Jen Ngai Lavellee, Staff Attorney

As a result of Legal Aid’s advocacy, a plaintiff debt collector recently agreed to dismiss a case against one of our clients that sought in excess of $10,000 in alleged debt, fees, and interest from credit card charges she allegedly made many years prior.

Ms. B came to Legal Aid because she had been sued for over $10,000 by a company that she did not recognize. The complaint stated that the lawsuit was based on her nonpayment of an old credit card debt and sought to collect that balance plus interest and attorney’s fees. Ms. B did not dispute having owned the credit card at issue, and she admitted that she had fallen behind on her payments several years ago after suffering a stroke. But she was not sure of the actual balance on the account, nor did she did not recognize the plaintiff as the same company that had issued the credit card to her decades ago. Because Ms. B’s only sources of income were social security and her small pension, she could not afford to pay anything on the debt. Ms. B. came to Legal Aid fearful of what would happen to her as a result of the lawsuit.

Legal Aid entered the case and asked the plaintiff — a debt-buyer company that purchases bad debts — for proof that it was the owner of Ms. B’s credit card account. In response, the plaintiff produced a series of documents intended to show that Ms. B’s credit card debt had been assigned or sold three different times in order to get from the original creditor to the plaintiff. However, the documentation did not identify Ms. B’s account, but instead showed only that hundreds or thousands of unidentified accounts were sold at once. It also contained dates that did not make sense with the alleged chronology of sales, and the plaintiff refused to include any of the actual assignment agreements.

Legal Aid argued to the Court that the problems with plaintiff’s documentation showed that it could not in fact prove it was the true owner of Ms. B’s credit card account and therefore lacked the legal standing to sue her on the debt. Legal Aid explained that ownership of the account was a critical issue, because if Ms. B paid the plaintiff to settle or otherwise satisfy the debt and a different company revealed itself as the true owner, Ms. B would suffer duplicate liability on the same debt. Legal Aid argued that allowing the plaintiff to move forward with the case and try to recover from Ms. B under the circumstances would be both unfair and legally incorrect.

At a pre-trial hearing before the judge, Legal Aid stressed in particular that the plaintiff’s documents presented serious reliability issues and that the plaintiff would not be able to present sufficient evidence at trial to prove its case. Both parties and the judge agreed that a decision in the case could have a significant impact on the standards of proof required of debt-buyer companies in the District of Columbia. After oral arguments in front of the judge were complete, the plaintiff opted to dismiss the case against Ms. B rather than proceed to trial, and it promised never to sue her on the same debt again.

Chinh Le, Legal Director

I am delighted to announce that Legal Aid’s Executive Director, Eric Angel, will be the recipient of the American Bar Association Section of Litigation’s 2012 John Minor Wisdom Public Service and Professionalism Award! This prestigious national award honors individuals who “have made outstanding contributions to the quality of justice in their communities, ensuring that the legal system is open and available to all.” Recipients are selected based on fulfilling one or more criteria of the following:

Eric Angel, Executive Director

1. provided sustained, exceptional direct representation of poor, disenfranchised or other under-represented individuals or groups;
2. created new or expanded means of access to the legal system for these individuals or groups; or
3. provided representation in one or more cases that resulted in significant changes in statutory or case law to benefit these individuals or groups. 

The Section of Litigation will present the 2012 John Minor Wisdom Public Service and Professionalism Award during its Section Annual Conference, April 18–20, 2012 at the JW Marriott Washington in Washington, D.C. 

Please join me in congratulating Eric on this well-deserved recognition! All of us on the staff and board of Legal Aid are so very proud of and excited for him.

For years, Legal Aid has been working with federal and local Medicare advocates to protect low-income Medicare beneficiaries from improper charges by doctors and other providers.  We are delighted to announce that these efforts have culminated in newly released guidance from the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) informing providers and state Medicaid agencies about these protections. 

Background 

Medicare is a federal health insurance program that provides coverage for elderly and disabled individuals with a work history.  The lowest income Medicare beneficiaries are also covered by Medicaid, which for them covers most Medicare costs and fills gaps in Medicare coverage.  Medicare beneficiaries with somewhat higher incomes are eligible for a less comprehensive District of Columbia program which supplements their Medicare benefits by covering Medicare premiums and co-payments for hospital and physician services and partially subsidizing prescription drug costs.  This program is called the Qualified Medicare Beneficiary, or QMB, program.

In its groundbreaking efforts to provide health coverage to its low income citizens, the District expanded income eligibility for the QMB program from 100 percent of poverty (about $900 per month for an individual) to 300 percent of poverty (about $2,700 per month for an individual) and eliminated asset limits.  Until now, however, many QMBs have failed to get the intended benefits because many providers have lacked understanding of QMBs’ rights. 

Billing protections 

The Medicare law prohibits any Medicare provider – regardless of whether the provider also participates with Medicaid – from collecting any co-payment from a QMB beneficiary (or a Medicaid beneficiary).  However, many medical providers are not aware of this provision of the law and quite often bill their Medicaid or QMB patients for costs not covered by Medicare. In several of Legal Aid’s cases, providers refused to cancel the charges without explicit guidance from CMS, which was difficult and time consuming to obtain.  We have heard about similar problems in other jurisdictions.

CMS guidance

Due in part to advocacy by Legal Aid and other local groups, including the Whitman-Walker Clinic Legal Program and the George Washington University State Health Insurance Counseling Project, as well as national groups, including the Center for Medicare Advocacy and the Health Assistance Partnership, last week, CMS released formal guidance memoranda emphasizing this billing prohibition.  The guidance also provides additional educational information to medical providers about the QMB program.  This explicit statement of our clients’ rights will help Legal Aid and other advocates enforce our clients’ rights to avoid unlawful charges and the resulting undue economic hardship. 

Contributed by members of Legal Aid’s Public Benefit Unit:  Lucy Newton, Jennifer Mezey, Andrew Patterson & James Springer

Rachel Lukens, Volunteer Attorney

Legal Aid recently obtained another important victory under the DC Language Access Act of 2004 for one of its clients.  For nearly two years, Legal Aid client Ms. Salmerón was repeatedly denied her rights under the Act in her interactions with the D.C. Child Support and Services Division (CSSD).  Ms. Salmerón’s difficulties began in May 2009, when she sought but was denied effective assistance from CSSD because no Spanish interpreters were provided and no bilingual employees were available.  She returned in January 2010, requested Spanish language assistance, and was told to wait until a bilingual employee could be found to help her.  After waiting for several hours, Ms. Salmerón was told to go home and return another day.  No bilingual employee was found to assist her, and CSSD did not attempt to provide interpretation services through a telephonic interpretation service or similar means.  Ms. Salmerón returned again in February 2010, and was asked to sign an affidavit in English.  After repeated requests for a Spanish interpreter, a bilingual CSSD employee finally provided an oral interpretation of the affidavit before Ms. Salmerón signed it.  On several occasions, Ms. Salmerón was improperly instructed to bring a bilingual family member or friend to interpret for her.

In October and November 2009, Ms. Salmerón received several documents in English from CSSD providing information about her case, without any written or verbal Spanish translation.  On multiple occasions throughout 2010 and 2011, Ms. Salmerón received Monthly Notice of Child Support Account Activity reports written in English, without any Spanish translation or explanation of the document.  Ms. Salmerón was also required to fill out several forms in English without any written or verbal Spanish translation.

Jennifer Hatton, Former Legal Aid Staff Attorney

With the assistance of former Legal Aid attorney Jennifer Hatton, Ms. Salmerón filed a language access complaint in December 2010 with the D.C. Office of Human Rights (OHR) alleging violations of the D.C. Language Access Act against CSSD.  The Act requires District government agencies to “provide oral language services to a person with limited or no-English proficiency who seeks to access or participate in the services, programs, or activities offered” by the agencies.  Under the Act and its implementing regulations, agencies are instructed when to use in-person interpretation and when to use a telephonic interpretation service.  In all instances, some form of interpretation must be provided to ensure that a person with limited or no-English proficiency may benefit from the agency’s programs at a level equal to English proficient individuals.  The agencies must also provide written translation of vital documents into languages other than English when those languages are prevalent enough, as defined by the Act, to warrant translation.  OHR conducted an investigation and issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law on October 4, 2011.

OHR found that CSSD violated the Act by failing to provide services in Spanish during Ms. Salmerón’s May 2009 and January 2010 visits, and by leaving her waiting for an inordinate amount of time before ultimately sending her home without providing any services or interpretation at the January 2010 visit.  OHR clarified that CSSD must translate vital documents into Spanish for its Spanish-speaking clients.  OHR found that CSSD violated the Act by failing to provide written translations of four documents that are “vital” within the meaning of the Act.  The decision also noted that the letter accompanying the Monthly Notice of Child Support should also be translated into Spanish.  Although the Monthly Notice is a computer-generated document, OHR stated that technological barriers are no justification for violations of the Act.

In November 2011, OHR issued and CSSD agreed to comply with the following corrective actions: (1) Require all CSSD staff to ask all customers if they need assistance in a language other than English and immediately call a telephonic interpretation service for any limited English proficient or no English proficient constituent; (2) all public contact position (PCP) staff shall attend a language access training conducted by OHR in February 2012; (3) all PCP staff shall be issued a Language Line Services (LLS) Quick Reference Guide, which provides instructions for how to access a telephonic interpretation service, and maintain it on his or her desk at all times; (4) all PCP staff who work in the field shall be issued a wallet size LLS Quick Reference Guide and carry it with him or her at all times; (5) CSSD shall have both large and small Interpretation Services Available signs displayed in all public contact points; (6) in consultation with OHR, CSSD’s vital documents shall be identified and translated into Spanish; and (7) CSSD shall identify a language access coordinator.

Legal Aid congratulates Ms. Salmerón for asserting her rights and for the steps that she has taken to improve language access in the District.  Legal Aid will continue to monitor CSSD’s interactions with its constituents to ensure that the agency complies with the corrective actions issued by OHR as a result of Ms. Salmerón’s language access complaint.

 Victoria de Acceso Lingüístico para Cliente de La Sociedad de Asistencia Legal
Translation by Raquel Aguirre

Raquel Aguirre, Legal Administrative Assistant

Eric Angel, Executive Director

As we reflect back on the year, we thank, first and foremost, our clients, for the example they have shown – the strength and dignity they have exhibited during exceedingly hard times.  We are also truly grateful for the support and commitment of our extraordinary donors, volunteers, board members, and staff. 

At a time of retrenchment at legal services organizations around the country, we feel truly fortunate to have been able to grow our program during 2011.  We have a new unemployment insurance project, which has already been helping low-income residents receive much-needed safety net benefits in time for the holiday season.  A new child support project is shining a much-needed spotlight on this traditionally-neglected court.  Hundreds of the District’s most vulnerable families are benefiting from the attention.  And we have been continuing our daily work, helping families stay in their homes, obtain much-needed medicine, and responding to other, life-changing legal needs. 

This recent matter encapsulates the importance of the work of our lawyers in the daily lives of our clients.  One of our clients fell behind on his rent by a single month.  He was sued for nonpayment of the single month’s rent.  But he never received notice of the case.  Not a notice to quit.  Not a suit for eviction.  The first he heard of the case was when someone in the rental office told him he was scheduled for eviction at 2 pm the next day. 

Stunned, the client rushed to court the next morning, finding our Legal Aid’s court-based legal services project which is designed to help out in precisely these emergency situations.  We moved to vacate the default judgment and waited for the judge to hear the case.  When the case was called, we found out that the eviction had already taken place – two hours ahead of schedule!  The client’s possessions were already on the street. 

The landlord’s attorney immediately argued that it was too late:  the Landlord Tenant Branch had no authority to do anything once the eviction had happened.  The judge sitting that morning seemed inclined to agree, concerned about the extent of his jurisdiction to hear the case.  We argued to the contrary, then asked for a brief continuance, so we could do further research to persuade the judge of his authority to reinstate the client to his home.  Within an hour or so, we had mustered the arguments and persuaded the judge to re-instate the client.  The judge, in turn, persuaded the marshals to help move the client’s belongings back into his home.  Because of this intervention, the client has a safe (and warm!) home for the holidays.  This is a real, palpable example of making justice real for our clients. 

From all of the Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia, best wishes for a happy and healthy holiday season.

Wemi Peters, Staff Attorney

The Washington Post and CNN, among other media outlets, recently reported some disturbing new federal statistics on sexual violence. According to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey conducted by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly one in five women suffer severe physical violence at the hands of their partner, and intimate partner violence affects more than twelve million people in the United States yearly. Equally troubling is how young these women are at the time that they experience this violence. Seventy percent experience intimate partner violence by the age of twenty-five.

This survey captures a reality that is faced by many of our own Washington D.C. residents.  Between January and November of this year alone, there were over four thousand requests for Civil Protective Orders (CPO) filed in D.C. Superior Court.

Legal Aid provides vital legal assistance to survivors of domestic violence who are going through the CPO process. Four days a week, Legal Aid attorneys staff the Domestic Violence Intake Center based in Southeast, Washington, D.C., providing immediate legal counsel and advice to survivors seeking protection from their abusers.  Legal Aid attorneys meet with survivors, provide safety planning and social services referrals, collect relevant evidence for trial, and represent the survivor in Court for their CPO hearing. We work with domestic violence survivors with two goals in mind: holding abusers accountable and ensuring that the legal process helps stem continued victimization.

Sometimes, however, much of what Legal Aid attorneys do in serving survivors extends well beyond court-representation. It is not uncommon for many survivors to feel reluctant about reporting abuse or pursuing legal avenues to protect themselves from abuse out of fear of retaliation, embarrassment, and conflicted emotions about the offending partner. Moreover, all of the survivors who receive assistance from Legal Aid face the added barrier of poverty. The nature of the legal process can also be a source of anxiety for survivors. Here in D.C., for instance, the CPO process requires survivors to publicly confront their batterer despite the deeply personal nature of the abuse. Additionally, at a time when survivors are likely experiencing an emotional crisis and may be homeless, the legal system expects survivors to perform as any other litigant in Court: appear in Court on time, wait patiently for extended periods often in the proximity of the abuser, maintain complete emotional composure, and understand that the system may eventually not grant them the remedy that they are seeking.  These expectations, coupled with the public nature of the proceedings, can result in an overwhelming sense of helplessness. Legal Aid attorneys help survivors of domestic violence navigate the system and empower them to confront these significant challenges if and when they are ready.

For courts and lawyers, there is a relatively simple and straightforward definition of a legal victory.  For survivors of domestic violence, however, the definition can be more complicated. Although obtaining a CPO is largely empowering to a survivor, even if a survivor does not ultimately prevail in court, Legal Aid strives to help the survivor understand that the lack of a CPO does not minimize their suffering or translate to a failure for the survivor. Legal Aid attorneys work to empower domestic violence survivors by assisting them as they make decisions that suit their individual lives.  By helping them regain greater control over their lives, we hope survivors achieve justice and victory as they define it.

Rachel Rintelmann, Staff Attorney

In 2007, the Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia began representing low-income tenants through the Court-Based Legal Services Project, funded in large part by the D.C. Bar Pro Bono Program and based in the Landlord-Tenant Branch of D.C. Superior Court.  Today, Legal Aid partners with Bread for the City to ensure that attorneys are available Monday through Friday to provide same-day representation to low-income tenants facing eviction.

On any given day, Project attorneys are prepared to handle a wide range of cases. Often, attorneys will assist tenants in court for their initial appearance, counseling them as to their legal rights, and assisting them in filing answers, seeking continuances, setting trial dates, requesting necessary repairs to their homes, and/or negotiating with their landlords. Sometimes, tenants seek assistance with more complex matters, such as requesting a temporary restraining order to force the landlord to make emergency repairs, or filing a motion to stop an eviction scheduled to take place within 24 hours.  

On some occasions, we meet with tenants on the day that their case is scheduled for trial. This was the case last week when Legal Aid attorney David Steib met with a tenant who was living in a foreclosed property.  Not only did David help the tenant negotiate for a 60% reduction in the amount of money the bank claimed was owed, he also ensured that the tenant would not be evicted and would continue to have a roof over her head for the foreseeable future. 

Cases referred to this Project often require quick thinking and research. In October, Legal Aid attorney Celine Janelle met with a tenant who was scheduled to be evicted at 2 pm that day, despite the fact that he had never received notice of an eviction case. Celine later discovered that the eviction had actually taken place several hours early, while the tenant was in Court waiting to be heard. Rather than giving up because it was too late to stop the eviction, Celine spent an hour and a half researching, drafting and arguing a somewhat atypical motion. Thanks to Celine’s efforts, the Judge ordered that the tenant, and his belongings, be restored to his home immediately. 

Even in cases without complex questions of law, Project attorneys often lend a helpful hand. 

A Spanish-speaking tenant came to the Project for help after her landlord’s attorney refused to consider evidence that she had paid all of her rent. Instead, the landlord’s attorney bullied and threatened the tenant, telling her she would be thrown out of her home within the week. Legal Aid attorney Maggie Donahue stepped in to explain the tenant’s rights, and the landlord’s attorney immediately dismissed the case with prejudice. As an additional benefit, Maggie was able to counsel the tenant in her native language. 

