The National Law Journal with DC News from Legal Times

30 Day Free Trial

National News
Washington News
  • Home
  • Legal Business
  • Law Schools
  • Columns
  • Verdicts
  • Opinion
  • Video Center
  • Blog

NLJ Home > Opinion > New York State Bar Association calls on ABA to oppose cuts to federal courts, LSC

Font Size: increase font decrease font

New York State Bar Association calls on ABA to oppose cuts to federal courts, LSC

By Seymour W. James, Jr. All Articles 

The National Law Journal

February 7, 2013

  •    
  •    
  •    
  •       Comments (1)
 
New York State Bar Association president Seymour James

New York State Bar Association president Seymour James

Just six weeks ago, Congress took last-minute action to avert automatic across-the-board federal budget cuts that would have significantly harmed the federal court system and legal assistance programs for the poor.

With the new March 1 deadline, the federal judiciary and the Legal Services Corp. (LSC) continue to find themselves in dangerous fiscal waters. Their day-to-day operations are threatened by cuts that will devastate the ability of businesses to resolve their disputes, for the middle class to be heard on civil rights and bankruptcy cases, and for our most vulnerable citizens to secure access to justice.

That is why the New York State Bar Association will be proposing a resolution at the upcoming American Bar Association midyear meeting on Monday, February 11, that urges the ABA, the national voice of the profession, to speak out and condemn these cuts.

Our representatives in Washington need to know that the legal profession considers the federal courts and the LSC to be vital to the fabric of our democracy. Passage of such a resolution would offer the vital support these institutions need at a critical time.

The 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act required mandatory federal budget cuts under sequestration if Congress failed to meet specific deficit-reduction goals. It did not meet those goals in 2011, thus triggering the potential cuts.

Last year, the Office of Management and Budget reported that sequestration would require slashing funding for federal courts and the Legal Services Corp. by 8.2 percent.

While an 8.2 percent reduction seems large, the cuts could actually be much more drastic. As noted in a letter of November 30, 2012, from Thomas Hogan, secretary of the Judicial Conference, to Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), the federal courts have mandatory costs that make up more than 40 percent of their expenses. These costs must be paid in full. For some courts, these mandatory costs are well above 40 percent.

Judge Julia Gibbons of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the chair of the Committee on the Budget of the Judicial Conference of the United States, has said the judiciary's budget could be cut by more than $500 million below the 2012 funding level. A reduction of this magnitude, she said, "would cripple the operation of the federal Judiciary and our constitutional mission would be compromised due to these sudden, arbitrary budget cuts."

If these automatic budget cuts or similar cuts reached by agreement are implemented, there will be immediate and profound disruptions in the resolution of business and commercial disputes, bankruptcies, employment, immigration and other matters.

Staff reductions will interrupt and delay the disposition of business litigation, reducing the ability of companies to resolve their differences in a timely manner and potentially affecting profitability and employment security during this particularly difficult economic period.The resulting cutbacks and delays will undermine the confidence of international businesses in our justice system to resolve international commercial disputes, thus giving an advantage to other countries that would serve that important function.

Based on a 2011 report, the judiciary anticipated that cuts of just 7.8 percent would have required staff reductions of 4,400 employees, the furloughing of all court staff for at least four weeks or a combination of furloughs and staff reductions. This would have been in addition to a reduction of 1,100 employees since July 2011. Sequestration calls for an 8.2 percent cut, meaning that even deeper cutbacks will be required.

The further workforce loss would significantly affect the daily operation of the court system, as well as the local economies of the communities in which the courts are located. Court hours and security would be reduced. Civil jury trials would be extensively delayed.

The impact of sequestration also will be felt in the delivery of legal services through the Legal Services Corp. The LSC provides assistance to combat veterans, domestic violence victims, victims of natural disasters, people with disabilities, people in danger of losing their homes to foreclosure and many others in need.

More than 63 million Americans, including 22 million children, qualify for civil legal assistance. If funding for the Legal Services Corp. is slashed, legal representation for the poor and elderly and for those affected by unforeseen economic challenges would be significantly reduced or eliminated.

