of impairment matters, as does the
specific setting and alternative accommodations available. For this reason,
the ADA does not prescribe the appropriate accommodation for each
disability because an appropriate accommodation for one person might be
inappropriate for another. For example, while one visually-impaired person
might need a reader, another might need materials in Braille.67 The public
entity, however, must consider available options and furnish appropriate
auxiliary aids and services where necessary.68 In determining the
appropriate aid or service, the public entity shall give primary
consideration to the requests of the individual with disabilities.69
Accordingly, a court cannot offer a blanket accommodation for all
individuals with a specific disability; it must consider the particular
individuals need when determining which accommodations are
reasonable.70
For some litigants with disabilitiesthose who cannot understand or
participate in the legal proceedingsinterpreters are the only appropriate
accommodation.
Other options would not ensure that a courts
communications with such individuals are as effective as communications
with others,71 as required by law.72 For example, although one
commentator has suggested that the best current option for providing legal
assistance for the poor lies in improving pro se assistance projects,73 that
proposal would provide no benefit to litigants whose disabilities impair
their ability to understand or to partake in the legal process. Similarly,
simplifying the legal process by redrafting forms and restructuring

procedures would not help litigants with such disabilities, even though
simplification might help some indigent civil litigants.74 Even if individuals
with such disabilities could understand simplified forms, they are unlikely
to understand the underlying legal issues. Furthermore, if individuals
disabilities weaken them to the extent they cannot participate in the process,
a simplified procedure would still preclude meaningful access to the courts.
Arguments that the cost of appointed counsel renders the accommodation
unreasonable lack merit. Providing an attorney for litigants with these
disabilities is not only appropriate but also reasonable in terms of cost,75
and would neither create an undue burden for the courts nor
fundamentally alter the nature of the court system.76 Title II ensures that
the refusal to accommodate an individual with a disability is genuinely
based on unreasonable cost or actual inability to accommodate, not on
inconvenience or unfounded concerns about costs.77 In addressing the cost
issue in the employment context under Title I of the Rehabilitation Act,78
courts have focused on the big picture, namely the overall costs to society
stemming from lack of funding, rather than simply the dollars required to
pay for legal services.79 For example, in Nelson v. Thornburgh, the Third
Circuit concluded that a large state agency was required to accommodate a
group of entry-level welfare agency workers with visual impairments by
providing readers for one-half of the working day and emergency access to
a reader the remainder of the day.80 The court reasoned that when one
considers the social costs which would flow from the exclusion of persons
such as the plaintiffs from the pursuit of their profession, the modest cost of
accommodationa cost which seems likely to diminish, as technology
advances and proliferatesseems, by comparison, quite small.81 While
providing specialists to assist disabled litigants might be an undue hardship
for some small agencies or businesses, providing them for large businesses
or agencies is reasonable.82
Other considerations also indicate that providing attorneys for litigants

with certain disabling conditions would not bankrupt the system. First, the
number of litigants with such disabilities is relatively small compared to the
pool of indigent civil litigants. Commentators argue that costs, even for full
civil Gideon, are not unduly burdensome and that, in fact, some resources
will be conserved.83 For example, Justice Earl Johnson notes that other
countries have provided free counsel as a matter of right in civil cases, as
have several pre-paid legal insurance programs in this country.84 Bidran
and Ben-Cohen argue that providing counsel for indigent civil defendants
would save society money in the long run85 by reducing litigation and
eliminating the delays prevalent in pro se representation.86 This prediction
is consistent with a study finding that funding legal services programs saves
significant state funds.87 Finally, additional societal benefits, perhaps worth
more than the cost, could accrue, with the primary benefit being restored
confidence in the justice system.88
II. REPRESENTATION FOR APPELLANTS IN ADMINISTRATIVE

HEARINGS
The arguments under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act for legal
representation as a reasonable accommodation apply, in almost the same
manner, to the administrative hearing context. People with disabilities are
regularly appellants in administrative hearings, appealing a state or federal
agencys denial, reduction, or termination of critical public assistance
benefits involving access to food, shelter, income, and health care. Appeals
of benefits like Unemployment Compensation, Workers Compensation,
Food Stamps, Social Security, Supplemental Security Income (SSI),
General Assistance, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF),
Medicaid, and Medicare often involve disabled individuals because
disability is frequently a prerequisite to eligibility for these benefits.89 The
law in these areas can be complex, involving federal and state statutes and
regulations and cases interpreting them. In addition, these hearings can be
factually complicated, requiring appellants to put on evidence of their

disabilities, work records, medical records, and finances. In most instances,
appellants with disabilities appear pro se at their administrative hearings to
fight for these significant benefits.90
Appellants navigating the hearings process whose disabilities prevent
them from understanding the proceedings or putting on a case would greatly
benefit from the ADA and Rehabilitation Act arguments. State agencies
that hold administrative hearings are, by definition, public entities under
the ADA, as are federal agencies under the Rehabilitation Act.91 Like state
and federal courts, executive branch agencies are required by law to include
qualified individuals with disabilities in the provision of all services.92
Courts have applied the Acts to the accessibility of public meetings,93
community mental health board of trustee meetings,94 and access to the
child welfare system.95 Surely, if accommodations are required in these
settings, they are also required in all administrative hearings.96
In fact, the Washington State Office of Administrative Hearings
(OAH)the state agency responsible for conducting hearings for the state
Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS),97 the Employment
Security Department, and the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction
(for special education benefits hearings), among forty otherstells public
assistance appellants in the Hearing Rights pamphlet it sends with every
Notice of Hearing that it is subject to the ADA and Rehabilitation Act and
will provide reasonable accommodations for disabled litigants to access the
hearing system.98
In the administrative hearings situation, reasonable accommodation
might require attorneys for the hearings of some agencies, but not others.
Unlike the state and federal courts, the administrative hearing setting does
not always require that a legal representative be a licensed attorney.99 For
example, in Washington State, OAH hearings on behalf of DSHS and
Employment Security allow representatives who are not licensed attorneys
to represent appellants.100 For those hearings, arguably, a trained lay
representative, law student, or paralegal, rather than a lawyer, would be a

reasonable accommodation. In those state101 and federal102 hearings where
only lawyers can act as representatives, however, the only allowable
accommodation is to provide attorney representation.
Legal representation seems critical for public benefits hearings in
particular because they involve access to critical brutal needs103
assistance for low-income and disabled litigants, and the law is particularly
complex and difficult to parse. Moreover, because low-income people who
rely on public benefits to meet basic needs lack the resources to hire
lawyers to take their appeals to the court system, the administrative hearing
process is likely the only justice system available to them. Without legal
representation at the hearing, appellants with disabilities that prevent them
from making cogent legal arguments will likely lose.104 Using the ADA to
get representation for these clients as a reasonable accommodation could be
the difference between hunger and adequate nutrition, illness and health
care, or homelessness and shelter.
III. POLICY ARGUMENTS DEMONSTRATING THE REASONABLENESS

OF APPOINTED COUNSEL
Several policy concerns, both national and international, support

appointing counsel for certain individuals with disabilities who are involved
in judicial or administrative proceedings. Moreover, arguments supporting
counsel for indigent civil litigants apply with even greater vigor to the
plight of civil litigants with certain disabilities. These arguments are based
on the historical development of the right to appointed counsel in both
criminal and civil contexts in the United States; the disparity between the
protections afforded to civil litigants by all other major Western nations and
the utter lack of systemic protections for civil litigants in the United States;
and notions of fundamental fairness, both actual and perceived.105
Civil litigants who are disabled to such an extent that they cannot
comprehend or participate in court proceedings have a greater need for
counsel than other civil litigants, yet courts in the United States have been
reluctant to recognize this need. This reluctance follows a pattern of
incremental recognition of the right to counsel in both the criminal and civil
contexts. Even though the Sixth Amendment unequivocally guarantees the
right to counsel for criminal defendants, only those defendants charged with
capital offenses enjoyed the right prior to the 1930s.106 From the 1930s
through the 1960s, the Supreme Court expanded coverage, first by
recognizing the right to counsel for all federal defendants, then by
extending the right to defendants in state courts in specific situations.107
Appointment of counsel in civil matters, though lagging behind
appointment of counsel for criminal defendants, is not a new concept in the
United States. In 1948, Congress granted the federal courts statutory
authority to appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants.108 The Third Circuit
Court of Appeals interpreted 28 U.S.C. 1915 as affording district courts
broad discretion to determine whether appointment of counsel in a civil
case would be appropriate.109 The Third Circuit rejected several courts
interpretations that appointment of counsel in civil cases should be granted
only under exceptional circumstances.110 Yet even under the exceptional
circumstances analysis, courts have found that, in the balance of factors, the
standard was met to allow appointment of counsel. For example, the Fourth
Circuit found exceptional circumstances existed where the plaintiff lacked
education in legal matters, his incarceration status prevented contact with
witnesses, the testimony was conflicting, and the plaintiff lacked training in
cross-examination.111
In determining whether a district court should order appointment of
counsel, the Third Circuit articulated a number of factors to consider,
without reference to the stringent exceptional circumstances standard.112
The threshold consideration here is whether the plaintiffs claims have
arguable merit in fact and law.113 If the court determines a claim has
sufficient merit, then it must consider factors regarding the plaintiffs ability
to present her case, such as education, literacy, prior work experience, and
prior litigation experience.114

The court should also weigh the
complexities of the legal issues and the need for factual investigation.115
The appointment of counsel may be appropriate when the likelihood exists
that extensive discovery or expert testimony will be required, or that
credibility determinations will play a significant role in the trial.
The Third Circuits test, known as the Tabron test, has been adopted by
one court in a Title II ADA action.116 While the court ultimately held that
the plaintiff was not entitled to appointment of counsel, the court found her
claim sufficiently meritorious to warrant consideration of the additional
factors relevant to the appointment of counsel.117 In weighing the factors,
the court determined that the plaintiff had, at a minimum, a college
education; she presumably had access to public law libraries where she
could conduct any necessary research; expert testimony was unlikely to be
required; and the case did not present unusually complex legal issues.118
These factors weighed against the appointment of counsel in that case. The
door was left open, however, for the appointment of counsel in civil matters
with more compelling circumstances. Arguments for appointed counsel
may prevail, for example, when expert testimony is required, the case
presents unusually complex issues, and the plaintiff does not have a college
education and has a mental disability that prevents her from comprehending
complex matters in the courtroom. When some of these circumstances
exist, plaintiffs should request the assistance of counsel.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964119 also permits courts to appoint
counsel for the plaintiff on request in an employment discrimination suit.120
In making the determination, courts consider three factors: the financial
resources of the plaintiff, efforts made to secure counsel, and the merit of
the plaintiffs claim.121 Commentators have noted a key conundrum
inherent in the test: the problem of determining the merits of a case before
the case has been presented, especially without counsel to assess and
present the merits.122 This problem is compounded when a litigant has a
disability that prevents or impairs understanding and participating in court
proceedings. This additional consideration might assist a plaintiff with such

a disability in obtaining counsel in employment discrimination cases.
This individualized, piecemeal approach to achieving the right to counsel
for civil litigants with certain disabilities will likely parallel the same slow,
incremental advancements that have marked the development of the right
for both criminal and civil litigants in this country. While the United States
struggles for incremental advancements, many developed countries provide
appointed counsel for indigent civil litigants,123 even if they are not
disabled. Courts in these countries ground their analyses in statutes, as in
England;124 in constitutions, as in Switzerland; or in a combination of the
two, as in Germany.125 Moreover, the European Convention of Human
Rights guarantees the right to counsel in civil cases, recognizing it as a
fundamental right.126
Although United States courts and citizens have generally rejected any
notion that our country is not the world leader in issues of justice,127 some
justices are willing to consider approaches and reasoning of other
nations.128 As Justice Earl Johnson noted, United States Supreme Court
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sandra Day OConnor, and Anthony
Kennedy, while speaking at conferences, have all suggested that the Court
is willing to consider jurisprudence from other nations.129 In fact, as Justice
Johnson observed, Justice Kennedy, writing for a six-justice majority in
Lawrence v. Texas,130 relied heavily on foreign decisions.131
With so many countries recognizing that the right to counsel in civil
cases is fundamental, courts in the United States should follow their lead
and conclude, at the very least, that a disabled individual who cannot
understand or participate in court proceedings is entitled to an attorney.
While the average indigent civil litigant has some understanding of court
processes and proceedings, the person with certain disabilities does not. In
this respect, the United States cannot continue to lag so far behind the other
major Western nations of the world.132
Three additional notions of fairness, which commentators have noted for

all civil litigants,133 apply with equal or greater force in the present context.
First, in some contexts, civil litigants who may be more disadvantaged by
lack of counsel than criminal litigants.134 For example, the loss of custody
of a child or civil commitment as an incompetent, may, in the long run, be
far more agonizing than incarceration for a short period of time.135 Second,
where the state brings a suit against a disabled defendant to deprive access
to food, shelter, children, or health care, the civil preponderance-of-theevidence standard is much easier to prove than the beyond-a-reasonabledoubt standard for criminal cases.136 As a result, in a civil suit, the state
could more easily prevail and deprive a person of critical benefits. Finally,
citizens lose faith in our justice system when it seems to be unfair.137 Few
acts are more unfair than denying the appointment of counsel for a civil
litigant whose disability prevents her from understanding or participating
effectively in the proceedings.
IV. PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN OBTAINING ATTORNEY

