Remembering Our Roots:
HELP Legal Assistance, Forty Years of Service 1
Judge Robert W. Pratt *
When Justice Neuman2 asked me to make some remarks today, she did not request a title. But I chose to discuss a topic that will give me the widest possible room within which to maneuver. As those of you trained in the law know, there is a rule of evidence used for refreshment of a witness's recollection. 3 It is said that the purpose of that rule of evidence is to jog the witness's memory.4 Another rule of evidence exists for past recollection recorded .5 While these evidentiary rules are different, their purpose is the same, and that purpose is to remember what has happened in the past.6 I think it is important to review very briefly some of our history regarding legal services to the poor.
II. HISTORY OF CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES FOR THE POOR
I know that a celebration of the forty-year history of HELP Legal Assistance is important to all of us, but it is most important to the people of Scott County. The HELP legal assistance office in Davenport is closely affiliated with Iowa Legal Aid, but it is an independent corporation. Iowa Legal Aid has subcontracted with the HELP legal assistance office since Iowa Legal Aid came into existence as the Legal Services Corporation of Iowa in 1977. 7 This explains why Iowa Legal Aid will be celebrating its thirty-fifth anniversary in 2012, but HELP is celebrating its fortieth anniversary this year. 8 As all of you know, the HELP office is fully integrated into Iowa Legal Aid, even though a separate board of directors, separate personnel policies, and a separate foundation exist. I think it is vital to remember those pioneering lawyers and lay people who started this program long before it was the Legal Services Corporation.
Some perspective is necessary in order to adequately view the value of legal services here in southeast Iowa and in all of the United States. One hundred years ago, the United States was primarily a rural country, and very few people, with the exception of the very well off, saw any need to ever access the legal system in this country. 9 Ninety-eight percent of the population had little or no economic power, 10 the constitutional guarantees of our Federal Constitution were not yet extended to citizens of the various states, 11 and the U.S. Supreme Court had just decided Plessy v. Ferguson. 12 While our Constitution referred to the need to "establish Justice," 13 there was little effort on the part of any of our three branches of government to leave the Gilded Age for a more egalitarian country. 14 Let me make note here in passing that because of the foresight and courage of the state courts in Iowa, Iowans were by and large better off than the inhabitants of other states due to the decisional law established by the Iowa territorial and state courts. 15
Private clubs or groups from newly arrived immigrants saw the need for some legal advice, and as a result, the German Immigrants Society began in 1876 in New York City and was the predecessor to the Legal Aid Society of New York. 16 These charitable organizations took many forms, but most of the organizations were located in urban areas and were in isolation to their counterparts in the rest of the country. 17 Many depended exclusively upon private lawyers donating their time. 18 It was estimated that less than one percent of the people who needed either civil or criminal justice help received it.19 In 1919, the Carnegie Foundation provided Reginald Heber Smith with a grant to research the then-current legal system and its effect on the poor. 20 Smith wrote Justice and the Poor, a book that challenged the legal profession to ensure that access to justice was available to all without regard to ability to pay.21 In his book, Smith explains that without equal access to the law, "[t]he system not only robs the poor of their only protection, but it places in the hands of their oppressors the most powerful and ruthless weapon ever invented." 22 As a result, the American Bar Association (ABA) responded by creating the Standing Committee on Legal Aid, now the Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants, to ensure continued ABA involvement in the delivery of legal assistance to the poor. 23 Many state and local bars responded by sponsoring new legal aid programs. 24 Shortly after Smith's report, Chief Justice William Howard Taft said, ""Something must be devised by which everyone, however lowly and however poor, however unable by his means to employ a lawyer and to pay court costs, shall be furnished the opportunity to set fixed machinery of justice going."" 25