An 8.2 percent sequestration cut would come on top of already devastating cutbacks to the program. The current $348 million budget is $72 million below the $420 million allocated in 2010.At this time, with major reductions in all government programs being discussed, there is no assurance that LSC will even survive.

Our federal courts are vital to the operation and preservation of our democracy. Yet the judiciary's budget represents substantially less than 1 percent of the entire federal budget.

With other federal agencies and departments facing cutbacks, it would be easy for the courts and the Legal Services Corp. to be pushed aside in favor of other priorities.

That is why we need a strong national voice standing up for their protection. And that is why the New York State Bar Association is asking the American Bar Association to lend its strong voice to the cause for maintaining these vital services.

Seymour W. James Jr. is president of the New York State Bar Association.



Subscribe to The National Law Journal

You must be signed in to comment on an article

 

Reader Comments

  • Darren McKinney, American Tort Reform Association, Washington, D.C.

    February 08, 2013 12:54 PM

    Among Mr. James' New York State Bar Association membership are some of the most litigious parasites in the country, including NY Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. So what is James supposed to say? Our nation is drowning in debt, and precious court resources could be better husbanded if judges were to promptly dismiss the thousands of preposterous, no-injury lawsuits filed each year and, in doing so, threaten with contempt charges the self-serving lawyers who file them? Don't hold your breath.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Post a Comment »
Find similar content

Firms mentioned

    
  • Gibbons

Companies, agencies mentioned

    
  • Judiciary
  • Committee on the Budget of the Judicial
  • Legal Services Inc.
  • The Lsc
  • American Bar Association
  • New York State Bar Association
  • Office of Management and Budget
  • U.S. Court of Appeals

Most viewed stories

    
  1. Judge Strikes Law Banning Demonstrations at Supreme Court
    •      
  2. NLJ 350 Regional Report: The Hot Markets, and the Cold
    •      
  3. Study Details Obstacles Confronting Minority Law Students
    •      
  4. Largest State Poised to Require Practical Skills Training
    •      
  5. Supreme Court Voids Human Gene Patents
    •      
lawjobs.com

TOP JOBS

MORE JOBS

POST A JOB

From the Law.com Network

In-House Counsel Go to Privacy Boot Camp

In-House Changes at News Corp Ahead of Corporate Split

Proskauer, Former CFO Settle Bias Suit

Global Firms Cope With Istanbul Unrest

D.C. Circuit Nominations a Defining Moment

D.C. Circuit Nominees Widely Respected Within the Bar

Nine Tips to Avoid Starring in a Spreadsheet Horror Story

Snapshot: Tom Gelbmann

The Recorder 25: California Golden Again for Many Firms
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Capital Accounts: Judicial Branch's Brothers Don't See Eye to Eye
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Miami Photographer Sues Pop Star Justin Bieber
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Jeremy Alters Settles With Argentinian Firm For $1 Million
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Alcotest Should Be Discontinued Right Away, DWI Lawyers Say

Lawyer's Fudging of HUD Forms Draws Supreme Court Censure
  •      
    • Subscription Required

The Affordable State-Specific Practice Solution
Available in NY, NJ, PA and CT editions - research, draft and prepare even the most complex cases with ease.

Restaurant in Union Square Park Ruled Permissible
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Magistrate Judge Finds Few Benefits to Class in Settlement
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Third Circuit Could See Rise in Pay-for-Delay Litigation

Cozen Debt Forgiveness Is Campaign Contribution, Court Says
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Sorry, Charlie, Your Wife Won't Support You

Top Reasons to Take Your Husband's Name

Interim Dean Named at Texas Wesleyan University School of Law
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Water Works: H2O Kept Lawyer-Lobbyists Busy
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Boosting Lawyers And Saving Lives
  •      
    • Subscription Required

11th Circuit Conflicted On Juveniles Stance
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Chimp Attack Victim Is Denied $150M State Lawsuit

Auto Body Case May Lead To CUTPA Reassessment

 
  • About The National Law Journal   |
  • Contact The National Law Journal   |
  • Advertise with Us   |
  • Sitemap
  • About |
  • ALM Properties |
  • ALM Reprints |
  • Customer Support |
  • Privacy Policy (updated 6/14/13) |
  • Terms & Conditions |
  • ALM User License Agreement
ALM Media