The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) was established by the
Legal Services Corporation Act of 1974 to provide free legal
assistance to the indigent in civil, non-criminal matters. Its
origins lie in President Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty,
specifically with the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO), which
in 1965 began making direct grants to local legal aid
Despite its name, however, the Corporation does not use its
budget (currently $400 million) to provide direct legal services to
the poor. Rather, it distributes federal tax dollars to 323 private
groups around the country. These grantees also receive another $255
million from lawyer groups, local and state governments, interest
on lawyers' trust accounts (IOLTA), and private sources.3
Unfortunately, taxpayer-funded legal groups, under LSC, engage
in political, lobbyist, and cause-advocacy activities, often at the
expense of providing real legal services needed by poor people.
Legal Services suffers from an institutionalized ideological
bias. Attorneys have promoted racial preferences and illegal
immigration, and grantees are sufficiently politicized to become
involved in congressional redistricting, litigation, and
campaigning on ballot referendum questions. For the past 30 years,
the LSC has been the legal pillar of the welfare state. Through
litigation, advocacy, and lobbying, it has caused an increase in
local, state, and federal welfare spending by hundreds of billions
of dollars and has effected the addition of millions of people to
the welfare rolls.4 It has sued to stop
welfare reform in New Jersey and in other states. It even has
engaged in actions -- litigating to prevent the eviction of drug
dealers from public housing, for example -- that harm the poor.
During the 1980s, even though its budget was cut by Congress,
the program survived an attempt by the Reagan Administration to
eliminate it. Now, however, just as welfare itself is being debated
in Congress, so is the LSC's future. Like the War on Poverty
itself, the Legal Services Corporation has failed. It should be
Legal Services as Political
Legal Services sees itself as a "movement."5
According to its founders, its primary mission is not to meet
the needs of individual poor people, but to achieve broader social
change through "law reform."6
The Legal Services agenda is grounded in the belief that the
"system" creates poverty; therefore, it is the system -- America's
economic, political, and cultural institutions -- that must be
altered. To this end, the LSC:
Attempts to effect a redistribution of income by litigating
increases in transfer payments through class action suits against
local, state, and federal governments;
Is at the forefront of the so-called rights revolution,
litigating to promote "children's rights,"7 to protect aggressive panhandling,8 and to establish the right to camp in
city parks and streets;9 and
Engages in lobbying and political advocacy. Sixteen LSC grantees
known as "support centers," national in scope and organized around
specific issues such as housing, welfare, immigration, youth, and
food,10 function as the legal arm of a
host of social and political causes.
The LSC says grantees handled 1.6 million matters last year.
Supporters say allegations of ideological bias are without merit
and that, due to sheer volume, it is inevitable that the program
will become involved in some controversial cases. But a review of
thousands of cases and news articles11
clearly indicates that the LSC has never filed a major case opposed
to the goals of the homosexual, feminist, or environmental
movements or designed to help poor clients preserve the right to
home schooling, defend the right to own firearms, stop the
establishment of substance abuse facilities in their neighborhoods,
or challenge any type of gender or ethnic quota.
The Legal Services Corporation cannot be reformed because it was
designed to avoid external controls. In affect, it takes public
funds and transforms them into private funds, immune from the
safeguards that govern other federal spending.
The LSC's unique structure, established by the Legal Services
Corporation Act of 1974 (drafted in part by Alan Houseman, a legal
services movement theoretician) guarantees a lack of
accountability. The LSC is an independent, private, nonprofit
corporation which makes grants to separately incorporated, private,
nonprofit grantees, some of which make subgrants to other groups
and to each other. An eleven-member board is appointed by the
President, subject to Senate confirmation,12 but has little actual influence over
grantees and how they spend their grant money. Presidents Ronald
Reagan and (to a lesser extent) George Bush appointed LSC critics
to the board, but they were unable to effect any real reform.
