FOR SUBMISSION TO THE WASHINGTON POST
On Sunday, February 28, the Washington Post published an unsigned Opinion on its editorial page entitled “You can lose your kids, home and freedom without ever seeing a lawyer. It’s a profound injustice.” And I thought my book’s title was long! Anyway, the Opinion can be accessed at this link:
I think any recognized mainstream publication, and The Post isn’t your run-of-the-mill mainstream publication, addressing the lack of legal services available to underserved marginalized people is marvelous and long over due. And on a personal level, I was thrilled that the Opinion piece echoed many of the themes and points contained in my book, right down to the reference to King Henry VII.
As it turns, there was a link in the Opinion piece soliciting readers to submit their experiences, presumably for some future featured article or series. So I submitted the link to my website and called their attention to the book I wrote. Unsurprisingly The Post hasn’t gotten in touch with me, nor do I expect them to.
By the way, anyone and everyone with experience serving low-income client or anyone who had a legal issue but couldn’t afford an attorney should submit their experiences. As a colleague of mine once commented, “we’re (lawyers) pricing our selves out of a broad-based market.” Our pricing is unintentionally throwing gasoline on the already blazing injustice of too many people forced to fend for themselves in court.
The Opinion touched on some of the legal issues confronting low-income people. It also briefly mentioned the fiscal starvation of the Legal Services Corporation. I quibble with their depiction that LSC’s funding has remained static. In fact, because they have been essentially level funded for several years, LSC agencies throughout the country have had to confront increased operational costs and limitations on their services in the face of an ever expanding level of need.
I understand that an Editorial page has only so much space, forcing this Opinion piece to skirt past some issues. For example, public benefits is a huge legal issue impacting low-income individuals and houeholds. This one legal category impacts many of the insecurities confronting low-income individuals and families each day: housing insecurity, food insecurity, health insecurity, and general income insecurity.
Any area of public benefits is complicated for an applicant who has been denied them, or a recipient whose benefits have been terminated. These issues are rules oriented and often legally complex. Such cases can be taxing for a legal practitioner and are beyond the ken of an unsophisticated recipient whose only exposure to legal practice comes from a daily broadcast of Judge Judy.
Public benefits touch on all the issues laid out in the Opinion. And having affected individuals confront the bureaucratic mechanisms and legal precedents of a public agency is not only unfair, it is an unqualified injustice.
The same could be said about issues touching on education, Medicaid, as well as employment discharges. Any one of these issues can be complex and legally daunting. In short, if the world was ever a simple place, it no longer is.
Aside from a glancing mention about LSC funding, there was no mention as to local and state efforts to address the broad based legal needs of our indigent friends, neighbors and citizens. For instance, most states have formed an Access to Justice Commission in an effort to analyze, organize and mobilize resources to meet the needs of their underserved populations.
Unfortunately, Rhode Island is one of the few states without an ATJ Commission. As I’ve written previously in a number of forums, in 2013 Rhode Island received an $18,000 American Bar Association grant to plan and begin implementation of a Commission. It is now 2021 and we still don’t have a Commission and there’s no indication we will have one in the foreseeable future. Not only does this evidence a profound lack of leadership in the state’s legal institutions but worse, a callous disregard for Rhode Island’s underserved population.
There is no elegant resolution of this injustice. It wasn’t until Gideon v. Wainwright 50 years ago that the legal basis for the provision of attorneys to indigent criminal defendants was articulated by the United States Supreme Court. What I find equally significant to the Court’s legal reasoning is that more than 20 states filed amici briefs in support of Gideon. In large measure, this was the perfect blend of legal reasoning and leadership along with political will. Sadly, if not tragically, there is no similar leadership and will on the civil side of the law.
In closing, my book discussed the value of resources devoted by industrial nations to meet the legal needs of indigent civil litigants. It should come to nobody’s surprise that the United States ranks very low on the list. Great Britain ranks highest, but then the British had a 500 year head start.
Respectfully,
Geoffrey A. Schoos, Esq.
Comments