`[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3798-3807]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-1071]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION

45 CFR Part 1611


Eligibility

AGENCY: Legal Services Corporation.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Legal Services Corporation (``LSC'' or ``Corporation'') 
proposes to amend regulations relating to eligibility for LSC-funded 
legal services. This regulation has been substantially revised and 
reordered, in part to simplify the regulation and clarify current 
Corporation policy and in part to revise Corporation policy, 
particularly with respect to access by LSC to client records.

DATES: Comments may be submitted on or before March 20, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted to the Office of General Counsel, 
Legal Services Corporation, 750 First St., NE., 11th Floor, Washington, 
DC 20002-4250.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victor Fortuno, General Counsel, (202) 
336-8810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Operations and Regulations Committee of 
the LSC Board (``Committee'') held public hearings on June 20, 1994, 
and September 17, 1994, in Washington, DC, to consider a draft of 
proposed revisions to 45 CFR part 1611, LSC's regulations on 
eligibility for LSC-funded legal assistance. At a meeting in 
Washington, DC, on October 28, 1994, the Committee approved a draft to 
be published in the Federal Register as a proposed rule for public 
comment.
    Under this proposal, part 1611 has been substantially revised and 
reordered to make the regulation less complex and easier for recipients 
to apply. While there are numerous proposals for substantive change, 
the majority of the revisions reflect the Committee's desire to make 
this rule more comprehensible and less subject to confusion and 
misinterpretation than is the current regulation. Throughout the rule, 
there are slight changes in language to clarify the rule or to make it 
consistent with 

[[Page 3799]]
prior interpretations. Unless noted below, these minor revisions do not 
make any substantive change in the rule and are not described in 
detail.
    The Committee recognizes that Congress may consider legislation 
that would amend the LSC Act and reauthorize appropriations for the 
Corporation. Whenever Congress does pass a new LSC Act, the 
Corporation's regulations will be revisited and revised accordingly.
    The Corporation is extending the customary 30-day comment period to 
60 days.

Section Analysis

Authority

    This section has been revised to include a reference to Sec. 
1006(b)(3) of the LSC Act, 42 U.S.C. 2996e(b)(3). This provision states 
that the Corporation shall not interfere with any attorney in carrying 
out the attorney's professional responsibilities to a client or 
abrogate the authority of a State or other jurisdiction to enforce the 
standards of professional responsibility applicable to attorneys in 
that jurisdiction.

Section 1611.1  Purpose

    The purpose section was revised to clarify that it is intended to 
deal with financial and other factors that may be used to determine 
eligibility for LSC-funded legal services. In addition, the Committee 
removed the language in the current regulation that gives preference to 
those least able to obtain legal assistance. Although the original LSC 
Act contained language indicating some priority for those who were 
poorest, that language was deleted when the Act was reauthorized in 
1977. There is nothing in the current Act that requires a program to 
give preference to those ``least able to obtain legal assistance'' and 
the Committee felt that it should not be a part of the statement of 
purpose for the regulation.

Section 1611.2  Definitions

Section 1611.2(a)  ``Applicable Rules of Professional Responsibility''
    This new definition was added to make it clear that the references 
in the regulation are intended to refer to the rules of ethics and 
professional responsibility applicable to attorneys in the jurisdiction 
where the recipient either provides legal services or maintains its 
records. If more than one jurisdiction is involved and there is a 
difference in the rules of disclosure between the jurisdictions, the 
Committee wished the Commentary to make clear that, in the 
Corporation's view, the rule that was more protective of client 
confidentiality should govern the disclosure of information to the 
Corporation. It recognized, however, that the applicable law governing 
conflict of laws may differ from that view and would control. The 
Corporation seeks comments regarding any conflict of laws issues that 
might arise. The new definition is consistent with section 1006(b)(3) 
of the Act that states that LSC cannot abrogate the authority of the 
pertinent jurisdiction to enforce the applicable rules.
Section 1611.2(b)  ``Assets''
    This new definition was intended to give programs some guidance as 
to what needs to be included in a program's consideration of an 
applicant's assets, but leaves substantial discretion to the recipient 
to come up with a description of assets that meets local concerns and 
conditions. This is a minimal definition that includes only liquid 
resources, but local programs may include non-liquid assets, as are 
included under the current requirement, if they decide that inclusion 
is appropriate. LSC added the regulatory requirement for consideration 
of non-liquid assets when it revised part 1611 in 1983, but the LSC 
Act, section 1007(a)(2)(B)(i), only requires that recipients take into 
account liquid assets.
    The proposed definition requires inclusion of only those liquid 
assets or other resources that are ``readily convertible to cash, which 
are currently and actually available to the applicant and which could 
be used to hire private counsel.'' Thus, assets that are in the 
applicant's name, but are being held in trust until the applicant 
reaches a certain age or status need not be considered. Similarly, 
assets that are controlled by a guardian or conservator need not be 
considered, although income from the trust that is distributed by the 
guardian or conservator to the applicant should be included in total 
cash receipts. A recipient could make a case-by-case determination of 
whether resources that could be sold, pawned or mortgaged should be 
considered to be resources that are ``readily convertible to cash'' or 
whether an individual should be required to borrow against a pension or 
other asset.
Section 1611.2(c)  ``Governmental program for low-income individuals or 
families''
    The Committee changed the term that is used in the regulation from 
``governmental program for the poor'' although the definition remains 
unchanged.
Section 1611.2(d)  ``Income''
    The Committee revised this definition to include total cash 
receipts of a ``household'' as an alternative to ``family unit,'' and 
to permit programs to choose to use whichever term is more appropriate 
for the individual or local circumstances. Income is reviewed on an 
annual basis, rather than at a particular point in time because the 
Federal Poverty Guidelines, upon which the maximum income levels are 
based, are stated in terms of annual income. Thus, if an applicant for 
services currently has a low-wage job, but was unemployed with no other 
income for several months, income should be adjusted to take account of 
overall income over the prior year. Similarly, if an applicant's income 
is sporadic, as with temporary or day workers, income should be 
estimated on an annual basis, rather than on income for the current 
week or month. The Committee requests comments from the public on any 
additional guidance that may be needed by field programs in applying 
this definition.
Section 1611.2(e)  ``Total Cash Receipts''
    The Committee revised this definition by removing much of the 
detailed information contained in the current definition and adding 
general language that describes the kind of resources that should be 
considered as part of income. The Committee felt that by including the 
detail in the regulation itself, the language could be viewed as a 
rigid framework for compliance that did not permit consideration of 
other possible income sources or the particular circumstances of the 
individual applicant. The new definition makes it clear that ``total 
cash receipts'' means money received by and currently available to an 
applicant for services. Thus, it would not include food or rent in lieu 
of wages, rent subsidies, food stamps, health insurance premiums paid 
by an employer, Medicaid payments to a health care provider, or other 
non-cash benefits or payments made to a third party on behalf of the 
applicant, over which the applicant has no control. The revised 
language refers to ``net income from self-employment'' rather than 
specifying the deductions. Finally, the revised language refers to 
``other regular or recurring sources of financial support that are 
actually available to the applicant.'' These would include such things 
as social security, public or private pension payments; regular 
insurance or annuity payments; unemployment or worker's compensation 
payments; strike benefits 