Moreover, by law, the LSC's budget is submitted directly to
Congress. All the Office of Management and Budget can do is review
The LSC's status as a private corporation also exempts it from
many provisions of the federal criminal code, such as the
Anti-Deficiency Act, that apply to government officials. While it
is a felony for a federal official to misappropriate federal funds,
the LSC Act declares that "officers and employees of the
Corporation shall not be considered officers and employees" of the
From time to time, Congress and the LSC board have sought to
exercise oversight. They have been all but ignored. Since most
grantees receive at least some funding from IOLTA funds and from
state and local governments, they can claim that any restricted
activities are not supported by LSC funds. The result: Restrictions
on LSC involvement in abortion, congressional redistricting,
politics, lobbying, and advocacy are ignored or circumvented.
There is no way to confirm resource allocation claims because
LSC attorneys do not keep time sheets. Attorney time is the most
valuable asset in any law office, and timekeeping is absolutely
de riguer at any private firm. Lack of timekeeping prevents
oversight by eliminating the only real way to track the activities
of Legal Services lawyers.
LSC lawyers do not report their cases to anyone outside their
offices, and all client and case records are closed. This secrecy,
based on invocation of attorney-client privilege, makes it
impossible to evaluate the effectiveness of Legal Services
attorneys. Moreover, there are no provisions for the waiving of
this privilege for purposes of oversight, even though tax funds pay
for the services rendered.
Because of these built-in problems, there is little information
on expenditures, either per case or per type of case. While most
government programs are required to have detailed accounting
systems to explain how taxpayer money is used, Legal Services
continues to ask for government funding without offering any
detailed evidence of how it has used money already received.
At present, the only way the LSC can track how grants are used
is through a monitoring program involving on-site visits to
programs by Washington-based staff. During the Bush Administration,
about 125 visits took place annually, so the average program could
expect a visit only once every three years. Under the
Clinton-appointed board, this largely ineffective program has been
weakened to the point where only six monitoring visits took place
It makes little difference who sits in the White House, in
Congress, or on the LSC board. As long as they flow through the LSC
to its 323 grantees, public funds will be spent to further a
private political agenda. As Alan Houseman wrote in a 1984 history
of the LSC, "Since the central directions of the program were not
created by statutes or regulations, they are invariably difficult
to undo by regulations and LSC policies."14
Politics and Survival
After the election of Ronald Reagan, even though the LSC
supposedly is restricted in its ability to lobby Congress,15 officials directed a "survival
campaign"16 that cost millions of
dollars and mobilized thousands of Legal Services lawyers. This
effort included such activities as training activists to lobby;17 transferring hundreds of thousands of
LSC dollars to sympathetic outside organizations;18 orchestrating positive media coverage;
and generating thousands of phone calls, letters, and visits to
Congress.19 Some LSC offices were
advised to have receptionists respond to potential clients by
saying: "I'm sorry but at this time we are unable to handle this
kind of case. Due to the recent proposed federal cutbacks, we have
had to reduce our caseload drastically. It would be unethical for
us to take any cases.... "20
An LSC grantee, the National Legal Aid and Defender Association
(NLADA) became the "corporation in exile." Having received no more
than $72,900 annually in LSC support before 1981, NLADA received
$2.2 million in late 1981. Staff members responsible for awarding
the grants went on the NLADA payroll after leaving the LSC.21 This effort was known as "saving the
rubies," a reference to the action of Czar Nicholas in sending the
Russian Crown Jewels to Switzerland for safekeeping during the
Bolshevik Revolution of 1917.
In 1983, the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee
conducted oversight hearings on the survival campaign. Committee
Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) concluded that "The political abuses by
LSC and many of its gr ant recipients were not simply isolated
anomalies. They were the business of Legal Services. They were
committed on a national scale and were planned by key members of
the LSC's national leadership."
