on volume in this sort of thing, so if you can give us some specific cases and kinds of cases and the way in which you would be led to go the route of lobbying or taking a class action rather than handling individual cases, it would be very helpful, because there are a number of Members of Congress who seem very much concerned about the class action activity and also the legislative lobbying activities. I think that we owe it to them to give them a rational explanation of why they make good sense. Mr. BENSON. Contained in the packet of materials that Mr. Miller has added to the record are a series of newsletters put out by the Legal Aid Society in Kansas City, one of which is on this question, Volume I, No. 3, of October 1970. On page 1, under "Consumer Protection," there is described a lawsuit against a company alleging a truthin-lending violation. This was a class action in the Federal court, in which, during the course of discovery, the court ordered that the legal aid attorneys could look at the contracts which had been entered into over a 60-day period by this company, and they found 179 violations during the 60-day period. So it is likely that by the time discovery is completed, given the Statute of Limitations, there will be a substantial number of clients all being represented in one lawsuit in the Federal court. I am sure we can provide you with other instances. Mr. FORD. One other thing. I am startled to hear the advanced theory that there is something new or unique in the idea of a lawyer receiving public funds who is fighting in court another lawyer who receives public funds. All of us, at one time or another, if we have represented any level of government as an attorney, have found ourselves in a courtroom arguing with an attorney representing some other level of government, or maybe the same level but in a joint committee. It never occurred to me that there was anything wrong with my filing a lawsuit against the State of Michigan or the county because the other attorney was being paid out of tax funds just like myself. This is being advanced quite surprisingly as a serious argument against the concept of-well, it is the Murphy amendment. I would appreciate it, on the basis of the background you people have, if you would give us some instances of the normal routine and processes by which you find, in your State and your community, lawyers in confrontation with each other both being paid by tax funds. Again, it seems to me so elementary that everybody ought to understand it, but we are picking up more and more very indignant persons who are following the reasoning of the Murphy amendment that there is something basically wrong with having a legal services lawyer in a situation where some other tax-funded lawyer is on the other side. Mr. BENSON. I don't know whether our Mayor, Charles W. Wheeler, refers in his program to the fact that we have sued them a number of times or not, but I can assure we have, and that the city of Kansas City still continues to support an independent legal services program. Mr. FORD. Thank you much. I can't tell you how much we appreciate your coming here. We are running behind, and so that we will be able to hear all the witnesses the committee is not going to leave for lunch, but we are going to take a 15-minute break. (Luncheon break.) (AFTERNOON SESSION) Mr. FORD. We will call the hearing to order and invite the gentleman from Texas, Mr. William Shireman-am I saying that correctly-Shireman-director of the Legal Aid Society, Nueces County— Mr. SHIREMAN. Nueces. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. SHIREMAN, DIRECTOR, LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF NUECES COUNTY, CORPUS CHRISTI, TEX. Mr. FORD. Corpus Christi, Tex., and Joe Meyer, director of the Legal Assistance Corporation of Louisiana, and Timothy Kelly, president of the Dallas Bar Association, Dallas, Tex., and I am sorry that the gentleman from San Antonio is not here so that I could show him that I can pronounce Bexar County properly. We have a prepared statement by Mr. Shireman, which has some exhibits attached. Without objection, the full text of the statement will be incorporated in the record at this point. (The statement referred to follows.) STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. SHIREMAN, DIRECTOR, LEGAL AID SOCIETY GENTLEMEN: My name is Wm. H. Shireman, I am the director of a Federally Funded Legal Services Program, known as the Legal Aid Society of Nueces County, located at 921 N. Chaparral Street, Corpus Christi, Texas, Zip Code 78401-Phone No. Area Code 512 883-8223. I want to thank the Committee for permitting me to make a statement in connection with the legislation pending before this Committee which involves the concept of Federally supported Legal Services Program for poor people. It is my understanding that specifically this involves two Bills extending the Economic Opportunity Act, and two Bills establishing a corporation to administer Federally Funded Legal Services Program. It is not my purpose to speak specifically for or against any of these pending pieces of legistlation; rather I want to try and briefly