Copyright 2000 The Houston Chronicle Publishing Company
The Houston Chronicle
October 04, 2000, Wednesday 3 STAR EDITION
SECTION: A; Pg. 24
LENGTH:
336 words
HEADLINE: TONGUE-TIED;
Not right to
restrict speech of lawyers for the poor
SOURCE: Staff
BODY:
For years, Congress has provided limited
federal funds for attorneys to represent people who cannot afford to hire a
lawyer. But in 1996, Congress told those attorneys they could not use certain
legal arguments in representing their clients. Barring a lawyer from using the
full measure of legal resources shortchanges the client and seems a clear
infringement of constitutionally guaranteed free speech. The justices of the
U.S. Supreme Court, which began a new term this week, are expected to hear a
challenge today to such legal restrictions. The case, styled Legal
Services Corporation vs. Velazquez, grew out of restrictions lawmakers
placed on lawyers funded by LSC, which goes to bat for low-income people in
civil legal matters.
Specifically, Congress said LSC lawyers could not
challenge welfare reform laws in the course of representing their clients. But
that is just the sort of challenge that can be essential to a sound appeal of a
government decision to deny a client's welfare benefits. Congress barred LSC
lawyers from making this case the year it passed welfare reform.
People
who seek welfare typically cannot afford lawyers to challenge the laws under
which they unfairly might be denied benefits. The people affected the most by
welfare reform, therefore, have the least ability to seek relief from injustices
in those laws.
Unfortunately, the high court chose not to consider other
troubling restrictions imposed on LSC attorneys, such as the ban on filing class
action suits. Such suits could help solve a problem for large numbers of
claimants who otherwise would have to file singular claims.
Congress may
not like the idea of paying for lawyers who might turn around and fight its will
in the nation's courts. But surely the high court will recognize that Americans'
right to free speech and the assistance of counsel gives government-funded
lawyers the same broad power to speak effectively on behalf of their clients as
it gives privately paid attorneys to speak for theirs.
TYPE: Editorial Opinion
LOAD-DATE: November 20, 2000 
