Rebecca Baden, Crowell Loaned Associate

Days after joining Legal Aid as a loaned associate, I received my first case assignment. Eager to dive head first into my new role as a housing attorney, I promptly reviewed the case file. I learned that I would be representing Ms. M – a mother of three young children whose landlord sought to evict her from her federally-subsidized home. I also learned that the case was set for a bench trial in a matter of weeks. 

Ms. M had been wrongfully accused by her landlord of violating her lease. When confronted by the landlord with this allegation, Ms. M unknowingly signed an agreement to vacate her apartment. When Ms. M could not find an alternative home for her and her family, the landlord sued to evict her, and she came to Legal Aid for help. 

When Ms. M’s folder landed on my desk, it became my job to prove that she should not be required to leave her apartment. To do so, I had to digest the facts and the law of Ms. M’s case; and I needed to fully understand Ms. M’s challenges in comprehending the written agreements her landlord presented to her. But perhaps most importantly, I had to earn Ms. M’s trust – as her attorney, and as her advisor.  In the short time Ms. M and I worked together, I had to make decisions about the legal defenses to pursue, the witness testimony to elicit for the court, and the theme of Ms. M’s defense. It was essential that Ms. M have confidence in my ability to make these decisions; and confidence that my decisions were in her best interest.  

Ultimately, Ms. M and her landlord agreed to a settlement in her case. Since settling her case, Ms. M, her boyfriend, and their three children found a new home, and are very happy there. Even better, Ms. M recently started a collegiate program that will enable her to fulfill her dream of becoming a nurse.  

Ms. M’s ability to trust me played an integral role in resolving this dispute, and in Ms. M’s happy ending. 

Preparing for Ms. M’s trial so early in my time at Legal Aid, and in such a short timeframe, was as rewarding as it was challenging. The experience helped me to grow personally and professionally. I am privileged to have met Ms. M and her family, and I feel honored to have been her attorney.

Meridel Bulle-Vu, Staff Attorney

On Monday, I was among the many advocates, citizens, and government officials testifying at a D.C. Council Committee Hearing in opposition to the Child Sexual Reporting Act of 2012, a bill that would impose a universal mandatory reporting duty on all adults in D.C.  Specifically, the bill would require all private citizens in the District, without exception, to immediately report any suspicion that a child is or has ever been the victim of sexual abuse or else risk criminal or civil penalties for failing to do so. While well-intentioned, the Act is overbroad and would ultimately do more harm than good.  My written and oral testimony highlighted just a couple of the many serious problems with the Act:

First, there is no evidence demonstrating that mandatory reporting laws increase child safety.  Given this lack of evidence, the harms imposed by universal mandatory reporting outweigh the benefits.  False reports of abuse are likely to increase, particularly with citizens fearing criminal sanctions, and as a result, more children are likely to be unnecessarily removed from their homes for the duration of an investigation.  This level of government intrusion into a child’s life causes lasting harm to the child, not to mention the disruption it causes families as a whole.  In addition, investigating the increased number of reports would take additional resources, and where those are lacking, would dilute the already strained resources of Child Protective Services.  While they focus attention on false reports, a real case of child sexual abuse might slip through the cracks.

Second, the Act does not provide for any exception for victims of domestic violence or their service providers, who might be unable to safely report incidents of child sexual abuse until the victims are adequately protected from their abusers and receiving mental health counseling to address the trauma often associated with abuse.  Instead of recognizing the horrors of such situations, the Act would turn victims into criminals for failing to report child sexual abuse, even if it occurred years earlier.

Finally, the Act does not provide an exception for attorney-client communication.  I testified about how this would potentially chill the willingness of clients to share critical information with their lawyers and thereby compromise the ability of lawyers to help the most vulnerable clients.

Written testimony on these issues can be accessed here.

Cassandra Tillinghast, Skadden Loaned Associate

Should there be a right to counsel in civil adversarial proceedings where basic human needs, such as shelter, sustenance, safety, health or child custody, are at stake?  In 2006, the American Bar Association unanimously adopted a resolution urging “federal, state, and territorial governments to provide legal counsel as a matter of right at public expense” in such proceedings, and in the years since, a number of state and local bar associations have acted in support of efforts to recognize this right.