Also in 1983, the U.S. General Accounting Office concluded that
the LSC survival campaign had violated the law.22 This prompted a criminal investigation
by the Justice Department. In July 1984, Assistant Attorney General
Stephen S. Trott asserted that "the unauthorized activities of the
Corporation, and many people associated with it, are uniquely
reprehensible and beyond the scope of LSC's original mission" but
that "notwithstanding these inappropriate, misguided, and abusive
activities, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1913 as well as the federal theft and
fraud laws -- for technical reasons -- were not violated by the
lobbying activities involved here."23
Among these "technical reasons," of course, was the fact that LSC
employees are not subject to laws that apply to federal
LSC grantees have sought to affect the composition of Congress
through redistricting litigation. In 1989, the LSC board banned
grantees from participating in redistricting cases, only to be sued
by Texas Rural Legal Aid, California Rural Legal Assistance, and
North Mississippi Rural Legal Services. A U.S. Appeals Court upheld
the prohibition, "particularly in light of the Act's mandate to LSC
to ensure that the legal services program remain free from partisan
political involvement.... " According to Judge (now former White
House Counsel) Abner Mikva, "we cannot conclude that LSC has no
right to prohibit its grantees from engaging in partisan
In addition to grants, the legal services infrastructure
benefits from money litigated away from taxpayers. The National
Center for Youth Law forced Arkansas in 1993 to expand its child
welfare system and won $314,107 in legal fees.25 Kansas Legal Services has charged
clients up to $100 per hour for filing Social Security disability
insurance cases, collecting almost $2 million in fees from money
awarded in these actions.26
Promoting Welfare Dependency
LSC grantees have won hundreds of billions in expanded welfare,
AFDC,27 Medicaid, and food stamp
benefits. Legal Services also has expanded welfare by seeking to
nullify any "moral" conditions connected to its provision, such as
a requirement for identifying the fathers of illegitimate
children;28 by attacking citizenship29 and residency requirements;30 and by signing up thousands of
alcoholics and substance abusers for Social Security disability
insurance benefits.31 Western
Massachusetts Legal Services (WMLS) has published a brochure
advising lottery winners that they can stay on welfare by such
devices as prepaying rent, buying a special gift, or taking a
vacation.32 In 1994, WMLS filed suit
to get Arthur Cooney back on welfare after he admittedly had spent
the $75,000 he won in a 1992 lottery on drugs and gambling.33
While the exact amount cannot be calculated, government spending
for LSC litigation, advocacy, and lobbying has contributed
significantly to the national debt. In 1973, former OEO Legal
Services Director Earl Johnson, Jr., wrote that "A bare handful of
lawyers, scarcely a footnote in the federal budget, has produced
massive transfers of goods and services to the poor -- some from
the private sector and some from the public treasury."34 Johnson pointed to the initial period
between 1965 and 1972, when federal legal services cost the
taxpayer a total of $290 million:
[T]he welfare residency decision already has produced
between $300 and $600 million added income for the poor, the 1968
man-in-house decision $400-$800 million, the 1969 and 1970 food
stamp cases have thus far produced over $450 million in additional
food stamp allotments, the prior hearing case over $200-$300
million. The California Medicaid suit saved $200 million in health
services, the New York Medicaid case thus far has saved $367
million, and other actions undoubtedly have generated several
million in additional income. Thus a total dividend in excess of $2
billion actually has been received by th e poor since the beginning
of the federal investment in legal services to the poor.35
Asserting that the program's "benefits" outweighed its "cost" by
a ratio of 7 to 1, Johnson further calculated that since benefits
were won in the form of entitlements, and therefore would continue
many years into the future, the actual ratio was closer to 34 to
Legal Services now seeks to protect earlier gains. To this end,
LSC lawyers have responded to the 1988 Family Support Act, which
allowed states to seek waivers from the federal government to
experiment with welfare, by suing to obstruct or stop virtually
every reform that has been attempted.
In 1993, for example, Legal Services of New Jersey sued both the
state and federal governments to prevent implementation of a cap on
AFDC benefits designed to discourage illegitimacy.37
In 1995, the Legal Services Organization of Indiana (LSOI) filed
a class action suit challenging Governor Evan Bayh's welfare reform
plan, which includes a work requirement and benefit reduction for
families that fail to get their children immunized or to send them
to school.38 An LSOI-employed lobbyist
organized opposition to the plan when it was before the Indiana
Legal Services also has sued to block welfare reform in
California, New York, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Should
Congress enact a serious overhaul of the welfare system, it is safe
to assume that LSC lawyers will fight its implementation in the
courts as well.
Helping to Destroy Public Housing
One of the major problems in public housing today is
drug-related crime. In Georgia, according to John Hiscox, Executive
Director of the Macon Housing Authority (MHA), "One of the most
difficult and persistent obstacles to removing drug-related,
criminal activity from public housing has been Georgia Legal
Services." While it has never won a case, GLS routinely demands
costly jury trials. The result: The MHA's average legal cost for an
eviction went from a few hundred dollars in 1987 to $8,000 in 1990.
