For Madison County residents who are looking for information and assistance in certain legal matters, the courts offer several legal resources free of charge to clients, through its Pro Bono Committee.

The Third Judicial Circuit Court Pro Bono Committee offers three different programs: free legal appointments for civil and family matters, legal assistance for U.S. veterans in a variety of areas, and assistance in real estate matters.

“We know the programs are successful because members of the public continue to call for appointments and the lawyers continue to volunteer to help,” Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder told the Florida Record. "We matched four veterans to attorneys in the first quarter of this year, also.”

In the first three months of 2016, two dozen attorneys volunteered to see appointments from January through March. Those attorneys include Amy Meyer, Bonnie Levo, Brenda Baum, Carol Cagle, Casper Nighohossian, Christine Kovach, Dustin Maguire, Elizabeth Levy, Ellen Burford, Eric Rosser, Gale Stipes, Ian Murphy, Janel Freeman, Joe Whyte, Kelly Stephan, Kristen Strieker, Lauren Gearhart, Leonard Berg, Nathaniel Carroll, Phil Steinman, Ron Williams, Shari Murphy, Stephanie Galetti and Terry O’Leary.

The Pro Bono Committee first started these programs in 2011, with the creation of the free legal appointments program. Crowder said that it has been the most widely utilized of the three programs offered free of charge to Madison County residents.

Programs are organized by the pro bono coordinator, and the self-help center, located at the Madison County Law Library in the basement of the Madison County Courthouse.

The free legal appointments program provides an opportunity for low income residents without attorneys to set up an appointment on the second or fourth Tuesday of each month, allowing them 30 minutes with an attorney to discuss civil matters. Any civil matter is fair game, such as landlord-tenant issues, collections cases, divorce and child support, or small claims issues.

Those who have questions or problems pertaining to real estate deeds can make an appointment on the second and fourth Wednesdays of each month, with Amy Meyer, recorder of deeds, in the Madison County Law Library.

The third program is for veterans who do not have attorneys. When contacting the pro bono coordinator, veterans are asked to identify themselves, in order to help more quickly.

Anyone who needs legal assistance or who wants to volunteer to help should contact Angela Wille at 618-296-5921 or email her at anwille@co.madison.il.us.

Another way that the Pro Bono Committee knows the programs are making a difference? People are talking about it.

“We had a letter to the editor in the Alton paper specifically thanking the pro bono attorney for his assistance in helping the writer get pension benefits straightened out,” Crowder said.

Companies have put billions of dollars into asbestos trust funds that are designed to compensate victims of conditions that have been caused by exposure to asbestos, and due to slack oversight, there are often opportunities for fraud to occur.

Lawmakers in Utah recently passed a bill designed to inhibit asbestos fraud and the “double-dipping” that can occur when lawyers for individuals who have been affected by asbestos-related disease such as mesothelioma file a claim with the asbestos trust fund and also file a second claim in civil courts. Because there is limited coordination between the civil court actions related to asbestos and the trust funds established to compensate those who are affected, particularly in Illinois, many claims are filed in the state.

Legislators in Utah passed the Asbestos Litigation Transparency Act (House Bill 403), which is designed to create more transparency in asbestos bankruptcy trust claims in civil court actions, and to limit the opportunities for fraud in asbestos-related cases. This bill requires that in all asbestos actions filed there, plaintiffs must disclose all claims to an asbestos trust in relation to the civil action, whether those claims are actually filed or could be filed.

Madison County has become known as the place to file asbestos-related claims – and some, like Travis Akin, executive director of Illinois Lawsuit Abuse Watch, say that legislation to end double-dipping into the Asbestos Trust Fund is absolutely needed.

“Madison County is ground zero for asbestos litigation, and most of these cases have nothing to do with Madison County,” Travis Akin, executive director of Illinois Lawsuit Abuse Watch told the Madison County Record. 

“In Illinois, there have been efforts to pass similar legislation, but the House and Senate refuse to move forward on this common sense [type of bill].”

When bills related to lawsuit reform come before Illinois legislators, Akin said that they don’t often get hearings, because legislators aren’t interested in lawsuit reform. 

“In Illinois, legislative leaders control bills that are called for a vote or that get assigned to committee,” Akin said. “Legislative leaders are adamantly opposed to lawsuit reform. In the recent past, they did have a hearing on legislation like this, but when they have hearings, there’s no intention to call these bills for a vote.”

