A nail-biting cliff hanger. Unexpected, startling twists, and turns at
every corner and in the middle of the block. Tension and anxiety build to near unbearable
levels.
Hard to believe, but I assure you
the preceding paragraph aptly describes a three-volume work entitled, "To
Establish Justice for All, The Past and Future of Civil Legal Aid in the United
States." This master oeuvre by
retired Court of Appeal Justice Earl Johnson, Jr., and published by Praeger an
Imprint of ABC-CLIO, LLC (2014), is filled with adventure, drama, philosophy,
politics, psychology, and ethics. It is a
gripping and dramatic history that reflects a critical aspect of our nation's
continuing struggle to realize its guiding principle written with unabashed
certainty in the preamble to the Constitution: "to … establish Justice."
And who better than Justice
Johnson, the second director of the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) legal
services program, a law professor and justice on the California Court of Appeal,
and now a Visiting Scholar at the University of Southern California, to
chronicle the history of legal aid to the poor in civil cases?
Johnson tells us in the prologue
that his book is "10 percent memoir" and 90 percent "traditional
history." But there is nothing
traditional in his engaging and absorbing narrative. The manner in which he relates the history
has an immediacy and drama that takes hold of the reader's shoulders and won't
let go. This I attribute to Johnson's
skill as a writer, his passion for the subject, and his involvement in many of
the events he writes about. At the
outset he acknowledges that his history is one with "a point of view." He relates that his book "tells the
story behind our nation's tardy and as yet unfinished effort to make those
people unable to afford lawyers equal to those that can - and thus for the
first time establish justice for that segment of the population."
Lest one thinks the legislative
battles over legal aid were played out against the backdrop of the partisan
gridlock we see today, the great legislative and legal battles Johnson
describes did not involve "the usual story of Democrats versus
Republicans. Indeed the majority of the
heroes in this book are Republicans, even though the federal program was
started initially by Democrats, and it has been sustained by a bi-partisan coalition
for most of its existence.
"Is it true or false that Donald
Rumsfeld said, "A vigorous legal services program is, in my judgment, an
essential element in this Nation's efforts to deal with problems of the
poor"?
Is it true or false that Richard
Nixon said, "As lawyers our first responsibility is, of course, to see
that the legal profession provides adequate representation for all people in
our society…. [T]here is no subject which is more important to the legal
profession, that is more important to the nation, than … the realization of the
ideal of equal justice under the law for all"?
If you chose "false" to
either of the statements, you are wrong …and probably a fuzzy-brained,
close-minded, knee-jerk liberal. Sorry,
I was thinking of myself. If I had not
read Johnson's book, I could well have chosen "false."
We meet an array of famous
historical figures who played a part in either promoting or attacking legal aid. In addition to prominent members of the
American Bar Association, they include Teddy Roosevelt, Charles Evans Hughes,
Sargent Shriver, Lewis Powell, Richard Nixon, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney,
Hillary Clinton, Walter Mondale, Newt Gingrich, Philip Gramm, and Ronald
Reagan. Included in the cast of
characters are a number of well-known Californians who played a significant
role in legal services for the poor.
Former California Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso, leading appellate
attorney Jerome Falk, current Court of Appeal Justices Stuart Pollak and Laurie
Zelon, and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal Justice Richard Paez.
Johnson's history begins with what
he calls "the Charitable Era," 1876 through 1964, when mostly private
donors provided legal aid on a limited basis.
Johnson takes us through the War on Poverty, the creation of the OEO,
and ultimately the Independent Legal Services Corporation (LSC). The legal and legislative battles to preserve
and defend the corporation serve as a primer on the grit, sweat and horse
trading that make legislation possible in a democracy. It brings home the adage that laws are like
sausages — it is best not to see them being made.
We are taken behind the scenes and
made privy to the strategies employed in court battles that produced important
cases like Brown v. Legal Foundation of
Washington, 538 U.S. 216 (2003), that found the use of IOLTA (Interest on
Lawyers' Trust Accounts) to fund legal aid programs is constitutional. The majority opinion written by Justice John
Paul Stevens held that the state's use of IOLTA to pay for legal services
provided to the needy qualified as a public use so that the state could
exercise its authority to confiscate private property under the just
compensation clause.
Johnson relates how the IOLTA
program began in England and was employed in Australia and Canada. It came to the U.S. by sheer luck. A barrister from Canada, and the chief justice
of the Florida Supreme Court, both of whom had been young lawyers working in
the same law firm, met for a glass of wine. The question, "So what's new
in British Columbia?" led to the creation of IOLTA programs in the U.S. The program instituted in California
mandated, not merely encouraged, lawyers to deposit trust funds in IOLTA to be
used for legal services for the poor.
A law professor's study during the
seven-year period 1967 through 1974 found that 7 percent of the cases heard by
the U.S. Supreme Court were argued by legal services lawyers. The lawyers had a
62 percent victory rate. Prior to 1967,
poor people in civil cases had been shut out of the legal system. And strange as it may seem, most of the
victories happened after Warren Burger replaced Earl Warren as the chief justice
and after several Nixon appointees joined the court. There were also scores of victories in the
appellate courts. This belies the myth that legal services lawyers were
pursuing a left-wing radical agenda.
We read a
suspenseful narrative about the great battle fought by Gov. Ronald Reagan to
defund the CRLA (California Rural Legal Assistance) in California, a battle
that involved a host of participants and put the Nixon administration in an
uncomfortable position opposing Reagan.
We are told about an interesting meeting between the author Johnson and
Dick Cheney at Johnson's cabin in Big Bear.
We see the victories and defeats since the inception of the LSC.
The blows suffered by LSC funding
and restrictions on its powers during the Gingrich "Contract with America"
years have not defeated legal services for the poor, but have been a major
setback. Abortion cases, class actions, and
legislative advocacy may no longer be pursued, dashing the promise of helping
hundreds if not thousands of people in a single class action or through the
promotion of a legislative act. But many
non LSC-funded organizations are taking up some of the slack.
Johnson
points out the nation's poor still receive little access to justice. The bottom 20 percent of the population receive
3.4 percent of the nation's income, but only a half percent of its legal
resources.
As Bill Moyers recently argued in a
speech at the Brennan Center for Justice, "America's social contract has
to cover everyone, not just the wealthy."
Today this topic is at the forefront of political discussion. The struggle continues.
Johnson's elegantly written book
ends with a plea and a hope for a movement that expands beyond the legal
profession. "[I]f the United States
is ever to 'establish justice' as promised in the Constitution's preamble, to
make 'justice for all' a reality in this country not just a motto to mouth when
reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, and to provide the nation's lower income
population true 'due process' and 'equal protection of the law,' the right to
equal justice and a lawyer when needed must become a legal guarantee. Only then and in that way can justice be
established for all and thus become, as it should be, an inherent right of
citizenship."
No comments:
Post a Comment