During the same period, its annual legal bill increased from
$10,000 to $90,000.
In 1989, Georgia Legal Services tried to prevent the eviction of
Tina Burke, whose apartment was surrounded by gangs of young men
and lookouts. During surveillance, police witnessed her presence
during drug transactions in her apartment. But GLS maintained that
she lacked knowledge of such transactions. In 1994, tenant Shon
Scott was arrested after leaving a crack house two blocks from his
residence. Along with a firearm and a beeper, he possessed 33
pieces of crack cocaine. He pled guilty to possession with intent
to distribute. GLS fought Scott's eviction on the basis that his
crimes did not take place on public housing property.40
In New York City, the Legal Aid Society of New York went to
court in 1994 to challenge the New York Housing Authority's plan to
make it easier to evict drug dealers by cutting the process (which
now can take as long as three years) to only three to four months.
The Interim Council of Presidents, the organization representing
public housing tenant groups, filed a brief in support of faster
evictions. Tenants say they cannot sit out at night, let their
children play after dark, or even visit others in their own
In Pennsylvania, when the Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA)
attempted to evict a woman who allegedly was dealing drugs, loan
sharking, and extorting money from other tenants, an LSC grantee
filed a federal civil rights suit on her behalf and won on the
grounds that the PHA had not given her adequate notice of the
charges. Legal Services lawyers obtained $5,500 in legal fees. In
1993, another tenant set fire to her unit and the PHA won her
eviction in state court. Legal Services filed a federal civil
rights case and won a stay of the eviction. As of June 15, 1995,
the case was still pending.42
In Pittsburgh, Neighborhood Legal Services (NLS) has sued
Northside Tenants Reorganization (NTR) repeatedly to prevent
evictions of tenants responsible for drug dealing, violence, and
vandalism. NTR is a tenant group which manages and owns its own
low-incom e housing. NTR Executive Director Harriet Henson and a
building manager say they saw a tenant's boyfriend complete a
heroin deal. "It took us two years to evict because NLS took us to
appeal and appeal and appeal."43
Undermining the Family
Some Legal Services cases undermine the rights of parents. In
1994, notwithstanding a congressional ban on involvement in
abortion litigation, the National Center for Youth Law (NCYL),
co-counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union, succeeded in
overturning a 1987 California law requiring a teenager to seek the
approval of a parent or juvenile court judge before getting an
abortion. NCYL sought legal fees for 681 hours at $300 per hour
from the state. It was awarded two-thirds of the amount it sought,
pending eventual success before the California Supreme Court.44
In another area, the San Francisco-based National Center for
Youth Law in April 1995 admonished Idaho parents about inviting
police into their homes to search for drugs they suspected their
children of using. The innovative Canyon County, Idaho, program is
completely voluntary, and police make no arrests unless the drugs
they find are especially dangerous or in large quantities.45
Other cases also carry serious implications for adoptive
parents. In 1993, for example, the Idaho Legal Aid Society (ILAS)
sued to take a four-year-old child away from his legal parents.
Karla and Leland Swenson had adopted a half-Sioux boy in 1989 when
he was one-day old and were raising him on their dairy farm. ILAS
claimed the boy should live with Indian relatives even though
neither of his natural parents had sought custody. Representing the
natural father's Indian sister, ILAS argued that a tribe's efforts
to preserve its cultural integrity took precedence over the best
interests of the child. The Swensons sold their home to raise funds
to continue the legal fight.46
In New Jersey, Somerset-Sussex Legal Services is seeking to take
a one-year-old boy away from his adoptive parents because his
natural father wants him back. Reverend Paul Rack and his wife
adopted the baby in February 1994 when he was three weeks old.
According to a letter circulated by community leaders in support of
the Racks, the natural father is unemployed, has a criminal record,
and already cannot support several other children.47
In a third case, however, Legal Services fortunately did not
fare well. Pennsylvania's Lehigh Valley Legal Services sued to get
parental rights for the 16-year-old father of a child conceived by
his rape of a 13-year-old. The rapist has a long criminal record
and two other illegitimate children. In March 1995, the judge ruled
against LVLS and criticized "misguided adults" for bringing the
Several LSC actions advance goals of homosexual activists. In
1993, James Cox and his male "partner" attempted to adopt a child.
The Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services denied
their application because Florida law prohibits homosexual
adoption. The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
successfully sued, the state appealed, and the statute in question
was upheld by the Florida Supreme Court on April 27, 1995.49 Legal Services of Greater Miami filed
a brief in support of the ACLU Foundation's position in this
In a similar 1994 case, Brooklyn Law School's Family Law Clinic,
another LSC grantee, successfully represented a lesbian seeking to
adopt her female "partner's" child. A Family Court ruled that a
same-sex partner had the same rights as a stepparent for purposes
of the adoption statute.50 In a 1989
case also attempting to equate homosexual relationships with the
traditional family, the Legal Aid Society of New York and Community
Action for Legal Services, Inc., filed amicus curiae briefs in
state courts arguing that a "gay life partner" should have the same
right as a spouse to remain in a rent-controlled apartment after
the tenant's death. The New York Supreme Court agreed.51
LSC lawyers even have attempted to secure legal recognition of a
right to public housi ng for minors. In a 1993 case, a U.S. Court
of Appeals upheld federal requirements that public housing be
leased to tenants at least 18 years old, and in 1991, Central
Pennsylvania Legal Services sued the Reading, Pennsylvania, Housing
Authority for refusing to lease a unit to an unemancipated and
unmarried 16-year-old girl.52
Promoting Illegal Immigration
The Legal Services apparatus has been equally active on issues
pertaining to illegal immigration. When the voters of California
passed Proposition 187 in 1994 to deny public benefits to illegal
aliens, California Rural Legal Assistance, the American Civil
Liberties Union, and other groups filed suit to stop its
implementation.53 Prior to election
day, LSC grantees campaigned against the measure. Claudia Smith, a
lawyer with California Rural Legal Assistance, told the media that
"It's just a question of whether we have the time or the resources
to lay Prop 187 bare."54
The National Immigration Law Center (NILC), a Legal Services
support center, sued the state of California over a 1992 law
requiring those seeking emergency health services under Medi-Cal to
disclose their immigration status. Legal Services attorneys
contended that the law should be struck down because it would deter
undocumented immigrants from seeking emergency services. The
California Supreme Court rejected this argument in December 1994.55 The NILC also condemned Congress's
insertion of a stipulation into the $9 billion earthquake relief
bill last year prohibiting non-emergency aid to illegal aliens. The
amendment denied illegal aliens access to home repair loans,
disaster grants, and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) housing assistance, although it did allow them to
collect emergency food and clothing.56
The National Immigration Law Center also sued to force the U.S.
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to stop asking
resident aliens to pay $70 to renew green cards issued before 1978.
The replacement program was part of an INS effort to end widespread
document fraud. Legal Services claimed the $70 fee was excessive. A
federal judge in Sacramento, however, disagreed and upheld the fee
in November 1993.57
This Legal Services activity extends even to the deportation of
criminals. In Georgia, for example, the Atlanta Legal Aid Society
attempted to halt the deportation of Cuban nationals convicted of
committing serious crimes, including attempted murder and drug
trafficking. Arriving in 1980 via the Mariel Boatlift, the Cubans
committed these crimes while on immigration parole. After their
release from prison, their immigration parole was revoked, and
authorities subsequently placed them in detention to await return
to Cuba. Atlanta Legal Aid lawyers said their detention violated
their constitutional rights and international law. In 1993, a U.S.
