{"id":4510,"date":"2003-07-18T09:16:36","date_gmt":"2003-07-18T13:16:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2003\/07\/18\/mass-offers-more-proof-that-s"},"modified":"2011-08-05T15:00:50","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T19:00:50","slug":"mass-offers-more-proof-that-self-help-centers-are-better-than-free","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2003\/07\/18\/mass-offers-more-proof-that-self-help-centers-are-better-than-free\/","title":{"rendered":"Mass. Offers More Proof That Self-Help Centers Are Better Than Free Lawyers"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n


\n

Although there was good news out of Massachusetts<\/B> yesterday for legal aid <\/B>lawyers and clients, the drama suggests once again that we need a better approach than offering free lawyers to consumers, if we are serious about solving the crisis in access to legal services. <\/P>
\n

<\/FONT>As noted by MyShingle.com<\/A>, which pointed to this AP article<\/A> <\/EM><\/FONT> from the Hampshire Daily Gazette <\/I>(7\/17\/03)<\/FONT>, lawmakers in the Massachusetts House voted yesterday to restore the $7.6 million budget of the Massachusetts Legal Assistance Corporation, the state’s main program for providing civil legal aid to the poor, and to restore $501,000 for another program that provides legal aid to the mentally ill. According to today’s Boston Globe<\/A><\/I>, <\/FONT>the State Senate agreed to go along with the House in order restore the funds by <\/FONT>overriding vetoes by Gov. Mitt Romney<\/B>. <\/P><\/B>
\n

Romney had used his line item veto to remove legal aid moneys. As the AP article explained<\/A><\/I><\/FONT> :<\/P><\/FONT><\/I>
\n


\n

“Romney defended his legal aid vetoes, saying the state simply can’t afford the programs in the midst of the ongoing fiscal crunch<\/B>. The cuts were needed to help close a $200 million hole in the Legislature’s final budget, he said. <\/P>
\n

“‘One looks at which functions state government provides that are absolutely essential … and providing funding for civil lawsuits struck us as not being absolutely essential,<\/B>‘ he said Wednesday. ‘It’s a good thing to do. It’s a nice thing to do. But it’s not essential.'”<\/P><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n

Romney had also noted that “This would be a great place for firms to focus their pro bono<\/EM> work<\/STRONG>, which is doing civil litigation for the poor.”  The presidents of four legal associations wrote a letter to House Speaker Thomas Finneran urging him to override the vetoes before the summer break. (go here<\/A><\/I><\/FONT> and click on “News Releases” to locate the bar leaders’ 7\/17\/03 letter).<\/FONT> <\/P>
\n

Just three days ago (7\/15\/03), I argued that <\/FONT>Pro Bono is Not the Answer to the Access Problem<\/A><\/B><\/U><\/FONT>.  Now, I’m more sure than ever.   If legal aid funds <\/B>for the poorest and most vulnerable Americans are in jeopardy in Massachusetts, they will be in grave danger across the nation<\/B>, as each state faces its budget deficits.   Despite Romney’s flip remark about pro bono<\/I> work filling in the gap, it’s clear that there will never be enough volunteer legal assistance to serve even a tiny fraction of the needs of the poor, and such programs don’t even try<\/I> to help the scores of millions of moderate income consumers who are underserved by, or shut out of, our judicial and legal system. <\/P>
\n

However, with relatively modest public or private resources, we could establish Self-Help or Pro Se<\/I> Centers in each community<\/B>, and provide statewide internet access to forms and information that would allow most Americans — including many of the poorest consumers — to handle most of their everyday legal needs themselves (especially with added “unbundled” assistance from attorneys, as needed). <\/P>
\n