describe to you, what a modestly Federally Funded Legal Services Program has been doing in a medium sized metropolitan area in South Texas, and how the Federal Funds have been utilized in providing services to the poor of that area. The Legal Aid Society of Nueces County, was established by the County's Bar Association prior to 1956 the year it was incorporated. This program is administered by a non profit corporation, with a board of directors consisting of six lawyers and three lay persons. The lay members were chosen by the target area and these members represent the poor to be served by the program. In 1966 and prior thereto it was providing a full time secretary and a lawyer on a half day basis. Most of its efforts were directed at the enforcement of child support orders. Through an arrangement with Nueces County whereby its employees supervised the County Law Library, the County in 1966 was providing about $7276.00 in funds to support the program. In the Fall of 1966, the program was funded by OEO through an application by the local CAP Agency. Under the initial funding the Society employed a full time Director, two secretaries and one staff attorney. Prior to the refunding on September 1, 1967 another staff attorney was employed, and this continued to be the size of the staff until another secretary was employed about January 1, 1968. In the Fall of 1969 another secretary was added, so that the staff as of August 1, 1970 consisted of a director, two staff attorneys and four secretaries. The Society maintains two offices. The Central Office in downtown Corpus Christi, about three blocks from the Courthouse, and a Neighborhood Office in a poverty target area on the west side of Corpus Christi. On August 1, 1970 the director, one staff attorney, and three secretaries were located in the Central Office, and a staff attorney and secretary in the Neighborhood Office. In addition to being responsible for the Neighborhood Office, the staff attorney in that office spends one day a week in an office in the Community Action Agency Center in Robstown, Texas. The date of August 1, 1970 has special significance to the staffing and workload of the office, because on August 3, 1970 Corpus Christi and Nueces County became a disaster area as a result of the damage received from hurricane "Celia." Comment on the effect of Hurricane Celia upon the workload and activities of the program will be reserved until after you are given an overview of the program. The amount of Federal Funding authorized for the various program years, and the amount actually expended is as follows: Total Federal Contribution from Sept. 1, 1967 thru April 30, 1971—$188,072.00. What did the Federal Government get for this expenditure of $188,072 over a period of three and two-third years. It obtained the services of a full time director, two staff attorneys and four secretaries up to August 3, 1970, and shortly after that date it obtained the full. time services of three more staff attorneys who are still with the program, the services of a number of attorneys who worked temporarily with the program in August and September 1970, and more than 2000 hours of volunteer time contributed by members of the Nueces County Bar Association to indigent applicants for legal services. During that period the Society received 20,224 applications for legal services and accepted 14,093 of these applications and some character of legal service was performed for each applicant. For the record, it should be shown that Nueces County has a population of 284,832, and Corpus Christi a population of 204,525, and there are 40,356 families with a population of 89,100 people residing in the so called target areas. The target area population represents more than 30% of the total population indicating a need for a legal services program in the County. The sheer number of applicants for service over the past fifty months demonstrates that this target area population is seeking out this service. Because the staff has been so burdened with providing individual service on a one to one basis, we have had little time to undertake any meaningful law reform actions. When law reform decision have been established our attorneys have used them to good advantage in support of a client's position. We provide legal counsel and advise to the various Neighborhood Councils when requested. When possible we have endeavored to participate in programs to educate members of the poverty community as to their legal rights with respect to consumer matters. We have provided legal counseling to some senior citizens at a center presently being maintained to provide services geared to the elderly. We administer a lawyer referral service for the Nueces County Bar Association, and last year this service was responsible for referring more than 500 fee generating cases to members of the private bar. According to National Legal Aid and Defender Association no lawyer should handle more than five hundred new cases or matters a year. Under this criteria, the staff of our program has from the inception of the OEO funding been required to handle at least 50% more matters than recommended. Beginning