Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
© 1987 by The University of Chicago
All rights reserved. Published 2000
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_9_7.html
Oregon State Bar Bulletin — JUNE 2010 |
Leveling the Field, By Janine Robben
Imagine having a prospective client come to your office —
no conflict of interest, great facts, meaningful issue —and telling
him, “Sorry, but I can’t represent you because of who you are.” Or
“because of what your issue is, even though I’m well versed in that
issue.” Or “because of the services you’ll need to address that issue,
even though I am capable of providing those services.”
Tom Matsuda, director of Legal Aid Services of Oregon (LASO),
one of the most-highly federally regulated law firms in the state,
can imagine it all too well: He and his staff live it every day.
“Since its creation in 1974, the Legal Services
Corporation (LSC) has helped many people who could not otherwise afford
lawyers, but has evoked fierce opposition,” says law professor John
Leubsdorf in a 2008 law review article on the creeping federal
regulation of the practice of law. “As a result, it has been grossly
underfunded and subjected to numerous Congressional restrictions.” He
concludes: “…forbidding [LSC] lawyers to accept many kinds of cases and
clients might not look like professional regulation, but it is.”
Matsuda gets that.
“It affects many aspects of our work,” he says of the
restrictions on the services legal aid lawyers may provide. “As a
person, as a professional, as a lawyer, it’s frustrating. Many of our
clients are in very severe crisis and yet we don’t have some tools every
other lawyer in the state has. The other lawyers may choose not to use
those tools, but it is illegal for us to use them.”
It didn’t start out this way.
In the 1930s, the Multnomah Bar Association and the
Legal Aid Committee of the Oregon State Bar established Oregon’s first
legal aid program, staffed by volunteers and operated out of the county
courthouse.
“It was the earliest version of what became the Portland office of LASO,” says Matsuda.
In 1966, the federal Office of Economic Opportunity
provided funding to support staffed legal aid programs in Multnomah,
Marion, Lane and, later, Clackamas and Washington counties.
But then in 1974, Congress created the federal LSC to
fund civil legal aid programs in all 50 states, and, writes Leubsdorf,
“promptly began to supervise” the activities of lawyers paid with LSC
dollars.
This “supervision,” says Leubsdorf, has taken two forms:
cutbacks in federal funding for these lawyers’ work, and restrictions
on what that work can be.
Of the two, says Leubsdorf, “Underfunding is the more serious
problem.”
“In 1982 and again in 1996,” he writes, “Congress
drastically reduced the funding the [LSC] received, forcing legal
services organizations to terminate representation of many clients. The
American Bar Association Ethics Committee struggled to find ways in
which these terminations could be reconciled with professional rules. In
reality, the rules on termination of services had changed for legal
services lawyers.”
The 1996 cut — 30 percent — forced cutbacks in Oregon,
including the closing of LASO’s Klamath Falls office, although it was
able to re-open in 2007.
“In 1981, LSC funding was $400 million nationwide” says
Matsuda, who has been LASO’s director for 10 years. “Adjusted for
inflation, that would be about $765 million in 2010 dollars. The 2010
LSC appropriation is $420 million.”
Matsuda says that even though the actual dollar amount
of federal funding has risen in recent years, it hasn’t kept up with
inflation and the higher poverty rate caused by the recession, and that
studies show that less than 20 percent of the civil legal needs of
Oregon’s poor are being met.
But, while Leubsdorf calls underfunding the federal
government’s biggest hammer, Matsuda says that it was a federal
restriction that forced legal aid in Oregon to split in two in 1996.
“That particular regulation says that if an organization
receives money from the LSC and from other sources, private or public,
all of those other funds are subject to the same federal restrictions,
even if the local funder disagrees,” Matsuda explains.
Those federal restrictions are no small matter.
One class of Congressional restrictions, writes
Leubsdorf, “is based not on the client or the nature of the case, but on
the services a legal services lawyer may provide. There it regulates
how lawyers may practice law, forbidding certain otherwise-lawful means
of representing clients.”
“The Supreme Court struck down one such restriction,”
Leubsdorf goes on, “reasoning that to allow legal services lawyers to
represent clients seeking welfare rights while prohibiting them from
trying to change or challenge existing law in the process was an
infringement of free speech. However, prohibitions on class actions,
legislative representation and participation in agency rulemaking remain
on the books.”
In addition, says Leubsdorf, over the years Congress has
imposed “restrictions [that] bar legal aid lawyers from representing
prisoners and most illegal aliens, even though they have long been
considered especially in need of help. Others may not receive services
in matters of abortion, desegregation, redistricting, certain evictions
of people with drug records from public housing, or assisted suicide.”
“Note that the first three of these categories concern
Constitutional rights,” he points out. “If a state’s ethics rules were
to impose such restrictions on part of the bar, it would be considered a
radical innovation.”
Matsuda says that because of the regulation that applies
all federal restrictions to nonfederal funds, “Low-income people would
be going to court without some of the critical legal tools that everyone
else has.” In 1996, he says, lawyers in Oregon said, ‘We can’t allow
that to happen.”
The legal community therefore seized upon a separate
part of that regulation — which says that if restricted work is to be
done, it has to be through a physically and legally separate entity —
and founded the Oregon
Law Center.
“Oregon was probably one of the first states to set
things up this way,” Matsuda says of the federally funded LASO and the
law center, which gets no federal LSC money and is funded through state
court filing fees,
IOLTA money and private donations. “Not every state has enough
nonfederal money to create another entity,” says Matsuda. “That’s one
way in which Oregon is really fortunate.”
Meanwhile, Matsuda hopes to see the day when federal
regulations don’t keep him and his staff from seeing clients, taking
issues and providing services just like other lawyers.
“The rule
against our seeking attorney’s fees for our clients was just overturned
by Congress, so that’s one bright spot,” he says. “We and other
plaintiffs filed federal lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of
some of the regulations on First Amendment grounds. The initial decision
was against us, but we’re hopeful about the appeal. We continue to be
hopeful that there will be a level playing field.”
© 2010 Janine Robben
2008: Globalists' Dictate Was-Is "New World Order" [NWO], What Are Those Real Words Defined Now, in 2013, Five (5) Years Going on One Hundred (100) Plus Plus Plus of the SYSTEM, Federal Reserve [Fed/FED]!
ReplyDelete1996, PAY ATTENTION TO THE ARCHITECTURE, fast forward into 2008.
ReplyDeleteHere, now, TROLLBOT$ for the NWO, and so many 'Have Nots' being killed indiscriminately as usual, on purpose, and that may be due to thousands of years of the Metzitzah b'peh SEE Cliff High Wujo and listen-listen-listen AND demand a healing of our species from intentional mutilation.