Legal Services Corporation (LSC)Legal Services Corporation (LSC)

Created by Congress in 1974Created by Congress in 1974 Mission statement: “provide high-quality Mission statement: “provide high-quality

civil legal assistance to low-income civil legal assistance to low-income Americans.” Americans.”

Headed by a bipartisan, 11 member, board Headed by a bipartisan, 11 member, board of directors appointed by the Presidentof directors appointed by the President

Largest source of funding for civil legal aidLargest source of funding for civil legal aid Fund 138 independent programs nation Fund 138 independent programs nation

wide wide

LSC GrantsLSC Grants

Money Cycle:Money Cycle:American Public American Public Congress Congress LSC LSC

Independent organizationIndependent organizationGrants given with guidelines:Grants given with guidelines:

These ensure that organizations cater to These ensure that organizations cater to clients who are disabled, elderly, war clients who are disabled, elderly, war veterans, or sufficiently indigent. veterans, or sufficiently indigent.

Emphasis on basic human needs such as Emphasis on basic human needs such as housing, health care, and protection housing, health care, and protection from domestic violence from domestic violence

Omnibus Consolidated Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Rescissions and Appropriations

Act of 1996 Act of 1996 Decreased LSC funding by 30.5% - Decreased LSC funding by 30.5% -

single largest reduction single largest reduction $400,000,000 to $278,000,000$400,000,000 to $278,000,000Largest previous drop was 25% under Largest previous drop was 25% under

the Reagan administrationthe Reagan administrationAct imposed large number of Act imposed large number of

restrictions on LSC fundsrestrictions on LSC funds

Restrictions imposed by 1996 Restrictions imposed by 1996 ActAct

Prevented LSC funded attorneys from: Prevented LSC funded attorneys from: taking any part in challenging welfare reform taking any part in challenging welfare reform

lawslaws requesting attorneys fees from the losing party requesting attorneys fees from the losing party

in a victorious law suitin a victorious law suit lobbying or in anyway influencing legislationlobbying or in anyway influencing legislation filing a class actionfiling a class action participating in abortion litigationparticipating in abortion litigation representing imprisoned clientsrepresenting imprisoned clients Various other restrictionsVarious other restrictions

Personal Responsibility and Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity ActWork Opportunity Act

Signed by President Clinton in 1996Signed by President Clinton in 1996 Replaced Welfare with Temporary Replaced Welfare with Temporary

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Essentially a stipend for indigent people Essentially a stipend for indigent people

with childrenwith children Imposed additional conditions on Imposed additional conditions on

recipients of TANFrecipients of TANF Must work or look for work Must work or look for work Can receive federal benefits for a maximum of Can receive federal benefits for a maximum of

60 months60 months

TANF continuedTANF continued

States receive TANF as a block grant and States receive TANF as a block grant and can impose additional requirementscan impose additional requirements

TANF replaced AID to Families with TANF replaced AID to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Job Dependent Children (AFDC) and Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS)(JOBS)

TANF reduced emphasis on education and TANF reduced emphasis on education and increasing skill set. increasing skill set.

Essentially unskilled labor – quick to lose Essentially unskilled labor – quick to lose their jobstheir jobs

President Clinton Signing the President Clinton Signing the Personal Responsibility and Personal Responsibility and

Work Opportunity ActWork Opportunity Act

Appropriations Act Aftermath Appropriations Act Aftermath

restrictions required LSC-financed restrictions required LSC-financed lawyers to abandon more than 600 lawyers to abandon more than 600 legal matters legal matters

The indigence of the clients affected The indigence of the clients affected left them little recourse, and without left them little recourse, and without the money to hire a private attorney, the money to hire a private attorney, their cases collapsed. their cases collapsed.

Carmen VelazquezCarmen Velazquez A 56 year old woman living in New York A 56 year old woman living in New York Challenged a New York welfare regulation on Challenged a New York welfare regulation on

the grounds that it was unlawful “because it the grounds that it was unlawful “because it did not afford her a pretermination did not afford her a pretermination opportunity to demonstrate that physical opportunity to demonstrate that physical impairments prevented her from working.” impairments prevented her from working.”

Ms. Velazquez’s legal issue challenged a Ms. Velazquez’s legal issue challenged a welfare regulationwelfare regulation Bronx Legal Services attorney was forced to Bronx Legal Services attorney was forced to

withdrawwithdraw Ms. Velazquez searched unsuccessfully for a Ms. Velazquez searched unsuccessfully for a

substitute attorney and eventually lost her substitute attorney and eventually lost her benefits. benefits.

Brennan CenterBrennan Center

In 1997, the Brennan Center stepped In 1997, the Brennan Center stepped in to represent Ms. Velazquez and in to represent Ms. Velazquez and challenge 1996 Act Restrictionschallenge 1996 Act Restrictions

Mission Statement: “non-partisan Mission Statement: “non-partisan public policy and law institute that public policy and law institute that focuses on the fundamental issues of focuses on the fundamental issues of democracy and justice.” democracy and justice.”

Founded in honor of Justice BrennanFounded in honor of Justice Brennan

Burt NeuborneBurt Neuborne

Director of the Brennan Center at the Director of the Brennan Center at the time of litigationtime of litigation

Professor of Civil Liberties at NYU Professor of Civil Liberties at NYU school of lawschool of law

received the University's Distinguished received the University's Distinguished Teaching Award in 1990 Teaching Award in 1990

Written four books and seventeen Written four books and seventeen law review articleslaw review articles

Burt NeuborneBurt Neuborne

Interesting side noteInteresting side note Burt Neuborne received Burt Neuborne received

a lot of negative media a lot of negative media attention after attention after submitting a bill to submitting a bill to Holocaust survivors for Holocaust survivors for $4.1 Million for eight $4.1 Million for eight years of service. They years of service. They were under the were under the impression that he was impression that he was working pro bono!working pro bono!

When litigating the issue, When litigating the issue, asked for an “excellence asked for an “excellence multiplier” that would multiplier” that would have raised his hourly have raised his hourly rate to $875 an hour rate to $875 an hour

Alan LevineAlan Levine

Mr. Levine was an attorney at Mr. Levine was an attorney at Kronish Lieb Weiner & Hellman Kronish Lieb Weiner & Hellman LLP.LLP.

Hired to help defend LSC by LSC Hired to help defend LSC by LSC president Alexander Forgerpresident Alexander Forger

Today he is the Partner in charge Today he is the Partner in charge of the New York office of Cooley of the New York office of Cooley Godward Kronish LLP and Chair of Godward Kronish LLP and Chair of the Board of The Legal Aid the Board of The Legal Aid Society in New York, a privately Society in New York, a privately funded legal aid organization.funded legal aid organization.

Interesting Side noteInteresting Side notelooks suspiciously similar to looks suspiciously similar to

actor Anthony Healdactor Anthony Heald

Alexander Forger, President of Alexander Forger, President of LSC from 1994-1997LSC from 1994-1997

Worked extensively with Congress to form Worked extensively with Congress to form a compromise on funding and restrictions a compromise on funding and restrictions regarding LSC.regarding LSC.

Interested in defending these Interested in defending these compromises against the mounting legal compromises against the mounting legal challenges challenges

Referred to the legal challenges against Referred to the legal challenges against the restrictions as “playing Russian the restrictions as “playing Russian roulette, some people feel it’s better to roulette, some people feel it’s better to hang than to compromise.”hang than to compromise.”

LSC Compromise with CongressLSC Compromise with Congress

California Congressman Julian Dixon:California Congressman Julian Dixon:

““In the face of new political realities, In the face of new political realities, Legal Services advocates have been Legal Services advocates have been willing to bend over backward to willing to bend over backward to accept far-reaching restrictions on accept far-reaching restrictions on attorney activities to ensure the attorney activities to ensure the continued existence of a viable core continued existence of a viable core program.”program.”

LSC’s Fight Against LitigationLSC’s Fight Against Litigation

Alan Levine supported and agreed to Alan Levine supported and agreed to defend the work of Mr. Forger that defend the work of Mr. Forger that created a compromise with Congress.created a compromise with Congress.

