We also prepared check sheets, code colored to cover the various problems so that anyone who was interviewing in connection with this would be able to set up the information that he would need to handle these cases.

We then got a commitment out of the bar association itself to take assignments of cases. On the basis of that, we assigned 252 cases to the bar, using the printed list on an A to Z basis, just sending them a case, saying that the bar had said they would accept referrals of cases, as we referred these matters out, and most of the lawyers accepted them. Some of them sent back a few that they were unable to handle because of conflict of interest, because they represented insurance companies, but they did a valuable service. In addition to that, we set up extra outreach stations in order to service the people. We found out, however, that immediately following a disaster such as this, the demand for a legal services program is not immediate. People are interested in shelter and food. They are interested in clothing or bedding, or such things as that. They don't realize that they have a legal problem until after they have taken care of their immediate needs. So we brought a man in from Lubbock right after this to talk about how they handled the situation there, and as we were coming in from the airport, he remarked that the destruction was about like they had had in Lubbock, only it was magnified about 100 times, and he told us we would not be gin to see these legal problems emerge until 60 days after the event, and this proved to be true. These graphs that I have-I think they will demonstrate that our caseload began to increase after 60 days, and it has been almost descending ever since.

One day a person came in and said that the SBA man had sent him down there to discuss with them whether or not the SBA could make them a loan, and a lawyer came in and asked me what the answer to that question was, and I said, "Well, the people who came in are our clients. If we are going to represent our clients, we just say, 'Yes.' and send them back," but today they continue to send them down there, and last week-I think the first 2 weeks of this month. I think the statement says we have had 81 or 82 people who came in our office, who were sent there by SBA, in order to help complete their papers or whatever is necessary in that regard. So from a standpoint of what services we have provided to governmental agencies, we are providing substantial services today to SBA in connection with this matter.

I might state that before I left, I made a count of how many people. had come into our office just last week, and that is Monday through Friday, and one of our lawyers is on vacation, so I sent one of the lawyers out of the central office to the neighborood office.

We had three lawyers and myself there last week, and we had 187 people who came into our office to see us during that time, and about 40 of those were there in connection with SBA matters. The hurricane has certainly put a tremendous load on Nueces County, and this will be borne out by the Red Cross, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, any of the agencies there at the beginning. They will tell you that their load was probably made a little lighter by virtue of the fact that there was an agency which was identified, and which is identified as a Federal program. In the original meeting that they had on Thursday following the hurricane when the OEP Director called on each agency to tell what their status was OEO undertook to provide legal services. We were the agency that they were

counting on to deliver, so I think having a legal services program federally funded along the gulf coast of Texas is an asset and a resource that the Federal Government can justify. I think we did the job. We did the job for a while on that $10,000, when all those other agencies were spending tremendous amounts of money just bringing in personnel and putting them in hotel rooms at $20, $25 a day.

Mr. FORD. Thank you very much, Mr. Shireman. This is a unique example of the operation of legal services, and I would like to make it a point to thank John Young for the courtesy of his district's producing a positive reaction in regard to this disaster. I also have to check with John to see if your legal services lawyer read the Ford bill and made application for the special Federal funds to rebuild his school. The first bill that I sponsored as a Congressman was specifically for that purpose, but I can't get the Appropriations Committee ever to appropriate any money for it.

Mr. MEYER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to give my time over, at this time, to the mayor of New Orleans.

Mr. FORD. I would like to ask the mayor if he will come forward and we will interrupt this panel now, because the mayor has been struggling all day to find time in his schedule to be here. We appreciate, Mr. Mayor, your very special efforts in interrupting your day to come and visit with us.

STATEMENT OF HON. MOON LANDRIEU, MAYOR, CITY OF

NEW ORLEANS

Mayor LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. I appreciate your interrupting the hearing to hear my views on the Legal Aid Society in the city of New Orleans.

Is there anything in particular that I can respond to by way of questions?

Mr. FORD. Well, Mr. Mayor, on the basis of your experience with the federally funded legal services program, do you feel that it is a helpful supplement to the public services that you provide here in the city government?