Appeals Court rejected the petition.58
In Massachusetts, Greater Boston Legal Services sued to stop the
deportation of an alien resident who had been convicted of serious
drug offenses. A Dominican woman was tried, convicted, and
sentenced on four drug offenses that took place in 1982, including
possession of and intent to distribute cocaine. Twelve years later,
in 1994, a U.S. Court of Appeals let the deportation order stand.59 Another case involved the ability of
the INS, under the 1986 Immigration Control Act, to deny residency
to immigrants with one felony or three misdemeanors. In 1992,
California Rural Legal Assistance sued the INS to stop the denial
of temporary residency to immigrant agricultural workers with
criminal records, arguing that this practice violated both the
workers' Fifth Amendment rights and the Administrative Rules
Procedure Act. In 1994, a U.S. Appeals Court rejected the Fifth
Amendment claims but upheld Legal Services' challenge on
Two LSC grantees sued California's Department of Motor Vehicles
for refusing to issue drivers' licenses to illegal aliens. As
required by law, the DMV requires that all applicants provide proof
of legal reside ncy to obtain licenses. The National Immigration
Law Center and California Rural Legal Assistance sued the DMV on
behalf of several illegal aliens whose applications had been
rejected. A state appeals court ruled that the "DMV is not only
authorized but obligated" to deny licenses to illegal aliens.61
In yet another California Rural Legal Assistance case, the
organization in 1982 sued U.S. Attorney Joseph Russoniello for
investigating allegations that unqualified aliens had been
registered to vote. The purpose of this investigation was not to
prosecute improperly registered voters, but to find out whether
someone was deliberately signing up unqualified residents. CRLA
sued Russoniello on the grounds that his investigation of
Spanish-speaking residents was "invidious discrimination." The
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected this argument.62
The extremes to which such litigation can be pushed may be
indicated in a 1991 case. Two LSC grantees, Texas Rural Legal Aid
and the Los Angeles-based National Health Law Program, filed a
complaint with the Department of Health and Human Services asking
it to sue the McAllen, Texas, Medical Center because its security
guards wore uniforms allegedly resembling those of Border Patrol
agents. Legal Services said this discriminated against illegal
aliens because it discouraged them from seeking care.63
Promoting Racial Preferences
The Legal Services apparatus certainly is no stranger to
litigation that promotes racial preference. In 1978, LSC filed an
amicus brief supporting the University of California's
minority set-aside program in the famous Bakke case. The
U.S. Supreme Court, however, declared the UC-Davis set-aside
unconstitutional because it reserved places for minorities
exclusively because of their race.64
In a 1992 case, the outcome was somewhat different. The
Cincinnati, Ohio, quota system, adopted in the 1970s, required that
at least 18 percent of all fire personnel be minorities. To achieve
this numerical goal, the fi re division made it a practice to
insure that at least 40 percent of all new recruits were
minorities. White applicants who scored higher than minority
applicants on the civil service exam but were rejected sued the
city for reverse discrimination. A U.S. Court of Appeals agreed
with the Legal Aid Society of Cincinnati's position and ruled that
the white applicants' constitutional rights were not violated.65
In addition to litigating in behalf of criminals the government
is seeking to deport, Legal Services lawyers have been active in
behalf of domestic criminals. Starting in 1991, for example,
Georgia Legal Services has filed petitions for the release of David
Nagel from a maximum security mental hospital. Nagel was imprisoned
for murdering both his grandparents by slitting their throats in
1981 when they refused to give him the car keys.66
In Florida, Greater Orlando Area Legal Services in 1989
successfully sued the Orange County Jail to stop segregation of
HIV-positive inmates. Infected inmates now are placed in the
general prison population without notification to other inmates in
order to insure their "privacy." The suit was filed on behalf of 18
former inmates, most of whom were deceased when the case was
settled in 1994. After four and a half years of litigation, a
federal judge ordered Orange County to pay Greater Orlando Area
Legal Services $81,500 in legal fees.67
The Legal Services Corporation cannot be reformed. Because money
is fungible in the hands of private groups with more than one
funding source, no new restrictions can insure the accountability
of taxpayer funds. Most legal problems faced by the poor fall into
several basic categories: family, including divorce, custody,
guardianship and child support; housing, including landlord/tenant
controversies; financial, including bankruptcy, wills, estates, and
inability to pay bills; consumer; employment; and public benefits.
While taxpayer funds are provided to Legal Services for the
handling of individual cases, too great a portion of such funds are
used to pursue class action suits and ideologically important test
Legal Services has helped to destroy the independence and
dignity of poor people and to create a permanent underclass. Its
activities undermine both the family and the larger community. For
the sake of the American taxpayer -- and for the sake of America's
poor -- it is time to abolish the Legal Services Corporation.
