Justice for All--if They Can Afford It : Legal aid: Low-income people would lose recourse to the law if the House cuts this program.

An old joke ends with a lawyer saying to his client, “Well, how much justice can you afford?” There is nothing funny, however, about the reality that individuals face when something vital to their lives depends on resolving a legal dispute. When one side of a legal dispute--whether a business, a government agency, or a well-off individual--can afford legal help and those on the other side cannot, the American ideal of “equal justice under law” becomes an empty slogan. This happens in California often enough to trouble the consciences of civic and business leaders and ordinary citizens, as well as judges and lawyers.

Yet, the authorization and appropriations bills introduced in the House of Representatives propose to make matters dramatically worse. They would severely restrict or eliminate federal funding for legal aid to low-income people. Funding for the Legal Services Corp., the largest funding source for legal aid, stands at $400 million for the current fiscal year (after a recent 3% cut)--which is about $10 per low-income person. The Legal Services Corp gives grants to 325 independent, nonprofit legal-services programs across the country. These programs handle 1.5 million legal matters each year for people who are too often closed out of the justice system. The human needs served are basic: preventing domestic violence, avoiding homelessness, helping people climb out of poverty, and otherwise caring for the legal needs of poor children and seniors.

The pending proposals would, at best, allow the program to continue only with severe restrictions on funding--including private funds. But the reasons offered for these radical proposal make no sense.

To make government more efficient? No. The Legal Services Corporation spends less than 3% of its budget on administration. The remainder goes not to government at all, but to nonprofit corporations run by local boards of directors. Legal-aid programs are especially efficient because they attract dedicated lawyers to work for less than market rates. Why should we fire the least expensive, most self-sacrificing lawyers in the state? Certainly not for efficiency.

Then there’s the claim that there is too much litigation. Whether this is true, it is not a result of legal aid. For every hour legal-aid programs spend on litigation, they spend four hours teaching people how to take care of their legal problems without a lawyer, and another three hours counseling clients or negotiating with potential adversaries. Legal-aid lawyers often avoid litigation or end it early with a negotiated resolution. The elimination of legal-aid programs would increase the worst categories of litigation--defaults and one-sided, unfair losses.

The bills complain about legal-aid programs’ use of class actions and about legislative and administrative advocacy. But a class action may be the most cost-effective form of litigation: Why are 100 lawsuits better than one, where 100 people have suffered from the same illegal practice? Similarly, if legal problems affecting hundreds or thousands can be solved by legislative or administrative representation, much more costly litigation can be avoided. This could not be a valid reason to eliminate legal aid. On the contrary, the civil-law enforcement that programs accomplish by using these techniques may be among the most important and efficient work they do.

Proponents of the budget bill also criticize legal-aid lawsuits against the government. When legal-aid programs do use their scarce resources to sue the government, it is usually because bureaucrats have broken the law. Contrary to the House leadership’s usual posture, on this issue they want to take the side of bureaucrats against private individuals.

Regrettably, it is tempting to regard these proposals as a calculated exercise in the politics of “us” vs. “them.” Low-income people are, indeed, an unpopular political constituency. But no group or political constituency will be well-served if our justice system becomes even more closed to people who cannot afford to pay. Funding for legal-aid programs should be increased, not eliminated, and the Legal Services Corporation should be preserved as the most efficient vehicle for delivering and supervising this funding.