Recently, the Boston Bar Association (BBA) released a report concluding that “extensive assistance from lawyers is essential to helping tenants preserve their housing and avoid the potential for homelessness.”  After completing a year-long study of the impact of two pilot projects involving eviction cases in two separate courthouses, the BBA report found that “[w]ithout full representation by counsel or an effective alternative, many vulnerable tenants forfeit important rights, lose possession they could have retained, and forego substantial financial benefits.  With counsel, eviction proceedings have outcomes that are more just.” 

In addition to the admirable goal of achieving greater justice, the BBA report explored other societal benefits to providing full representation to tenants facing eviction.  By helping tenants to preserve housing and avoid the potential for homelessness, full legal representation for tenants results in a reduction in certain tangible and non-tangible costs to society associated with homelessness.  Such costs include, for example, those that the state (or in our case, the District of Columbia) incurs to provide homeless shelters and related services.  In addition, homelessness implicates a number of human costs – the stresses that homeless families face daily can have real and serious effects on the health and stability of a family.

Legal Aid has long recognized the value of legal representation in housing matters, having assisted poor and low-income tenants in the District of Columbia for 80 years.  Presently, approximately half of Legal Aid’s cases involve housing issues.  In addition, Legal Aid places lawyers in the courthouse as part of the Court Based Legal Services Project, which we run jointly with Bread for the City.  In 2011, project attorneys provided critical legal assistance in 642 landlord-tenant matters. 

Since I joined Legal Aid as a loaned associate nearly six months ago, I have had the opportunity to witness first-hand the dramatic impact that legal representation can have for our clients.  I’ve worked with clients who are facing eviction, trying to enforce a landlord’s compliance with the housing code, or attempting to maintain a housing subsidy.  In most cases, my clients faced landlords or agencies that were represented by counsel.  Without representation of their own, it is virtually impossible for tenants to defend their cases effectively.  Lawyers help their clients to understand the claims against them, formulate defenses, file pleadings, investigate the facts, advance legal arguments, and present the evidence in a compelling and persuasive way.  Based on my experiences, I have no doubt that having legal representation has led to better results for Legal Aid’s clients.

I believe the answer to the question posed at the beginning of this post, therefore, is yes – representation should be available as a matter of right in cases where basic human needs, such as housing, are at stake.  But until then, I take comfort in knowing that attorneys at Legal Aid and similar organizations are working diligently to ensure that low-income tenants are getting the full representation they need in order to obtain outcomes that are more just

Heather Latino, Consumer Unit Supervising Attorney

In her Washington Post column last Thursday, Petula Dvorak explored how payday lenders are evolving and persisting in their abuse of low-income working class people in new, innovative ways. Payday loans have long been criticized for luring borrowers into a never-ending cycle of debt under the auspices of offering short term financial relief.  Lenders offering payday loans target the most financially vulnerable and least sophisticated consumer—the very people who are least able to afford the high fees and interest rates that accompany these loans.  In 2007, the Washington Post reported that there were 48 payday lender storefronts in the District.  When the D.C. Council voted in favor of a bill capping interest rates on short term loans, the expectation was that the District’s payday lenders would be forced out of business thus protecting low-income borrowers.  Yet, as Ms. Dvorak explains, many in the payday loan industry have simply moved their operations to locations like Indian reservations and now reach out to borrowers through radio and internet advertising.

Westra Miller, Staff Attorney

Last Thursday, I gave written and oral testimony to the District of Columbia Council Committee on Human Services regarding the Economic Security Administration (ESA).  My testimony focused on the recent redesign of the District’s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program and the underutilization of a separate assistance program targeted for parents with disabilities, the implementation of the Interim Disability Assistance (IDA) benefits program, and performance issues at ESA itself.  The hearing was well-attended both by advocates and by District residents speaking on their own behalf. Legal Aid’s recommendations included the following: 

Provide long term TANF recipients with additional time to be assessed and receive services before the District cuts their benefits dramatically.  As part of a redesign of the TANF program, ESA has taken steps to improve the TANF program by providing better supports and services to increase the employability of TANF parents.  Although these programmatic improvements are promising, they are in tension with another new rule that created time limits for families that have received TANF for more than 60 months.  Long time TANF families now face a series of steep reductions to the maximum amount of monthly benefits they can receive.  The first wave of reductions is already in place, and come October 2012, many families will have their benefits reduced by 40 percent.  However, these reductions will be implemented before most families have had any opportunity to benefit from the improvements promised by ESA.  Therefore, families should have additional time to receive services and supports that could help them become employable (or determine that they are not employable) before they are subject to such a dramatic benefit reduction. 

Create exemptions for and extensions of time to the benefit reductions.  The District, unlike many other jurisdictions that have adopted time limits, only allows a few narrow exemptions from the time limit.  Legal Aid joins other advocates in the belief that families who are particularly vulnerable (such as survivors of domestic violence) and those who are following the rules and working to achieve employability should be exempted from the time limits or gain additional time to improve their employability. 

Improve the POWER program.  One of the few exemptions to the TANF time limits that currently exists is the Program on Work, Employment, and Responsibility (POWER).  POWER provides TANF benefits to families headed by a parent or caretaker with a mental or physical health condition.  Families in the program have to participate in treatment and training programs, but do not have to work for 20 or 30 hours per week and are not subject to the reductions in their benefit levels.  Legal Aid is concerned, however, that ESA staff is failing to identify and refer many TANF recipients with disabilities to POWER.  TANF families are not able to apply for POWER on their own and many are unaware of its existence.  I encouraged ESA to provide more clarity about how families are referred to and assessed for POWER as well as to allow families to apply to POWER themselves.  

Increase funding for and improve management of the IDA program.  Another program, Interim Disability Assistance, provides temporary cash assistance to individuals who are on the path to receiving Social Security disability benefits.  When a federal disability application is approved, the federal government reimburses the District for the IDA assistance paid out.   Without more transparent management of this program by ESA, we are concerned that fewer residents with disabilities will be able to access the program and that the program’s future viability will be at stake.  In the last couple of years, the future of IDA has become increasingly uncertain due to both funding reductions and problems with the program’s administration.  Despite a rise in the number of pending SSI and SSDI applications, fewer residents are now receiving IDA assistance each month.  High demand and limited funding has led ESA to create a waitlist for IDA which defeats the self-reimbursing nature of the program; additionally, the lack of rules governing the wait list has created confusion among ESA staff and our clients about the program.  I recommended increased funding for IDA and more transparent management of the IDA waitlist.    

Improve ESA operations.  Legal Aid recognizes that increased need for public assistance programs places pressure on ESA staff.  As with any agency of its size, there will be inevitable mistakes or staffing issues.  Despite this, we remain concerned about ESA’s performance.  Our clients report a range of difficulties in their experiences recertifying for medical assistance, scheduling appointments at ESA, and in contacting agency staff.  I testified that ESA expand its staff, if possible, and promote the informal resolution of disputes with ESA customers.

 Written testimony on these issues can be accessed here.

Chinh Le, Legal Director

Last Wednesday, Ashley McDowell and Meridel Bulle-Vu, both Staff Attorneys at Legal Aid, and Project Attorneys at the Child Support Resource Center (recently blogged about here), gave written and oral testimony to the District of Columbia Council Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary regarding the Office of the Attorney General (OAG).  Their testimony specifically focused on the policies and performance of the Child Support Services Division (CSSD).  Vanessa Batters-Thompson, who is a Staff Attorney at Bread for the City, a project partner, also gave testimony as well.  

Meridel Bulle-Vu, Staff Attorney

Meridel’s testimony focused on CSSD’s policy of opposing the disestablishment of paternity in all cases, even when a parent has proof of non-paternity in the form of a DNA test.  In one case, a putative father signed an Acknowledgement of Paternity after his then-girlfriend told him that he was the father.  Three years later, after a child support order had been established, his girlfriend told him that he was not in fact the child’s father.  He promptly informed the court, and both he and the mother asked the court to grant a DNA test to determine the truth.  The court then ordered a DNA test which excluded the man as the father.  Notwithstanding these facts, CSSD fought the disestablishment efforts every step of the way, and it took nearly a year and a half of regular hearings before the case concluded and the mother could move on to establish paternity with the real biological father. 

Ashley McDowell, Staff Attorney

Ashley testified about CSSD’s enforcement policies and their failure to enforce child support orders in a timely fashion.  Her testimony described instances where CSSD has pursued low-income parents for child support that was due in the 1980’s and 1990’s, despite the fact that the subject children were often adults with families of their own.  Many of these parents were unable to pay child support due to long periods of incarceration, unemployment, or mental and physical disabilities.  Additionally, CSSD has often tried to collect child support judgments that have actually expired due to the statute of limitations.  She encouraged CSSD to focus these valuable enforcement resources on cases where collecting past due child support will have a more direct impact on the wellbeing of the District’s children.

 Their written testimony can be accessed here.

Chinh Le, Legal Director

Legal Aid is delighted by the announcement today that John (Jack) C. Keeney, Jr., the Director of the Barbara McDowell Appellate Advocacy Project, will be a recipient of the 2012 Justice Potter Stewart Award from the Council for Court Excellence (CCE).

Jack Keeney, Director, Barbara McDowell Appellate Project

The Justice Potter Stewart Award, CCE’s highest public honor, is given annually “to individuals who exemplify the very best in the administration of justice” and who “have made significant and sustained contributions to the justice system in Washington, D.C.”  The award, named to honor the memory and public service of the late Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, was established by CCE in 1997.  Jack will share the award this year with Jim Lyons, a trial lawyer in private practice for more than 40 years and co-founder of the law firm of Kellogg, Williams & Lyons.  In 2006, Legal Aid and then-Executive Director Jonathan Smith won this prestigious award.

Jack Keeney, Jr., a former President of the D.C. Bar (2004-2005), has served as the Director of Legal Aid’s Barbara McDowell Appellate Advocacy Project since January 2011. Described as a “powerhouse attorney” by the Wall Street Journal and often selected as a “Top Lawyer” by the Washingtonian, he joined Legal Aid from Hogan Lovells (formerly Hogan & Hartson), where he had practiced law for more than 30 years and served as the partner-in-charge of the firm’s award-winning pro bono practice from 1989 to 1993.  Since joining Legal Aid, Jack has participated in numerous appellate matters in both the D.C. Court of Appeals and the D.C. Superior Court on a broad range of poverty law issues.  Indeed, just yesterday, he presented oral arguments before the Court of Appeals in an important child custody matter involving important questions of civil and appellate procedure, and he filed an amicus brief for five public interest organizations in an en banc matter pertaining to disability rights. Jack has also been active with the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs for decades and in June 2010, received its highest honor, the Wiley Branton Award, for his life-long commitment to civil rights leadership and service.

“Jack has had an impressive and high-profile career,” CCE Executive Director June Kress said. “His arrival at Legal Aid demonstrated the integrity for which he is known across the justice community. He now leads the fight for some of the District’s neighbors who are most in need of justice.”

The Council for Court Excellence will present the award at its annual dinner, which will be held on Thursday, May 10, 2012 at the Organization of American States (17th and Constitution, NW). Please join us in congratulating Jack on this prestigious honor and well-deserved recognition!

Ashley McDowell, Staff Attorney

I met Mr. A for the first time at the D.C. Superior Court. He had come to the Child Support Community Legal Services Project seeking help to reduce his child support order for his three grown children. In the early nineties, he had been ordered to pay about $700 per month in child support. For 18 years of his adult life, however, he was in jail and unable to pay child support. He was facing tens of thousands of dollars in arrears. After he was released from jail, Mr. A did manage to find work and make payments as best as he could, but he was eventually laid off from his job. He now lived in a shelter and was in an intensive drug rehab program, with the hope of getting back on his feet one day.

For the past seven months, lawyers from Legal Aid, Bread for the City, and other community partners have staffed the Child Support Community Legal Services Project, also known as the Child Support Resource Center. Most litigants that appear for hearings in the Paternity and Support branch are pro se. Many have little to no experience with the legal system and are often unaware of their rights or of legal procedure. Four days a week, project attorneys provide legal information, advice, and same-day representation on a variety of child support and paternity issues. Our services are free and open to both custodial and non-custodial parents, moms and dads, and even third-party caregivers.

Many of the clients that have been served by the Resource Center are non-custodial fathers like Mr. A who have not paid child support in quite awhile and have amassed thousands of dollars in arrears. Many people would call these men “dead-beat dads” and question whether they deserve legal assistance, but this characterization fails to recognize the circumstances that have led many of these non-custodial parents to have become as indebted as they are. The Project does not provide legal assistance to parents who seek to avoid their responsibilities towards their children. We do, however, understand that the existence of arrears on a parent’s balance sheet does not necessarily mean that the parent has purposefully evaded his or her child support obligation.