- Kenneth F. Boehm and Peter T. Flaherty
are Chairman and President, respectively, of the National Legal and
Policy Center in Vienna, Virginia. Policy Analyst John K. Carlisle
- John A. Dooley and Alan W. Houseman,
Legal Services History, National Legal Aid and Defender
Association, 1984, pp. 4, 13.
- Testimony of LSC Chairman Douglas Weakly
and LSC President Alex Forger, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,
State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. Senate, May 26, 1995.
- For an excellent analysis, see Howard
Phillips and Peter H. Ferrara, "The Real Cost of the LSC: A Two
Trillion Dollar Bypass of Electoral Accountability," Conservative
Caucus Research, Analysis and Education Foundation, June 14,
- Dooley and Houseman, Legal Services
History, p. 15; see also Earl Johnson, Jr., preface, Justice
and Reform: The Formative Years of the OEO Legal Services
Movement, Russell Sage Foundation, 1973.
- Johnson, Justice and Reform: The
Formative Years of the OEO Legal Services Movement, pp.
- K v. K, No. 92-02446 (Fla. Dist.
Ct. App. filed Dec. 21, 1992).
- United Press International, "Panhandlers
Challenge Seattle's Anti-Begging Law," January 26, 1994.
- Tove v. City of Santa Ana, No.
G01 4257 (Cal. Ct. App. filed July 8, 1993).
- Legal Services Corporation Budget
Request, 1995, p. 39.
- Additionally, Kenneth F. Boehm served
in senior LSC staff positions, including Counsel to the Board of
Directors, for five years.
- Legal Services Corporation Act of
1974, as Amended, Public Law 95-222, 42 USCS 2 996(c).
- Ibid., 42 USCS 2 996(d).
- Dooley and Houseman, Legal Services
History, pp. 53-54.
- Appropriations Act for the Departments
of Commerce, Justice and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 1995, Public Law
- Hearing, Oversight of the Legal
Services Corporation, 1984, Committee on Labor and Human
Resources, U.S. Senate, 98th Cong., 2nd Sess., April 11, 1984, p.
- Ibid., pp. 4-19.
- Ibid., pp. 154-246.
- Ibid., p. 63.
- The Legal Services Corporation,
Robber Barons of the Poor (Washington, D.C.: Washington Legal
Foundation, 1985), p. 55.
- Hearing, Oversight of the Legal
Services Corporation, 1984, pp. 154-246.
- U.S. General Accounting Office, "GAO
Opinion and Relevant Portions of the Report on the Study of the
National Clients' Council," B-210338/B202116, September 19, 1983,
- Letter from Stephen S. Trott to
Senator Jeremiah Denton, July 5, 1984.
- Texas Rural Legal Aid v. LSC,
No. 90-7109 (U.S. Ct. of Appeals D.C.). Texas Rural Legal Aid is so
politicized that it filed suit to challenge a 1983 special election
for the seat of then-U.S. Representative Phil Gramm, who had
resigned from the House in order to run for re-election as a
Republican. United Press International, The New York Times,
January 31, 1983, p. 18.
- R v. Clinton, No. LR-C-91-415
(E.D. Ark., March 30, 1993).
- Rael Jean Isaac, "Who Funds the Left?
The GOP," The Wall Street Journal, June 23, 1995.
- Aid to Families with Dependent
- S v N.D. Department of Human
Services, No. 920273 (N.D. Sup. Ct., filed Jan. 25, 1993).
- Smart v. Shalala, 9 F. 3d 921
(11th Cir. 1993).
- Mitchell v. Stetfen, No.
C8-91-11691 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Ramsey County, Jan. 8, 1992).
- See, for example, Clearinghouse
Review, December 1993, p. 923.
- "Buy a Special Gift," Reader's
Digest, July 1994.
- USA Today, January 10,
- Johnson, Justice and Reform, p.
- Ibid., p. 232.
- Ibid., p. 233.
- K v. Shalala, No. 49,519 (D.
N.J. filed Dec. 1, 1993).
- Larry MacIntyre, "Some Welfare Reforms
Take Effect Today," The Indianapolis Star, June 1, 1995, p.