REPRESENTATION FOR DISABLED CLIENTS
These ADA arguments may never be made for those most in need unless
an organized approach to evaluating a litigants need for an accommodation
and a referral system is in place to get representation for disabled clients.
Yet, finding the litigants that need an attorney accommodation may be
difficult because of the very nature of their disabilities. Litigants whose
disabilities cause them to be too confused or weak to forward their causes in
court may also be unable to ask the court, effectively, for legal
representation. Furthermore, because of their disabling conditions, these
litigants are also unlikely to be able to put forth the sophisticated legal
arguments required to make the case for an attorney accommodation. How,
then, will these cases be brought to the attention of legal services providers
who can then make these arguments on behalf of clients?
Advocates for the disabled should take a more proactive and organized
approach in identifying these clients and providing this accommodation by
meeting with court personnel, administrative agency management, and
judges to discuss these issues. Additionally, ADA coordinators in the
courts and in administrative agencies should be assigned the task of
evaluating the need for an attorney accommodation and creating an internal
appeal process for challenging an accommodation denial in the same way
other disability accommodations are evaluated and appealed.
Judges and administrative hearing officersthe people who may be in
the best position to initially identify whether a litigant needs an attorney
accommodationshould be trained to identify and refer litigants to
courthouse ADA coordinators for arranging representation. Courts and
administrative agencies must then develop contracts with legal services
providers to supply legal representation in these cases.
Before such a system is in place, non-profit legal services organizations
may have to create a caller-screening system to identify clients to represent
solely for the purpose of arguing for attorney accommodation in their legal
disputes. Such screening systems are already being developed to find
appropriate plaintiffs to bring litigation to establish a general civil
Gideon.138 To make the argument for an attorney accommodation for
disabled litigants who come to the attention of providers through a
screening process, legal services organizations, advocacy groups for the
elderly and disabled, or pro bono attorneys might have to make special
appearances in identified cases, appearing for the sole purpose of arguing
for an ADA accommodation.
Making a limited appearance, however, has inherent dangers. In a recent
Maryland case, the argument that a free lawyer must be provided to all lowincome civil litigants under the Maryland Constitution was raised.
Although the court did not reach the merits of the issue, it did comment that
Ms. Frase, as noted, is well represented by counsel in this appeal, and there
is no assurance that, should any further litigation be brought by or against
Ms. Frase, she would not be represented in that litigation.139 Further, the
court noted that it would not make the assumption that the five attorneys
and numerous pro bono organizations that specially appeared in the case to
argue for civil Gideon would then abandon her, should she need further
representation on the underlying merits of her case.140 Therefore, courts
may, as did the Maryland Court of Appeals, ignore the special appearance
and require that the attorney provide representation in the underlying case.
Advocacy groups and justice systems must address these issues regarding
client identification and referral so that those litigants who need
representation are served. No isolated group can address these issues
effectively. To solve these issues, courts, administrative agencies, nonprofit legal service organizations, bar associations, pro bono attorneys, and
advocacy groups for the disabled must work together to obtain meaningful
results.
V. CONCLUSION
With full civil Gideon still on the distant horizon, advocates should use
the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act to argue that appointed counsel is
necessary for civil litigants with certain disabilities. Both state and federal
courts are required to make their services equally accessible to those with
disabilities. Currently, neither courts nor administrative hearings are
accessible for those whose disabilities impair their capacity either to
understand or to partake in the proceedings. Although alternative aids or
services might be appropriate for some of these litigants, others will require
attorney representation.
Appointed counsel for these civil litigants is not only appropriate but also
reasonable. The number of these litigants is relatively small when
compared to the total number of indigent civil litigants in the country. The
costs seem even smaller compared with the almost certain loss of crucial
needs, such as food, housing, income benefits, and property if the litigant is
without attorney representation. Moreover, greater loss accrues from
citizens lost faith in the justice system. With all the major European
nations and the European Court of Human Rights granting free attorney
representation in civil cases, the United States must be able to protect its
most vulnerable civil litigants: those whose disabilities prevent them from
understanding or fully participating in judicial and administrative
proceedings.
Advocates and the justice system, working together, can remedy this
problem. By focusing on the true meaning of the ADAs requirement of
reasonable accommodation, the bench and bar can devise methods for
screening and evaluating clients, creating contracts in order to represent
them, and devising systems for administering and evaluating the program.
Only then will civil litigants with certain disabilities have real access to the
justice system.
Lisa Brodoff, Clinical Professor of Law, and Susan McClellan, Legal Writing
Professor, both teach at Seattle University School of Law; Elizabeth Anderson is a 2003
graduate of Seattle University School of Law. The authors wish to thank Sarabeth Zemel
for her editorial assistance and law librarian Stephanie Wilson for her extraordinary
research skills and support.
2
Civil Gideon is a term used to describe efforts to establish a right to counsel in civil
cases. The case that established this right in the criminal context was Gideon v.
Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963). Anthony Lewis popularized Mr. Gideons story in his
book Gideons Trumpet. ANTHONY LEWIS, GIDEONS TRUMPET (Vintage Books, 1989)
(1966).
3
See, e.g., Earl Johnson, Jr., Will Gideons Trumpet Sound a New Melody? The
Globalization of Constitutional Values and Its Implications for a Right to Equal Justice
in Civil Cases, 2 SEATTLE J. SOC. JUST. 201 (2003) [hereinafter New Melody?] (the
author has served as a Justice for the California Court of Appeal since 1982); Earl
Johnson, Jr., Equal Access to Justice: Comparing Access to Justice in the United States
and Other Industrial Democracies, 24 FORDHAM INTL L.J. 83 (2000); Robert W. Sweet,
Civil Gideon and Confidence in a Just Society, 17 YALE L. & POLY REV. 503 (1998);
Deborah Perluss, Washingtons Constitutional Right to Counsel in Civil Cases: Access to
Justice v. Fundamental Interest, 2 SEATTLE J. SOC. JUST. 571 (2004).
4
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 34243 (1963) and its progeny (see, e.g.,
Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972) (extending right to counsel to misdemeanor
cases); Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 49091 (1964) (extending right to counsel to
uncharged suspect); Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 35758 (1963) (extending right
to counsel to direct appeals)).
See MAURO CAPPELLETTI, ET AL., TOWARD EQUAL JUSTICE: A COMPARATIVE

STUDY OF LEGAL AID IN MODERN SOCIETIES 14066 (Vincenzo Varano ed., 1975); Earl
Johnson, Jr., The Right to Counsel in Civil Cases: An International Perspective, 19 LOY.
L.A. L. REV. 341 (1985); Francis William OBrien, Why Not Appointed Counsel in Civil
Cases? The Swiss Approach, 28 OHIO ST. L.J. 1, 5 (1967). Some state statutes and court
rules do provide appointed counsel for indigent litigants in certain circumstances, such as
juvenile dependency and termination of parental rights. See, e.g., WASH. REV. CODE
13.34.090 (2002).
6
Frase v. Barnhart, 840 A.2d 114 (Md. Dec. 11, 2003). In a four-three decision, the
majority declared it inappropriate to rule on the litigants claim of a right to counsel,
citing the litigations commencement, among other reasons; however, the three
concurring judges not only would have addressed the civil Gideon issue but also would
have found that a constitutional right to counsel exists. Id. at 115, 138.
7
City of Moses Lake v. Smith, No. 21783-3-III, slip op. (Wash. Ct. App. May 21,
2003) (dismissed as moot by Order Denying Motion to Modify Commissioners Ruling).
8
Depression and other mental disorders are considered disabilities under the ADA.
Olson v. Gen. Elec. Astrospace, 966 F. Supp. 312, 316 (D.N.J. 1997). See, e.g., Pritchard
v. Southern County Servs., 92 F.3d 1130, 1132 (11th Cir.1996), amended on rehg, 102
F.3d 1118 (11th Cir.1996); Shea v. Tisch, 870 F.2d 786, 789 (1st Cir.1989); Doe v.
Region 13 Mental Health-Mental Retardation Commn, 704 F.2d 1402, 1408 (5th
Cir.1983).
9
See Henrietta D. v. Giuliani, 119 F. Supp. 2d 181, 206 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) (finding city
program failed to provide meaningful access to public assistance programs, benefits, and
services to individuals suffering from AIDS).
10
See, e.g., Arneson v. Sullivan, 946 F.2d 90, 9293 (8th Cir. 1991) (holding that the
Social Security Administration must reinstate a former employee who suffers from
apraxia, provide him with computer training at least equal to that received by other
employees with disabilities, make reasonable efforts to provide a distraction-free
environment, and provide him with a reader to ensure he receives assistance at a level
given to other employees with disabilities). Apraxia is a neurological disorder that
results in difficulty in bringing ideas together, difficulties in writing, distractibility,
[and] motor awkwardness. Id. at 91 (quoting Arneson v. Heckler, 879 F.2d 393, 399
(8th Cir. 1989)).
11
Office of Senate Sergeant at Arms v. Office of Senate Fair Employment Practices, 95
F.3d 1102, 110506 (Fed. Cir. 1996). See also 29 C.F.R. App. 1630.16(b) (2003).
12
Soto v. City of Newark, 72 F. Supp. 2d 489, 49495 (D.N.J. 1999) (holding that the
court violated Title II of the ADA when deaf litigants were denied a sign-language
interpreter at municipal court wedding). See also, e.g., Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260
F.3d 1124, 1135 (9th Cir. 2001); Bravin v. Mount Sinai Med. Ctr., 58 F. Supp. 2d 269,
273 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (holding that a hospital violated the ADA when it denied a deaf
father the use of a qualified interpreter during Lamaze classes, which he attended with his
wife); DeVinney v. Me. Med. Ctr., 1998 WL 271495, 1 (D. Me. 1998) (approving a
consent decree whereby Maine Medical Center would provide appropriate auxiliary aids
and services where such aids and services were necessary to ensure effective
communication with persons who were deaf).
13
ADA Title II Technical Assistance Manual II7.1000 (2003), at

