I just got a letter from Legal Services asking for money.
How did they get my name and address? Because I volunteered to do work for them a year ago. Despite numerous phone calls (by ME) I have not done any work for this particular organization. I’m about to write them a letter explaining why I’m not giving one dime.
There’s something wrong with an organization that presents itself as underfunded, shorthanded, etc, but won’t accept highly qualified volunteers. (Please accept for the sake of argument that I am highly qualified :))
Could it be that they are more interested in pushing their own agenda than in helping people who need help?
I don’t know, but Congress should look into reforming Legal Services and/or revoking its privileged status.
Nope, sorry. Legal Aid and other services are run on a shoestring, and often can’t spare the manpower necessary to even afford minimal supervision to young attorneys. Unless you can demonstrate that you’re quite capable of competently handling a case without any oversight, they probably can’t use you. I know, it’s the “I can’t get experience because I don’t have experience” kind of paradox, but lawyers have gone through that since time immemorial, so get used to it.
Even if you do have the qualifications, volunteering as part-time help at a Legal Aid office is often more of a burden than a blessing for the agency. Offices have to have a firm committment about staffing levels in the future before deciding which cases to take now, and you may not be able to give them the certainty they need. Office space and adminstrative support might not be sufficient to take on a volunteer. There are lots of conditions that force agencies to turn down people that want to help.
Yeah, I’m tired of those leeches sucking fractions of a cent out of my taxes when the Defense Department is going hungry. (Plus, there’s practically no federal funding for legal assistance for the poor in civil cases. Your beef is with state government and charitable foundations like the United Way.)
If you’re really serious about wanting to help the underprivileged, contact your state and federal courts and apply to be put on the Assigned Counsel / CJA / pro bono panels. Legal Aid doesn’t have a monopoly on poor people with legal problems, and if you can lend a hand to the community while using your own office, your own photocopier, your own secretary, and so on, all the better. If you’re as qualified as you say, the judges will take note of you and steer as many cases your way as you can handle.
“Nope, sorry. Legal Aid and other services are run on a shoestring, and often can’t spare the manpower necessary to even afford minimal supervision to young attorneys. Unless you can demonstrate that you’re quite capable of competently handling a case without any oversight, they probably can’t use you.”
I ain’t gonna prove my qualifications, and i ain’t gonna debate’em. Feel free to believe whatever you want, but you’re wrong.
I spoke on the phone to the head of one agency, who was very impressed with my qualifications and offered to give me certain matters right away. These involved some of the more politically oriented things that Legal Services does, such as challenging zoning laws that would keep out halfway houses, and so on.
I told him I was more interested in consumer oriented work, like helping people who’ve been screwed over by the auto shop. He said fine, that they turned away many cases like that all the time, and took my name and number. That was well over a year ago.
Yeah, those conspirators down at Legal Aid, with their own nefarious agenda. :rolleyes:
LUCWARM, are you a lawyer, a paralegal, an investigator, or what? “Highly qualified” to do what, precisely?
I can see how it would irritate you to hear “No, we don’t want you, but we’ll take your money!” But to extrapolate from that – and nothing more – that Legal Aid should be “reformed” or abolished is, well, silly. \
I can see how it would irritate you to hear “No, we don’t want you, but we’ll take your money!” But to extrapolate from that – and nothing more – that Legal Aid should be “reformed” or abolished is, well, silly. \
Of course you are right that it’s excessive to call for such reform over one incident. And my post more properly belonged in a forum for venting.
But still, my experience is troubling. And if this is a widespread practice, well . . .
You are a capable attorney looking to do some volunteer work.
You called Legal Aid, and they said they were interested in your help. (I’ll assume the guy you talked to wasn’t simply being polite.)
You left your name and number, but they never called back.
Therefore, we should not fund them anymore.
As satisfying as it may be to take a nice mule trip down the Grand Canyon of Overreaction that separates nos. 3 and 4, I suppose we first ought to take a look at number 3 alone.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe the Legal Aid office is so busy that they might possibly have forgotten about your offer, or perhaps misplaced your number? Did you ever write a follow-up letter to remind them? (Not to question your qualifications, but what lawyer doesn’t write follow-up letters, especially when nothing happens on a request?) Why should the office start taking on cases that it otherwise can’t handle simply based on your oral expression of interest in helping out?
I commend you on your desire to volunteer your time to help out an overburdened agency. But I’d guess that you are simply a victim of oversight (and that you may bear some responsibility for it yourself), rather than someone who was rejected because you didn’t want to “push their agenda.”
Speaking of which, why do you believe you are better qualified than the people who run the organization to determine where their priorities should be? From the brief facts you’ve given us here, I’d suggest that the agency is correct in allocating its resources towards challenging laws that zone out halfway houses rather than going after shady auto mechanics. Poor individuals have no other means of achieving justice with regards to the former whereas a small claims court, which is specifically adapted to allow individuals to represent themselves, exists to deal with the latter.