- Larry MacIntyre, "Senator Pledges Full
Discussion of Welfare Bill Before Vote," The Indianapolis
Star, February 3, 1995, p. C4.
- Testimony of John Hiscox, Executive
Director, Macon Housing Authority, before Subcommittee on
Commercial and Administrative Law, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S.
House of Representatives, June 15, 1995.
- Shawn G. Kennedy, "Tenants Press for
Easier Eviction of Drug Dealers," The New York Times, August
15, 1995, p. B1.
- Testimony of Michael Pileggi, Counsel,
Philadelphia Housing Authority, Subcommittee on Commercial and
Administrative Law, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of
Representatives, June 15, 1995. In 1994 and 1995, PHA has paid a
total of $194,281in legal fees to Legal Services lawyers who claim
they are entitled to $150 per hour. Federal judges presiding in
these cases repeatedly have expressed alarm at these fees. Most of
the cases could be brought in state court, but Legal Services
entities typically prefer the federal courts where they can collect
- Testimony of Harriet Henson, Executive
Director, Northside Tenants Reorganization, Subcommittee on
Commercial and Administrative Law, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S.
House of Representatives, June 15, 1995.
- Bill Kisliuk, "Judge Says MoFo
Entitled to $1.2 million for Abortion Case," The Recorder,
December 16, 1994, p. 1.
- Elizabeth Ommachen, "Parents Take Drug
Searches to Kids' Rooms," The Idaho Statesman, April 3,
1995, p. 1A.
- Timothy Egan, "Half-Indian Boy's
Future at Stake," Dallas Morning News, October 31, 1993, p.
- Associated Press, "Somerville Couple
Battling Birth Father Over Adopted Son," The Record, June 4,
1995, p. A17.
- Gay Elwell, "Judge Says Teen-Age
Rapist Does Not Have Parental Rights," The Morning Call
(Allentown, Pennsylvania), March 2, 1995, p. B3.
- Cox v. Florida, No. 82,967
(Florida Supreme Ct.) April 27, 1995.
- Jane Hutta, "Analysis Offered on
Adoption Ruling," New York Law Journal, December 23, 1994,
- Braschi v. Stahl Associates,
1989 WL 73109 (New York Supreme Ct.) 1989.
- Rodriguez v. Reading Housing
Authority, 8 F. 3d 961 (U.S. App. Ct.) 1993.
- Hannah Nordhaus, "No Quiet Fronts in
This War," The Recorder, November 10, 1994, p. 2.
- Craig Hines, "California Plan Would
Cut Off Illegal Residents," Houston Chronicle, September 25,
1994, p. 1.
- "Right to Ask Immigration Status,"
BNA Health Care Daily, December 30, 1994.
- Hugh Dellios, "Quake Aid for Illegal
Immigrants," Chicago Tribune, February 9, 1994, p. 1.
- K. Connie Kang, "Judge Upholds $70
Fee," Los Angeles Times, November 6, 1993, p. A30.
- Gisbert v. U.S. AG, 988 F. 2d
1437 (U.S. App. Ct.) 1993.
- White v. INS, 17 F. 3d 475
(U.S. App. Ct.) 1994.
- Naranjo v. U.S. INS, 30 F. 3d
(U.S. App. Ct.) 1994.
- Lauderbach v. Zolin, Cal. App.
4th 578, May 30, 1995.
- Olagues v. Russoniello, 770 F.
2d 791 (U.S. App. Ct.) 1985.
- Sandy Lutz, "Border Hospital's Guard
Garb Ripped," Modern Healthcare, December 17, 1990, p. 8,
and "Hospital Faces Civil Rights Complaint," Modern
Healthcare, January 28, 1991, p. 12.
- Regents of Univ. of California v.
Bakke, No. 76-811 (U.S. Sup. Ct.) 1978, and Dooley and
Houseman, Legal Services History, p. 10.
- Jansen v. City of Cincinnati,
No. 89-3783 (U.S. App. Ct.) 1990.
- Barry Siegel, "A Killer's Sanity May
Free Him," Los Angeles Times, November 12, 1994, p. 1.
- Jim Leusner, "Jail Will Stop
Segregating AIDS Inmates," The Orlando Sentinel, September
30, 1994, p. C1.