OLYMPIA – Columbia Legal Services’ client list reads like a blueprint for legal do-gooders: neglected foster kids, homebound seniors and disabled people, to name a few.
But it’s the firm’s work with another downtrodden set – farm workers – that has it locked in a battle with one of the state’s most powerful industry groups.
To the Washington Farm Bureau, Columbia Legal isn’t merely an altruistic group of lawyers helping the poor. Lately, critics say, it’s morphed into a government-backed lobbying agency specifically targeting farmers and other employers.
Others disagree, including the state Supreme Court, which oversees the legal-aid system that pays Columbia Legal to help the poor.
Last month, the court rejected a Farm Bureau request to alter state financing rules in order to keep the firm from lobbying the Legislature and government agencies.
So why should the firm be able to cajole lawmakers and agencies?
For Columbia Legal director John Midgley, the reasoning is simple: if the Farm Bureau and other groups can address legal disputes at the statehouse, lawyers for poor people shouldn’t be shut out.
“I guess we don’t see why that necessarily should be objectionable. It’s giving people a voice, and many of our clients don’t have a voice,” Midgley said.
Dan Fazio, the Farm Bureau’s employer services director, says the fight’s far from over.
“They are sending public funds to a private firm for lobbying and political activity. That’s the issue,” Fazio said. “I respect the justices a great deal, but they are dead wrong on this as a matter of public policy, and they know it.”
Like many issues in politics and public policy, this behind-the-scenes tussle revolves around money – specifically, the way Washington state pays for civil legal services for the poor.
As in other states, firms that provide attorneys for poor people in Washington are dependent on government financing. The two firms that do this work in Washington state are the Northwest Justice Project and Columbia Legal.
The Northwest Justice Project gets federal and state money, including general fund grants that limit its ability to represent illegal immigrants, take on class-action suits and lobby legislators.
Columbia Legal also gets federal grants, but about $3.5 million of its roughly $5 million budget comes from a special legal fund known as IOLTA, shorthand for Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts.
State government collects that money from the interest accrued on payments for legal work and real estate transactions.
Under the system, interest on each individual payment is meant to be so small that returning it to a client would cost more than the collection is worth. But when pooled, the interest builds up to several million dollars.
That’s where the Farm Bureau and other business groups see a conflict: After getting public financing, Columbia Legal will lobby legislators or agencies, taking stances on laws and government rules that some segments of the public don’t like.
“Whenever you buy a house or use an attorney in this state, you’ve made a contribution to a political group that could be lobbying against you. It’s a basic First Amendment issue,” Fazio said.
As evidence of what he says is Columbia Legal’s political streak opposing farming interests, Fazio points to lobbying the firm did against a Farm Bureau bill in the 2005 Legislature.
That proposal would have given farms with 10 or fewer workers an exemption from work-safety citations during a first visit from state labor inspectors, except in cases of injuries or deaths. The theory was that small farmers should get a grace period to help them comply with complicated workplace laws.
The measure was opposed by labor interests, but Fazio said a letter from Columbia Legal is what ultimately killed it.
Fazio says the Farm Bureau doesn’t have a problem with legal-aid firms helping poor people navigate the justice system. But he says Columbia Legal clearly targets farmers – three of its five offices are in central Washington farm country – and has crossed a line by lobbying.
So earlier this summer, the Farm Bureau asked the Supreme Court to change its rules for civil legal services by applying the same prohibitions on lobbying and other activities that govern state general fund grants.
The bureau was supported by other influential business interests, including the Building Industry Association of Washington, but lost the bid 7-2.
It was a heartening win for Columbia Legal, which counted the Washington State Bar Association among its supporters.
“It makes a difference that we’re supported by the court and the bar in doing this work,” Midgley said. “People who understand the legal system understand that people need a voice in every forum.”
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
