Public Interest

Legal Aid Is Under Assault, But Don't Count It Out

Bipartisan backers have saved LSC before. Can they do it again?

By  
on

LegalservicescorpSupport for the provision of free legal representation to the poor is now, and always has been, a bipartisan issue. It should remain that way.

The Legal Services Corporation, an independent non-profit entity that funds more than 130 legal aid organizations throughout the country, has been providing free, high-quality legal representation to those most in need since 1974. Since that time, numerous federal budget proposals have been submitted to Congress that call for the elimination of funding for the organization, the largest source of support for legal aid for the poor. Each time, bipartisan support for LSC has prevailed. That support needs to happen again this year.

In response to an announcement from the Office of Management and Budget that funding for legal aid was being targeted for eventual elimination, a group of more than 150 chairs and managing partners from the largest corporate law firms in the nation, reaching beyond partisan divides, has stepped up in defense of equal access to justice. Last week, this unprecedented, bipartisan group of legal community leaders sent a letter to OMB urging that LSC remain strong and viable, that it not be eliminated, that its funding not be cut. The firms lauded the efforts of LSC, underscored the life-changing impact of access-to-justice on the lives of the poor, and explained that “our ability to provide pro bono legal services is directly dependent on partnership with legal aid organizations . . . eliminating the Legal Services Corporation will not only imperil the ability of civil legal aid organizations to serve Americans in need, it will also vastly diminish the private bar’s capacity to help these individuals. The pro bono activity facilitated by LSC funding is exactly the kind of public-private partnership the government should encourage, not eliminate.”

Yesterday, the White House budget was submitted to Congress. It echoes the OMB recommendation, proposing the complete elimination of LSC. The well-being of millions of low-income individuals and families hangs precariously in the balance. Without access to an attorney, without the access to justice an attorney can bring, people will end up homeless, without medical care, and without hope.

Established by Congress in 1974, LSC receives funding from Congress to be used by its members to promote equal access to justice for the elderly, poor, disabled, military veterans and families, all of whom need to protect their basic necessities of life by having lawyers navigate for them the judicial branch of our democracy. As has been done for four decades, Congress has rejected the recommendations of elimination, allowing the Legal Services Corporation to continue providing high-quality legal assistance to those in need, completely free of charge. This time there needs to be the same result.

The reason that LSC has had a largely uninterrupted run for more than 40 years is that, when threatened, a bipartisan group of Congressional supporters has emerged to protect not just the organization but the notion of equal access to justice for the poor and voiceless. In the 1970s a group of Democrats led the charge to create LSC. Typical names such as Mondale, Kennedy and Cranston were stalwart supporters. But it was President Nixon who signed the measure into law, it was his chief of staff Alexander Haig who made sure it happened, and it was a group of Republican legislators who threw their support to the measure, ensuring the bipartisan launch of this vital program.

Later, such figures as Hillary Rodham Clinton served as board chair of LSC, although the composition of the board of directors has always been, by law, a mix of Democrats and Republicans. During the Reagan Administration there arose two very serious challenges to the survival of the organization. The first occurred in 1981 and, after great political maneuvering, elimination of LSC was avoided thanks in large part to a group of House Republicans and Democrats, working together, including Tom Railsback, Caldwell Butler, Harold Sawyer, Barney Frank and Robert Kastenmeier, and in the Senate Republican Lowell Weicker teamed with Democrat Ernest Hollings.
In 1986 Senator Warren Rudman, a Republican from New Hampshire, fought long and hard to protect LSC from a second attempt at elimination during the Reagan Administration. He wrote, “In the Spring of 1981 I began a twelve-year battle with the Reagan and Bush administrations to keep the Legal Services Corporation alive . . . . Equal justice under the law is a meaningless slogan if you can’t afford a lawyer. . . .I thought that providing legal services to the poor was profoundly conservative. What kind of country would this be if a third of our people had no access to justice. . . .”

Sponsored

In 1995, perhaps the most serious challenge to legal aid funding for the poor was launched by House Speaker Newt Gingrich. He proposed a three-year schedule for phasing out and completely defunding LSC. However, the effort was defeated when Senator Pete Domenici (R-New Mexico) effected a compromise that while severely restricting the scope of work LSC attorneys would be permitted to accept on behalf of their clients, preserved the existence of the organization and ensured its survival. During the George W. Bush Administration, LSC largely remained immune to serious threats, aided by the support of prominent Republican White House counsel Harriet Meier and Alberto Gonzalez.

On a smaller scale, in 1999 the California legislature, for the first time in the State’s history, allocated general funds for the support of legal aid for the poor. The State provided $10 million in funding behind a bipartisan effort that included the support of a wide cross-section of business and law firm leaders from across the political spectrum.

Congress soon will address the next budget proposal that specifically calls for the elimination of funding for the Legal Services Corporation. In an article last week in The Hill, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) stated “Even if you wanted to do that, you couldn’t get it through the Senate.” Jim Dyer, who served for 13 years as the Republican staff director for the House Appropriations Committee, warned that “[i]t’s been repeatedly tried, but the reality is it’s the only way that a lot of poor folks, especially rural poor, get any kind of legal help.” Referring to the OMB proposal to eliminate LSC, he said “It’s almost like they sat down over there and dragged out all of their old wish list, most of which has been discarded, and said to themselves, ‘Let’s put it on the table and see who salutes.’”

In other words, bipartisan support runs very deep for the concept that legal aid in service of the most vulnerable has become an institutionalized part of our discourse. History teaches us that justice is a bridge that spans politics. From President Nixon to 150 law firm leaders with offices in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, the belief in legal aid continues to prevail, as justice demands it should.

Sponsored

David LashDavid A. Lash serves as Managing Counsel for Pro Bono and Public Interest Services at O’Melveny & Myers LLP. He can be reached at dlash@omm.com. The opinions expressed are his alone.

Topics

, ,