• Home
  • News
  • ABA Poll: Two-Thirds of Americans Support Federal Legal Aid for Poor

American Bar Association

ABA Poll: Two-Thirds of Americans Support Federal Legal Aid for Poor

Posted Apr 20, 2009 8:14 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

Two-thirds of Americans polled by the ABA support federal funding to help those who need legal assistance.

An ABA press release says the poll (PDF) found support for funding for the Legal Services Corp., with 88 percent of respondents strongly or somewhat supporting the idea that a nonprofit legal services provider is essential to help those who can’t afford to pay for lawyers. More than two-thirds said it's extremely or very important that Americans have access to legal resources and advice when they are in crisis.

More than 1,000 people were surveyed in early April by Harris Interactive for the ABA poll.

The recession is sending a new wave of clients to Legal Services Corp. offices, according to the press release. Many clients are seeking help to avoid foreclosures and to deal with late payments on medical bills, cars, credit cards and child support.

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, introduced legislation in March to that would nearly double the budget for the Legal Services Corp. and lift restrictions on the type of cases it can handle, the Washington Post reports. The ABA supports the legislation, the Post says.

The ABA poll found that the respondents themselves fear they will need legal advice as a result of the recession. Fifty-three percent said their financial situation had worsened in the past six months, and 49 percent are at least somewhat concerned they might need legal help as a result.

“For many Americans, their financial problems are becoming legal problems,” ABA President H. Thomas Wells Jr. said in the press release. The full survey results are available online (PDF).

Comments

1.

B. McLeod
Apr 20, 2009 8:35 AM CST

Oh, now here’s a possible opportunity for some BigLaw castaways.  They can journey to the Bushville tent cities, and help the residents with their M&A work, compliance filings and secondary market securitizations.  Have a bowl of beans, and share a few songs by the fire.

Flag this comment

2.

J.D.
Apr 20, 2009 9:15 AM CST

I wonder what percentage of poll-takers don’t pay taxes, don’t have jobs, and might be likely beneficiaries. It tends to be that those at home in the middle of the day (i.e. people reachable for phone polls) tend to be the elderly, the jobless, and the non-taxpaying.

I imagine in a poll of 1000 taxpayers, there might not be such support for increased governmental confiscation of earnings.

Flag this comment

3.

B. McLeod
Apr 20, 2009 10:01 AM CST

The elderly?  Like the doddering old fumbletons who served in the Second World War?  Cripes, J.D., is there some mainstream population group you DON’T hate?

Flag this comment

4.

J.D.
Apr 20, 2009 10:20 AM CST

All I’m saying is: When it comes to raising taxes, let’s ask the taxpayers how they feel about it.

Flag this comment

5.

rc
Apr 20, 2009 11:40 AM CST

J.D.

We did ask them.  Remember that thing back in November?  What was it called?  Oh yeah, the election!

Flag this comment

6.

J.D.
Apr 20, 2009 12:32 PM CST

^ So a majority of the voting public believes that a vote for Obama is a vote for more taxes?

I think you may have a point.

Flag this comment

7.

Rob
Apr 20, 2009 4:02 PM CST

rc: If voting was limited to people who actually pay taxes you may be right.  But since half of the population pays no federal income taxes whatsoever, and most of them are probably Democrats, you are wrong.

Flag this comment

8.

B. McLeod
Apr 21, 2009 8:35 AM CST

As we passed tax day (also the anniversary of the Titantic disaster), I was once again graced with the opportunity to contemplate the high honor of giving more than 1/4 of everything I earn to federal and state taxes.  Mind you, that’s after the deduction for the 6% of my income I donate to support state universities because the state no longer sees fit to take care of them.  I don’t really like this situation.  However, at the same time, it seems clear to me that if we are going to underwrite the equities markets and banks with trillions in (borrowed) public funds, taxes will have to go up.  The United States has been living like a fast food worker rolling over “payday loans.”  I believe this debt is actually the root problem underlying all our economic difficulties, and that the attempt to diffuse the ongoing correction without addressing it will not succeed.  Picture a vast reservoir of red ink, with leaks springing out everywhere.  Each time the government borrows more money to stick a little chewing gum in one leak, pressure increases, and two more leaks spring up.

Flag this comment

9.