Some of the lawsuit reforms that Illinois Lawsuit Abuse Watch supports might have a chance, but Akin says it never gets a chance. Lawsuit reform is heard in committee, for substantive hearings, but there isn’t a vote. 

“It’s the only option we have. From time to time, in hearings, legislators do listen to the point of view that says we need lawsuit reform,” Akin said.

Akin said there is no denying that mesothelioma is a horrible disease.

"But, personal injury lawyers should not be able to file a claim to the trust and a separate claim elsewhere,” he said. “They shouldn’t be able to cash in twice for the same case.”

MOUNT VERNON – Madison County associate judge Martin Mengarelli failed to listen to a husband in a divorce before granting his wife full authority to sell their home, Fifth District appellate judges ruled in March.

They reversed a preliminary injunction that Mengarelli granted to Madison County court reporter Linda Forbes last year.

They found that he signed it without a lawyer present for husband Robert Forbes, and that he failed to finish a hearing on a motion to vacate it.

Robert Forbes had been a licensed attorney until he was disbarred on misconduct charges in November 2014.

“While petitioner was afforded the opportunity to present witnesses, the record before us fails to show respondent was given the same opportunity,” Justice Richard Goldenhersh wrote.

Goldenhersh wrote that a full and adequate hearing must be conducted prior to granting a preliminary injunction.

“The record before us indicates that requirement failed to be completed,” he wrote.

Linda Forbes petitioned for dissolution of her marriage on Feb. 5, 2015.

She and Robert agreed to sell a commercial building at 305 State Street in Alton for $105,000, and Mengarelli approved the agreement at a hearing on Feb. 25.

He ruled they could pay off the mortgage and the real estate taxes, and apply the rest to the mortgage and taxes on their home at 10 Greystone in Edwardsville.

Both lawyers at the hearing, Jennifer Shaw of Edwardsville for Linda and Andrew Velloff of Alton for Robert, would later withdraw from the proceedings.

On July 15, Mengarelli ordered Linda and Robert to sign a listing agreement for 10 Greystone with realtor Kathy Malawy.

Linda petitioned for a temporary restraining order on July 27, and Mengarelli convened a hearing that day.

He wrote by hand, “Court has a representative of Rob Forbes’ counsel office,” with an illegible name, “available by telephone as attorney Velloff is on vacation.”

Mengarelli granted Linda sole decision making power over listing and selling the marital residence, “free of interference from Rob Forbes.”

In the order, he wrote that Linda might be sole signatory on any necessary documents and indicated that Robert had to leave the house for showings on an hour’s notice.

Mengarelli declined to throw Robert out but warned that further interference might bring that result.

He set a hearing on a permanent injunction for Aug. 5.

Robert’s other lawyer, David Fahrenkamp of Edwardsville, moved to vacate the injunction on Aug. 4.

Mengarelli began the hearing by asking Linda’s lawyer, Barbara Sherer of Edwardsville, to go first.

Fahrenkamp asked to take up Robert’s motion first.

Mengarelli said, “No, we can address that later.”

As Sherer began her argument, Fahrenkamp objected to counsel testifying.

Mengarelli overruled him and told Sherer, “Go ahead. Just make it short. I know a lot of this stuff.”

Sherer said, “All we need is to get this house sold.”

She said Robert alleged that he wanted to work on the house before listing it.

“Now it’s listed by Sharon Joiner because Kathy Malawy just doesn’t want to be involved any more,” Sherer said.

She said both realtors recommended listing it at $525,000.

“If he wants to participate in making the decisions, then clean up your portion of the house and get this house listed for sale,” she said.

Fahrenkamp said he knew no other lawyer who would file something and get a hearing that day knowing the other lawyer was not available.

“I am suggesting it was ex parte,” Fahrenkamp said.

Ex parte communication, between a judge and a lawyer in the absence of the opposing lawyer, violates ethical rules.

“My client, before he had a chance to have a check list, was told that it was going to be sold as is,” Fahrenkamp said. “Not asked, told.”

“This is a house in a neighborhood where a little bit of money can make a big difference.

“My client didn’t have a chance for a hearing that day, and to merely say we have got to get this thing sold isn’t relief. It’s not emergency relief.”

Sherer asked to respond and Mengarelli said, “No, you can put on evidence.”

“I got hearings at three thirty, so we’re going to have to move this along as quickly as you can,” Mengarelli said.

