ILNews

LSC says funding cuts will reduce staff, close offices

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Legal Services Corporation offices around the country will have to lay off staff – including 350 attorneys – due to funding cuts, according to a survey released Wednesday by the legal aid program.

All but one of the 134 LSC grantees responded to the survey. Based on the results, local legal aid programs expect to reduce staff by nearly 750 employees this year, which is an 8 percent decrease in full-time equivalent positions from the end of last year.

Because of the funding shortage, more than half reported they will accept fewer cases and restrict what cases they accept. Nearly 30 percent of the programs expect to cut back on foreclosure-related issue services and services for victims of domestic violence.

Sixteen percent of respondents expect to close offices this year, according to the survey.

LSC provides funding for Indiana Legal Services.

LSC was established in 1974 by Congress and is the single largest funder of civil legal aid for low-income Americans. Congress has cut its funding recently and a bill passed in the House of Representatives would cut an additional 6 percent from the agency’s budget, which would give LSC $328 million. ILS Executive Director Norman Metzger told Indiana Lawyer late last year the cuts translate to a loss of $819,000 in 2012 for the legal aid provider.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT