Source: http://www.mcdowellfoundation.org/news
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 06:40:17+00:00

Document:
Prisoner’s Legal Services of Massachusetts, a 2019 grantee, has filed suit in their grant funded case challenging the Massachusetts law, M.G.L. c. 123, § 35, that authorizes the involuntary civil commitment in Department of Correction prisons of men but not women suffering from alcohol and substance use disorders. Their filing has received press coverage in both the Boston Globe and the local NPR radio station.
The two stories are linked here, respectively: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/03/14/addictionsuit/qJxzphSImv1OdRivvTRP2O/story.html?s_campaign=8315 and https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2019/03/14/masac-section-35-lawsuit.
The AIC filed a class action on behalf of persons holding Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”) who want to become lawful permanent residents (“LPRs”) through their relationships with qualifying U.S. citizen relatives or employers. The vast majority of these TPS holders have held that status for 15 to 24 years and are fully integrated into their U.S. communities. Through the governmental policy challenged in this case AIC claims that the United States unlawfully denies Plaintiffs the opportunity to adjust from TPS to LPR status which is the first step towards obtaining U.S. citizenship.
AIC filed a motion for a preliminary injunction with the court in November 2018 and is waiting for a decision. Its motions for class certification and a cross motion for summary judgment have been pending for almost six months. AIC is concerned that TPS holders may soon begin losing their TPS status. AIC has not heard nothing yet from the court on any of these pending motions. AIC’s time records show that it is on track to meet its grant obligations.
NCLEJ filed a class action law suit, Black Love Resists et al v. City of Buffalo, which challenges, among other claims, the Buffalo Police Department’s systematic targeting of communities of color with aggressive and punitive traffic enforcement resulting in millions of dollars in ticket revenues. NCLEJ and co-counsel brought the action on behalf of thousands of individuals as well as the organization Black Love Resists in the Rust, whose members have been harmed by the challenged practices.
NCLEJ has begun the discovery phase of litigation and participated in the court’s process to determine whether the case can be addressed through mediation. NCLEJ has informed the community about the case and gathered additional facts from witnesses about their experiences with checkpoints, ticketing, and the Buffalo Police Department (BPD). NCLEJ’s time records show that it is on track to meet its grant obligations.
In 2018 U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions intervened in an asylum case involving a domestic violence survivor from El Salvador known as Matter of A-B-, certifying the case to himself for reconsideration. In June 2018 Sessions issued a decision in A-B-, reversing a previous grant of asylum to the plaintiff and casting doubt on the viability of all asylum claims based on domestic violence, gang brutality, and other forms of persecution perpetrated by nongovernment actors. CGRS has launched a nationally coordinated public advocacy campaign in support of the litigation.
In August 2018 the CGRS we submitted new briefing to Judge Couch in support of Ms. A.B.’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We also moved to recuse Couch from the case (preserving Ms. A.B.’s due process claims of bias). Judge Couch denied the motion and in October 2018 issued a final denial of her claims for relief. CGRS’ time records show that it is on track to meet its grant obligations.
Prisoners’ Legal Services, a Massachusetts nonprofit legal services office, has prepared to file suit challenging the Massachusetts law, M.G.L. c. 123, § 35, that authorizes the involuntary civil commitment of men suffering from alcohol and substance use disorders to Department of Correction prisons. Massachusetts is the only state in the country where men are civilly committed to a correctional institution for substance use.
PLS has engaged in the fact-finding and client outreach necessary for litigation, including drafting a complaint and motion for class certification. PLS has also worked to educate the legal community, policy makers, and the public about the harm of incarcerating patients suffering from alcohol and substance abuse, through outreach to a legislatively-established commission bar associations, individual attorneys and activists. PLS’ time records show that it is on track to meet its grant obligations.
NIPNLG moved to intervene in proceedings before the Bureau of Hearings and Appeals (BHA) of the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (the “Department”). The BHA proceedings involve the Berks County Residential Center (BCRC) Petition to Appeal the Department’s non-renewal of its operating license. BCRC is an immigration detention center that imprisons minor children and their parents. Without a license as a child residential facility, the BCRC, which detains immigrant parents and children together, cannot operate. NIPNLG represented detained minor children D.G.A. and R.D.A.M. and detained adults G.C.G. and R.N.