Mayor LANDRIEU. Yes; it is something very keenly needed, and hopefully, it can be expanded. I was part of the initial board of directors of the community action program, which is the OEO arm here in the city of New Orleans, and I watched the Legal Aid program grow from that point. We think that it has provided a very valuable service to this community.

We have had our differences with them, but they have been more personality differences than programmatic differences. At the present time, the relationship is one of total cooperation and efforts to bring to the poor of this community the best possible legal services-something which they had been denied for many, many years.

We are in the process now of-under our programs such as LLEAengaging in a program to establish indigent defender boards in beefing up the criminal side of the legal services to the poor. We think that the service here has worked beautifully.

Mr. FORD. Mr. Mayor, it has been suggested that one of the benefits of the legal services program, in a general sense, has been that it has

provided some evidence to poor people from a variety of backgrounds and from various places in this country, that the legal system is, in fact, accessible to them and is sensitive to their needs whereas poor people have tended to regard the courts as something alien to them, and generally hostile, the Legal Services program has shown them that they can solve a problem by going to a lawyer, and even going to

court.

Could you give us your appraisal, as the mayor and close to the people of this city, of what, if any effect this kind of program has had in your city?

Mayor LANDRIEU. It is hard to measure, but I think that most poor people in this community, as well as others, have found themselves in the judicial system only as defendants, either in a civil suit or in a criminal suit, and justice was usually a one-way street. I think for the first time many of these people are beginning to see that they have rights that can be exercised through the judicial system, and that for the first time, they have the opportunity to do so through some very young, aggressive, capable and dedicated lawyers who are not concerned about a fee, but who are concerned about litigating and bringing about the rights of their clients. I don't mean to imply that the bar as a whole is concerned about fees. That isn't the point I am trying to make. I am simply pointing out that heretofore while the bar association has done a great deal of charitable work, the volume and demand for legal services is now so great that the burden simply cannot be carried by the local bar association. The legal aid here has reformed that service. I believe that there is a greater confidence today in the system than there has ever been by virtue of the fact that these people have finally gotten their day in court.

I think another aspect is important, too, and that is that the people have to be represented at times as a whole. Somebody has to understand their problems. We at city hall work at it. We think we have a grasp on it, but at times it isn't until it is forcibly brought home by legal action that we recognize we have overlooked some aspects of their life that could be cured.

I think also it is difficult to measure, and yet we know that the impact has been beneficial-for example, in consumer protection cases, where the poor have been victimized so often, and virtually without remedy, and they now have some avenue of redress where they have been victimized, and in these consumer protection cases, overall, I think there has been a restoration of faith in the judicial system, the system of justice.

Mr. FORD. Mr. Steiger?

Mr. STEIGER. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. I simply want to join Chairman Ford in extending a welcome to you. Thank you very much for coming.

There has always been this problem of relationship between government and any legal services program. Therefore, it is particularly useful to have the perspective that you bring.

Mayor LANDRIEU. We don't do everything right at city hall, but New Orleans is doing everything right now to cooperate with us and to give us a chance to remedy what we can before proceeding with litigation. I have not liked the concept of treating this administration

or city government in general as the enemy. Unfortunately, there are some who through an overenthusiasm, and I think through poor judgment, view it in that perspective. I have tried to prove that that is not the perspective in which the relationship of the parties should be viewed, that we have a very determined philosophy to treat everyone equally, to redress any wrong done in this community, particularly those that are done by the Government. If they exist, they are there because the structure itself has not admitted of immediate change, or simply because they were overlooked, and given the opportunity to try and correct, we would-where it is impossible, I would advise them to take it to court.

Mr. FORD. Are you satisfied, Mr. Mayor, with the past practice and present practice of leaving to the local board the running of the legal services program and the decisions with respect to the types of cases to be handled and the emphasis to be placed on particular types of cases? Is that the situation that you, as a mayor, can deal with, or do you feel some inclination toward the approach of people who say we ought to, by the writing of this statute, restrict or restrain these people? Do you feel that, whether you have won or lost the arguments with them, the local board structure is such that as a practical matter you can get a solution to your problems when you have them with the program?

