U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

53–091 PDF 2010

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 27, 2009 

Serial No. 111–59 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JUDY CHU, California 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

DANIEL MAFFEI, New York 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee, Chairman 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

DANIEL MAFFEI, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JUDY CHU, California 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

MICHONE JOHNSON, Chief Counsel 

DANIEL FLORES, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OCTOBER 27, 2009 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Tennessee, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law ........................................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law .................................................................................................. 2 

The Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Virginia, and Member, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law .................................................................................................. 4 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Michael D. McKay, Vice Chairman of the Board, Legal Services Corporation 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 8 

Ms. Helaine M. Barnett, President, Legal Services Corporation 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 13 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 16 

Mr. Harrison D. McIver, III, Executive Director/CEO, Memphis Area Legal 

Services, Inc. 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 40 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 43 

Mr. Donald Saunders, Director of the Civil Legal Services Division, National 

Legal Aid and Defender Association 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 52 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 54 

Mr. H. Thomas Wells, Jr., Immediate Past President, American Bar Association 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 66 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 68 

Ms. Susan Ragland, Director, Financial Management and Assurance Team, 

Government Accountability Office 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 79 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 81 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Henry C. ‘‘Hank’’ Johnson, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia, and Member, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law ......................................... 5 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Answers to Post-Hearing Questions from Michael D. McKay, Vice Chairman 

of the Board, Legal Services Corporation .......................................................... 106 

Page

IV 

Answers to Post-Hearing Questions from Helaine M. Barnett, President, 

Legal Services Corporation ................................................................................. 111 

Answers to Post-Hearing Questions from Harrison D. McIver, III, Executive 

Director/CEO, Memphis Area Legal Services, Inc. ............................................ 115 

Answers to Post-Hearing Questions from Donald Saunders, Director of the 

Civil Legal Services Division, National Legal Aid and Defender Association 120 

Answers to Post-Hearing Questions from H. Thomas Wells, Jr., Immediate 

Past President, American Bar Association ........................................................ 133 

Answers to Post-Hearing Questions from Susan Ragland, Director, Financial 

Management and Assurance Team, Government Accountability Office ......... 136 

Letter from Alan Reuther, Director, CWA-UAW Alliance ................................... 141 

Prepared Statement of Rebekah Diller, Deputy Director, Justice Program, 

on behalf of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law ............... 143 

OFFICIAL HEARING RECORD 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD BUT NOT REPRINTED

Reports submitted with the prepared statement of Rebekah Diller, Deputy Director, 

Justice Program, on behalf of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of 

Law. The reports are entitled ‘‘Foreclosures: A Crisis in Legal Representation,’’ 

and ‘‘A Call to End Federal Restrictions on Legal Aid for the Poor.’’ These reports 

are available at the Subcommittee and can also be accessed at, respectively: 

http://brennan.3cdn.net/a5bf8a685cd0885f72ls8m6bevkx.pdf 

http://brennan.3cdn.net/7e05061cc505311545l75m6ivw3x.pdf 

(1) 

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION 

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL

AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:07 a.m., in 

room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Steve 

Cohen (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Cohen, Watt, Lofgren, Scott, Chu, 

Franks, Jordan, Coble, and King. 

Staff present: (Majority) Norberto Salinas, Counsel; Adam Russell, Professional Staff; and (Minority) Justin Long, Counsel. 

Mr. COHEN. This hearing of the Committee on Judiciary, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law is called to 

order. 

Without objection, the Chair will be authorized to call a recess 

during the hearing. 

And I will now recognize myself for a short statement. 

This morning, we meet to discuss the Legal Services Corporation. 

Congressionally established in 1974, the LSC is a private, non-profit corporation which promotes equal access to justice under the law 

by providing grants to programs for civil legal assistance for lowincome persons. 

The programs which receive these grants help the most vulnerable, specifically those living at or below 125 percent of the Federal 

poverty level. The grantee programs help those who face a variety 

of matters, including displaced persons attempting to obtain Federal emergency assistance following hurricanes or floods or earthquakes, if they should happen, and victims of predatory lending 

practices. 

During this economic downturn, the grantee programs have 

played an even more significant role. The programs have provided 

legal assistance to families and individuals to obtain public benefits 

and to fend off foreclosures in their personal lives. 

Because LSC distributes more than 95 percent of its total funding to over 135 legal aid programs, providing legal assistance in 

every congressional district, we can be sure that many of those in 

need are receiving legal assistance. However, according to a recent 

report, not all eligible potential clients of LSC-funded programs 

were receiving the legal assistance they so desperately need. 

2 

In Memphis, my hometown, the Memphis Area Legal Services 

handled nearly 5,600 cases in 2008. Both the downturn in the economy and the resulting increase in requests for legal representation, 

the Memphis Area Legal Services has handled over 4,500 cases 

through the first 6 months of this year. That would extrapolate to 

9,000 cases, or an increase of about 40 percent, at least. 

I am very interested in hearing why LSC-funded programs have 

been unable to meet the needs of half of all the potential clients 

that have walked through the office doors and how that problem 

could be resolved. What avenues are available for families and individuals to seek legal assistance, but cannot obtain them from the 

LSC-funded programs? 

I served for a brief period of time as a general sessions judge in 

Shelby County, and Legal Services often represented people who 

otherwise would have been taken advantage of by landlords. And 

it was important that the Allied Legal Services will be available to 

represent individuals or else they would not have been treated fairly and justly. So I have seen it firsthand. 

Since the Subcommittee’s last hearing on Legal Services in 2005, 

Legal Services and some of its grantees have received criticism for 

inappropriate use of Federal funds, and other criticisms, as well, 

have been heard. Members of this Subcommittee want to know that 

taxpayer money is being used efficiently and appropriately and 

that anyone who violates taxpayers’ trust is held accountable. 

There are special places held for people who steal from the poor. 

We seem to have some type of reverence in our society for people 

like Jesse James, who steal from the rich, but not for those who 

steal from the poor. 

Although we have Ms. Barnett and Mr. McKay here to discuss 

what LSC is doing to improve accountability and proper use of Federal funds, we also welcome Susan Ragland from the General Accounting Office, to give us some information and help us determine 

whether LSC has implemented measures to protect against misuse 

of Federal funds and protect those funds entrusted to them for the 

benefit of people who need that help. 

Finally, Mr. Scott, distinguished Member of the Subcommittee 

and chairman of the Criminal Law section, has recently introduced 

the Civil Access to Justice Act of 2009, legislation which several 

Members of this Subcommittee, including myself, have co-sponsored. The bill would authorize an increase in funding for the Legal 

Services Corporation, strengthen Legal Services, internal controls 

and corporate governance, and allow LSC-funded programs to utilize non-Federal funds more efficiently. Mr. Scott has a special concern, and I appreciate that. Hopefully, the witnesses will be able 

to address this legislation, as well. 

Accordingly, I look forward to receiving today’s testimony, and I 

now recognize Mr. Franks, the distinguished Ranking Member of 

the Subcommittee, for his opening remarks. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

folks for being here. I know it is always a pretty heart-stopping 

challenge sometimes to come before a bunch of Members of Congress that know a lot less about the issues than you do and yet 

have to say some of the things they have to say, but I appreciate 

you being here. 

3 

Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to renew our oversight 

of the Legal Services Corporation. I don’t think any hearings have 

been held on this topic since at least the beginning of the 110th 

Congress, and I think this oversight is long overdue. 

And I say this because we know that LSC has had a troubling 

history of mishandling Federal funds. And this has been revealed 

by reports from LSC’s inspector general and the GAO and has been 

pursued in various news articles, as well. 

It is also clear that this historical pattern hasn’t stopped yet. To 

the contrary, troubles continue even to this year. As recently as 

July, the Washington Times and CBS News reported numerous instances of wasted funds, including unnecessary travel expenses and 

a decorative wall costing over $180,000. 

In July, LSC’s inspector general reported problems with the organization’s consulting contracts. And as we speak, the GAO is in the 

middle of preparing its third report on LSC in as many years. 

Our witnesses today undoubtedly will cite structural and other 

changes being implemented by LSC in an effort to bring it into 

compliance with recommendations in the most recent GAO and inspector general reports, and I do applaud those efforts, of course. 

At the same time, I am sincerely concerned over pending legislation that would vastly expand LSC’s funding and lift restrictions on 

its activities before we know definitively that LSC has cleaned 

house and turned the page. 

How can we trust that the most recent fixes at the corporation 

will be any more effective than LSC’s past fixes, given the fact that 

GAO and the inspector general keep coming back and finding more 

problems that need fixing on an ongoing basis? 

Doesn’t logic dictate that we wait and watch vigilantly at least 

another year or 2 to see if funding at current levels is used properly before we reward LSC with another increase in annual funds, 

this time from $390 million in 2009 to $440 million in 2010, and 

doesn’t logic demand that we refrain from lifting restrictions on 

how LSU—I am sorry, LSC can use the funds? 

In March of this year, Senator Tom Harkin introduced a bill that 

would lift restrictions on the ability of LSC grantees to file ideologically motivated lawsuits. Our colleague, Congressman Scott, introduced similar legislation, H.R. 3764, this month in the House. 

These restrictions were enacted by Congress in 1996 in response 

to evidence that Legal Services lawyers were systematically using 

taxpayers’ money to further partisan policies. I guess that troubles 

me as much as anything, Mr. Chairman. 

The restrictions ban representation—I am sorry, the restrictions 

ban representation of undocumented aliens, abortion-related litigation, class-action lawsuits, prisoner advocacy, challenges to the welfare reform, and congressional restricted redistricted cases. 

Not only do they keep LSC out of the partisan arena, they focused LSC on what should have always been its true mission, and 

that is to provide legal aid to the poor. Given that these restrictions, however, Legal Services lawyers funded by LSC have attempted to use Federal funds to engage in prohibited activism. 

As recently as 2008, for example, LSC’s inspector general subpoenaed California Rural Legal Assistance to see if it had violated the 

restriction on representing undocumented aliens. The National 

4 

Legal and Policy Center reported this year that a ‘‘former CRLA 

lawyer said the organization had a policy of providing aid to illegal 

aliens.’’ 

Now, Mr. Chairman, evidence like this, misuse of Federal funds, 

should stop before we reward LSC with increased funds, though it 

will probably take another year before LSC’s 130-plus grantee 

boards receive even orientation on modernized auditing practices. 

And it is absurd that Congress is considering giving LSC more 

money and more ways to misuse its money at this particular time. 

Oversight and not increased funding and lifted restrictions is 

what is needed today and in the foreseeable future. Until LSC has 

proven over a sustained period of time that its funds are no longer 

being used for partisan activism, we should not consider rewarding 

LSC with increased funds and lifted restrictions. 

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COHEN. I thank the gentleman for his statement. 

I now recognize Mr. Scott, the Chairman of the Crime Subcommittee and a particularly knowledgeable person on this issue 

who has a bill before us on the LSC. 

Mr. Scott, you are recognized. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important 

hearing on the Legal Services Corporation. 

I have long been a supporter of legal assistance to indigent persons and for LSC dating back to the 1970’s when I led the effort 

to establish the legal aid program on the Virginia peninsula and 

became the first chairman of the board of the Peninsula Legal Aid 

Center, which is funded by the LSC. 

The Legal Services Corporation was established by Congress in 

1974 to provide legal assistance for those with low income in civil 

matters. The LSC directs and supervises the Federal grants and 

local legal services providers, and over the years, the Legal Services Corporation has been stripped of many of its most effective 

tools to give those who need the help—give help to those who need 

it the most. 

Specifically, there have been restrictions placed on the use of 

Federal and non-Federal funds that have limited the types of cases 

that Legal Services attorneys can bring, and the funds appropriated for LSC are insufficient to meet the needs of their clients. 

Unfortunately, the corporation has not been re-authorized since 

1977. 

For these reasons, I introduced the Civil Access to Justice Act of 

2009, which reauthorizes the Legal Services Corporation. The bill 

will provide relief to those who need civil legal representation by 

accomplishing several goals. 

First, it increases the authorization level for the LSC to $750 

million. This is approximately the same amount, adjusted for inflation, appropriated in 1981. LSC is currently funded at $390 million, which in current dollars is well below the amount needed to 

respond to significant requests for Legal Services. 

