The American Spectator : Legal Services Unleashed

Text Size

Legal Services Unleashed

By John Carlisle on 4.3.09 @ 6:08AM

Congress moves to end restrictions on activism funded by the infamous Legal Services Corporation.

The Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress may soon gain another valuable ally in their effort to radically expand government. On March 26, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) introduced legislation that ends the restrictions on the ability of legal services organizations, funded by the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), to file ideologically motivated lawsuits. In addition, Harkin's bill, "The Civil Access to Justice Act of 2009," nearly doubles the LSC budget from $390 million to $750 million. If Harkin's bill is enacted, thousands of legal services lawyers will unleash a barrage of lawsuits in the nation's federal and state courts to advance a liberal political agenda.

The Harkin bill comes as no surprise. Liberal groups started lobbying Congress at the beginning of the year on LSC's behalf. On January 6, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights sent a letter to members of Congress calling for the abolition of restrictions on LSC-funded activism. The Washington Post ran an editorial on March 14 calling on lawmakers to "unshackle Legal Services from congressionally-imposed restrictions that have kept it from working more efficiently and broadly."

The restrictions were enacted by Congress in 1996 in response to legal services lawyers systematically using taxpayer money to advance liberal policies. These restrictions included bans on representing undocumented aliens, abortion-related litigation, prisoner advocacy, class action lawsuits, challenges to welfare reform, and congressional redistricting cases.

The restrictions did have a significant effect in reducing LSC-funded activism. However, legal services lawyers were still able to push a political agenda within the confines of the law. In several cases, they brazenly violated the restrictions. For example, in 2008 the LSC inspector general subpoenaed client records from California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) to determine if it violated the restriction on representing undocumented aliens. A former CRLA lawyer said the organization had a policy of providing aid to illegal aliens. CRLA refused to release the names to the inspector general, citing attorney-client confidentiality.

In 2002, the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles (LAFLA) filed a lawsuit to force the California Department of Motor Vehicles to implement the provisions of Assembly Bill No. 60 which would allow undocumented aliens to obtain driver's licenses even though the bill was never enacted into law. A California appellate court rejected the lawsuit and LAFLA's quixotic legal reasoning.

In pursuing this case, LAFLA may have violated the restriction on assisting undocumented aliens. Its client, Mary Grace O. De Asis, did not have a Social Security number when it filed the lawsuit. If De Asis did not have a Social Security number, it raises the question of how LAFLA could confirm she was a legal alien.

By ending the restrictions, CRLA, LAFLA and the other 135 grantees will be able to openly and more aggressively pursue their agenda of aiding and abetting illegal immigration. And that would only be the beginning. Prior to the 1996 restrictions, legal services attorneys were at the forefront in filing challenges to welfare reforms at the federal and state level. Even with the restrictions in place, legal services lawyers repeatedly filed lawsuits to thwart efforts to control spending, combat fraud, and promote efficiency.

In 2003, for instance, Legal Services of Northern California (LSNC) filed a lawsuit to stop the State of California from cracking down on welfare fraud by instituting a fingerprinting system. Among its objections to the fingerprint system, LSNC argued that it violated recipients' constitutional rights to privacy and religious freedom. It even invoked the specter of Orwell's 1984 novel in describing how fingerprinting undermined privacy and personal dignity. In addition, LSNC went so far as to claim that fingerprinting violated religious liberty because it "is a mark of the devil and stains the soul with sin." The California Supreme Court rejected LSNC's lawsuit.

Alameda County, California, is currently in court fighting a lawsuit filed by Bay Area Legal Aid that challenges the county's decision to impose a six-month limit on General Assistance benefits for adults that are deemed employable.

In 2007, Legal Action of Wisconsin (LAW) won its lawsuit against the state in which it argued that welfare recipients must be given additional state-subsidized employment or training. Pat DeLessio, the LAW attorney who handled the case, praised the ruling because it would encourage more people, who otherwise might be required to work, to apply for welfare.

LAW is a longtime critic of Wisconsin's highly successful program to move welfare recipients off the rolls and into paying jobs. DeLessio once called the workfare component "a stupid program."

In 2002, LAFLA lost its three-year-old lawsuit against Los Angeles County that challenged the legality of its policy of requiring applicants for welfare benefits to allow home visits by case workers. LAFLA claimed home visits, which were intended to prevent welfare fraud, violated the Constitution's Fourth Amendment guarantees against unreasonable searches.

These are the kinds of outrageous cases legal services filed under the restrictions. Without the restrictions and with the White House and Congress in control of a party determined to radically expand social spending, legal services lawyers will most certainly be in the vanguard in using the courts to obliterate welfare reform, one of the most notable public policy achievements of the last 30 years.

