MALS was formed here more than 30 years ago. Today, 14 staff attorneys, 26 office workers and 21 University of Memphis third- year law students work out of rented offices in the old Claridge Hotel building at 109 N. Main. Offices are spartan. There are no lush rugs or stylish furniture. The large table in the conference room is simple varnished wood. Offices are small and mostly plain, except for the eclectic mix of pop art, African statuary and neon that adorns litigation director Webb Brewer's space. Brewer, who has been at the agency 20 years, said there is a need for lawyers of all stripes to help with the problems of the poor. "The private bar could meet more of the need through pro bono work, but there are still cases that involve the systemic problems for low-income people that we would need to do," said Brewer. "The legal system marketplace just doesn't serve low-income people too well, except in fee-generat-ing type cases," Brewer said. "If a poor person gets run over by a bus, an attorney might take that case because they might be able to recover part of the damage award as attorney fees. But so many of the cases we handle have to do with basic rights and a decent life. There is just no profit motive." Larry Pivnick, law professor at the University of Memphis Law School and director of political programs at MALS, said Legal Services is a great learning laboratory for law students. "There are thousands and thousands of people who have problems that never get an opportunity to appear in court," Pivnick said. "Some people may not be particularly articulate. Courts have rules that clients don't always understand." Brewer said a major focus of the agency's work involves housing. "Although a lot of our work is grant-driven, we find that the lack of safe and decent affordable housing and the prevalence of predatory lending are the biggest problems in our client population," Brewer said, referring to clients such as James.

Question: "What type of cases does MALS usually handle?"

Answer: "Dirty life"

Response: no

Low-income domestic violence victims may find long-term legal help -- representation in divorces or child-custody disputes -- hard to come by, if two organizations now providing such help can't replace their lost funding. The Legal Aid Society of Salt Lake and Utah Legal Services are already facing cutbacks after they were refused a federal grant of more than $450,000 in September. The board overseeing the state Office of Crime Victim Reparations [CVR] has voted to deny a stopgap funding request from the two organizations. While describing the request as a worthy cause, board members agreed Tuesday that funding divorces or custody disputes was outside their focus -- providing direct services for crime victims. The $175,000 requested would have allowed the legal aid groups to maintain a skeleton staff to continue providing help beyond emergency protective orders for victims, completing existing cases and offering services in limited cases. The groups also plan to enlist more pro bono attorneys through coordination with the Utah State Bar. "We don't have a lot more options," said Anne Milne, executive director of Utah Legal Services, after learning of the CVR refusal Wednesday. The organization has already lost some staff through attrition and has turned away some cases, she said. Milne said she may ask the board overseeing her organization to give her until November to seek funding from additional sources. Without additional funding, the outlook for longer-term legal help is unclear. For two years, the groups had received 18-month civil legal assistance grants from the U.S. Department of Justice and had used them to provide such assistance. But last month, a third request was denied. Funding used to help victims obtain emergency protective orders remains in place, said Milne and Stewart Ralphs, executive director of the Legal Aid Society of Salt Lake. Although an order's requirements that an abuser stay away from a victim may remain in effect for years, protective orders only settle issues such as child custody, child support, custody and property arrangements for 150 days. Many judges are reluctant to address those issues in emergency protective orders, since the decrees stay in effect for such a short time, Milne and Ralphs said. "The likelihood a victim will return to her abuser increases if she cannot permanently sever the relationship and establish workable support, custody and property arrangements," the funding request to CVR said. The Department of Justice said it denied the grant application, in part, because evaluators did not see enough collaboration between the organizations and victims' advocates, Ralphs and Milne told CVR board members. While the two said they believe their organizations coordinate well, the organizations cannot appeal the grant denial. Although CVR board members considered giving the money as a loan, not a grant, their vote on the funding request -- taken after Milne and Ralphs left the meeting -- was unanimous.

Question: "The two organizations who made a stopgap funding request asked for how much money?"

Answer: "175,000"

Response: yes

Magnetism is the ability of a material to be attracted by a magnet. It also include the ability for some material to act like a magnet. No doubt youve handled refrigerator magnets. You can see some in Figure 1.28. You probably know they stick to a metal refrigerator. This is what holds your homework up. Maybe your little sisters drawings are hung on the fridge in this manner. Do magnets stick to all materials? Of course not. You have probably checked and they do not stick to other surfaces. They do not stick to wooden doors or glass windows. Wood and glass are not attracted to a magnet. Obviously, only certain materials are attracted to magnets.

Question: "What is magnetism?"

Answer: "Act like a magnet"

Response: yes

If you beat a dog in Schuylkill County, you'll probably get a $100 fine. If you repeatedly beat a woman, you'll probably get the same fine. In 2001, county judges heard 98 Protection From Abuse cases, finding the defendant guilty in 48 percent of those cases, either after a hearing or through a technical violation or plea. Of those found guilty, the majority were ordered to pay court costs, plus a $100 fine. No defendants were ordered to pay more than a $250 fine for violating the court order. In 27 percent of the cases, the charges were dismissed or the defendant was found not guilty. In the rest of the cases, charges were withdrawn or the matter is not yet resolved. Sarah T. Casey, executive director of Schuylkill Women in Crisis, finds it disturbing that in most cases, the fine for violating a PFA is little more than the fine someone would get for cruelty and abuse toward an animal. "In most of the counties surrounding Schuylkill County, the penalties given for indirect criminal contempt are much stiffer than those in Schuylkill County," Casey said. "What kind of message are we sending those who repeatedly violate Protection From Abuse orders? That it's OK to abuse women in Schuylkill County, because you'll only get a slap on the wrist?" Under state law, the minimum fine for contempt of a PFA is $100; the maximum fine is $1,000 and up to six months in jail. Like others who are familiar with how the county's legal system does and doesn't work for victims of domestic violence, Casey believes some changes are in order. Valerie West, a manager/attorney with Mid-Penn Legal Services, with offices in Pottsville and Reading, regularly handles domestic violence cases. She finds fault with the local requirement that a custody order must be established within 30 days after a PFA is filed. West said she feels a custody order should be allowed to stand for the full term of the PFA - up to 18 months - as it does in many other counties in the state. "It places an undue burden on the plaintiff, in terms of cost, finding legal representation and facing their abuser - not to mention a further burden on the system to provide those services," West said. "It may be difficult for the parties to reach an agreement so soon after violence has occurred.

Question: "Who finds fault with the local requirement that a custody order must be established within 30 days after a PFA is filed?"

Answer: "Valerie West"

Response:
yes