In October 2019 NIPNLG, along with co-counsel, filed a brief to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in support of detained families’ right to intervene in this licensing dispute. NIPNLG is awaiting a decision on its petition. NIPNLG’s time records show that it is on track to meet its grant obligations.
"A Philadelphia law requires that a landlord must provide tenants with a Certificate of Rental Suitability when they sign a lease. These Certificates, which are issued by the Department of Licenses &amp; Inspections (L&amp;I), require landlords to affirmatively verify their properties are suitable to be lived in, and can only be issued when L&amp;I determines there are no outstanding code violations. When a landlord fails to comply with this requirement, renters do not owe rent. In short, landlords must make their properties habitable before they collect rent from tenants.
Landlords, however, often ignored the law. Making matters worse, their attorneys would sue tenants for that rent in Philadelphia’s Municipal Court. The Public Interest Law Center, a 2018 grantee of the foundation, sought to disrupt that business model, and end this practice once and for all. The Law Center filed a 2017 class action complaint, Baker v. Ross, alleging that a landlord attorney’s complaints for this back rent were not just in contravention of Philadelphia law, but were in violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Given the state of the lawyer-defendant’s finances, the parties entered into successful settlement talks before a Magistrate Judge. That eventual settlement included the payment of damages to the tenant class, and lawyer-defendant’s end to the practice of suing for money when his landlord clients had not complied with the Certificate of Suitability law. Moreover, the Board of Judges of the Municipal Court took independent action to solve the problem, enacting court rules to end the practice for all lawyers, not just the defendant here.
As part of its High Impact Litigation Project, the McDowell Foundation, in conjunction with the law firm Drinker Biddle, the National Center for Law and Economic Justice, and New Economy Project, filed a federal class action lawsuit charging the NYC Transit Authority, an arm of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, with systemic due process violations. The civil rights action challenges the Transit Authority for seizing people’s state tax refunds to collect on alleged default judgments for NYCTA violations, some going back 20 years or more, without legally-required notice or opportunity to review documentation that would support the Transit Authority’s actions (February 2019).
Click here to read more about the case at our blog.
Today marks a somber anniversary for many of us at Legal Aid and in the appellate legal community. It has now been exactly ten years since the profoundly-respected, deeply-admired Barbara McDowell, who founded our Appellate Advocacy Project, died from brain cancer at the far too young age of 56.
Barbara was famous for once arguing two cases in front of the Supreme Court in one day when she was at the United States Solicitor General’s Office. At Legal Aid, she argued numerous cases at the DC Court of Appeals, winning significant legal victories involving housing, public benefits, domestic violence and the rights of the poor. The District is undoubtedly a fairer, more just place thanks to Barbara's tireless efforts.
After her death, Legal Aid named the Appellate Advocacy Project in Barbara's honor. Her husband, Jerry Hartman, an alumnus of the Legal Aid Board of Directors, has generously supported the Barbara McDowell Appellate Advocacy Project by creating Legal Aid’s Barbara McDowell Endowment Fund for Appellate Litigation. Jerry also founded The Barbara McDowell and Gerald S. Hartman Foundation, which not only makes grants to social justice organizations to support systemic litigation, but also takes on its own cases through a Pro Bono Initiative in conjunction with Jerry's former law firm, Drinker Biddle, where he was a partner for many years prior to his retirement in 2017.
I am humbled to continue the Project's work today. We recently ensured that a young mother received the life-saving kidney/pancreas transplant she needed after her treatment was originally denied by the District's Medicaid agency. Today, especially, we remember Barbara as we continue her quest to use the appellate process to make justice a reality for the District’s neediest residents.
In 2016 and 2017, Alabama’s Department of Human Resources began the implementation of a federal law regarding work requirement for food stamp recipients. In their implementation of the law, the Department provided very complicated notices which did not present adequate information to individuals receiving food stamps leading to tens of thousands of people being terminated from the program. After almost two years without relief, Legal Services of Alabama, a 2018 Grantee, with the support provided by the McDowell Foundation, filed suit against the Department on November 30, 2017.