In addition to same-day representation, Project attorneys also provide ongoing representation for clients who need help beyond that day in court.  Often that representation is provided directly by Legal Aid attorneys, but in 2011, we also placed 30 cases with pro bono counsel, mostly through our own pro bono program.

So far in 2011, Legal Aid has handled 319 new cases through the Project, benefitting 819 people. In those cases alone, we have helped to gain over $250,000 in financial benefits for our clients.  Approximately two-thirds of these clients were from Wards 5, 7, or 8 — all areas with high concentrations of poverty. 

A 2008 D.C. Access to Justice Commission report showed that while over 90 percent of landlords in eviction cases are represented by counsel, only 3 percent of tenants have attorneys. The Project was created to help address this massive inequity, and four years later, the Project continues to make a dent in this imbalance. Legal Aid and Bread for the City attorneys have represented nearly 3,000 individuals or families through the Project since 2007. 

As affordable housing in the District becomes more and more difficult to find, low-income tenants find themselves at an increasing risk of homelessness.  Even those tenants with steady housing may find that affordable housing is substandard, and sometimes downright hazardous. Our presence in the courthouse increases our ability to monitor these and other emerging issues, and to engage in ongoing discussions about how to meaningfully address the challenges that our clients face every day. 

About five months ago, Legal Aid and Bread for the City began the pilot phase of the Child Support Community Legal Services Project.  Through the Project, which is funded by the DC Bar Foundation, attorneys provide legal information, advice, and same-day representation to custodial and noncustodial parents with cases in the Paternity and Child Support Branch of DC Superior Court.  The Project opened its doors at the end of June, and provided legal assistance in well over 100 cases by the end of October.  Project attorneys initially covered one of the three magistrate judges’ calendars twice a week, but have since expanded services and are now staffing the Project four days a week and covering all the magistrate judges’ calendars.  

The Project has several partners that provide critical support.  The law firm of Crowell & Moring LLP provides paralegal support two days a week.  The DC Bar Pro Bono Program assists with eligibility screening and provides legal information and advice to litigants who are not eligible for Project services because of residency and/or income.  Catholic University Columbus School of Law students and professors from the General Practice Clinic also advise custodial and noncustodial parents about their rights and the legal arguments for their case.

With the assistance of these partners, Legal Aid and Bread for the City have been able to help hundreds of parents navigate the often-daunting legal process and obtain fair, accurate child support orders for their children.  The vast majority of the parents that the Child Support Project has served are residents of Ward 8, the poorest, most racially segregated area in the District.  In these challenging economic times, families need legal assistance with child support cases more than ever.  While the need for financial support has become more acute among custodial parents, noncustodial parents find it more difficult to get and keep employment and pay child support.  

The first several months of the Child Support Community Legal Services Project have been very successful.  We hope to serve even more families in the coming months and will continue to strive to increase access to justice for low-income District residents.

Jodi Feldman, Director of Pro Bono and Intake

Are you an attorney who has provided 50 hours or more of pro bono service in 2011? If so, the DC Courts want to thank and recognize you for your contribution!

The Chief Judges of the D.C. Court of Appeals and the D.C. Superior Court jointly announced in late October the launch of the Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll, which recognizes the vital role that private and federal government attorneys play in providing pro bono representation to those who cannot afford counsel. The Honor Roll will recognize D.C. Bar members and others authorized to perform pro bono work in the District of Columbia who provide 50 or more hours of pro bono service per year. Lawyers providing 100 hours or more of pro bono service will be recognized on the “High Honor Roll.”

In a joint letter announcing the initiative, Chief Judge of the D.C. Court of Appeals Eric Washington and Chief Judge of the D.C. Superior Court Lee Satterfield wrote “The D.C. Courts are mindful of the challenges faced by pro se litigants attempting to navigate our court system without counsel. It is for this reason that the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct call on bar members to provide fifty hours or more of pro bono service per year and why we want to acknowledge those who do by adding their names to the Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll.” The new initiative also enjoys the support of the D.C. Access to Justice Commission and the D.C. Bar Pro Bono Program.

To be included in the Honor Roll, attorneys must submit a declaration to the court, which may be completed online, indicating that they have provided 50 hours or more of pro bono work in the calendar year. Applications to be on the list of honorees for 2011 are due by January 31, 2012.