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/taman2.html (last viewed Feb. 29, 2004). See also Engle
v. Gallas, No. CIV. A. 93-3324, 1994 WL 263347, *12 (E.D. Pa. June 10, 1994); Fink
v. N.Y. Dept of Pers., 53 F.3d 565, 56869 (2d Cir. 1995) (city personnel satisfied its
obligation to reasonably accommodate blind employees who took civil service promotion
exams when it provided them with taped versions of the exam, a tape player, a reader,
and extra time); Galloway v. Super. Ct., 816 F. Supp. 12, 18 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (court
system is a public entity under the ADA and must provide reasonable accommodations
for jurors visual limitations).
14
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101336 (codified as amended
at 42 U.S.C. 1210112213 (2000)).
15
The Court Interpreters Act also recognizes the right of the hearing impaired to have an
interpreter in proceedings instituted by the United States when the impairment inhibits
such partys comprehension of the proceedings or communication with counsel or the
presiding judicial officer. 28 U.S.C. 1827(d)(1)(B) (2000).
16
29 U.S.C. 701796l (2003).
17
The Washington Law Against Discrimination, WASH. REV. CODE 49.60.010.401
(2002). See also, e.g., WASH. REV. CODE 11.88.045(1)(a) (2002) (providing indigent
allegedly incapacitated individuals with the right to be represented by willing counsel
of their choosing at any stage in guardianship proceedings.).
18
Several states, including Washington, Alabama, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey,
North Carolina, and North Dakota, have more expansive state anti-discrimination
statutes. See WASH. REV. CODE 49.60.010.401 (2002); ALA. CODE 12123
(2003); Unruh Civil Rights Act, CAL. CIVIL CODE 51 (West 2004); CAL. CIVIL CODE
54 (a) (West 2004); CONN. GEN. STAT. 46a64 (2003); Minnesota Human Rights
Act, MINN. STAT. 363A.01 (2003); New Jersey Law against Discrimination, N.J.
STAT. ANN. 10:54.1 (West 2003); North Carolina Persons with Disabilities
Protection Act, N.C. GEN. STAT. 168A7 (2003); N.D. CENT. CODE 1402.415
(2003).
19
28 C.F.R. 35.130(f) (2003). This regulation forbids a public entity from charging
disabled persons to cover the costs of measures . . . required to provide . . . the
nondiscriminatory treatment required by the . . . [ADA or implementing regulations].
20
Stephen Kaye, Is the Status of People with Disabilities Improving?, Disability
Statistics Center (May 1998), available at http://dsc.ucsf.edu/publication.php?pub_id=7.
21
In 1994, 30% of disabled working-age adults lived in poverty. Id.
22
Brief of Amici Curiae American Bar Association, Tennessee v. Lane, 315 F.3d 680
(6th Cir. 2003), (No. 02-1667), cert. granted in part, 123 S. Ct. 2622 (citing U.S. Census
Bureau, Disability Status: 2000, available at
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/disable/disabstat2k/disabstat2ktxt.html (last visited
Feb. 22, 2004)).
23
Helen L. v. DiDario, 46 F.3d 325, 331 (3d Cir. 1995) (citing S. Rep. No. 116, 101st
Cong., 1st Sess. 18 (1989); H.R.Rep. No 485 (II), 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 47 (1990)).
24
42 U.S.C. 12101(b)(1) (2000).
25
Id. 1211112117.
26
Id. 1213112134.
27
Id. 12131.
Id. 1218112189.
29
Id. 12181.
30
47 U.S.C. 225 (2000).
31
42 U.S.C. 12132 (2000).
32
42 U.S.C. 12143 (2000).
33
The ADA defines public entities to include state and local governments and any
department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a state or local
government. 42 U.S.C. 12131(1).
34
42 U.S.C. 12132 (2000).
35
See, e.g., Soto, 72 F. Supp. 2d at 49495 (holding that a wedding ceremony performed
in municipal court is a service within the meaning of the ADA). See also Saunders v.
Horn, 960 F. Supp. 893, 899 (E.D. Pa. 1997) (finding that management of court systems
is a state or local responsibility of great importance that is routinely understood to be
covered by the ADA); Galloway, 816 F. Supp. at 18 (holding that a court system is a
public entity under the ADA); People v. Caldwell, 603 N.Y.S.2d 713, 714 (N.Y. Crim.
Ct. 1993) (finding that the court system, as a government entity, is required pursuant to
the ADA to make all of its services, programs, and activities available to qualified
individuals with disabilities). The Department of Justice regulations state that the ADAs
coverage extends to all services . . . made available by public entities. 28 C.F.R.
35.102(a) (2003).
36
29 U.S.C. 701796l (2000).
37
See Duvall, 260 F.3d at 113536; McDonald v. Com. of Mass., 901 F.Supp. 471, 478
(D. Mass. 1995); Helen L. v. DiDario, 46 F.3d 325, 330 (3d Cir. 1995).
38
Sec. 504 provides, No otherwise qualified individual with a disability shall, solely
by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the
benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving
Federal financial assistance. 29 U.S.C. 794.
39
Sec. 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA impose identical requirements.
Lincoln Cercpac v. Health & Hosps. Corp., 147 F.3d 165, 167 (2d Cir. 1998).
40
The remainder of the article refers primarily to state courts and the ADA, but the
analysis applies equally in federal courts.
41
Lane, 315 F.3d 680.
42
Adam Cohen, Can Disabled People Be Forced to Crawl Up the Courthouse Steps?,
N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 11, 2004, 4 (Editorial Desk), at 14.
43
Lane, 315 F.3d at 682.
44
WASH. REV. CODE 49.60.010.401 (2002).
45
WASH. REV. CODE 49.60.030(1) (2002).
46
Id.
47
WASH. REV. CODE 49.60.030(1)(b) (2002).
48
See, e.g., Fell v. Spokane Transit Auth., 911 P.2d 1319, 1328 (Wash. 1996).
49
42 U.S.C. 12132 (2000). See also Duvall, 260 F.3d at 1135 (citing Weinreich v.
L.A. County Metro. Transp. Auth., 114 F.3d 976, 978 (9th Cir. 1997)).
50
See, e.g., Duvall, 260 F.3d at 1139; Soto, 72 F. Supp. 2d at 495.
51
42 U.S.C. 12102(2) (2000); see also Duvall, 260 F.3d at 1135.
28
52
28 C.F.R. 35.150(a) (2003).

28 C.F.R. 35.150(a)(3) (stating that the public entity has the burden of proving that
compliance would require a fundamental alteration or undue financial or
administrative burdens).
54
Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services,
28 C.F.R. 35.106 (2003); 56 Fed. Reg. 35694 (1991).
55
Id.
56
Shotz v. Cates, 256 F.3d 1077, 1080 (11th Cir. 2001) (citing Layton v. Elder, 143 F.3d
469, 472 (8th Cir. 1998)).
57
42 U.S.C. 12132 (2000); Duvall, 260 F.3d at 1135.
58
Sweet, supra note 3, 505 (quoting Lassiter v. Dept. of Soc. Servs. of Durham County,
452 U.S. 18, 47 (1981)) (emphasis added).
59
42 U.S.C. 12132 (2000).
60
Henrietta D. v. Bloomberg, 331 F.3d 261, 277 (2d Cir. 2003) (holding that a litigant
with disabilities suing under the ADA or Rehabilitation Act may show that she has been
excluded from or denied the benefits of a public entitys services or programs by reason
of such disability, even if there are other contributory causes for the exclusion or denial,
as long as the plaintiff can show that the disability was a substantial cause of the
exclusion or denial).
61
Henrietta D., 119 F. Supp. 2d at 21213.
62
Duvall, 260 F.3d at 1139.
63
42 U.S.C. 12132 (2000).
64
Duvall, 260 F.3d at 113637 (citing Wong v. Regents of the U. of Cal., 192 F.3d 807,
818 (9th Cir. 1999)).
65
28 C.F.R. 35.160(a) (2003).
66
28 C.F.R. 35.104 (2003); see, e.g., Duvall, 260 F.3d at 1135.
67
1 Disability Discrimination in the Workplace 8:16 (citing the Technical Assistance
Manual on the Employment Provisions (Title I) of the ADA, EEOC 3.10(8)), available
at http://www.ada-infonet.org/documents/titleI/tech-assist-man.asp (last visited Feb. 29,
2004), Depending on the nature of the visual impairment and the job tasks, print
magnification equipment or a talking computer may be more effective for the individual
and less costly for an employer than providing another employee as a reader. On the
other hand, a reader who transcribes documents onto tapes may be a more effective
accommodation when a person must read lengthy documents. Technical Assistance
Manual at 3.10(8). Similarly, people with hearing impairments have different
communication needs and use different modes of communication. Some use signing in
American Sign Language but others use sign language that has different manual codes.
Some people rely on an oral interpreter who silently mouths words spoken by others to
make them easier to lip read. Many hearing-impaired people use their voices to
communicate, and some combine talking and signing. Id. at 3.10(9). An employer
might also be required to offer an attendant or helper as an accommodation for an
employee with a disability. See, e.g., Roberts v. Progressive Independents, Inc., 183 F.3d
1215, 122021 (10th Cir. 1999) (holding that a jury could find that an employers refusal
to pay for a personal attendant during an airline trip was not reasonable).
68
28 C.F.R. 35.160 (2003).
53
69
28 C.F.R. 35.160(b)(2) (2003).

Duvall, 260 F.3d at 1139.
71
28 C.F.R. 35.160(a) (2003).
72
The Court Interpreters Act, 28 U.S.C. 1827(d)(1)(B) (2000).
73
Deborah J. Cantrell, Justice for Interests of the Poor: The Problem of Navigating the
System Without Counsel, 70 FORDHAM L. REV. 1573, 1574, 1581 (2002); Deborah L.
Rhode, Access to Justice, 69 FORDHAM L. REV. 1785, 1816 (2001).
74
See Cantrell, supra note 73, at 157880 (arguing that simplification, though
admirable, is insufficient for addressing the needs of indigent civil litigants); Rhode,
supra note 73, at 1816.
75
The cost aspect matters, as a number of commentators have noted, because opponents
of civil Gideon argue the expense of such a program would bankrupt the government.
See, e.g., Rhode, supra note 73, at 178788; Earl Johnson, Jr., Toward Equal Justice:
Where the United States Stands Two Decades Later, 5 MD. J. CONTEMP. LEGAL ISSUES
199, 21021 (1994) [hereinafter Toward Equal Justice].
76
There is no reasonable argument that providing legal representation as an
accommodation within the court system would fundamentally alter the nature of that
public entity. Attorneys regularly represent litigants in the court setting, so having
representation for a disabled litigant would not be a change in the system.
77
Lane, 315 F.3d at 683.
78
See, e.g., Nelson v. Thornburgh, 567 F. Supp. 369, 381 (E.D. Pa. 1983), affd, 732
F.2d 14647 (3d Cir. 1984). Decisions based on the Rehabilitation Act provide guidance
because the ADA regulations borrowed the reasonable accommodation and undue
hardship definitions from the regulations promulgated by the EEOC under the
Rehabilitation Act.
79
Id. at 38182.
80
Id.
81
Id. at 382.
82
Id.
83
Simran Bindra & Pedram Ben-Cohen, Public Civil Defenders: A Right to Counsel for
Indigent Civil Defendants, 10 GEO. J. ON POVERTY L. & POLY 1, 19, 3135 (2003);
Johnson, Toward Equal Justice, supra note 75, at 219.
84
Johnson, Toward Equal Justice, supra note 75, at 219. See also Bindra & Ben-Cohen,
supra note 83, at 3233 (comparing the funding in other countries to the funding in the
United States).
85
Bindra & Ben-Cohen, supra note 83, at 33; see also Brief of Amici Curiae American
Bar Association, Lane, 315 F.3d 680.
86
Bindra & Ben-Cohen, supra note 83, at 33.
87
Id. (citing Helaine M. Barnett, An Innovative Approach to Permanent State Funding
of Civil Legal Services: One States Experience So Far, 17 YALE L. & POLY REV.
469, 472 (1998), citing Legal Services Project, Funding Civil Legal Services for the Poor
11 (1998)).
88
See Bindra & Ben-Cohen, supra note 83, at 32 (noting that forty-seven percent of
Americans feel that the legal system is biased against the poor and minorities, and nearly
ninety percent feel that the affluent and corporate have the upper hand).
70
89
See e.g., Unemployment Compensation, WASH. REV. CODE 50.06.010 (2003);

Workers Compensation, 5 U.S.C. 8102 (2000); Social Security, 42 U.S.C. 402
(2000); Supplemental Security Income (SSI), 42 U.S.C. 1381a (2000); General
Assistance, WASH. REV. CODE 74.04.005 (2003); Medicaid, 42 U.S.C. 1396 (2000);
Medicare, 42 U.S.C. 1395c (2000), 1395j.
90
See Washington State Supreme Court, The Washington State Civil Legal Needs Study,
Task Force on Civil Equal Justice Funding, at http://www.courts.wa.gov (Sept. 2003)
(finding that less than 12% of low-income clients with public benefits disputes receive
legal representation of any kind).
91
State agencies are public entities under the ADA. 42 U.S.C. 12131(1) (2000).
Federal agencies are public entities under the Rehabilitation Act. 29 U.S.C. 794(a)
(2000).
92
Id.; see 28 C.F.R. 35.102(a) and 104 (2003) (public entities subject to the ADA are
defined as including [a]ny department, agency . . . or other instrumentality of a State or
States.).
93
Kansas Hosp. Assn v. Whiteman, 835 F. Supp. 1556 (D. Kan. 1993) (holding that a
state Medicaid agencys notice of public hearing regarding an increase in the Medicaid
co-payment was not defective under the ADA for failure to communicate to disabled
persons about their opportunity to participate in the hearing. However, the court
observed that the state had made the hearing accessible to the disabled by providing a
sign-language interpreter at the public hearing, and that the hearing was held in a facility
accessible to the mobility impaired).
94
Dees v. Austin Travis County Mental Health & Mental Retardation, 860 F. Supp.
1186 (W.D. Texas 1994). (holding that the mental health centers board of trustees is a
public entity as defined by the ADA, and that it discriminated against mentally ill client
recipients of its services by holding board meetings at a time that made it impossible for
patients who suffered drowsiness from the effects of medication for mental illness to
attend).
95
Marisol A. by Forbes v. Giuliani, 929 F. Supp. 662 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (holding that
plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to support claims that state welfare officials violated the
ADA when they mishandled childrens cases by failing to take modest affirmative steps
to ensure that the children had meaningful access to the child welfare system).
96
In one analogous case involving whether or not a school district must accommodate a
disabled parents request to tape record a hearing-like meeting involving planning and
placement for her handicapped child, a Connecticut federal district court held that
participation [in the planning meeting by the parent] means something more than mere
presence; it means being afforded the opportunity to be an equal collaborator, whose
views are entitled to as much consideration and weight as those of other members of the
team, in the formulation and evaluation of their childs education. V.W. v. Favolise, 131
F.R.D. 654, 659 (1990).
97
DSHS provides necessary supplemental accommodations to disabled clients who
have a mental, neurological, physical or sensory impairment . . . that prevent [clients]
from getting program benefits in the same way that an unimpaired person would get
them. WASH. ADMIN. CODE 388-472-0010 (2003). See also WASH. ADMIN. CODE
388-472-0020 to 0050 (2003) for the parameters of the NSA program. These accommo-
dations should also be required for hearings involving DSHS administered public
benefits.
98
See OFFICE OF ADMIN. HEARINGS, Your Hearing Rights in a DSHS Case, OAH
pamphlet #100, DSHS pamphlet #22-092, at http://www.oah.wa.gov/shs_appeals_en.pdf
(last visited on Mar. 29, 2004). The pamphlet tells appellants to contact the OAH office
listed on their Notice of Hearing to arrange for accommodations in the hearing. Id. at 4.
99
For example, in SSI and Social Security administrative hearings, the only obligation
of the Social Security Administration is to inform the appellant of the right to have legal
representation at the hearing, but there is no right to have it provided free of charge and
no requirement that the appellant appear with only a licensed attorney. See Frank v.
Chater, 924 F.Supp. 416, 422, (E.D.N.Y. 1996) ([a]s an initial matter, it is necessary to
clarify what the cases in this and other Circuits casually refer to as the right to
representation in a benefits proceeding. This right does not rise to constitutional
dimensions.); see, e.g., Brandyburg v. Sullivan, 959 F.2d 555, 562 (5th Cir.1992) (citing
Clark, 652 F.2d at 403) (The Supreme Court has never recognized a constitutional right
to counsel at a SSA hearing.); Evangelista v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 826
F.2d 136, 142 (1st Cir.1987) ([T]he applicable standard in these nonadversarial
proceedings is well below the Sixth Amendment threshold.). As a result, HHS is not
obligated to provide counsel for the claimant, see Lopez, 728 F.2d at 149, or even to
guarantee the availability of free legal services. Clark, 652 F.2d at 403. Rather, the
right to representation articulated in these cases refers to a claimants freedom to
choose to be represented by counsel in a benefits proceeding.
100
For DSHS hearings, see WASH. ADMIN. CODE 388-02-0155: Who represents you
during the hearing process?
(1) You may represent yourself or have anyone represent you, except a DSHS
employee.
(2) Your representative may be a friend, relative, community advocate,
attorney, or paralegal.
For Employment Security hearings, see WASH. ADMIN. CODE 192-04-110.
101
For example, in Washington State, the Administrative Procedures Act provides that
any party may be advised and represented at the partys own expense by counsel or, if
permitted by provision of law, other representative (emphasis added). WASH. REV.
CODE 34.05.428(2) (2002). Therefore, unless an agency specifically authorizes the use
of non-attorney representatives, it appears that only attorneys can act. Some Washington
state agencies do allow for lay representation. See, e.g., DSHS, WASH. ADMIN. CODE
388-02-0155 (2003); Employment Security, WASH. ADMIN. CODE 192-04-110 (2003).
Other state agencies, however, essentially only allow for attorney representation. See,
e.g., Environmental Hearings Board Forest Practices Hearings, WASH. ADMIN. CODE
223-08-050 (2003); Pollution Control Hearings, WASH. ADMIN. CODE 371-08-365
(2003); Shoreline Hearings, WASH. ADMIN. CODE 461-08-385 (2003).
102
On the federal level, in Social Security, SSI, and Medicare hearings held before Social
Security Administration ALJs, the federal regulations covering these hearings allow for
lay representation. See 20 C.F.R. 404.1705, 416.1505 (2003).
103
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 261 (1970) (finding that the due process right
includes the right to a fair hearing for public assistance denials, using brutal needs to
describe access to food, clothing, shelter, income, and health care). For qualified
recipients, welfare provides the means to obtain essential food, clothing, housing, and
medical care. Thus the crucial factor in this context . . . is that termination of aid pending
resolution of a controversy over eligibility may deprive an eligible recipient of the very
means by which to live while he waits. Since he lacks independent resources, his
situation becomes immediately desperate. His need to concentrate upon finding the
means for daily subsistence, in turn, adversely affects his ability to seek redress from the
welfare bureaucracy. Id. at 264.
104
Courts agree that attorney representation in the context of establishing eligibility for
SSI and Social Security Disability can be critical to obtaining benefits. See Frank, 924 F.
Supp. at 42728:
The potential benefits of having counsel at a benefits proceeding are well
recognized. Indeed, the heightened duty placed on the ALJ by this Circuit is
an attempt to compensate for the disadvantage of proceeding without counsel.
. . . The high rate of remand may well be a function of the fact that, [u]nder
our system of adjudication, no hearing officer (or judge) will ever be an
equivalent substitute for a lawyer devoted exclusively to a partys interests.
Cases such as the present one will repeatedly arise until the legal services bar
translates into action the now commonplace observation that agency cases are
usually won or lost at the agency level.
See also Guzman v. Califano, 480 F.Supp. 735, 737 (1979).
105
See Joan Grace Ritchey, Limits on Justice: The United States Failure to Recognize a
Right to Counsel in Civil Litigation, 79 WASH. U. L.Q. 317, 33132, 33638 (2001);
Johnson, New Melody?, supra note 3 at 22229 (comparing the legal bases for the right
to appointment of counsel in European countries with those in the United States).
106
Ritchey, supra note 105, at 31819.
107
Id. at 323.
108
28 U.S.C. 1915(a) (2004).
109
See Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 153 (3d Cir. 1993); see also McKeever v. Israel, 689
F.2d 1315, 1318 (7th Cir. 1982); United States v. McQuade, 579 F.2d 1180, 1181 (9th
Cir. 1978).
110
Tabron, 6 F.3d at 155 (stating that nothing in this clear language [of the statute]
suggests that appointment is permissible only in some limited set of circumstances. Nor
have we found any indication in the legislative history of the provision to support such a
limitation. The court refers to 28 U.S.C. 1915(d) (2000) the court may request an
attorney to represent any such person unable to afford counsel.)
111
Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984); see also Franklin v. Murphy,
745 F.2d 1221 (9th Cir. 1984).
112
Tabron, 6 F.3d at 153.
113
Id. at 155.
114
Id. at 156.
115
Id.
116
Ackridge v. Comm. Dept of Human Servs., 5 Natl Disability Law Rep. 236 (E.D.
Pa. May 5, 1994).
117
Id.
118
Id.
42 U.S.C. 2000e2000e17 (2000).
120
42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(1). See also Bindra & Ben-Cohen, supra note 83, at 22
(discussing the statute and subsequent case law).
121
Bindra & Ben-Cohen, supra note 83, at 22 (discussing, primarily, Brown v.
Continental Can Co., 765 F.2d 810, 814 (9th Cir. 1985)).
122
Id. at 2223. The authors reason that if a plaintiff proficiently presents the merits of
the case, the court will deny counsel because the plaintiff is competent. On the other
hand, if the plaintiff inadequately presents the merits, the court will conclude that the
case is frivolous and deny counsel. Id. While the latter proposition is true, under factor
three, the first proposition is not necessarily true. In applying the three-factor test, as
articulated in Brown, courts do not address the plaintiffs competence. If the plaintiff can
show financial need, inability to obtain counsel, and a meritorious case, then the court
should appoint counsel in employment discrimination cases regardless of the plaintiffs
competence. For cases brought under other statutes or constitutional provisions,
however, the authors point is well-taken, as illustrated in their discussion of Fowler v.
Jones, 899 F.2d 1088, 1096 (11th Cir. 1990). In Fowler, the Eleventh Circuit applied an
exceptional circumstances test in denying a prison inmate appointed counsel in his civil
rights suit against prison officials.
123
124
Id. at 333.
125
Id. at 33436.
126
Id. at 332.
127
Johnson, Toward Equal Justice, supra note 75, at 218.
128
Johnson, New Melody?, supra note 3, at 22326.
129
Id. at 22324.
130
See Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S. Ct. 2472 (2003).
131
Johnson, New Melody?, supra note 3, at 224.
132
See Ritchey, supra note 105, at 332 (the United States is the only major Western
nation that does not provide a right to counsel in civil matters, (quoting Earl Johnson,
Jr., The Right to Counsel in Civil Cases: An International Perspective, 19 LOY. L.A. L.
REV. 341, 35255 (1985))).
133
Id. at 338.
134
Id.
135
Id. But note that some states do provide counsel in similar situations. See, e.g.,
WASH. R. APP. P. 15.2 (providing the right of appointed counsel for indigents in
commitment proceedings under WASH. REV. CODE 71.05, 71.09 (2002) and for
dependency and termination of parental rights cases under WASH. REV. CODE 13.34).
136
137
Id.
138
See CIRCLE manifesto: The Coalition for Indigent Representation and Civil Legal
Equality (CIRCLE) is comprised of individuals who are committed to the principle of
equal justice for all as fundamental to the system of justice in the state of Washington.
Memorandum from the Coalition for Indigent and Civil Legal Equality (CIRCLE), to all
119
Equal Justice Legal Service Providers; CIRCLE Case Identification Information Form
used to identify potential clients (on file with Seattle Journal for Social Justice).
139
Frase, 840 A.2d at 130.
140
Id.
Social Security Administration