[[Page 3800]]
from union funds; veterans benefits; alimony, child support, military 
family allotments or other regular support from an absent family member 
or some other third party not living in the household; or income from 
dividends, interest, rents, royalties, estates or trusts that are 
available to or used for the benefit of the applicant for service.
    Total cash receipts would not include the income of an absent, non-
contributing spouse, nor would it include such one-time items as money 
withdrawn from a bank, tax refunds, gifts, insurance payments or cash 
settlements for injuries sustained unless paid out over time on a 
regular basis. These one-time items, however, should be considered by 
the recipients when reviewing an applicant's assets before determining 
eligibility. The question of how to treat income taxes that are 
withheld from salary or paid periodically is dealt with in a later 
section. The current regulation includes ``training stipends'' as part 
of ``income.'' A recipient should be able to decide whether a 
particular training stipend, fellowship, scholarship or similar payment 
constitutes income to the applicant. That determination may depend on 
whether the payment is paid to the applicant or directly to an 
educational or training institution; whether the payment is intended to 
cover tuition or living expenses; and other similar considerations. 
Finally, a recipient should be able to determine whether money is 
actually and currently available to the applicant. For example, money 
paid in trust to an applicant, but not available until the applicant 
reaches a particular age or status, may not be income.

Section 1611.3  Eligibility Policies or Guidelines

Section 1611.3(a)
    This subsection is based on language that appears in Sec. 1611.5(a) 
of the current part 1611, but it is substantially revised and 
relocated. The provision does not simply refer to the annual income 
ceiling, which is dealt with in the next section. Rather, it refers to 
the overall set of policies or guidelines that a recipient follows to 
establish eligibility for LSC-funded services, including both financial 
and non-financial considerations. While the Committee agreed that a 
recipient ought to review its annual income ceilings annually in light 
of revisions to appendix A, the Committee felt that the eligibility 
guidelines themselves needed to be reviewed less frequently. An annual 
review requirement, such as that under the current regulation, often 
encourages a mere pro forma review. The Committee felt that a less 
frequent review would encourage more thoughtful analysis.
Section 1611.3(b)
    This subsection is based on Sec. 1611.5(b)(2)(D) of the current 
regulation, but the provision has been moved up in the proposal to 
guide the recipient through the process of determining financial 
eligibility in a more logical manner. It makes it clear that under the 
LSC Act recipients must consider an applicant's assets before 
determining that the applicant is financially eligible.
Section 1611.3(c)
    This subsection is based on the remaining factors listed in 
Sec. 1611.5(b) of the current regulation. It discusses those additional 
factors that a recipient may consider before determining that an 
applicant who might be financially eligible on the basis of income 
alone should be served. While these are factors that the recipient 
would generally use to disqualify an otherwise financially eligible 
applicant, the Committee recognized that they might also be weighed 
against one another to permit a recipient to determine that a 
particular applicant should be served. For example, a recipient might 
interview an applicant for services whose current income is below the 
recipient's income ceiling, but who anticipates a significant increase 
in income because he or she has been promised a job that is scheduled 
to start in several weeks. Looking only at income and income prospects, 
the recipient might determine not to provide service to that applicant. 
If, however, the applicant is seeking emergency legal assistance to 
prevent the loss of the family's home, the recipient could weigh the 
severity of the consequences for the individual if legal assistance is 
denied and decide that, on balance, it should undertake the 
representation. However, if, during the course of the representation, 
the promised job materializes, the recipient would have to determine 
whether the change in circumstances requires that assistance be 
discontinued, pursuant to Sec. 1611.10.
    The Committee added language regarding the recipient's priorities, 
as well as other case acceptance criteria to make it clear that 
financial eligibility based on income and assets does not create an 
entitlement to legal services. Financial eligibility is only one piece 
in the puzzle that determines whether a recipient will actually 
represent any particular applicant for service. A recipient should look 
to its own priorities as well as any other case acceptance criteria 
that it has adopted to manage its caseload, including conflicts 
considerations and factors used in determining whether a case has 
sufficient merit to justify expenditure of scarce resources.

Section 1611.4  Annual Income Ceilings

    The Committee changed the name of this section, which is found in 
Sec. 1611.3 in the current regulation, from ``maximum income level'' to 
``annual income ceilings.'' The term ``maximum'' is used twice in this 
section of the current regulation with respect to two different sets of 
numbers and is confusing and misleading. Under the current rule, LSC is 
required to set a ``maximum'' income level, currently 125% of the 
Federal Poverty Income Guidelines, but recipients can set their own 
ceilings (or maximum) on income at any level at or below the LSC 
``maximum.'' In addition, the current regulation permits recipients to 
make exceptions to the ``maximum'' income level to take account of 
factors that limit an applicant's ability to afford legal services, so 
the recipient's income level may not really represent a maximum. The 
Committee felt that the use of the term ``annual income ceilings'' was 
more appropriate to describe how the section was to be applied, and it 
is consistent with the term ``asset ceilings'' that is used later in 
the regulation.
Section 1611.4(a)
    The Committee added language to emphasize that the recipient's 
annual income ceiling is applicable only to legal assistance supported 
by LSC funds. Other funders may set their own income eligibility 
levels, and many have done so or have based eligibility for services on 
some other basis, such as age or status. Some funders have chosen to 
adopt LSC financial eligibility guidelines to determine eligibility for 
services supported with their funds. This additional language does not 
represent any substantive change from current law, but does emphasize 
what was not always clear under the current regulation, i.e., that 
other funders are not bound by LSC eligibility guidelines and 
recipients may use whatever eligibility standards the non-LSC funder 
prescribes.
    The Committee also added language to make it clear that both income 
and assets are to be used to determine financial eligibility, but that 
financial eligibility does not entitle a particular applicant to 
receive legal services, since a recipient may also consider other 

[[Page 3801]]
factors in making a determination of whether or not to provide 
services.
Section 1611.4(b)
    The language of this section was revised to clarify its meaning, 
but no substantive changes are intended. The Committee felt that while 
the recipient's annual income ceiling did need to be reviewed annually 
to insure that the program had considered the current figures in 
appendix A, programs should not be required to raise their income 
levels consistent with the changes in Appendix A.
    The Committee discussed whether it should consider raising the LSC 
maximum for income ceilings from the current 125% of the Federal 
Poverty Guidelines to take account of the reality that those guidelines 
have not kept up with the cost of living nationally and that people 
need substantially more than 125% of those guidelines to live above 
poverty. At the same time, the Committee acknowledged that limited 
resources prevent recipients from serving most of the applicants for 
service who are eligible at 125% of the official poverty level. They 
also discussed whether they should revisit the issue of including some 
differential to take account of urban and rural differences in the cost 
of living. Section 1007(a)(2)(A) of the LSC Act requires LSC to take 
account of family size, rural and urban differences as well as 
substantial cost-of-living variations. At present there are different 
levels depending on family size, and there are higher income levels to 
take account of the acknowledged higher cost of living in Alaska and 
Hawaii, but there is no differential for urban versus rural poverty. 
The Committee decided that it would recommend no change for purposes of 
revising part 1611, but recommended that the Board look into the issue 
and decide whether it wished to make any changes. The Committee 
welcomes comments on these issues.
Section 1611.4(c)
    This section was revised to reflect the fact that the ``cost of 
living'' factor is the only factor listed in this provision that is 
specifically required by the Act to be considered by recipients in 
setting the annual income ceiling. Other factors that are relevant to a 
particular recipient must also be considered but it will be up to the 
recipient to determine which other factors are relevant to its service 
area.
Section 1611.4(d)
    This subsection is based on Sec. 1611.3(d) of the current rule. 
Additional language was added to emphasize that the recipient's annual 
income ceiling is applicable only to legal assistance supported by LSC 
funds. Legal assistance supported in whole by non-LSC funds may be 
provided to applicants for service who do not meet LSC income 
guidelines. Other funders may set their own income eligibility levels. 
Nevertheless, to the extent that LSC funds are used to support the 
legal assistance, only financially eligible clients may be served.
    The Committee wanted the Commentary to make clear that this section 
does not prevent a recipient from using LSC funds to support its intake 
system, even though some applicants for service will clearly be 
ineligible. Performing intake to determine eligibility is not the same 
as providing legal assistance. Nor does the section prohibit recipients 
from providing some limited service to applicants who are financially 
ineligible. For example, if after completing intake, a recipient finds 
an applicant to be ineligible, the recipient may provide the applicant 
with referrals to other sources of legal or other assistance that could 
be helpful, may provide pamphlets or other written materials that are 
available to assist the applicant, or may provide some simple, basic 
advice that would enable the applicant to handle his or her own problem 
without legal assistance.

Deletion of Current Sec. 1611.5  Determination of Eligibility

    The provisions of this section have been incorporated into other 
sections of the proposal to simplify the regulation and give it a more 
logical and easy-to-follow structure.

Section 1611.5  Authorized Exceptions to the Recipient's Annual Income 
Ceilings

    This section includes subsections from Secs. 1611.4 and 1611.5 of 
the current regulation, but they have been reordered and revised. These 
factors, which may be considered here, should be viewed as limitations 
on an applicant's use of his/her income that would permit a recipient 
to deem the applicant as falling below the income ceiling.
Section 1611.5(a)
    The changes were designed principally to simplify the language of 
the regulation, although the revisions contained in the introductory 
language to the section do provide recipients with slightly more 
flexibility in deciding which applicants for service whose unadjusted 
income exceeds 125% of the official poverty line nevertheless may be 
deemed to be financially eligible. The current regulation permits 
consideration of applicants for service whose unadjusted income is 
below 150% of the national LSC eligibility level, or 187.5% of the 
official poverty line. This proposal simplifies the calculation and 
raises the outside limit for unadjusted income to 200% of the official 
poverty line. The introduction also makes it clear that the applicant 
must still meet the asset limit test in Sec. 1611.3(b) and that the 
recipient should still consider the factors in Sec. 1611.3(c) before 
deciding whether to serve any particular person.
Section 1611.5(a)(1)
    The language of this subsection was revised to make it clear that 
recipients could serve persons up to 200% of poverty if the person was 
seeking to maintain benefits as well as to secure them in the first 
instance.
Section 1611.5(a)(2)
    This new subsection was added to permit recipients to serve persons 
with incomes up to 200% of poverty to secure or maintain disability 
benefits, but only if without those benefits the person would be 
otherwise eligible. The Committee felt that for many disabled persons, 
disability benefit programs provided only subsistence support and those 
individuals should be treated in the same way as those seeking to 
secure or maintain benefits available on the basis of financial need. 
The Committee also recognized, however, that many disabled individuals 
who are eligible for disability benefits may not be particularly 
economically disadvantaged, and should not be eligible for legal 
assistance simply by virtue of their eligibility for those benefits.
Section 1611.5(a)(3)
    This subsection lists those factors that a recipient should 
consider in making a determination that a particular applicant for 
service whose income is between 125% and 200% of poverty should be 
deemed eligible for LSC-funded services. The factors are, with several 
changes discussed below, the same as those factors that appear in 
Sec. 1611.5 (b) of the current regulation.
    Paragraph (B) has been revised to make it clear that if a person's 
medical expenses are reimbursed, through insurance or a government 
program such as Medicare or Medicaid, those reimbursed expenses cannot 
be deducted in determining eligibility; if, however, if a person has 
paid bills and is awaiting future reimbursement, those expenses could 
be deduced. In that case, when the actual reimbursement is 

