1977, March, Pg. 481. Legislative Action Report.

• Author: by Charles R. Roos

6 Colo.Law. 481

Colorado Lawyer

1977.

1977, March, Pg. 481.

Legislative Action Report

481Vol. 6, No. 3, Pg. 481Legislative Action Reportby Charles R. RoosCBA public relations and legislative counselThis session's crisis in the funding of legal aid and rural legal services programs by the Colorado legislature didn't boil up overnight. It comes about from an accumulation of negative influences which threaten the continuation of state support in 1977-78.

The issue hadn't been resolved at the time The Colorado Lawyer went to press. The outlook among supporters of the programs ranged from wary optimism to resignation.

The state now is contributing $465,000 a year, through the Department of Social Services budget, to a coalition of legal aid and rural law projects. That is about 20 percent of their budgets. The coalition is asking an identical state appropriation---no increase---for fiscal 1977-78.

The amount requested, in terms of the $1 billion state general-fund budget, is scarcely significant in dollars. Yet the law programs are beset by mounting criticisms. The objections include the following:

---That the state is so critically short of funds this year that it must take every possible step to cut spending.

---That the state only became involved in funding the legal program two years ago by mischance (when a large Model Cities grant in Denver was cut off), and it is now time to cut off this "temporary, emergency" grant.

---That some young lawyers in the rural program of OEO days were outrageously brash and irreverent in the suits they brought against the Establishment---"stirring up trouble" where there had been none before.

---That, anyway, the public shouldn't have to pay for legal services to the indigent---these services ought to be provided by the private bar "pro bono publico."

Backers of continued state funding are trying to respond point by point. The $465,000 sought from the state, they say, can't be considered a budget-breaking item by any standard. No matter why the state got into the programs, they say, the state has an obligation to remain as a partner, as a matter of public policy. They contend that whatever old feuds there might have been between rural legal services lawyers and the Establishment, they were settled long ago, and in most parts of Colorado, the Establishment now supports the program. They make...