Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, September 10, 1995 TAG: 9509080134
SECTION: HORIZON PAGE: G-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: ROBERT PEAR THE NEW YORK TIMES
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Long
Hit particularly hard are 16 national organizations that provide specialized legal advice to lawyers handling an immense variety of cases in neighborhood offices around the country. Congress has already cut the budget for these ``national support centers'' by 24 percent this year, to $8 million, and most of them expect to receive no federal money next year.
The representation of poor people is, in many ways, an arcane practice requiring information not routinely taught in law schools and not generally available from the private bar. Indeed, some legal service lawyers have worked in the field for decades and know more about the problems of poor people than the judges who handle their cases.
The budget cuts reflect the conviction of many Republicans in Congress that legal aid lawyers promote a left-wing agenda through lobbying and litigation. The House has voted to impose new restrictions that would, for example, prohibit legal-aid lawyers from participating in any ``litigation, lobbying or rule-making involving efforts to reform a state or federal welfare system.''
``The only thing less popular than a poor person these days is a poor person with a lawyer,'' said Jonathan D. Asher, executive director of the Legal Aid Society of Metropolitan Denver.
But Rep. Ron Packard, R-Calif., sees the situation far differently. ``The Legal Services Corp. is more focused on advancing grand social causes than on helping the poor with ordinary legal problems,'' he said, referring to the private, nonprofit organization established by Congress in 1974 to finance legal aid for poor people in civil cases.
While the legal services program has received a total of $5.7 billion in federal money in the last 20 years, it has generated political passion out of proportion to its budget. Ronald Reagan clashed with legal service lawyers representing migrant farm workers when he was governor of California, and as president he tried to eliminate Legal Services Corp.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, a favorite target of conservatives, served on the corporation's board for four years and was chairwoman in 1980 and 1981.
The federal program distributes money to 323 legal service organizations with a total of 1,200 offices around the country. In general, a person is eligible for free legal services if he or she has income of less than $9,338 a year, and a family of four qualifies if its income is less than $18,938.
One of the national support centers, the National Housing Law Project in Oakland, Calif., laid off four of its eight staff lawyers this summer. Two had been there since 1973, one had worked there since 1977 and the other was hired in 1989.
The Center on Social Welfare Policy and Law, which has represented welfare recipients in a dozen Supreme Court cases in the last 30 years, is closing its branch office in Washington. The center is laying off two of its six lawyers, including Adele M. Blong, director of the Washington office, who has worked for the organization since 1971.
In a general sense, welfare issues are shifting from Washington to the states. Under a bill that was passed by the House and is being considered by the Senate, the federal government would no longer guarantee welfare assistance to poor people who meet certain eligibility criteria; instead, it would give each state a lump sum of money along with vast new powers to define eligibility, set benefits and penalize welfare recipients who bear children out of wedlock or refuse to work.
Henry A. Freedman, executive director of the Center on Social Welfare Policy and Law, based in New York, said: ``With such new discretion in the states, many poor families will face termination or denial of desperately needed aid because of policies or practices that raise important constitutional questions. If equal justice under law means anything, these families should be provided legal representation so they can get their day in court.''
The National Consumer Law Center in Boston, which specializes in bankruptcy and consumer fraud cases, is laying off seven its 26 employees, including three of 11 lawyers. The National Center for Youth Law, which has filed dozens of lawsuits intended to improve foster care and juvenile institutions, is losing three of its nine lawyers.
Legal Services of Greater Miami which had 55 lawyers in January, now has 40 and expects to have just 33 by January 1996. It expects to lose one-third of its $3.4 million grant from Legal Services Corp.
Officials at Legal Services Corp. said they felt lucky to survive in this year's conservative climate.
Michael L. Russell, a spokesman for the Christian Coalition, summarized the case against the corporation, saying that legal service lawyers had been ``lobbying to expand the welfare state, to increase the number of people on the welfare rolls and to block welfare reform.''
In addition, he said, they ``contribute to the breakup of the family by using tax money to help people get divorces.''
Rep. Charles H. Taylor, R-N.C., who is on the Appropriations Committee, defended the cuts. ``Cutting federal funds to the Legal Services Corp. is not going to end legal services for the poor,'' he said. Rather, he said, it will require private lawyers, foundations and charities to shoulder more of the burden.
But Asher of the Legal Aid Society in Denver asserted: ``Poor people have certain legal rights. Rather than take away those rights by statute, it's easier for Congress to take away the lawyers, and thus take away the ability of poor people to enforce their rights.''
Of the 1.7 million cases handled by legal service lawyers last year, 33 percent involved family matters such as child support, spouse abuse and divorce. Twenty-two percent involved housing, 16 percent involved welfare and other government benefits, and 11 percent involved consumer issues. The remainder dealt with education, employment, health care and individual rights.
``The budget cuts couldn't come at a worse time,'' said Charles H. Wheeler, director of the National Immigration Law Center, which helps represent refugees and immigrants. ``There are major bills pending in the area of welfare and health care that would have a tremendous impact on low-income people who are not citizens. It also comes at a time when Congress is about to pass major immigration laws that will have a substantial impact on our clients.'' The center is losing one-third of its $850,000 annual budget, he said.
Congress has already rescinded $15 million of the $415 million appropriated for Legal Services Corp. this year, with much of the money cut from the national support centers. In July, the House passed a bill that would cut the budget of Legal Services Corp. by one-third, to $278 million, next year.
More significant than the budget cuts are restrictions that the House would impose on lawyers receiving money from the corporation. Under the House bill, such lawyers could not file class-action lawsuits against the federal government or any state or local government. They could not try to influence the passage or defeat of any legislation, or the issuance of any regulation, at the federal, state or local level.
Moreover, they could not take any case in which they might recover attorneys' fees. Such fees are sometimes awarded in Social Security, civil rights, domestic relations and landlord-tenant cases. But poor people are often unable to get private lawyers to take such cases because the likely fees are so small or speculative.
Bridget Arimond, director of the women's law project at the Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago, said: ``Almost everything I've done in this job over five years would be outlawed by one provision or another of the House bill. The ban on fee-generating cases, for example, would prevent us from taking housing discrimination, job discrimination and other civil rights cases.''
The restrictions in the House bill would apply not only to federal money, but also to money that legal-aid lawyers receive from other sources, such as private foundations and state agencies. Thus, if lawyers accepted money from Legal Services Corp., they could not use private money to file class actions or to prepare comments on regulations proposed in the federal register.
John O'Toole, director of the National Center for Youth Law in San Francisco, said: ``These restrictions would be very harmful to our ability to represent our clients effectively. We would not have the full panoply of weapons at our disposal.
by CNB