Children’s Rights, a 2018 grantee of the Foundation, filed in June 2017 a class action lawsuit, M.B. v. Corsi, in Missouri, a state where foster children are prescribed powerful and potentially dangerous psychotropic medications in the absence of an effective system of oversight. The case presents a direct challenge, the first of its kind, to a state’s longstanding failure to ensure the safe administration of psychotropic and antipsychotic medications to children in state foster care.
The Bazelon Center, with the generous support of the Barbara McDowell Foundation, and its co-counsel filed a class action lawsuit, Georgia Advocacy Office v. State of Georgia, in October 2017 alleging that the State of Georgia denies equal educational opportunity to and unnecessarily segregates thousands of students with disabilities by placing the students in the Georgia Network for Educational and Therapeutic Supports Program (GNETS). As a result of placement in GNETS, students with disabilities receive a separate and inferior education and are denied the opportunity to be educated with their non-disabled peers in neighborhood schools in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The Foundation published its first Annual Report detailing its accomplishments over the past year. See the report here (March 2018).
The Mississippi Supreme Court granted full relief to another Knox plaintiff, Michelle Byrom. The court’s order, issued March 31, 2014, granted Ms. Byrom’s motion to file a successive petition for post-conviction relief, and then overturned her conviction and death sentence. The unanimous court acknowledged that its decision was “extraordinary and extremely rare” but did not explain its rationale. The decision came just days after the Mississippi Attorney General had requested that the court set an execution date by March 27th for Ms. Byrom.
Of the original 16 plaintiffs in the litigation, further litigation occurred with respect to eight of them in addition to Michelle Byron. The other seven original plaintiffs were executed. Richard Jordan, after denial of his appeal to the United States Supreme Court with three Justices dissenting, is awaiting a determination of his clemency petition. Willie Manning was granted post-conviction relief vacating his conviction and sentence and granted a new trial. This relief was based upon his initial post-conviction petition. Steve Knox had his proceedings stayed indefinitely by the Mississippi Supreme Court to allow consideration of his motions for funding and discovery. Alan Walker was granted leave by the Mississippi Supreme Court to file a successor post-conviction petition based on post-conviction inadequate assistance of counsel. The case was remanded on that issue.
Barbara McDowell served as president of the Shaw Communities Ministry and worked on its college Scholarship program. Kesiah John-Paul was one of the scholarship students that Barbara supported. With her scholarship assistance, Kesiah attended New York University School of the Arts. Upon graduation in June of 2014, Kesiah joined the cast of the Book of Mormon on Broadway. Attached here is the Playbill announcing Kesiah joining the case and her thank you letter to Jerry Hartman for her scholarship support.
In a case of first impression, the D.C. Court of Appeals issued a landmark decision on June 6, 2014, awarding full unemployment benefits to our client who was fired after repeated incidents of domestic violence that interfered with her workplace.
The case, E.C. v. RCM of Washington, Inc., clarifies when a job loss is “due to domestic violence,” under the 2004 domestic violence provision of the D.C. Unemployment Compensation Act (amended in 2010). The court held that the provision should be interpreted broadly to protect victims when domestic violence was a “substantial factor” in their job loss. In reaching this conclusion, the court recognized that victims of domestic violence often exhibit behaviors that, while intended to placate their abusers, may simultaneously undermine certain employer codes of conduct.
The victory in E.C. represents the hard work and dedication of Legal Aid’s public benefits, family law and appellate teams. And, as with all of our appellate victories, this case is a great tribute to Barbara McDowell and the work we do in her name. Some of Barbara’s earliest cases at Legal Aid were in the area of unemployment insurance, advocating for the Court of Appeals to more clearly define the state of mind requirement for gross and simple misconduct cases and establishing a line of case law that ensures that claimants in unemployment (and other) administrative trials got a fair chance to present their cases on the merits. Additionally, she also worked on several important cases on behalf of women attempting to escape domestic violence. E.C. is therefore a special tribute to Barbara, as it advances the rights of domestic violence survivors pursuing unemployment insurance, an essential safety net benefit.