Sherer put Malawy on the stand, and asked when Linda signed the agreement.

Malawy hesitated. Mengarelli said, “I don’t care about that. Let’s just move along.”

Sherer asked if they would get their money back from repairs.

Malawy said, “I think that the money that you put into it was exactly what you’re going to get back into the price.”

Sherer asked why she dropped the listing on July 27, and she said Rob told her he wanted to fire her and cancel the listing.

Malawy said, “I just thought, I’m going to run into this constantly and I’m not here to be part of any divorce.”

Fahrenkamp asked her how many days Robert had before she started bringing people by, and she said four.

Fahrenkamp: “You’re not surprised that all those things on the two page punch list weren’t done in a span of a few days, were you?”

Malawy: “No, it was no requirement ever.”

Fahrenkamp: “I’m not asking if it was a requirement.”

Malawy: “Not a surprise.”

Fahrenkamp: “Is there something funny?”

Malawy: “No.”

Fahrenkamp: “You’re responding to counsel so I didn’t know.”

Sherer: “Objection, she’s not smiling.”

Mengarelli: “Come on, let’s move this along.”

Fahrenkamp asked if Robert shouldn’t be given the opportunity to get something done and sell for a higher price.

Malawy: “If he would have given me the chance to talk to him in person and discuss all this. My whole thing to him in conversation was that -”

Fahrenkamp: “Excuse me.”

Mengarelli: “Let her answer the question.”

Malawy: “Anything that he would do, if it was five thousand, ten thousand, he wouldn’t get – he would get maybe that much out of it.”

Fahrenkamp asked if it was unreasonable to want time in order to sell for a higher price.

Malawy: “It’s not unreasonable. All I had was a signed listing agreement.”

Fahrenkamp: “He told you that he wanted time to fix it, didn’t he?”

She hesitated and Mengarelli said, “Okay, we have gone over this enough. Let’s move on to something else.”

Fahrenkamp asked Malawy if Robert agreed to the list, and she said yes.

Fahrenkamp: “It would be unfair to judge him as being uncooperative if on day two after getting the list it’s not done? Wouldn’t you agree, yes, no?”

Malawy: “If he would have conveyed that that was the reason for stopping the showings on Sunday, and told me two days prior to that, it would be a whole different thing.”

Fahrenkamp: “I didn’t ask that.”

Mengarelli: “Mr. Fahrenkamp, will you please move this on? I have heard enough about this. You have made your point.”

Sherer asked Malawy if the home was in broom swept condition when she saw it.

Malawy : “Upstairs was.”

Mengarelli: “Okay, we went through that already. We don’t have to rehash it.”

Sherer asked Malawy what her commission was, and she said five percent.

Sherer: “Five percent of -”

Mengarelli: “I don’t really need to hear any more of this unless there’s something else you want to inquire about.”

Fahrenkamp asked Malawy, “What’s your responsibility if he says, I think it’s an unfair price? I mean, you’ve been doing it for 15 years.”

Mengarelli: “You know, we have got enough of this.”

Fahrenkamp: “That’s my final question on it, your honor. Can she answer that one though, or not?”

Mengarelli: “No, I don’t need to hear the answer to that.”

She answered anyway, saying, “The responsibility is to educate him on why I did -”

Mengarelli: “I know where you’re going with it, Mr. Fahrenkamp. I understand. I understand.”

Malawy: “I had the education to give him. I would have -”

Mengarelli: “Ma’am, you can step down.”

Sherer said she would see if her next witness was there.

Mengarelli said okay and declared recess, but the hearing never resumed.

He denied Robert’s motion on Sept. 1, writing that he heard “partial testimony.”

Those two words sounded an alarm at the Fifth District.

“Respondent must be given the opportunity to present witnesses and additional evidence,” Goldenhersh wrote.

“We encourage both parties to work toward an amicable resolution of not only the sale of the marital residence, but all other remaining issues,” he wrote.

Presiding Justice Judy Cates and Justice Thomas Welch concurred.

ST. LOUIS – Jurors in civil court swiftly cleared Philip Morris of a billion dollar claim that it deceived smokers into buying Marlboro Light cigarettes.

They deliberated 73 minutes, following a class action trial that lasted 33 days.

Plaintiff Deborah Larsen claimed Philip Morris didn’t deliver on a promise that Lights and cigarettes with low tar labels would reduce nicotine and tar.

