In comparison to England, the United States of America has a longer tradition of providing legal aid. The foundation of American democracy was built with the abolition of slavery. It is now necessary for a democracy to have equal justice in order to operate. If equitable justice is to be served in a society, legal aid in whatever shape or form it may take, must be offered. In American society, legal aid was initially offered voluntarily through nonprofit organizations, but it was initially restricted to criminal matters.

Progress in providing legal assistance to the poor in civil and criminal cases began to be made during the late forties as a result of the leadership of the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, a private organization, and the beneficence of the bar, industry, labour and The Ford Foundation.[1]By the end of 1964 there were 247 legal aid offices providing legal services to indigents in civil matters, an increase of over 300 per cent since 1949.[2]Legal aid assistance was provided to indigents in 414,000 civil cases, an increase of almost 50 per cent since 1954.[3]The gross cost of civil legal aid was four and a third million dollars.[4] In addition to assigned counsel, legal services were provided in over 206,000 criminal cases by 162 defender organizations at a cost of approximately five million dollars.[5]Thus, by the end of 1964, exclusive of volunteer services, organized legal aid was providing representation in over 600,000 civil and criminal cases at a cost of nine and a third million dollars.[6]

The first breakthrough occurred in 1963 as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in the landmark case of Gideon v. Wainwright[7],in this caseCourt held that a defendant had the right to the assistance of counsel in every felony prosecution in a state court and that a must be provided him by the state if he could not afford counsel. The same time the Court held that the state must appoint a lawyer an indigent defendant at least for his first appeal from a conviction. No longer would it be possible for the states to ignore the problem legal aid to the indigent in criminal cases. A valid conviction required some system for providing counsel for the poor.

At first little was known about the true dimensions of the problem. A state-by-state survey of the systems for the appointment of counsel in criminal cases was initiated by The American Bar Foundation. Its study, Defense of the Poor in Criminal Cases American State Courts[8], revealed that there are approximately 300,000 felony cases and four and one-half million misdemeanour cases American state courts each year.[9] Approximately, one-half of the felony cases and a somewhat smaller percentage of the misdemeanour cases involve defendants who cannot afford to hire a lawyer.[10] Furthermore, the American Bar Foundation report made it clear that representation at trial is only one aspect of the problem. Each year the number appeals and post-conviction attacks on criminal judgments, in which counsel is necessary, increases. Decisions of the Supreme Court require the appointment of counsel at preliminary examinations where proceedings constitute a critical stage in the criminal process.[11] In Miranda case,[12] decided in June of 1966, the Court held that the state may not offer a confession into evidence if it was obtained as a result a police interrogation in which an indigent defendant was neither informed of his privilege against self-incriminations and his right counsel or provided with counsel upon his request. Furthermore, most careful observers believe that the Gideon case will be extended to misdemeanour prosecutions as well, and one Court of Appeals has so interpreted it.[13]Overall, the country has benefited greatly from the assigned counsel system. It’s true that some assigned counsel has suffered from inexperience, but most lawyers’ commitment and skill are undeniable. In fact, it’s likely that the system has treated impoverished defendants more fairly than it has the members of the legal profession, who frequently have worked for little or no pay.

A private defender system provides a professional staff of lawyers who have expertise in the criminal law, who can handle fairly high caseloads competently, and who can be made available on short notice when the situation demands. It has the advantage of the independence of a private organization and in practice this has meant control by the bar. However, dependence on private funds results in a lack of financial resources which poses an almost insurmountable obstacle to large scale operations.[14]

In 1964 Congress responded with the passage of the Criminal Justice Act of 1964.[15]Funds were made available by this act to compensate attorneys assigned to represent impoverished parties in all federal courts, from initial hearings to appeals. With their diverse difficulties, no attempt was made to impose a single system on all of the federal districts. Rather, Congress mandated that every federal district create the plan that best meet its needs, with the eleven Judicial Councils having the authority to amend it.[16]The Judicial Conference of the United States was then obliged to receive a report from the Judicial Councils regarding the approved plans. The plans were to be drafted within a year. All approved plans received Congressional funds. Attorneys hired under assigned counsel programmes are paid ten dollars per hour for work done outside of court and fifteen dollars per hour in court, up to a maximum of three hundred dollars for each misdemeanour case and five hundred dollars for each felony.[17] Application for fees must be approved by the courts. In addition, a lawyer appointed to represent an indigent is authorized to apply to the court for an order authorizing the disbursement of funds to permit him to hire an investigator or retain an expert witness when the circumstances of a case demand such action.[18]The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were revised by the Supreme Court almost simultaneously with the passing of the Criminal Justice Act, requiring the appointment of counsel for indigents in preliminary hearings absent waiver.[19]

In 1980, the Equal Access to Justice Act was passed by the US Congress. Its objective is to help small business owners who are unable to afford the high legal fees associated with contesting unjust government judgements by offering them legal aid. From that point on, trials have been carried out in America to promote "Pre-paid Group Legal Service."

As a last point, we may state that legal aid in the US has three functions. The first objective is to assign one client to one attorney who can advise them or take their case to court. legislation reform, which comprises instituting test case procedures in court to assess the viability of the legislation and advocating legislative law reform, is the second goal of legal help. Education is the third objective of legal assistance, and it is achieved by using radio, television, posters. There is paraprofessional training available to lower the expense of litigationis managed by the National Legal Services Corporation or the local legal aid committee. Indians are certainly interested in the rise of legal aid in the United States as well as its advancement in other industrialized nations.

Comparison of legal aid in America and India:

Legal System:

United States: With both federal and state governments, the country has a common law legal system. Both levels of government offer legal help, and there are several pro bono services and legal aid organizations.

India: The country has a hybrid legal system that combines aspects of civil law and common law customs. There are state and federal levels of legal help accessible.

Legal Aid Organizations:

United States: Pro bono programmes, legal clinics, and nonprofit organisations frequently offer legal assistance services. One important federal agency that provides financing for legal aid in the United States is the Legal Services Corporation (LSC).

India: The highest authority regulating legal assistance in India is the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA). Legal assistance services are provided by the Legal Services Authority in each state.

Funding and Resources:

United States: Federal, state, and private funds are used to support legal assistance in the United States. One important source of funding for legal aid organizations is the LSC.

India: NALSA provides funding to state legal services authorities, and government funding is the main source of funding for legal assistance in India. Legal aid initiatives also benefit from pro bono services.

Scope of Services:

United States: A wide range of civil matters, including family law, housing, immigration, and more, are covered by legal aid in the United States. Indigent people are frequently given criminal defense services.

India: Civil, criminal, and administrative cases are all covered under legal aid in India. It seeks to guarantee vulnerable and marginalized groups justice.

Income Eligibility:

United States: To ascertain who is eligible for assistance, legal aid organizations in the United States usually have income qualifying requirements. Low-income people are frequently the target audience for services.

India: Although state-by-state variations may occur, economically disadvantaged groups in India typically have access to legal help.

Challenges:

Ensuring universal access to legal aid presents obstacles for both nations, including financial constraints, regional differences, and low target population awareness.

By: Umar Bashir, Advocate

B.A., LLB, LLM, PGDCL

7006121252,umarb373@gmail.com