in 1970 this condition has grown steadily worse, so that now the caseload is more than double the recommended maximum. Attached to this presentation are three graphs, which may help the committee to understand and appreciate how the caseload of our program has been expanding. Graph I represents the number of applications received as reflected by the quarterly reports, over a period from July 1, 1966 to Feb. 1, 1971. Graph II represents the number of applications accepted during that period. Graph III represents the weekly body-count of people who have come to the Central Office from November 1,1970 through May 14, 1971. This latter graph was included because it would indicate that the activities appear to be on the increase. From where I sit, it appears to me, that there is a definite need to extend the Economic Opportunity Act, so as to continue to provide legal services to the poor people in our area. Without the help of OEO our program would have to be discontinued or drastically curtailed. I do not believe that such action would contribute to the tranquility of our community. I am satisfied that it would be resented by the poor people who have come to rely on our program to provide legal services. Now, I would like to briefly comment on the role that our program played, in helping the victims of a natural disaster. I believe that these comments are relevant to the pending legislation, because it is entirely possible that future disasters will occur, and the existence of a viable legal services programs in or in close proximity to the affected area, can be a resource to be mobilized by the Federal Government in its efforts to assist the disaster victims. As previously stated our staff and facilities on August 3, 1970, (the date hurricane Celia made its landfall on the Gulf Coast near Corpus Christi, Texas) consisted of a director, two staff attorneys, four secretaries and two offices. Both of the offices were only slightly affected by the hurricane and were restored to operating condition by noon Wednesday, August 5. Wednesday afternoon, August 5, 1970, I was personally contacted by a team from the OEO Regional Office and advised, that our program would be responsible for organizing and providing legal assistance to the hurricane victims not only in Nueces County but in San Patricio and Aransas Counties adjoining us on the north. I was advised that there were no funds then available to finance this effort other than the funds remaining in our grant for Program Year D which was about to end August 31, 1970. Fortunately our program had not utilized all of its budget, and it appeared that there would be about $10,000 in funds to finance the initial stages of our efforts to meet this commitment. The recent experience of Lubbock in handling the legal assistance problems created by a tornado which had struck that city in the spring of 1970, served as a starting point in our planning. One of the lawyers initially involved with that disaster and who was still involved was contacted and he was brought to Corpus Christi on Saturday, August 8, 1970, for consultation. The directors of the various OEO funded programs, in Texas were contacted, and a request to borrow bilingual members of their staff was made. This request resulted in the loan of four lawyers for various periods from one week to three weeks. Our program agreed to and did pay the travel and per diem expense of these attorneys. In addition to these attorneys, we obtained the services of six VISTA attorneys for about ten days. In addition to this temporary staff, we hired five attorneys, two of whom were then licensed to practice in Texas, the other three were awaiting admission to the Texas Bar. Of the five additional attorneys temporarily employed three are still on the staff by virtue of a supplemental grant. subsequently received to assist our program dispose of the additional caseload created by hurricane related matters. On Thursday afternoon, August 6, I attended the initial meeting of all mobilized Federal Programs called by Mr. George Hastings, Regional Director of the Office of Emergency Preparedness (OEP). At this meeting each Federal Agency represented was asked to give a status report on its capabilities and what it had done to date. At this meeting the OEO representative among other things stated that his agency through the Legal Aid Society of Nueces County would be responsible for providing legal assistance to those hurricane victims who were too poor to otherwise obtain the service. On Friday, August 7, Richard Murray, Assistant General Counsel of OEP, personally contacted our office. He was advised of what we had done up to that time to try and mobilize the manpower necessary to meet the demand it was anticipated would be placed upon the program. At this meeting, Mr. Murray advised that there were no funds authorized or available to assist in providing legal services to hurricane victims. As a result of our experience, provision has now been made to make such funds for legal aid available for future disasters through the OEP. He also advised that in Lubbock the local bar association agreed to provide