Varshavsky v. Perales

No. 91-40767 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. New York County filed Aug. 15, 1996) ; Clearinghouse Number: 46484

Description

District Courts Issue Orders to Show Cause Why Plaintiffs’ Counsel Should Not Be Enjoined from Withdrawing Pursuant to Legal Services Corporation Restrictions

Abstract

The courts have issued orders to show cause why they should not deny plaintiffs’ counsel’s motions to withdraw in these related actions in which plaintiffs’ counsel made conditional motions to withdraw pursuant to recently enacted restrictions on Legal Services Corporation (LSC) grantees. The LSC restrictions, enacted as part of Pub. L. No. 104-134, purport to prohibit attorneys working at LSC-funded programs from engaging in class action litigation. Counsel assert that their withdrawal may violate the canons of professional responsibility and that Congress’ attempt to prohibit legal services lawyers from using nonfederal funds to provide effective legal representation to indigent clients is unconstitutional. By directing legal services lawyers to refrain from making important substantive and procedural arguments that are in their clients’ best interests, Congress violates both the Equal Protection Clause and the First Amendment associational rights that bind a legal services lawyer to an indigent client. In Varshavsky the district court asked the parties, LSC, and other interested persons to show cause why it should not enjoin LSC from terminating funding to Legal Services for New York City (LSNY) or Legal Services for the Elderly (LSE) as a consequence of counsel’s complying with the court’s order to continue representing the class. Pending hearing on the order to show cause, the court has enjoined plaintiffs’ counsel from withdrawing, has enjoined LSC from taking any steps to defund LSNY, and has enjoined LSNY from taking any steps to defund LSE. In response, the U.S. attorney submitted a letter brief arguing that if the court determined that plaintiffs’ counsel’s ethical duties precluded her withdrawal, or that her withdrawal was not required, it would be improper for the court to address the constitutionality of the LSC restrictions in this case. In Stieberger, Chater, and Robinson, the district courts issued similar orders asking the parties, the Attorney General, and LSC to show cause why orders should not be entered denying plaintiffs’ counsel permission to withdraw.

Additional Information

Attorney Information
Plaintiffs’ counsel represented by Burt Neuborne, Brennan Center for Justice, New York University School of Law, 40 Washington Sq. South, New York, NY 10012-1099, (212) 998-6100.
Docket Date
1996-08-15 00:00:00+00:00

Files

No files available.

Filed under: