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

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.

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.

Its effect has been primarily symbolic.

Response outside the organised bar

The Public Interest Law firm

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",

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

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.

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.

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

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.