Legal Aid Society Hails Ruling Easing Restrictions on Spending

Local Legal Aid officials are cheering a recent court ruling temporarily freeing them from several congressional restrictions on how they may use private funds to provide free legal representation to the poor, including challenges to welfare reform laws.

“It’s a very significant ruling for our clients,” said Robert J. Cohen, executive director of the Legal Aid Society of Orange County, one of five agencies nationwide that challenged the restrictions. Although the restrictions affect legal aid services nationwide, the court ruling frees up only the agencies that sued.

Orange County Legal Aid handled about 20,000 cases last year, the majority involving poor women with problems ranging from custody disputes to housing problems to consumer complaints.

“It frees up about $500,000 [about 15%] of our funding to use as it was intended without these overriding federal restrictions. More importantly, it will allow us to get more involved in the health-care issues confronting our clients, and we also intend to become more involved in welfare reforms.”

But some fear the ruling from the U.S. District Court in Hawaii--the first of its kind in the nation--may bolster opponents who would eliminate all federal funds for legal aid groups nationwide. Budget hearings begin this week in Washington.

“Who knows what money is spent on what case,” said Phyllis Schlafly, a conservative political analyst who is pushing for abolishment of the 23-year-old federally funded Legal Services Corp. “If they want to engage in political activities, do it on someone else’s money, not the taxpayers’ money.”

Congress adopted new spending restrictions on legal aid caseloads last year as part of a $278-million compromise budget that included deep cuts to the Legal Services Corp., which previously distributed more than $400 million annually to legal programs for the poor nationwide.

Conservative supporters of the cuts and restrictions argued that legal aid funds had been misused in the past for liberal political purposes, such as blocking welfare reform.

The restrictions included bans on challenges to government action, representing prisoners or being involved in any litigation related to abortion. These restrictions were among those lifted by the Hawaii court.

The Legal Aid Society of Orange County joined four other groups in January to sue the Legal Services Corp. because it had agreed to the restrictions. The suit contended Congress had no right to restrict use of private and other nonfederal funds.

In the 43-page preliminary injunction issued last week, Chief Judge Alan Kay of the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii found that some of the restrictions violated constitutional tenets, such as 1st Amendment rights to associate and petition the government for redress of grievances. If the ruling is not appealed, it will stand until the issue is resolved by an upcoming full trial.

The court held that the legal aid groups had made a strong showing that enforcement of such restrictions could harm the ability of “the poor to obtain effective legal representation.”

The ruling affects only the legal aid groups bringing the lawsuit: Legal Aid Society of Hawaii, Legal Services of Northern California, San Fernando Valley Neighborhood Legal Services, Legal Aid Society of Orange County and Alaska Legal Services.

The Orange County Legal Aid Society, which also covers parts of Los Angeles County, receives about 85% of its annual $3.5-million budget from Legal Services Corp. The rest comes from private grants and nonfederal public funds.

About 10% of the Orange County cases involving government benefits, such as food stamps and Social Security payments, were affected by the restrictions, Cohen said.

The Hawaii group receives the lowest amount of federal funds of those involved in the lawsuit, with 28% of its budget coming from Legal Services Corp. The other groups receive 41% to 70% of their funds from the federal government.

Officials estimate about $250 million in nonfederal funds for legal aid groups nationwide have been affected by the restrictions.

The Legal Services Corp. is still deciding if it will appeal the ruling. A trial date has not been set.

“Do we restrict some of the activities or do we die altogether and have no services?” asked Dorothy Lohmann, a spokeswoman for Legal Services Corp. “That’s what we’re faced with dealing with.”

Cohen said the decision to pursue the legal action was “very difficult.”

“But the way we looked at it, we’re attorneys for poor people,” he said. “We’ve taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. It would be irresponsible for us to silence our clients and violate their First Amendment rights.”