While we all acknowledge the sluggish economy, and the impact that it has had on everyday workers, recent numbers reveal just how dire our country’s economic situation really is. According to the Census Bureau, nearly half of all Americans now live at or near the poverty line. Sixteen percent of Americans now live below the poverty line, and one-third earn incomes between 100% and 199% of the poverty level. These new figures take into account medical bills, child care expenses, and taxes to provide a more accurate picture of Americans’ economic health. And the picture is crystal clear: too many Americans are out of work, wages are stagnant or decreasing, and the costs of essentials such as housing and utilities have remained the same or increased.

We see the impact of this perfect storm at the courthouse each day. Fathers who paid child support consistently each month were suddenly laid off and have been unable to find work for years. Fathers with criminal records find it nearly impossible to get a job interview, and watch as their arrears accrue. Those fortunate enough to find part-time work have to rely on the generosity of friends and family to make up the difference. Most parents want to provide for their children, but it has been more difficult than ever for parents to meet their responsibilities. At the Resource Center, we provide legal assistance to moms and dads who have had the most trouble weathering the current economic storm. In Mr. A’s case, Legal Aid was able to temporarily reduce his child support order to $0 per month. This will help ensure that he won’t face contempt charges while he is in his drug program and give him an opportunity to look for work. It is always our goal to help clients reach fair and accurate child support orders—orders that non-custodial parents can realistically pay and that will contribute towards the well-being of the District’s children.

Tianna Terry, Staff Attorney

Legal Aid staff attorney Tianna Terry will serve as a panelist at an upcoming program sponsored by the D.C. Bar Family Law Section entitled “Establishing Paternity in D.C.” The panel will cover the laws and procedures governing paternity in the District and discuss everything that a family law attorney practicing in the District should know about this important issue, including the various ways that paternity is investigated, determined, legally established, and disestablished. Joining Tianna on the panel will be Magistrate Judge Noel Johnson of the D.C. Courts, Tanya Jones Bosier of the D.C. Department of Human Services, Nancy Drane of the Children’s Law Center, and Kristin Henrikson of Delaney McKinney LLP. The event will be held on February 23, 2012 from 5:30 to 7:30pm at the D.C. Bar, 1101 K Street N.W., and is also being offered in Webinar format. To register, visit the D.C. Bar website and click on “Events”.

Julie Becker, Supervising Attorney

This week, the Landlord and Tenant Branch of the D.C. Superior Court implements a new rule that will make it easier for tenants to understand, and defend, cases for nonpayment of rent.  By requiring landlords to bring the “rent ledger” to each court date, the rule will ensure that tenants can see exactly how the landlord is accounting for their payments.  Tenants will then be in a better position to gather evidence, confirm that a balance is correct, or challenge incorrect charges on the account.

 The new rule is especially important because in many cases, the complaint – the only document a tenant may receive in the case – does not clearly state what rent the landlord alleges is due.  It may include inaccurate dates, or seek a total sum that does not square with the monthly rent.  As a result, a tenant often has no way of knowing exactly what the landlord believes she owes or why.  Compounding the problem: In the vast majority of cases, only the landlord’s attorney – not the landlord or property manager – appears in court.  That attorney often cannot explain the details underlying the claim of unpaid rent.  And, because there is no discovery in most landlord-tenant cases, the tenant never has a meaningful way to get that information. 

This situation leaves tenants to choose between fighting their cases, but without the information they need to defend themselves; or agreeing to pay money they cannot be sure they really owe.  The new discovery rule targets that problem by giving tenants better information starting from the first court date.  Landlords and their lawyers will be required to bring to court, and produce upon request, the documentation showing that rent is due.  Most often, this will be the landlord’s rent ledger, which details all the charges and payments on the tenant’s account.  At the landlord’s request, the court can also require the tenant to produce evidence of her rent payments. 

The change may seem small – but with more than 33,000 landlord-tenant cases filed each year, most of which allege nonpayment of rent, the new rule will make a difference in countless disputes.  Every day, particularly through our Court-Based Legal Services Project, Legal Aid assists tenants with rent complaints they do not understand.  Once those tenants can figure out precisely what the landlord believes they owe, they will all be in a better position to fight their cases, or to settle them on more accurate terms.