April 2014

Whenever I present on language access issues there is always a question of how to provide information to website users who have limited English proficiency (LEP). Because my focus is providing support for the LawHelp.org community, these discussions may range from how best to present information to making content mobile accessible to reaching out to communities who may experience barriers to technology. However, one subject comes up over and over and over, in every conversation I have – that is how to obtain translations of legal information and referral services that are accurate, trustworthy, and that the civil legal services agencies that host client-facing statewide websites can afford. To meet this ongoing and evolving need, Pro Bono Net, through an in-kind donation from the LSI Foundation has worked with partners to provide LEP users accessible content in their language.

The LSI Foundation was created in connection with Linguistic Systems, Inc. to “operate a language services organization for charitable and educational purposes” and provides translations services to various organizations, and Pro Bono Net is lucky to be among them.

Multiple programs across Pro Bono Net’s platforms have received translation services through the LSI Foundation. The Immigration Advocates Network has leveraged this translation opportunity in several of its projects. On CitizenshipWorks, the Screening and Application tools and site content were translated into three languages by LSI Foundation translators. The ImmigrationLawHelp.org legal services directory was translated into 12 languages, providing assistance to users seeking information in languages from Burmese to Khmer. Additionally, the text in the forthcoming Spanish-version of the Pocket Daca mobile app was translated through this partnership. LawHelp Interactive has also used this opportunity to provide navigation assistance, sample language to contextualize online forms, and text of specific national forms in languages other than English.

Another way that Pro Bono Net has leveraged this donation is through the creation of the Language Access Initiative Mini Grant program. This initiative was created almost exactly two years ago, and increases access of translated materials to client facing statewide websites, such as those listed on LawHelp.org. While nationally relevant translated content is available in a translation bank, this initiative also provides mini-grants, allowing LawHelp.org website administrators to obtain translations of specific content for use on their sites.

These ‘mini-grants,’ it turns out, are anything but ‘mini.’ From mid-2012 to the end of 2013 these grants have allowed seventeen partners to translate 189 pieces of content into 25 of languages, a total value of over $90,000 in translation services. These languages range from Spanish and Chinese to Amharic, and most languages in between. The subjects range from the popular educational resources – helping users defend themselves from an eviction, answer a consumer complaint, or file for a divorce – to navigation text so users can better access the site itself. The materials this grant provides are as varied as the partners who use it.

  • LawHelpMN.org was able to translate 35 pieces of content into multiple languages- including Hmong and Somali- adding a total of eighty translated documents to their site.
  • The Association of Pro Bono Counsel (APBCo) was able to present the website for their Small Business Legal Academy in New York City in multiple languages, along with materials covering topics from Intellectual Property to Commercial Leasing Transactions.
  • Through LawHelp.org, Pro Bono Net was able to offer ten plain language guides – initially created by a TIG grant with Legal Aid Society of Northeastern New York and LawHelpNY – in 4 languages other than English. These guides cover basics of the legal system and language access rights.

According to the Migration Policy Institute, there are over 25 million limited English proficient individuals residing in the United States, and as a whole they tend to be more likely to live below the federal poverty line than the overall population, making many eligible for civil legal services, while creating another barrier to receiving legal information. Through the great work of the LSI Foundation and our partners working to make their content accessible regardless of language, that barrier becomes more and more scalable each year.

About the Series

Richard Zorza, one of the founders and leaders of the access to justice (ATJ) movement, recently received the American Bar Association’s 2014 Louis M. Brown Award for Legal Access’ Lifetime Achievement Honor for decades of work on behalf of self-represented litigants. Not to be outdone, the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators passed a Resolution of Recognition “express[ing] their deep appreciation to Richard Zorza for his thoughtful, unique, and dedicated service, loyal support and guidance, and for his unfailing commitment to improving the state courts of this nation, and the Conferences extend to him their best wishes for the future.” Richard was at the Open Society Institute with Mark O’Brien and Michael Hertz when they formed Pro Bono Net, and had a profound influence on our founding and development. As we approach our 15th anniversary, we would like to extent our deepest gratitude and thanks for his tremendous guidance. I recently spoke with Richard, and we are excited to produce this four five-part installment from that discussion. Our fourth post reflects on the successes and struggles of the ATJ movement. And of course, read more of Richard’s always fascinating thoughts on his Access to Justice blog.

