|
|
|
|
 |
|
            |
 
|
|||
Georgia Legal Services Program - Atlanta Legal Aid Society Articles
NLADA Update, Volume 2, No. 13
Both of the Georgia programs intend to contest the subpoenas. Elizabeth Tanis of the firm of Sutherland, Asbill and Brennan in Atlanta has communicated the programs’ objection to the OIG in a July 24 letter outlining a series of ethical concerns regarding the information being sought. The basic argument of the programs is that the subpoenas are not authorized under the LSC Act and appropriations riders in that they exceed the authority granted the OIG to demand production of client-sensitive information. They contend that the exceptions for LSC or OIG auditing and compliance reviews do not apply in the same manner when the OIG is exercising its authority to ensure program effectiveness and efficiency under the OIG Act. They further contend that the connection between client addresses, problem categories and closing codes raise serious problems around the attorney-client privilege, confidentiality, the attorney work-product doctrine and the client’s reasonable expectation of privacy. LSC management through a press release has indicated its general support for the position of the Georgia programs. The next step in the process if initiated by the OIG is filing of a federal court action to enforce the subpoenas through service by a federal marshal. We do not have information at this time regarding the timing of such action by the OIG. NLADA Update, Volume 2, No. 19 December 8, 2000 DOJ Moves to Enforce OIG Subpoenas Against Georgia Programs On November 27, 2000, the Justice Department petitioned the US District Court for the District of Columbia to enforce a subpoena issued by the former LSC Inspector General, Edouard Quatrevaux, against Atlanta Legal Aid Society (ALAS) and Georgia Legal Services Program (GLSP). The subpoena, issued on July 17, 2000, sought detailed information, including client home address, age, ethnicity, gender and problem codes, for all of the Georgia programs’ cases for the last 10 years. The IG sought the information as part of an evaluation of demographic data that will summarize the growth and distribution of LSC eligible cases handled by GLSP and ALAS programs over time. The Georgia programs jointly responded to the subpoenas on July 24, 2000, objecting to the production of the requested information saying, among other things, that it constituted confidential client information protected by Georgia ethical rules, the attorney-client privilege and the attorney-work product doctrine; the materials were not necessary to the performance of the IG’s statutory functions; and the subpoenas were unduly burdensome and overbroad. The programs had offered a variety of alternative approaches to the data collection effort that would have provided the IG with sufficient information to enable him to go forward with the evaluation in a less intrusive manner. The Justice Department’s brief in support of its petition to enforce the subpoenas rejects each of the program’s arguments, as well as the alternative data collection proposals. ALAS and GLSP have not yet responded to the petition, which will be heard by US District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. The programs are represented by Elizabeth V. Tanis of Sutherland Asbill & Brennan in Atlanta. NLADA Update, Volume 3, No. 2 January 24, 2001 NLADA Files Amicus Brief in Support of GLSP and ALAS On Tuesday, January 23, NLADA, accompanied by the Atlanta Bar Association, filed an amicus brief in the case of United States of America v. Georgia Legal Services Program and Atlanta Legal Aid Society. The brief was filed in support of the position of Georgia Legal Services Program (GLSP) and Atlanta Legal Aid Society (ALAS) in their effort to resist a subpoena issued by the LSC Inspector General. The IG sought data – including client street address, gender, ethnicity, age and problem category – for all clients served by the two programs over the last 10 years. The data was sought for a project to evaluate the value of geocoding (the mapping of clients and client services over time) as an analytical tool. The brief was prepared by Linda Perle and Alan Houseman of the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) and the staff of the Brennan Center for Justice. It addresses three principal concerns regarding the subpoenas and the information sought by the IG. First, the brief challenges on privacy grounds the IG’s authority to seek such sensitive information concerning private citizens who are not suspected of wrongdoing and who have not waived their rights to privacy. Second, the brief disputes the IG’s authority to obtain confidential client information that is not sought as part of his monitoring and auditing activities and is not covered by the exceptions to the general statutory provisions governing LSC’s access to records. Third, the brief argues that the court should not enforce the IG’s subpoena because the IG has not established sufficient need for the information sought. The Department of Justice, which is seeking to enforce the subpoena on behalf of the IG, has indicated that it will not oppose the submission of the amicus brief by NLADA and the Atlanta Bar Association. A hearing on the petition to enforce the subpoena will be held on February 14 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. GLSP and ALAS are represented by Elizabeth Tanis of Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan. NLADA Update, Volume 3, No. 14 July 23, 2001 Georgia Legal Services Program, Atlanta Legal Aid Society Reach Settlement Agreement with LSC Inspector General Georgia Legal Services Program (GLSP) and Atlanta Legal Aid Society (ALAS) have reached a settlement with the Acting LSC Inspector General, Leonard Koczur, and the U.S. Department of Justice in the subpoena enforcement action instigated by Koczur’s predecessor, Edouard Quatrevaux. The dispute arose a year ago when GLSP and ALAS refused to comply with the IG’s demand for access to 10 years worth of client data, including clients’ street addresses, for a research effort to evaluate the value of “geocoded” maps as an analytical tool. In June, 2000 LSC’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) demanded that GLSP and ALAS turn over the age, gender and ethnicity for each of the 300,000 clients served by the programs from 1990 through 1999, along with the clients’ street address, city, state and zip code. In addition, the IG sought data on office code, case closure code, problem code, case number, date opened and date closed for each case. The programs refused to provide the data, citing concerns about client confidentiality and arguing that the request was overbroad and unduly burdensome. In particular, GLSP and ALAS argued that clients’ identities could be readily determined from street addresses, and when coupled with the other data sought, revealed information about the client and the representation that was protected under the Georgia rules of professional responsibility. The programs offered several alternative proposals intended to meet the goals of the IG’s study, while preserving client confidences. The IG rejected the proposals and issued a subpoena for the data on July 17, 2000, claiming that the OIG was entitled to the information, without regard to ethical rules on confidentiality, under the provisions of the Inspector General Act and Section 509(h) of the LSC Appropriations Act that permits LSC access to certain information as part of its monitoring and audit functions. GLSP and ALAS refused to comply with the subpoena. In November 2000, Quatrevaux left LSC and was replaced on an interim basis by Leonard Koczur, who had been Deputy IG for Audit. Within days of Quatrevaux’s departure, the U.S. Department of Justice brought suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to enforce the administrative subpoena that had been issued by the OIG in July. The Georgia programs retained Elizabeth Tanis, from Sutherland Asbill & Brennan in Atlanta, as pro bono counsel to represent them in the lawsuit. Negotiations between the Georgia programs and the OIG picked up momentum in the months following Quatrevaux’s departure, and a final understanding was reached at the end of June. Following a sign-off by the Department of Justice, the terms of the settlement were released and the subpoena enforcement action was dismissed in early July. Although the settlement resolved the dispute between the OIG and the Georgia programs, by its terms it did not resolve the underlying legal questions raised by the IG’s demand for client data and the subpoena. Specifically, the settlement stated that: Neither this Agreement nor any action taken pursuant to this Agreement shall be construed, considered or used as a waiver of the arguments made in the underlying action, including Respondents’ claims regarding the confidential and privileged nature of the information subpoenaed by Petitioner OIG and Petitioners’ claims regarding Petitioner OIG’s right of access to the information subpoenaed by Petitioner OIG. |
||||
|
|
        
|
|||||
|
© Copyright, 2004
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
|
|
|||