Legal Aid Services Providers Cry Poor: Deny Clients Access To Representation

Unless you’ve been in the unfortunate position to be entangled in the court system you may have absolutely no idea of the abusive cluster it is. You can’t navigate it alone. But if you are further disadvantaged, to not be able to afford representation, you’re really screwed. In that case, the system has a remedy for those who were unable to buy their own legal representation. Legal Aid.

In 1964 the federal government stepped in and a “justice for all” program developed grants and funding to provide for the underprivileged to provide, for them, legal representation.

It was not until 1964, when the U.S. government finally supported “Equal Justice Under Law” by providing federal funding for civil legal assistance to low-income people. As part of the 1960’s-era war on poverty, the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) was established. For the first time, based on a new design of comprehensive legal service guidelines, federal funds would be available to finance certain services for the poor in all areas of civil law and promote reforms in law practice and administration.  Following these OEO guidelines, hundreds of legal service programs obtained federal grants from the OEO. Major changes in the legal circumstances of low-income people throughout the country were now being observed. Political controversy soon followed with tension to limit public funds and the activities of legal service programs. This spurred another new concept to protect legal aid from politics by independently incorporating a “legal service corporation” which would be separate from the OEO. It would receive funds from Congress and distribute them to various independent local legal service programs. After much debate and compromise, the Legal Services Corporation Act was finally enacted on July 25, 1974.   With a minimum access plan, the Legal Services Corporation soon established a mission to increase funding levels while financing new programs in previously new areas of the country.

By 1981, the Legal Services Corporation was providing funding to 325 separate grantees, covering every county in the U.S. In addition to basic field programs covering general legal assistance, a system of separate programs addressed special legal needs of Native Americans and migrant farm workers with a comprehensive system of state and national support and training centers. Not all communities welcomed these changes. A philosophy of limiting role of government with increased scrutiny over government social programs often prevailed in budgetary battles involving money for legal aid throughout the 1980’s and 1990s. Since 1981, funding for the Legal Services Corporation has been hard fought, often reduced and even threated for elimination on occasion, while new restrictions and guidelines were placed on individual grantee programs. The Legal Services Corporation survived many of these challenges and continues to makes grants to legal aid programs across the country; but it is by no means the comprehensive program once envisioned. Instead, it falls primarily on individual states to collaborate with various groups in an effort to finance access to justice.

With all good intentions, in an effort to maintain equal justice under the law, the bureaucracy that funds “justice for all” is having a little financial trouble.

NPR reported the state of crisis Legal Aid is facing.

For decades, federal and state governments have pitched in to help. But money pressures mean the system for funding legal aid programs for the poor is headed toward a crisis.

… At Maryland’s Legal Aid Bureau, the doors are open every Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

“Some days,” says Joe Rohr, a veteran lawyer at legal aid, “we actually have to close early because of the volume.”

“The problem is, we have far more clients coming in than we have available staff to fully represent everyone,” Rohr says.

… “The legal services system in the United States today is in a state of crisis,” says Jim Sandman, president of the national Legal Services Corp., which gives money to 135 aid programs all over the country.

The traditional funding streams, from Congress and state governments, are under attack. Aside from government dollars, there’s another important source of financing for legal aid: interest that collects on trust accounts that lawyers set up for their clients. But because of record low interest rates, that money has hit record lows, too.

So what happens when Legal Aid services don’t have enough supply (attorneys) for the (client) demand?

“We’re talking about access to justice here,” he says. “Access to justice is a fundamental American value. We have a great legal system in the United States, but it’s built on the premise that you have a lawyer. And if you don’t have a lawyer, the system often doesn’t work for you.”

One example, Sandman says, is that some programs are so stretched that they’ve had to draw excruciating lines.

“Imagine that — a woman being abused who comes in to seek a protective order against an abuser who may have a lawyer himself, and she’s turned away because there aren’t children involved,” he says.

But, and you knew there would be a but, over work and lack of funding may not be the only problem.

While congress debates just how much to continue to fund Legal Aid services, there is a problem with misallocation of funds, and other scandals.

“Many of the checks and balances and reforms and methods of accountability you would find in any other government agency just aren’t there,” says Boehm, who runs the National Legal and Policy Center, which tries to expose corruption in Washington.

He says Legal Services — which operates as a nonprofit group, not a federal agency — has not always been the best shepherd of public money.

“You know, expensive hotels, expensive desserts, expensive travel. Limousine travel by board members to get to meetings by an anti-poverty group is not anybody’s idea of good public relations,” he adds.

The program in Maryland has had its share of scandal, too. Spokesman Joe Surkiewicz talks about an episode here two years ago: “Our chief financial officer, who’s now serving time in prison, stole several million dollars from Legal Aid in a scheme with an outside vender for office supplies,” Surkiewicz says. “We’ve put it behind us; we’ve completely revamped our financial program and our financial unit.”

There’s more to the tip of this iceberg. After all, even if you’re not entangled in the courts, you know they’re a mess. Stay tuned.

And, as reported above, the solution is to deny services. We want to hear from you. See our Contact page. If you’ve been denied services, drop us a note. 

Please also leave a comment below and feel free to share this post.

Image: Source