Retirement, Survivors and Disability Insurance
Notice of Award
Office of Disability and
International Operations
1500 Woodlawn Drive
Baltimore, Maryland 21241-0001
Date: August 23, 1993
Claim Number: 160-52-5117HA
NEIL J GILLESPIE
266 7 AVE NE APT 5
ST PETERSBURG, FL 33701-2651
1 11 11.1 11111 1.1.111.1 11.11 11 11 1
We recently told you that you met the medical requirements to receive Social
Security benefits. Now we are writing to tell you that you meet the other
requirements. Therefore you qualify for monthly disability benefits from Social
Security beginning July 1992.
However, we cannot pay you for July 1992 through July 1993.
The Date You Became Disabled
We found that you became disabled under our rules on January 17, 1992. This is
different from the date given on the application.
Also, you have to be disabled for 5 full calendar months in a row before you can
be entitled to benefits. For these reasons, your first month of entitlement to
benefits is July 1992.
What We Will Pay And When
You will receive $1,185.00 for August 1993 around September 3, 1993.
After that you will receive $1,185.00 each month.
Your Benefits
We raised your monthly benefit amount beginning December 1992 because the
cost of living increased.
Enclosure(s):
Pub 05-10072
Pub 05-10153
See Next Page
. 160-52-5117HA
Page 2 of 3
Other Government Payments Affect Benefits
Besides the money we are sending you now, you may be due some more Social
Security money for July 1992 through July 1993. We must first subtract the
amount of your Supplemental Security Income payments for some or all of these
months from the Social Security money you are due. When we figure the
amount we have to subtract, we will send another letter to show how it was
done. If you are still due some money after the subtraction, we will also send
you a check.
Other Social Security Benefits
The benefit described in this letter is the only one you can receive from Social
Security. If you think that you might qualify for another kind of Social Security
benefit in the future, you will have to file another application.
Do You Disagree With The Decision?
If you think we are wrong, you have the right to appeal. A person who did not
make the first decision will decide your case. We will correct any mistakes. We
will review those parts of the decision which you believe are wrong and will look
at any new facts you have. We may also review those parts which you believe
are correct and may make them unfavorable or less favorable to you.

You have 60 days to ask for an appeal.
The 60 days start the day after you receive this letter.
You must have a good reason if you wait more than 60 days to ask for an
appeal.
Things To Remember For The Future
The doctors and other trained personnel who decided that you are disabled expect
your health to improve. Therefore, we will review your case in July 1994. We
will send you a letter before we start the review. Based on that review, your
benefits will continue if you are still disabled, but will end if no longer disabled.
For you to be considered disabled under our rules, your health problems must
keep you from doing not only your usual work, but also any other kind of
substantial gainful work.
Also, you must meet this requirement at the same time when you have earned
enough credits for work under Social Security. The last date when you will have
earned enough credits is December 1994.
Please read the enclosed pamphlet, "How You Earn Social Security Credits,"
which explains how the credits are earned and how many a person needs to
receive benefits.
Page 3 of 3
160-52-5117HA
Your Responsibilities
The decisions we made on your claim are based on information you gave us. If
this information changes, it could affect your benefits. For this reason, it is
important that you report changes to us right away.
We have enclosed a pamphlet, "When You Get Social Security Disability
Benefits...What You Need To Know." It will tell you what must be reported and
how to report. Please be sure to read the parts of the pamphlet which explain
what to do if you go to work or if your health improves.
If You Want Help With Your Appeal
You can have a friend, lawyer or someone else help you. There are groups that
can help you find a lawyer or give you free legal services if you qualify. There
are also lawyers who do not charge unless you win your appeal. Your local Social
Security office has a list of groups that can help you with your appeal.
If you get someone to help you, you should let us know. If you hire someone, we
must approve the fee before he or she can collect it. And if you hire a lawyer, we
will withhold up to 25 percent of any past due benefits to pay toward the fee.
If You Have Any Questions
If you have any questions, call us toll free at 1-800-772-1213. We can answer
most questions over the phone. You can also write or visit any Social Security
office. The office that serves your area is located at:
DISTRICT OFFICE
898 30TH AVE NORTH
ST PETERSBURG, FL 33704
If you do call or visit an office, please have this letter with you. It will help us
answer your questions.
Cl . ~ ~
//~~q
Louis D. Enoff
Acting Commissioner
of Social Security
Social Security Administration

Important Information
1111 11 1111 111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

002438 1 MB 0.4040008 LTR CDR PC2 0729
NEIL J GILLESPIE
8092 S W 115 LOOP
OACLA FL 34481-3567
fi!j
Mid-Atlantic Program Service Center

300 Spring Garden Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19123-2992
Date: August 1, 2012
Claim Number: 160-52-5117 A
~~
We sent you a letter telling you that we were going to review your disability
case. However, we do not need to review your case at this time. Therefore,
we will not contact your doctor now. We will keep any information that you
have given us.
We will contact you later if we need to review your case.
Things To Remember
It is important that you report changes right away. Be sure to tell us about
any of the following changes:
You return to work.
Your job, payor work expenses change, if you are working now.
Your doctor says your health is better.
If You Have Any Questions