She represented a class of 400,000 smokers who bought Lights from 1995 to 2003.

The suit started in 2000, amid claims in many courts that smokers compensated for lower nicotine by smoking more cigarettes.

Twelve jurors who heard Larsen’s claim in 2011 deliberated for days without reaching the nine votes Missouri requires for success in civil trials.

The claim didn’t change between trials, but the cast changed.

District Judge Michael David presided at the first trial, and District Judge Steven Ohmer presided at the second.

Stephen Swedlow, of Korein Tillery in St. Louis, represented Larsen at the first.

Mark Bronson and Lauren Bronson, of Newman Bronson and Wallis in Maryland Heights, Mo., represented her at the second.

The Chicago firm of Winston Strawn represented Philip Morris at the first.

Booker Shaw, of Thompson Coburn in St. Louis, represented it at the second.

At the outset, Bronson and Bronson told jurors the trial would show that Lights were more dangerous than Reds.

The trial’s cross examinations chipped away at the theory.

On March 15, former Philip Morris research director William Farone agreed on cross examination that in a 1982 study, Light smokers got 15 milligrams of tar and Red smokers got 21.7 milligrams.

Farone agreed that Light smokers got 1.1 milligrams of nicotine and Red smokers got 1.4 milligrams.

He agreed that Lights had longer filters than Reds, increased ventilation, greater resistance to draw, and less tobacco.

He further agreed that in 1976, Consumer Reports discussed that people who switched from high tar to low tar often took in more tar and nicotine than a smoking machine showed they would.

On March 17, professor David Burns of the University of California at San Diego took the stand for Larsen.

He testified that more likely than not, Lights were more harmful than Reds.

Ohmer, finding he needed a higher degree of certainty, excluded the opinion.

On March 21, American Cancer Society vice president emeritus Michael Thun confirmed on cross examination that he couldn’t quantify a difference in risk between Lights and Reds.

On March 22, University of Chicago professor Michael Dennis confirmed on cross examination that the target population for a valuation survey he conducted was not the same as the population in the class definition.

On March 28, professor Joel Steckel of New York University’s Stern School of Business confirmed on cross examination that he had no idea what smokers would be willing to pay for a Marlboro Light that truly delivered low tar and nicotine.

Steckel said it was correct that he couldn’t testify that the number he came up with was correct for everyone in the class.

“It’s a number that best represents the class as a whole,” Steckel said.

He said it was correct that he couldn’t testify that his numbers were right for any individual in the class, and that it might be true that they weren’t correct for anyone in the class.

He also said he couldn’t prove that the difference in value was due to the terms, lower tar and nicotine.

“I can’t prove causality there either,” Steckel said.

The term “health risks” had different meanings for survey respondents, he said.

“That’s the person’s own individual subjective view,” he said.

On March 29, professor Peter Shields of Georgetown University’s cancer center confirmed on cross examination that three tests on nicotine equivalents between Lights and Reds were statistically significant.

“Yes, showing Marlboro Lights smokers took less from the cigarettes than the regular smokers,” Shields said.

On March 30, he said the danger depends on how people smoke the cigarette.

He confirmed that he couldn’t quantify how much more harmful Lights were.

On April 4, Philip Morris called to the stand Nancy Mathiowetz, professor emerita at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee.

She told jurors she was worried about the survey sample.

“There are people excluded,” Mathiowetz said. “There were people screened out from their survey that are members of the class.

“We do not have a sample that is fully representative of the class and therefore does not provide a reliable estimate of injury or damages for the class as a whole.

“We see a questionnaire that has confusing instructions, complex text in the asking of the questions, and we see clear evidence that people raced through this questionnaire.”

For Philip Morris, Shaw moved for directed verdict a day later.

Shaw wrote that Larsen’s experts could not identify studies concluding that compensation was universal and complete for all smokers.

He also wrote that Larsen failed to meet her burden of demonstrating that all class members failed to receive less tar and nicotine, that she did not offer evidence that class members understood Light to mean less harmful and that she didn’t offer evidence of ascertainable loss because Lights always cost the same as Reds.

“The record that has been offered at trial establishes that some class members received less tar and nicotine from each Marlboro Lights cigarette and not all class members received a more harmful cigarette,” Shaw wrote.

Further, Larsen’s failure to offer evidence on any difference in fair market value warranted directed verdict, he wrote.