Steve Perkins
Apr 24, 2009 6:09 AM CST

At least two-thirds of Americans would be in favor of “free ponies!” if that’s all the information provided in the question.  So what?

Flag this comment

10.

B. McLeod
Apr 24, 2009 7:33 AM CST

Then 2/3 of Americans have never cleaned up after one.  They are worse than Congress.

Flag this comment

11.

Kevin
Apr 24, 2009 8:06 AM CST

100% of the people currently in my living room support giving me a job, any legal job at all.

Flag this comment

12.

Mikey
Apr 24, 2009 8:30 AM CST

#7 is dead-on right.  It’s ridiculous that so many people pay no income taxes at all.  Everyone should “contribute” something, even if it’s 10 bucks. And these polls are always BS. “Do you think people should get ‘free’ stuff?”  Uh, yeah.  If the question were, “Should the federal gov’t, by threat of force, steal money from some people to give free stuff to other people?”, I suspect the percentages would go down.  Although, based upon the results of the last election, I’m probably kidding myself on that one too.

Flag this comment

13.

Jim
Apr 24, 2009 8:45 AM CST

People have been talking about universal health care for years, yet we don’t have it.  Why are we already starting to talk about universal legal care?  Most people I know wouldn’t dream of going without health insurance, yet I know of no one who has insurance to cover discretionary legal expenses, i.e. excluding defense costs under policies for auto, homeowners, D&O, etc.  This seems like a silly survey.

Flag this comment

14.

Kevin
Apr 24, 2009 8:54 AM CST

I support redistribution of wealth by armed force.

Flag this comment

15.

JME
Apr 24, 2009 9:31 AM CST

Over my dead body?  I support redistribution of wealth by people going out and working for it, whether it be wage labor, farming, entrepreneur (did I screw up the spelling on that? put me in the file with VEOLI), or maybe something simple like armed robbery (the only logical premise behind #14), since our military isn’t likely to participate in that kind of foolishness.

Flag this comment

16.

Mikey
Apr 24, 2009 10:21 AM CST

Kevin (#14) is a Democrat who is either exceptionally honest or exceptionally funny.  Well played, sir.

Flag this comment

17.

Monica
Apr 24, 2009 2:42 PM CST

Have any of you worked for Legal Aid or a Non-Profit that provides free or reduced rate legal counseling? Perhaps you should before you jump on the anti-tax increase bandwagon. There really are WWII veterans out there who are suffering in the late stages of alzheimers who need assistance with securing benefits to pay for nursing home care or their families need Guardianships and Conservatorships to just keep the tazes paid on their ailing parents home..simple legal problems.. yet nobody wants to help these people out because they have no money to pay the going rate attorney and the local Legal Aid doesn’t handle it. These are real problems..nobody wants to admit how terrible we treat our Elderly, Disabled, and Mentally Handicapped citizens…I think dogs at the local Humane Society get treated better…

Flag this comment

18.

JimB
Apr 24, 2009 5:58 PM CST

I applaud anyone who volunteers to help someone else, whatever the endeavor.  That said, legal aid is not special.  Everyone should pay for their services received, whether its legal aid, high-speed internet, cable TV, or poop scooping behind treasured pets.  The necessities of life are food, shelter, and clothing, all as required only to provide adequate subsistence.  (i.e. Food extends to adequate caloric and nutritional requirements, but does not require lobster; clothing extends to covering and protection from the elements, but does not require designer labels.)  If all non-necessities have been foregone, then certain legal needs might rise to the level of requiring government provision, but only in very limited circumstances, such as defense in a criminal prosecution.  Societal resources are not well used in helping someone obtain a more favorable outcome in a divorce or a civil litigation (which, by definition, results in a less favorable outcome to the party on the other side).  As a general rule, people value that for which they have to pay or sacrifice to obtain; they are not only dismissive of that which they obtain at no cost, but are frequently outraged when the “free” service does not rise to whatever level of expectation they perceive as their due.

Flag this comment

19.

MaryM
Apr 26, 2009 8:53 AM CST

#12-It’s ridiculous that so many people pay no income taxes at all.  Everyone should “contribute” something, even if it’s 10 bucks.

Obviously,  you have never been the situation where you paid no income taxes.  I have.  At one point in life, paying $10 in taxes would have meant no food for my kids.  Now, I can afford to pay taxes.  I may not like it but I understand why I have to.  Income taxes are a necessary evil if we want society to survive.  Instead of whining about low-income (or no-income) folks not paying taxes, we should be coming up with better ways for the government to help those in need.  Like get rid of all the “pork” and special projects that Congress seems to love so much.

Flag this comment

20.

MaryM
Apr 26, 2009 9:01 AM CST

JimB, what about the senior citizen who is bilked out of his life savings by a “fat cat” businessman?  He has no money for an attorney and this is not a “necessity of life.”  Would you have him go up against the wealthy businessman with his highly paid attorneys alone?

Flag this comment

21.

JimB
Apr 26, 2009 3:04 PM CST

To MaryM,

Two words - “slippery slope.”  Is the scenario you paint any different if the person is only cheated out of 1/2 or 1/100th of his savings, or perhaps $1.25 that a panhandler says he “needs” for a sandwich, but wants for a beer?  How about if the “life savings” is only $1.25; do we still want society’s resources directed to righting this wrong?  (And does the citizen have to be “senior?”)Obviously, my examples may be extreme, but you started it.  It’s easy to draw up a sympathetic scenario; its harder to appropriately draw lines.

Additionally, bilk implies illegal activity.  (Dictionary.com’s first definition is “to defraud; cheat,” while the other definitions given do not apply to your usage of the word.)  The activity you describe is either illegal, or should be (think Bernie Madoff, who looks “fat” to me).  The proper course of action is through the legal system, which hopefully will result in some restitution, unless all of the money has already been spent, in which case all of the lawyers in the world can’t help.  (Bernie has not yet been sentenced, but is highly unlikely to ever again freely walk the streets.)

Finally, two more words - “Contingency fees.”  While not directly addressed in my prior comments, such arrangements for paying for legal services were not precluded.  Just as the legal authorities can determine when the state’s resources are ill-used pursuing the $1.25 panhandler in favor of focusing on more egregious cases, so too contingency fee attorneys are only successful if they properly define where to draw lines on the “slippery slope.”  Note that this does not necessarily preclude the pursuit of relatively small $ cases.  Based on the applicable laws in place governing business and other conduct, treble and/or minimum fixed-$ damages may be available to remedy certain wrongs.  (See, e.g. the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act; there are other examples.)  Your “senior citizen” is not out there all alone, but you have not made a case for having society pay his attorney fees.

Flag this comment

22.

USCITIZEN#198234
Apr 30, 2009 1:15 PM CST

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. -Martin Luther King Jr.

I strongly believe that everyone should have equal access to justice. Unfortunately, justice comes with a price tag. Should the people with disabilities, the veterans fighting for SSI, the elderly who can’t afford their electricity much less an attorney to help them fight against losing their Medicaid, the domestic violence abuse victims leaving volatile marriages, countless hardworking families that lost their jobs in these hard economic times and now fighting to save their house in foreclosure…should all of these people be left without equal access to justice because they don’t have the money to pay for an attorney? I believe that we ARE the greatest nation and the reason is simple. We said it during the pledge of allegiance growing up. One nation, with liberty and justice for all.

I am fortunate to have a job right now, and I gladly pay my taxes without wining about it and you know what, I’m okay with paying taxes because that is my duty as a citizen. I also don’t mind that when times are hard for that vet or for that elderly neighbor that they may not pay taxes. They have paid their dues at some point in their lives I’m sure. We all do. Sometimes you’re up and sometimes you’re down. The community, the spirit of the US, makes us who we are. Our government is necessary and is what provides us with the structure so we can be this great community and is what separates us from underdeveloped countries.

It all comes down to morals and values. Whether you label it a personal or American moral or value, that is up to you. Either you have that sense of equal access to justice for all or not. Either you are just looking after yourself or you have a sense of community. Simple enough.

Flag this comment

23.

thankfully not poor
May 2, 2009 9:39 PM CST

JimB,

You make some good points. Unfortunately, there are MANY cases that are both 1) sympathetic by pretty much all definitions, and 2) not coverable by the criminal justice system or contingency fees.

I urge all attorneys to volunteer with their local Legal Aid. You’ll come across plenty of cases where people have been truly wronged (out of >$1.25), that will sadly never get handled.

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.