Delivery of legal services to the poor and the middle class has never happened in a vacuum. With the advent of the progressive income tax, the Great Depression, and the Second World War, a middle class developed. By the early 1960s, the NAACP and ACLU developed a model for the delivery of legal services in terms of those organizations' "law reform" efforts. 26 Additionally, many private actors, including foundations, saw the need for legal assistance as part of an overall anti-poverty effort. 27 The charitable and volunteer efforts of the organized bar, however, lacked any effective delivery system.28 An article in the Yale Law Journal by Edgar and Jean Cahn influenced President Lyndon B. Johnson and Sargent Shriver, the first director of the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO). 29 The Cahns argued that the need for neighborhood law offices and neighborhood lawyers was necessary for an effective anti-poverty program because they provided a vehicle for poor residents in local communities to influence anti-poverty policies and the agencies responsible for distributing benefits. 30 The placement of client representatives on community-action agency boards, the development of staff attorneys, the education and training models that the Office of Economic Opportunity promoted, and the back-up centers that specialized in research and writing provided an effective delivery system to represent poor people.31
What we should remember about the OEO days and the purpose of including legal services as a component of the war on poverty are the then-Attorney General's remarks from his speech at the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare in June of 1964. Then-Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach said:
There has been long and devoted service to the legal problems of the poor by legal aid societies and public defenders in many cities. But, without disrespect to this important work, we cannot translate our new concern into successful action simply by providing more of the same. There must be new techniques, new services, and new forms of interprofessional cooperation to match our new interest. . . . There are signs, too, that a new breed of lawyers is emerging, dedicated to using the law as an instrument of orderly and constructive social change.32
The Katzenbach speech had two interrelated themes that were to recur repeatedly in the early years of federally funded legal service: (1) the United States needed something new ? well-funded traditional legal aid was not adequate, and (2) the law could be used "as an instrument of orderly and constructive social change." 33
Congress made federal money available for legal services to the poor for the first time in 1964 with the passage of the Economic Opportunity Act. 34 The leadership of the American Bar Association made it possible to secure these funds from Congress; in 1965, the ABA House of Delegates "passed a resolution endorsing the OEO legal services program."35 The resolution, however, conditioned its support of the program on the understanding that the organized bar would have "a policy role in formulating and overseeing the . . . program." 36
The program's first set of guidelines required "that the poor be afforded 'maximum feasible participation' in the operation of OEO programs," which mandated that poor people be on the boards of local legal services programs and also "encouraged the formation of client advisory councils." 37
Ultimately, this condition was the most problematic and "controversial section of the guidelines and required constant oversight by the OEO to ensure its implementation." 38 The OEO grantee programs were now "full-service legal assistance providers, each serving a specific geographic area, with the obligation to ensure access to the legal system for all clients and client groups." 39
In addition to local service providers, OEO also developed a unique legal services infrastructure. OEO funded a system of national and state support centers, training programs, and a national clearinghouse for research and information. This system would provide the legal services community with leadership and support on substantive poverty law issues and undertake litigation and representation before state and federal legislative and administrative bodies on issues of national and statewide importance.40
Eventually, the Clearinghouse Review and the Poverty Law Reporter tracked the work of the back-up centers.41 In that way, dissemination of various legal methods and cases to all legal aid lawyers would be possible.
Three primary problems emerged regarding the OEO program of legal services to the poor: (1) "competition for clients" from legal aid; (2) "the impact that representation of the poor might have on their clients, primarily local businesses and governments that might be the subject of lawsuits . . ."; and (3) "the perceived threat of the expansion of public financial support for, and governmental regulation of, the legal profession, which had been characterized by its independence and self-regulation."42 Early on, the legal services component of the OEO intended to create leaders who would "use peer pressure to encourage programs to provide high-quality legal services." 43 To help implement this goal, the "OEO funded the Reginald Heber Smith Fellowship program to attract "the best and the brightest" recent law graduates and young lawyers' to legal services.44 It was also important that local programs established "local priorities for the allocation of resources" and that "law reform" units be established as the chief goal of the program.45 Programs worked with the National Welfare Rights Movement and the National Tenants Organization.46
Both nationally and in Iowa, the late 1960s and early 1970s were a time of substantial accomplishment for legal services programs. By virtue of inventive and rebellious lawyering, the law reform goals first articulated by then-Attorney General Katzenbach showed the fruits of this concept by winning major Supreme Court cases.47 These victories included: Sniadach v. Family Finance, which precluded pre-judgment garnishment of wages;48 King v. Smith, in which the Supreme Court held that, when granting benefits to dependent children, Alabama's definition of "parent" was inconsistent with the Social Security Act;49 Goldberg v. Kelley, which held that due process demanded that a welfare recipient be afforded a hearing and notice before losing his or her benefits;50 and Shapiro v. Thompson, which held that states could not arbitrarily deny welfare benefits based upon invidious discrimination standards.51
In addition, legal services lawyers worked with Congress in enacting legislation to improve the lives of economically vulnerable people, including the food stamp program, the supplemental security income program, Medicare, Medicaid, Truth-In-Lending, and other consumer legislation and nursing home protections.52 Additionally, legal services representatives were instrumental in securing passage of various attorney fee-shifting statutes, which made enforcement of various consumer and civil rights laws on behalf of economically disadvantaged persons more likely.53 Hill-Burton hospital legislation, which provided uncompensated health care treatment, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and other significant legislative and administrative changes that we take for granted today were brought about, at least in part, by legal aid advocacy.54
As early as 1967, a backlash against legal service programs began when Senator George Murphy of California, at then-Governor Ronald Reagan's request, "attempted to amend the Economic Opportunity Act to prohibit legal services lawyers from bringing actions against federal, state, or local government agencies." 55 This was perhaps in response to the California Rural Legal Assistance program, which represented migrant workers and had successfully challenged some of the Governor's Medicaid and welfare policies.56 The Murphy Amendment would have allowed any governor to veto any spending for legal services in his or her state,57 but it failed in the Senate.58
There were numerous challenges between the private bar and legal aid programs across the country, and it is safe to say that many private lawyers opposed the creation of the OEO programs, including its legal services component.59 During the waning days of the Nixon Administration, throughout which many OEO programs had been shuttered, the supporters of legal aid to the poor assisted Congress in creating an independent legal services organization called the Legal Services Corporation (LSC).60 The members of the corporation's board of directors are "appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate." 61
In the intervening thirty-seven years, the survival of adequate or even inadequate funding has been a never-ending war. Many, if not all of you, know of the struggles that legal services has been through as support for the program seems to wax and wane depending upon the political winds of the day. The present time is no exception. There are current proposals to cut $70 million from the President's budget that have already passed the House of Representatives.62 In the thirty-seven years of the LSC, Congress has severely restricted the activities of lawyers who work for low-income clients.63 Much like the funding restrictions, the political sentiments of the day have changed what legal services lawyers can and cannot do. Advocacy before legislative and administrative bodies has been curtailed, and as recently as December of 2009, legal services lawyers can again request attorney fees for fee-shifting claims when they prevail.64
While programs may advocate before legislative bodies for legal service program funding and can respond to written requests from legislators, unfortunately legal services have been viewed through a political prism and not through the eyes of a country that believes everyone is entitled to a lawyer. Hand in hand with these restrictions have come the regulations that demand private bar involvement in legal services programs' work. I must admit that I was not in favor of this private bar involvement when it was proposed for the first time in 1982, but in this instance, history has proven me incorrect. Private lawyers are some of legal services' biggest supporters now. In part, this is because they have a better understanding of the necessity of the work that needs to be done, because, frankly, funding is at such atrocious levels and because the demand and need for services is so high that the private lawyer component greatly assists with intake in regional offices by handling cases that are referred to them. The requirement has resulted in interaction with and greater general understanding by the Bar Association. That has been a good thing.
III. CIVIL LEGAL AID IN IOWA
In reviewing where we are currently, it is true that we have never returned to the place we were in the 1980s in terms of adequately funding legal services programs. Here in Iowa, it is important to look back on legal services in our state and see what kind of substantive law changes have been made through the efforts of legal services lawyers?efforts that have not only improved the lives of low-income people, but of all people. These cases are but a few examples of how the Iowa legal services programs have fulfilled the ideal then-Attorney General Katzenbach talked about almost fifty years ago.