If the litigation efforts succeeded in If the litigation efforts succeeded in removing the limitations placed on removing the limitations placed on LSC by Congress, LSC was worried it LSC by Congress, LSC was worried it may lead to a removal of may lead to a removal of Congressional Funding.Congressional Funding.

Court CasesCourt Cases Velazquez IVelazquez I: : Velazquez v. Legal Services Corp.Velazquez v. Legal Services Corp.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York: 985 F.Supp. 323985 F.Supp. 323

Velazquez IIVelazquez II: : Velazquez v. Legal Services Corp.Velazquez v. Legal Services Corp. U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit: 164 F.3d 757U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit: 164 F.3d 757

Velazquez IIIVelazquez III: : Legal Services Corp. v. VelazquezLegal Services Corp. v. Velazquez Supreme Court: 531 U.S. 533Supreme Court: 531 U.S. 533

Velazquez IVVelazquez IV: : Velazquez v. Legal Services Corp.Velazquez v. Legal Services Corp. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York:

349 F.Supp.2d 566349 F.Supp.2d 566 Velazquez VVelazquez V: : Brooklyn Legal Services Corp. v. Brooklyn Legal Services Corp. v.

Legal Services Corp.Legal Services Corp. U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit: 462 F.3d 219U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit: 462 F.3d 219

Velazquez v. Legal Services Velazquez v. Legal Services Corp.Corp.

Round 1 – District Ct.Round 1 – District Ct. Plaintiffs complaint alleged that the restrictions Plaintiffs complaint alleged that the restrictions

in the 1996 Act impinged on free speechin the 1996 Act impinged on free speech Prevented clients and attorneys from pursuing a Prevented clients and attorneys from pursuing a

wide number of legal options and challenging wide number of legal options and challenging Congress Congress

Velazquez motioned for a preliminary injunction Velazquez motioned for a preliminary injunction against the application of the restrictions of LSC against the application of the restrictions of LSC moneymoney

LSC countered by revising their regulations – LSC countered by revising their regulations – retreated to guidelines set forth in retreated to guidelines set forth in Rust v. Rust v. Sullivan Sullivan ,500 U.S. 173 (1991),500 U.S. 173 (1991)

Rust v. Sullivan Rust v. Sullivan ,500 U.S. 173 ,500 U.S. 173 (1991)(1991)

Supreme Court upheld as constitutional regulations Supreme Court upheld as constitutional regulations from the Department of Health and Human Services from the Department of Health and Human Services

Regulations prohibited doctors receiving Regulations prohibited doctors receiving government funds from “engaging in abortion government funds from “engaging in abortion counseling, referral, and activities advocating counseling, referral, and activities advocating abortion.”abortion.”

Rust Rust was upheld because doctors were permitted to was upheld because doctors were permitted to construct a separate building with different staff construct a separate building with different staff unassociated with the government funds through unassociated with the government funds through which they could facilitate abortion. As a result, the which they could facilitate abortion. As a result, the doctors’ first amendment right of free speech was doctors’ first amendment right of free speech was not infringed upon. not infringed upon.

Rust v. Sullivan Political Rust v. Sullivan Political CartoonCartoon

U.S. District Court for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York Eastern District of New York

continuedcontinued LSC revised regulationsLSC revised regulations

an organization who wished to continue to an organization who wished to continue to receive LSC funds only need establish an receive LSC funds only need establish an entirely separate institution, privately funded entirely separate institution, privately funded with different personnel through which to pursue with different personnel through which to pursue the prohibited legal action. the prohibited legal action.

As a result – LSC attorneys could still exercise As a result – LSC attorneys could still exercise free speech with their own moneyfree speech with their own money

District Court concluded that the new LSC District Court concluded that the new LSC regulations were sufficiently similar to a set of regulations were sufficiently similar to a set of regulations upheld as constitutional in regulations upheld as constitutional in Rust v. Rust v. SullivanSullivan. .

Velazquez Political CartoonVelazquez Political Cartoon

U.S. Court of Appeals, Second U.S. Court of Appeals, Second CircuitCircuit

Constrained by Constrained by RustRust to uphold the District Court in to uphold the District Court in partpart ““because grantees were not ‘effectively prohibit[ed] ... because grantees were not ‘effectively prohibit[ed] ...

from engaging in the protected conduct outside the scope from engaging in the protected conduct outside the scope of the federally funded program,’…there was no of the federally funded program,’…there was no unconstitutional conditions violation.”unconstitutional conditions violation.”

Translation – can not infringe upon free speech if you can still Translation – can not infringe upon free speech if you can still say/do what you want without federal fundssay/do what you want without federal funds

Overruled in part – Held that the restriction against Overruled in part – Held that the restriction against challenging existing welfare statutes or regulations challenging existing welfare statutes or regulations was unconstitutionalwas unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First

Amendment Amendment Both parties appealed the Appellate Court decision Both parties appealed the Appellate Court decision

to the Supreme Court to the Supreme Court

Supreme CourtSupreme Court

Justice Kennedy distinguishes Justice Kennedy distinguishes Rust Rust from from VelazquezVelazquez Rust Rust involved the government using private speakers to involved the government using private speakers to

transmit a specific governmental messagetransmit a specific governmental message ““When the government disburses public funds to private When the government disburses public funds to private

entities to convey a governmental message, it may take entities to convey a governmental message, it may take legitimate and appropriate steps to ensure that its message legitimate and appropriate steps to ensure that its message is neither garbled nor distorted by the grantee.”is neither garbled nor distorted by the grantee.”

However, the “LSC program was designed to facilitate However, the “LSC program was designed to facilitate private speech not to promote a governmental private speech not to promote a governmental message.”message.”

““Advice from the attorney to the client and the advocacy Advice from the attorney to the client and the advocacy by the attorney to the courts cannot be classified as by the attorney to the courts cannot be classified as governmental speech even under a generous governmental speech even under a generous understanding of the concept.”understanding of the concept.”

J. Kennedy’s OpinionJ. Kennedy’s Opinion The Court then looked to whether the restriction The Court then looked to whether the restriction

against challenging existing welfare statutes against challenging existing welfare statutes violated the First Amendmentviolated the First Amendment ““The First Amendment forbade the Government from The First Amendment forbade the Government from

using the forum in an unconventional way to suppress using the forum in an unconventional way to suppress speech inherent in the nature of the medium.”speech inherent in the nature of the medium.”

In finding the restriction to be unconstitutional, the In finding the restriction to be unconstitutional, the Court held:Court held: Congress “may not design a subsidy to effect this Congress “may not design a subsidy to effect this

serious and fundamental restriction on advocacy of serious and fundamental restriction on advocacy of attorneys and the functioning of the judiciary.”attorneys and the functioning of the judiciary.”

““The restriction imposed by the statute here threatens The restriction imposed by the statute here threatens severe impairment of the judicial function.”severe impairment of the judicial function.”

““With respect to the litigation services Congress has With respect to the litigation services Congress has funded, there is no alternative channel for expression funded, there is no alternative channel for expression of the advocacy Congress seeks to restrict.”of the advocacy Congress seeks to restrict.”

supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/images/kennedy.jpg

J. Scalia’s DissentJ. Scalia’s Dissent

In the dissent, Scalia found that In the dissent, Scalia found that Rust Rust was was controlling and the statute was controlling and the statute was constitutional.constitutional. The regulations do not “discriminate on the The regulations do not “discriminate on the

basis of viewpoint since it funds neither basis of viewpoint since it funds neither challenges to nor defenses of existing welfare challenges to nor defenses of existing welfare law. The provision simply declines to law. The provision simply declines to subsidize a certain class of litigation and subsidize a certain class of litigation and under under Rust Rust that decision ‘does not infringe that decision ‘does not infringe the fight’ to bring such litigation.”the fight’ to bring such litigation.”

““No litigant in the absence of LSC funding, No litigant in the absence of LSC funding, would bring a suit challenging existing would bring a suit challenging existing welfare law is deterred from doing so by § welfare law is deterred from doing so by § 504(a)(16).”504(a)(16).”

““Rust Rust thus controls these cases and compels thus controls these cases and compels the conclusion that § 504(a)(16) is the conclusion that § 504(a)(16) is constitutional.”constitutional.”

supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/images/scalia.jpg

J. Scalia’s DissentJ. Scalia’s Dissent

““This has been a very long discussion This has been a very long discussion to make a point that is embarrassingly to make a point that is embarrassingly simple: The LSC subsidy neither simple: The LSC subsidy neither prevents anyone from speaking nor prevents anyone from speaking nor coerces anyone to change speech, and coerces anyone to change speech, and is indistinguishable in all relevant is indistinguishable in all relevant respects from the subsidy upheld in respects from the subsidy upheld in Rust v. Sullivan, supra.Rust v. Sullivan, supra. There is no There is no legitimate basis for declaring § 504(a)legitimate basis for declaring § 504(a)(16) facially unconstitutional.” (16) facially unconstitutional.”

Supreme CourtSupreme Court

The Court ignored the Second The Court ignored the Second Circuit's specific holding and dictum Circuit's specific holding and dictum concerning the restrictions on non-concerning the restrictions on non-federal funds, leaving this question federal funds, leaving this question open for a challenge in the district open for a challenge in the district court.court.

Dobbins v. Legal Services Dobbins v. Legal Services CorporationCorporation

In December 2001, the Brennan Center filed In December 2001, the Brennan Center filed another action against LSC, the another action against LSC, the Dobbins Dobbins case.case.

The case involved several legal aid programs The case involved several legal aid programs in New York and their private donors. in New York and their private donors.

Dobbins Dobbins was consolidated into the was consolidated into the Velazquez Velazquez case and proceeded for new hearing in the case and proceeded for new hearing in the District Court.District Court.

Velazquez v. Legal Services Velazquez v. Legal Services Corp.Corp.

Round 2 – District Ct.Round 2 – District Ct. The original The original VelazquezVelazquez plaintiffs and the new plaintiffs and the new

plaintiffs in plaintiffs in DobbinsDobbins challenged the LSC program challenged the LSC program integrity requirements as-applied.integrity requirements as-applied.

Program integrity requirements by LSC require Program integrity requirements by LSC require that grant recipients “objective integrity and that grant recipients “objective integrity and independence from any organization that independence from any organization that engages in restricted activity.”engages in restricted activity.”

Requirement involves a 3 part test for the organization Requirement involves a 3 part test for the organization engaging in restricted activityengaging in restricted activity

(1)(1) Be a separate legal entity; Be a separate legal entity; (2)(2) Receive no transfer of LSC funds or subsidy from the Receive no transfer of LSC funds or subsidy from the

grantee; and grantee; and (3)(3) Be physically and financially separate.Be physically and financially separate.

District Court: Effect of Program District Court: Effect of Program Integrity RequirementsIntegrity Requirements

SBLS serves indigent civil clients in SBLS serves indigent civil clients in Brooklyn.Brooklyn.Funded: 33% by LSC and 67% by private Funded: 33% by LSC and 67% by private

and non-LSC government funding.and non-LSC government funding.Costs for operating a physical Costs for operating a physical

separate location would cost at least separate location would cost at least 8% of the annual budget8% of the annual budgetThese expenses would cause the These expenses would cause the

organization to serve 500 fewer clients. organization to serve 500 fewer clients.

District Court: Preliminary District Court: Preliminary InjunctionInjunction

““LSC shall be enjoined from LSC shall be enjoined from withholding federal funds from withholding federal funds from plaintiff-grantees and from plaintiff-grantees and from precluding plaintiff-grantees from precluding plaintiff-grantees from forming affiliates with their non-forming affiliates with their non-federal funds, provided plaintiff-federal funds, provided plaintiff-grantees comply with the terms and grantees comply with the terms and conditions of their Clarified conditions of their Clarified Proposal.” Proposal.”

Court of Appeals HoldingCourt of Appeals Holding

Lifts the preliminary injunction entered by the Lifts the preliminary injunction entered by the district court;district court;

Requires the district court to apply a different legal Requires the district court to apply a different legal standard to determine whether the burdens standard to determine whether the burdens imposed on the plaintiff legal services programs by imposed on the plaintiff legal services programs by the physical separation requirement effectively the physical separation requirement effectively deny them adequate alternative channels through deny them adequate alternative channels through which to spend their non-LSC funds on the activities which to spend their non-LSC funds on the activities prohibited by the funding restrictions; andprohibited by the funding restrictions; and

Affirms the part of the district court’s order that Affirms the part of the district court’s order that declined to overturn the specific restrictions on declined to overturn the specific restrictions on class actions, attorneys’ fee awards and public class actions, attorneys’ fee awards and public interest solicitation. interest solicitation.

