This week: pay for PA capital punishment counsel is peanuts; Sin City D.A. gambles on refusal to make budget cuts; a wrap-up of LSC funding news from Capitol Hill; speaking of, Idaho Legal Aid Services has a lot riding on a federal government shutdown; a great new transactional clinic at Wisconsin Law; update on state funding of legal services and indigent defense in Minnesota; legal services funding woes along the Iowa/Illinois state line; and legal services funding within the Texas state lines.

• 4.7.11 – Keystone State capital punishment news from the Philadelphia Inquirer: “The amount of public funding paid to Philadelphia court-appointed criminal-defense lawyers is so low that it violates the constitutional rights of indigent people facing the death penalty.  So argues a petition filed Wednesday by a group of Philadelphia court-appointed death-penalty lawyers who told a city judge that the commonwealth should pay them adequately or stop seeking capital punishment…. The gap between the fee schedule and reality has led some Philadelphia criminal-defense lawyers to refuse to accept capital-case appointments.”

• 4.7.11 – from the Las Vegas Sun: “The Clark County District Attorney is refusing to comply with a request from county managers to prepare 9 percent budget cuts for the department.  In a memo to county commissioners and staff dated last week, District Attorney David Roger informed county officials that his department has fewer attorneys than the Public Defenders Office, his staff is overworked and he made big cuts in previous years.”  It’s become a battle of statistics between D.A. Roger and county officials.  The county has cited statistics showing that both the D.A.’s budget and prosecutor compensation has grown recently, but the D.A. disputes that.

• 4.6.11 – there has been a good deal of recent news about how budget wrangling on Capitol Hill will affect the Legal Services Corporation.  There are two main uncertainties now.  The first deals with what will happen to LSC’s budget in the very near term as Congress and the president try to reach a funding agreement for the rest of the current fiscal cycle (FY 2011), or face a shutdown.  The second uncertainty deals with LSC funding for FY 2012, the fiscal cycle that is due to begin this October.  There was an appropriations hearing on the Hill this week about LSC’s FY 2012 funding.  Let’s look at news about current funding, then FY 2012 funding:
  • FY 2011 LSC Funding news:
    • 4.4.11 – a current and former LSC board member, who are now law school deans, submitted an op-ed in a Boston Globe blog sharply critical of possible LSC cuts: “Today as the House…calls for cutting $70 million from [LSC funding], many of the 900 [grantee organization field offices] will need to close — 370 staff attorneys will be let go and 162,000 fewer people will be served — just as the recession pushes the highest number of Americans into poverty in 51 years. Such cuts abandon some of the most vulnerable people in our nation.
    • Late last week the Blog of the Legal Times noted that this current week is “crunch time” for LSC funding: “The next week will likely determine whether the Legal Services Corp. is forced to make sharp midyear cuts in its budget, as lawmakers and Obama administration officials attempt to finish negotiations for federal spending through Sept. 30…. As part of a broad Republican plan to trim federal spending, the House in February approved a $70 million midyear cut to the Legal Services Corp., the nation’s largest funding source for civil legal aid to the poor. The proposal failed in the Senate, but a cut could still be part of any compromise.”
    • in late March the LSC board chairman and a former chairman co-authored an Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-ed explaining what’s at stake for legal services providers and their clients if cuts go through: “For the last 36 years, Congress has appropriated funds for civil legal assistance, and the current level is $394.4 million. Now, in the middle of a fiscal year, the House has targeted LSC for a $70 million cut in these funds…. The timing could not be worse. The work of legal aid attorneys has become ever more important since the 2008 recession and the significant rise in poverty across the land. Fifty-seven million Americans qualify for civil legal assistance…”
  • FY 2012 LSC Funding news:
    • 4.5.11 – the Blog of the Legal Times covered a House hearing on LSC’s FY 2012 budget: “The chairman of a House appropriations subcommittee said today that private-sector lawyers aren’t doing enough to help the nation’s poor with legal problems, warning that they might need to make up for expected cuts in federal funding.  U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) is a longtime supporter of funding for civil legal aid, but he said [LSC] still faces proposed cuts from the House’s new Republican majority. LSC and its local partners should turn to resources from large law firms, state bar dues and law schools.”  LSC president James Sandman and board member Robert Grey Jr. both noted that legal services providers already do leverage not only pro bono contributions from law-firm attorneys, but also financial resources.  On the issue of pro bono substituting for, rather than supplementing, legal services attorneys, the PSLawNet Blog is reminded of this recent op-ed from the Pro Bono Institute’s president, which argues that pro bono work can not be efficiently delivered without a well funded legal services infrastructure to guide that work.  (The PSLawNet Blog attended the hearing and we’ll put a larger blog post together in a couple of days.) 