Richard’s Reflections

As our conversation wound down I asked Richard to reflect on the access to justice movement’s successes and failures over the past 20 years and where it will go over the next 20. Consistent with his earlier comments, the first success Richard noted was changing the way the judiciary thinks about its role in providing access to justice. Many judges now understand that they can simultaneously be both neutral and engaged in getting the case right. Beyond simply understanding this, over the past two decades thousands of judges have been trained in these principles and guidelines, further expanding their reach and installing them at the very core of our legal system.

Richard also highlighted the ATJ movement’s successful implementation of technology. In particular, he highlighted that once technology is developed there is a low – or often zero – marginal cost of deploying it throughout the country (e.g., simply giving folks a link to LawHelp.org). In Richard’s words, this “completely changes the equation” and has been crucial in helping us get to the point where almost every state has some type of self-help service. Even if in some states those services are remote or only available in certain parts of the state, it is a remarkable improvement over the situation just two decades ago.

The most important success is one that is often goes unnoticed. Working to increase access to justice as an attorney, an advocate, or a facilitator (e.g., Pro Bono Net staff!) is now a profession and a legitimate career path. This monumental development provides the ATJ movement with a solid and secure foundation for future expansion and ensures that the millions of un- or under-represented will continue to have a voice.

While the movement has had a lot of macro successes, most of its struggles have been on a more micro level. Richard expressed disappointment that unbundled models of service delivery have not become more widely adopted and that the funding for self-help resources pales in comparison to the investment in the rest of the judicial system. Richard spoke about how the movement was “late to the table” on researching the best designs for delivery systems, with no uniform standard guiding their development. As a result, there is an enormous disparity between programs’ systems and the outcomes they achieve for clients. As an example, Richard noted that “if we had knowledge of today’s technology twenty years ago, we would have built in triage from day one.”

Of course, some of these developments are simply products of the known and unknown unknowns of future technology, while other issues that Richard identified, such as the creation of a fragmented statewide network as opposed to a more centralized one, have their advantages and disadvantages. The fragmented system creates opportunities for many real-world experiments to discover best practices, but also produces situations where states institutionalize sub-optimal procedures. To be fair, in almost all movements 20/20 hindsight reveals the missteps of the founding moments and contrasts that reality with an imagined ideal.

As we continue to strive towards that ideal, Richard has some thoughts for where the movement should go next and how to get there. Tune in next week for the final (I promise!) installment of Speaking with the Master.

About the Series

Richard Zorza, one of the founders and leaders of the access to justice (ATJ) movement, recently received the American Bar Association’s 2014 Louis M. Brown Award for Legal Access’ Lifetime Achievement Honor for decades of work on behalf of self-represented litigants. Not to be outdone, the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators passed a Resolution of Recognition “express[ing] their deep appreciation to Richard Zorza for his thoughtful, unique, and dedicated service, loyal support and guidance, and for his unfailing commitment to improving the state courts of this nation, and the Conferences extend to him their best wishes for the future.”  Richard was at the Open Society Institute with Mark O’Brien and Michael Hertz when they formed Pro Bono Net, and had a profound influence on our founding and development. As we approach our 15th anniversary, we would like to extent our deepest gratitude and thanks for his tremendous guidance. I recently spoke with Richard, and we are excited to produce this four five-part installment from that discussion. Our third post covers future improvements for self-represented litigants. And of course, read more of Richard’s always fascinating thoughts on his Access to Justice blog.

Standing up for the Self-Represented

The origin story of the Self-Represented Litigants Network got me thinking about we can do today to assist pro se litigants. I asked Richard what changes would have the largest impact and he immediately identified three areas: simplification, triage, and universal access.

Beginning with simplification, Richard pointed out that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were written in the 1930s (or as he starkly put it – “before computers, but also before photocopiers and ballpoint pens!”). Most view the rules as apolitical or simply a structure to promote efficiency, but they produce definite winners and losers. For example, easy enforcement rules benefit the smaller and always-represented creditor class at the expense of the larger, often pro se debtor class. Thus, the rules have powerful effects on results and rule changes are fundamentally an access to justice project and a fundamental part of the ATJ movement.

The case for better triage is simple: effective resource utilization requires effective resource allocation. As Richard says, we will not have 100% access to justice until there is a system that effectively gets resources to those who need them, especially unrepresented litigants who need counsel or self-help resources. A more rational and efficient system does not mean one that is 100% fair, but rather one that is better than the status quo. We cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good – the fact that we cannot create a completely fair triage system is not an impediment to developing better and more equitable systems.

Richard’s final point is a crucial, and oft under-reported, one: the ATJ movement must be about 100% access to justice for all, not about 100% access to justice for a subset of the population. About 20% of Americans qualify for free legal assistance (though only 4% are able to access it), but that leaves a wide swath of people that cannot afford legal representation and must appear pro se. The movement has to help these people as well. Richard stressed that technology can help address this gap. Legal tech is often developed via funding for low-income assistance, but the completed technology can then be deployed to help everyone. There is no marginal cost to extending technology beyond the low-income population to the middle class and, thus, it can be leveraged to make dramatic differences in the lives of millions of Americans who represent themselves in court every year.

So ends this post, but come back next week for the Episode VI of our series which will cover Richard’s thoughts on the successes, failures, and future of the Access to Justice Movement.

We are pleased to highlight Equal Justice Works’ campaign to recruit applicants for the AmeriCorps JD program. A guest post with application instructions (apply by May 2nd!) and a brief description of the program is below, along with a testimonial from L.G Corder, a US Army Veteran and Equal Justice Works Legal Fellow.

Law students: are you interested in public interest opportunity this summer where you can make a real impact in the lives of our nation’s Veterans?

Equal Justice Works’ program, AmeriCorps JD, is looking for law students to provide legal service to Veterans. Eligible law students must dedicate 300 hours of service to a qualifying legal project with legal aid organizations, Veterans’ law clinics, Veterans Treatment Courts, and state or local government agencies. The deadline for applications is May 2nd, and the 300 hours of service must be completed by Aug. 31, 2014.

You may be asking, how can I give back to Veterans as an AmeriCorps JD member? Well here’s a special video message from L.G. Corder, a US Army veteran who is currently in his second year of his Equal Justice Works AmeriCorps Legal Fellowship and provides legal services to low-income veterans:

If you’re inspired by LG’s story, and want to become a AmeriCorps JD member, don’t delay in applying today!

To be eligible, you must be currently enrolled in law school at the time your service begins, agree to criminal background checks, not receive more than $4,300 in outside funding for their project, and not have served more than three previous terms as an AmeriCorps member.

Complete an application in the Student Application Manager (SAM) by May 2nd! A step-by- step guide can be found on the AmeriCorps JD application page.

Have questions? Feel free to contact Anna Cupito or Lynn Feldmann, the program coordinators of AmeriCorps JD!

We are pleased to present this guest post from our corporate sponsor 2U. “2U partners with top tier colleges and universities to create the world’s best online programs” including the MPA@UNC, which is highlighted below and may be of particular interest to lawyers.

An Assistant District Attorney with six years of experience as a prosecutor, Mike Silver was ready to take his career to the next level. Although his law degree prepared him for the courtroom, it did not give him the multidimensional skills he needed to become an effective manager and leader within his community. By enrolling in MPA@UNC, an online Master of Public Administration program at the UNC School of Government, Silver gained strategic skills from leading experts in the field.

Mike Silver, Assistant District Attorney and MPA@UNC student.

Here, Silver discusses his motivations for earning a Master of Public Administration (MPA) degree and the real-time benefits he’s experienced in his career so far.

Why earn an MPA degree?

As an attorney, people often assume that you have a skill set that you don’t actually possess. People often give promotions simply because you’ve done well in the courtroom, but doing well in the courtroom does not translate into being an effective leader or manager. MPA@UNC gave me a chance to learn many of the skills that a lot of people think I have, but I didn’t actually possess coming out of law school.

What was it about MPA@UNC that most appealed to you?

I’ve been a prosecutor for six years now, and I’ve acquired significant responsibility and a mortgage. I wasn’t interested in quitting my job and moving out of my home to go back to school fulltime. I was looking for a program that would give me the flexibility to continue my job, which I really care about and am passionate about, and still gain the education and skills that would make me a better leader within my office.

What did you look for in an MPA program?

If you work in public interest, or if you do public interest law like I do, everyone knows that the UNC School of Government is the premier institution, not just in our state, but nationwide. I wanted to be taught by all the scholars from all the books we read and the publications they produce. Also, it’s good to have that name brand to say, “I was taught by these professors, and I’m affiliated with the UNC School of Government.” And so when I was looking at schools, I wanted to have the credibility of the Carolina name and the Carolina brand. That really made the difference for me.

How much have you been able to take from what you’ve learned?

Every single class I’ve taken has been immediately useful in my field of work. For example, as a result of my communication class, my press releases have significantly improved. I did an interview with the news, and the first thing I did was send a link to my professor saying, “Hey, I was in the news, check out this link.” She responded, “Yes! You nailed it, and you used the strategies we talk about.”

How I manage people has also changed, and I’ve heard that my management style has improved. The people I supervise say, “Hey, Mike, we really like that you’re in this program because we think that this is a good style of leadership.” My leadership style also rubs off on my other coworkers and peers. So it’s not just that I’m getting the benefit, but I think holistically our office is improving because I am learning effective strategies that other people can emulate. So I think it’s a win-win, not just for me, but for my entire office as well.

How has MPA@UNC impacted your career?

When I first signed up for this program, my boss and I had an agreement that this program would not interfere with my work. He said, “Mike, we trust you. You have a lot of responsibility. Don’t lose focus of your job while you’re taking this program.” We were talking last week and he told me, “Not only has this not affected your work, but it’s actually enhanced your work.”

MPA@UNC improved my work within the DA’s office and on the boards I sit on as well. I took a financial management class, and now that I understand finance, I can sit on the financial subcommittee and bring good strategies and try to implement good policy. MPA@UNC has allowed me to branch out and take on new roles, so I think everyone has noticed that this program has benefitted me and is benefitting everyone else too.

What are your career goals?

My goal is to be an elected official—such as an elected DA. To do this, you need to have many different skills sets. You need to be an effective manager, you need to be a leader, you need to know how to do a variety of things fiscally and socially and interpersonally, and those were the skill sets I didn’t have. Carolina and the School of Government allowed me to feel confident in my education and confident in my abilities. MPA@UNC taught me things I didn’t know before and made me look at things in a different way. And that’s why I enrolled in the program, and I’m a huge advocate of the program, because I really feel like it’s benefitted me personally.

Why is MPA@UNC a good degree for lawyers?

When I went to law school, a lot of what I learned was legal theory—that was the primary focus. But what I did not get in law school was management. I didn’t get budgets. I didn’t get actual leadership. I didn’t know how to manage a staff of attorneys or deal with interpersonal dynamics and make it work for my office.

Those are things that you don’t get in law school, and that is what MPA@UNC gives you. It gives you this knowledge and this education of how to deal with all of the collateral things that law school doesn’t teach you, yet you are expected to do and do well on a daily basis.

That is the beauty of MPA@UNC—it supplements your legal education with so much information and so much knowledge, and it gives you a good resource base. Being taught by nationally renowned professors makes you an immediate authority on the spot when people have questions, because they know you were taught by leading experts.

Want to know more? Learn how MPA@UNC can impact your career.

About the Series

Richard Zorza, one of the founders and leaders of the access to justice (ATJ) movement, recently received the American Bar Association’s 2014 Louis M. Brown Award for Legal Access’ Lifetime Achievement Honor for decades of work on behalf of self-represented litigants. Not to be outdone, the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators passed a Resolution of Recognition “express[ing] their deep appreciation to Richard Zorza for his thoughtful, unique, and dedicated service, loyal support and guidance, and for his unfailing commitment to improving the state courts of this nation, and the Conferences extend to him their best wishes for the future.”  Richard was at the Open Society Institute with Mark O’Brien and Michael Hertz when they formed Pro Bono Net, and had a profound influence on our founding and development. As we approach our 15th anniversary, we would like to extent our deepest gratitude and thanks for his tremendous guidance. I recently spoke with Richard, and we are excited to produce this four five-part installment from that discussion. Our second post covers the origins of the Self-Represented Litigation Network. And of course, read more of Richard’s always fascinating thoughts on his Access to Justice blog.