[[Page 3802]]
received, there would be an increase in assets and a potential change 
in circumstances, see Sec. 1611.10. In addition, the language has been 
changed so that it is clear that a person whose income is devoted 
primarily to payment of medical expenses may be considered eligible for 
LSC services without regard to income, but only if the applicant's 
income does not exceed the recipient's annual income ceiling after 
unreimbursed expenses are deducted.
    Paragraph (C) has been revised in several respects. First, the 
proposal removes the discrimination against the working poor that is 
inherent in the existing rule, which does not exclude current taxes 
from the calculation of available income. Second, since alimony and/or 
child support payments made to a current or former spouse or custodial 
parent are included in the current definition of income for those who 
receive them, the Committee agreed that they should also be deducted 
from income for those who pay them. Another issue that has arisen from 
time to time is the treatment of rent versus mortgage payments under 
this provision. In general, rent for housing has not been included as a 
fixed obligation under this section, but several General Counsel's 
opinions have treated mortgage payments as fixed debts, creating a 
discrimination against renters in favor of homeowners. In order not to 
discriminate against renters, both rent and mortgage payments should be 
treated the same way. The Committee seeks comments on whether both rent 
and mortgage payments should be permitted as factors. The Committee 
also seeks comments on any other types of fixed debts or obligations 
that should be specifically included in the language of the rule or in 
the Commentary.
    Paragraph (D) has been revised to provide explicitly that 
educational or job training expenses necessary to prepare a person for 
work should be treated the same as expenses related to actual 
employment.
    Paragraph (E) has been revised to make it clear that not all 
expenses that can reasonably be attributable to age or disability are 
deductible, but only those that are unusual. Programs can make that 
determination on a case-by-case basis.
    Paragraph (F) has been revised to make it clear that the recipient 
has discretion to consider other factors to deem a particular applicant 
eligible for services, even though the applicant is over the program's 
annual income ceiling, but below 200% of poverty.
Section 1611.5(b)
    The Committee proposes to revise the provision in the current 
regulation that requires recipients to maintain specific documentation 
relating to decisions to provide representation to individuals whose 
income is between 125% and 187.5% of poverty. The Committee believes 
that requiring the recipient to keep this information in the client's 
file, as is the case under the current regulation, could interfere with 
LSC's ability to have access to the information that it needs without 
going into the client case files and possibly compromising 
confidentiality. Thus, the record that the recipient keeps to meet the 
requirement of this section for purposes of informing LSC about the 
exceptions should be maintained separate from any client case files. 
The Committee also believes that the current provision does not contain 
sufficient protection to insure that LSC would not have access to any 
client information that should be protected under applicable rules of 
professional responsibility, and has incorporated a reference to 
Sec. 1611.8(d) that delineates the parameters of LSC's access to such 
information. The Committee noted that, under the proposed regulation, 
the applicable rules were those of the jurisdiction where the records 
were kept or where the services were provided, whichever were more 
protective of the client's privacy. However, the Corporation seeks 
comments on any conflict of laws questions that would be raised by the 
proposed provision.

Section 1611.6  Asset Ceilings

Section 1611.6(a)
    The requirement for annual establishment of asset ceilings and 
transmittal to LSC has been deleted in keeping with the Committee's 
effort to eliminate unnecessary reporting requirements. Compliance with 
the asset ceiling guideline requirement can be assured through periodic 
monitoring, self-assessments, or other compliance processes. The 
proposed revised subsection requires that recipients review their asset 
ceilings as part of the overall review of eligibility policies or 
guidelines that must be done at least once every three years under 
Sec. 1611.3(a) of this proposed regulation. In addition, language has 
been added to make it clear that asset guidelines must be considered in 
determining eligibility for service, whether the applicant's income is 
below 125% of poverty or below 200% of poverty. Finally, the Committee 
deleted the language that required recipients to consider non-liquid 
assets. The LSC Act, section 1007(a)(2)(B)(i), only requires that LSC 
guidelines ensure that recipients take into account liquid assets; it 
does not mention non-liquid assets. When part 1611 was amended in 1983, 
LSC added the requirement for consideration of non-liquid assets. When 
read with the definition of assets contained in Sec. 1611.2, this 
proposal goes back to the original treatment of assets in the first 
regulation and in the LSC Act.
Section 1611.6(b)
    The Committee deleted the specific items that the current 
regulation requires be considered in establishing asset guidelines and 
those that the current regulation permits to be exempted from the asset 
guidelines. The Committee felt that this level of detail was not 
required by the Act and was inappropriate to include in the regulation, 
and that recipients should be able to establish asset guidelines based 
on their determination of local conditions, with flexibility to 
consider the circumstances of a particular applicant for service as 
well as local economic conditions and other local concerns. In 
addition, the Committee felt that it was appropriate to explicitly 
permit recipients to look to other existing federal or state asset 
exemption schemes for guidance in setting their own guidelines.
Section 1611.6(c)
    The language of this subsection has been revised to correct a 
reference in the current regulation to ``minimum'', rather than 
``maximum'' asset ceilings. In addition, the subsection was revised to 
make it clear that the director of a recipient could designate another 
staff member to make the determination to waive the asset ceilings in 
unusual situations, and to remove the requirement that documentation 
for such waivers be maintained in the individual client's file. This 
was done to protect materials in the case file from inadvertent and 
improper disclosure to LSC.
Section 1611.6(d)
    This documentation provision has been revised to refer to 
Sec. 1611.8(d) to describe the general limitations on LSC's access to 
records and information.

Section 1611.7  Group Eligibility

    This proposed section deals with the issue of group eligibility 
that is addressed in Sec. 1611.5(b)(2)(C) of the current regulation. 
The Committee decided to treat this issue in a separate section to make 
it clear that different criteria apply to the consideration of whether 
or not a group is eligible for 

[[Page 3803]]
LSC-funded legal assistance. This proposal incorporates a number of 
revisions to the current language. This new language is based on the 
original group representation provision that was in effect from 1976 
until 1983. While the new proposal is based on the 1976 provision, 
there are several changes. In order to clarify the provision, the order 
was changed and some of the language was revised.
Section 1611.7(a)
    The Committee added a reference to ``financial'' eligibility of 
group members in paragraph (1) To make it clear that group members had 
only to be financially eligible for services, not that they would 
actually receive services for a particular matter. Paragraph (2) which 
includes the ``primary purpose'' provision, was revised to make it 
clear that a group could be served as long as its main function or 
activity is the furtherance of the interests that benefit people in the 
community who would be eligible for legal assistance under the Act, and 
the representation relates to such a function or activity.
Section 1611.7(b)
    This new provision was added to emphasize that recipients may use 
non-LSC funds to provide legal assistance to groups that do not meet 
the criteria of this section.
    The Committee discussed whether the group representation provisions 
were sufficient to take account of the uniqueness of Indian tribes and 
raised the issue of whether the regulation should include special 
treatment for tribes under this section. While the Committee did not 
propose adding any specific language to the proposal, it would welcome 
comments from members of the Native American community and others on 
the degree to which the proposed language meets the concerns of that 
community.

Section 1611.8  Manner of Determining Financial Eligibility.

Section 1611.8(a)
    Many of the revisions in this section are intended to simply 
clarify the language. The principal changes relate to the role of LSC 
in reviewing intake forms and financial information provided to 
recipients by applicants for services. Under the current regulation, 
the Corporation has authority to approve both the forms and procedures 
that a recipient uses to determine eligibility. That authority is no 
longer contained in this proposal. In addition, the proposed 
Sec. 1611.8(a) refers to Sec. 1611.8(d) regarding LSC's access to 
client information.
Section 1611.8(b)
    The revisions to this provision are intended to clarify the 
language of the provision, but no substantive changes are intended.
Section 1611.8(c)
    This new provision was added to make it clear that national and 
state support centers can provide assistance to local field programs or 
co-counsel with them in cases without making independent eligibility 
determinations for clients referred by field programs. The support 
center should, of course, be able to satisfy itself that such a 
determination was actually made by the field program. The Committee 
wished to make clear that a support center was free to review a 
client's eligibility before undertaking representation, if it so chose, 
but it was not required to do so if satisfied by the actions taken by 
the original recipient.
Section 1611.8(d)
    This subsection has been substantially revised in the proposed new 
regulation. The Committee believes that the provisions on access to 
client eligibility information contained in the current regulation may 
have been applied in a manner that was inconsistent with the applicable 
rules of professional responsibility and section 1006(b)(3) of the LSC 
Act that prohibits LSC from abrogating the authority of states and 
local jurisdictions to enforce those rules. The ABA's Standing 
Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants (``SCLAID'') expressed 
great concern about the protection of client confidences, secrets, and 
other information gained in the course of representation. SCLAID urged 
the Committee to adopt rules that would permit LSC to have access to 
information only in a manner consistent with the applicable rules of 
professional responsibility. The Committee proposal makes it clear that 
information disclosed by a client or applicant for service in order to 
establish eligibility for services should not be disclosed to LSC or to 
any third party without the express written permission of the client or 
applicant, unless disclosure is permitted by and would not violate the 
attorney-client privilege and the applicable rules of professional 
responsibility. The Committee recognized that such a provision might 
mean that LSC could be subject to somewhat different rules in each 
jurisdiction, but agreed that Congress, in enacting section 1006(b)(3) 
of the Act, clearly intended that the state or local rules would 
govern. The Committee noted that LSC would have to discharge its 
responsibilities for ensuring that LSC funds were used to serve only 
financially eligible clients and in a manner consistent with the 
disclosure requirements of each jurisdiction. LSC is working to develop 
general procedures to permit it to fulfill its obligations in this 
regard. The Committee welcomes comments that would assist the 
Corporation in designing such procedures.
    Finally, the Committee proposal noted that recipients may reveal to 
third parties information provided by a client or applicant to 
establish eligibility when the disclosure of the information is 
implicitly authorized in order to carry out the representation, as 
permitted by Rule 1.6(a) of the ABA's Model Rules of Professional 
Conduct, subject to any variations in the rules adopted by various 
states or local jurisdiction. There are many situations where the 
client either wants such disclosures made or where it can be assumed 
that the client wants disclosure made in order to advance the task the 
lawyer has been asked to carry out on behalf of the client. Examples 
include sharing financial information about a client with the court or 
counsel for the opposing party in a divorce action where necessary to 
establish appropriate alimony or child support payments or with an 
administrative agency that has cut off welfare benefits based on the 
alleged existence of other income. Clearly, by seeking representation 
in these cases, a client has implicitly authorized the limited sharing 
of information needed for full representation, but has not authorized 
the disclosure of that information for other purposes not directly 
related to the case or matter.
    The Committee discussed the possible need for LSC to develop a 
records retention policy to ensure that recipients maintained records 
relating to eligibility for a sufficient period to guarantee 
accountability. The Committee did not recommend any particular policy, 
but would like to receive comments on whether such a policy would be 
desirable and what should be included in such a policy.