Jerry Hartman on April 29, 2014, at Legal Aid’s Annual Dinner accepted Legal Aid’s Servant of Justice Award on behalf of Barbara. Members of the Foundation’s Board attended the dinner, including Sally Gordon, Professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, who made the award presentation, Jeff Lamkin, Dr. Hayley Coker, Sarah Wilson, and Deborah Chiumento. Sally Gordon's remarks in making the award presentation appear here. A video of Sally's presentation speech appears here. Jerry’s remarks accepting the award appear here. A video of Jerry's acceptance speech appears here. A memorandum from Drinker Biddle Chairman Alfred Putnam, Jr. and Executive Partner Andrew Kassner sent to Drinker Biddle lawyers and staff appears here. A letter from Hon. José A. Cabranes, judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, concerning the award appears here.
The Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia has awarded posthumously Barbara McDowell its Servant of Justice Award to be presented by Sally Gordon, Professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, on April 29, 2014 at Legal Aid’s annual dinner. Jerry Hartman will accept the award for Barbara. Professor Gordon was Barbara’s roommate at Yale Law School and a dear friend. It is expected that 700 persons will attend the dinner, including numerous member of the federal and District of Columbia judiciary and family and friends of Barbara. A copy of the dinner program announcing the award appears here. A press release issued by Drinker Biddle about the Legal Aid Society dinner appears here.
Our complaint was the impetus behind two important Mississippi Supreme Court decisions that current and future death row prisoners will undoubtedly rely upon in bringing their individual successor post-conviction petitions challenging their convictions and sentences of death. In Stevens v. Mississippi, decided prior to Knox, the Mississippi Supreme Court provided the very remedy we were seeking in Knox, i.e., consideration of an ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel claim. The decision in the Knox case affirmatively established for the first time in a published Mississippi Supreme Court decision that a prisoner on death row can assert state ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel claims in a successor post-conviction petition even if he/she had not raised such a claim in an earlier petition.
On December 12, 2013, the procedure identified in Knox and the substantive law developed in Stevens/Grayson came together, resulting in a grant of relief for another Knox plaintiff, Alan Walker. In Walker v. State, the Mississippi Supreme Court held that the same office that represented all Knox plaintiffs had provided ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel to Mr. Walker. The court granted Walker’s motion to file a successive claim for post-conviction relief and ordered a hearing to examine the merits of his claims. The relief granted by the court in Walker is the precise remedy sought by the plaintiffs in Knox.
Less than four months after its decision in Walker, the Mississippi Supreme Court granted full relief to another Knox plaintiff, Michelle Byrom. The court’s order, issued March 31, 2014, granted Ms. Byrom’s motion to file a successive petition for post-conviction relief, and then overturned her conviction and death sentence. She will now receive a new trial. The unanimous court acknowledged that its decision was “extraordinary and extremely rare” but did not explain its rationale. The decision came just days after the Mississippi Attorney General had requested that the court set an execution date by March 27th for Ms. Byrom.
Instead, the court agreed to review startling new evidence of her innocence which had attracted national media attention. Ms. Byrom had been represented by the same inadequate state post-conviction office that negligently represented other Knox defendants. Had she received competent representation, this evidence might have been discovered years earlier. A copy of the Mississippi Supreme Court’s Order is attached. Numerous stories appeared in the press reporting on this decision and they appear here.
The decision is described in the National Immigrant Justice Center’s Final Report for 2012 grantees which appears here.
The Public Justice Center, a 2011 Foundation grant recipient, settled a case very favorably that it brought against the State of Maryland concerning delays in processing Medicaid applications for adults who are blind or disabled. This settlement is described in the Public Justice Center’s Final Report for 2011 which is posted on the Foundation’s website listing 2011 grants. The final report appears here.
The National Law Center on Homelessness &amp; Poverty, a 2011 recipient of a 2011 Foundation grant, recently prevailed in a case it brought against the City of Dallas. That case, Big Hart v. City of Dallas, concerned restrictions by the City on private organizations offering food to poor and homeless people in public places; the restrictions made it virtually impossible for the groups to operate, jeopardizing vital access to food and other supports for thousands of poor people in Dallas. After trial, the judge held that the city’s enforcement of restrictions on plaintiffs, two religious food sharing organizations, violated the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (TRFRA) and enjoined its enforcement in its entirety. The Court’s decision appears here.
Wanted to share this article with you that was featured in the Wall Street Journal online yesterday, announcing the Rural Housing Services decision to constructively change its collection policies against former homeowners who have been affected by the foreclosure crisis. We are extremely grateful to The Barbara McDowell and Gerald S. Hartman Foundation for helping to make these changes and our advocacy possible.
As we mentioned in our interim report, we still plan to pursue litigation against RHS for those former homeowners who were excluded from the benefits of these policy changes.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture is pulling back on its efforts to collect money owed by borrowers in foreclosure.
Through its Rural Housing Service, the USDA issues and guarantees mortgages to low- and moderate-income rural Americans.
The agency's collection practices were the subject of a page-one article in The Wall Street Journal in May 2012.
The USDA enjoys many advantages not available to private lenders. It doesn't need permission from a court to start collecting on unpaid debts, and in some cases can seize government benefits and tax refunds from borrowers before their foreclosures are completed.
After foreclosure, the USDA can go after unpaid balances, even in states that limit such actions by private lenders.
Under a new policy, the USDA will stop pursuing borrowers for unpaid loan balances after foreclosure if the borrowers can demonstrate that they are unable to pay the debt. The policy applies to loans issued or guaranteed by the Department after Oct. 22, 2012.
The Treasury Department collected $45 million in delinquent USDA mortgage debt from borrowers in fiscal 2011, up from $23 million in fiscal 2007. At the end of fiscal 2011, $779.2 million in delinquent USDA mortgage debt was awaiting collection, up from $420.7 million in 2007.
"After an extensive review of its debt-collection policies, USDA concluded that it could decrease the administrative burden on Treasury by writing off post-liquidation balances for those who cannot pay them," a USDA spokesman said. The new policy will allow the USDA to more quickly resell foreclosed homes, saving money for taxpayers, he added.
The move will more closely align the USDA's policies with those of other government agencies, such as the Department of Housing and Urban and Development and the Department of Veterans Affairs, which generally don't pursue borrowers for debt left after foreclosure.
Housing groups applauded the agency's move, but said the USDA should have gone further.
"It does not make sense for the federal government to continue to cause a hardship to families who have lost their homes due to circumstances beyond their control," said Gideon Anders, an attorney with the National Housing Law Project, which has sued the USDA on behalf of borrowers seeking loan workouts. "I'm pleased that they have done this, but I am not pleased and am disappointed by the fact that they have not stopped all collections against individuals already in the system."
A USDA spokesman declined to say when the change took effect, what basis the USDA will use to determine whether borrowers are unable to repay their debt or why the change in policy only applies to borrowers who took out loans before the October date.
The USDA started making loans to farmers in 1949, then expanded its program to other rural residents. A 1990 law allows it to guarantee mortgage loans issued by banks. The agency is a small player in the mortgage market, but loan volume has climbed since the mortgage crisis began in 2007.
The agency guaranteed $16.9 billion in loans in fiscal 2011, and issued $1.1 billion in direct loans.
The Drinker Biddle High Impact Project operates under the auspices of the Foundation. On March 25, 2013, a class lawsuit was filed by a team of Drinker Biddle &amp; Reath lawyers from its Washington and Philadelphia offices in partnership with a team of lawyers from the National Center for Law and Economic Justice to obtain relief for blind and visually impaired individuals in New York City who do not obtain adequate information from New York City and New York State agencies about their Medicaid or Food Stamp benefits. The class is suing the New York City Human Resources Administration, the New York State Office of Temporary Disability Assistance, the New York State Department of Health, and the Commissioners of these agencies. See here for further information about this very noteworthy lawsuit.
The Foundation has retained a consultant to help it with the soliciting of grant applications for 2013. The application deadline is August 1, 2012. The Foundation's Board meets in September to select recipients of grants.
Rating criteria for evaluating grant applications were developed by the Foundation's Board in conjunction with Daniel Lezotte, an industrial psychologist, Ph.D., who is Midwest Regional Director for APTMetrics, a company that develops tests for employers. See the tab on the website entitled, "Applications."
