Republican Pushes Alternatives to Legal Aid

The chairman of a House appropriations subcommittee said today that private-sector lawyers aren't doing enough to help the nation's poor with legal problems, warning that they might need to make up for expected cuts in federal funding.

U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) is a longtime supporter of funding for civil legal aid, but he said the largest source of such money, the Legal Services Corp., still faces proposed cuts from the House’s new Republican majority. LSC and its local partners should turn to resources from large law firms, state bar dues and law schools, he said.

Speaking during a budget hearing, Wolf singled out for criticism the lawyers who represent Guantánamo Bay detainees such as accused 9/11 conspirator Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

“That’s the pro bono work? The pro bono work should be helping poor people here in the United States,” said Wolf, the chairman of the House appropriations subcommittee on commerce, justice, science and related agencies. “Some of these people who represent Khalid Sheikh Mohammed ought to consider going into the inner city.”

The Legal Services Corp. is facing a potential budget cut of $70 million for the current fiscal year, and Wolf’s subcommittee is considering what its budget should be for the 2012 fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1.

In a response to Wolf, who raised the subject of new funding ideas in January, the Legal Services Corp.’s board of directors is organizing a task force on increasing pro bono work. Harvard Law School Dean Martha Minow and Davis Wright Tremaine partner Harry Korrell III are the task force’s co-chairs.

LSC President James Sandman, pictured above, said during today’s hearing that many ideas for supplementing the agency’s work are being tried — for example, many law schools encourage pro bono work. As for involving more lawyers from major law firms, Sandman, a former Arnold & Porter managing partner, said they represent only 15% of lawyers.

There are other challenges, too, said Hunton & Williams partner Robert Grey Jr., a member of the Legal Services Corp. board who testified with Sandman. For example, Grey said, many of the people served by civil legal aid programs live in rural areas, where there are relatively few lawyers to take pro bono work.

Private-bar lawyers handle about 12% of cases for LSC-funded programs, Grey said.

Separately, Wolf said the Legal Services Corp. risks losing support in Congress if the agency’s work is seen as political. He criticized a recent “Know Your Rights” booklet produced by Legal Aid of North Carolina for farm workers because it contained a cartoon of President George W. Bush digging a grave for the workers’ wages. “You’ve gotta get rid of this political stuff,” Wolf said.

Sandman and Grey said political statements by grantees would be inappropriate. “What we want to try to do is focus people on what they do best, which is represent the poor,” said Grey, pictured above.

George Hausen Jr., executive director of Legal Aid of North Carolina, said in a telephone interview that he heard about the cartoon from an LSC official after today’s hearing. The booklet was used a year ago to educate farm-workers about their rights, and including the cartoon was a mistake, Hausen said. He said he didn’t know where the cartoon came from.

“We have some enthusiastic and zealous people who work in our program, and I don’t know that they thought through this entirely,” Hausen said. The purpose of the booklet, he added, was not to demean Bush, and the cartoon related to changes Bush proposed to the H-2A visa program.

Click here (PDF) for the booklet.

Updated at 3:18 p.m. with Hausen's comments. National Law Journal photos by Diego M. Radzinschi.

Comments

[PeterK]

"This is one more Republican right wing effort to strip government of its proper responsibilities to citizens who need government help"

good. the government is the problem not the solution. where is personal responsibility

[Becky]

Legal Aid is prohibited from representing criminal clients. Citing 911 criminal defense attorneys has no relevance to a discussion of the merits of the Legal Services Corporation. Those were not legal aid attorneys. Mr. Wolf obviously does not know anything about the program he is so intent on defunding.

[Patricia]

Many people getting representation from Legal Services are able to pay a reduced/modest fee to a private attorney. I know this, because I get these people as clients. LSC should revamp its program to use pool attorneys, similar to the Public Defender (PD) offices, and charge the same fees to clients. This would make the LSC grants more self-sustaining and provide work to private attorneys.

[Janet Alexander]

Pro bono work by private lawyers will always be directed toward projects that those lawyers believe are worthwhile or within their expertise. If the Congressman wants to set the priorities for legal services to the poor, he should fund LSC.

[THE KAT]

Speaking as a "poor person", I don't care if the "free representation" comes from "Republican right wing effort" or not. I just want representation. If it comes from the US Govt or someone else thats fine. Just give me the representation. The quality of work done is in the eyes of the beholder. Don't speak for all pro bono attorneys and their efforts please. I use to be one before I became poor.

[Emily Marcum]

I thought it was an attribute of the Republican party to try to preserve private property whereas it is an attribute of the Deomocratic party to create equality by government programming, which sometimes takes private property through taxes. Here on the other hand, we have Republicans trying to avoid highering taxes by telling private citizens that they will need to voluntarily give up their valuable property (their time which they bill at an hourly rate). Why should lawyers give up their time for free to take over government functions? What alleviates the responsibility for everyone else to help with the problem?

[Dean Nasser]

How dare he criticize and denigrate the nobility of the pro-bono lawyers who are straightening out the world-wide disgrace and embarrassment caused by the Bush Administration and the Republican party in condoning the insult to America and our sacred Constitution that is Guantanamo and torture.

[Naomi Fein]

While nobody concerned with law and the right of the indigent to legal representation would object to participation from the pro bono departments of private law firms,there's quite a difference between the moral commitment of lawyers who represent people who can't afford private lawyers, and private lawyers.

When I worked for lawyers who almost always represented (sometimes on a contingency basis) indigent people, I noticed that my law firm was often training, in effect, the private lawyers in the nuances of the field of law in which we practiced. And the quality of the work, the dedication of the private lawyers varied radically. Sometimes they'd do the work, sometimes you couldn't reach them on the phone.
This is one more Republican right wing effort to strip government of its proper responsibilities to citizens who need government help, and hand that responsibility over to businesses that will benefit financially -- insurance companies, law firms, et al. It is, as always, obvious and, as always, repugnant.