Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Access To Justice: Ohio Justice Bus

Opinion

Access To Justice: Ohio Justice Bus

Two people speaking about legal matters.

Canva Images

For many Americans, any sort of legal entanglement can send their lives into a tailspin. A landlord illegally withholding a security deposit can initiate a period of economic insecurity. An old criminal charge that qualifies for expungement may prevent someone from earning that next job. A marriage gone south can be made all the more difficult when divorce proceedings start to get squirrely. In each of these scenarios, the lives of Americans would be made vastly better if the legal profession stepped up to fulfill its obligation to everyday individuals, rather than just high-paying clients. This is a solvable problem. The solution is on display in Ohio.

The idea of “mobile justice” animated a group of Ohioans to launch the Ohio Justice Bus in 2019. They realized that too many of their community members lacked reliable access to attorneys to assist with pressing issues—from landlord/tenant disputes to family law matters. Like so many states across the country, Ohio is home to legal deserts in which the demand for legal services vastly outnumbers the supply of quality, affordable legal assistance. Rather than simply hope that more attorneys opted to settle down in smaller communities, the folks behind the Ohio Justice Bus had a much simpler idea—bring legal expertise to the people.


A simple model has allowed the organization to untangle thousands of Ohioans from resource- and time-intensive legal matters. Led by a small but mighty team, the Ohio Justice Bus coordinates with community organizations across the state to host clinics on specific, common legal issues. The organization’s staff attorney, combined with local attorneys, will then spend the day walking community members through their legal matters. To amplify the impact of its visits, the mobile legal aid office is equipped with WiFi so attorneys can remotely engage in Zoom meetings with rural residents in need of some advice. More than 600 Ohioans benefited from the Ohio Justice Bus’ services in 2023. In 2024, the organization aided another 700 residents. In each of those years, it hosted more than 105 clinics and recorded upwards of 20,000 miles.

Mobile justice in Ohio is not a happy accident. Instead, it is the product of a deliberate choice by legal community members who refuse to accept a world in which access to justice is a function of access to deep pockets. From the attorneys at Honda, who routinely sign up for volunteer slots, to the folks at a local Mercedes Benz dealership, who helped the Ohio Justice Bus procure their van, the success of the organization is a product of a collection of builders and doers.

Ohio is not the only state where mobile justice is catching on. Similar efforts exist in Kentucky, Minnesota, New York, Tennessee, and Utah. But there’s still so much room for improvement.

Attorneys in most states are encouraged (i.e. not required) to complete 20-30 hours of volunteer service per year. That’s shockingly low, especially given that many such attorneys make more money than they know what to do with. Some junior associates at “big law” firms have starting salaries north of $250,000. If state bar associations are going to restrict the total number of attorneys, then they owe it to the public to make sure those who do pass the bar exam take the duty of the profession to serve their community seriously—to help Americans benefit from the legal system rather than feel captive to it.

The success of the Ohio Justice Bus and similar projects goes to show that there’s still a can-do spirit across the country. Acceptance of the status quo—marked by unequal access to opportunity and pay-to-play systems—is a choice. Thankfully, some Americans are opting to choose a different, more prosperous future. Hopefully, their example will catch on.

Kevin Frazier is an Adjunct Professor at Delaware Law and an Emerging Technology Scholar at St. Thomas University College of Law.


Read More

Close up of a judge hammering a gavel

Investigations, indictments, dismissals, convictions: what each means and the questions to ask before judging claims of political weaponization of the law.

Chris Collins/Getty Images

Just the Facts: Trump, DOJ and the Legal Process

The Fulcrum approaches news stories with an open mind and skepticism, presenting our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


The legal battles involving the Trump administration have become a constant feature of American politics and governance. Supporters often argue that many lawsuits and investigations are politically motivated attempts to block the administration's agenda. Critics contend that certain actions by the administration and the Department of Justice are themselves politically motivated or represent an improper use of government power.

Keep ReadingShow less
gavel on top of a US flag
a judge's gavel on top of a flag
Photo by Bermix Studio on Unsplash

60 Former DOJ Attorneys Oppose California Election Lawsuit

Sixty former Department of Justice attorneys from both Democratic and Republican administrations are urging a federal appeals court to reject the Justice Department's last-minute intervention in California's election. They argue that the intervention violates longstanding department policies designed to prevent election interference. The former officials cite guidelines such as Justice Manual Section 9-85.500, which advises against overt investigative or prosecutorial steps near an election, and the department's non-interference policy, which seeks to avoid actions that could affect election outcomes or integrity.

In an amicus brief filed by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law and Complex Appellate Litigation Group LLP, the former officials argue that DOJ is taking the unusual step of seeking election-related relief just days before the midterm election, contrary to department policies that discourage such actions near Election Day. They say these policies aim to prevent election interference, discourage voter participation, or disrupt election administration. The brief cites United States v. Cohen, 152 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 1998), where courts recognized the importance of avoiding last-minute changes to election procedures. The amici also cite Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006), in which the Supreme Court cautioned against altering election rules close to an election, as such changes can cause confusion and undermine public confidence in the electoral process.

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

DOJ lawsuits in Alaska and California preview post-Election Day fights over certification and seating winners. Here’s how officials and voters can prepare.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Lawsuits Will Lose. The Delays Will Still Win.

Less than two weeks before Election Day, President Trump’s Justice Department asked a federal court to stop Alaska from certifying its U.S. Senate race if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses to Democrat Mary Peltola. The lawsuit claims that a second candidate on the ballot, Daniel J. Sullivan, will confuse voters. That argument went nowhere in June, when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the state had no legal way to remove him from the ballot. Asked about the suit, the president took credit. “I’m the one that said do it,” he told reporters.

Alongside the Alaska suit, the Trump administration sued California to keep the state from counting mail ballots from 20,000 people it calls “likely” noncitizens. Over the summer, the Department of Homeland Security put that number at 190,000. Legal experts expect both suits to fail, as so many suits like them have. Still, Alaska and California give us an early look at what the weeks after November 3rd could bring: recount demands, calls to review or throw out ballots, and pressure to delay seating winners.

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection
The Rule of Law depends on action, not blind optimism. Explore how critical hope, civic engagement, and accountability can strengthen democracy.
Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Law Was Supposed to Be a Shield. I Found the Bars.

I used to believe that learning the law meant learning the architecture of protection.

I believed statutes existed because someone, somewhere, had anticipated injustice and decided certain lines should never be crossed. I believed due process meant power could not simply declare itself correct. I believed whistleblower protections, grievance procedures, public-records laws, administrative review and courts formed a structure designed to restrain institutional misconduct.

Keep ReadingShow less