I have several examples of these substantive law changes: (1) Sheard v. Department of Social Welfare: A Northern District of Iowa ruling that invalidated the Iowa statute requiring the recipient of old-age assistance to be a resident of the state for at least nine years immediately preceding the date of application for such assistance as denying applicants equal protection of the law and denying the constitutional right to travel from one state to the other;65 (2) Mease v. Fox: The Iowa Supreme Court adopted the doctrine of "implied warranty of habitability," assuring that tenants could assert a breach of this duty as an affirmative defense not only to a claim of back rent, but also to an action to evict them;66 a fair inference from this decision and others is that the Iowa legislature soon passed the Uniform Landlord and Tenant Act;67 (3) Thorp Credit v. Barr: The Iowa Supreme Court declared that the Iowa replevin statute, which permitted seizure of household goods before judgment, was invalid as a denial of procedural due process;68 (4) Smith v. Iowa Employment Security Commission: The Iowa Supreme Court held:
[the] claimant was denied due process under [a] statute [that] provid[ed] seven days for filing [an] appeal after mailing to a claimant of notice at his last known address of [the] right to appeal, in light of commonplace breakdown in mail deliveries, where [the unemployed] claimant did not receive notice until four days after it was mailed;69
(5) Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Farrar: The Iowa Supreme Court held that a debtor cannot waive his right to notice of resale and, therefore, a deficiency judgment entered against a debtor is invalid;70 (6) Horizon Homes of Davenport v. Nunn: The Iowa Supreme Court determined that "a landlord could not terminate the month-to-month tenancy except for good cause as explained in the lease";71 (7) Knight v. Knight: The Iowa Supreme Court established that domestic abuse victims who represent themselves are entitled to have their pro se filings construed liberally, so as to achieve substantial justice, and courts are not bound by rigid pleading rules;72 (8) D.R. Mobile Home Rentals v. Frost: The Iowa Supreme Court held that landlords have a duty to mitigate or attempt to re-rent their apartments when tenants vacate;73 and (9) War Eagle Village Apartments v. Plummer: The Iowa Supreme Court held that due process required actual notice to the tenant and that mailed service of that notice gave "the illusion, but not the reality, of due process" and was inadequate as a matter of law.74
Fighting for their clients and changing the law is what legal services lawyers do well. A matter often overlooked in the last forty years is the fact that the delivery of legal services to low-income and middle-class clients is now, for the most part, infused by the spirit of lawyering that was created by what I will call the "spirit of legal aid." Years ago, the thought of lawyers representing clients who otherwise could not afford counsel was not a widespread practice. Now, lawyers routinely represent clients on a contingent fee basis or in a "pro bono" manner. The reality is that many of the contingent fee cases would not be pursued for these kinds of clients today but for the methods of delivery of legal services that lawyers learned at legal aid. The growth in these kinds of lawyer organizations, which include the Association for Justice, the National Organization of Social Security Claimant Representatives, the Iowa Protection and Advocacy Services, as well as prepaid legal services insurance, would not have happened but for the creative methods that flowed directly from legal aid.