Section 1611.9  Retainer Agreement

Section 1611.9(a)
    While keeping the requirement for recipients to execute written 
retainer agreements with all clients who are represented by the 
recipient, the Committee decided to delete the requirement that LSC 
approve or reject 

[[Page 3804]]
the particular form of a recipient's agreement. The language makes it 
clear that retainers are needed only when the recipient actually 
undertakes representation. Some forms of legal assistance, such as pro 
se clinics or community legal education, do not require the recipient 
to obtain retainer agreements from everyone who attends. The proposal 
acknowledges that many jurisdictions have their own rules or practices 
regarding retainer agreements, and that recipients should make sure 
their retainers are consistent with those rules, as well as with local 
practice, where applicable. Nothing in the current LSC Act requires 
retainer agreements, although all of the current LSC reauthorization 
bills would include such a requirement, and the Committee acknowledged 
that it is good practice in most instances to have a written retainer.
Section 1611.9(b)
    The Committee decided to remove the language relating to 
emergencies, in recognition of the fact that there may be numerous 
circumstances when a recipient could not immediately execute a retainer 
before taking action on behalf of a client. The Committee also decided 
to delete the specific information that needed to be included in a 
retainer agreement, recognizing that such requirements could be 
inconsistent with requirements governing retainer agreements in state 
rules of professional responsibility.
Section 1611.9(c)
    This provision was revised in response to a concern that, if the 
retainer was required to be included in the client's file and was 
subject to examination by LSC during monitoring, it might give LSC an 
opportunity to review the whole file, which could violate the 
restrictions on LSC access to client information, even though the 
current rule suggests that client identity is protected. As with 
eligibility information, this section requires that disclosure of 
information be consistent with the attorney-client privilege and the 
applicable rules of professional responsibility. The Committee 
recognized that in most instances, the recipient could simply redact 
the names and other identifying information from the retainer agreement 
to meet the standard set out in this section. However, there might be 
instances where a particular retainer agreement includes more 
information about the actual representation than would a financial 
intake sheet. The retainer agreement, for example, might reveal so much 
information about the client or case that it would be impossible to 
protect client identity by redacting only client identifying 
information such as name and address. In such a case, all additional 
information that could indirectly reveal client identity would have to 
be redacted as well.
    In cases where the identity of the client is already known, review 
of a retainer agreement could reveal substantial information that 
relates to representation. SCLAID reiterated its concern about 
protection of client information. Clearly, the Corporation would need 
to devise procedures that would balance its need to ensure that 
retainer agreements are being properly executed and maintained, while 
appropriately protecting client information. The Committee welcomes 
comments on such procedures.
Section 1611.9(d)
    The Committee adopted additional language in its revision of this 
provision to expand the explanation of the circumstances under which a 
retainer agreement was not necessary, such as when the service was of 
brief duration or very limited in scope. This provision would be 
particularly important for programs that operate telephone hotlines, 
where, in many instances, the services consist of limited advice or 
consultation and the only contact with the client is via telephone. The 
issue is where to strike the balance between protecting the interests 
involved and limiting the administrative burdens on recipients. The 
Committee invites public comment on this issue.
Section 1611.9(e)
    This provision was added to deal with the situation where a state 
or national support center has joined a case brought by a local 
recipient as co-counsel. This provision makes it clear that the client 
must have notice that another program is assisting in the 
representation, and the original retainer agreement must be broad 
enough in scope to encompass the new services that are being provided. 
The Committee wanted to distinguish the co-counselling situation from 
the case where a local field program turned the representation over to 
a support center or other recipient, with the original recipient no 
longer serving as counsel in the case. The Committee felt that a new 
retainer agreement should be required in that situation, but invites 
comments on the issue. Nothing in this provision would prevent a 
support center from executing a new retainer agreement with a client, 
even when the relationship is clearly one where the support center is 
only a co-counsel in the case, and there may be situations where it 
would be necessary or prudent for it to do so.
    The Committee also wished the Commentary to make clear that this 
provision was not applicable to situations where a recipient does 
intake and financial eligibility screening for an applicant for service 
and then refers the applicant to another attorney who has agreed to 
represent the applicant on a pro bono basis, either through the 
recipient's PAI program or on some other basis. In that instance, the 
private attorney, not the recipient, is representing the client, and 
any retainer agreement should be made between the client and the 
private attorney, subject to any appropriate standards governing pro 
bono practice. The Committee invites additional comments on this or 
other situations that may arise where other attorneys are involved in 
the representation of eligible clients.

Section 1611.10  Change in Circumstances

    The Committee proposes two revisions to the current language. The 
first changes the phrase ``is sufficiently likely to continue'' to ``is 
sufficient and is likely to continue,'' in order to clarify what is 
meant by the phrase. The second revision expands the language regarding 
professional responsibilities. The recipient may have obligations to 
the client beyond those of the individual attorney and ethical concerns 
might be broader than professional responsibilities. In addition, the 
Committee invites comments from the public as to whether this provision 
is adequate to deal with the issue of when a change in a client's 
circumstances would require discontinuation of representation by the 
recipient and what procedures a recipient should follow to effect such 
discontinuation.

List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 1611

    Legal services.

    For reasons set forth in the preamble, LSC proposes to revise 45 
CFR part 1611 to read as follows:

PART 1611--ELIGIBILITY

Sec.
1611.1  Purpose.
1611.2  Definitions.
1611.3  Eligibility policies or guidelines.
1611.4  Annual income ceilings.
1611.5  Authorized exceptions to the recipient's annual income 
ceiling.
1611.6  Asset ceilings.
1611.7  Group eligibility.
1611.8  Manner of determining financial eligibility.
1611.9  Retainer agreement.
1611.10  Change in circumstances.

[[Page 3805]]


Appendix A--Legal Services Corporation Poverty Guideline

    Note: Appendix A: The Corporation is not requesting comments on 
the current Appendix. The Appendix is revised annually, after the 
Corporation receives the new Federal Poverty Guidelines. 
Accordingly, the Appendix will be revised for 1995 at a later date.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2996e(b)(1), 2996e(b)(3), 2996f(a)(1), 
2996f(a)(2).


Sec. 1611.1  Purpose.

