Equal Opportunies Law Section advocates rules change Courthouses should be more accessible to the disabled April 1, 2007 Regular News Courthouses should be more accessible to the disabled Jan Pudlow Senior Editor Florida should go the way of California when it comes to a rule for accommodating people with disabilities in courthouses.So said George C. Richards, chief assistant statewide prosecutor in Ft. Myers, who uses a wheelchair to get around since a spinal cord injury playing rugby in 1984.And so said the Equal Opportunities Law Section at a recent meeting in Miami, when Richards presented a proposed change for Rule of Judicial Administration 2.540 (recently renumbered from the former Rule 2.065) Notice to Persons with Disabilities, modeled on California’s Rule of Court 989.3.Section members voted unanimously to alter the rule so that it comports with the California rule and the Americans with Disabilities Act.Richards rolled out of the meeting feeling “very encouraged.”“Three years ago, candidly, I was cynical that changes wouldn’t be made,” Richards said after the meeting. “I had been apathetic and accepted the status quo.“The Equal Opportunities Law Section and The Florida Bar, I truly believe, are now focused on the issues of lawyers with disabilities, and, excuse the pun, are accommodating.”At the meeting, Florida Supreme Court Justice Peggy Quince, a member of the section, said: “It’s an important issue and important this goes through the proper channels, that you have something to present and not just a concept. I encourage you to do that and take the next step you need to take.”The section plans to refer the proposed rule change to the Rules of Judicial Administration Committee.Section Chair Reginald Clyne said, “The current rule is inadequate. It doesn’t require the court system to make access for lawyers with disabilities, which California does and the federal rule requires. I want us to push to change the rule.”The vagueness of Florida’s rule came to light, Richards said, through his work with the Florida Disability Independence Group. He serves on the committee looking at courthouse access and how persons with disabilities operate within courthouses.“I kept hearing from attorneys, when they requested accommodations, that it was so loose and there were no standard procedures from one courthouse to another or when accommodations are denied,” Richards said.Someone in the group mentioned California does it better.“Once we looked at their rule, we went, ‘Wow!’ It’s a lot more encompassing and clearly defined. That’s what triggered this. If we had a rule like California’s, it would be a uniform process across the state and everyone would know what to do. It addresses the confidentiality of requests for accommodations. It addressed a lot of concerns in one fell swoop.”Richards outlined one shortcoming of Florida’s current rule: Accommodations will be paid for “only if persons are compelled to attend court.”What about witnesses or interested parties with disabilities who may not be under subpoena to attend court, he asked.In California, applicants who may request accommodations in court include “any lawyer, party, witness, juror, or other person with an interest in attending any proceeding before any court in this state.”He also pointed with concern to an August 25, 2006, letter to Bradenton lawyer Edward Lopacki, Jr., from Debra Howells, statewide court ADA coordinator at the Office of the State Courts Administrator.Regarding accommodations for attorneys with disabilities, Howells wrote: “It has long been the position of the Florida State Courts System that accommodations for individuals who appear in the courtroom as part of their employment duties or professional practice are the responsibility of the employer or the professional under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act.. . . [I]t is our position that the State Courts System bears no financial responsibility for a sign language interpreter, real-time transcription service, or any other Title I accommodation for an attorney with a disability who is participating in a courtroom proceeding as an integral part of his/her employment relationship with another public or private entity or as part of his/her professional practice. Furthermore, we have no authority to expend taxpayer dollars for ADA accommodations that are the legal obligation of another entity or individual.”So unless the lawyer is an employee of the court, the lawyer or the lawyer’s boss must pay for the accommodation, Richards concluded.At the meeting, Richards said: “We did contact California and they indicated their rule seems to work very well. We questioned California on how much it costs. California said they don’t track it. Cost is not an issue. We looked at the numbers applying for accommodation, and anecdotally it is very small. My position is if we have to comply, it doesn’t matter what the cost is.”Matt Dietz, a Miami civil rights lawyer, chair of the Florida Disability Independence Group, and member of the Equal Opportunities Law Section, called the section’s action, “a basic access to courts issue. The issue is that persons with disabilities should have the same access to courts — whether it’s as a spectator, a lawyer, a litigant, a witness — as any able-bodied person.”And they shouldn’t have to pay for those accommodations out of their own pocket, he said.“Also, for lawyers with disabilities, it makes them more unemployable, because it makes it more expensive if their firms have to pay for basic accommodations that the court should be providing,” he said.California, with disability rights legislation since the early ’70s, was 20 years ahead of the ADA, Dietz said.“California has always been in the vanguard on disability rights, and Florida has not been,” Dietz said. “For example, we spoke about the Department of Justice settlement [a 1996 settlement dealing with the deaf and hard of hearing in the 20th Judicial Circuit], when they weren’t providing effective communication to litigants in the court system. That is something that should have been adopted throughout the court system for all accommodation. It only makes sense.“This goes hand-in-hand with Chief Justice Lewis’ initiative to remove barriers in courthouses and barriers to court services themselves,” Dietz said.Danielle Strickman, project director of the Florida Disability Independence Group, told section members: “This is really significant at a national level.. . . All sorts of state and local entities struggle with the issue of what does it mean to have access to programs and services. It is very, very important, and I applaud you for that support.”
read more