A collective of legal scholars have recently called upon the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to prevent a South Carolina statute from extending to a recently instituted eviction-help program by the NAACP. The scholars contend that the program is vitally necessary to combat the state’s formidable access to justice crisis.
The statute in question restricts nonlawyers from dispensing legal advice making a difficult situation harder for those facing evictions; oftentimes those individuals are unable to afford legal counsel and are incapable of adequately representing themselves. Resulting in thousands of sudden homelessness cases each year, this crisis profoundly affects the employment, familial stability, and health of South Carolina residents. Legal scholars argue that nonlawyers, like NAACP’s housing advocates, can alleviate this situation by providing much-needed assistance to those affected individuals.
The scholars, comprised of professors across U.S. and Canadian law schools, are urging the Court of Appeals to instruct a lower court to issue an injunction against the South Carolina statute’s application towards NAACP’s eviction protection program. They maintain that NAACP’s housing advocates need a fast resolution to determine whether they would be secure from punishment per South Carolina’s unauthorized practice of law statute.
Meanwhile, The American Civil Liberties Union has conducted studies indicating that the lack of legal representation severely impacts racial minorities, specifically the Black population. About 50% to 70% of clients facing eviction who seek representation are black, the ACLU study found.
The NAACP and three of its eviction-help advocates took action in March suing South Carolina’s top law enforcement official, Attorney General Alan Wilson, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. They simultaneously requested a preliminary injunction against South Carolina’s Code of Law Section 40-5-310, which states only lawyers can give legal advice, in its application to advocates. Violators of the provision risk hefty penalties including fines reaching up to five thousand dollars in addition to a potential five-year prison sentence.
You may find more detail on the subject here.