    This part is designed to ensure that a recipient will determine 
eligibility for legal assistance according to financial and other 
criteria that take account of factors that influence an individual's or 
group's ability to obtain legal assistance, and to afford sufficient 
latitude for a recipient to consider local circumstances and its own 
resource limitations. This part also seeks to insure that eligibility 
is determined in a manner conducive to development of an effective 
attorney-client relationship.


Sec. 1611.2  Definitions.

    (a) Applicable rules of professional responsibility means the rules 
of ethics and professional responsibility generally applicable to 
attorneys in the jurisdiction where the recipient either provides legal 
services or maintains its files.
    (b) Assets means, at a minimum, cash or other liquid assets or 
resources that are readily convertible to cash, which are currently and 
actually available to the applicant and which could be used to retain 
private counsel.
    (c) Governmental program for low income individuals or families 
means any Federal, State or local program that provides benefits of any 
kind to persons whose eligibility is determined on the basis of 
financial need.
    (d) Income means actual current annual total cash receipts before 
taxes of all persons who are resident members of, and contribute to the 
support of a household or family unit.
    (e) Total cash receipts include, but are not limited to, money, 
wages and salaries before any deduction; net income from self-
employment; regular cash payments from public assistance and other 
benefit programs; and other regular or recurring sources of financial 
support that are currently and actually available to the applicant for 
service.


Sec. 1611.3  Eligibility policies or guidelines.

    (a) The governing body of a recipient shall adopt eligibility 
policies or guidelines, consistent with this part, for determining the 
eligibility of persons and groups seeking legal assistance under the 
Act. The governing body shall review its eligibility policies or 
guidelines at least once every three years and make adjustments if 
necessary.
    (b) In addition to consideration of income under Secs. 1611.4 and 
1611.5, the recipient's eligibility policies or guidelines shall 
provide that, before undertaking representation or providing services 
to an applicant, the recipient shall consider the existence of assets 
available to the applicant, and shall disqualify any applicant for 
service whose assets are in excess of the asset ceiling set by the 
recipient pursuant to Sec. 1611.6, unless a waiver is granted pursuant 
to Sec. 1611.6(c).
    (c) The recipient's eligibility policies or guidelines may also 
provide for consideration of the following factors which may be used by 
the recipient to determine whether or not to provide services to a 
particular financially eligible applicant for service:
    (1) The applicant's current income prospects, taking into account 
seasonal variations in income;
    (2) The availability of private or other legal representation at 
low or no cost with respect to the particular matter in which 
assistance is sought;
    (3) The consequences for the individual or group if legal 
assistance is denied;
    (4) Other significant factors that affect an individual's financial 
inability to afford legal assistance, which may include evidence of a 
prior administrative or judicial determination that a person's present 
lack of income results from refusal or unwillingness, without good 
cause, to seek or accept suitable employment; and
    (5) Any other case acceptance criteria, in addition to the 
recipient's priorities established under Part 1620 of these 
regulations, that the recipient may utilize to determine which cases to 
accept from among cases of financially eligible persons or groups. Such 
criteria shall include, but are not limited to, consideration of the 
merits of the applicant's claim and any conflicts of interest that may 
exist.


Sec. 1611.4  Annual income ceilings.

    (a) Every recipient shall establish an annual income ceiling. 
Unless disqualified on the basis of assets under Sec. 1611.3(b), 
applicants for services whose income falls below the recipient's annual 
income ceiling will be considered financially eligible to receive legal 
assistance supported with funds provided under the Act, subject to the 
recipient's consideration of the factors described in Sec. 1611.3(c).
    (b) Unless specifically authorized by the Corporation, a recipient 
shall not establish an annual income ceiling that exceeds a maximum of 
one hundred and twenty-five percent (125%) of the current official 
Federal Poverty Guidelines. The calculations of 125% of the current 
Federal Poverty Guidelines are set forth in Appendix A to this part as 
revised annually. The recipient's governing body shall review the 
recipient's annual income ceiling annually and consider any changes 
made in Appendix A to this part.
    (c) Before establishing its annual income ceiling, a recipient 
shall consider cost of living in the service area. The recipient shall 
also consider other factors that it determines are relevant. These 
factors may include, but are not limited to:
    (1) The number of clients who can be served by the resources of the 
recipient;
    (2) The population who would be eligible at and below alternative 
income ceilings; and
    (3) The availability and cost of legal services provided by the 
private bar in the area.
    (d) Unless authorized by Sec. 1611.5, no person whose income 
exceeds the annual income ceiling established by a recipient shall be 
eligible for legal assistance supported with funds provided under the 
Act, but this part does not prohibit a recipient from providing legal 
assistance to an applicant for service whose annual income exceeds the 
annual income ceiling established by the recipient, if the legal 
assistance provided to the person is supported in whole by funds from a 
source other than the Corporation.


Sec. 1611.5  Authorized exceptions to the recipient's annual income 
ceiling.

    (a) Subject to the recipient's consideration of the factors 
described in Sec. 1611.3(c), an applicant for service whose income 
exceeds the annual income ceiling established by a recipient, but does 
not exceed 200% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines, may be provided 
legal assistance supported by funds provided under the Act if the 
applicant would not be disqualified on the basis of assets under 
Sec. 1611.3(b), above; and
    (1) The applicant is seeking legal assistance to secure or maintain 
benefits provided by a governmental program for low income individuals 
or families;
    (2) The applicant is seeking legal assistance to secure or maintain 
benefits provided by a governmental program for the disabled, but only 
if without those benefits the applicant's income would not exceed the 
recipient's annual income ceiling; or

[[Page 3806]]

