Ohio State Law Journal, Ohio State University Mortiz School of Law, Ohio State University
December 1, 1984
The poor have a strong interest in publicly funded legal assistance in civil cases, despite the fact that the Supreme Court and other branches of the federal government have not recognized this interest as fundamental.
In this Article we will evaluate the objections of equal access advocates in order the see if these objections justify currently proposed restrictions on LSC. As we will indicate, we support the theory’s initial assumption that the poor have a right to legal services in civil cases. But we will then dispute three assumptions made by Breger and other equal access defenders.
First, we will contest Breger’s contention that access rights are different from and more important than welfare rights.
Second, we will dispute the conclusion that a concern for rights prohibits the consideration of group impact in decisions about which clients obtain legal assistance. Rather, we argue that equal access concerns and group impact considerations are compatible.
Third, we will counter the argument that prohibiting LSC lawyers from serving group interests poses no ethical problems.
PUBLICATION DETAILSFormat: Commentary
Publication Type: Journal Article
Geographic coverage, US: NATIONAL
Topics: Legal Aid Movement | Social Change | History of Legal Aid | Public Interest Litigation | Systemic Litigation
How Provided: Legal Aid Attorneys
Permalink URL of this page: http://legalaidresearch.org/?p=3859