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 In the rest of the cases, charges were withdrawn or the matter is not yet resolved.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: "What solution is West offering and how is it different for a plaintiff from what is already being practiced?"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer: "That a custody order should be allowed to stand for the full term of the PFA instead of 30 days which places an undue burden on the plaintiff"

Response: yes

When single father Thurman Williams needed help filling out papers in a custody suit recently, he didn't look to his lawyer for help. He walked to a computerized kiosk at the Lamoreaux Justice Center in Orange and started tapping the keys. As part of a legal experiment, litigants without lawyers across California are using computerized video kiosks to prepare common court filings and seek basic legal advice. The kiosk used by Williams is part of a statewide effort to cope with a flood of litigants who cannot afford or refuse to hire lawyers. Court officials statewide fear the number of self-represented litigants has reached crisis levels and threatens to clog court calendars. Like Williams, more than 6,000 Orange County litigants have initiated court actions on I-CAN! kiosks or accessed the programs on the Internet, using home computers. Similar programs are operating in Sacramento, San Diego and Ventura. A recent study of the kiosks' first 18 months of operation concluded it is too soon to tell if the system will relieve pressure on court calendars. But the report, by UC Irvine's School of Social Ecology, said users were overwhelmingly positive about the free legal assistance. "It's made life a lot easier for me," Williams said. "It's helped keep me from going to the poorhouse." The 29-year-old Orange resident was directed to a kiosk in the Lamoreaux Justice Center by court staff. After putting on headphones and following the directions of a videotaped instructor, Williams filled out a quarter-inch stack of paternity and custody documents. The exercise took 20 minutes; it would have cost him about $800 if he had relied on a lawyer, he said. "It was a lot easier than I thought." Whether they can't afford a lawyer or just want to save money, more Californians are going to court without a lawyer. "I'm just amazed at the numbers," said Commissioner Salvador Sarmiento, who hears between 40 and 90 child-support cases a day in Lamoreaux Justice Center.

Question: "Who walked to a computerized kiosk at the Lamoreaux Justice Center in Orange?"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer: "Thurman Williams"

Response: yes

Registration fees for Illinois lawyers could jump as much as $49 a year if lawmakers adopt two separate measures to bolster pro-bono services and support for lawyers with drug and alcohol problems. The Illinois Supreme Court is pushing for legislation that would allow it to dedicate money raised through the fee hikes to legal services to the poor. The justices are floating a $42 increase to shore up financing for pro-bono work, as the normal funding mechanism for legal services has fallen short in recent years. Currently, support for non-profit legal aid groups comes from interest generated on the Lawyers' Trust Fund, which pools clients' money that attorneys hold for such matters as escrow funds. But low interest rates and a sagging economy mean there is less money being generated. After hours of discussion, the high court agreed that raising the registration fees would be the best way to address the declining revenues, Chief Justice Moses W. Harrison II said. The judges were reluctant to raise those fees but eventually decided that supporting probono services was important enough "and lawyers had a responsibility to contribute" to the cause, Harrison said. Last year, the high court raised the base fee for active attorneys to $180 from $140. Lawyers in their first three years of practice or who are inactive pay $90, and retired lawyers pay nothing. Legislation circulated by the high court's lobbyist specifies that the hike would apply to attorneys "paying full annual registration fees." In 2001, there were 57,392 active attorneys in Illinois and 74,311 on the full roll, according to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. The hike would raise roughly $2.4 million. Last year, interest on the trust fund totaled $4.5 million, but service and handling fees consumed $538,000 of that amount. This year's returns are projected to be anywhere between $700,000 and $1 million short of that mark, said Ruth Ann Schmitt, the executive director of Lawyers Trust Fund of Illinois. Harrison said the fee hikes are designed only to counter the shortfall in interest income, not add to the total amount available. "Our legal services are already stretched to the breaking point," Schmitt said. "We have a tough time raising enough money to properly fund services that our clients need." Neither the Illinois State Bar Association nor The Chicago Bar Association has taken a stance on the proposed hikes.

Question: "How much are lawyers paying for their registration fees now?"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer: "$90"

Response:
no