    (3) The recipient determines that the applicant should be deemed to 
be eligible for services on the basis of one or more of the following 
factors that restrict the applicant's financial ability to afford 
private legal assistance:
    (i) The applicant's current income prospects, taking into account 
seasonal variations in income;
    (ii) Unreimbursed medical or nursing home expenses, but if an 
applicant's income is primarily committed to medical or nursing home 
expenses, the applicant may be served if his or her income is over 200 
percent of the Federal Poverty Income Guidelines but does not exceed 
the recipient's annual income ceiling after such expenses are deducted;
    (iii) Fixed debts and obligations, including but not limited to, 
current Federal, state or local taxes withheld from salary or paid 
periodically, unpaid Federal, state or local taxes from prior years, 
child support or alimony payments made to a current or former spouse, 
custodial parent, guardian or other custodian of a dependent minor 
child;
    (iv) Child care, transportation, and other expenses necessary for 
employment, job training or educational activities in preparation for 
employment;
    (v) Unusual expenses associated with age or disability of a 
resident family member; or
    (vi) Other significant factors that the recipient finds are related 
to the applicant's financial ability to afford private legal 
assistance.
    (b) In the event that a recipient determines that it will provide 
legal assistance pursuant to Sec. 1611.5(a), the recipient shall 
document the specific factor(s) relied on to make the determination. 
The recipient shall keep such records as are necessary to inform the 
Corporation as to the number of such cases and the specific factors 
relied on to make such determinations, consistent with the restrictions 
on disclosure contained in Sec. 1611.8(d).


Sec. 1611.6  Asset ceilings.

    (a) The governing body of the recipient shall establish guidelines 
incorporating reasonable asset ceilings to be utilized in determining 
eligibility for services under Secs. 1611.3(b), 1611.4 and 1611.5. As 
part of the review required under Sec. 1611.3(a), the recipient shall 
review its asset ceiling guidelines at least once every three years and 
adjust them as necessary.
    (b) In establishing such guidelines, the recipient may consider 
asset exemptions which may be available under State or Federal law.
    (c) The asset ceiling guidelines may provide authority for the 
director of the recipient or the director's designee to waive the 
ceilings on maximum allowable assets in unusual situations.
    (d) In the event such a waiver is granted, the recipient shall 
document the factors considered in granting the waiver. The recipient 
shall keep such records as are necessary to inform the Corporation as 
to the number and the specific factors considered in granting such 
waivers, consistent with the restrictions on disclosure contained in 
Sec. 1611.8(d).


Sec. 1611.7  Group eligibility.

    (a) A recipient may provide legal assistance to a group, 
corporation, association or other entity if such group or entity 
provides information showing that it lacks, and has no practical means 
of obtaining, funds to enable it to obtain private counsel in the 
matter on which representation is sought, and that it:
    (1) Is primarily composed of persons who are financially eligible 
for legal assistance under the Act and this part; or
    (2) Has as its principal function or activity the furtherance of 
interests that benefit those persons in the community who would be 
financially eligible for legal assistance under the Act and this part, 
and the representation sought relates to such a function or activity.
    (b) This part does not prohibit a recipient from providing legal 
assistance to a group or entity that does not meet the requirements of 
this section if the legal assistance is supported in whole by funds 
from a source other than the Corporation.


Sec. 1611.8  Manner of determining eligibility.

    (a) A recipient shall adopt simple intake forms and procedures to 
obtain financial and other information from individuals and groups to 
determine eligibility in a manner that promotes the development of 
trust between attorney and client. The forms shall be preserved by the 
recipient and information contained in the forms may be disclosed only 
in a manner that is consistent with Sec. 1611.8(d).
    (b) If there is substantial reason to doubt the accuracy of the 
financial or other eligibility information provided by an individual or 
group client or applicant for service, a recipient shall make 
appropriate inquiry to verify the information, in a manner consistent 
with the attorney-client relationship.
    (c) When one recipient has determined that a client is eligible for 
service in a particular case or matter, that recipient may request 
another recipient to extend legal assistance or undertake 
representation on behalf of that client in the same case or matter in 
reliance upon the initial eligibility determination. The subsequent 
recipient is not required to review or redetermine the client's 
eligibility unless there is a change of circumstances as described in 
Sec. 1611.10 or there is substantial reason to doubt the validity of 
the original determination.
    (d) Information furnished to a recipient by a client or an 
applicant for service to establish eligibility shall not be disclosed 
to the Corporation or to any third party who is neither employed nor 
retained by the recipient, nor associated with the recipient as co-
counsel in the representation of the client, without the express 
written consent of the client or applicant except as such disclosure 
may be permitted without violation of the attorney-client privilege or 
applicable rules of professional responsibility. Nothing in this 
paragraph would prohibit an attorney from revealing information 
provided by a client that is implicitly authorized to be revealed in 
order to carry out the representation.


Sec. 1611.9  Retainer agreement.

    (a) A recipient shall execute a written retainer agreement with 
each individual or group client or named class representative who is 
represented by the recipient, in a form consistent with the applicable 
rules of professional responsibility and prevailing practices in the 
recipient's service area.
    (b) The retainer agreement shall be executed when representation 
commences or as soon thereafter as is practicable.
    (c) The recipient shall retain the executed retainer agreement and 
shall make the agreement available for review by the Corporation in a 
manner that protects from disclosure any information protected by the 
attorney-client privilege or the applicable rules of professional 
responsibility.
    (d) A recipient is not required to execute a written retainer 
agreement when only providing limited advice, consultation, or brief 
service.
    (e) When one recipient has executed a retainer agreement with a 
client, another recipient acting as co-counsel may extend legal 
assistance or undertake representation on behalf of that client in the 
same case or matter at the request of the original recipient without 
executing a separate retainer agreement, as long as--
    (1) The additional legal assistance or representation is within the 
scope of the original retainer agreement; and
    (2) the client has received written notification that another 
recipient is 

[[Page 3807]]
providing additional legal assistance or representation in the matter.


Sec. 1611.10  Change in circumstances.

    If an eligible client becomes ineligible through a change in 
circumstances, a recipient shall discontinue representation if the 
change in circumstances is sufficient, and is likely to continue, to 
enable the client to afford private legal assistance, and 
discontinuation is not inconsistent with applicable rules of 
professional responsibilities.

    Dated: January 10, 1995.
Victor M. Fortuno,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 95-1071 Filed 1-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7050-01-P`