Illinois recipients of federal legal services funding systematically
misuse their grants to pursue ideologically-inspired litigation or to defend
individuals unworthy of subsidized legal representation. In particular,
legal services expends considerable money and time defending the right
of drug dealers to stay in public housing over the objections of housing
authorities and even the tenants themselves.
Legal Assistance Foundation Keeps Drug Dealers in Public Housing
The Legal Assistance Foundation (LAF) of Chicago has repeatedly interfered
with the Chicago Housing Authority’s (CHA) attempts to evict drug dealers
from its public housing. For years, housing authorities were unable to
expel drug dealers and other criminal tenants due to excessive legal protections,
such as a right to a jury trial, for tenants slated for evictions. For
instance, many residents had complained of an “unauthorized tenant” running
a gang from his apartment with a pit bull by his side, yet more than a
year later he was still in public housing. To rectify the problem, the
CHA instituted a new policy in 1992 to expedite evictions by making tenants
responsible for the conduct of guests or visitors. Typically, drug dealers
will use the residences of willing tenants to engage in their illegal activities.
By making tenants liable for the actions of “visitors,” the CHA would finally
have the power to quickly expel criminals. However, the LAF immediately
sued the CHA claiming that such speedy evictions are unconstitutional even
when the evidence is overwhelming that the tenants are participating in
criminal activity. In a noteworthy 1993 case, the LAF prevented the eviction
of Annette Freeman, an accused crack cocaine dealer. LAF persisted in its
ultimately successful defense of Freeman even though police said they observed
her dropping bags of cocaine from her window. In an especially tragic twist
to the case, two months before her arrest, Freeman’s 7-year-old son was
shot to death by a sniper as he walked to school.
See Flynn McRoberts, “HUD Defines CHA Problems,” The Chicago
Tribune, June 15, 1995, pg. B1; Andrew Fegelman, “CHA Evictions Illegal,”
The Chicago Tribune, March 27, 1993, pg. 5
Claims of Unconstitutional Mistreatment of Aliens Found Baseless
In 1992, the Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago sued the Immigration
and Naturalization Service (INS) for allegedly subjecting alien detainees
to inhumane conditions of confinement. In a decision handed down in 1995,
a federal district court threw out all of the charges. Among LAF’s baseless
complaints was that the food was nutritionally inadequate and thus violated
constitutional guarantees of decent treatment. The essence of LAF’s complaint
was that the food was too repetitive. It seems the detention facilities
often served round steak, burritos, baked potatoes, green beans and rice
which according to LAF wasn’t sufficiently diverse. The court rejected
the complaint because it didn’t rise to the level of a constitutional violation.
LAF also alleged constitutional violations of the detainees’ rights to
sufficient indoor and outdoor exercise time. The court rejected this claim
as well, citing the fact that detainees had access to a large day room
where they could watch TV, play board games, read and use the phone. Furthermore,
one facility did allow outdoor recreation when weather permitted. Finally,
LAF claimed that limits on visitation with family and friends and the use
of the telephone was unconstitutional punishment. However, this claim too
was rejected because detainees -- whose average stay in the facilities
was well less than a year -- could meet with visitors four hours a day,
five days a week and had unlimited access to the phone in the same period.
LAF nevertheless contended that the two day deprivation of visitation and
phone privileges was unconstitutional.
See Imasuen v. Moyer, No. 91 C 5425, US Dist. Ct., 1995
Judge Lambastes LAF for Excessive Legal Bill
In 1992, a federal appeals court thrashed the Legal Assistance Foundation for requesting exorbitant legal fees in a routine disability case. Judge Robert Chapman of the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals accused LAF and the private attorneys participating in the case of wildly inflating their hours in order to get “grossly excessive” legal fees. The case concerned an individual’s application for Black Lung benefits. Calling it “no more than an average case,” Judge Chapman angrily denounced LAF’s $312,000 legal bill as “obscene” when fees in such cases average only $12,000 to $15,000. He specifically charged that the attorneys should have spent no more than one quarter of the 1200 hours they claimed they devoted to the case. Furthermore, Chapman called their $170 per hour rate excessive in light of the attorneys’ expertise. Saying the legal bill just “boggles the mind” and “shocks the conscience,” Chapman slashed the request to $43,000 and left it to the attorneys to divide among themselves.
See G.L. Marshall, “Attorneys Ripped for Excessive Fees,”
U.P.I., Sept. 4, 1992
Parents Get Grants for Being Dirty
In 1991, the Legal Assistance Foundation won its suit against the state
in which they claimed that parents who lose custody of their children for
maintaining dirty homes should receive cash grants to improve conditions.
Under the plan, which was estimated to cost $1.8 million per year, the
Department of Children and Family Services would provide grants of up to
$800 to more than 6000 families who lost custody of their children for
not providing adequate shelter, food or clothing, or for keeping a dirty
home. LAF said the families needed the extra money because in losing their
children they lost the AFDC benefits and thus lacked the resources to clean
up their homes.
See Rob Karwath, “ DCFS to Offer Grants to Clean Dirty Homes,”
The Chicago Tribune, January 26, 1991, pg. 6