We invite you to visit our website at www.socialsecurity.gov on the Internet
to find general information about Social Security. If you have any specific
questions, you may call us toll-free at 1-800-772-1213, or call your local Social
Security office at 1-877-626-9911. We can answer most questions over the
phone. If you are deaf or hard of hearing, you may call our TTY number,
1-800-325-0778. Y ou can also write or ViSIt any Social Security office. The
office that serves your area is located at:
?'"
SOCIAL SECURITY
217 SE 1 AVE
OCALA, FL 34471
See Next Page
Page 2 of 2
160-52-5117 A
08/01/2012
If you do call or visit an office, please have this letter with you. It will help
us answer your questions. Also, if you plan to visit an office, you may call
ahead to make an appointment. This will help us serve you more quickly
when you arrive at the office.
~~~
Elaine Garrison-Daniels
Assistant R~gional Commissioner
Processing Center Operations
Filing # 21643333 Electronically

09:35:07 AM
HAHNEMANN
.~Filed 12/16/2014
-, HOSPITAL
, UNIVERSITY
,.'
EMERGENCY _.
DEPARTMENT'
, RECORD
Philadelph;a
Pa.,19102
PATIENT STATED COMPLAINT
~-UJ-8~ -,
PTT
p.:
1.- .,.J
. - .....
:'
,.'
>~~, ,,~.;._-
-;.' ~y, ," ,
~'~--;:' ~
-'. c..e--..,
"'::: InIM
Na,
III
<:0;"-'
~.
4:
CL
~.
BLOOD GASES
CONSULTANT REO,
T;me'
AM
'Called
PM
CONSULTING W-SlGNATURE
SERVICE
TIME SEEN
AM
PH
PM
SIGNATURE-House Staff MD,
FINAL IMPRESSION
Hea.
URINE
to- ~~~~L~llL.::~L::~-ALj=-_~~----!!~~~~e~~~=----~~~~~~:---1
~ ~J..j;~~~~~~----l~'-/C:::::"'-_+-~4-r:::;::--~~=>f~=r;:.~:.r::::z2~~~-----I
S!--!-=~~~~~---U0!....-----+":"~1----
-L
o Betadine
o Scrubs
0 Crutches
0 Cane
CONDITION ON DISCHARGE
\
_.
-,
o Same,'.
..
RBClhpf
WII.Cl"Pt'
_ _~~~Q!:..I~~~~~~~~~-=_ _-1---+=a.et;;:;;ert.
-iL_EMJ-==-_ _~~~~~~_ _--r-_..}--r=::..:=.::...:.:..::.:r...:...:.~,

o SpIinlIColiar o ,Monitor
o Ace Applied D. Dressing ,
OSlin
-.
~Change (Explain):
KneeIIl1lTlOb;-T
. (....:
I'tECORD ROOM
Drug Screen
_.~-
:. ..".
EKG
/A
".::;;
. ::' .. ,
., ~""
"'~"r~":'\:'
~ vL~!
.. .
.J
EMERGENCY ROOM .,.6RSES RECORD
Zt' ~ II PSr~
:ATID
'. Hahnemann Medical College and Hospital

DATE:
I" TEMP
TIME
'71
Ir
....
PATIENT
NUM.".
. ~ROGRESS NOTES
BP
(2o/~
t4u!,:-
5"",-
fJ(5'1t..LA
~T'<ll,.j~ ...
PI
DOSE
ROUTE
((-""(.?r
.... A-\,JA-Y ~IJ.S ~'S\L'1
Av4 A - ( J1J1rl? Ct..- TO
MOl RN
tJaJJ %./1,
.
, ~ -......OUTPUT
.~U
PARENTERAL
TIME
AMOUNT
A1rfu.;r..~'PtOft~
IJt)n fA.( it fiU (N 0
INTAKE
SITE
.;.'
~H,A .e~;;4.:
PD
MEDICATIONS
MEDICAnONS
TJME.
I~ ~
PI .~IIJL
-\"l ~I 'fa)
CIt
FLUID
SITE
~-O
URINE
f-4..t
I
OTHER
--+----------------1---t----t-----------+----1f----:r_
CLOTHING TO
VALUABLES TO
DISCHARGE/
=",:
TRANSFER
FORM
OTHER
DENTURES
CONDITION
1196
EYEGLASSES.
t---------------------------------
SUMMARY
TIME
REV 03 - 82
EMERGENCY ROOM CONSULTATION AND CONTINUATION RECORD
HAHNEMANN UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL
DATE
~...!:9}{..2.-
NAME
~~--
G\
E. R. NUMBER
- ,"C.
4.s:t=e '
"La"'...."'NT
~.
,-.>--,
~----
'--
~.
i.
"'ORM 171107 (ft.V 1 - III
WHITE: Record Room
CANARY: R.f."..
PINK: E......-.cy Room
..
GrL~B(Jre
N~rl,
DIAGNOSTIC REQUEST AND REPORT
DEPARTMENT OF DIAGNOSTIC RADIOLOGY
HISTORY NO.
..
Hahnemann University Hospital
AGE
LMP
~D.O.B.
.,
;
.. :. ...
Rt. Lt:
___ .r..
. ';.~::::t
':_
X-RAYED HERE BEFORE?
o
o
o
o
o
NO ... 0 YES, DATE:
CT Brain Scan
DO Femur
o WALK
DO Knee
OWHEEL CHAI.R
o CARRIER
DO Tibia-Fibula
0 0 ~I~':~~ ~~e c
o 0 Thoracic Spine
o
o
o0
oo
ONode/~=
Lumbosac. Spine
CT Body Scan
UltrMound
o G.I.
Bifat.
o
o
o
0
---;:;:-;::;-f-------+-------+-------t---------f----------4
0 !0
o
o
o
o
0
0
o
o
o 0
I
tj
o0
o
o
0
O
o
~Facial
o0
o
I
0
~Mandible
o
0
o
0
O
o
o0
i
0
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
LaVSoft
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
D
Chest PA + Lat.
w/Air Contrast
Chest AP or PA
Rt.
Lt.
Chest Dccub.
Barium
Esoph/Swallow
DO Clavicle
DO Foot
Small Bowel
DO Shoulder
DO Heel
Toe
DO Humerus
!DOElbow
Gallbladder
DO Forearm
Skeletal Survey (CA)
Chest romo.
Transhepatic
Cholangiogram
DO Wrist
Myelogram
Abdomen-KUB
TTube
Cholangiogram
DO Hand
Sialogram
AbdomenErect-Supine
I.V.P. w/Tomograms
Obstruction Series
Drip I.V.P. w/Tomograms DO Hip
Fistulogram
Cystogram
Anhrogra!'1
Shuntogram
Bone Age
Oint. Bil. Slent
Multiple
Unil.
rK
Cerebral Artario.
Skull
Pulmon. Anario.
Orbits
Renal
Paranasal Sinus
DO Ribs
Pelvis
D O Coccyx
Barium Enema
w/Flat Plate
Cardiac Series
Both DO Ankle
Rt. Lt.
Air Contrast Enema

O w/Flat Plate
Pon. Chest
o Chest Fluoro
o
o
o
o
o
Both t8Ccervical Spine
., 1----------4~;:--,__:_:,....,._--__+=------~
DR.
Artario.
Venogram
Celiac or Mesentenc
Femoral Anerio.
(run off)
Bones
Venogram
Vascular
Gruntz,g
OT.M.Joint
Therapeutic
Intervention
Nasal Bones
Finger
ODSA
Tissue Neck
DO
Uro/Strep Infu.
Serial Film
PERTINENT HISTORY
~t
.~
PR?VISIONAL DIAGNOSIS
_
-~
~ENDING [10LA~b~
~~.
---
1 RES,:)ENT OR INTERN
DATE EXAM DESIRED
, ,
MD. I
RADIOLOGIS7'S REPORT
DATE~D~/,...
;(/Jc7V/ ~
GILLESPIE~ NEIL
825117
MULTIPLE STUDIES:
CERVICAL
SPINE:
e\/.1.0enCE:
:.- .1. '../
~~.:.,
, .;
~he
d:i. =; 1 DCa 'lion

::?;?\/E?::\
1.
c:erV1C21
or
nCJ
spir)e reveal
no
abnormal
prevertebral
bony i.!npi~gment l~pon th2
neural foramina.
FACIAL BONES:
Five views of the facial bones reveal
no evide~ce
of fracture
or ~islocation. No alr fluid levels are seen w1thln
the sinuses or air in the orbits.
t1ANDIBLE:
which reveal
TRANS:
BY:rb
FORM 333008 IRev 7/861
th,':~
n~
EVldence of
fracture.
rnandible
v'Jere
Bria~
cbtainf~,j
t-l.D.
Patricia Laffey, M.D.
8/22/88
PATIENTS CHART
~(
PATIENT NUMBER
EMERGENCY ROOM NURSES RECORD

Hahnemann Medical College and Hospital
JATE
TIME
TEMP
~ROGRESS NOTES
\J
BP
19~
I/!Jfm
b(~ 'Z5UO
11'
--
Ir
(2:,!~
~T'<LL'"
PI ~ I JJL
'-A-VJ h
MEDICATIONS
DOSE
ROUTE
INTAKE
SITE
MOl RN
CLOTHING TO
DISCHARGE/
e:
TRANSFER
SUMMARY
TIME
FORM
CONDITION
1196
REV
03 - 82
VALUABLES TO
...-
AMOUNT
EYEGLASSES
DENTURES
c-r--....OUTPUT
r---\. "
PARENTERAL
TIME
o
o
1'.P f::~ \ U1 Prf++v l\ 3
PrlU
OJsS
MEDICATIONS
TJME .
~(J ~Jl ~ +- (JaJ) %II,
~.... Po ~H A- .e~tJL. .
~1.lW
51'-r- tIIu~~
(J(!Yt..LA-
FLUID
SITE'
OTHER
.~-~
~'g
URINE
I
J
OTHER
o
EMERGENCY ROOM NURSES RECORD
NeiL
Hahnemann Medical College and Hospital

TEMP
TIME
DATE
~f1,1
PATIENT NUMBER
PROGRESS NOTES
WII.t
<.'NkA
{AJ
m-+-
/X- t'f9., $L~Pr'nN'./

II N -;:;T'(l.AJU'"Y JI\.. ~
VtA-
CILI
r\ L<vr
(0f\lD GNL pU(lPtJ_,
tJ l t. '+1""
QJls~
RVt<SWE'O ~Jllf1 ~
('~ . GA-1:r S'r-:J1"Y)-...( AI...l
O(l1
OT
rJJ
1..Fr
H.A.
I
1(A1U-ir,~~ (21-:.~ (~Jm 5CL~l'nV1 6"'l M61"tUA.J
~Th~/I..-
--C _
'--"
-"._"
--
TJME .
INTAKE
MEDICATIONS
MEDICA nONS
DOSE
ROUTE
MOl RN
SITE
CL.OTHING TO
VALUABLES TO
OUTPUT
PARENTERAL
TIME
AMOUNT
EYEGLASSES
FLUID
SITE
NEEDLE
.0 OTHER
DENTURES
DISCHARGE/
1::'"
TRANSFER
SUMMARY
TIME
FORM
CONDITION
1196
REV 03 - 82
-'I
6(u..-,~9\
BP
c 'l'5't.J-.\d
C;i)3S
PATIENT NAME
NURSES' SIGNATURE
URINE
OTHER
~~~-.. ~i. 'p~tiHi-"''''' ~ ~ : * 4 . "

...~ .~.:.~ai.4.;.a
; ...
7: ... 31
:-~ ~I;/AHN~~ANN aRG~Ncv.:DEPAR~MENr. Fall

6
''''';''NAME
.-,
'_
~~.
/Jed
'
e>
--
ou:'.::::n~ht ~:~.J24 ~.
': ..-. po';."
Yw
2. Apply ice ~gs to areas of swelling of the scalp for 15 minut.. ~very4 to
,6 hours ,dUring the first 24.tt()urs after injury.
~.t"
" ',:
,.3. Li9!lt diet for 24 hours after injury. '
.gt~.,~t.-':iA'
PINSTR\l.cil6@~~:
~."!t=t"':"5~'.~~
e.
--.:,::
"
~ -P~.' 1332;').. .0
ch;nq th. d;~~=::c:: :::;~tj;~~~;;d:"V
ccompanylng paUT. For vomiting. stop all foods anclliquids for several
hours. Later. try sipping clear liquids each hour. After f2110urs without
vomiti~g try a b.la.nd d.iet. For diar.rhea. drink plenty of etu,'liQuids. Eat '
. no SOh~ f~OdS, IMlally;:When dla~rhea decreas~s, uy-~~~~.~~~r. "',
Blear Liquids:' Jello. fr.llit IUI.ces (apple. cranberry, ~r.pe);:'broth/soda.
(seven-up. glnger-aleh Don t remain on a clear liquid dietfotmorethan
72 hours. Call your doctor if diarrhea persists more thtin:72hours.
4. Avoid strenuous physical exereisefor at least 24 hours after the injury.

Return to the Emergency Room immediately if:
Blend Diet~eggs. meat. fish. poultry. potato. rice.
, 1. The patient becomes confused. vomits. is unsteady or clumsy
p:You are unable to awaken the patient.
DATE
say'4fJfllft
n~i;S:~~;;81:;toast.
.. ---.:'" ~:~
~. ~
NOTE: AVOIO-milk and other dairy products. raw fi'uiIa end~.

nuts. chocolate, and fatty or fried foods until you a,. better;. ,~'"
' . ~">-""'i'w ... ;.-\';.,~
o JOINT SPRAINS. SEVERE BRUISES:"- :.~,;:r;.;:~:::,
'
'3. The patient has a'seizure or convulsion
~rse~~'~~~r f~
4., Headache gets worse.,
Pain is usually mild when the injury occurs. but

a
hours. Swelling also comes on gradually.
" ,", "o~',-;~;~; . " : - \ ' ;
5. The patient complains of double or blurred vision.
... ;;"
.';. -~. ",'
1. Rest is the most important treatment.
o.ur
2. Keep injured arm or leg eleval8d higher than Y,

'heart level to '
prevent swelling and reduce soreneb.,. : .. "': ,~~-' .
o WOUND CARE
3. Coid packsshouhl be appliedfor the first 24-48
1. Keep the wound and bandage dry and clean,
hour~. Use ato~el
between the ice bag and the skin to avoid frostbite.
2. Even with every precaution. any wound can become infected.
4. Warm
packs or soaks may be used after 48 hours,
,
'
3. Return to the Emergency Room at any time if:
6. po not stand on an injured foot or leg until you can do so~ithout pain;
then gradually return to normal activity.
,
a. wound becomes red. swollen or hot

b. wound breaks open. drains or has bad odor
c. sore glands or red streaks develop
d. pain worsens
e dressing becomes blood soaked
o NECK & BACK STRAIN
. 1. .Rest the injured area. avoiding anypainful m<Wemen~.. , ,;,~,
2. Apply heat at least 3 or 4 times a day.
4. Keep injured arm or leg elevated high,il',than your heart level to

Plevent swelling and reduce soreness. /
.
....
.,
;
'~--:~:::.:.;; '<c
~ .. '
.. ".
3. For neck strains. try sleeping with a low pillow or no pillow at all.
~
4. I~crease activities very gradually.
"',' i-;.To
~,----------~D""""O""T"'Hf~F""O-l-LO-W-IN-G-_O-N-L-Y-I-F-C-H-E-C-K-E-D-S-Y-r-H-E-O-O..;,C-T-O-R-------..;,,;;.--
C
.....
'0
0
the skin to avoid frostbite.
-0 Heat every
.beginning
hours for
minutes until
o Soak in warm water every
o May take aspirin or Tylenol 1 or 2 tablets every 4 hrs. as needed.
..
"C
ou
for
hours for
,
,
~,
month and again in 6 months to complete ybur immunization.
1:1 Do not drink any alcoholic beverages, drive a car, or operate any
dangerous machinery while taking the medication given or...-c:ribed for
you.
minutes
days.
OTHER INSTRUCTIONS
MEDICATIONS/PRESCRIPTIONS
Medication
~
Amount Order,c!
~~
Directions _
Dose
...
>II:
c(
c(--
--
....-
........
~~=
~~
"'::!"C~.,~
\~ ~.....,~
"~
_==~"":";=;:"':"_,,,..S~.~':;;;;:'''''''':::,:....:.,'~-,''="""::::.1+.'2"-( \..~'~ . :-SC"'''-'7
CD
0::
(J
gla"'s of fluid a day until
- 0 Make an appointment with a physician for~. tetanus toxoid booeter in 1
0::
W
o Drink
o Cold packs for first 24-48 hours. Use a towel between the ice bag and
~,<..,-.:-.:".,,-
~ ~~'-'-'- ~~"""''''~.
. . . .__.. . _ -..-....__.. . . .
__=_~~~~~
___=~"=~~~~~~""!!!!""!!~-
IFYOU HAVE ANY FURTHER PROBLEMS CALL YOUR DOCTOR OR CALL THE EMERGENCYROOM.
o Industrial Compensetion Clinic (Enter thru Bobst Entrance)
FOLLOW-UP CARE
o City Compensation Clinic 216 N. Broad St. 6th Fir. (; day)
o Oral Surgery Clinic 326 N. 16th St.
o Your appointment is on
at
_
o William Penn Bldg. 246 N. Broad St.
,0 Call for an appointment to be seen in
days.
o Feinstein Bldg. 216 N. Broad St.
o
Clinic 448_
o Your own doctor - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Interpretation of X-rays and tests is preliminary only.
o Other
.You will be contacted if there is any further abnormality

that needs medical attention.
I understand that I have had emergency treatment only

and that I must arrange for follow-up care as
indicated above.
I understand the instructions above.
01t..llt<f:
Q0
LlI-k.J.re.v. hC'
~-
DATE
'
40 0l an.
TIME
W1vsICIAN SIGNATURE
-~The patient may return to work or school.

~"i'he patient may not return to work or school
until
Restrictions:
.0. Signature:
----::;IH'S AUTHORIZATION MUST BE SIGNED BY THE PATIENT, OR BY AN AUTHORIZE&PERSQN,

__ .,': ,.....--'
- - - - , - - - - - - - .. --(ExceP1To~ecgenci8sr
---'--'--::.----'..:..:;.~~~iooEo. ........;;-.....
_I
-:-;Alrthorization for Eme!gencv Department Treatment
_~~-=:
".
.:.~-
__::-l! 1.<.=,
- .]q
.
.
'.
. ' .iI~Pfeseati~mYse4ft~~;agnosis.andtreatrneot.atltbe
Em,fgencv'l)epiirtinenfof Hahnemanfi1'vfelficilIC011ege-ailafiospitarTcOilserit:uislrChcare ;tnCfUarng -diig_--~::.---t--~
--- precedures. surgicid and medical treatment. and blood transfusions, .." physicians.and other health care pe~nne"
::;0 u maV in their professional jiJagemenDJinecemrv..:.--------.-,;-,,_.;'....----~:--'-,-:-::.,:;V.'"; -_....::-~f.'-~,-<~-:+-
.I
;
UD~~~. ~_I
If further treatment is required. or If c:DlIlPlications_arise or if hospitalization is necessary. IDIl.undersigned

0
stands t~ a personal phvslcian 15 !O De selected by or on behalf of the patient within 24 hours.
,l(1l2a3P
.
- -.. . - - - -- -- - ~ THE UNDERSIGNED HAS READ THE ABOVE AUTHORIZATION AND UNDERSTANDS THE SAME AND''-~ -,IA
'CERTIFIES THAT NO GUARANTEE OR ASSURANCEliAS BEEN MADE AS TO THE RESULTS THAT' ",', '."J."
I'vtAy BE OBTAINED.
y-\._
/\ \-"\... J'.~
---
._~
---
. :-.AME.AU;HORIZED PERSON(Print)
rliis
' '-;'' . _:.

'at
I.r'
is to
SIGNATURE
AUTHORlZq,1?-~RSON
'
~.
..... ' .
J-
-.;,,------ ... ~--...:=-:"_~
:./
--,
" ..
r,
RELATIGNSHIP TO PATIENT
R~~~~St~~RO~t;S;ONSIB6JU&~tCGAI~~M~,~I,~A~"~,~d::)E
Z~;;e~::>;:~
~i
,--rvE' , __
_ _ ..,.
__"
_ . _ .__ ..
._"."_ d1_.:;;,l
__ ...";:;.;;",,,,,;~ _
--'--() ,----.
()D,'2f) p.m.
_:_.,,_+:
is being discharged against the .advi~ of the. attending .. physic:ian and. the
' .J - ' - - - .- _
hospiUl administrator;
-.
---.-
; - .-
_ _ ,9
.-----------------+-
I have" !leen inflStmed of -all risks involved ailcF;'~fe~se: itiif:hospital.
DATE.
~m;~",zz-,",-,~~~~:p:~~lre:~A
(.......P)
ER RECORD
-
-..
71
GlUESPJE, .1L
" 32
08/20/88
ALa1 EVEETh .JANEl
I>DD479
1I>D-~2-~117
....Dl%.aM3
..5%83320
-_,..
.. ~ _
CLERK' A"L
REG 11MI 09122PJt
SlA1USI S
LANGUAGE.
PM1S GROUP'
JJOIII 03/ 19/~~
RACE....
SERVICE CODE' ERR
~11AL
RELIGlt:1tl
X-RA1.' GZSII.1
NOI~
GROUP
CHIEF CmtPl.AIN1' IN.JURl 10 FACE/ltUGGING

BROUGHl Bli
POLICECAR 012
* * *..*..
PAll1Nl ADDRESS
Z020 WALNUl S1.
PHILA
PA
it*.***... ..
19101
Zl~-97,-e9~9
*******
PA1IENl EMPL01ER
EJERGENCl CONlACl
CORNELIUS GILLESPIE
HO"EI
WORK'
*****.**.
*************************..
E~OlER
IN&~ANCE
*********.**********.**
EFFEC1IVE DAlE'.
EFFEC1IVE DAlE .(PARl EI)'

CO. CODE I
EIP DAlE 1
PAl RELA'J1 ON 10 1 NSORED I
VERI F 1 CAlION CODE I
GROUP#I
************************
INSUR APPRV CODEI

INSURANt~
CEmPANl NAJitE 1
INSURANt~ PLAN CODEI

SUBSCRIBER'
Z *******.....**********.....****
EFFECll VE DAlE'
EFFEClIVE DAlE (PARl il.
PAl RELA1ION 10 INSURED'
CO. CODE.
EIP DAlE .
VERIFICA1IOJt CODE.
POLICl..
INSUR APPRV COJ)I
******
.....it...,
OCCUPA1I ON I &'lUDNl
SOC SEC NOI loD-~Z~~117
SPECIAL CODE'
INSURANCE PLAN CODE 1

SUBSCRIBER'
POLICl.1
(iUARANTOR
Zl~-977-8V59
COMPANY NAJitE I
21~-94~-1>930
**.**..
******** GUARAN10R *.*********
CilLLESPlE, NEIL
SELF
ZD2'D WALNUl &
PHtLA
PA 191D1-
FA1HER
GROUP..
PRIOR HOSPllALl2A110N
****** **********
DAlE I
DAlE.
NA1URE.
ACClDENl DA1A
11MEI
**....***
WORK RELinED I N
Ii***** MlSCLLANEOUS OA1A

DIS1RICl CODE I
t ,
..11.1.5...._, Nl1.
-+
_._........... -
*****.***
"
D1261M~
~.
...........
.,
iR REtIlJtJ)
__ __ __ _ _ . n f\"
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/brain_injury_leads_to_suspension_for_maine_lawyer_i_couldnt_stick_to_tasks/?utm_source=maestro&utm_...
Legal Ethics
Brain injury leads to suspension for Maine lawyer; I couldnt stick to tasks, he
says
Posted Jun 25, 2014 5:45 AM CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss
A Maine lawyer says he can no longer function effectively as a trial lawyer and he agrees with his indefinite suspension, imposed by
a Maine Supreme Judicial Court justice on May 27.
Newport lawyer Dale Thistle, 66, attributes his problems to a traumatic brain injury caused by a November 2011 car accident,
CentralMaine.com reports. Complaints made to the bar about his handling of cases are serious and meritorious and directly stem
from my brain injury, he told the publication. I even self-reported a misfiling in federal court.
Thistle says his intelligence is intact but his ability to perform executive functions is impaired. He suffers from minor seizures and
small blackouts. I couldnt organize my day-to-day life, he told CentralMaine.com. I couldnt stick to the tasks. Its just the result o
the brain injury.
The Bangor Daily News calls Thistle a well-known lawyer in its earlier coverage of the suspension. He represented a former
Newport official accused of embezzlement, a 14-year-old girl accused of stabbing her aunt 106 times, and class-action clients who
claimed they were illegally strip-searched at the Knox County jail.
Thistle can regain his license if his condition improves, but hes not optimistic. I have no plans at the moment, he told
CentralMaine.com. I dont know what Im going to do."
Copyright 2014 American Bar Association. All rights reserved.
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT

Docket No. BAR 14-10
STATE OF MAINE
BOARD OF OVERSEERS OF THE BAR

Phn:rdff
ORDER
OF SUSPENSION
M. Bar R. 7.s(e)(2)(B)
(DISABILITY)
DALE F. THISTLE, ESQ.

of Newport, Maine
Me. Bar #7483
Defendant
By filing dated May 27,2014, the Board of Overseers of the Bar (the
Board) petitioned this Court for
al
immediate Order suspending Dale
F Thistle
for disability-related reasons from the practice of iaw in the State of Maine.
Included with the Board's Petition was a Confidentia-l Affrdavit of Bar Counsel.
For good cause shown by the Board., Dale F. Thistle, Esq. appears to be a
disabled attorney; as a result, he has comrnitted apparent vioiations of the
Maine Rules of Professional conduct, thereby serving as a threat to ciients, the
pubiic ard to the administration ofjustice. The court finds

that Attorney
Thistle's actions constitute vioiations of M. R. prof.
Conduct i.3; 1.4(a);
1.
1s(a)(b)(d)(e); and 8.4 (a)(c)(d).
Accordingly, this court oRDERS that

Da-.e F. Thistle be suspended from
t,.e practice of Iaw in Maine pursualt
to M. Bar R. 7.3(e)(2)(B) untii further
Order of this Court.
The Court further ORDERS

that Attorney Michael A. Wiers of Newport,
Maine is appointed as the Receiver
of Attorney Thistle,s practice.
The separate
Order for the Appointment
of Receiver is incorporated
herern by reference.
o"t a,
1/,{,(.rl ?8,.
RECEIVE
JUN 0 6
?nt/
Ellen Go
Maine
Justice
Court
r"""
?01
r""JiJ[""?[i?
http://bangordailynews.com/2014/06/09/news/augusta/newport-lawyer-suspended-from-practice-because-of-disability/print/
Gabor Degre | BDN
Cindy Dunton of Newburgh sits in the courtroom with her attorney Dale Thistle during her sentencing at the Penobscot Judicial
Center in Bangor in this July 2011 file photo.
By Judy Harrison, BDN Staff

Posted June 09, 2014, at 6:46 p.m.
AUGUSTA, Maine A well-known Newport lawyer has been suspended from the practice of law
because of a disability, according to the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar.
Dale Thistle, 66, was suspended indefinitely on May 27, according to information released Monday
by the board.
The nature of his disability was not disclosed.
Thistles order of suspension, signed by Maine Supreme Judicial Court Justice Ellen Gorman, said
that he appears to be a disabled attorney; as a result, he has committed apparent violations of the
Maine Rules of Professional conduct, thereby serving as a threat to clients, the public and to the
administration of justice.
His practice was placed into a receivership to be overseen by Michael A. Wiers, 65, of Hartland. He
is to deal with Thistles clients and report to the court about the financial shape of the practice,
http://bangordailynews.com/2014/06/09/news/augusta/newport-lawyer-suspended-from-practice-because-of-disability/print/
among other duties.

To be reinstated, Thistle must apply to the state supreme court. The suspension was recommended
by the legal staff at the Board of Overseers.
Thistle has represented many high profile defendants over the years, including Cindy Dunton, 52,
the former deputy clerk and treasurer in Newburgh. She was sentenced July 1, 2011, at the
Penobscot Judicial Center to to five years in prison with all but 20 months suspended for
embezzling nearly $200,000 from the town since 2006.
Dunton, who pleaded guilty in April 2011 to Class B theft by unauthorized taking, also was ordered
to be placed on probation for three years after serving her sentence and to pay about $252,000 in
restitution which is the sum of the money she stole plus attorney and forensic auditor fees.
Dunton was released Oct. 12, 2012, after serving 15 months of her sentence, according to
previously published reports.
Thistle also represented clients in at least half a dozen federal lawsuits alleging illegal strip
searches at county jails.
http://bangordailynews.com/2014/06/09/news/augusta/newport-lawyer-suspendedfrom-practice-because-of-disability/ printed on June 25, 2014
http://www.centralmaine.com/2014/06/20/newport-lawyer-agrees-with-his-suspension-over-disability-concerns/
PRESSHERALD
MAINETODAY
25, 2014
Public Notices WEDNESDAY JUNESUBSCRIBE:
KENNEBEC JOURNAL
MORNING SENTINEL
67 LIGHT RAIN
High: 70 | Low: 63
FIVE DAY FORECAST
HOME
NEWS
SPORTS
OPINION
CARS
NEWS
Posted June 20
BY DOUG HARLOW
COMMUNITY
REAL ESTATE
Updated June 20
STAFF W RITER
dharlow@centralmaine.com
| @Doug_Harlow | 207-612-2367
LIFESTYLE
OBITUARIES
INDEX
INCREASE FONT SIZE
JOBS
NEWS
Newport lawyer agrees with his suspension over disability concerns
Newport lawyer Dale Thistle that he finally reported himself to the state Board of
Overseers of the Bar.
That report and other complaints about his work led to Thistles indefinite
suspension from practice by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court this month.
Complaints to the bar included Thistles alleged mishandling of a divorce case, real
estate litigation that took too long and on a couple of occasions, misspeaking to the
judge in the courtroom.
ADDIT IONAL IMAGES
SUSPENDED: Dale Thistle explains details of

the car accident he suffered in 2011 that
caused him a brain injury that led to
suspension to practice law. Thistle was
speaking from his home in Skowhegan on
Thursday. Staff photo by David Leaming
OUT OF WORK: Attorney Dale Thistle

speaks about being suspended to practice
law because of a car accident in 2011 at his
home in Skowhegan on Thursday. Staff
photo by David Leaming
In
Ou
ou
you
The June 6 order of suspension, based on a

recommendation by the Board of Overseers, refers to
Thistle, 66, of Skowhegan, as a disabled attorney
whose injury caused him to violate the rules of
professional conduct and as someone who is a
threat to clients, the public and to the administration
of justice.
Thistle said he agrees with the suspension. He said
persistent seizures, mini-blackouts and a lack of
direction paint the real picture of what he can do and
what he can no longer do following damages to the
nerves in his right frontal lobe.
They are right I did not disagree with the action
of the board of overseers, he said in an interview.
The complaints are serious and meritorious and
directly stem from my brain injury. I even
self-reported a misfiling in federal court. I made an
error in filing a document an error I would never
have made previously. I reported on myself, in other
words.
Attorney Gordon Johnson, founder of the Brain
IN NEWS
Injury Law Group inNEXT
Sheboygan,
Wis., said that
Supreme
while damage to the frontal
lobeCourt
can be cellphone
decision
life-changing, there can
be hopewont
notaffect
for Maine much
regeneration of the broken nerves, but from a redirection of the brains activity. The
NEWS
Newport lawyer agrees with his suspension over disability concerns
In
BACK TO TOP
CUSTOMER SERVICE
CONNECT
ADVERTISE
myAccount Kennebec Journal

myAccount Morning Sentinel
Site Feedback
Contact Us
Purchase a photo
Kennebec Journal e-Edition

Morning Sentinel e-Edition
Mobile
Email News
Contact
Ou
ou
you
NETWORK
About MaineToday Media Inc.
mainetoday.com
Portland Press Herald
2014 MaineToday Media, Inc.
NEXT IN NEWS
Supreme Court cellphone

decision wont affect Maine much
Home > ABA Groups > Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants > Initiatives > Civil
Right to Counsel
Civil Right to Counsel

NEW! Law Governing Appointment of Counsel in State Civil
Proceedings
The map below provides access, by clicking each state, to a
research report detailing existing authority for appointment of
counsel in various types of civil proceedings. Additional prefatory
material and appendices are available through links below.
Prefatory Information
Foreword
Acknowledgments
Appendix: International Law Relating to Appointment
of Counsel in Civil Proceedings
Civil Appt. Authority
Additional Resources
ABA Toolkit for a Right to Counsel in Civil
Proceedings
ABA House of Delegates Policy Resolution Urging

Recognition of a Civil Right to Counsel
The Toolkit includes in one package the "ABA Basic

Principles for a Right to Counsel in Civil Proceedings"
For additional information regarding civil right to
and "The ABA Model Access Act," which provide two
counsel issues, please visit:
important tools for jurisdictions seeking to implement a

civil right to counsel.
National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel
Law Addressing Authorizaton or Requirement to Appoint Counsel in

Specifc Types of Civil Proceedings
1. SHELTER
Federal Statutes and Court Decisions Interpretng Statutes
The federal Fair Housing Act, contained within Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968,
provides that [a]n aggrieved person may commence a civil acton in an appropriate United
States district court or State court. 42 U.S.C. 3613 (a)(1)(A). Further, [u]pon applicaton
by a person alleging a discriminatory housing practce or a person against whom such a practce
is alleged, the court may-- (1) appoint an atorney for such person. 42 U.S.C. 3613(b).
2. SUSTENANCE
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discriminaton. While
nearly all Title VII claims are brought in federal court, the U.S. Supreme Court has specifed that
state courts have concurrent jurisdicton with federal courts for Title VII claims. Yellow Freight
System Inc. v. Donnelly, 494 U.S. 820, 826 (1990).
Title VII provides that [u]pon applicaton by the complainant and in such circumstances
as the court may deem just, the court may appoint an atorney for such complainant. 42
U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(1). In Poindexter v. FBI, the D.C. Court of Appeals observed:
Title VII's provision for atorney appointment was not included simply as an
aferthought; it is an important part of Title VII's remedial scheme, and therefore courts
have an obligaton to consider requests for appointment with care. In actng on such
requests, courts must remain mindful that appointment of an atorney may be essental
for a plaintf to fulfll the role of a private atorney general, vindicatng a policy of the
highest priority. Once the plaintf has triggered the atorney appointment provision,
courts must give serious consideraton to the plaintf's request such discretonary
choices are not lef to a court's inclinaton, but to its judgment; and its judgment is to
be guided by sound legal principles. Furthermore, in exercising this discreton, the
court should clearly indicate its dispositon of the request for appointment and its basis
for that dispositon.
737 F.2d 1173, 1183-85 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
ABA DIRECTORY OF LAW GOVERNING APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL IN STATE CIVIL PROCEEDINGS FLORIDA 2012
Law Addressing Authorizaton or Requirement to Appoint Counsel in

Civil Proceedings Generally
State Statutes and Court Decisions Interpretng Statutes
Fla. Stat. 29.007 (2011) (Court-appointed counsel) provides:
For purposes of implementng s. 14, Art. V of the State Consttuton [relatng to funding
of the judiciary], the elements of court-appointed counsel to be provided from state
revenues appropriated by general law are as follows:
(1)Private atorneys appointed by the court to handle cases where the defendant is
indigent and cannot be represented by the public defender or the ofce of criminal
confict and civil regional counsel.
(2)When the ofce of criminal confict and civil regional counsel has a confict of
interest, private atorneys appointed by the court to represent indigents or other classes
of litgants in civil proceedings requiring court-appointed counsel in accordance with
state and federal consttutonal guarantees and federal and state statutes.
...
This secton applies in any situaton in which the court appoints counsel to protect a
litgants due process rights.
A private atorney appointed by a court pursuant to 29.007 (2011) shall be
reimbursed for reasonable and necessary expenses incurred during representaton. Fla. Stat.
27.5304 (2011). Fla. Stat. 27.5304 lists the fat fees to be awarded to private atorneys.
Counsel may seek compensaton in excess of the fat fees listed in 27.5304 only if
compensaton on an hourly basis at a rate of $75.00 would be at least double the fat fee.
Justce Admin. Comm'n v. Shaman, 59 So. 3d 1231 (Fla. App. 2011).
The federal Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), which applies to each state 14 and to
all civil proceedings (including custody),15 provides:
If in an acton covered by this secton it appears that the defendant is in military service,
14
50 App. U.S.C.A. 512(a) states, This Act [sectons 501 to 515 and 516 to 597b of this Appendix] applies to--
(2) each of the States, including the politcal subdivisions thereof
15
50 App. U.S.C. 521(a) states, This secton applies to any civil acton or proceeding, including any child custody
proceeding, in which the defendant does not make an appearance.
ABA DIRECTORY OF LAW GOVERNING APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL IN STATE CIVIL PROCEEDINGS FLORIDA 2012
16

Florida Supreme Court SC14-1637 ADA TITLE II Accommodation Request

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Florida Supreme Court SC14-1637 ADA TITLE II Accommodation Request

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Page 1 of 1

Dear Neil J. Gillespie:

Filing Date Not Docketed Reason

NOTICES NOTICE OF FILING

NOTICE OF SUBMITTING ADA

Gillespie ADA request letter to

Gillespie ADA request to

1. The ADA-One Avenue to

2. Social Security Admin

3. Social Security Admin

7. ABA Journal, Brain injury

American Bar Assn. Civil Right

Filing # 21643333 Electronically Filed 12/16/2014 09:35:07 AM

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: SC14-1637

The ADA TITLE II ACCOMMODATION REQUEST means the,

On December 15, 2014 I submitted my ADA TITLE II ACCOMMODATION

From my cover letter to Mr. Dawson, December 15, 2014,

My ability to function in real-time in a legal proceeding is severely impaired, making court

(a) Determination of Need.

Currently I have six ADA TITLE II ACCOMMODATION REQUESTS pending,

I waive hereby confidentiality. A persons ADA information is confidential and protected

In Marion County, where I live, a Fifth Circuit Administrative Order A-2010-12-A

with disabilities, and has obstructed my ADA TITLE II ACCOMMODATION REQUEST

generally an add on responsibility to someone in another existing position. The ADA

Competency is another issue with ADA Coordinators. If an ADA Coordinator makes a

8092 SW 115th Loop

Filing # 21643333 Electronically Filed 12/16/2014 09:35:07 AM

VIA Email: dawson@flcourts.org

December 15, 2014

My ability to function in real-time in a legal proceeding is severely impaired, making court

Mr. Silvester Dawson, Marshal

December 15, 2014

Mr. Silvester Dawson, Marshal

December 15, 2014

Telephone: (352) 854-7807

Service list, by email only

Filing # 21643333 Electronically Filed 12/16/2014 09:35:07 AM

FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

ADA T IT LE II ACCOMMODAT ION REQUEST FORM1

ADA ACCOMMODATIONS PROVIDED BY FLORIDA COURTS

Assistive listening devices

AIDS/SERVICES COURTS CANNOT ADMINISTRATIVELY GRANT AS ADA

Transportation to and from the courthouse

Florida State Courts System

ADA Accommodation Request Form

DOCUMENTATION OF THE NEED FOR AUXILIARY A IDS AND SERVICES

Florida State Courts System

ADA Accommodation Request Form

FLORIDA STATE COURTS SYSTEM TITLE II ADA ACCOMMODATION REQUES T FORM

1. Date request submitted: ______/______/______

[X] Other (please specify): __________________________________________________

State: ___________________________________ Zip Code: _____________________

Email Address: ___________________________________________________________

Email Address: __________________________________________________________

Style of case (case title), if known: __________________________________________

Case number, if known: __________________________________________________

Date accommodation needed: ______________________________________________

Time accommodation needed: ______________________________________________

Florida State Courts System

ADA Accommodation Request Form

[ ] probate, guardianship, or mental health

[X] other (please specify) ____________________

[ ] appellate oral argument

1. Date request submitted: //__

State: _______________ Zip Code: _