Legal aid programs funded by U.S. taxpayers through the Legal Services Corporation are supposed to help the poor with their everyday legal needs. Unfortunately, these taxpayer dollars can end up paying to defend the unconscionable conduct of legal aid clients, as the following cases demonstrate.
Legal Services Facilitates Medicaid Scam
Pisgah Legal Services of
North Carolina defended in state court a scheme to transfer his remaining assets
from an elderly father to his son in order for the father to qualify for
Medicaid payments for his long term nursing care. The father, Charles
Dillingham, transferred over $100,000 in assets to his son David after suffering
a severe stroke but before applying for state Medicaid nursing home
coverage. Both a state Division of Social Services hearing officer and a
state court trial judge concluded that the asset transfer had occurred, at least
in part, to qualify Charles for Medicaid. Legal Services managed to
convince the state Court of Appeals, however, that a technicality in the state’s
Medicaid law prevented the state from requiring the Dillinghams to show clear
and convincing evidence that the transfer was unrelated to the Medicaid
application. As a result, it appears more likely that the Dillinghams will
be rewarded for their conduct with Medicaid benefits courtesy of state and
federal taxpayers.
See Dillingham v. Department of Human Resources, 513 S.E. 2d 823 (N.C.
App. 1999).
Legal Services Assists Student Loan Deadbeat
Legal Services of
Alabama represented Bernadette Green in federal court as a plaintiff attempting
to regain money that had been garnished from her paycheck by the Kentucky Higher
Education Assistance Authority (KHEAA). Green had defaulted on a student
loan held by KHEAA, which resulted in the garnishment against Green, beginning
in 1996. Legal Services managed to persuade the court to force KHEAA
to pay back the money it had garnished from Green on the interesting
theory that Green had already had her paycheck garnished by a second student
loan on which she defaulted. The court found that Green couldn’t be
subjected to two garnishments at the same time, but there was no suggestion from
the court, nor apparently from Legal Services, as to how KHEAA could proceed to
get back the loan money--insured by U.S. taxpayers--from Green.
See Green v. Kentucky Higher Education Assistance Authority, 1999 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 1964 (S.D. Ala., February 23, 1999).
Legal Aid Supports Fraud on the Court in Paternity Case
In an
outrageous case, the taxpayer-supported Legal Aid Service of Northeastern
Minnesota has argued in a state appeals court that its client’s fraudulent
statements to the court should not affect the course of a non-paternity suit
brought by the client’s ex-husband. Both the trial and appellate courts
concluded that Legal Aid’s client, Jill Lelonek, had committed fraud on the
court by lying about certain facts that would have helped conclusively establish
that her ex-husband, Brian Lelonek, was not the father of her child.
Despite these fraudulent statements, Legal Aid tried to argue that Brian should
still be required to help support the child even though he is not the
father. In making this argument, Legal Aid used technical legal arguments
claiming that Brian could not amend his divorce proceedings, even though
evidence of Jill’s false statements and a blood test conclusively showed that
Brian could not be the father of Jill’s child.
See In Re Marriage of Lelonek, 1999 Minn. App. LEXIS 201 (Minn. App.,
March 2, 1999).