Mayor LANDRIEU. Unquestionably, if the local board is willing to exercise the authority which I feel they now are exercising, I do not think this is so; however, where the board abandons to the attorney the sole discretion of whom to sue and when to sue, in that event, I think an atmosphere is created in which an attorney who simply seeks to make a name for himself can get litigation against any cause or any action which he wishes to attack for his own aggrandizement.

I think the Board has to retain a cross-section of citizens and has to retain some authority over the relationship. One attorney who was criticized, took the view that not even the Board could interfere with the attorney-client relationship. Therefore, once a client came to the attorney, the Board had no responsibility whatever to say what that attorney could do, how far he could go, or whether he could accept cases or not, because there was the sacred bond of the attorney-client established. In the hands of a very responsible individual with mature judgment, there are no problems, but given one attorney who simply wants to promote his own image, and finds himself endlessly in the U.S. Supreme Court at the expense of the citizens, without really achieving the purpose for which he was placed there, there are problems. A very fine line has to be drawn. I think there have to be good faith efforts to resolve matters before the attorney seeks that ultimate remedy, just as I would, as a lawyer, seek administrative remedy and settlement of disputes before I would decide to litigate.

Perhaps there is not a great deal of publicity from that type of resolution, but results are produced in most cases. I don't mean to be harsh on those who, in the past, may have served in those positions. I frankly give it to you as I see it today. I think we are working with NOLAC and are performing tremendous services in this community. I have gone to bat for them on various occasions when they have been under attack, but I have not been reluctant to

discuss with the Board of Directors of their program wherein I felt they were proceeding unjustly. Part of the problem has been really one of financing. I really don't have any objection to the litigation of these issues that can't be resolved-that is, the class action suits-provided Congress also says, "Let's fund the City Attorney's office so you just don't overburden the City Attorney's office to defend each one of these lawsuits."

Today I am going to a hearing on the Sewerage and Water Board increase. Congress has been increasing the environmental standards and has said, "Quit dumping sewage in the Mississippi River," which I agree with, but by the same token, they are not really providing us the money to construct those sewage treatment facilities.

Now, by way of an analogy, what was happening to us on the Legal Aid side, the constant litigation, the taking of sometimes even frivolous appeals

Mr. MEEDS. For your information, Mr. Mayor, the President is holding up about $400 million of those sewer and water funds.

Mayor LANDRIEU. Mr. Congressman, we would accept if you could shake it loose.

Mr. FORD. Senator Sam Ervin, as a matter of fact, held some interesting hearings in an effort to develop a legal theory which would permit a suit against the President to force a constitutional ban on line item vetoes.

Mayor LANDRIEU. There is one other thing that my good friend Jack Nelson and I have discussed. Mr. Nelson was chairman of the NOLAC Board, and I must say that I have not really been able to resolve myself as to the quality of services to which an individual is entitled.

Now, I clearly understand that there should be no distinction in quality of services, for instance, for a person who is suffering from a heart attack or from some disease in the medical field-that he shouldn't receive lower quality services than a man who can pay the highest price for the most skilled practitioner. I have never really been able to resolve this in the area of legal services that norm to which a person should be entitled-whether a person is entitled on some minor disturbing-the-peace charge or minor loitering chargeand I can understand when you get into these fields and begin to talk about pushing the whole Statute, the constitutionality-whether or not a person is really entitled to what you call an average defense, or what the normal person would consider reasonable, or whether or not that person, being a poor person is entitled to pursue the matter to the Supreme Court simply because the service is free. As a lawyer, I recognize that once you grab the bit in your teeth, you don't let it go until victory or defeat. Yet the average individual or the normal human being has to measure if he wants to contest a $5 parking ticket, the cost of protesting it up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and sooner or later, the question of principle begins to be defined by the economics of the situation.

Mr. MEEDS. That is a very good illustration, don't you think. However, we were talking earlier about the area of control by a board or the exercise of discretion by a board. Don't you think this is a very legitimate area for a board to be concerned about, drawing the kind of guidelines within which the individual attorney will have to work.