Copyright 1999 The Times-Picayune Publishing Co.
The Times-Picayune
March 23, 1999 Tuesday, ORLEANS
SECTION: NATIONAL; Pg. A1
LENGTH: 905 words
HEADLINE:
RULES ON LAW CLINICS RELAXED;
BUT FIGHT PERSISTS ON INDIGENT ISSUE
BYLINE: By MARK SCHLEIFSTEIN Staff writer
BODY:
The Louisiana Supreme Court has loosened
rules under which students at law school clinics in the state are allowed to
represent persons and community groups in court cases.
But the changes,
which increase the amount of money people can earn and still be eligible for
representation, were immediately attacked by representatives of two clinics as
still too restrictive, and by a spokeswoman for Gov. Foster as being too loose.
Tighter rules for the clinics were adopted by the court last year after
complaints filed by a variety of business and industry organizations and
supported by Foster.
Most of those complaints were aimed at the Tulane
Environmental Law Clinic, which was representing a group of Convent residents in
their challenge of a proposed Shintech plastics plant in their community. Foster
and the business organizations argued that the clinic was overstepping its
authority by representing groups able to hire their own attorneys, and in the
process, blocking needed industry from coming to the state. The court agreed in
June 1998 to restrict representation by clinics at Tulane, Loyola and Southern
University law schools to the very poor.
The law schools and a number of
other organizations asked the court to reconsider those changes, which the court
did Monday.
In an opinion accompanying the changes, Chief Justice Pascal
Calogero said a 1988 amendment of the rule that allowed clinics to represent
civic groups was supposed to limit such representation to groups whose members
were indigent.
"We did not intend to allow the representation of
non-profit organizations composed primarily of moderate, middle and high income
persons," Calogero said.
In a separate opinion, Justice Harry Lemmon
agreed.
"The law clinics unilaterally, without consulting this court,
extended their operations beyond the service of indigent persons and
organizations composed of indigent persons," he said. Instead of complaining
about the court's new interpretation of its rules, he said, the clinics should
have asked the court to authorize them to represent non-profit organizations.
Justice Chet Traylor agreed.
"The rule was designed to both help
law students learn the practice of law and indigent persons attain
representation," he said. "The rule has been perverted to serve ends never
intended and these changes do not go far enough to address the real problem."
But Oliver Houck, a law professor at Tulane who was instrumental in
starting the Tulane environmental clinic, said the court was ignoring the clear
language of the 1988 rule change, written by former Chief Justice John Dixon.
That change made the rule read: "... an eligible law student may appear
in any court or before any administrative tribunal in this state on behalf of
the state, any political subdivision thereof, or any indigent person or
community organization ..."
"It's very easy for them now to interpret it
the way they want, but at the time they amended the order 11 years ago, they
included no low-income qualification," Houck said.
Bob Kuehn, director
of the Tulane environmental clinic, said the effect of the changes is to make it
impossible for the clinic to represent community groups in environmental cases,
where normal indigency standards don't work. Handling an environmental challenge
against a large, multinational corporation can be much more costly than the
typical criminal or civil case handled by other clinics, he said.
"Louisiana will continue to be the only state in the country with an
explicit financial limit on representation, and the only state in the country
that will allow an opposing attorney to inquire into and challenge someone's
representation by a clinic based on his income," Kuehn said. "It forces the
group to ask its members how much money they earn as a condition of membership
and that creates a chilling effect on belonging to a group or seeking the help
of a clinic," he said.
But the decision also will be opposed by Foster,
said spokeswoman Marsanne Golsby.
"Obviously, he's not going to be happy
with this. It gives the clinics too much latitude," she said. "It allows the
radical environmental groups to continue their push to stop job development just
because they don't like particular industries."
Under the new changes in
Rule XX, a person's annual income can be 200 percent of the federal poverty
level -- equivalent to about $33,600 a year for a family of four -- and still be
considered as indigent by a clinic.
Last June, the court for the first
time defined an indigent client as one who met guidelines set by the federal
Legal Services Corp., which was 125 percent of the federal
poverty level, or $20,875 a year.
The court also will allow the clinics
to represent community groups that are affiliated with national organizations,
but only if 51 percent of the local group's membership meets the same income
guidelines, and the organization shows that it cannot pay for a lawyer in some
other way.
Last June, the court had prohibited representation of
organizations with national affiliations, for the first time setting financial
eligibility guidelines for them.
Under Monday's rule changes, students
also will be prohibited from representing clients who have been solicited by
anyone connected with the clinic, although the rule will no longer prohibit the
clinic's supervising attorneys or other lawyers at the school from representing
those people.
LOAD-DATE: March 23, 1999