I think it is safe to say that we as a country have come a very long way from where we were forty years ago, and it is also safe to assume that we cannot go back to where we were, although the threat of that is always imminent. Surviving as a viable organization is something that the Corporation has been doing for thirty-seven years, and there have been many near-death experiences for the LSC. This year is no different. The current ABA President, Stephen Zack, said that "we've fought this battle many times."75 However, the ABA Director of Government Affairs, Thomas Susman, said that this year's battle is different.76 This time, the influence of the populist movement to eliminate federal programs entirely is the objective.77 I want to share with you what Mr. Susman said: "[T]he key is to go beyond the 30,000 feet approach. It's not the Legal Services Corp. that's important . . . . It's the clients' situation, the clients' rights, [sic] that are important. It's about keeping people in their homes, keeping people in their jobs."78
To that end, the ABA, along with state and local bar associations, plans to send about five hundred attorneys to Capitol Hill to meet with senators and representatives about the money that legal aid needs.79 This event, scheduled for April, will mark the fifteenth year that the organized bar has pushed for more funding. To quote Mr. Zack: "This is not another bridge, not another project that you can cut of out the budget . . . . This is about a serious gap in justice."80
Remembering our roots is important; acknowledging that we have our work cut out for us is important. More importantly, perhaps, is to remember what Judge Learned Hand, probably the most notable appellate judge never to sit on the Supreme Court, said about our task: "It is the daily; it is the small; it is the cumulative injuries of little people that we are here to protect. . . . If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: Thou shalt not ration justice."81
Let me leave you with what the celebration is really all about. It is delightful to be here at Saint Ambrose University, while here recalling our roots, reflecting on our past, and planning for the fight that lies ahead. This fight is really about the preservation of human dignity. Being here at the Rogalski Center, we should remember that for a long time, there was a place on the Supreme Court reserved for a Catholic.82 It was Justice Brennan who took that seat in 1956 when President Eisenhower appointed him.83 His career was really about human dignity, and our search for justice is about that same thing. I just finished reading his biography.84 The authors write about a fitting epitaph for a life such as the one Justice Brennan lived.85 Here is the way the book ends, and the ending reminded me of people like you who believe deeply in the mission of legal services for all.
As some biographers have noted, before he joined the Supreme Court, Justice Brennan offered some valuable "insight about how he would like to be remembered." 86 He delivered the message in 1954 in a speech "recalled later for its veiled attack on McCarthyism." 87
Brennan recounted a story once told by a nineteenth-century Scottish comedian, Harry Lauder, of sitting at his window before the advent of electricity. Lauder watched as a lamplighter worked his way down the street, climbing his ladder to light each lamp before moving on to the next one. Eventually, the lamplighter was no longer visible, and the storyteller could see only the lamps he had lit.88
After telling the story, Brennan ended his speech by saying:
So it is, my friends, with you and me of Irish blood. As we go through life, may we be found lighting the lamps of truth and justice and righteousness, even as our Irish forebears before us, so that as time passes and we move from the scene of action, our own children and their children after them, though we be lost to view, may tell the way we went by the lamps we lighted along life's pathway.89
Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts with you as you celebrate forty years of increasing human dignity.
1. This speech was delivered on April 8, 2011 at Saint Ambrose University in Davenport, Iowa.
* Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. I dedicate this publication to the lawyers with whom I was fortunate to work with at Polk County Legal Aid during the years 1973 and 1974: the Director Robert C. Oberbillig and my fellow staff attorneys, including but not limited to Jim Meade, Jim Fowler, Alfredo Parrish, Tom Harkin, Bob Noun, Arthur Anderson, and Dennis Kirkwood. They taught me the truism of Daniel Webster's observation: "Justice, Sir, is the great interest of man on earth. It is the ligament which holds civilized beings and civilized nations together." 3 DANIEL WEBSTER & EDWARD EVERETT, THE WRITINGS AND SPEECHES OF DANIEL WEBSTER 300 (1903).
2. Former Iowa Supreme Court Justice, Linda K. Neuman.
3. FED. R. EVID. 612 (describing the rule for using a writing to refresh a witness's memory).
4. See FED. R. EVID. 612 advisory committee's note.
5. FED. R. EVID. 803(5) (describing an exception to the hearsay rule for a recorded recollection).
6. See FED. R. EVID. 612 advisory committee's note; FED. R. EVID. 803(5) advisory committee's note.
7. See A History of Legal Services in the Nation and Iowa, IOWA LEGAL AID, http://www.iowalegalaid.org/about (last visited May 22, 2012).
