The Gazette 1976

April 1976

Wo r k. The American Bar Association, for example, strongly supported the creation in 1964 of a Legal Services P r og r amme to provide continuing legal re- presentation for the poor. In addition, it has initiated a numb er of Public Interest Law Projects. Th us projects have been established to assist law firms to increase the availability of legal services by legal insurance schemes and to provide housing for lower income groups. State and local Bar Associations have initiated similar projects. 1 " The public interest responses within the Organised Bar are significant. They indicate an expanding defini- tion of professional responsibility and a new aware- ness of how legal expertise may be utilised in the resolution of major social issues or of Commun i ty problems. Nevertheless, the overall Public Interest response within the Organised Bar has been minimal. The mainstream in the development of the Public Interest Law Mov eme nt has taken place outside of the Organised Bar through the agency of a totally original institution, namely, the Public Interest Law firm. The Public Interest Law firm, which has been described as "a new phenomenon rapidly proliferating on the American scene", 17 is not a set model. It encompasses a wide range of Organisations, with activities as diverse as delivery of legal services to the poor, law reform through litigation and political lobbying, monitoring of Gov e r nme nt agencies and education through pub- lication. Its defining feature is that it is formed and operates with the principal objective of serving the public interest by the representation of groups which are under-represented in the decision-making processes. The sources of f und i ng for these public interest law firms are as varied as are their activities and me t hods of representation. A small number seek to survive in the ill-defined ma r ket for public interest law. These self-supporting firms a t t empt to generate their own revenue by accepting reduced fees for their services. Public interest law firms who specialise in poverty law tend to rely for f und i ng on Gove r nment subsidies. These subsidies are made available for criminal ma t t e rs und er such statutes as The Federal Defender Act of 1965 1K and, for civil matters, prin- cipally through the Office of Economic Opportunity Legal Services P r og r amme which was also introduced in 1965. 10 Direct private subsidies have provided most of the f unds for those public interest law firms engaged in major law reform efforts. Private Foundations, which have been the largest benefactors, have in recent years contributed an average of ten million dollars, approxi- mately, per a n n um to Public Interest Law. The Fo rd Found a t i on has, for example, made grants to The Centre for Law and Social Policy, The Centre for Law in the Public Interest, The Citizens Communica- tions Centre, The Institute for Public Interest Repre- sentation of Georgetown University Law Centre, and to the Wome n 's Law Fund. 20 Other public interest law efforts, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the Sierra Club, and the Natural Resources Defence Council, receive a large percentage of their revenue by appealing to the public for support and through memb e r s h ip subscriptions. Finally, reference may be made to the support given to the public interest law firms by American law schools. A numb er of Universities, including the University of California (Los Angeles), the University Its effect has been primarily symbolic. Response outside the organised bar The Public Interest Law firm

of Michigan, Pensylvania, the University of Southern California, Stanford and Yale, have initiated clinical education programmes in conjunction with the Public Interest Law Firms. Arrangements are made und er these programmes whereby third-year students may obtain credits towards their degrees by participating in the projects of specified Public Interest Law Firms. A similar programme is in operation in the University of Georgetown which has established its own Public Interest Law Centre with the assistance of a Ford Foundation Grant. Conclusion The Public Interest Law Mov eme nt has brought the decision-making processes of American society into a new relief, and it has inspired renewed interest in the f und ame n t al question of the extent to which these processes actually operate in the public interest. Public Interest lawyers have suggested new me t hods whereby small minority interests and diffuse majority interests may actively participate in making the decisions that ultimately affect them. In doing so, they have suc- ceeded in establishing a counter-force to those of Big Business, Big Gov e r nme nt and Big Labour. Public Interest Law has evoked a new introspection regarding the scope of professional responsibility. It has led to a definition of professional role whereby lawyers may utilize their skills in resolving, not only disputes between individuals, b ut also competing social demands. Many lawyers, both within and out- side the organized Bar, have fashioned public interest responses. Nevertheless, the overall level of response has been low in relation to the need for it. The f u t u re of Public Interest Law, as it has de- veloped, is dependent on continuing financial support. Public Interest lawyers, in providing legal services to previously under-represented groups, have been oper- ating mainly outside the price-demand system for legal services. The provision of these services has, effectively, been subsidized by the lawyers themselves, the Government, the foundations and by the general public. The retention of these subsidies require t h at Public Interest lawyers continue to substantiate the case for Public Interest Law. Moreover, since it is sought to institutionalize the a dv a n c eme n ts t h at are made, the task of justifying Public Interest Law may prove progressively more difficult. FOOTNOTES 10. Ford Foundation, The Public Interest Law Firm: New Voices for New Constituencies at 35 (1973). 11. Transcript of Hearings before the Subcommittee on Employment, Manpower and Poverty of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, "Internal Revenue Tax Exemptions," Nov. 16, 1970, at 104 105 12. Id. at 107. 13. Internal Revenue Code of 1954, S. 4945 (a) (1). 14. Interview noted in "The New Public Interest Lawyers," 79 Yale L.J. 1070, at 1078 (1970); research for the article consisted primarily of a series of in- terviews conducted by members of the Yale Law Journal with public interest lawyers throughout the United States. 15. Association of Data Processing Services Organization Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150 (1970). 16. See Marks, Leswing and Fortinsky, The Lawyer, The Public and Professional Responsibility, at 191-197 (1972) for a good review of these projects. 17. Internal Revenue Service Bull. No 1069 (Oct 9 1970). ' 18. 18 U.S.C.A. s. 3006 A (1969). 19. See 1 C.C.H. Poverty Law Reports. 6020 for an account of the background to the Legal Services Programme. 20. Other foundations which contributed to public interest law include: Carnegie, Clark, Field, New World, Rockefeller Brothers, Rockefeller Family and Stern Family.

61