NLADA: Civil Legal Services - LSC-Funded Programs

National Legal Aid & Defender Association

Web This Site

Southwest Virginia Articles

NLADA Update, Volume 2, No. 3
February 24, 2000

Virginia Program Sues LSC Over State Planning, Reconfiguration

In mid-February, Client Centered Legal Services of Southwest Virginia (CCLS) and Hugh O’Donnell, its executive director, filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Legal Services Corporation and, in their official capacities, LSC President John McKay and Program Counsel John Eidleman. The suit challenges the LSC state planning process and the program letters, which have provided the basis for many of LSC’s recent decisions regarding recipient refunding and reconfiguration of service areas. (Hugh F. O’Donnell and Client Centered Legal Services of Southwest Virginia, Inc. v. John McKay, John Eidelman and the Legal Services Corporation, Civ. Action No.___, USDC, Western District of Virgina, 2000).

The suit charges that LSC’s decision to grant one-year funding rather than three-year funding to LSC recipients in Virginia for FY 2000 and its insistence on adoption of a statewide perspective in the delivery of legal services and program reconfiguration to reduce the number of LSC recipients in the state violate federal law and the Corporation’s competitive bidding regulation. The suit argues that LSC’s actions in Virginia are arbitrary and capricious, are inconsistent with the statutory and regulatory standards for competitive bidding, and are the result of John McKay’s personal views, rather than the intent of Congress in imposing competitive bidding on LSC and its recipients.

The plaintiffs are seeking a declaratory judgment that LSC actions are illegal and enjoining LSC from limiting the CCLS grant to one year, reconfiguring the CCLS service area, using the Virginia state planning process as a basis for LSC’s funding decisions, and attempting to influence the grant-making activities of the Legal Services Corporation of Virginia, which provides the majority of funding for legal services programs in Virginia, including CCLS.

In the meantime, representatives of the other LSC-funded programs in Virginia met and tentatively voted to voluntarily reconfigure the current 12 LSC-funded programs into no more than six new service areas for FY 2001. LSC is expected to announce in April the service areas it plans to fund in Virginia under the FY 2001 competitive bidding process.

NLADA Update, Volume 2, No. 8
June 8, 2000

Federal Court Rejects Virginia Challenge
To LSC Merger, State Planning Process

The Legal Services Corporation acted within its legal authority when it decided to require merged service areas for LSC grants in Virginia, a U.S. District Court judge ruled on June 5.

The lawsuit, filed in February, was brought by Hugh O’Donnell, executive director of Client Centered Legal Services of Southwest Virginia (CCLS), against LSC and against LSC President John McKay and LSC Program Counsel John Eidleman in their official capacities. It challenged the LSC-required state planning process and sought to enjoin LSC from reconfiguring service areas in southwest Virginia.

According to a June 6 article in the Bristol, Va. Herald Courier, Federal District Court Judge James Jones ruled that LSC has the authority to designate service areas and to “encourage legal aid agencies in Virginia to merge in order to receive federal grant money.” The article quoted LSC’s attorney, Tom Williamson of the Washington, DC law firm of Covington & Burling, as arguing that “LSC acknowledges and respects the distinct subculture of this far southwest corner of Virginia as well as the distinct character of other regions in Virginia….And we are respectful of the dedication, skill and commitment of Mr. O’Donnell and staff, but these facts do not detract from the reality that LSC has acted with legal authority.”

According to the Courier, Judge Jones stated that, “…I can understand the depth and sincerity of (CCLS’s) opposition to this change. However, I must find that there is a rational basis for LSC’s action.” The judge also refused CCLS’s request to force LSC to accept a joint funding application from CCLS and neighboring Legal Aid Society of New River Valley.

NLADA Update, Volume 3, No. 15
August 14, 2001

4th Circuit Rules No Private Right of Action in SW Virginia Case

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit has ruled in the case of Hugh F. O’Donnell and Client Centered Legal Services of Southwest Virginia. v. John Eidelman, LSC, and John McKay that, because they are not part of the class Congress sought to benefit in enacting the LSC Act, LSC-funded legal services programs have no private right of action to challenge LSC’s exercise of its statutory and regulatory authority and cannot seek judicial review of LSC’s decisions. While acknowledging that legal services programs “…are an integral part of the process of delivering [legal] services…” the Court ruled that “…the programs themselves are not beneficiaries of the Act…” which was intended “…for the ‘especial benefit’ of indigent persons in need of legal services.”

The Court relied on its 1999 decision in Regional Management Corp. v. Legal Services Corp., 186 F.3d 457 (4th Cir. 1999), that had concluded there was no basis for judicial review of LSC’s decision to dismiss a complaint by a commercial lender against an LSC recipient for alleged violations of the LSC lobbying regulations. In contrast, the O’Donnell case was brought by an LSC recipient to challenge LSC’s decision to consolidate program service areas in southwestern Virginia. In a footnote, the 4th Circuit acknowledged that three other circuits had concluded that judicial review is available for LSC decisions that affect grantees, but concluded, without explanation, that they were “…distinguishable for the reason stated in Regional Management.”

The Court’s June 25, 2001 ruling was contained in an unpublished per curiam opinion, vacating and remanding the District Court’s June 2000 ruling that had held, on the merits, that LSC had a rational basis for its decision to consolidate program service areas. Under 4th Circuit rules, citation of unpublished opinions in briefs, oral arguments or opinions is disfavored. On June 26, 2001, LSC made a motion to have the opinion published, arguing that since the opinion explained and clarified the decision in Regional Management it should be published. The 4th Circuit denied LSC’s motion on July 22, 2001, and the decision will remain unpublished. The plaintiffs in the O’Donnell case are considering filing a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.


				© Copyright, 2011 National Legal Aid & Defender Association, 1140 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20036 (Phone) 202.452.0620 \| (Fax) 202.872.1031 \| info@nlada.org