• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Verizon Agrees to $93.5M False Claims Settlement | Main | D.C. Judge Sets Fee Hearing For Native American Class Action »

April 05, 2011



"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


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.


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.


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.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad