By: Steve Grumm

Happy Friday, dear readers.  After some dreadful midweek humidity – and equally dreadful play by the visiting Philadelphia Phillies, who wasted my time by getting shellacked when I saw them play the Nationals on Tuesday but-I-digress-where-was-I? – oh, it’s a beautiful, late spring morning here in the nation’s capital.  As for public interest news…

This week: does a loosening of pro bono-related practice rules in two jurisdictions portend a trend?; two Texas high court justices implore the Lone Star legislature to appropriate much-needed funding for legal services; Florida gov. vetoes legal services funding; financial woes befall the New Jersey legal services community, and legislative help is needed; a look at hiring trends in the DOJ’s Office of Civil Rights; in Sonoma County, CA, prosecutors and defenders may see substantial budget cuts; a bittersweet birthday (60th) for Legal Aid of NorthWest Texas; Cooley Law School lends a hand to local servicemembers; 3 UNLV law students win a federal appellate victory in an immigration case; and, change in the Massachusetts indigent defense system?

• 6.3.11 – a piece on the Corporate Counsel website notes that attorney practice rules in both Virginia and Arkansas have recently been modified so as to make it easier for in-house counsel, who are often physically located in jurisdictions in which they are not barred, to perform prob bono.  The Corporate Pro Bono (CPBO) initiative, a joint undertaking between the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) and the Pro Bono Institute, had pushed for Virginia rule change and is pushing for similar progress elsewhere.  “Currently, only Virginia, Colorado, Delaware, and Pennsylvania have expressly allowed in-house counsel to perform pro bono work under their limited licenses. Nineteen other states and the District of Columbia have rules allowing practice through approved legal services organizations.”

• 6.2.11 – from the Texas Tribune: “Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson and Justice Nathan Hecht sent lawmakers a letter Wednesday, urging them to find $20 million during the special session to help needy people access civil courts….Without the funds, the justices wrote, 40 legal aid programs that help about 104,000 Texas families each year could be in jeopardy. As many as 75,000 Texans would be denied basic legal services. The legal aid services help domestic violence victims, military veterans wrongly denied benefits and families who are evicted from their homes despite having paid their bills. Nearly 5.7 million Texans qualify for legal aid.”

• 6.1.11 – not-so-great Scott.  The Florida governor vetoed a civil legal services appropriation that amounted to less than 0.015% of the overall budget package.  The Jacksonville Daily Record reports: “Among the $615 million in funding slashed from the state budget through vetoes from Gov. Rick Scott was $1 million for legal aid organizations statewide.  The Florida Access to Civil Legal Assistance Act helps to fund legal aid organizations throughout the state and the budget line item of $1 million was approved by both the State House and Senate.  Scott vetoed the item from the nearly $70 billion budget.”  Is this a fiscally prudent move?  Well, last year a Florida Bar Foundation study found that “for every dollar spent on legal aid by federal, state and local governments, a return of $4.78 is generated.  The funding also assists in the creation of more than 3,300 jobs throughout the state, it said.”

• 5.31.11 – an editorial in The Record laments the terrible state of civil legal services funding in the Garden State: “Funding cuts at Legal Services of New Jersey — which offers legal aid to those who cannot afford to pay — have resulted in fewer lawyers. So now 50 percent fewer cases are accepted for full legal representation. Lawyers turn down two of every three eligible people who need help. It is a civil justice catastrophe.”  While there is some movement in the legislature to generate funding for legal services via a court filing fee increase, it won’t be enough.  “We urge the Legislature and those in state government to find a steady funding source. Living in homeless shelters, triggering child protective services and ending up in the hospital with no health insurance costs more in time and resources than a legal aid lawyer.”

• 5.31.11 – the DOJ’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) is hiring more left-leaning lawyers during the Obama Administration than were hired during the Bush Administration.  Surprise!  Of course, this also tends to mean that more lawyers with civil rights practice experience are coming aboard.  And notwithstanding any cultural shifts, the hiring process for career positions seems to have been notably de-politicized. The New York Times, in advance of some House hearings about OCR, has a piece looking at newly available information about recent OCR attorney hires.  The Times also references a National Law Journal piece (password-protected to keep out the hoi-polloi – boo!) noting that almost half of the resumes of recently hired attorneys showed that they had prior civil rights experience.

• 5.31.11 – the recession even reaches wine country.  The Press Democrat reports that Sonoma County prosecutors and public defenders may be looking at 16% cuts to their respective appropriations as the county tightens its fiscal belt: The [county budget] proposal would reduce spending from the general fund…to $379 million, down 4 percent from the 2010-2011 figure of $395 million. It does so by taking a bigger bite out of law enforcement and justice services, the single largest destination for general fund dollars. Spending at those four departments, including the Sheriff’s, District Attorney’s and Public Defender’s offices and the probation department is set to drop by 16 percent.”  You might say their funding’s been corked.  And with that I’ve exhausted my vino vocabulary.

• 5.30.11 – Happy birthday, kind of.   The Ft. Worth Star-Telegram reports on Legal Aid of NorthWest Texas’s bittersweet 60th birthday.  Good news: the organization celebrates six decades of service to low-income Texans and has moved into a new headquarters building.  Bad news: LANWT has recently lost $350,000 in LSC funding (as a result of the cutback in the FY2011 budget) and another $350,000 in United Way funds.

• 5.29.11 – TV station WZZM’s website includes a story on Cooley Law School’s “Service to Soldiers: Legal Assistance Referral Program.”  “For the past four years, the program has been offering pro bono legal services for deploying and returning troops…. To date, Cooley has been able to help soldiers with 2,200 wills and power of attorney documents.”

• 5.28.11 – the Las Vegas Sun reports on a remarkable federal appellate victory achieved by UNLV law students representing a Honduran native in immigration proceedings.  “The students emerged from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals with an unexpected landmark immigration victory that means tens of thousands of people, maybe more, who are fighting deportation stand a greater chance of proving their U.S. citizenship…. The appeals court heard the case last year and set a precedent by ruling all individuals facing deportation should have access to their “alien files,” or A-files that the Homeland Security Department keeps on them. The ruling means they will be allowed to see documents such as adoption papers, applications for naturalization and correspondence with immigration authorities.  The ruling will stand if the government doesn’t appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court by May 31. Before, the government had only given A-files to those who tried to prove they are lawful permanent residents, also known as green-card holders or permanent resident aliens.”

• 5.27.11 – big things brewing in the Massachusetts indigent defense system.  An AP story reports that the Massachusetts “Senate passed measures designed to overhaul the state’s public defender program…yesterday as it debated its $30.5 billion state spending plan for the next fiscal year.  The public defender amendment approved by the Senate calls for public defenders to handle 30 percent of criminal cases involving indigent defendants.  [At present, about 90% of the Bay State’s indigent defense cases are assigned to private counsel.]  Supporters say shifting more cases to public defenders would save the state money, though opponents say those savings could be offset by the need to hire additional lawyers.”