Westmoreland’s beloved Barbara McDowell fought hard for social justice and the disadvantaged. After her passing, her husband, Jerry Hartman, established a fund at the church to carry on her work. Outreach Ministries has invested the principal in this fund and plans to distribute the earnings annually. This year’s earnings were $3,000 and they were donated to Jubilee Jobs, a charity in DC that helps people in poverty, often homeless or just out of prison, find jobs. Jubilee Jobs has been in existence for over 30 years. Last year, it found jobs for over 700 people in this area, no mean feat. This is important work, especially needed in these economic times. OM is seeking to establish a long lasting relationship with Jubilee Jobs with them perhaps becoming one of our Core Ministries in the future. While Barbara McDowell worked directly with Shaw Community Ministry, helping Jubilee Jobs is very much in keeping with the devotion she showed to those in desperate need.
On November 14, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued an important decision to remand the case of Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 2010) to the Immigration Judge. In this case, the respondent was seeking asylum based on her fear that she would be subjected to harm in Guatemala, in part, because she is a woman. Her claim was denied by an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration appeals. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, however, strongly signaled that asylum seekers might be able to win asylum due to harm they fear on account of gender and remanded the case to the Board of Immigration appeals to decide the legal question in the first instance. As amicus curiae, NIJC urged the BIA to find that Guatemalan women constitute a particular social group for purposes of asylum. NIJC argued that gender is an immutable characteristic and, as such, constitutes a particular social group without additional factors. The systemic violence against women in that country and the nature of the harm feared by women in Guatemala establish the nexus between the particular social group and the persecution feared – giving rise to a viable asylum claim.
While the remand to the Immigration Judge does not produce the precedential decision that NIJC sought, this decision leaves open the possibility the BIA will issue a precedent decision in the future finding gender to constitute a particular social group. In early November, NIJC filed an amicus brief with the BIA making similar arguments in a case with much stronger facts and a more advantageous procedural posture. NIJC’s contribution to the Perdomo case may have influenced the Board away from a negative decision, leaving the door open to establish the precedent we seek using better litigation vehicles.
For the first time in history, there's a civil suit against a prosecutor for racial discrimination in jury selection. The Equal Justice Initiative is teaming up with the Barbara McDowell High Impact Pro Bono Initiative on the lawsuit, filed late last month. We snapped Drinker Biddle's Jerry Hartman in his office; he founded the Barbara McDowell Initiative with the support of the firm to honor of late wife, a public interest attorney who frequently argued before the Supreme Court. The complaint alleges that Alabama DA Doug Valeska excluded 82 percent of qualified black jurors in death penalty cases; one of the districts in his purview has the state's highest death sentencing rate.
Preparing the complaint took more than a year and hundreds of hours sifting through data, Jerry tells us. He hopes the case becomes a deterrent for future jury discrimination; since the discrimination is a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1875, they also hope to eventually get the DOJ involved. We snapped Maureen Hardwick chatting with Jerry about future of the Initiative. The Barbara McDowell and Gerald Hartman Foundation just distributed grants in the amount of $50K to five pro bono organizations doing social justice lit (whittled down from 20 applications), and is working on its second round of fundraising--the goal is to reach $3M by the end of 2013.
Barbara had a strong belief in doing social justice programs in the District and beyond. She had an incredibly illustrious career as a lawyer, having been at the Justice Department and a recipient of the prestigious Rex E. Lee Advocacy and Public Service Award.
What we do is try to find cases or matters that involve systemic problems. We spend a lot of time identifying cases that fit in the kind of issues that would've fit with Barbara's notion of social justice programs.
The first large case we did was the death penalty matter in Mississippi, challenging the process in which 60 individuals were ultimately sentenced to death. We're not challenging the death penalty directly but rather the process to see if these individuals had a fair opportunity to challenge the competency of their counsel who didn't raise questions about their mental capabilities.
I had received some very nice letters from the inmates on death row, many of whom were presumably mentally retarded, thanking me for pushing this forward. It was really touching.
These are the notes that Barbara gave me back in 2005 on a brief that we were working on together for a case in the 5th Circuit concerning the voucher program and utility allowances. Barbara had started at Legal Aid only recently and knew very little (at that time) about these programs. The utility allowance rules are sufficiently esoteric that it takes many legal services attorneys awhile to really understand them. One of Barbara’s contributions to the case was helping the lead attorneys explain the rules in a way that the panel (also likely to be unfamiliar with these details) could understand.
I was very impressed by Barbara’s detailed and insightful comments on the brief. Most of my reviewers (on this and other appellate briefs) would give me redline comments. Barbara was terrific at taking a step back to capture the big picture. My experience with her on this brief was similar to my experiences working with her later at Legal Aid. She was brilliant, an excellent writing and strategist, but also completely unassuming, respectful and deferential – a rare combination indeed.
She also was generous with her time, as I think these detailed comments illustrate. I remember another time early in my tenure at Legal Aid when I was looking for case law to support a particular proposition. The argument in court was the next day and I went to Barbara for ideas. She couldn’t come up with anything offhand, but promised to think about it. A few hours later she brought me a case that she had dug up. Of all things she had on her own to do list, she had taken the time to find it for me.
I am confident there are many attorneys at Legal Aid, but also everywhere Barbara worked, whose practice will be influenced by their work with Barbara for years to come. She taught all of us so much about being strong advocates in the appellate arena. She also was a model for being a smart and successful woman and a mentor to younger attorneys. I was blessed to know her and work with her.
The blog of the Legal Times ran a story about the formation of the Foundation. Click here for the full story.
The Washington Business Journal did a story about the initiation of the Barbara McDowell in April of 2009. Click here for the full story.
Drinker Biddle on April 14, 2009, issued a press release announcing the formation of the Barbara McDowell Foundation. Click here to view the press release.
FROM: Alfred W. Putnam, Jr.
As many of you will recall, our partner Jerry Hartman’s wife, Barbara McDowell, lost her year-long battle with brain cancer in early January of this year. Barbara was one of the country’s leading appellate advocates, first as a partner at Jones Day and then in the Solicitor General’s Office, having argued 18 cases before the Supreme Court of the United States before 2004. In that year, however, she left that distinguished practice behind and joined the Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia as its First Appellate Director. In that capacity, she handled more than seventy cases on a broad range of issues and became the leading voice for the poor and disadvantaged in the appellate courts of the District of Columbia.
Jerry has advised the Managing Partners that he would now like to devote a significant portion of his time to continuing Barbara’s work and has invited the Firm to join him in this undertaking. This suggestion – and Barbara’s example – struck a chord, which is to be expected given our firm’s long history of commitment both to pro bono representation and to public service. In fact, we should probably express that thought in the plural and speak of more than one firm because that commitment has been a hallmark not only of Drinker Biddle &amp; Reath but also of Gardner Carton &amp; Douglas and Shanley &amp; Fisher and other firms or groups with which we have combined over the past few years.
The Managing Partners responded to Jerry at their March 24th meeting by endorsing his suggestion of a new “High Impact” Pro Bono Initiative designed to continue and honor Barbara’s work. The Initiative will undertake matters that are deemed likely to have a significant impact on important social justice concerns facing indigent persons or charitable or civic groups who are unable to afford the services of an attorney. The overall mission of the Initiative is the enhancement of the economic, health, social conditions, and civil liberties of low-income and disadvantaged people. A fuller description is provided in the attached initial implementation plan. As noted therein, the Initiative will be administered as part of the Firm’s overall Pro Bono Program and consistent with the policies and procedures we apply to such matters.
The Managing Partners have asked Jerry to lead this Initiative in 2009. Initially, he will be attempting to identify appropriate cases – whether in the form of a class action or an individual case that could have important precedential impact – that can only be undertaken by a firm of our size and resources and which fit the mission. We hope that attorneys in each of our offices will want to join in this very unique effort for a law firm that will become a continuing and integral part of the firm’s Pro Bono work. Jerry plans to continue his employment discrimination practice, but he will be devoting substantial time to this Initiative and has considerable experience with complex litigation not only from his many years in private practice but also from the time he spent in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department.
If you have an interest in participating, please send Jerry an email. Similarly, if you know of any project that you think would fit within the aims of the Initiative, please send the suggestion to Jerry. We believe that this Initiative will greatly enhance the Firm’s already robust Pro Bono efforts and we thank Jerry for his willingness to undertake the task. We also can think of no better way to honor Barbara’s memory than to continue her work in this fashion.

References: § 35
 v. 
 § 35
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.