|
The Consequences of Criminal Proceedings in New York State: A Guide for Criminal Defense Attorneys and Other Advocates for Persons with Criminal Records
This Guide was developed in conjunction with an intensive training offered by the Civil Action Project at The Bronx Defenders. It is a comprehensive survey of the invisible punishments resulting from criminal proceedings in New York State, and it offers practical advice and strategies for mitigating these "collateral" consequences. It focuses in particular on the role of defenders.
|
|
Legal Aid Services of Oregon v. LSC court decision
April 7, 2008 decision in LASO v. LSC
|
|
What Can and Cannot Be Done -- Representation of Clients by LSC-Funded Programs
Updated August, 2001.
The LSC restrictions imposed by the FY96 appropriations legislation, modified slightly by the FY98 appropriations legislation, and incorporated in the FY99 and subsequent appropriations legislation, left legal services programs and their staff with less capacity to effectively represent low-income persons in the courts and before other forums that affect their rights and responsibilities. However, there continue to be many critically important representational activities that can still be done by LSC-funded entities, and the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Velazquez v. LSC restored recipients' ability to more fully represent individual clients in welfare cases.
This memo outlines in detail what programs can and cannot do under the restrictions.
|
|
LSC vs. Velazquez, U.S. Supreme Court Opinion
Opinion of U.S. Supreme Court in LSC vs. Velazquez
|
|
Mental Health Litigation Unit
Mental Health Litigation Unit of the Massachusetts Committee for Public Counsel Services provides counsel for indigent persons in all mental health proceedings (criminal & civil) and in "sexually dangerous person" commitment proceedings.
|
|
Petition for Rehearing in October 2001 5th Circuit IOLTA Decision
Petition for Rehearing in October 2001 5th Circuit IOLTA Decision
|
|
Jan. 2001 Comments on the Proposed LSC Regulatory Review (1611 & 1636)
Submitted by the Committee on Restrictions and Regulations of the Civil Policy Group
National Legal Aid & Defender Association
January 10, 2001
These comments are submitted to the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) by the Committee on Restrictions and Regulations, on behalf of the National Legal Aid & Defender Association�s Civil Policy Group in response to LSC�s request for public comment that were published in the Federal Register on November 24, 2000, (65 FR 70540), requesting input into a proposed review by the LSC Board of the LSC regulatory scheme.
|
|
March 8, 2000 memo to LSC President John McKay re Issues for LSC Regulatory Reform
MEMORANDUM
TO: John McKay
FROM: Linda Perle and Alan Houseman
DATE: March 8, 2000
RE: Issues for LSC Regulatory Reform
We understand that the Legal Services Corporation is considering whether to revisit issues raised by the LSC regulations, particularly with respect to the administrative burdens that compliance with those regulations imposes on recipients. This memo attempts to outline some of the regulatory issues that we believe the Corporation should consider as it embarks on any such effort, and to state our views about which issues merit significant attention.
|
|
9th Circuit En Banc Decision - Washington Legal Foundation vs. Legal Foundation of Washington
In a 7-4 decision, in the case of WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION vs. LEGAL FOUNDATION OF WASHINGTON, the Ninth Circuit has affirmed the district court, saying "there has been no taking of property without
just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment."
The Court remanded the first amendment claim to the district court.
|