House Panel’s Vote May Seal Fate of Legal Aid Group : Law: Several controversial cases have raised the ire of conservative cost-cutters. Others say if services are slashed, the most vulnerable, including county’s migrant farm workers, will be hurt the most.

Attorney Carmen Ramirez has lost court cases before, but the verdict handed down by a congressional committee last week stings a bit more than most, affecting not just one client but Ramirez’s entire practice aiding Ventura County’s poor.

The Legal Services Corp.--which provides money to groups like Ramirez’s Channel Counties Legal Services--has been at the center of controversy for much of its 20-year existence. Last week, however, the House Judiciary Committee may have handed it a fatal blow.

Led by conservative critics of the current system, both the House and Senate are moving toward wiping out the Legal Services Corp. and replacing it with direct grants--albeit smaller ones--to the states.

The legislation would mean far less money for groups like Ramirez’s and would also drastically alter her workload by limiting the types of cases the poor could file with federal help. No more constitutional questions or class-action suits would be permitted, only cases involving landlord-tenant matters, insurance claims and other basic legal disputes.

That is already what legal aid attorneys spend most of their time on--fighting landlords who evict tenants unjustly, businesses who rip customers off and employers who take advantage of their employees.

It is not routine cases, however, that have prompted the ire of critics. Instead, they complain that some legal aid attorneys are going far beyond their original mission of providing basic legal aid to the poor.

The critics say legal aid lawyers have on occasion represented drug dealers and other criminals, attempted to overturn government statutes and engaged in lobbying--all while being paid with federal funds.

Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley), who voted for the changes before the Judiciary Committee last week, is especially upset about legal aid attorneys who have filed suit challenging Proposition 187 and taken other actions to aid illegal immigrants. He and other critics also cite a series of cases that they say indicate legal aid needs tighter control.

Take the Miami legal aid lawyer who represented a public housing tenant who was evicted after pleading guilty to drug charges. Such a drug dealer ought to be evicted, Gallegly says.

Or the Dallas legal services attorney who sought Social Security disability benefits for a convicted burglar who injured his back while breaking into a Porsche dealership. The judge threw out the case, refusing to buy the attorney’s argument that it was unconstitutional for the Social Security Administration to deny benefits for injuries sustained in the commission of a crime.

“Obviously, if they have money to fight Prop. 187 or money to help drug lords in housing projects, they either have more money than they need, or they need some focus on how to spend it,” Gallegly said.

Gallegly said he supports legal aid for the poor but believes the system needs stricter rules on how the government money can be spent.

Interest groups have other problems with the current legal aid system.

Christian organizations, for instance, complain about using taxpayer money to help people with divorces. The farming industry says legal aid attorneys are organizing migrant farm workers into unions and filing frivolous suits.

“Migrant advocacy attorneys have caused untold economic disruption and job loss in agriculture industries,” said the Farm Business Coalition, which represents California’s fruit growers.

Such talk infuriates Jose Padilla, director of California Rural Legal Assistance, which represents migrant farm workers in Ventura County and throughout the state, and is itself a recipient of federal funds.

“Abolish [California Rural Legal Assistance] and you throw 20,000 people out of the legal system,” he said. “Migrant farm workers will be free for the picking.”

Padilla cites the case of the Ventura County flower grower convicted of holding dozens of Mexican laborers in grim conditions on his property. Attorneys in Padilla’s Oxnard office exposed the abuse, prompting a $1.5-million award to the workers and conviction of rancher Edwin M. Ives for corporate racketeering and numerous labor and immigration violations.

“Farm workers living behind barbed-wire fences will continue to live there,” Padilla said. “This law will allow that sort of lawlessness. There will no longer be any kind of enforcement in rural California.”

Legal aid lawyers say the handful of off-the-wall cases rounded up by critics do not tell the real story of legal aid, which every day resolves poor people’s disputes.

“When you get past all the rhetoric, this is a blow by representatives of the rich and powerful to try to reduce the ability of the poor to exercise their rights,” said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City), one of the prime opponents of the changes. “If this is not the death knell for Legal Services, it is a very serious wound.”

Both the House and Senate are scheduled to consider the restructuring of legal aid this week. Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Woodland Hills) intends to oppose the changes when they come to the House floor, and the White House has strongly criticized the legislation, threatening to veto the changes.

The overhaul would throw out the current system, in which the Legal Services Corp. supports more than 300 designated providers across the country, including 33 in California. Instead, grants would go directly to the states based on the size of the population living below the poverty line.

States would then choose lawyers or law firms, based on bids, to handle legal aid for the poor in certain geographic areas. The contract lawyers would issue monthly bills to the state based on work records. Existing legal aid groups could compete for the bids but would receive no special preference.

That system would be around as long as the federal funds last.

The House bill proposes reducing legal aid funding from $400 million this year to $278 million next year. By 1999, the budget would fall to $100 million, with the goal of some lawmakers to end federal support for legal aid after that.

The declining federal funds would devastate the Channel Counties, which receives $750,000 of its $800,000 annual budget from the government.

But Gallegly says the funding is being reduced gradually to allow the system time to adjust. He suggests that private attorneys ought to move in to fill the gap.

“The Bar Assn. of Ventura County does pro bono work for the truly needy and that’s what should be happening more,” Gallegly said. “The federal government can’t handle it all.”

But representatives of local and national lawyers’ groups say it is unrealistic to expect private attorneys to handle all the indigent cases that now go through legal aid.

“In my estimation, there is no way the private bar can replace the professional representation offered by Channel Counties,” said Tom Hinkle, president of the Ventura County Bar Assn. Hinkle’s group has passed a resolution opposing the changes and met with Gallegly’s staff to make its case.

Besides the reduced funding, legal aid attorneys are also deeply concerned about the future limits on their work, especially the restrictions on class-action lawsuits and the ability to challenge the government.

Two decades ago, Channel Counties forced the Oxnard School District to bus its children to provide better racial balance in the district. California Rural Legal Assistance has successfully petitioned the city of Oxnard to print in Spanish as well as English the cards residents must fill out before speaking at government meetings.

Such actions are considered liberal activism, not legal aid, under the new rules.

“Our program represents the people who don’t have any other access to the courts,” said a frustrated Ramirez, who is already turning clients away from her Oxnard offices because of the impending budget cuts. “If that’s pushing the liberal agenda, then I’m pushing the liberal agenda.”