Herald of Civil Procedure
RU
EN
main-photo

We in a citing index:

subscribe bluebook itunes twitter vk youtube
library ulrichs-webGoogleСнимок экрана 2015-12-25 в 19.31.28.pngCrossref.pngVAK logo.pngHEIN logo.png

Why is the Highway Closed? The Unreasonable Restriction Imposed on the Legal Services Corporation Regarding Class Action Suits

Francisco Verbic, 
Professor of Civil Procedure, National University of La Plata

In the paper I discuss the prohibition imposed by the US Congress on the Legal Services Corporation regarding the use of class action suits to provide free legal assistance to the poor. I deal with the creation of the Legal Services Corporation in the US, the scope and advantages of class actions suits (particularly in terms of access to justice), and the role this kind of procedure can play in a context of a deep economic crisis that have deepened the gap in access to the civil justice system. I argue that the aforementioned prohibition to use class actions is unreasonable per se, and that this character is even more remarkable during the current post economic scenario. Therefore, I suggest that the prohibition should be eliminated as soon as possible if there is a real interest in providing free legal services to the poor.

Keywords: class actions; legal services for the poor; access to justice; Legal Services Corporation; economic and cultural barriers


References

   Houseman A.W., Linda E.P. Securing Equal Justice for All: A Brief History of Civil Legal Assistance in the United States // CLASP. 2007. 
   Forger A.D. Address: The Future of Legal Services // Fordham Urb. L.J. 1998. Vol. 25. 
   Greenawalt A. Limiting Coercive Speech in Class Actions // Yale L. J. 2005. Vol. 114. 
   Haber A. Rethinking the Legal Services Corporation’s Program Integrity Rules // Va. J. Soc. Pol’y&L. 2010. Vol. 17. 
   Kaplan B. Continuing Work of the Civil Committee: 1966 Amendments of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (I) // Harv. L. Rev. 1967. Vol. 81. P. 356. 
   Silver Ch. «We’re Scared to Death»: Class Certification and Blackmail // N.Y.U. L. Rev. 2003. Vol. 78. P. 1357. 
   Rosenberg D. Mass Tort Class Actions: What Defendants Have and Plaintiffs Don’t // Harv. J. on Legis. 2000. Vol. 37. P. 393. 
   Johnson D.R. The Legal Needs of the Poor as a Starting Point for Systemic Reform // Yale L. & Pol’y Rev. 1998. Vol. 17. P. 479.    
   District of Columbia Access to Justice Commission and the D.C. Consortium of Legal Services Providers. Joint Report «Rationing Justice: the Effect of the Recession on Access to Justice in the District of Columbia», November 2009 (http://www.legalaiddc.org/documents/RationingJusticeReport.pdf). 
   Sherman E.F. Aggregate Disposition of Relatedcases: The Policy Issues // Rev. Of Litigation. 1991. Vo. 10. P. 231. 
   Cooper E.H. The (Cloudy) Future of Class Actions // Ariz. L. Rev. 1998. Vol. 40. P. 923. 
   Cabraser E.J. The Class Action Counter reformation // Stan. L. Rev. 2005. Vol. 57. P. 1475. 
   Bhabha F. Institutionalizing Access-to-Justice: Judicial, Legislative and Grassroots Dimensions // Queen’s L.J. 2007. Vol. 33. P. 139. 
   Smith R.H. Justice and the Poor // The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 1919. Bulletin N° 13. 
   Barnett H.M. Justice for All: Are we Fullfiling the Pledge? // Idaho L. Rev. 2005. Vol. 41. P. 403. 
   Pollack H.G. The Admissibility and Utility of Expert Legal Testimony in Patent Litigation // IDEA. 1992. Vol. 32. P. 361. 
   Buschkin I.T. The Viability of Class Action Lawsuits in a Globalized Economy – Permitting Foreign Claimants to be Members of Class Action Lawsuits in the U.S. Federal Courts // Cornell L. Rev. 2005. Vol. 90. P. 1563. 
   Bornstein I.S. From the Viewpoint of the Poor: An Analysis of the Constitutionality of the Restriction on Class Action Involvement by Legal Services Attorneys // U. Chi. Legal F. 2003. P. 693. 
   Fischer J.M. External Control over the American Bar // Geo. J. Legal Ethics. 2006. Vol. 19. P. 59.  
   Eveleth J.S. Court Reforms to Enhance Access to Justice System // Md. B.J. 1996. Vol. 43. P. 58. 
   Roth J.A. It is Lawyers Weare Funding: A Constitutional Challenge to the 1996 Restrictions on the Legal Services Corporation // Harv CR-CLL Rev. 1998. Vol. 33. P. 107. 
   Coffee J.C., Jr. Litigation Governance: Taking Accountability Seriously // Colum. L. Rev. 2010. Vol. 110. P. 288. 