Shaw also picked apart the survey. He wrote that it did not replicate the marketplace, rather it measured a hypothetical cigarette in an artificial environment. It also measured value in 2010 - and Larsen offered no evidence of market value in the class period from 1995 to 2003.

“Plaintiff’s experts admit that they do not know what percentage of the class were excluded from the survey population,” he wrote.

CHICAGO — Continuing its financial support of families who can’t afford to pay for a lawyer, the Illinois Bar Foundation has started a fellowship program that allows non-lawyers to pitch in

“The need for people without lawyers is so great, we decided to open up the Fellows Program to anyone interested in supporting our efforts,” Dave Anderson, executive director of the foundation, told the Madison County Record.

The charitable branch of the Illinois Bar Association started the program almost 35 years ago. Fellows commit to supporting the foundation for 10 years, donating anywhere from $1,000 to $25,000.

The foundation’s efforts are felt all around the state, including in Madison and St. Clair counties, according to Anderson. 

Through the Fellows Program, supporters help to bolster the Land of Lincoln Legal Assistance Foundation, which offers free civil legal assistance to low-income people and senior citizens in 65 counties in central and southern Illinois.

“We are longtime supporters of the of the Neighborhood Law Office in East St. Louis, which is sometimes the last place for some families to turn to when they need a lawyer but can’t afford one,” Anderson said.

In 2014, the foundation took over administration of the Illinois JusticeCorps Program in 10 counties across the state, including one in Madison County. Through this program, AmeriCorps volunteers are placed in courthouses to help people without lawyers find the resources they need.

In addition to JusticeCorps and grants to legal aid non-profits, the foundation supports lawyers in financial need and offers post-graduate fellowships to newly admitted attorneys who spend a year working in their alma mater’s legal aid clinic. This year the foundation will distribute nearly $850,000, according to a news release.

Now that it's branching out beyond lawyers, the foundation expects people serving the legal community will be interested in joining the program, including vendors, law firm support staff and clerks, Anderson said.

CHICAGO - Earlier in the year, Margie Milovich’s neighbor had been hit with a lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act. But she said it still didn’t prepare her for the moment the same plaintiff delivered a similar lawsuit to the door of LaSalle Flowers, a family-owned River North flower shop at 731 N. LaSalle, dating back to the 1930s.

“It was a complete shock,” said Milovich, who has managed the flower shop for 21 years. “No one has ever had an issue purchasing flowers here.”

The flower shop is located around the corner from Fabcakes, a breakfast and coffee shop that was sued earlier in the year by the same party, Chicago resident Mary Mizerk and her attorney, John L. Steele, of the Accessibility Law Group and formerly of the firm of Steele Hansmeier PLLC, which, like the firm of Prenda Law, has been accused of improper activities when pursuing quick settlements from those accused of illegally downloading internet pornography.

The suit alleged that Mizerk, who has osteoarthritis and uses a wheelchair, could not enter the flower shop on her own because the doorway was about 5 inches higher than the sidewalk.

The civil suit, brought under Title III of the ADA, was one of several filed by Mizerk and Steele against businesses within several blocks of each other in Chicago’s River North neighborhood.

And that fact was not lost on Milovich.

“This lawyer is targeting mom-and-pop places,” she said of Steele. “There have been 14 lawsuits [nearby] … 14 of our local shops. He’s not going after the big people, [he’s targeting] small restaurants, small salons, small neighborhood pubs.”

Many businesses and defense attorneys find issue with such “serial” or “drive-by” filings, particularly because they stem from a handful of plaintiffs and lawyers.

Of the 94 ADA Title III lawsuits filed in 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 77 were brought by only eight plaintiffs, each represented by the same legal counsel.

Mizerk filed six suits with Steele, but Steele also represented William Gomez, who filed eight suits in 2015, and Ollie Franklin, who filed five lawsuits last year.

Another chunk of litigation was filed by repeat plaintiffs Howard Cohan and Santiago Abreau, both represented by the firm of Jacobson and Tchernev, of Chicago. The two plaintiffs filed 21 and 16 lawsuits, respectively.

The trend didn’t appear to change in 2016. Through March 31, 29 ADA Title III suits were filed. Abreau was the plaintiff named in 11 suits; Cohan filed 10 suits; Mizerk, three; and Gomez, three.