The bill also lifts most of the restrictions placed on the program 

through the appropriations bills over the years, including the restriction on collecting attorney’s fees and prohibition on legal aid 

attorneys bringing class-action suits. The bill does maintain the 

prohibition on abortion-related litigation and incorporates some 

5 

limits on whom the LSC-funded programs can represent, including 

the prohibition against representing prisoners challenging prison 

conditions and people convicted of illegal drug possession in public 

housing eviction proceedings. 

The bill also provides for more effective administration of LSC. 

Recent GAO reports emphasized the need for better corporate oversight and governance. The bill seeks to improve corporate practices 

of LSC. 

I would like to thank the current co-sponsors of the bill, including Chairman Conyers and Chairman Cohen, and former Chairs of 

the Subcommittee, Congresswoman Sa ́nchez and Congressman 

Watt and Congressman Delahunt and Johnson for their leadership 

on this issue. We look forward to working with the LSC and civil 

legal advocacy groups as we move forward to its markup and ultimately passage of the bill in the House. 

And, again, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the witnesses’ testimony. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Scott. I appreciate your statement. 

Without objection, other Members’ opening statements will be 

submitted and included in the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA, AND MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Chairman Cohen, Thank you for holding this important hearing. I am glad that 

CAL is taking the opportunity to look at the role that the Legal Services Corporation plays in ensuring that all Americans have access to justice. 

In this current economic climate, it is vitally important to make sure that the 

funding that Legal Services Corporation receives is not placed on the backburner 

as a means to cut costs, as in these difficult economic times the importance of their 

work will only grow. Recent statistics indicate that for each client that the legal 

services corporation takes on, one eligible client is turned away due to inadequate 

resources. This means that an overwhelmingly large percentage of the legal needs 

of low income Americans are being unmet. Adequate legal representation can be 

costly, often forcing individuals to represent themselves, pro se. Pro se civil litigants 

represent a significant and growing burden on a judicial system which is not wellequipped to deal with them. Unsophisticated and inexperienced pro se litigants complicate the process and burden the entire system by complicating not only their own 

cases but by increasing the burden and transaction costs of other parties, represented or not. 

Thus, it is imperative that we consider not only the costs of increasing the Legal 

Service Corporation’s funding, but more importantly what costs we will face if we 

do not support them. Not only will we clog the judicial system, we essentially ensure 

a great miscarriage of justice by forcing litigants to go pro se. To suggest that that 

pro bono legal services or volunteers can begin to address the tremendous legal 

needs of low income Americans is unrealistic. This need exists amongst each of our 

constituencies across this country. Therefore, I implore my colleagues on this subcommittee to consider these needs as we hear testimony from the witnesses today. 

I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you. 

Mr. COHEN. I thank all the witnesses for participating in today’s 

hearing. Your written statements, without objection, will be placed 

into the record, and we would ask you limit your remarks to 5 minutes. We have got a lighting system. Green means you are in the 

first four; yellow means you are winding down to your last minute; 

and red means you should have finished. 

6 

After you have presented your statement testimony, Subcommittee Members will be permitted to ask questions, same 5- 

minute limit. 

Now, I am pleased to introduce our witnesses for our first panel. 

And our first witness will be Mr. McKay. Mr. McKay is on the 

board of the Legal Services Corporation and serves as vice chair. 

He was confirmed in 2003, long and commendable record with 

Legal Services, is a founding partner of McKay Chadwell legal corporation, a practice which focuses on commercial litigation, whitecollar criminal defense, and corporate and government internal investigations. 

We appreciate—and you were a former U.S. attorney, as well? 

Mr. MCKAY. I was, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COHEN. Yes. Thank you. And we welcome you as our witness. 

Well, I have got a second page which still says that you served 

as U.S. attorney for the western district of Washington from 1989 

to 1993. And then in 2008, hired by the Port of Seattle to serve as 

legal counsel for special investigative committee’s investigation of 

important contracting policies, run numerous political campaigns, 

and I won’t go into those, for none of those were successful or ones 

that we would like to talk about too much. 

Thank you, Mr. McKay. Will you proceed with your testimony? 

[Laughter.] 

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL D. McKAY, VICE CHAIRMAN OF 

THE BOARD, LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION 

Mr. MCKAY. Chairman Cohen, Congressman Franks, Members of 

the Subcommittee, good morning. It is my pleasure to be with you 

today. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing and for your 

interest in LSC and the provision of civil legal assistance to lowincome Americans. 

I bring you greetings from our entire bipartisan board. Each 

board member is eager to do the right thing for the people we serve 

and understands that providing civil legal assistance to low-income 

citizens is quite important. 

As you have noted from my resume, I was honored to be the 

United States attorney for the western district of Washington in 

Seattle under President George H.W. Bush, and I currently have 

a practice in Seattle with McKay Chadwell. 

And a few of our cases do end up on the front pages of the Seattle newspapers, like the Port of Seattle case you just referenced, 

Mr. Chairman. However, some of my most rewarding cases have 

been the least publicized. 

I had the opportunity to represent a public housing tenant whose 

case I took through our local volunteer lawyer services office many 

years ago. She endured harassment, broken windows, and physical 

violence at the hands of her neighbors. When the police came to investigate, language barriers led them to believe her attackers. She 

was evicted and brought up on criminal charges. 

I took her case pro bono, and the charges were ultimately 

dropped, and she was moved into another housing unit far from 

7 

her attackers. Without pro bono legal assistance, women like her 

would be out on the street. 

Mr. Chairman, I feel so strongly about the obligation of all attorneys to contribute to equal justice that I continued to take cases 

pro bono while I was a United States attorney. Those of us that 

do this know just how gratifying it is, but we also know how great 

the need is in our society for legal aid. Government has a role in 

this. Proper levels of funding, as well as leadership and oversight, 

are necessary if we are to ensure equal access to justice for all 

Americans. 

The recently released report on the justice gap in America, about 

which President Barnett will be speaking today, makes clear that 

legal aid has never been more in need of resources. In today’s economic downturn, more women are victims of domestic violence, 

more elderly Americans are being wrongfully evicted from their 

homes, more children are at risk, and half of our eligible clients are 

being turned away from the legal assistance they need to protect 

themselves. 

The LSC board of directors over the last several years has 

worked hard to increase more private attorney involvement and 

has recommended increases in LSC funding to help meet that need. 

We sincerely appreciate the bipartisan support our requests have 

received. 

Equally important, as Congressman Franks has indicated, of 

course, is the proper use of those funds that Congress has entrusted to our stewardship. And we consider this a central mission 

for the board and entire management. 

And prompted by two GAO reports, we have worked to strengthen our governance practices, improve our oversight, and to work 

with management to improve management practices. We adopted 

a code of ethics. We train all employees every year on the code of 

ethics, and we included an orientation for the new employees. 

We created a new audit committee. We created an ad hoc committee to make sure that all the GAO recommendations are being 

faithfully executed. For the fifth consecutive year, we received an 

opinion from outside auditors that our financial statements fairly 

present the financial position of LSC. 

Oversight and emphasis on compliance with proper financial 

management practices has continued to be a priority for the board. 

We receive ongoing advice from the I.G., whose charge, of course, 

is to find and deter waste, fraud and abuse, and the I.G. is playing 

an essential role, and we appreciate working with him. 

Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me say again what a privilege it 

is to be here today and an honor it has been to work with my board 

colleagues to support the mission of the Legal Services Corporation. 

My career has been about ensuring that the rule of law is properly 

carried out in this country and that all attorneys do their part to 

fulfill the promise of equal justice under the law. 

And I will be happy to answer any questions that you might 

have. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McKay follows:] 

8 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL D. MCKAY


MDM-1.eps
9 


MDM-2.eps
10 


MDM-3.eps
11 


MDM-4.eps
12 


MDM-5.eps
13 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. McKay. I appreciate your service 

and your testimony. 

Our next witness is Ms. Helaine Barnett, appointed president of 

the Legal Services Corporation in January 2004, first legal aid attorney to serve as president of the LSC. Under her leadership, the 

LSC has emphasized strategies to enhance the quality of legal services provided by LSC programs. The centerpiece has been the revision of LSC’s performance criteria. 

Before joining LSC, she devoted her entire 37-year professional 

career providing legal services to the indigent with the Legal Aid 

Society of New York City, the oldest and largest Legal Services organization in the country, for nearly 3 decades involved in managing the society’s multi-office civil division, which she headed from 

1994 to the end of 2003 when she assumed this position. 

Under her watch, the division earned universal respect for its 

legal work, adherence to the highest professional and ethical standards, innovative projects, and disaster response plans to coordinate 

delivery of critical assistance to New Yorkers in the aftermath of 

the September 11 attacks. 

Ms. Barnett, we appreciate your appearance and your service. 

And would you please proceed with your testimony? 

TESTIMONY OF HELAINE M. BARNETT, PRESIDENT, 

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION 

Ms. BARNETT. Thank you, Chairman Cohen, Congressman 

Franks, and Members of the Subcommittee. 

Thank you for holding this hearing and providing the Legal Services Corporation with the opportunity to discuss the continuing justice gap facing our Nation and the importance of civil legal assistance to low-income individuals and families across this country. 

It is my privilege to appear before you with Mike McKay, the distinguished vice chairman of the corporation’s board of directors and 

a longtime champion of pro bono services for low-income persons 

with pressing civil legal problems. I share the sentiments he expressed about holding LSC and its programs to the highest standards. 

Low-income Americans come to civil legal aid programs when 

they need assistance to help them escape an abusive relationship, 

to gain access to health care, food, disability benefits, to prevent 

foreclosure and eviction that may lead to homelessness. 

Ensuring that the poor are adequately represented in the civil 

justice system greatly improves their chances of keeping or securing basic necessities, the keys to stability and self-sufficiency. It 

also keeps communities healthy. 

With millions of Americans falling deeper into poverty because of 

the economic recession, and millions more slipping into poverty for 

the first time, the work of LSC-funded programs is more critical 

than ever before. Many of the 137 nonprofit programs funded by 

LSC are increasingly involved in foreclosure cases, and they frequently involve allegations of predatory lending. 

For example, Community Legal Services in Phoenix has established a foreclosure law project to help homeowners and participates in a volunteer lawyers program, which recruits and trains 

14 

pro bono attorneys to help low-income homeowners at risk of losing 

their homes. 

Our foreclosure projects reflect the difficult economic times facing 

our Nation. The magnitude of our challenge can be seen in new 

Census Bureau data. Close to 54 million people, including 18.5 million children, are eligible for LSC-funded services, according to the 

Census Bureau. That represents a 1-year increase of almost 3 million. 

With unemployment projected to peak at above 10 percent, LSC 

will see another increase in the number of poor people eligible for 

legal services when the census issues its 2009 estimate. It is important to note that three out of four clients at LSC-funded programs 

are women, and many of them are struggling to keep their families 

together and their children safe. 

Many programs have domestic violence projects, including Memphis Area Legal Services. In one of its cases, the Memphis program 

represented the mother of three children who was trapped in an 

abusive relationship with her estranged husband. Although she 

had left him, he stalked her, harassed her, and vandalized her 

property. After being convicted for aggravated assault and burglary, but before sentencing, he taunted her by claiming he could 

deny her a divorce. 

With the assistance of the Memphis program, the woman was 

able to obtain the divorce and is raising her children in a stable 

home, free of abuse and violence. 

The challenge confronting the Nation in providing equal access 

to justice is urgent. As you and Members of the Subcommittee 

know, LSC recently issued a report on the justice gap, the difference between the level of civil legal assistance available to lowincome Americans and the level that is necessary to meet their 

needs. 

The 2009 justice gap report updates and expands the first report, 

released by the corporation in 2005. The data collected in 2009 confirmed the earlier conclusion that there continues to be a major gap 

between the civil legal needs of low-income people and the legal 

help that they receive. 

For every client served by an LSC-funded program, one person 

who sought help is turned down because of insufficient resources. 

In one category, foreclosures, LSC-funded programs are turning 

away two people for every client served. Programs are also meeting 

less than half of the requests for assistance with employment and 

family law matters. 

There are people walking through the doors of our programs who 

never imagined that they would find themselves in need of legal 

help. Many have lost their homes and their jobs, their unemployment benefits are running out, and they have no place to turn. 

Their only hope is for justice, and it should not be denied. 

Our study shows that, regrettably, many of these same people 

walk out those same doors with no relief. It is a heartbreaking scenario played out much too often throughout our country. Just as 

the recession has impacted clients, it has also put more strain on 

the resources that support civil legal aid programs. Many States 

are confronted by budget shortfalls, and the drop in short-term inVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 Mar 09, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\COMM\102709\53091.000 HJUD1 PsN: 53091
15 

terest rates to virtually zero has eroded the second-largest source 

of legal aid funding, interest on lawyer trust accounts, or IOLTA. 

Numerous LSC programs project they will receive significantly 

less IOLTA funding this coming year and will struggle to maintain 

staff and services. It is clear that the support of the Congress is 

even more vital than before. Closing the justice gap will require a 

multifaceted approach that includes increasing pro bono, expanding 

partnerships, and promoting technology investments that expand 

access to justice. 

For those millions of low-income Americans who are trying to 

keep a roof over their heads, who are trying to escape an abusive 

or life-threatening relationship, who are trying to keep their families together and safe, civil legal assistance is not just an abstract 

concept, but a vital service rendered at a critical moment in their 

lives. This is the essential mission that LSC and our programs 

across the country strive to fulfill every single day. 

Thank you. And I would be pleased to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Barnett follows:] 

16 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HELAINE M. BARNETT


HMB-1.eps
17 


HMB-2.eps
18 


HMB-3.eps
19 


HMB-4.eps
20 


HMB-5.eps
21 


HMB-6.eps
22 


HMB-7.eps
23 


HMB-8.eps
24 


HMB-9.eps
25 


HMB-10.eps
26 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you for your testimony. 

I will start with questioning, and I will be first. And my first 

question will be for Mr. McKay, who I will mention, before my 

questioning, who was the Washington State vice chair of the 1988, 


HMB-11.eps
27 

2000, and 2004 Bush campaigns and co-chair of the steering committee of the McCain 2008 campaign. So his bona fides have been 

well described here. 

You believe that the additional—do you believe that the additional monies that are being appropriated or proposed to be appropriated for LSC are needed in these economic times? 

Mr. MCKAY. I do. And, first, Mr. Chairman, not to rub salt in 

anyone’s wounds, you neglected to point out that I was the State 

vice chair for President Bush in 2000 and 2004, as well. [Laughter.] 

Yes, we do. The justice gap report, which we have provided you, 

shows that 50 percent of low-income people who come to our grantees asking for help are turned away. The State studies show an 

even larger number of people who have needs who do not ask for 

help simply because they just don’t think they are going to get it. 

Clearly, we need more help. 

I firmly believe, as I indicated in my opening statement, that 

more private attorneys need to donate their time. But even if they 

do, we will still need help. So the answer is, if at least 50 percent 

of low-income people who need legal assistance are turned away, 

that we do need additional help. 

I do want to hasten to add, because I want to echo Congressman 

Franks’ comments, that an important facet of the budgetary request includes an increase of the number of individuals in our Office of Compliance and Enforcement to make sure that the congressional restrictions as they now exist are faithfully executed. And 

that is an important part of our budgetary request. 

Mr. COHEN. Let me ask you this, and it is important. Ms. 

Ragland in her written testimony is going to suggest that all of the 

GAO’s recommendations have not been implemented. Can you comment on why they haven’t? 

Mr. MCKAY. I certainly can, and it is something that we as a 

board—and I believe management—have taken very, very seriously. Immediately upon the issuance of the first GAO audit, we 

created an ad hoc committee to make sure they are faithfully executed. 

There are quite a few of the recommendations that have been 

completed from the GAO’s perspective. Others have not, for a series 

of reasons. One is, as I understand it—and, of course, Ms. Ragland 

can speak for herself, but I did call her yesterday to make sure 

that what I am about to say is accurate, is that sometimes these 

things take longer. They cannot be done right away. And I believe 

Mr. Ragland will confirm that the pace that we are addressing 

these recommendations is appropriate under the circumstances. 

And also, one last point. We may have said, all right, we are 

going to do this, and we have adopted a policy to do it. I believe 

GAO’s position is, ‘‘We see you have adopted the policy. We want 

to make sure you do it.’’ So it isn’t completed yet because they want 

to watch us for a while to make sure that that policy that we have 

adopted in response to the GAO is faithfully executed. I can assure 

you, Mr. Chairman, and everyone on the Committee that that is 

being done. 

Mr. COHEN. Let me ask you this. Mr. Franks mentioned something about LSC agencies going beyond their charters in dealing 

with everything but ACORN. Are there provisions that you know 

28 

of that can give us some assurances that those type of things won’t 

occur in the future? 

Mr. MCKAY. Well, the policies are certainly in place. We have 

staff that goes out to make sure this doesn’t happen. We need more 

staff to go out and make sure it doesn’t happen. 

It will serve two purposes. One, we will catch those who do it. 

And if we have a larger compliance staff, it will also serve as a 

deterence, because those few grantees that violate our regulations 

know they are eventually going to get caught. And if we get a larger staff, we are going to catch them sooner. 

So the assurance is, number one, yes, the policies are in place. 

We have staffs that are trying to enforce those policies. We would 

appreciate more staff to look at more grantees to make sure they 

are faithfully enforced. 

Mr. COHEN. Ms. Barnett’s contract ends at the end of this calendar year. Where is the board in finding her replacement? 

Mr. MCKAY. We have a committee that has been created to address the interim president question. We respect the fact that there 

is a new Administration and that this Administration is nominating a new board. And we think it is the new board’s responsibility to find a new president. We think it is our obligation to fulfill 

our fiduciary duties to make sure there is an interim president in 

place by January 1. 

Mr. COHEN. The Senate confirmed one nomination to the board, 

and they also—last week, the HELP committee approved five pending nominations, a total of six new members, which would be a majority. Do you presently have a full complement of members to do 

your—— 

Mr. MCKAY. I don’t believe—I think we are short one. 

Mr. COHEN. Just one? 

Mr. MCKAY. Oh, yes. Short—just one, then? Yes, just one. Lillian 

BeVier has resigned, so we are short one right now. 

Mr. COHEN. Okay. Thank you, sir. My time has—— 

Mr. MCKAY. I am sorry. I am told we lost one who is deceased, 

and so there are actually two vacancies right now. 

Mr. COHEN. I appreciate your responses. 

And I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Franks, for his 

5-minute questioning. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, again, thank you both for being here. 

Ms. Barnett, I am told, during your tenure as LSC president, 

that you have changed the process by which LSC staff can request 

legal opinions from OLA. And is it true that LSC staff now must 

submit to requests for legal opinions to the executive management 

team, in other words, not allowed to go directly to OLA? And does 

LSC executive management now decide whether the legal opinion 

request is submitted to OLA? And if there were changes, what 

were the reasons for those changes? 

Ms. BARNETT. Congressman Franks, I saw a story in the Washington Times this morning that seems to allude to what you are 

asking. We have responded to Senator Grassley in July indicating 

that we have robust discussions about legal opinions that affect our 

program, as I think many Federal agencies, government agencies 

and private institutions, do. 

29 

However, general counsel is all—indicates and issues opinions to 

which he agrees. We do not in any way tell him what to issue. In 

fact, general counsel is right here behind me, very experienced, and 

I suggest that he would be the most appropriate—— 

Mr. FRANKS. Ms. Barnett, it is your testimony that OLA has 

been allowed to issue final opinions without the approval, I mean, 

of the executive time, and specifically you, the LSC president. Can 

they issue these things with or without your approval? 

Ms. BARNETT. I don’t give approval. We have robust discussions 

at executive team meetings on certain opinions that are requested 

and affect our programs and the clients we serve. Ultimately, the 

decision of what should be in that opinion is up to general counsel, 

and in no way do we influence what his ultimate decision is. 

And the general counsel reports both to me and to the board and 

if there is an another avenue, if there was any thought that the 

general counsel was not doing his job independently. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Ms. Barnett. 

I wanted to, if I could, return to Mr. McKay. Mr. McKay, you 

know, I know you understand that there is a debate within Congress as to exactly what the funding levels and exactly what the 

mission of the organization that you work with should be, but I 

think that one thing should be agreed upon by all of us, and that 

is that top-tier funding of a Legal Services outreach shouldn’t be 

allowed to try to make partisan legal battles in order to shake the 

political culture, that they should primarily focus on helping the 

underserved, those who can’t afford legal representation for themselves. 

I mean, I am hoping that you agree with that. 

Mr. MCKAY. Absolutely. 

Mr. FRANKS. And do you think that, in the future, what can we 

do to try to make sure that Legal Services focuses on its primary 

duty, which is to give legal services and aid to the poor? 

Mr. MCKAY. The kind of cases you are referring to have happened over the years, quite a while ago. If any occur now, they are 

pretty quickly rooted out by either our compliance team or the I.G. 

There is no one who is more opposed to political cases being 

brought by LSC grantees than me, mainly because I know of how 

many families are being wrongfully evicted, that may be deprived 

of legal services because these political cases are being brought. 

But to my knowledge, these kinds of cases haven’t been brought for 

quite some time. 

Mr. FRANKS. And under your tenure in the future, that would be 

something that you would be very vigilant about? 

Mr. MCKAY. I have been very vigilant about it since I was sworn 

in, in 2003. My days are numbered, though, Mr. Franks. 

Mr. FRANKS. It is your testimony that you think that it is the 

right thing for Congress at this point to lift restrictions, as is being 

discussed here today? 

Mr. MCKAY. I am here as a member of the board of directors, 

speaking on behalf of the board of directors, and so I don’t think 

it is appropriate for me to share with you my personal views, other 

than to say that—and I will very firmly say that any restrictions 

or lack of restrictions that are a product of this Congress will be 

30 

faithfully executed by the board, certainly as long as I am on the 

board. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, sir. Maybe it is too bad you are 

leaving. 

Mr. MCKAY. Well, talk to—— 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Franks. 

I now recognize Mr. Watt, the distinguished Member from great 

State of North Carolina, the predecessor to the State of Tennessee, 

and we give thanks. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I thank the witnesses for being here. 

I think I will refrain from all of the philosophical discussions 

that have been going on and maybe talk about what the hearing 

was designed to focus on, which is the bill that Mr. Scott has introduced and which I am happy to be a co-sponsor of. 

I did want to make sure that Mr. McKay, if he had any connections with the Reagan era, got an opportunity to tell us about 

those. Maybe that would satisfy some of my colleagues on the Committee, too. So if he has got any connections to former President 

Reagan’s campaign, I am going to give him the opportunity to—he 

may be too young for that era. 

Mr. MCKAY. I wish I were. I did not work on those two campaigns. I was working on local campaigns, Congressman. 

Mr. WATT. For equally robust and philosophically sound candidates, I presume? 

Mr. MCKAY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WATT. Okay. All right. 

Ms. Barnett, you have had a chance to review Representative 

Scott’s bill, H.R. 3674. I guess both of you have. I am wondering 

if you could just tell us a little bit about—either one of you could 

tell us a little bit about how this legislation would help the Legal 

Services Corporation achieve its mission. 

Ms. BARNETT. We certainly welcome and support the bill to reauthorize the Legal Services Corporation. I think, as Congressman 

Scott said in his opening remarks, the corporation hasn’t been reauthorized since 1977. 

We certainly greatly appreciate the funding level that is reflected 

in the bill at $750 million for 5 years. And we appreciate the inclusion, about which we have already done, to improve our governance 

and our oversight. And we look forward to working with the sponsors as this bill moves forward. 

Mr. WATT. As a practical matter, Mr. McKay, the restrictions 

that have been placed on funds that are not even government 

funds have nothing to do with taxpayer money. What impact does 

that have? 

Mr. MCKAY. And you are talking about questions like sharing office space and things like that, Congressman? 

Mr. WATT. No, I am talking about the restrictions that have been 

placed on non-government money, non-taxpayer money. 

Mr. MCKAY. Well, there are certain restrictions that prohibit 

grantees from using non-LSC funds. And, again, those are the 

kinds of things that we need to make sure are faithfully executed 

until and unless Congress changes those. 

31 

Mr. WATT. Well, I understand you will be executing them until 

Congress changes them, but they have some impact, I presume, on 

the operations of the Legal Services Corporation. 

Ms. Barnett, maybe you are in a better position, since you are 

operating the agency on a day-to-day basis? 

Ms. BARNETT. Congressman, the position of the corporation, I 

guess both the board and management, is that we enforce the will 

of Congress. 

Mr. WATT. I understand. I think you are missing the import of 

the question. What impact does it have? I understand that you are 

enforcing them. You have got to enforce the law as we write it. But 

what impact does it have, as a practical matter, on your operations? 

Ms. BARNETT. Well, I guess we would have to ask our programs 

what impact it has with regard to the current restrictions, because 

right now, they are mandated to follow the current restrictions, 

which we enforce. 

Mr. WATT. I understand. Have you not asked your related organizations? Or maybe this is something—should I be taking this up 

with the next panel? That would—— 

Ms. BARNETT. I would suggest that you do. And I think they will 

be in a far better position to answer the question directly. 

Mr. WATT. Well, it is not a trick question. 

Ms. BARNETT. No. 

Mr. WATT. I am just trying to get to the practical consequences 

of some of the restrictions that we have placed, that the law has 

placed on the receipt and use of non-taxpayer funds. It is one thing 

to control taxpayer funds, which we have an obligation to do. My 

question relates to non-taxpayer funds. 

Mr. McKay? And I—— 

Mr. MCKAY. I consulted with Karen Sergeant, who helped me, 

and I understand the congressman’s question better. Stating factually, if there is a restriction on a grantee—that is, a grantee cannot 

do something—but the grantee—and I will just use an example, 

Northwest Justice Project in Washington State. It also receives 

funds from the Washington State government, Washington State 

legislature and the governor. 

Those funds might not have a similar restriction, but the fact 

that the Northwest Justice Project is receiving those unrestricted 

funds, but is receiving funds from LSC, they cannot use the unrestricted funds in such a way that would violate the congressional 

restrictions. 

Mr. WATT. I thought that was the case as a practical matter. I 

will take it up—my time is expired. I will take it up with the second panel. 

Mr. MCKAY. I apologize. I didn’t understand what you were looking for, so—— 

Ms. BARNETT. Congressman, if I could just add, also, currently, 

we are involved in defending the regulations in two court cases, as 

well, and that is why I would suggest that the second panel may 

be more appropriate. 

Mr. WATT. Defending them in the sense that that is taking time 

and resources away from other things, to defend litigation related 

to the restrictions? 

32 

Ms. BARNETT. We have two longstanding court cases on both 

sides of the country in which LSC is defending the will of Congress 

in upholding these restrictions, yes. 

Mr. WATT. Okay. All right. Thank you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry I went over time. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, sir. 

I now recognize the distinguished—another gentleman from 

Carolina, Mr. Coble? 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Watt, I am glad he is making both of us distinguished today. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. 

Good to have you all with us. 

Mr. WATT. He is from Tennessee, and he understands that Tennessee wouldn’t be around but for North Carolina. 

Mr. COBLE. I am not sure he would admit that. 

Good to have you all with us. 

Mr. COHEN. That is true. And Texas wouldn’t be around for us. 

Mr. COBLE. Oftentimes, impoverished citizens do come to LSC for 

assistance. You gave a very moving example, Mr. McKay, in your 

opening statement. That is the good news. 

The bad news is I have heard that there may have been imprudent spending, so I want to touch on that, maybe even reckless 

spending. That is the bad news, if, in fact, it is true. 

Ms. Barnett, describe, if you will, the relationship between the 

LSC management and the Office of Legal Affairs and the inspector 

general and the board of directors? Specifically, does management—and when I say ‘‘management,’’ I include you in that, Ms. 

Barnett—does management willingly share information with these 

other offices and allow these other offices to independently perform 

their duties? 

Ms. BARNETT. Let me see if I understand to your question, Congressman, by beginning with the relationship with the Office of Inspector General, where we cooperate fully with their reviews and 

we welcome their reviews. And they certainly operate independently of LSC management. 

With respect to the board, we make every effort to keep the 

board timely informed about any action or policy. And I think we 

do a good job at doing that. 

But Mr. McKay is here, and he can respond with respect to the 

board. 

Mr. COBLE. Well, Mr. McKay, you want to weigh in on this? 

Mr. MCKAY. I think there is a consistent effort for all of us to 

do a better job, and there are—if we as a board feel like we are 

not getting enough information and we make it clear to management that we need more information. 

Same thing relates to our legal counsel. And we have worked 

hard to make sure that the legal advice we receive from our legal 

counsel is good and clean and unfettered. And we are satisfied with 

that process. 

Mr. COBLE. Well, Ms. Barnett, to follow up on the Ranking Member’s question regarding the process by which staff can request 

legal opinions, has that process been altered or changed by you or 

anyone else? 

Ms. BARNETT. I believe I will try to answer it the same way I 

did with previous questions. 

33 

Mr. COBLE. And that is why I am revisiting it, because I didn’t 

follow it that clearly. That may be my fault. 

Ms. BARNETT. No. We have robust discussions on certain opinions that have been requested that impact all our programs and 

the clients they serve. I would like to believe that those discussions 

raise issues that general counsel may have considered, should in 

addition consider, but ultimately, in the end, it is general counsel 

who has to issue opinions that he believes is the correct opinion. 

And I believe he does so, but as I indicated, the Committee is 

certainly free to ask general counsel directly, who is here. I have 

been informed that the Office of Inspector General has been asked 

to look into this matter. We welcome that inquiry. 

And as with any GAO or OIG inquiry during my entire tenure, 

we intend to cooperate fully with that review and await the report, 

which I think will vindicate the position that I am advocating and 

sharing with you today. 

Mr. COBLE. Let me try to beat that red light before it illuminates. Mr. McKay, let me ask you this. Has there been a time 

when management did not provide you with all the information you 

desired or significantly delayed the providing of such information 

to you? 

Mr. MCKAY. I cannot point to any example. I think this is a traditional tension between a board and management. And sometimes 

it is the opportunity for management to understand what a particular board’s needs are. 

But there have been times in the 6 years I have had the privilege 

of serving where I have made it clear and with the entire board 

have made it clear to management that we needed more information about certain things. We have also made it clear that certain 

things should be done, in addition to giving us information. 

So, yes, it has happened. It is not unusual. If we are doing our 

job, we should be routinely saying, ‘‘Well, what about this? What 

about that? And we need more information about this,’’ and so 

forth. So, yes, it has happened. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you both for your testimony. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, sir. 

I now recognize Ms. Lofgren, the lady from California. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and for this 

hearing. 

I was interested to read the General Accounting Office report. 

And in the conclusions, they say the following: ‘‘The improvements 

that LSC has made in its governance and accountability provide a 

good foundation for completing implementation of the elements 

needed for a strong program of governance and internal controls.’’ 

So I think that is a pretty positive statement, and certainly the 

witnesses here have indicated here certainly a desire—more than 

a desire, an eagerness to reach out to the GAO and implement all 

of the recommendations. It is obvious the program sees this as 

helpful. Not every agency does see the GAO recommendations as 

helpful. So that is a very positive piece of information that we have 

gained out of this hearing. 

34 

I am interested—you know, I served on the board of legal aid in 

Santa Clara County for many years and did not agree with the restrictions that were put in place some years ago. 

But what happened in Santa Clara County—and I think it happened in many places around the country—was that sort of secondary offices were established that were able to do the work that 

legal aid was now prohibited from doing. And in many cases, there 

was funding from the local bar association in California. The interest from trust accounts is diverted to Legal Services. 

So I am just wondering, in this economy where there isn’t any 

interest because of the financial situation, what is happening to 

those other efforts? And is it impossible with the State budget cuts 

and the decrease in interest rates for those secondary efforts that 

could do the things prohibited from LSC to keep up and sort of 

make up for the cuts and the prohibitions? Do you know that? 

Ms. BARNETT. I do not know about the non-LSC-funded programs. I do know that the LSC-funded programs themselves have 

had significantly reduced IOLTA funding, when the interest rate, 

as you point out, went to zero and the projected decrease is like 21 

percent in 2009 State by State, It is a significant drop. 

Also, as you point out, the State budget deficits have limited the 

State funding for civil legal aid programs. So I can speak from 

LSC-funded programs’ perspective that the decrease in resources 

that leverage Federal dollars has greatly been decreased, and many 

programs, because of that, have laid off staff or closed offices. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Do you know, Mr. McKay? 

Mr. MCKAY. I can only talk about Washington State—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay. 

Mr. MCKAY [continuing]. And what you are talking about certainly happened there. We had two other non-LSC grantee providers, Evergreen Legal Services and Columbia Legal Services, and 

they were free to do the kinds of things that our grantee, Northwest Justice Project, is not able to do. They don’t exist anymore. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Really? 

Mr. MCKAY. They are gone. And those good lawyers, some of 

whom, jeez, happily were picked up by Northwest Justice Project, 

but others—Ada Shen-Jaffe is now teaching at Seattle University 

Law School. She is not providing the legal services that she used 

to provide. So it has been a hard hit. 

And now, while our county bar association plays a role by trying 

to get private attorneys to help, but it is woefully inadequate. Eleven percent of the attorneys in King County, of the 14,000 attorneys, 

donate their time every year, 20 hours or more every year. So the 

answer is, it has been a hard hit. 

Ms. LOFGREN. All right. Well, and it is more difficult for members of the bar actually to donate time. Because of the economic 

conditions, people are scrambling, aside from the large firms that 

are jettisoning their first-year associates to go work full time. 

So the picture you have painted here is really a dire one. I am 

especially concerned—well, there are many issues—but in this foreclosure crisis that we are facing, one of the things that has become 

obvious is that there are institutions attempting to foreclose who 

don’t have a legal right to foreclose. And so individuals who do not 

35 

have representation are losing their homes in a miscarriage of justice. 

Are you seeing those cases being turned away from legal aid? 

Ms. BARNETT. Well, unfortunately, our justice gap report, which 

showed for every one eligible client we represent, we turn away one 

eligible applicant, in the area of foreclosure, we are turning away 

two for one. And you are absolutely right that the necessity for a 

lawyer in a foreclosure action makes all the difference, whether 

they keep their home or they don’t, whether they assert a legal defense, whether they assert truth in lending, whether they are able 

to request that the foreclosed party has actual title to foreclose. 

So the difference a lawyer can make in these very complex cases 

means whether there is a roof over a family’s head or not. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My time 

has expired. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren. 

I now recognize the gentleman from the State of Iowa, Mr. King? 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank both witnesses, and I appreciate Mr. McKay’s opening this discussion up 

with his pro bono work. I think that set the right tone for the spirit 

that we hope to see and have seen, I think, in much of the past 

of LSC. 

But I think about some other things, the consequences that seem 

to be kind of moving in the background here and was part of the 

opening statement of Mr. Franks, as well, and has a lot of questions on a lot of different subject matter. 

But I think I would turn first to Ms. Barnett, and you have twice 

mentioned the will of Congress and it is your intent to follow the 

will of Congress. And I have just heard Ms. Lofgren—I am sorry 

that she left the room. She said she didn’t agree with the restrictions put in place in 1996. I will submit that is the will of Congress. 

And I will just ask you the question, how do you identify the will 

of Congress? 

Ms. BARNETT. As reflected in the laws that are passed, the appropriations acts and the restrictions that were placed in 1996 and 

carried forward in every appropriations act. We agree that is the 

will of Congress, and that is what we expect our programs to abide 

by, and that is what our programs do abide by. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. And I just wanted to have you an opportunity to put that particular response into the record. 

I am looking back at some information I have in front of me with 

regard to the California Rural Legal Assistance, and going back to 

even as recently as 2008, a case where the inspector general wanted to look into the situation of a case that had to do with—determine if it had violated the restriction or representing undocumented aliens. 

And I would go—a case that underlies that is in 2002, the Legal 

Aid Foundation of Los Angeles introduced a case that even though 

the General Assembly in bill number 60 had never enacted into 

law, they introduced a case to promote the granting of driver’s licenses to undocumented aliens. And I would suggest that that violated their restriction on assisting undocumented aliens. 

36 

However, there is a refusal to release some of the information on 

these related cases. And it turns out that Mary Grace Odias didn’t 

have a Social Security number. And so if these kind of things can 

happen in such an obvious way, how could we possibly audit and 

keep track of the compartmentalization of funding if the Scott bill 

were passed? 

And I would tell you that I am focused on ACORN. It was 

brought up by our Chairman. And we are watching the fungibility 

of funding be passed through the joint accounts and as many as 

361 different affiliations. I have a real aversion to expanding anything that could turn into an arm of any organization that might 

have an undercurrent like ACORN. 

So I would be interested in your response. How do we protect 

against that? How could we in any kind of good faith go forward 

and lower their restrictions when these things happen with the restrictions in place? 

Ms. BARNETT. Well, I can only comment on what we do now to 

ensure that the programs comply with the existing law. We have, 

as Mr. McKay has indicated, increased our staff in our office of 

compliance and enforcement. 

Mr. KING. Since the clock is ticking, I would just appreciate that 

that—I have heard that response from Mr. McKay, and I respect 

that response that you would use more resources. But what has 

happened to the people that have violated the 1996 statute? Are 

they still working? Do they still have a job? What were the consequences? 

And I think I would turn to Mr. McKay, so I can hear from him, 

as well. 

Mr. MCKAY. Well, I want to augment President Barnett’s answer 

to make sure you know, Congressman, that, in addition to the statute, we have our own regulations, that we have them in place, that 

set forth in more detail the congressional restrictions and other obligations that are imposed upon us, so they are there. And, of 

course, it is part of a checklist that the office of compliance and enforcement bring out. 

There are sanctions. And I will turn back to President Barnett. 

She is in a better position to answer that. But for certain grantees, 

we change the level of the nature of the funding. Instead of giving 

them a chunk of cash for the entire year, we switch to month to 

month, to use that as a tool to—— 

Mr. KING. But let’s get them back to rectitude. The people that 

have violated the 1996 statute, are they still working for LSC? 

Mr. MCKAY. I will have to turn to President Barnett, but if I 

could just complete my answer. 

Mr. KING. And I would ask right in the middle this question—— 

Mr. MCKAY. Just to make sure you know that we are—— 

Mr. KING [continuing]. Because we are going to run out of time 

in a moment. I think the Chairman will allow the questions answered by both of you, but I would like to know if they are still 

working for LSC. And what are the names of those individuals? 

Ms. BARNETT. I am not aware of anybody who is working at LSC 

who violated the 1996 restrictions. What we do, do when we find 

questionable activities, we have corrective actions. We have questioned cost proceedings, where we get back the money that LSC 

37 

provided, so the Federal taxpayer is made whole, for instance, on 

the marble that was used in a recent office building. 

We have special grant conditions that we impose on a grant to 

ensure that there is compliance. We have short funding cycles that 

are sure they are in compliance. And, ultimately, we can terminate 

a grant, if that is necessary. 

Mr. COHEN. Your question now—Mr. King? 

Mr. KING. Thank you. And I would just ask consent for Mr. 

McKay to complete his answer. 

Mr. MCKAY. I would simply invite the congressman’s attention to 

the way we have dealt with particular grantees who have violated 

the sanctions and we weren’t satisfied with their response. And 

when I say ‘‘we,’’ we as a board specifically ask questions about it. 

I am familiar with the examples that you have given. And we 

have asked for briefings for these different cases to make sure that 

the problems are turned around and, where they are not satisfactorily turned around, that the funding is impacted, that is, we are 

not going to give them the full chunk of cash. We are going to do 

it on a month-to-month basis. 

We have reviewed changes in our regulations to punish them in 

other ways, to deter them from doing this in the future. So it is 

something that is in the forefront of our minds, something that we 

discuss every board meeting, and I just wanted to reassure you of 

that. 

Mr. KING. I thank you. I thank the witnesses. And I yield back. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. King. 

And I will recognize Mr. Scott, of Virginia. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Ms. Barnett, as I understand the funding mechanism, you fund 

by formula, not by line item in a proposal. Is that right? 

Ms. BARNETT. We are mandated to fund by a congressional formula that states it is based on the poor person population in the 

service area in the decennial census. So we are funding now based 

on the poor person population of 2000. 

Mr. SCOTT. And the fact that you do not fund by line item, does 

that affect your ability to provide oversight for the physical management of local programs? 

Ms. BARNETT. No, Congressman, it does not. We have a rigorous 

request for proposal that every grantee has to submit at least every 

3 years. And in that, they attach their budgets. In that, they attach 

an answer to many specific questions that gives us the ability to 

know whether this program is capable of providing high-quality 

legal services in conformity with the mandates of Congress. 

We also do program visits. We also have grant activity reports 

quarterly that give us information for us to review. We get coordinated impact input from the Office of Inspector General, as well, 

based on their visits to programs. We hear from the public. We 

hear from Members of Congress. 

So we feel that we have an opportunity to review adequately the 

program’s ability to provide high-quality legal services in conformity with the mandates of Congress. 

Mr. SCOTT. How do you do oversight on ensuring that the salary 

level of LSC program attorneys is sufficient to attract the best and 

the brightest? 

38 

Ms. BARNETT. Well, you have mentioned something that is of 

major concern to LSC-funded programs, and that is, the starting 

salary for legal aid attorneys is the lowest of any public-sector attorneys. And these young attorneys are graduating with huge student debt from their law schools. 

We, in fact, have started a pilot loan repayment assistance program to be able to attract and retain these attorneys in our programs. In the course of our review of their budgets and their quarterly grantee reports, they indicate what their salaries are, so we 

can see, unfortunately, we don’t have any programs that are paying 

exceeding high salaries, because the average starting salary is 

$40,000 for a legal aid attorney. 

Mr. SCOTT. Now, you indicated that 50 percent of the people 

turned away, are those people that would be qualified for services 

by every other measure, but for the resources of the program? 

Ms. BARNETT. Yes, Congressman. In our justice gap report, we 

indicated—we had uniform instructions to every one of our programs that was collecting this data and that the data was that if 

the person who came would be eligible for the services fell within 

the office priorities of the program would have been helped but for 

the fact of lack of resources. 

Mr. SCOTT. And you turned away two-thirds of the persons for 

foreclosure assistance. You indicated the difference you can make. 

How often are you able to actually help someone in a foreclosure 

situation? 

Ms. BARNETT. Well, we are being—I think our programs are 

being inundated with requests for foreclosure assistance. And they 

are seeing a huge percentage increase over last year. 

Last year was the first year we started to collect data on foreclosures themselves, so we will have more concrete data at the conclusion of 2009 when we can have a comparative basis. We hadn’t 

thought to take out of housing the separate category of foreclosures 

up until last year. 

Mr. SCOTT. When you find that—in an area that people are systematically being ripped off in certain ways, how do you deal with 

that without a class action? 

Ms. BARNETT. Well, for instance, in the foreclosure area, LSC has 

taken a leadership role in hosting national calls with national providers and legal aid programs that specialize in foreclosure on an 

every-other-monthly basis to share developments that are happening in Los Angeles with court mediation, in Philadelphia with 

the newly enacted Federal legislation, so that we get to share what 

are the different practices and the way that different programs are 

dealing with it—— 

Mr. SCOTT. If you have a lot of people with essentially the same 

case, how do you deal with that without being able to bring a class 

action? 

Ms. BARNETT. Well, right now, our programs cannot bring class 

actions, so they have to bring individual cases. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COHEN. You are welcome, Mr. Scott. 

I now recognize our newest Member from the Golden State, Congresswoman Chu. 

39 

Ms. CHU. Ms. Barnett, my question has to do with the greatest 

use of dollars for legal services and partnerships. And, in fact, the 

budget request document for 2010 mentions two innovative LSCfunded programs that are from my area, the Legal Aid Foundation 

of Los Angeles and the Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles 

County. And they partnered with nonprofits and banks to keep 

families in their homes. 

Can you tell me how these partnerships were established in both 

cases and whether you feel this approach can be replicated in other 

areas? 

Ms. BARNETT. Actually, the representatives from Neighborhood 

Legal Services participate in our foreclosure calls and shared with 

all the participants how they partnered with the banks to renegotiate the loans. So I think this is based on a local basis, where the 

program establishes a partnership, and what we want to do is facilitate sharing that information with other programs so they can 

replicate that in their own communities. 

Ms. CHU. And do you think that is a doable thing? 

Ms. BARNETT. I hope so. I certainly do. 

Ms. CHU. My other question has to do with closing the justice 

gap. In particular, with regard to people who are limited English, 

California, in fact, is home to one of the most racially and ethnically diverse populations. About 26 percent are foreign-born. In 

my district, the number of foreign-born jumps to 41 percent. And, 

in fact, the number of people that don’t speak English at home is 

70 percent. 

If LSC receives more funding through appropriations, what is 

your plan to address language assistance to LSC-funded programs? 

Ms. BARNETT. Well, we are also very concerned, as are our programs, on the non-English-speaking eligible applicants for our services and to find out which programs are doing the best job with 

language access, sharing that information. In foreclosure alone, 

predatory lending not only impacts seniors, but—and minority communities, but also targets the less fluent English-speakers, as well. 

So this is an area that we—and I think our programs—recognize 

we need to have culturally competent services available and we 

need to have language availability to effectively represent and give 

legal advice to these populations. 

Ms. CHU. And are you able to hire attorneys that speak other 

languages? 

Ms. BARNETT. I think our programs very much do that, particularly in communities where there are non-English-speaking languages, that they make an effort to hire bilingual staff. And many 

of our programs have many different language capabilities on their 

own staff. 

Ms. CHU. Is there a difficulty with doing that, considering your 

ability to pay for attorney salaries? 

Ms. BARNETT. Well, it is our hope that there always will be those 

attorneys who want to work in the legal aid program, that want 

to make a meaningful difference in the lives of their clients, to 

want to help low-income people keep their families together and a 

roof over their head. And hopefully, they will be attracted to our 

programs. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. 

40 

Mr. COHEN. Do you yield back the remainder of your time? 

Ms. CHU. Yes, I yield back the remainder of my time. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, ma’am. 

We appreciate the panelists. And we appreciate your service and 

your testimony. And we will now shift to the next panel. 

Mr. MCKAY. Thank you. 

Ms. BARNETT. Thank you very much. 

Mr. COHEN. You are welcome—second panel’s attendance here. If 

you notice, our attendance is diminishing. This regularly happens 

with lunch hour and is one of the downsides of being Chairman 

and Ranking Member, hunger. [Laughter.] 

But I am pleased we have our second panel. And our first witness is Mr. Harrison McIver III. He has held the executive legal 

management position in legal aid and related organizations for 27 

years in Mississippi, Washington, DC, and now in Memphis, TN, 

where he is executive director, CEO of Memphis Area Legal Services. He has had that position for more than 10 years, done an admirable job, well respected to the legal community. 

Prior to joining Memphis Area Legal Services, he was executive 

director of the project, advocacy, advisory group National Organization of Legal Services programs here in D.C., working on a national 

level to preserve the national commitment to civil legal aid to 

indigents, as embodied in Legal Services Corporation. 

In Mississippi, he held positions as staff attorney and managing 

attorney at two legal aid programs and finally as executive director 

of the then-Central Mississippi Legal Services in Jackson, Mississippi. 

Mr. McIver, we appreciate your being here and testifying and 

your service, and if you would now begin your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF HARRISON D. McIVER, III, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR/CEO, MEMPHIS AREA LEGAL SERVICES, INC. 

Mr. MCIVER [continuing]. Sorry. 

Chairman Cohen, if I may, I would like to—I would be remiss if 

I were not to acknowledge your hard work and effectiveness as a 

congressman, my congressman from the Ninth Congressional District, and I wanted to say thank you publicly for the hard work and 

efforts you do not only for advancing equal access to justice, but so 

much you do in our community. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you. And would staff have those words put 

on the Internet and broadcast? 

Mr. MCIVER. I will repeat them. 

Today, I appear on behalf of a wonderful and effective law firm, 

Memphis Area Legal Services, and my dedicated staff, board, volunteers, and, of course, our client population. MALS grew out of a 

national tragedy, the death of Dr. Martin Luther King in 1968, and 

now, more than 40 years later, we are a viable legal aid organization serving a client population desperately in need of our services. 

I submit my sharing some facts will illuminate our realities. Fact 

one: The average unemployment figure for our four-county service 

area is 13.3 percent, with the most rural, Lauderdale County, over 

19 percent. 

Fact two: Since 2000, we have experienced a 45,000 increase in 

poverty population from 155,000 to 200,000 individuals living at 

41 

the poverty line and eligible for our services. This translates into 

one legal aid attorney for every 10,000 eligible clients, whereas in 

the general population, the ratio is 1 to 300. 

Fact three: In 2006, MALS received 6,631 applications for our 

services in 2008. That rose to 8,552, a 29 percent increase. We 

project by year’s end that we will receive a 25 percent increase to 

10,694. And if the trend continues into 2010, we expect over 15,000 

applications. 

These are very compelling facts that we must contend with in the 

course of the work that we do on behalf of our clients. This means 

we have to be resourceful and we have to be creative. Our resourcefulness has been called upon in times of crisis. 

Three examples are illustrative. Disaster response, after Katrina 

and Rita hit the Gulf Coast, we estimated that between 20,000 and 

25,000 displaced individuals, including children, arrived in Memphis and the surrounding communities. MALS was called upon to 

coordinate the legal community’s response, and we served as the 

hub for pro bono volunteerism and our staff’s participation, and we 

did it. Subsequently, we acquired grants to expand that services 

over the course of a year. 

Domestic violence continues to plague our community. In 2008, 

35 homicides and 58 percent of all violent crimes related to domestic violence. We secured an LAV grant from DOJ to address the 

legal needs, but created the Opportunity Plus project to remove the 

economic barriers that impede our clients from being free of an 

abusive environment. 

The foreclosure crisis has not escaped our service area. Through 

the end of August, 9,104 foreclosures were initiated in Shelby 

County, compared to 8,494 for the same period in 2008, a 7 percent 

increase. In response, we sought and received funding to create our 

home preservation project. We are assisting more than 1,000 clients with their foreclosure legal needs. 

Obviously, we cannot do all of this alone. I direct your attention 

to page six, where there is a listing of pro bono opportunities at 

MALS office to our private attorneys and other volunteers. 

In conclusion, I again want to thank the Subcommittee and, in 

particular, Chairman Cohen and Ranking Member Franks for this 

opportunity. But I want to leave you with a client’s story that is 

not included in the materials in my written testimony. 

An Army Vietnam veteran, a Mr. Calhoun, was almost killed by 

a landmine. In fact, he thought he was dead. He was awarded the 

Purple Heart, but for many years, and even at the point before he 

came into our office, he was unaware that he had received a Purple 

Heart because of lost memory that was caused by his injuries. And 

he now has a host of other problems. 

So he came to us to get increased veteran benefits. And now, because of the advocacy of a paralegal in our office, he increased his 

rating to 100 percent to expand those benefits. Our paralegal, as 

he sifted through the papers, realized that this gentleman was entitled to the Purple Heart and had been awarded the Purple Heart. 

Do you know what we do even more than just serve our clients? 

Our paralegal contacted the Pentagon or the Army and asked 

that—brought it to their attention that he didn’t have the Purple 

42 

Heart. A ceremony was convened by the Army to award him the 

long-awaited Purple Heart. 

And, indeed, we attended that ceremony, and we were very 

proud. That is just one example of the work that we do on behalf 

of our clients. 

Do I have more time? I can go through some more. 

Mr. COHEN [continuing]. Give you that time, but I don’t know 

that I have it, Mr. McIver. And I appreciate your testimony—— 

Mr. MCIVER [continuing]. Thank you again. And that is just one 

example of the kind of work that Memphis Area Legal Services and 

the legal aid programs across this country provide to our most 

needed citizens. And I want to, again, thank you for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McIver follows:] 

43 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HARRISON D. MCIVER, III 


HDM-1.eps
44 


HDM-2.eps
45 


HDM-3.eps
46 


HDM-4.eps
47 


HDM-5.eps
48 


HDM-6.eps
49 


HDM-7.eps
50 


HDM-8.eps
51 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, sir. 

Our next witness is Mr. Don Saunders. He has worked with 

Legal Services for over 32 years, director of Legal Services, the National Legal Aid and Defender Association. He has been in Washington. And before coming here, he was executive director of the 

North Carolina Legal Services Resource Center in Raleigh for 

about 7 years in the 1980’s and was a staff attorney in the D.C. 

area in Wilmington. 


HDM-9.eps
52 

And he has also been at Boone, North Carolina, so it is appropriate that East Carolina plays the University of Memphis tonight 

on television, a game that I am sure nobody but some few of us 

from Tennessee, Memphis, and Carolina will care about, and even 

then it is questionable that you follow Mr. McIver. 

Welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF DONALD SAUNDERS, DIRECTOR OF THE CIVIL 

LEGAL SERVICES DIVISION, NATIONAL LEGAL AID AND DEFENDER ASSOCIATION 

Mr. SAUNDERS. Chairman Cohen, Ranking Member Franks, and 

the Subcommittee, the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, founded in 1911, is the oldest and largest membership organization in the Nation advocating for equal access to justice for all 

people, regardless of their income. 

NLADA greatly appreciates your convening this important hearing, and I am very proud personally to be here today in support 

of over 6,500 attorneys and thousands of other advocates, such as 

those Mr. McIver mentioned, dedicated to ensuring our democratic 

principle of equal justice under the law. 

As pointed out in our written testimony, establishing justice 

holds a preeminent place in the preamble to the Constitution of the 

United States. My colleagues work every day—often at significant 

personal sacrifice—to make that principle a reality for low-income 

families in communities in every corner of the Nation. 

I appear before you today particularly to support H.R. 3764, the 

Civil Access to Justice Act, introduced by Representative Scott, cosponsored by the Chairman and a number of other Members of this 

Subcommittee. Like your prior witnesses and Mr. McIver so eloquently testified, legal aid programs across the country are being 

stretched dangerously thin, as the most recent poverty figures underscore. 

Our testimony also vividly indicates how the growing need for 

services has come at the worst possible time for legal aid programs 

nationwide as State and local resources of revenue have been 

greatly undercut by the economic downturn. Federal support to ensure at least a minimum of access to justice has never been more 

critical. We heartily endorse section 14 of the Civil Access to Justice Act, authorizing Federal support sufficient to put a significant 

dent in the justice gap, amply illustrated in the LSC report. 

However, H.R. 3764 goes much further in providing meaningful 

access to justice for our Nation’s disadvantaged. As you know, the 

legal services corporation has not operated under a current authorization since 1980. Much has changed in our Nation, our justice 

system, and in the delivery of civil legal aid since that time. 

In our view, it is not good policy to continue to define the parameters of legal aid delivery through the annual appropriations process. It is time, however, to return to the original vision of legal aid 

contained in the LSC act, wherein LSC advocates were free to use 

the tools available to every other lawyer practicing in the United 

States. 

The restriction on advocacy placed on all of the money held by 

LSC grantees since 1996 have greatly undercut the ability of lowVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 Mar 09, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\COMM\102709\53091.000 HJUD1 PsN: 53091
53 

income people to fully vindicate their rights under the law and it 

limited the efficient and effective use of scarce legal aid funding. 

The Civil Access to Justice Act, by returning in general to the restrictions placed on LSC grantees in the original act, would provide 

a tremendous impetus to attack the justice gap in America. Specifically by allowing attorneys fees who are provided by law, H.R. 3764 

not only increases the resources available for civil legal aid, but 

also it levels the playing field and negotiations on behalf of clients. 

Under the current restrictions, fee claims that are available to 

every other practicing attorney can be ignored by defendants who 

have seriously violated clients’ rights. Likewise, to suggest that 

class-action relief, where appropriate and provided by law, is available to each and every attorney except those representing the disadvantaged denies the full measure of justice to low-income communities and greatly diminishes the effectiveness of scarce Federal 

dollars in addressing significant client problems. 

Regarding legislative and administrative advocacy, the lives of 

low-income people are more impacted by legislation administrative 

rules than almost any other sector of our population. Denying advocates the ability to raise their clients’ particular problems before 

these bodies is to deny access to the full justice system in America. 

Finally, Congress should trust our State legislatures and courts 

to set appropriate guidelines on the money they allocate to address 

legal issues affecting the poor at the State and local level. You 

should do away with the application of Federal restrictions to 

State, local and private funds that already have adequate local 

safeguards on overreaching and abuse. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the ability to appear before 

you today and would be happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Saunders follows:] 

54 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DONALD SAUNDERS


DS-1.eps
55 


DS-2.eps
56 


DS-3.eps
57 


DS-4.eps
58 


DS-5.eps
59 


DS-6.eps
60 


DS-7.eps
61 


DS-8.eps
62 


DS-9.eps
63 


DS-10.eps
64 


DS-11.eps
65 


DS-12.eps
66 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, sir. I appreciate your testimony and your 

service. 

Third witness is Mr. Thomas Wells, partner and founding member of Maynard, Cooper & Gale in Birmingham, diversified practice, past president of the American Bar Association, served in the 

policymaking group of the House of Delegates since 1991 and was 

chair of the ABA House of Delegates in 2002 to 2004, former chair 

of the ABA section of litigation. 

And we thank you for your service to the bar and appreciate your 

testimony today, Mr. Wells. 

TESTIMONY OF H. THOMAS WELLS, JR., IMMEDIATE PAST 

PRESIDENT, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION 

Mr. WELLS. Thank you, Chairman Cohen, Congressman Franks, 

Members of the Committee. I thank you again for calling today’s 

hearing to discuss the essential role of the Legal Services Corporation in closing the justice gap. Indeed, the justice gap is now looking more like the justice chasm. 

The ABA believes that this objective must largely be achieved by 

strengthening the legal services corporation and urges the 111th 

Congress to enact bipartisan legislation to reauthorize, strengthen 

and improve LSC. At the same time, the ABA and America’s lawyers will continue to advocate for private bar involvement and pro 

bono service to supplement the work of LSC. 

Long before I became ABA president, I began visiting my congressional delegation, both Republicans and Democrats, to explain 

how important LSC funding is to Alabama and the most vulnerable 

citizens in our State. Until recently, the only funding for Alabama 

legal services was Federal funding. Over the years, strong bipartisan support for LSC has energized not just in Alabama, but 

around the country. 

In addition to being year-round work at home, ABA members 

and State and local bar presidents, many on their own dime, travel 

to D.C. every year to remind Congress how important LSC is to 

their States and their districts. Importantly, in the past 2 years, 

the bar presidents of all 50 States, plus the District of Columbia, 

the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico, have jointly urged Congress to increase funding for LSC. 

In addition to the support of the legal community, the American 

people strongly support a Federal legal services program. This past 

spring, the ABA released a newly completed Harris public opinion 

poll which demonstrated strong national support for providing free 

legal services to qualified low-income families. 

The LSC is the central foundation of the legal aid system. Other 

components—State and local funding and pro bono contributions by 

private lawyers—are catalyzed by LSC seed funding and serve to 

supplement the LSC resources. 

LSC is a model private-public partnership. The core Federal 

funding provides for client intake and screening referral of cases, 

responding to emergency matters, training pro bono lawyers, and 

handling cases where no private lawyer can do so. 

LSC leverages and facilitates the utilization of private resources, 

both in-kind pro bono services and private funding. A comprehensive national system is necessary to assure that all persons have 

67 

access to the justice system, yet every indicator shows that the efforts described above have proven to be inadequate and that access 

to justice is still largely denied to the poor. 

One significant problem is that resources that are provided to 

LSC are not able to be used to maximum effect. The ABA strongly 

urges the Subcommittee and Congress to address in reauthorization legislation three measures that have been included in appropriations riders since 1995 that have impeded LSC in fulfilling its 

mission. 