Petition for CertiorariPetition for Certiorari

On October 1, 2007, the Supreme On October 1, 2007, the Supreme Court declined to review the opinion Court declined to review the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals of the United States Court of Appeals decision. decision.

The case will now return to the The case will now return to the District Court in New York to apply District Court in New York to apply the standard of review set out by the the standard of review set out by the Court of Appeals. Court of Appeals.

Future litigation against LSC Future litigation against LSC restrictionsrestrictions

Mr. Levine believes the litigation against the LSC Mr. Levine believes the litigation against the LSC restrictions will continue for the foreseeable future.restrictions will continue for the foreseeable future.

However, the future of LSC funding may well depend However, the future of LSC funding may well depend on uncontrollable Congressional cost cutting.on uncontrollable Congressional cost cutting.

Even though the Democrats may be poised to regain Even though the Democrats may be poised to regain control of the Presidency in addition to Congress, it control of the Presidency in addition to Congress, it does not guarantee increased funding or support for does not guarantee increased funding or support for LSC and the funding of legal services.LSC and the funding of legal services.

As the past shows, both Republicans (Regan As the past shows, both Republicans (Regan Administration) and Democrats (Clinton Administration) and Democrats (Clinton Administration) have been responsible for Administration) have been responsible for restrictions and cost cutting regarding LSC.restrictions and cost cutting regarding LSC.

Legal Aid Society of New Legal Aid Society of New YorkYork

Currently Chaired by Alan LevineCurrently Chaired by Alan Levine

Mission: "[The Society's] object and purpose shall be, to Mission: "[The Society's] object and purpose shall be, to render legal aid, gratuitously if necessary, to all who may render legal aid, gratuitously if necessary, to all who may appear worthy thereof and who, from poverty, are appear worthy thereof and who, from poverty, are unable to procure it." unable to procure it."

The Legal Aid Society is the oldest and largest non-for-The Legal Aid Society is the oldest and largest non-for-profit organization in the United States providing free profit organization in the United States providing free legal services for clients who cannot afford to pay for legal services for clients who cannot afford to pay for counsel. counsel.

During 2006, with a staff of some 1,400 - including During 2006, with a staff of some 1,400 - including nearly 850 lawyers and 600 social workers, investigators, nearly 850 lawyers and 600 social workers, investigators, paralegals, and support and administrative staff - the paralegals, and support and administrative staff - the Society handled 275,00 legal matters for clients with Society handled 275,00 legal matters for clients with civil, criminal, or juvenile rights legal problems. civil, criminal, or juvenile rights legal problems.

http://www.legal-aid.org

Legal Aid Society of New YorkLegal Aid Society of New York

The Society made the purposeful The Society made the purposeful choice not to accept government choice not to accept government funding.funding.

The decision was made so that there The decision was made so that there would be no restrictions placed on would be no restrictions placed on the legal services that were provided the legal services that were provided by the society. by the society.

Alan Levine’s Opinion on Alan Levine’s Opinion on meeting the demand for legal meeting the demand for legal

services for the indigentservices for the indigent Believes it should be everyone’s Believes it should be everyone’s

responsibility.responsibility.

He feels that there is plenty of individual He feels that there is plenty of individual litigation that the Federal government litigation that the Federal government could fund without lifting the restrictions could fund without lifting the restrictions currently in placecurrently in place

Also believes the state and local Also believes the state and local governments and the private bar should governments and the private bar should make up the difference that Federal make up the difference that Federal funding does not cover.funding does not cover.

Brennan Center reasons to Brennan Center reasons to remove restrictions on LSC remove restrictions on LSC

funding funding Restrictions waste precious public funds.Restrictions waste precious public funds.

