REGULARS

Though former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun tweaked the language of an axiom he used to color a 1975 dissenting opinion, the sentiment was unmistakable.

"If there's any truth to the old proverb that 'one who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client,' the Court . . . now bestows a constitutional right on one to make a fool of himself,'' Blackmun wrote in Faretta v. California, the 6-3 decision that codified the right to refuse counsel.

More than a quarter-century later, a task force appointed by California Chief Justice Ronald George is challenging the derision the courts have historically dumped on the people who proceed in pro per.

The thrust of a 19-member Judicial Council Task Force on Self-Represented Litigants, empanelled at the end of May, is to spend the next 18 months creating a statewide plan to assist the ever-expanding number of citizens who are unable - or simply unwilling - to hire an attorney.

But members of the bench and bar say that ensuring equal justice for the lawyerless also requires an institutional change of identity: The court-house can no longer be just a repository for documents and dispenser of rulings. And the phrase being thrown around in connection with this shift is one borrowed from the business world: customer service.

After Arthur Sims took over as executive officer of Alameda County Superior Court, he removed signs at the clerks' counters that noted they cannot give legal advice to citizens.

See LITIGANTS

Consider the following scenario: An attorney is hired by an insurance company to defend one of its customers in a personal injury case. At the same time, the attorney represents a client in a totally unrelated matter who may wish to sue the same insurance company.

As a result of a 1999 California appellate court ruling, the attorney is precluded from filing suit in the second matter.

Insurance defense attorneys complain they routinely find themselves in this situation, which brings with it potential for violating the Rules of Professional Conduct governing the duty of loyalty and client confidentiality. "We face an ethical dilemma on a daily basis," says Karl Keener, a Santa Monica attorney who is past president of the Southern California Association of Insurance Defense Counsel.

See INSURERS

In an unprecedented move, the State Bar will open a drug court early next year as part of its increasing efforts to rehabilitate alcoholic and drug-addicted attorneys. It will be the only court of its kind at any professional regulatory agency in the country.

Executives of the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel and the State Bar Court are developing proposed guidelines to govern who will be eligible for referral to the court, how lawyers before the court will be monitored and how successful completion of the program might affect possible discipline.

The new court will operate hand-in-hand with a diversion and assistance program currently making its way through the legislature.

That program, however, is primarily designed to assist attorneys who voluntarily seek help and may or may not face discipline. The drug court would handle attorneys suspected or accused of misconduct.

See DRUG COURT

Three unopposed candidates will begin three-year terms on the State Bar Board of Governors in September, while six others battle it out to represent two other seats on the 23-member board.

Candidates from Districts Two (Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, El Dorado, Napa, Sacramento, Solano, Sonoma, Tuolumne and Yolo counties), Four (San Francisco and Marin counties) and Seven (Los Angeles, office two) ran without opposition and were elected automatically.

See ELECTION