Law Group Criticizes Legal Assistance Curb

About 500 students and 36 Faculty members of the Harvard Law School have signed a petition protesting a proposed amendment to the Economic Opportunity Act which would significantly curtail legal aid to the poor.

The petition is addressed to the U.S. House of Representatives in care of Cong. Carl D. Perkins (D.-Ky.), Chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor. The amendment-proposed by Sen. George Murphy (R.-Calif.) and already approved by the Senate 45-40-is now before Perkins's committee, from which it is expected to go to the House for approval.

Power to Governors

The "Murphy amendment" would give state governors the authority to veto granting or renewal of funds to any legal services program funded by the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO), subject o override only by the President of the United States. Currently, a governor's veto may be countermanded by the Director of the OEO.

The right of the President to override a governor's veto was included in the amendment only after Murphy left the floor of the Senate. According to the New York Times, however, "it was stipulated that this authority would be eliminated in a Senate-House conference if Senator Murphy later objected to it."

The amendment is aimed at weakening the freedom of legal assistance offices throughout the country to bring suits against local, state, and federal government agencies on behalf of the poor. Though legal aid services spend much of their time providing counsel in cases involving individual poor clients, action

in the area of "legal reform" constitutes one of their major activities.

Many national legal groups, including the American Bar Association, The National Legal Aid and Defender Association, and the Poverty Lawyers for Effective Advocacy have made public statements opposing the Murphy amendment. Donald Rumsfeld. present OEO director has also publicly opposed the amendment and has said he will work against i? in the House.

Threat to Reform

At Harvard, John M. Ferron, lecturer on Law at the Law School. Director of the Cambridge Community Legal Assistance Office, and one of those who started circulating the Harvard petition, said yesterday that he saw the Murphy amendment as a direct threat to legal reform only in such states as California and Florida, whose governors oppose broad legal services.

Although he said that he thought neither Governor Sargent nor any future Massachusetts governor would act to curtail legal services in this state, he said he believed that passage of the amendment would put direct pressure on the governor and indirect pressure on the legal aid services in the state. The amendment would "create an unhealthy climate" for what are supposed to be independent legal services. Ferron said.