Federal dollars which could help more clients Federal dollars which could help more clients are eaten up by running duplicate offices.are eaten up by running duplicate offices.

Individuals suffer because of the Individuals suffer because of the RestrictionsRestrictions People have nowhere to go to address legal People have nowhere to go to address legal

needs and whole communities go unnerved.needs and whole communities go unnerved. Restriction interferes with choices of state, Restriction interferes with choices of state,

local and private charitable donors about local and private charitable donors about how to spend their money.how to spend their money.

Reasons to Remove Reasons to Remove RestrictionsRestrictions

Restrictions makes LSC-funded Restrictions makes LSC-funded organizations less appealing to state and organizations less appealing to state and private fundersprivate funders

An easy, no-cost fix solves the problems An easy, no-cost fix solves the problems while leaving restrictions on LSC funds intactwhile leaving restrictions on LSC funds intact LSC funds are strictly accounted for and the LSC funds are strictly accounted for and the

restrictions are applicable to those fundsrestrictions are applicable to those funds Legal aid programs should be treated the Legal aid programs should be treated the

same as other non-profits.same as other non-profits. LSC-funded organizations are treated more LSC-funded organizations are treated more

stringently than most other non-profits.stringently than most other non-profits.

Effect on Prairie State Legal Effect on Prairie State Legal ServicesServices

Prairie State Legal Services, an LSC Prairie State Legal Services, an LSC funded organization stated the funded organization stated the restriction on claiming attorney fees in restriction on claiming attorney fees in successful lawsuits is a large detriment.successful lawsuits is a large detriment.The organization does not necessarily The organization does not necessarily

depend on them, but it raises the risk for depend on them, but it raises the risk for their clients. The opponent has no risk of their clients. The opponent has no risk of having to pay legal fees if they lose their having to pay legal fees if they lose their case. This becomes an issue frequently in case. This becomes an issue frequently in foreclosure cases against their clients.foreclosure cases against their clients.

Lobbying Initiatives against LSC Lobbying Initiatives against LSC RestrictionsRestrictions

National Campaign to Fix LSC's "Private National Campaign to Fix LSC's "Private Money Restriction" Money Restriction" The coalition involves leaders throughout the The coalition involves leaders throughout the

country, on the left and on the right, are country, on the left and on the right, are supporting both a federal lawsuit and a national supporting both a federal lawsuit and a national public education campaign to help low-income public education campaign to help low-income individuals and families obtain urgently needed individuals and families obtain urgently needed legal assistance.legal assistance.

Studies consistently show that only one-in-Studies consistently show that only one-in-five low-income people in America are able five low-income people in America are able to obtain legal assistance when they need it. to obtain legal assistance when they need it.

National Campaign to Fix LSC's National Campaign to Fix LSC's "Private Money Restriction""Private Money Restriction"

Groups involved in the effort:Groups involved in the effort:Over 40 members of CongressOver 40 members of CongressFaith-Based Groups and Religious Leaders Faith-Based Groups and Religious Leaders

representing around 85 million Americansrepresenting around 85 million AmericansPrisoner Reentry Advocates Prisoner Reentry Advocates Senior Groups including AARPSenior Groups including AARPHundreds of Bar Associations, Lawyers' Hundreds of Bar Associations, Lawyers'

Groups, and Non-Profits Groups, and Non-Profits Veterans GroupsVeterans Groups

Final ThoughtsFinal Thoughts

The Independent Sector, a “leadership forum The Independent Sector, a “leadership forum for charities, foundations, and corporate for charities, foundations, and corporate giving programs committed to advancing the giving programs committed to advancing the common good in America and around the common good in America and around the world,” has sounded the alarm, stating that world,” has sounded the alarm, stating that Velazquez: Velazquez: ““will have far-reaching implications that go well will have far-reaching implications that go well

beyond the funding of legal services, to the core beyond the funding of legal services, to the core principles and rights of private giving, private principles and rights of private giving, private action by charitable nonprofit organizations, and action by charitable nonprofit organizations, and the right to advocate by 501(c)(3) organizations the right to advocate by 501(c)(3) organizations with their private funds, regardless of whether with their private funds, regardless of whether they receive government funding.”they receive government funding.”