The need to hold local officials accountable creates a need for rural lawyers

In this space, I often talk about the need for lawyers in rural spaces and how critical it is that we work to solve the power imbalance created by the inability to access justice. Lawyers are great conduits through which we can hold our local officials accountable and ensure that they are unable to take advantage of their constituents. The ability for residents to hold the government accountable when they propose projects that can be potentially dangerous is critically important. It is important that lawyers exist who can stand with residents, especially members of marginalized groups, and advocate for their interests and ensure that the government works for and not against them.

A great example of this comes from Bristol, Vermont where residents are suing their town for failing to seek their input before allowing Vermont Gas to build a pipeline on a public right of way. In their suit, the petitioners are arguing that the town was obligated by state law to consult the citizens of the town before allowing Vermont Gas to build a pipeline. The town however argues that the law only requires town officials to consult the public if they're granting an easement and that this arrangement does not meet the legal definition of an easement.  As the minutes from their July 23rd meeting show, the town selectmen acted on the advice of the town attorney when they agreed to sign the agreement. A local attorney is working with residents of the town to challenge that assertion. Now, the courts will get to weigh in on whether or not the town attorney's advice was correct.

In some cases, a solution to this power imbalance exists and disadvantaged residents do have someone who can assist them with holding their government accountable. A great example of comes from Brunswick County, North Carolina where residents of a predominantly African American neighborhood sued, with the help of the UNC Civil Rights Center, the county after they proposed expanding an existing landfill in their neighborhood to three times its current size. One resident of the neighborhood noted that the current landfill had already resulted in his water being polluted and undrinkable. An expansion of the landfill would surely exacerbate this problem. 

The UNC Civil Rights Center filled the role of helping marginalized populations assert their rights and hold bad actors accountable. However, this solution became a target of the UNC Board of Governors, who voted late last year to ban the Civil Rights Center from engaging in litigation. In citing their reason for banning litigation, board member Steve Long noted the fact that the above mentioned lawsuit cost Brunswick County over $1 million in legal fees and said that "[w]e should be advising cities and counties. If they are doing something wrong, we need to tell them about it. We should not be suing them."

Another perplexing chapter in this saga came a couple of months later when the State Bar of North Carolina found that the UNC Civil Rights Center had been illegally filing lawsuits. Alan Hicks, Chairman of the State Bar's Authorized Practice Committee wrote, "[s]tate law prohibits corporations “other than law firms and certain tax-exempt corporations, from providing legal services to other persons, firms, or corporations ... [t]he university is not a corporation authorized to practice law under those statutes. The center, as a constituent of the university and not a separate entity, is likewise not a corporation authorized to provide legal services.” According to WRAL, the initial complaint alleged that because the Center's director was not a licensed attorney, the Center failed to meet the requirements to exist as a "legal clinic." As Dean Martin Brinkley of UNC Law notes, “[n]one of the basic principles that underlie the authorized practice rules are present here. The center’s clients have always been represented by North Carolina licensed lawyers, and those lawyers have provided supervision for students working in the Center.” Brinkley further alleges that the State Bar knew and approved of the Center's activities in recent years.

What is especially perplexing about Hicks's statement is that he actually acknowledges that the Civil Rights Center had engaged in activities that would qualify it as a legal clinic and even concedes that the students are supervised by licensed attorneys. However, he dismisses these actions by saying they were not conducted "under the auspices of a legal clinic." This is sadly typical of recent North Carolina history, their actions to disenfranchise disadvantaged populations could fill its own post. Last March, I covered the state legislature's decisions to cut legal aid funding and the subsequent closing of rural offices that resulted. This has occurred multiple times over the past decade. 

As I mentioned in my last post, having the tools needed to hold our local governments accountable is important. A grave power imbalance is created when the government is able to act with impunity. It is sad that a promising solution fell into the political weeds and met an untimely death in North Carolina. However, it does show us an example of what we could have and why this work is important.