40 Years of Fighting for Community Justice
Our Mission
We fight for fairness, justice, and legal, economic, and social change, by addressing our community’s civil legal needs and training the next generation of public interest lawyers. Our work is rooted in a commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion, and furthering racial justice.
Important Legal Victories
In addition to representing individual clients, LSC, often working in collaboration with partner organizations, is committed to strategies that produce important precedents for our wider client communities. Here are a few examples from LSC’s recent history:
Morse v. Ortiz-Vazquez, 99 Mass.App.Ct. 474 (2021)
Co-authored an amicus brief on behalf of City Life/Vida Urbana, a grassroots tenant organizing group, in support of an unrepresented tenant who faced eviction from his home and was prevented from asserting affirmative defenses because he missed the filing deadline for his answer. The tenant prevailed, setting a precedent that is consistent with the practice of most Housing Courts: the Uniform Rules of Summary Process allow tenants to raise affirmative defenses at trial even if a tenant failed to file an answer.
BHA v. Y.A., 482 Mass. 240 (2019)
The Court ruled that a survivor may raise a VAWA defense to eviction at any time during an eviction proceeding; that there is no prescribed method or words needed to do so; domestic violence can be disclosed to the court without first disclosing to the landlord and still form the basis for a defense; that the defense can be raised even in instances of chronic nonpayment; that covered housing providers have an affirmative duty to help survivors and not evict them for reasons directly related to domestic violence; and that judges, upon hearing evidence of domestic violence, are obligated to inquire further to fully evaluate the applicability of VAWA and write findings before issuing decisions.
Calvillo Manriquez v. DeVos, 345 F.Supp. 1077 (N.D. Calif. 2018)
Bauer et al. v. DeVos, 325 F.Supp.3d 74 (D.D.C. 2018)
Protecting the rights of student loan borrowers who attended for-profit colleges.
Pearson et al. v. Hodgson et al., 2018 WL 6697682 (D. Mass)
Providing family members access to affordable phone rates for communications with incarcerated relatives.
Taft v. Commissioner of Revenue, 2017 WL 1382242 (U.S. Tax Court 2017)
Protecting the right to innocent spouse relief (amicus participation).
Meikle v. Nurse, 474 Mass. 207 (2016)
The Court ruled in favor of the tenant, holding that tenants may raise security deposit claims as affirmative defenses in eviction cases. The holding has far-reaching applications for tenants across Massachusetts.
Wells Fargo v. Cook, 87 Mass.App.Ct. 382 (2015)
The Court overturned the Housing Court’s decision in favor of the bank at summary judgment because the bank failed to demonstrate that it had complied with Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations requiring a face-to-face meeting prior to foreclosure with borrowers who have Federal Housing Administration insured mortgages. The Court ruled that failure to comply with the face-to-face meeting requirement would render the foreclosure void. The decision has since been cited by the Supreme Judicial Court and other Appeals Court panels in related cases.
Froio v. McDonald, 27 Vet.App. 352 (2015)
Providing disabled veterans access to pro bono counsel from law school clinics.
Ausmer v. Shinseki, 26 Vet.App. 392 (2013)
Protecting the rights of deployed veterans with disability claim appeals.
U.S. Bank Nat’l Assoc. v. Ibañez, 458 Mass. 637 (2011)
Protecting the rights of homeowners facing foreclosure.