   Coffee J.C., Jr. Rescuing the Private Attorney General: Why the Model of the Lawyer as Bounty Hunter Is Not Working // Md. L. Rev. 1983. Vol. 42. P. 215. 
   Bonine J.E. Best Practices – Access to Justice (Agenda for Public Interest Law Reform). (http://www.accessinitiative.org/resource/best-practices%E2%80%94 access-justice%EF%80%AA). 
   Beisner J.H., Shoresand M., Miller J.D. Class Action «Cops»: Public Servants or Private Entrepreneurs? // Stan. L. Rev. 2005. Vol. 57. P. 1441. 
   Dubin J.C. Clinical Design for Social Justice Imperatives // SMU L. Rev. 1998. Vol. 51. P. 1461. 
   Resnik J. Lessons in Federalism from the 1960s Class Action Rule and the 2005 Class Action Fairness Act: «The Political Safeguards’ Of Aggregate Translocal Actions» // U. Pa. L. Rev. 2008. Vol. 156. P. 1929. 
   Melnick K. In Defense of the Class Action Lawsuit: An Examination of the Implicit Advantages and a Response to Common Criticisms // St. John’s J. Legal Comment. 2008. Vol. 22. P. 755. 
   Scott K.E. Two Models of the Civil Process // Stan. L. Rev. 1975. Vol. 27. P. 937. 
   Mazza K. Divorce Mediation. Perhaps not the Remedy It Was Once Considered // Fam. Advoc. 1992. Vol. 14. P. 40. 
   Fallinger M.A., May L. Litigating Against Poverty: Legal Services and Group Representation // Ohio St. L.J. 1984. Vol. 45. P. 1.     
   Weber M. Economy and Society. University of California Press, 1978. 
   Belaen M.J. Change We Need: Why Enacting the Civil Access to Justice Act of 2009 is Necessary to Expand Legal Aid for the Poor // Hamline J. Pub. L. &Pol’y. 2009–2010. Vol. 31. P. 329. 
   Anderson M.R. Access to Justice and Legal Process: Making Legal Institutions Responsive to Poor People in LDCs (http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPOVERTY/ Resources/WDR/DfiD-Project-Papers/anderson.pdf). 
   Gilles M., Friedman G.B. Exploding the Class Action Agency Costs Myth: The Social Utility of Entrepreneurial Lawyers // U. Pa. L. Rev. 2006. Vol. 155. P. 103. 
   Newberg on Class Actions. CLASSACT, § 1:6. Black N. Lawyers Should not be Wary of Cloud Computing // Tex. B.J. 2009. Vol. 72. P. 746. 
   Isaac R.J. War on the Poor // National Review. 1995. 15 May. Class Actions Dilemmas: Pursuing Public Goals for Private Gain. RAND Institute for Civil Justice, 2000. 
   Smith R.H. Justice and the Poor // The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 1919. Bulletin N° 13. 
   Kuehn R.R. Undermining Justice: The Legal Profession’s Role in Restricting Access to Legal Representation // Utah L. Rev. 2006. P. 1039. 
   Moon R.T.Y. Access to Civil Justice: Is There a Solution? // Judicature. 2005. Vol. 88. P. 155. 
   Anderson M.R. Access to Justice and Legal Process: Making Legal Institutions Responsive to Poor People in LDCs (http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPOVERTY/ Resources/WDR/DfiD-Project-Papers/anderson.pdf). 
   Diller R., Savner E. A Call to End Federal Restrictions on Legal Aid for the Poor. NY: Brennan Center for Justice, 2009 (доступно в Интернете по адре- су: http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/a_call_to_end_federal _restrictions_on_legal_aid_for_the_poor/). 
   Burbank St.B., Silberman L.J. Civil Procedure Reform in Comparative Context: The United States of America // Am. J. Comp. L. 1997. Vol. 45. P. 675. 
   Yeazell St.C. Collective Litigation as Collective Action // U. Ill. L. Rev. 1989. P. 43. 
   Yeazell St.C. From Medieval Group Litigation to the Modern Class Actions. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1987. 
   Berenson St.K. A Family Law Residency Program? A Modest Proposal in Response to the Burdens Created by Self-represented Litigants in Family Court // Rutgers L.J. 2001. Vol. 33. 
   The Task Force to Expand Access to Civil Legal Services in New York. Report to the Chief Judge of the State of New York (http://www.courts.state.ny.us/ip/ access-civil-legal-services/PDF/CLS-TaskForceREPORT.pdf). 
   Schmitz Th. Matthias Ruffert (ed.). «The Transformation of Administrative Law in Europe». Book Review // Eur. J. Int’l L. 2008. Vol. 19. P. 625. 
   Jennings W.I. Declaratory Judgments Against Public Authorities in England // Yale L.J. 1932. Vol. 41. P. 407. 

Information about the author 

   Francisco Verbic (La Plata, Argentine) – Professor of Civil Procedure, National University of La Plata (Av. 7 N° 776 1° piso Oficina 26 – Edificio Presidencia La Plata (CP B1900TFT), Buenos Aires, Argentina; www.franciscoverbic.com.ar).

 el_.png   it_.png   book.png

Francisco Verbic