The SRLN Begins

One of the most important projects Richard has spearheaded was the creation and development of the Self-Represented Litigation Network (SRLN). As he noted in the previous episode, the 1999 Conference on Self-Represented Litigants was when the ATJ movement really began to accelerate. At that time, the Open Society Institute brought together various stakeholders (including Pro Bono Net, the National Center for State Corps, and the Legal Services Corporation) to discuss what would become the Technology Innovation Grants (TIG) program. In addition, the same group began discussing self-representation and identified six states where various parties might assemble to develop a long-term strategic plan for assisting pro se litigants. In 2000 at the first TIG Conference, they created a substantive agenda to guide their efforts moving forward.

After the conference, the group continued to meet and the SLRN informally launched as a website in 2001. Further conferences and funding followed the successful initial launch, and the Network continued to grow. Richard stressed that the first steps were very ad hoc and focused on bringing together stakeholders in states that did not have a dominant legal aid entity. Capitalizing on a growing recognition that groups with no collaborative history could and should work together, the founders of the SRLN sought to create a network that could work both in tandem and in isolation to assist pro se litigants. The SLRN would not be an arm of LSC, the bar, or the Courts, and therefore 1) it could achieve far more than any entity could individually and 2) no organization would feel as if it were receiving short-shrift. Thus, it developed into a decentralized network, rather than a command and control program that can quickly and easily adapt to individual situations across the country.

Bringing the conversation back to the present, I asked Richard what changes would make the biggest difference for self-represented litigants today. However, to hear his thoughts for the future, you’ll have to return next week for the third installment of this rapidly growing series.

Non-profits and legal services organizations have come to recognize the importance of social media and many now have well-developed social media strategies implemented by staff experts. That being said, disaster response brings with it special considerations for every facet of an organization’s operations and social media is no exception.

In order to assist legal services providers, Wilneida Negrón and Leah Margulies of LawHelpNY recently hosted a webinar entitled “Tips on Using Social Media for Disaster Recovery.” Drawing upon lessons from their response to Sandy, Wilneida and Leah outlined how social media can play different, important roles in disaster response and how the role an organization chooses to play inevitably dictates the content they post.

Wilneida and Leah demonstrated how different social media platforms serve different functions in disaster response

Wilneida and Leah began the webinar by reviewing LawHelpNY’s response to Sandy through their blog and Facebook and Twitter accounts. Immediately after Sandy, they began posting resources, contacts, and assistance information for New Yorkers. News outlets, blogs, and others recognized LawHelpNY as a central repository for Sandy legal relief information, and LHNY’s posts enjoyed high viewership and virality. To spread the lessons of their experience, Wilneida and Leah published a toolkit on “Leveraging Social Media and SEO for Online Disaster Outreach.”

Wilneida and Leah used the lessons from their Sandy response to help viewers begin thinking about their social media role in disaster response. Many of the webinar attendees indicated their organizations would likely pursue a passive role, like LawHelpNY did, whereby they would broadcast and disseminate information.

That being said, the webinar also highlighted possibilities for active content and engagement, through proactive data collection and public responses to create situational awareness. Wilneida and Leah featured some of the myriad social networking platforms and guided viewers through creating visualized, aggregated, and personal content that would be useful for a collaborative, planned disaster response effort. They stressed the importance of fact checking, especially after a disaster.

The webinar ended with reminders of best practices in creating post-disaster social media content

Having used their Sandy response to illustrate and explain how organizations could share useful content over social media post-disaster, Wilneida and Leah concluded by helping viewers think about developing a social media strategy. They encouraged organizations to plan ahead by analyzing their networks and pages to evaluate their social media presence, content, and plans. Wilneida and Leah also detailed how organizations can better manage and disseminate the barrage of social media information they receive through listening dashboards and by testing shareable content, and finally time-lined three phases of disaster-related content to share: crisis preparedness, crisis response, and disaster recovery.

I’m excited to apply the lessons from the webinar as I help with disaster legal response efforts. Even with my personal experience with Facebook and Twitter, I am now much more cognizant of how organizational social media strategies must be unique to the disaster context. When the inevitable next disaster strikes, I hope the resources we develop will be easily and quickly shared via effective social media dissemination.

