Legal aid programs funded by U.S. taxpayers through the Legal Services Corporation are supposed to help the poor with their everyday legal needs. Unfortunately, these taxpayer dollars can end up paying to defend the unconscionable conduct of legal aid clients, as the following cases demonstrate.
Legal Services Facilitates Medicaid Scam
Pisgah Legal Services of North Carolina defended in state court a scheme
to transfer his remaining assets from an elderly father to his son in order
for the father to qualify for Medicaid payments for his long term nursing
care. The father, Charles Dillingham, transferred over $100,000 in
assets to his son David after suffering a severe stroke but before applying
for state Medicaid nursing home coverage. Both a state Division of
Social Services hearing officer and a state court trial judge concluded
that the asset transfer had occurred, at least in part, to qualify Charles
for Medicaid. Legal Services managed to convince the state Court
of Appeals, however, that a technicality in the state’s Medicaid law prevented
the state from requiring the Dillinghams to show clear and convincing evidence
that the transfer was unrelated to the Medicaid application. As a
result, it appears more likely that the Dillinghams will be rewarded for
their conduct with Medicaid benefits courtesy of state and federal taxpayers.
See Dillingham v. Department of Human Resources, 513 S.E. 2d
823 (N.C. App. 1999).
Legal Services Assists Student Loan Deadbeat
Legal Services of Alabama represented Bernadette Green in federal court
as a plaintiff attempting to regain money that had been garnished from
her paycheck by the Kentucky Higher Education Assistance Authority (KHEAA).
Green had defaulted on a student loan held by KHEAA, which resulted in
the garnishment against Green, beginning in 1996. Legal Services
managed to persuade the court to force KHEAA to pay back the money
it had garnished from Green on the interesting theory that Green had already
had her paycheck garnished by a second student loan on which she defaulted.
The court found that Green couldn’t be subjected to two garnishments at
the same time, but there was no suggestion from the court, nor apparently
from Legal Services, as to how KHEAA could proceed to get back the loan
money--insured by U.S. taxpayers--from Green.
See Green v. Kentucky Higher Education Assistance Authority,
1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1964 (S.D. Ala., February 23, 1999).
Legal Aid Supports Fraud on the Court in Paternity Case
In an outrageous case, the taxpayer-supported Legal Aid Service of
Northeastern Minnesota has argued in a state appeals court that its client’s
fraudulent statements to the court should not affect the course of a non-paternity
suit brought by the client’s ex-husband. Both the trial and appellate
courts concluded that Legal Aid’s client, Jill Lelonek, had committed fraud
on the court by lying about certain facts that would have helped conclusively
establish that her ex-husband, Brian Lelonek, was not the father of her
child. Despite these fraudulent statements, Legal Aid tried to argue
that Brian should still be required to help support the child even though
he is not the father. In making this argument, Legal Aid used technical
legal arguments claiming that Brian could not amend his divorce proceedings,
even though evidence of Jill’s false statements and a blood test conclusively
showed that Brian could not be the father of Jill’s child.
See In Re Marriage of Lelonek, 1999 Minn. App. LEXIS 201 (Minn.
App., March 2, 1999).