In introducing the "Civil Access to Justice Act," Harkin claims that "severe restrictions on LSC-funded attorneys impede the ability of legal aid attorneys to provide the most meaningful representation." To rectify this alleged problem, the bill lifts the prohibitions on collecting attorneys' fees, to bring class action lawsuits, and permits lobbying with non-federal funds.

Harkin claims that "in the spirit of compromise" the bill would maintain many of the prohibitions on the kinds of cases that can be pursued with LSC funds. These include the prohibitions on representing undocumented immigrants, prisoners challenging prison conditions, and people charged with illegal drug possession in public housing eviction proceedings.

Page: 1 2 >

About the Author

John Carlisle is director of policy at the National Legal and Policy Center, a nonprofit foundation based in Falls Church, Virginia.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (16) | Leave a comment

drudge ette obama| 4.3.09 @ 6:54AM

Believe me, there are few conservatives, Republicans or blue dog democrats in legal services. It's the first stop for new lawyers who want to help the betrodden, only to find out that street law is mostly eviction proceedings, divorce, collections, and minor civil actions. They burn out and complain about the small money, then head out for easy goverment jobs or other nonprofits. They complain that they can't do their do-good work and pay for their law school loans. They expect the government to pay their tuition loans because they are doing good work. Remember Michelle Obama complaining about having to pay her school loans back? She had that same sense of entitlement.

Legal services has a purpose: to help poor people work through the legal system in ordinary life. It is definitely not the place for class actions, etc. That's why the ACLU and private practice exists. Believe me, the for profit sector of the legal profession is ready and panting for the class action that will let them retire.

Besides, if the government takes over all American industry, how can it fund the groups that will eventually sue it?

Marc Jeric| 4.3.09 @ 10:18AM

Our country is the only one in the civilized world where when you sue somebody and lose it costs you nothing. That is why we have 1,100,000 lawyers here; Japan has 10,000, Germany 15,000, and Great Britain only 8,000, for example. In all other civilized countries losing a suit automatically calls for the plaintif to pay all the costs - of the court and of the defendant, both direct and indirect. When shall we address the question of bloodsucking trial lawyers, environmentalists, socialists, communists, and other hyenas living off the fat of the land?

Fred Hayek| 4.3.09 @ 2:06PM

I have written a letter to the Legal Services Corp. suggesting that they prosecute the Heartland Institute for racialism. The president of the think tank is preventing Ralph Conner, an executive at the organization, from running for Lt. Governor of Illinois. Conner is the former mayor of Maywood, Ill., an all-black suburb, and won 250,000 votes when he ran for Cook County Assessor in 2006. Heartland pretends -- when begging funders for money -- that it is part of the freedom movement. But its own president is more tyrannical than Kim Jong Il -- violating the civil rights of one of its employees. We recommend a boycott of Heritage. Starve this beast.

Stephen Goldberg| 4.3.09 @ 4:54PM

I was the lead attorney in the lawsuit about fingerprinting of welfare recipients. Mr. Carlisle accurately states the contents of the decision of the California Court of Appeals in that case. The California Supreme Court did not rule on the case. The only request to the California Supreme Court was a request to depublish the case (that is essentially to erase it from the official record) which was denied.

What Mr. Carlisle does not know is that the California Court of Appeals ruled on arguments that were not made at any point in the litigation. Legal Services of Northern California, on behalf of its client, did not argue that fingerprinting of welfare recipients violated privacy rights or freedom of religion. The only claims made in the case were technical legal claims about whether certain people who were not themselves receiving benefits were required to be fingerprinted, and about whether a fingerprinting system could include the requirement of a facial photograph in addition to a fingerprint. The lawsuit did not challenge the premise that states can require fingerprinting as a condition of receiving benefits. I do not know why the California Court of Appeals ruled on arguments that were not made by the parties in the case.

It is true that lead plaintiff in the case was a member of the Russian Pentacostal Church, which has as a fundamental tenet that the fingerprint is the "mark of the beast" (as do many other faiths and religious leaders). That fact was included in the initial petition in the case. However, no legal argument was made that requiring fingerprinting as a condition of receiving benefits violated free exercise of religion.

The bottom line that Mr. Carlisle criticizes Legal Services of Northern California for legal claims that were not made.

Stephen Goldberg
Staff Attorney
Legal Services of Northern California

Michael Tomlinson| 4.3.09 @ 4:57PM

So-called "blue dog" Democrats are not conservatives. Everyone of them supported Nancy Pelosi for Speaker. Like the crass pols they are when they think it will help them secure votes from gullible conservatives they will vote against Democrat policies knowing they'll pass without their support. Witness the Obama budget and the 20 Democrats who voted against it. A careful review of all their votes reveals they're good liberals too, but just want to make sure they scam the voters back home in their marginally conservative districts.

Learn the lesson no Democrat can be trusted in elected office. Ask Quislings like Christopher Buckley and Peggy Noonan how they feel about their boy Barack whose quadrupled the deficit in 2 months.

J.C.Eaton| 4.3.09 @ 6:59PM

Our good friend, Marc Jeric is correct:America, assuredly, does not suffer for want of representation. Our law schools turn graduates out like little link sausages. Once loosed on society the question becomes:What to do with them? Fortunately, most go into ministerial functions but that 5% or so that become litigators....well, those are the folks who become the ferrets, carbuncles, and pilot fish that are salivating tonight.

Big Leo| 4.3.09 @ 8:33PM

When my nephew became an attorney we were aghast-- such a blot had never besmirched our family before. So far, he is doing good work as an asst. DA, but we keep an eye on him.

Sad Panda| 4.4.09 @ 3:15AM

Do you guys have any actual lawyers read this stuff? This is retardation zone zero. I mean, who approved this?

First lines from the first five comments: This is not comedy, people:

Believe me, there are few conservatives, Republicans or blue dog democrats in legal services.

Our country is the only one in the civilized world where when you sue somebody and lose it costs you nothing.

I have written a letter to the Legal Services Corp. suggesting that they prosecute the Heartland Institute for racialism.

I was the lead attorney in the lawsuit about fingerprinting of welfare recipients.

Ok, enough. I cant even copy paste another. I just dont know what to tell these morons. You people are just sad. Read a book on logic, get some sunshine, stop going to church...

drudge ette obama| 4.4.09 @ 8:23AM

Why so sad, Sad Panda? I am correct in my statement that there are few conservative, Republicans or blue dog demoncrats in legal services. And how is reading a book on logic going to change that fact? Are you the type that always turns to cod liver oil when you are ill or logic when you feel stupid? You aren't a lawyer, for sure, because you made no opposing argument , just junk statements. Sad Panda, go chew some eucalyptus. Tu es assinus.

Skep41| 4.4.09 @ 12:00PM

Thank God for the Democrats! There just arent enough frivolous lawsuits but these geniuses are helping out the economy by creating more jobs in the legal system and helping to get that money that big business steals from the poor back into circulation. With so many geniuses running around in the Senate doing similar good work its easy to forget that Tom Harkin is every bit as destructive, arrogant, stupid, misinformed, cretinous, vengeful and downright idiotic as a Chucky (Schmucky) Schumer or a Patrick (Leaks) Leahy and every bit as nauseating and nonsensical as the retarded dwarf Senatrix who daily disgraces my home state of Gollyvornia. When I ask myself where you find people stupid enough to vote for these incompetent utopians I have only to scroll up and look at 'Sad Panda's' outrage at the five basically true statements that have caused such sadness in the bamboo-munching breast of this pathetic creature. Is it logical to suggest, for instance, that a notoriously radical group like Legal Services has any diversity of opinion amongst the people who work for it? Sad Panda, using the heightened logical powers that animal invokes, should have named another country where losers dont pay the court costs to actually make her point. Does the black and white beastie suppose that Fred is lying- that he didnt send a letter to Legal Services- or is she saying that such a letter was a sign that Fred was dipping too hard into his stash of medical marijuana? As for fingerprinting welfare recipients, everyone knows that requiring proper identification for aid recipients and voters is an attempt to intimidate them and not to stop the rampant fraud encouraged and perpetrated by Sad Panda's employers, the Democrats.
Sad Panda is obviously another 'seminar' commenter, unable to make a coherent point, who just copies and pastes and adds some invective to earn the measley amount of 'stimulus' money allocated to pay low-level drones to harass conservative sites.

ADK| 4.6.09 @ 2:00AM

Progressives are oppressive controlling thugs. Their substitute for assassination is political and character assassination. Their methods are insidious and convoluted; they smugly congratulate themselves and call it clever or effective. They give titles to new legislation, which are of Orwellian double-speak. Individuality means nothing to them if they haven't approved of it's characteristic. All their activities are done in the futile pursuit of some form of egalitarian utopia. They live mostly in cities... from which they derive in the helplessness of close quarters the notion that collectivism will protect them, makes things fair and practical and therefore should be good for everybody ...

Progressives have a grinding megalith of political careers that actively eat away our freedoms and our paychecks during our every waking minute as we try to make a living. Governing should be a short-lived duty not a long-lived career through retirement.

Government thugocracy seems the progressive’s personal representative, knocking at my door, telling me how to live, who I should care for and taking, not asking for, but taking my money.

I tire of progressives; they seem to me like the emotionally disturbed kid on the block, either arrogant dweebs or as bullies, overly interested in telling me how to conduct my business.

Ben Menzies| 5.6.09 @ 12:43AM

Um...did anyone see the post by Mr. Goldberg? Seeing as how he seems to be the only person who has any idea what they're talking about on this site, does anyone have a rebuttal? The Spectator made some serious factual errors, or at least distortions in that case. Doesn't that call into question the veracity of the rest of the story?