legal services without charge to any victim of the hurricane for hurricane related problems, regardless of their ability to pay for such services. Mr. Murray was advised that the decision to provide legal assistance without regard to ability to pay was a Bar Association decision. On Friday, August 7, 1970, OEP called and said they were opening three one stop Disaster Relief Centers in Corpus Christi on Saturday, August 8, 1970, and a little later intended to open four such centers in San Patricio County, and our program was requested to man a legal aid station in each such center. The president of the local Bar Association was contacted on August 7, 1971. He was of the opinion, that because many of the members of the Board of Directors were recovering from the affect of the hurricane it would be impossible to obtain a quorum for a special Board meeting. He thereupon orally authorized the Director of the Legal Aid Society to proceed with his plans to provide the assistance requested by OEO and OEP, using his discretion as to qualifications of applicants, and the use of trained but unlicensed personnel to man legal aid stations. Our program manned the three centers here in Corpus Christi from the time they were opened until they were closed. We never were able to man the four centers in San Patricio County, except on a circuit riding basis. During the period that these stations were manned no accurate record was maintained of all the persons who contacted the lawyer. A record was made and a file opened on only those whose problem needed follow up attention. A conservative estimate of the number of persons at these various centers to whom legal advice was only given, would be in excess of 1,500. The emerging legal problems related to the disaster were almost immediately identified. They generally fell into the following categories: problems that had to do with insurance on either the victims home, personal property such as furniture, clothing or personal belongings, mobile home or automobile; problems that involved the victims relationship with his landlord; problems that involved the victims interest in real property upon which a SBA Loan was being sought. A color coded check list of these various categories was prepared to facilitate the making of a memorandum of the initial interview relative to the problem. A supply of these check lists were provided to the attorneys at any outreach station. The young lawyer responsible for preparing these check lists and organizing this effort was a native of Corpus Christi who was at that time employed as a VISTA attorney in Little Rock, Arkansas, and who at my request came to Corpus Christi for a weekend at no expense to our program. By the time the Lubbock attorney arrived on Saturday morning, August 8, 1970, we were already engaged in manning the Corpus Christi Disaster Centers, and were endeavoring to organize our efforts to meet the anticipated deluge of clients which would be coming to our permanent offices. The Lubbock attorney was awed by the destruction which was evident on the trip in from the airport. He said it reminded him of Lubbock after the tornado magnified a hundred times. He reviewed our efforts to date and indicated that we were on the right track. He suggested and assisted in the preparation of a handbill both in English and Spanish which alerted the citizenry to beware of certain practices by unscrupulous contractors and insurance adjusters which in all probability would emerge, and urging them to consult their lawyer or if they could not afford a layer to contact the legal aid society. These handouts were printed and distributed at all of the outreach centers as well as at the neighborhood centers maintained by the community action agency. The Lubbock attorney predicted that the people would first be concerned with filling their immediate needs for food, clothing and shelter. That they would not concern themselves with their legal problem until sometimes later, and therefore the demands on our program would not begin to reach its peak until 60 to more days after the disaster. His prediction was quite accurate, because the daily demand began to reach unmanageable proportions about the latter part of September 1970, and it has been continuing at that rate ever since. The graphs attached hereto support this prediction, and it is a lesson that could be of value to future programs concerned with providing legal services following a disaster. The organized bar was contacted and a request made that we be permitted to refer cases to the membership to be handled by them on a voluntary nonfee basis. The matter was brought before the membership at a meeting on August 24, 1970, and thereafter 262 cases were referred to the members of the bar for handling. The referral was made by using the current list of the membership. The referral was from A to Z and no attempt was made to eliminate any name on the list. Some lawyers refused to accept a referral, others were unable because of conflict to handle the case referred but indicating a willingness to accept another referral. By and large the response was quite generous and the service |