• 4.6.11 – good news and bad news for Idaho Legal Aid Services.  First the bad: Boise’s KTVB television station explores what difficulties may befall the organization (and other LSC grantees) if Uncle Sam closes up shop today.  Idaho Legal Aid Services takes in two-thirds of its funding from federal sources.  “Money for the month of April is guaranteed, but after that they could see a delay, and it would lead to a considerable impact.  ‘If that cut was substantial then it may mean we wouldn’t be able to operate at all. If the cut is something less than that, then we have to look at how big the cut was and determine how many literally how many attorneys how many staff would have to be laid off,’ said [executive director Ritchie] Eppink.  Another noteworthy fact from the story: “Eppink says Idaho is the only state in the country that doesn’t provide state funding for legal assistance programs.”  Regarding state funding, Idaho Legal Aid Services may have a small reason to celebrate.  According to a Greenfield Daily Reporter article that ran earlier this week – and you better believe, cats and kittens, that the PSLawNet Blog reads the Greenfield Daily Reporter religiously – the state house narrowly approved a bill to “help provide free legal counsel to low-income residents in cases involving domestic violence, child abuse, and exploitation of the elderly.”  The bill would authorize revenue generation via a court filing fee.     

• 4.6.11 – the WisLaw Blog reports on Wisconsin Law School’s Law and Entrepreneurship Clinic, which matches low-income entrepreneurs with law students who provide help on transactional matters.  The clinic also enlists the help of pro bono attorneys to supervise the students’ work.  The PSLawNet Blog once had the privilege of helping to start a transactional pro bono program, and we’re big fans of pro bono projects that offer opportunities to advocates who are on business law career paths.  It greatly broadens the pool of pro bono advocates, and there are many nonprofit institutions and micro-entrepreneurs who are doing great work but are unable to afford counsel when needed.

• 4.6.11 – the Twin Cities Daily Planet reports on some Minnesota legislative proposals which could have a kryptonite-like effect on legal services providers: “State funding for civil legal services has fallen by 11 percent between 2008 and 2011 and is currently below 2006 levels. The Governor recommends flat funding for these services, the Senate cuts funding by six percent, and the House cuts funding by 17 percent in FY 2012-13 and 25 percent in FY 2014-15. The House proposal also limits the ability of legal aid and similar state-funded programs to lobby the legislature and pursue legal actions against the state and federal government on behalf of their clients.”  Public defenders, which have been victims of past budget cuts, stand to fare better; they may see funding increases.

• 4.4.11 – the Quad-City Times looks at funding troubles which confront Prairie State Legal Services in western Illinois as well as Iowa’s HELP Legal Assistance.  Both organizations have drawn considerably on reserves to make budgetary ends meet.  Prairie State’s reserves are gone, and its executive director reports that “Thirty-five percent of our budget…is at risk.”  The picture isn’t much better for HELP, which is bracing for funding news this spring that will affect the size of its staff going forward.

• 4.3.11 – Two stories involving legal services in the Lone Star State:
  • The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal highlights funding troubles that confront the Legal Aid Society of Lubbock, which devotes a considerable amount of time helping domestic violence victims and others with family-law related problems.  “As officials at all levels of government have tightened the purse strings, Legal Aid has seen cuts in funding, Graham said. She expected total funding to be down 10 percent to 30 percent this year.  And the budget cuts come when the organization has seen a 22 percent increase in clients over last year….  Last year the organization served 1343 clients.  Of those clients, 1100 were women.”
  • And now for some bipartisanship.  Last week a Dallas Morning News editorial urged the state house to pass HB 2174, which would raise some public filing fees to support legal services providers.  “The Texas Access to Justice Commission wants the state to put a small fee on non-judicial documents filed with a county clerk, such as for mortgages. They also want a minor fee put on judicial documents filed with justices of the peace and in municipal courts, such as for misdemeanor cases.  The fees would be paid by users of the justice system, so the money wouldn’t come out of general revenues. And estimates show they could bring in $58 million over the next two years.  Interestingly, liberal lawyers aren’t the only ones advocating this solution. Supporters include Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht, arguably the court’s most conservative jurist. Hecht recently told this newspaper, “This is about the rule of law. Access to the courthouse shouldn’t be dependent upon your ability to pay.”  Indeed, HR 2174, which is still in committee, is sponsored by a conservative Republican.

We’ll close by noting, with all due modesty, that the Glorious Philadelphia Phillies Baseball Franchise is 5-1, having absolutely thrashed the hapless New York Mutts last night.  Happy weekend!