 

About the Series

Richard Zorza, one of the founders and leaders of the access to justice (ATJ) movement, recently received the American Bar Association’s 2014 Louis M. Brown Award for Legal Access’ Lifetime Achievement Honor for decades of work on behalf of self-represented litigants. Not to be outdone, the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators passed a Resolution of Recognition “express[ing] their deep appreciation to Richard Zorza for his thoughtful, unique, and dedicated service, loyal support and guidance, and for his unfailing commitment to improving the state courts of this nation, and the Conferences extend to him their best wishes for the future.”  Richard was at the Open Society Institute with Mark O’Brien and Michael Hertz when they formed Pro Bono Net, and had a profound influence on our founding and development. As we approach our 15th anniversary, we would like to extent our deepest gratitude and thanks for his tremendous guidance. I recently spoke with Richard, and we are excited to produce this three four five-part installment from that discussion. This first post will focus on the founding and history of the access to justice movement through the eyes of one of its pioneers. And of course, read more of Richard’s always fascinating thoughts on his Access to Justice blog.

Installment One

Richard traces the access to justice movement’s beginnings back to the early 1990s, when an array of stakeholders concluded that the existing approach of “just fund more lawyers” was not reducing the justice gap. The ATJ movement’s first steps were to develop self-help centers in Arizona and California and to recognize that technology could be leveraged to support lawyers and provide direct services to the self-represented. At the same time, the Bar, legal services providers, and the judiciary formed the first Access to Justice Board in Washington to coordinate the ATJ movement and consider larger, more conceptual changes. These two revolutions – the idea that technology could augment the work of lawyers and that the different stakeholders could and should work together – were essential to the birth of the ATJ movement and have been essential to its successes over the ensuing two decades.

Like a Porsche accelerating from 0-60MPH, the ATJ movement expanded quickly. By 1998, the Inspector General of the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) was supporting an online document assembly pilot in Georgia and LSC held the first summit on technology and legal services, which led to the enormously successful Technology Initiative Grants (TIG) program. Perhaps even more importantly, Richard stressed that the summit created a venue for never-before-held discussions on how legal aid providers and the courts could work together to increase access to justice and make the system fairer for all participants, not just those who can afford counsel.

ATJ commissions proliferated over the next several years, technology began to take on a greater role (including the founding of Pro Bono Net and LawHelp), and states began to expand their self-help initiatives. Of course, developments across these three areas were intertwined and interrelated. In November 1999, the American Judicature Society, State Justice Institute, and Open Society Institute hosted a national conference on pro se litigation with teams from every state attending. Richard believes that this was the moment when efforts to provide support to self-represented litigants really accelerated. After the conference, the state teams returned home with outlines for plans to assist the unrepresented.

That’s it for today, but tune in next time for more of Richard’s thoughts on supporting self-represented litigants and the creation of the Self-Represented Litigants Network.

We are pleased to highlight Equal Justice Works’ campaign to recruit applicants for the AmeriCorps JD program. A guest post with application instructions (apply before April 15th!) and brief description of the program are below, along with a testimonial from Jennifer Aronson, an Equal Justice Works Legal Fellow.

Law students can give back to our nation’s veterans! AmeriCorps JD, an Equal Justice Works program, provides funding for law students who dedicate 300 hours of service to a qualifying legal project with legal aid organizations, Veterans’ law clinics, Veterans Treatment Courts, and state or local government agencies. What impact can you make as an AmeriCorps JD member?

While we can list the benefits of being a member of AmeriCorps JD, Equal Justice Works AmeriCorps Legal Fellow, Jennifer Aronson, is the best person to demonstrate how pro bono work can make a difference in veterans’ lives. Here’s a special video message from Jennifer, who helped a homeless, Vietnam veteran with cancer write his will:

Like Jennifer, you can provide legal aid to support veterans! Consider applying to the AmeriCorps JD program by April 15, 2014.To be eligible, you must be enrolled in law school at the time your service begins, agree to criminal background checks, not receive more than $4,300 in outside funding for their project, and not have served more than three previous terms as an AmeriCorps member.

Visit our site for more information and learn how you can make a difference in the lives of America’s returning military members! Complete an application in the Student Application Manager (SAM) by April 15. A step-by-step guide can be found on the AmeriCorps JD application page.

Feel free to contact AmeriCorps JD program coordinators, Anna Cupito or Lynn Feldmann, with any questions.