|
Barbara
McDowell Appellate Advocacy
Program
|
Legal
Aid established
the Appellate Advocacy Project in 2003 to pursue an affirmative poverty
law
reform agenda before the District of Columbia Court of
Appeals. The
Project participates in cases that have the potential to influence the
development of decisional law in a manner favorable to litigants living
in
poverty.
Through
close work with Legal Aid’s practice units and
careful
monitoring of
the courts and administrative tribunals, the Project strives to
identify
significant emerging or unresolved issues. By developing
cases
that
present those issues and by seeking out amicus
opportunities
through the
Court of Appeals, the Project achieves highly impactful, positive legal
change. As the only legal services organization in the
District
committed
to full-time anti poverty appellate advocacy work, we have found the
Project to
be an integral part of the legal services network.
We
strive to be
a resource for other providers and collaborate closely with peer
organizations
both on setting the agenda and on working on cases.
|
|
| Pass
it on |
|
If
you know
someone who may be interested in receiving this newsletter, please feel
free to forward or contact us at LASDC@legalaiddc.org.
|
|
|
|
|
In Memoriam
|
|
|
The
Legal Aid Society of the
District of Columbia mourns the loss of Barbara McDowell, the founding
director
of the Appellate Advocacy Program. When
Barbara came to Legal Aid, she was already one of the leading appellate
litigators
of her generation – she had argued 18 cases before the
Supreme
Court of the United
States
and numerous others before federal appellate courts. At Legal Aid,
Barbara
became the leading anti-poverty voice in the District of Columbia Court
of
Appeals.
Barbara
handled a broad range of cases that developed important decisional law
for
families, individuals and communities living in
poverty. The
body of work
Barbara left behind is extraordinary. Barbara
fought to ensure that the Fair Housing Act
is meaningful for
persons living with mental illness. She
worked on several important cases on behalf of women attempting to
escape
domestic violence. Barbara
strongly
believed
that the legal system should work for everyone, whether they had
counsel or
not. She
was offended when unrepresented
litigants were kicked out of court for procedural foot faults.
She
brought a successful series of cases to
ensure that litigants in administrative trials got a fair chance to
present
their cases on the merits.
Barbara was an advocate
of
extraordinary talent. She combined her powerful
intellect
and unique
skill with a commitment to justice for everyone. She
believed deeply
that she could make a difference in ending poverty and inequality and
used every
case as an opportunity to do just that.
Barbara
was a colleague and a friend to us at Legal Aid and
in the
equal
justice community. She was a teacher and a mentor to many
younger
lawyers
and the go-to person for more experienced staff struggling with complex
legal
problems.
We will miss her
deeply. We
will treasure the legacy of commitment, compassion
and excellence
she left
us.
The
Legal Aid Board has named the Program in Barbara’s
memory. The
program will now be called the
Barbara
McDowell Appellate Advocacy Program and with the generous support of
Barbara’s
husband and friends The Barbara
McDowell Endowment for Appellate Litigation
has been established. Gifts to
continue
Barbara’s work may be made by going to Donate
Now or by sending a check to the
Barbara
McDowell Endowment for Appellate Litigation at the Legal Aid Society,
1331 H Street, N.W., Suite 350, Washington, D.C., 20005.
|
|
Important
Victories |
|
Barbara
won
many important victories. Her most
important cases include:
Douglas
v.
Kriegsfeld Corporation: Douglas
was
an
important advance in the decisional law to ensure that persons living
with
mental illness are protected by the Fair Housing Act. In
the underlying case, a landlord sought to
evict a seriously ill woman because her behavior -- caused by her
illness --
was posing a threat to other tenants. After
the commencement of the suit, she sought a
reasonable
accommodation designed to mitigate the problem. The
landlord refused to engage. In a first in
the nation decision, the D.C. Court of
Appeals held that,
under the Fair Housing Act, once a tenant asserts the right to
reasonable
accommodation, the landlord must consider whether the accommodation
offered or
any other accommodation would be reasonable. Under this
ruling,
thousands
of tenants will have an opportunity to avoid eviction and remain in
their
homes.
Arthur
v. District of Columbia: In
this case,
the D.C. Court of Appeals was faced with the question of whether the
District
was required to pay interest on funds held in the Court’s
registry
account. Neighborhood Legal Services Project (NLSP) had
handled
the case
at the trial level involving a predatory loan. The
matter had been in litigation for nearly 25
years. For much of
the case, the Court held the proceeds of a house sale. When
final
judgment was entered, the Court decided that the plaintiff was entitled
to the
principal only and the District could retain any interest earned on the
escrowed funds. Barbara handled the matter on appeal. In
a complex takings clause decision, the
Court found that any interest earned on money held in the
Court’s
registry must
be paid to the party who is ultimately awarded the principal.
P.F.
v. N.C.: Legal
Aid represented a
client who case had escaped physical and emotional
abuse at the hands of her children's father. She obtained an
order of
protection and sought sole legal custody of her children.
Despite
the
abuse and contrary to the express wishes of the children, the Court
ordered
that custody be given to the father. The D.C. Court of
Appeals
reversed
and sent the case back to the trial judge, requiring that he take the
abuse
into account when making the custody determination. The rule
articulated by the
Court will help thousands of other survivors of domestic
violence. Barbara
drafted the brief on the custody issue and a second issue in the case
was
briefed by Hogan & Hartson. At
the time the case was ready to be argued,
Barbara was ill and Lorane F. Hebert and Jessica L. Ellsworth from
Hogan &
Hartson argued the case. The resulting opinion has been widely hailed
by
domestic violence advocates.
|
|