We request specifically the Subcommittee eliminate, one, the restriction that prevents recipients of LSC funding from freely utilizing State, local, private, and other non-LSC funds to provide 

needed legal assistance to poor clients. 

Second, the restriction that prevents LSC recipient programs 

from obtaining statutorily permitted attorney fees, as the House 

did in its version of the CJS bill. And, third, the restriction on class 

actions. 

Another roadblock to closing the justice gap is that legal aid systems—other funding sources are insufficient or unstable. The good 

news is that most, if not all, State governments are now partners 

in the efforts to provide legal aid to the poor, and now 48 States, 

in fact, provide funding. Unfortunately, that funding, as you probably know, has been either decreased or is in jeopardy. 

In addition, several States have sharply reduced State appropriations. And at the same time, while there are many positive efforts 

to supplement LSC’s Federal funding, these efforts cannot supplant 

LSC. For example, the ABA promotes generous contributions of pro 

bono service and money by private lawyers through our center for 

pro bono. We support charitable giving through the ABA resource 

center and through long-time advocacy for IOLTA accounts. 

Unfortunately, as you have noted before, IOLTA monies have all 

but dried up, and therefore, that source of funding for legal services 

has been essentially eliminated. 

The ABA this week is sponsoring a national celebration of pro 

bono to draw the bar and the public’s attention to the pro bono contributions of lawyers and to encourage even more lawyers to participate. This week, there will be over 500 events nationwide. 

While pro bono remains an important part of the delivery system, a strong, efficient, well-funded LSC is the central mechanism 

for making any headway toward closing the justice chasm. The 

ABA, our members, and State and local bars nationwide stand 

ready to help get this important job done. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wells follows:] 

68 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF H. THOMAS WELLS, JR. 


Wells-1.eps
69 


Wells-2.eps
70 


Wells-3.eps
71 


Wells-4.eps
72 


Wells-5.eps
73 


Wells-6.eps
74 


Wells-7.eps
75 


Wells-8.eps
76 


Wells-9.eps
77 


Wells-10.eps
78 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Wells. I appreciate your testimony 

and your service in the ABA. 

Our last witness is Ms. Susan Ragland, director in the GAO’s financial management assurance team, responsible for work in govVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:05 Mar 09, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\COMM\102709\53091.000 HJUD1 PsN: 53091

Wells-11.eps
79 

ernance, internal control, grants accountability, and implementation of the Recovery Act, written—a wide range of experience leading cross-cutting efforts at GAO regarding government-wide management reforms. She has received a variety of awards that recognized her leadership and teamwork, and we appreciate your testimony today. 

TESTIMONY OF SUSAN RAGLAND, DIRECTOR, FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND ASSURANCE TEAM, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Ms. RAGLAND. Thank you, Chairman Cohen, Representative 

Franks, and the Subcommittee. 

I am pleased to be here to discuss GAO’s prior work on the Legal 

Services Corporation’s governance, accountability, and grants management practices. Today, I will highlight key findings from our 

August 2007 report on LSC’s governance and accountability and 

our December 2007 report on LSC’s grants management and oversight. 

I will put this in context by presenting the status of LSC’s actions to respond to the recommendations that we made. We have 

been following up on these actions since May, and we will continue 

to do so. 

LSC’s governance and accountability practices and internal control are key in maintaining trust and credibility. LSC agreed with 

all 12 of our recommendations in this area and have implemented 

four recommendations that we made to LSC management. 

LSC has implemented a formal risk assessment program, established a conflict of interest policy, established and tested a continuity of operations plan, and decided to base LSC’s financial reporting on standards set by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. 

LSC’s board has fully implemented three of eight recommendations we made to the board to help strengthen governance. The 

board established an audit committee chartered to the board’s committees and a shorter timeframe for issuing LSC’s audited financial 

statements. 

However, the board has not fully implemented five remaining 

recommendations. One of these was for the board to develop and 

implement procedures to periodically evaluate key management 

processes. This recommendation is key, because it contributes to establishing an effective internal control environment at LSC, and it 

helps keep LSC management accountable. 

The other recommendations to the board that remain outstanding are to establish and implement an orientation program, 

develop a training plan, establish a compensation committee function, and conduct a periodic self-assessment of the board’s, committees’, and members’ performance. 

At this time, all but one of the board’s terms have—members’ 

terms have expired. As new members transition to the board, it 

will be important that the new board make it a priority to fully implement these recommendations. 

Turning to the area of grants management and oversight, LSC 

continues to meet improved internal controls. Our December 2007 

report identified weaknesses in LSC’s internal controls that left 

80 

grant funds vulnerable to misuse. Such weaknesses and improper 

expenditures can result in a loss of credibility to the grantee, the 

grantor, and allows instances of fraud to take place if not addressed. 

LSC has addressed two recommendations we made. It has followed up on the improper uses of grant funds that we identified, 

and it developed and implemented policies and procedures for sharing information among the Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Program Performance, and the Office of Compliance and Enforcement. 

However, LSC has not yet fully implemented a key recommendation to employ a systematic approach for assessing risks across its 

137 grantees. LSC needs a sound, analytical approach consistently 

applied to determine whether its oversight resources are being 

used effectively. 

LSC management has also not fully implemented a recommendation to revise its guidelines for fiscal compliance reviews, and the 

LSC board has not fully implemented a recommendation to clearly 

delineate organizational roles and responsibilities for grantee oversight and monitoring. 

In conclusion, LSC’s board of directors and managers have made 

progress and fully implemented nine recommendations. The improvements that LSC has made in its governance and accountability provide a good foundation LSC can build upon to effectively 

adjust to evolving practices and risk. 

However, LSC needs to complete implementation of the remaining recommendations and focus continuing attention on the elements needed for strong governance and internal control. In particular, continuing risk assessments and a robust risk management 

program and mitigation will be crucial components of LSC’s overall 

internal control structure. 

Similarly, although the board has taken an important step by establishing the audit committee, it will be important for the board 

to continue to develop and implement procedures to periodically 

evaluate key management processes, such as financial reporting. 

Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions you may 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ragland follows:] 

81 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUSAN RAGLAND


SR-1.eps
82 


SR-2.eps
83 


SR-3.eps
84 


SR-4.eps
85 


SR-5.eps
86 


SR-6.eps
87 


SR-7.eps
88 


SR-8.eps
89 


SR-9.eps
90 


SR-10.eps
91 


SR-11.eps
92 


SR-12.eps
93 


SR-13.eps
94 


SR-14.eps
95 


SR-15.eps
96 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Ms. Ragland. 

Just like in the first panel, we will now have a series of questions, and I will begin the questions. And I will start with Ms. 

Ragland. 

Legal Services has corrected most of the problems that were 

cited, but they haven’t completed. How many areas have they still 

not complied with? 

Ms. RAGLAND. There are eight recommendations in a couple 

areas that I tried to highlight as being key areas, in particular. 


SR-16.eps
97 

Mr. COHEN. Do you have any belief why they haven’t completed 

that? 

Ms. RAGLAND. Well, I believe that it is a combination of factors 

that Mr. McKay referred to, in that sometimes you need to do one 

step, like establishing the audit committee first before you can take 

some of the other actions. And so there is sort of a normal progression like that. 

So that is basically the reasons that we believe that they are not 

all implemented at this time. Some of these actions just take time. 

However, I would like to emphasize that we do think it is important, obviously, to implement all of our recommendations. And, you 

know, LSC remains at greater risk until we feel—until all of the 

recommendations are fully implemented. 

Mr. COHEN. How much time do you think it would take to complete implementing all of your recommendations? 

Ms. RAGLAND. Well, I think that, generally for our recommendations, we look for recommendations within a period of 4 years. That 

is across all recommendations that we make to agencies. And so I 

feel that LSC has made progress and is on the way on some of 

these other recommendations that they have not yet fully implemented them. 

Mr. COHEN. Do you think if we had a hearing next year, some 

time maybe like September, we have a new president appointed, 

we have got new board members approved, do you think by next 

September, if we have a hearing, that all of these recommendations 

could be implemented, if the board and the president knew that 

they were a priority of this Subcommittee. 

Ms. RAGLAND. I can’t say. But I would think that that would be 

something that would be helpful to have, you know, continuing 

oversight and making sure that this is a priority, given the turnover and the transitions that will be happening. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Ms. Ragland. 

Mr. McIver, Memphis has recently discovered through data that 

we are the poorest of the 60 urban regions in the country. You said 

we have but 1 Legal Services—what were the statistics? They were 

amazing, 1 to 10,000? 

Mr. MCIVER. Yes. We have 20 lawyers and, we estimate, about 

200,000. The increase from the 2000 decennial census to now, 

based upon our research, indicates that we have 45,000 increase in 

the poverty population. And in our area, we have a small pro bono 

program that you are aware of called Committee Legal Center, but 

it is not a full-fledged law firm to address the sorts of issues that 

we have to contend with on a daily basis. 

Mr. COHEN. Mr. King talked about pro bono volunteer efforts. Do 

we have a good response from the legal community in Memphis to 

pro bono already? And is that a realistic expectation, to fill the gap 

that we currently see? 

Mr. MCIVER. I think it—without Memphis Area Legal Services or 

legal aid organization as the hub, the pro bono efforts would fall 

short. It is very evident, even from the inception of Memphis Area 

Legal Services, that the Neighborhood Legal Services project founded by, you know, our friend, Mike Cody, and the 29 others, that 

pro bono just doesn’t work without an independent legal services— 

98 

not the independent—without a legal aid organization as the center, center at its efforts. 

As reflected in my testimony, written testimony, we have just a 

host of opportunities that private lawyers and paralegals—we have 

volunteerism on the part of the paralegals. The paralegal association out here really has stepped up to the plate and done yeoman’s 

work in terms of that. 

You have the traditional kind of case referrals. We have now— 

it is very interesting, because our area, as you well know, Mr. 

Chairman, that bankruptcies are a very predominant issue in our 

area. We have probably called the mid-South’s—and probably the 

whole country—the bankruptcy capital of the world. That is what 

I have heard. 

Through the efforts of Judge Latta, who is a bankruptcy judge, 

and with our pro bono program, we have created the bankruptcy— 

pro bono project, which is designed to help potential bankruptcy or 

debtors to appreciate some alternatives to just going in to file bankruptcy. And that has been set up. 

There are other opportunities. We have created the Memphis Bar 

Association, with the help of the Memphis Bar Association, business section, corporate accounts pro bono initiative. We have established a pro bono capacity to assist nonprofits, which are really suffering in our various communities, and even across this country, in 

need of legal assistance. We have created that capacity locally. 

And you are aware—aren’t you a University of Memphis Law 

School graduate? 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MCIVER. You know about the legal clinic. We have had the 

legal clinic for almost 20 years. The Memphis Area Legal Services 

now is going to move down the street to that beautiful building in 

a few months, but we have had that capacity in house for thirdyear law students who are student attorneys to assist our clients 

in providing legal representation. 

We have a stellar pro bono program. While we reach and try to 

involve private attorneys to a certain level, only about 700 lawyers 

are actually participating in our pro bono program, and we have 

3,000, so you can see that we still have work to do. But as you also 

know, the Tennessee Supreme Court, through its access to justice 

commission and its recent promulgation of the rule that require pro 

bono reporting to be made within the States, so that is another opportunity where we can see some growth in pro bono. 

But in our community, we have seized upon Pro Bono Week, and 

we have had—and an event was called, attorney of the day, a legal 

clinic each day this week in order to avail our services with the 

help of the legal community to assist those in need. So it is really— 

I think it is truly—the bar in our community has been just unbelievable in its willing to embrace the need that we have. 

But, again, we have to have a legal aid organization to make it 

most effective, and we are the hub to make that effective. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, sir. 

The Ranking Member, Mr. Franks, for questioning? 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Wells, you mentioned that there were three areas of restrictions in the type of lawsuits that you would like to see lifted. And 

99 

could you delineate those one more time and tell us what new opportunities lifting those would present to LSC? 

Mr. WELLS. I would be glad to. Thank you, Congressman. 

The first area is the restriction on non-Federal funds. There are 

a number of legal services providers across the country that generate a substantial portion of their operating revenues from private 

fundraising. And yet, despite the fact that those are not being 

raised or not being given by the Federal Government, they are subject to the same restrictions. 

