Q&A: With Legal Services in Trump's Crosshairs, Its President Speaks Out
ALM Media
Budget battles are nothing new for the Legal Services Corp. But it's been decades since the independent nonprofit established by Congress to fund free legal services for the poor has faced an existential threat like today.
In his 2018 budget released in May, President Donald Trump proposes giving LSC $30 million for one purpose alone: to shut itself down. The agency's current budget is $385 million, which it distributes to 133 independent legal aid organizations across the country. The groups use the money to provide legal services to more than a million low-income people victims of domestic violence seeking protection orders, seniors who've been scammed, tenants facing wrongful evictions, veterans denied benefits and more.
LSC President James Sandman who from 1995 to 2005 was Arnold & Porter's managing partner spoke with The American Lawyer about the funding challenges and the work that LSC does.
The American Lawyer: How hard is it for LSC to operate in this climate of uncertainty?
James Sandman: We're very optimistic here at LSC. That's based on the relationships we've built with Congress over time and the feedback we've gotten from Congress and others since the news originally broke in January that we were likely to be proposed for elimination.
I think there's more anxiety among our grantees, among the legal aid organizations that we fund. They're outside of Washington; they're far away. They don't have the personal experience in dealing with members of Congress that we have here in D.C. ... I try to talk to them about what my sense is of the reality on the ground here in Washington and to reassure them.
TAL: What would it mean for them if LSC's funding was eliminated?
JS: It varies by the particular legal aid program. Last year, on average, our grantees got 37 percent of their funding from LSC. But some of our grantees get 80 percent or more of their funding from us. The grantees in approximately 12 states get more than half their funding from us. The impact would depend on where you are. As a general matter, the legal aid programs in rural areas are more heavily dependent on LSC funding than in major urban areas.
TAL: The Heritage Foundation has argued that the responsibility for providing legal services to the poor belongs more appropriately to state and local officials. What's your response?
JS: First, I think there is a fundamental national interest in the rule of law and in the integrity of the justice system. We're a nation that pledges justice for all. If we're letting Americans down in that commitment, I think that should be a big concern to the federal government. If people don't have confidence in the fairness of the justice system, that's a threat to democracy.
Also, our model is a federalist model. By law, each of our grantees is required to do its own local needs assessment and to establish priorities based on their assessment of local needs.
TAL: What do statistics tell us about the number of unrepresented litigants, and how does this negatively affect our justice system?
JS: There are no national statistics by case type, but where there are local data, they're astonishing. For example, it's not uncommon in courts across the United States today for more than 90 percent of tenants in eviction cases to have no lawyer and for the vast majority of parties in family law cases to have no lawyer.
The legal system is very difficult for people to navigate without legal assistance. They confront a system largely created by lawyers for lawyers, constructed on the assumption that you have a lawyer. Everything from the language of the law to the forms you use to the rules of civil procedure to the rules of evidence were created with lawyers in mind. The system does not work as intended when you do not have legal assistance.
TAL: How do LSC and its grantees work with law firms, and why is this relationship important on all sides?
JS: By regulation, we require that our grantees devote at least 12.5 percent of their funding from LSC to what we call "private attorney involvement programs." That is, to getting the private bar involved in the service of their clients. A significant number of the cases in the legal aid programs we fund every year are handled by pro bono lawyers.
But the relationship is really mutual. The law firms and lawyers depend on robust legal aid programs to identify the clients, to screen the cases, to do the training and mentoring that lawyers require, because often they're being asked to take on cases that may be different from those they handle in their day-to-day commercial practices. It's a synergistic relationship.
TAL: Aside from survival, what are some of LSC's priorities or goals going forward?
JS: We'd like to increase our funding, because the magnitude of the unmet need is so great. We'd also like to continue to innovate.
LSC has been a national leader in the use of technology to expand the delivery of legal services by developing state-wide websites with information on the legal problems that most commonly affect low-income people; creating document assembly applications that work like Turbo Tax and allow people to complete a plain-language interview [to generate] a court-approved form for filing; the creation of checklist and to-do list videos that can be very helpful to people, particularly if they need to go into court alone.
TAL: Have you been gratified by the strong support you've been getting from the legal community in the face of the funding threats?
JS: Very much so. It's come from many quarters from big firms and small, from corporate general counsel, from throughout the United States. One of the most important expressions of support for LSC funding has come from the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators. These are the people responsible for running the state court systems across the United States. They're objective, they're impartial, they have a birds-eye view of what's going on in the justice system in the United States. ... I think their voices are critically important in understanding the significance of this issue to the integrity of our justice system.
