UDC Symposium Celebrates Access to Justice Commission’s 20th Anniversary
March 27, 2025
From left to right: Ariel Levinson-Waldman, Beth Mellen, Nancy Drane, Shelley Broderick, Chief Judge Anna Blackburne-Rigsby, Jon Bouker, and Peter Edelman.
Past and present leaders of the District of Columbia Access to Justice Commission gathered on March 21 for a symposium convened by the University of the District of Columbia (UDC) David A. Clarke School of Law’s law review celebrating the 20th anniversary of the commission’s establishment by the D.C. Court of Appeals.
In her keynote address, D.C. Court of Appeals Chief Judge Anna Blackburne-Rigsby expressed pride in the growth of the commission during her tenure as chief judge. “One thing that I think has been critically important is that we added, as a permanent member of the commission, the executive officer of the D.C. Courts,” she said, drawing attention to the attendance of current Executive Officer Herbert Rouson Jr.
“That’s been a really important change because I remember [that] when I was one of the judicial members of the commission, we would come up with great ideas about innovations that the commission could do, and all the judges present would say, yes, that’s a great idea, and then our fearless administrators would say, we don’t have the budget for that, or staff to do it,” Blackburne-Rigsby said. With Rouson’s addition to the commission, collaboration has improved with the courts, allowing for in-session discussions regarding the courts’ capacity to implement changes effectively, the chief judge added.
The event also included a panel discussion featuring Nancy Drane, executive director of the Access to Justice Commission; Peter Edelman, commission chair; UDC Law Dean Emerita Katherine “Shelley” Broderick; ArentFox Schiff partner and UDC School of Law Foundation chair Jon Bouker; Tzedek DC Founding President and Director-Counsel Ariel Levinson-Waldman; and Elizabeth “Beth” Mellen, assistant deputy attorney general in the Public Advocacy Division of the D.C. Office of the Attorney General.
Drane noted the historic involvement of UDC in the years leading up to the creation of the commission in 2005, cosponsoring with the DC Consortium of Legal Services Providers in 1999 “a symposium to talk about the state of civil legal needs in the District.”
Broderick described both the consortium and the commission as attempts by the legal community to better coordinate efforts to address access to justice issues facing underserved populations in the District. “We wanted to bring in the chief judges, and the D.C. Bar presidents … and all the [pro bono] groups, and law firm partners, and donors to determine how to fill the enormous gaps in the delivery of legal services,” Broderick said.
Since its establishment, the commission has been working with the entire D.C. legal community to increase resources for civil legal services, reduce barriers that prevent equal access to justice, advocate for pro bono work by local attorneys, and improve the planning and coordination of legal services delivery.
Since 2007, the commission has been advocating for public funding for the Access to Justice Initiative, which supports the provision of civil legal services to thousands of Washingtonians each year. Over the years, D.C. Council appropriation for the initiative has grown from $3 million to more than $30 million annually.
“The road from $3.2 million to over $30 million has been a rocky one,” said Bouker, former legislative counsel for the commission. “It took a lot of heart. It took a lot of hard work from the members of the commission, who took it as their mission to advocate for these funds. These funds go directly to [organizations] that provide services for the most vulnerable among us as we try to get closer and closer to civil Gideon.”
The landmark case Gideon v. Wainwright established the right to counsel for criminal defendants, but it did not extend that same right to litigants in civil proceedings. Bouker argued for the practicality of the District investing in the provision of legal services in the civil context. “If a person loses their house, they could wind up in the homeless population. They could end up in the criminal justice system. They could wind up in uncompensated care … all of these things cost a heck of a lot more to the District of Columbia than the $30 million to pay for these lawyers who are there at the critical moment,” he said.
With the District facing budget cuts and the reduction in the federal workforce, Bouker said the present moment is the most dangerous in the commission’s existence.
Drane encouraged attendees to leverage their status as constituents to support the commission’s efforts. “Talk to your councilmembers about this and other budget priorities,” she said. “Being an active part of the District’s budget process is something every District resident should do.”
Levinson-Waldman, a member of the commission, called attention to the stark economic divisions that exist within the city. “The legal services groups in the District of Columbia are responding to what’s happening on the ground. We have a community that, due to decades and centuries of structurally racist choices by government and private corporations, is divided by haves and have-nots, and this work has to respond to that,” he said.
Mellen, also a member of the commission, elaborated on Levinson-Waldman’s comments. “I feel like Ariel was articulating what I’m going to call a theory of change … through individual representation you can change economic outcomes. You can change, then, economic outcomes across the city,” Mellen said.
“One way to get to the eventual civil right to counsel is to have more lawyers, but also to study the impact and really seriously consider the impact of lawyers in these cases,” she added.
Mellen described how the commission’s efforts have included the collection of data to quantify the impact of representation in outcomes for litigants in a variety of contexts in the District, providing support for efforts to improve funding in the area.