That has led to inefficiencies that I myself have personally seen 

during my year as ABA president, traveling across the country and 

seeing providers who were forced to set up a parallel organization 

to the federally funded one in order that they be able to effectuate 

the donors’ or the State governments’ wishes, in terms of what the 

money could be used for. 

So the first is eliminating the non-Federal funding restriction, 

allow them to use those moneys as the donor or the State or the 

local person desires the monies to be used. 

The second is in statutorily authorized attorney’s fees. As you 

know, Congressman, many States have statutes that, in their wisdom, have decided that if a particular type of case is brought, the 

plaintiff, if they prevail, should be able to get attorney’s fees from 

the offending party. 

Right now, legal services attorneys are prohibited from asking for 

those statutorily mandated fees. We see that, quite frankly, as a 

violation of the concept of federalism. If the State decides, then 

why is the Federal Government saying that legal services lawyers 

shouldn’t get those? It puts them at a negotiating disadvantage if 

a settlement is negotiated in those cases. 

And then the final one is the ability to bring class actions. We 

believe that there are appropriate instances where class actions 

would be the most effective way to handle larger numbers of Legal 

Services clients, particularly in a situation where you have everyone, for example, in a housing complex who has a claim that the 

landlord is not keeping it up to habitable standards. It makes no 

sense to bring 100 separate actions to do that. It makes a whole 

lot more sense to bring one consolidated action. 

And, quite frankly, we believe Congress has handled the overall 

issue of class actions and overall abuses of class actions in their 

overarching legislation dealing with class actions, such as the Class 

Action Fairness Act. 

Mr. FRANKS. All right. Well, thank you, sir. 

Ms. Ragland, given the number of weaknesses or challenges that 

the GAO found in LSC’s accountability and grantee oversight in recent years, do you believe that LSC has proven that it can be trusted to use Federal funds efficiently and for intended purposes in the 

future? Or how soon can that come to pass? 

Ms. RAGLAND. As I stated in my testimony, we found that LSC 

has made progress in improving its governance, accountability, and 

grants management practices. And so the main point I would like 

to make is that it is going to be very important. It will continue 

to be important for LSC to focus on implementing the recommendations and continuing the efforts that it has underway to assure 

100 

that its governance and internal controls are effective and that 

grant funds are being used as intended. 

I recognize, you know, your interest and the Committee’s interest 

in safeguarding and stewardship of taxpayer dollars, and I think 

that the importance of maintaining that continuing focus is key 

going forward. 

Mr. FRANKS. Do they have your seal of Good Housekeeping at the 

moment? And what do you think a timeline would be before they 

could accomplish that, if not? 

Ms. RAGLAND. I think that they have made some progress, but 

I do think there are still risks. And as you increase funding to any 

program, the level of risk increases, so that, you know, the center 

of that LSC is able to fully implement the recommendations that 

we have made. 

We do have work going on there now, as you know. And so we 

are looking at some other areas, as well. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I guess I would just say I sincerely believe 

that it is important for us to have a confluence about the last question I just asked, before we make additional funding increases. 

And the only other thing that—I would suggest that potentially 

class action, even though I can see positives there, it seems to me 

like that could also present an opportunity to magnify certain 

abuses. And I would just put that down for the record and yield 

back. Thank you. 

Mr. COHEN. And now I would like to recognize Mr. Watt, of 

North Carolina. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Ragland, first, you testified that the board has adopted or 

subscribed to all of the recommendations that you all have made. 

I am wondering whether you have traced the failure to implement 

any of those recommendations to recalcitrance or unwillingness on 

the part of the board? 

Ms. RAGLAND. No, sir. 

Mr. WATT. Okay. 

Ms. RAGLAND. There are some recommendations that are not implemented yet that we have made to the board, but we found that 

the board, you know, has expressed cooperation and an incentive 

to want to address the issues that we have raised. 

Mr. WATT. Okay. I want to follow up on Mr. Franks’ questions 

about the activities that Mr. Wells testified about, the three things, 

and particularly focusing on the first two, as I did with the first 

panel of witnesses. 

Mr. Wells has given a description of some of the problems that 

each one of those presents. The one that I think I am the most exercised about is the notion that government should restrain the use 

of other people’s money just because it has a certain set of beliefs 

about the use of its own money. And the question I asked the first 

panel was for some practical examples of that and the impact that 

it has. 

Mr. Wells, you testified about a couple of those practical impacts. 

I am wondering whether Mr. Saunders might be able to amplify on 

some of those practical impacts of failure to allow the use of other 

101 

funds, not government—not taxpayer money, but other money by 

the Legal Services Corporation? 

Mr. SAUNDERS. Yes, Congressman Watt. This issue exists in 

every part of the country. If there are limited amounts of money, 

programs are unable to provide some of the critical services that 

I have outlined in my testimony, such as providing representation 

in a wide array of forum. 

In States where they have twinned, as we call it, the system, as 

Mr. Wells testified, there is enormous administrative duplication. 

That duplication exists in the city of Philadelphia, in New York 

City, in Boston, and also at the State level. As Mr. McKay testified, 

the State of Washington has had to duplicate two entire statewide 

systems, as has Florida, as has Ohio. 

The other thing that we hear from a number of programs is it 

limits the ability of LSC programs to maximize funding. In this 

time of real shortage, it is our view that Congress should not discourage auxiliary fundraising. It ought to be encouraging it. And, 

indeed, this restriction in many communities serves as a deterrent 

for certain funders. 

A lot of the money we are talking about here is appropriated either through the State legislature or through the State supreme 

court. It is our view that they are better situated than Congress 

to determine the best use of those funds. 

Mr. WATT. Well, you know, we used to have some States’ rights 

advocates around this institution, but they seem to have disappeared. I am having more and more trouble finding them. Even 

on the Committee that used to be most known for the States’ rights 

advocacy, there seems to be a lack of that. 

Let me just go to the policy implications of the attorney’s fee restriction, because it is our understanding in a lot of the States that 

allow for attorney’s fees to be assessed to the prevailing party, part 

of the policy justification for that is to discourage bad activity and 

encourage the prompt settlement of cases. 

Mr. Wells referred to the second aspect of that, but have you 

seen any indication of cases in which actually, because there is no 

ability to get attorney’s fees assessed, the opposing attorneys have 

just drug the case out and drug the case out because they really 

don’t have any real incentives to minimize the litigation cost on the 

other side? All of their incentive is to maximize litigation costs for 

which they are being compensated. Have you seen any examples of 

that? 

Mr. SAUNDERS. Certainly, anecdotally, a number of examples of 

that. Clearly, one area where attorney’s fees are often authorized 

by law would be in the consumer area, where you have some very 

bad actors in some instances we have experienced, certainly in the 

last few years, wherein the ability to attain fees is really a major 

part of the negotiation. 

That, in conjunction with the inability to bring class actions, it 

is certainly created an environment where a number of predatory 

lending abuses could have been addressed, but in the current situation, those tools really are a limit to getting to the kind of bad behavior that you were mentioning. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Watt. 

102 

We are not going to have a second round, but I am going to exercise the Chairman prerogative, and that is to ask a couple of questions that were brought up to an extent. 

Ms. Ragland, some of the bad publicity concerning Legal Services 

I have seen has been limousines and lobster and pastries. Did any 

of that come across in your analysis? Did you see those circumstances? 

Ms. RAGLAND. We didn’t see those specific circumstances, but we 

did find problems at the grantees that we visited on the work that 

we did in 2007. So we found problems at 9 of the 14 grantees that 

we visited. 

Mr. COHEN. And what were the problems you found, just in general? 

Ms. RAGLAND. We found problems with insufficient supporting 

documentation of expenditures, alcohol purchases, employee—— 

Mr. COHEN. Alcohol purchases? But what did—— 

Ms. RAGLAND. Yes, sir. 

Mr. COHEN. But they purchased alcohol? Was this for like a 

Christmas party? 

Ms. RAGLAND. I am not sure what the purpose was, sir. 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, okay. Or a hard day. [Laughter.] 

What other things did you find? 

Ms. RAGLAND. We identified two instances where a grantee was 

using LSC funds to pay lobby registration fees, late fees for overdue goods, earnest money. We discovered an improper transaction 

at one grantee involving a sale of a building using both LSC and 

non-LSC funds. 

Mr. COHEN. Did you discover a pattern throughout LSC or just 

random violations that were not anything uniform throughout the 

corporation’s agencies? 

Ms. RAGLAND. Well, we found, you know, that this was something that does require a systematic way to address it. And so that 

is why—that is the basis for the recommendation that we made. It 

is important for LSC to have a structure and systematic approach 

to assess risk of noncompliance or weaknesses across all the grantees. 

And we also made another recommendation to revise the guidelines for fiscal compliance reviews of grantees to include three elements which were a direct link to the results of OPP reviews and 

other audit findings, interview guidelines, and examples of fiscal 

and internal control review procedures based on individual risk factors. 

Mr. COHEN. In your years at GAO, have you seen these type of 

programs at other organizations, Federal agencies, as well? 

Ms. RAGLAND. I personally haven’t, but I have seen GAO has 

seen lots of examples of things. 

Mr. COHEN. Great. Thank you so much, and I appreciate the 

Committee’s indulgence. 

I would like to thank all of our witnesses for their testimony 

today. I would like, without objection, Members to have 5 legislative days to submit any additional written questions, which we will 

forward to you and ask you to answer as promptly as you can, 

make them part of the record. 

103 

The record will, without objection, remain open for 5 legislative 

days for the submission of any other additional materials. 

Thank you, everybody, for their time and patience. I congratulate 

Mr. Wells on the blocking of the field goal. 

This hearing of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(105) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

106 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM MICHAEL D. MCKAY, 

VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION


2-1.eps
107 


2-2.eps
108 


2-3.eps
109 


2-4.eps
110 

f 


2-5.eps
111 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM HELAINE M. BARNETT, 

PRESIDENT, LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION


3-1.eps
112 


3-2.eps
113 


3-3.eps
114 

f 


3-4.eps
115 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM HARRISON D. MCIVER, III, 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/CEO, MEMPHIS AREA LEGAL SERVICES, INC. 


4-1.eps
116 


4-2.eps
117 


4-3.eps
118 


4-4.eps
119 

f 


4-5.eps
120 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM DONALD SAUNDERS, DIRECTOR OF THE

CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES DIVISION, NATIONAL LEGAL AID AND DEFENDER ASSOCIATION


5-1.eps
121 


5-2.eps
122 


5-3.eps
123 


5-4.eps
124 


5-5.eps
125 


5-6.eps
126 


5-7.eps
127 


5-8.eps
128 


5-9.eps
129 


5-10.eps
130 


5-11.eps
131 


5-12.eps
132 

f 


5-13.eps
133 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM H. THOMAS WELLS, JR., 

IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION


6Q-1.eps
134 


6Q-2.eps
135 

f 


6Q-3.eps
136 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM SUSAN RAGLAND, DIRECTOR, 

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND ASSURANCE TEAM, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

OFFICE


7-1.eps
137 


7-2.eps
138 


7-3.eps
139 


7-4.eps
140 

f 


7-5.eps
141 

LETTER FROM ALAN REUTHER, DIRECTOR, CWA-UAW ALLIANCE


8-1.eps
142 

f 


8-2.eps
143 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REBEKAH DILLER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, JUSTICE PROGRAM, 

ON BEHALF OF THE BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT NYU SCHOOL OF LAW


9-1.eps
144 


9-2.eps
145 


9-3.eps
146 


9-4.eps
147 


9-5.eps
148 


9-6.eps
149 


9-7.eps
150 


9-8.eps
151 


9-9.eps
152 


9-10.eps
153 

———— 

*The two reports noted in footnote 2 above, are not reprinted with this submitted statement 

but are on file with the Subcommittee. They may also be accessed at: 

http://brennan.3cdn.net/a5bf8a685cd0885f72ls8m6bevkx.pdf 

http://brennan.3cdn.net/7e05061cc505311545l75m6ivw3x.pdf 


9-11.eps
154 


9-12.eps
155 


9-13.eps
156 

Æ 


9-14.eps