To many business owners, those numbers substantiate their belief that some litigators are out to make money, banking that most defendants will settle quickly to avoid larger fees that would come with fighting the complaint.

Ivo Tchernev of the Law Offices of Jacobsen and Tchernev did not reply to repeated requests for comment.

However, Steele said he and his clients aren’t just after a quick buck, pointing out that plaintiffs can’t ask for damages, only injunctive relief.

“The goal of the ADA is not just to beat people up, because there are no damages, per se, but to get people caught up to 2016,” he said. “My clients - and I believe, in general, other clients who have brought cases similar to mine - they’re not looking to get rich off [these suits]. And they certainly do not get rich off it. They just want a business to extend the civil rights that they deserve.”

Steele also said he doesn’t nitpick when choosing cases to file.

"If I have a client that [says], 'There's this building, they’re not in compliance because the ramp grade is a little bit too steep,' my general attitude is, this isn’t a game of ‘gotcha’ because of the rise-over-run elevation," said Steele.

Nonetheless, that is a main point of contention in the case filed against Fabcakes.

The lawsuit stated the ramp to Fabcakes was approximately 7 inches long and climbed approximately 3-4 inches between the sidewalk and the level of the front door.

"At the top of the ramp between the sidewalk and the front door, Mizerk would have had insufficient space to open the door and enter the restaurant, had she been able to climb the ramp," the complaint said.

Steele has come under fire in recent years after his former firm, Prenda Law - which he sold, he said – allegedly made millions by threatening to sue thousands of people suspected of illegally downloading pornographic movies.

Some see a correlation between the demand letters sent to the defendants in those cases and the letters businesses are receiving now, advising them to comply with ADA guidelines.

Steele said as an attorney now focusing on ADA litigation, it’s harder for people to mudsling, though they do try.

“In the adult entertainment industry, when they’re caught red-handed … sometimes they try to dirty or attack the name of the plaintiff [even though they’re guilty of] stealing adult content,” Steele said. “They would make it out that, ‘They’re porn people,’ putting them down, instead of [admitting], ‘Oh, I did steal it.’ When you’re a business, I think attacking a person with disabilities who wants to get in [your establishment] … that really doesn’t work when there is a picture of the complaint of my client in a wheelchair unable to get in the doorway.”

Steele maintains that many of his clients are young veterans who want to return to the same establishments they frequented before becoming injured in the line of duty.

“It’s been a real problem because these guys are going out and they’re finding out these fancy restaurants and bars - everything from hair cuttery places to whatever - are not complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act,” Steele said.

Because the courts cannot possibly go after every business that is not in compliance with the ADA, filing a discrimination lawsuit has become the only mechanism available to handicapped individuals, Steele said.

Still, defendants find many ADA lawsuits unpalatable, specifically when court filings openly list the plaintiff as a “tester” - someone who seeks out discriminatory public accommodations.

Steele said he doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with using a tester, though he asserted he doesn’t utilize such plaintiffs.

“I can’t think of a single instance where any of my clients have described a restaurant or establishment that isn’t in their neighborhood or they have gone to,” Steele said.

Indeed, the lawsuits filed by Mizerk against LaSalle Flowers and Fabcakes assert Mizerk lives within four city blocks of each establishment.

But representatives of neither business can recall ever seeing Mizerk enter the store. And Milovich said she believes Mizerk has no intention of purchasing flowers at LaSalle Flowers in the future.

Had the flower shop gone to trial, owner Margot Sersen could have used that argument to challenge the standing of Mizerk - one of the few arguments a defendant can make against an ADA complaint.

Even then, it often isn’t enough to dissuade a court from siding with the plaintiff, as a simple sentence of fact usually does the trick, said Bill Pokorny, a labor and employment partner at Franczek Radelet.

“If you read the complaints, [they say], ‘I actually went in; I was a customer at the restaurant,’ and that’s usually enough to give them standing,” he said.

Marca Bristo, CEO and president of Access Living, a group which advocates on behalf of those with disabilities, said her group is not opposed to testers, nor to lawsuits that result from such tactics. In fact, Access Living created a fair housing testing program to root out discrimination in the housing sector. And if the organization had the capacity to increase its scope of work to file suits under Title III, it would not rule out utilizing testers, she said.

“Do most disabled people go around [looking for noncompliant businesses]? No. We would be exhausted if we did that,” she said. “Should we? We probably really should.”