9. Cf. Terence C. Halliday, Six Score Years and Ten: Demographic Transitions in the American Legal Profession, 1850?1980, 20 LAW & SOC'Y REV. 53, 65?70 (1986) (discussing external factors, such as cultural shifts, which may have contributed to the increase in the overall number of lawyers in the United States).
10. See generally KEVIN PHILLIPS, THE POLITICS OF RICH AND POOR (1991) (describing the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small minority).
11. See, e.g., RONALD D. ROTUNDA & JOHN E. NOWAK, TREATISE ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: SUBSTANCE & PROCEDURE § 15.6 (3d ed. 1999) (discussing the evolution of the theory of incorporation and the process of applying the Bill of Rights to the states, in terms of substantive due process); id. at § 17.1 ("[T]he due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is the 'incorporation' of certain guarantees in the Bill of Rights."). The Fourteenth Amendment was the vehicle the U.S. Supreme Court used to apply federal constitutional guarantees to the states. See generally Jerold H. Israel, Selective Incorporation: Revisited, 71 GEO. L.J. 253 (1982) (examining the doctrine of selective incorporation); id. at 254?90 (discussing the history of interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment and the theories that proceeded selective incorporation as a means of applying federal constitutional guarantees to the states).
12. Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 544 (1896) (holding that the Fourteenth Amendment "could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color").
13. U.S. CONST. pmbl.
14. Cf. Alexander Tsesis, Principled Governance: The American Creed and Congressional Authority, 41 CONN. L. REV. 679, 684 (2009) ("At all stages of American history, racism, chauvinism, and other forms of intolerance have been present. Reformers have nevertheless linked their efforts to the Declaration's and Preamble's statements on universal rights.").
15. See, e.g., In re Ralph, 1 Morris 1, 1 (Iowa 1839) (refusing to send a fugitive slave back to his slaveholding owner in Missouri). In 1850, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that a lawyer appointed pursuant to statute was entitled to compensation, even though the statute did not authorize compensation in order to ensure that "the arm of the law will [not] be too short to accomplish its designs." Hall v. Wash. Cnty., 2 Greene 473, 476 (Iowa 1850); see also Simmons v. State Pub. Defender, 791 N.W.2d 69 (Iowa 2010). Furthermore, the Iowa Supreme Court struck blows to the concept of segregation long before the U.S. Supreme Court did so in Brown v. Board of Education. See, e.g., Clark v. Bd. of Dirs., 24 Iowa 266 (1868); Coger v. N.W. Union Packet Co., 37 Iowa 145 (1873); cf. Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862, 877 (Iowa 2009) (providing a brief history of the equal protection doctrine in Iowa).
16. History of Civil Legal Aid, NAT'L LEGAL AID & DEFENDER ASS'N, http://www.nlada.org/ About/About_HistoryCivil (last visited May 22, 2012).
17. Id. (explaining that these organizations existed in metropolitan areas, but it was a "patchwork system").
18. See id.
19. Id. ("This patchwork system of legal aid fell far short of meeting the legal needs of poor people. It has been estimated that it reached less than one percent of those in need.").
20. ALAN W. HOUSEMAN & LINDA E. PERLE, CTR. FOR LAW & SOC. POLICY, SECURING JUSTICE FOR ALL: A BRIEF HISTORY OF CIVIL LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN THE UNITED STATES 8 (2007), available at http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/0158.pdf.
21. History of Civil Legal Aid, supra note 16.
22. REGINALD HEBER SMITH, JUSTICE AND THE POOR 9 (1919).
23. History of Civil Legal Aid, supra note 16.
25. EARL JOHNSON, JR., JUSTICE AND REFORM: THE FORMATIVE YEARS OF THE OEO LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM 11 (1974).
26. Linda E. Perle, Wash. Council of Lawyers, Civil Legal Services for the Poor: Justice Delayed, PRO BONO PUBLICO NEWSL., May 1991, at 2, available at http://www.washingtoncouncil oflawyers.org/WCL%2020th%20Anniversary%20News%20Forum.pdf.
27. History of Civil Legal Aid, supra note 16.
29. Brian Gilmore, Love You Madly: The Life and Times of the Neighborhood Legal Services Program of Washington, D.C., 10 UDC/DCSL L. REV. 69, 76?77 (2007).
30. Id. (citing Edgar S. Cahn & Jean C. Cahn, The War on Poverty: A Civilian Perspective, 73 YALE L.J. 1317, 1334 (1964)).
32. U.S. DEP'T OF HEALTH, EDUC. & WELFARE, CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS?THE EXTENSION OF LEGAL SERVICES TO THE POOR 11 (1964).
33. See id.
34. History of Civil Legal Aid, supra note 16.
35. HOUSEMAN &PERLE, supra note 20.
37. Id. at 9.
41. HOUSEMAN & PERLE, supra note 20, at 11?12.
42. Id. at 10.
43. Id. at 11.
46. Id. at 12.
47. HOUSEMAN & PERLE, supra note 20, at 13.
48. Sniadach v. Family Fin. Corp., 395 U.S. 337, 342 (1969).
49. King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309, 325?26 (1968).
50. Goldberg v. Kelley, 397 U.S. 254, 268?71 (1970).
51. Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 627 (1969).
52. HOUSEMAN & PERLE, supra note 20, at 13?14.
53. Id. at 14.
54. See id.
56. Id. at 15.
57. Id. at 14?15.
58. HOUSEMAN &PERLE, supra note 20, at 14.
59. See id. at 10.
60. See id. at 19?22.
61. Id. at 22.
62. Press Release, Legal Servs. Corp., House Cuts $70 Million in LSC Funding (Feb. 19, 2011), available at http://www.lsc.gov/media/press-releases/house-cuts-70-million-lsc-funding.
63. HOUSEMAN &PERLE, supra note 20, at 29.
64. Rochelle Bobroff, Clearinghouse Rev., Legal Services Attorney Fees Are Obtainable in Pending Cases, 44 J. POVERTY L. & POL'Y 157, 157?58 (July/Aug. 2010), available at http://www.federalrights.org/legal-services-attorney-fees-are-obtainable-in-pendingcases/at_down load/attachment.
65. Sheard v. Dep't of Soc. Welfare, 310 F. Supp. 544 (N.D. Iowa 1969).
66. Mease v. Fox, 200 N.W.2d 791, 796?97 (Iowa 1972).
67. See IOWA CODE § 562 (1978) (effective Jan. 1, 1979).
68. Thorp Credit, Inc. v. Barr, 200 N.W.2d 535, 536?37 (Iowa 1972).
69. Smith v. Iowa Emp't Sec. Comm'n, 212 N.W.2d 471 (Iowa 1973) (quoting the syllabus).
70. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Farrar, 231 N.W.2d 602, 604?06 (Iowa 1975).
71. Horizon Homes of Davenport v. Nunn, 684 N.W.2d 221, 228 (Iowa 2004).
72. Knight v. Knight, 525 N.W.2d 841, 843 (Iowa 1994).
73. D.R. Mobile Home Rentals v. Frost, 545 N.W.2d 302, 305 (Iowa 1996).
74. War Eagle Vill. Apartments v. Plummer, 775 N.W.2d 714, 720?22 (Iowa 2009).
75. Federal Legal Aid Budget Comes Under Fire, CONN. L. TRIB., Mar. 21, 2011, available through LEXIS, News & Bus.
81. Collected Quotes Pertaining to Equal Justice, NAT'L LEGAL AID & DEFENDER ASS'N, http://www.nlada.org/News/Equal_Justice_Quotes (last visited May 22, 2012) (emphasis omitted).
82. See SETH STERN & STEPHEN WERMIEL, JUSTICE BRENNAN: LIBERAL CHAMPION 76?77 (2010).
83. DAVID L. HUDSON, JR., THE REHNQUIST COURT: UNDERSTANDING ITS IMPACT AND LEGACY 36 (2007).
84. STERN &WERMIEL, supra note 82.
86. Id. at 547.