Pro Bono
Cases
Our attorneys seek out a wide variety of pro bono cases ranging from copyright infringement actions to social security appeals to civil rights actions. Many of our pro bono cases are on the cutting edge of social justice issues.
Current Issues
In February 2009, Dan Segal and Rebecca Santoro, working in conjunction with the Juvenile Law Center, took on the representation of a class of more than 4,000 juveniles who are victims of one of the worst judicial scandals in American history. In brief, two Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, judges – a juvenile court judge and the county's President Judge – took millions of dollars in kickbacks from the owners and builders of two private juvenile detention facilities who stood to profit from maximizing the occupancy rate of the facilities. In return, the judges made sure that the County contracted to use the facilities. They also ensured that the facilities were full by routinely sentencing children to them for the most minor of infractions. The juvenile court judge also regularly allowed children to be tried without counsel and accepted and encouraged guilty pleas from children without any explanation to them of the consequences of such a plea. Dan and Rebecca are litigating federal class action civil rights and RICO claims on behalf of their clients to recover the immense damages they have suffered. You can learn more about this case by visiting the Juvenile Law Center’s website.
In 2009, Michael Lieberman represented a young man studying in the United States who was seeking political asylum here. The client's father was an Iraqi government official, and he and his son, along with various members of his family, had been subject to assassination attempts (some of them successful) by groups seeking to destabilize the Iraqi government. The client and his family believed that his life would be in jeopardy if he returned to Iraq. After a protracted application process, we were able to convince the Department of Homeland Security and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services that our client's fears were legitimate, and in early 2010 he was granted asylum. As a result, he will be able to remain in the United States and to embark upon a path to citizenship.
Several of our attorneys have represented low-income homeowners in connection with the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Diversion Program. Working through the Philadelphia Volunteers for the Indigent Program, our attorneys represent homeowners at conciliation conferences with lenders in an attempt to avoid foreclosure. Our attorneys have succeeded in keeping many homeowners in their homes. In recognition of the firm’s commitment to this work, the National Legal Aid & Defender Association recognized Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller in 2009 with a Beacon of Justice Award, the firm’s second such recognition in three years.
Immigration and Asylum Cases
Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller, led by Bonnie Hoffman, obtained Cancellation of Removal from a United States Immigration Court on behalf of a pro bono client. Our client entered the United States illegally in 1981. Nearly three decades later she was detained by immigration authorities and put into deportation proceedings. At the time, two of her three sons (all of whom are U.S. citizens) were serving in the United States Army—one was in Afghanistan and the other was about to leave for a second tour in Iraq. Had our client been deported, her 16-year-old son would have faced the possibility of remaining in the United States without a parent. Prevailing in a challenge to a deportation proceeding was highly unlikely given increasingly rigid legal standards. Nevertheless, Bonnie, with the help of a testifying expert, successfully convinced the court that the client deserved a rarely granted Cancellation of Removal. This means that instead of being deported, our client was able to remain in the U.S. and become a lawful permanent resident.
In 2009, after many years of hard work, we successfully obtained asylum status for a client who had worked for the government of the department of Huila in Colombia. One of his duties was to settle disputes in various municipalities, and as a result of some of his decisions, he came to the attention of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (known by its Spanish acronym, FARC). In 1997, he was abducted at gunpoint by the FARC and forced into the trunk of an automobile, but he managed to escape. He later fled to the United States and applied for asylum. The government opposed his application and, after trial, an Immigration Judge denied his application. The Immigration Judge did, however, agree with our arguments over the government’s objections that (1) our client was eligible for asylum despite not having formally filed for it within one year of arriving in the United States due to certain extraordinary circumstances and (2) that our client’s testimony was indeed credible. We appealed the denial of asylum relief to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which historically affirms the denial of relief to applicants in a very high percentage of appeals. In this case, however, the Board agreed that the persecution our client suffered was a result of his actual or imputed political opinion. The Board reversed the Immigration Judge and ordered that our client be granted asylum. As a result of the decision, our client will be able to remain in the United States, eligible for certain government benefits, able to get a green card, and, after a number of years, able to become a citizen. Michael Lieberman and John Stapleton handled the matter.
Michael Lieberman and firm attorneys successfully preserved the ability of an abused 17-year-old girl from Guatemala to apply for permanent residency in the United States. The girl had been physically and emotionally abused by her father (and abandoned by her mother) and then fled through Mexico to the United States, where she was apprehended by Immigration officials, and ended up in federal custody. If our client had not been apprehended at the border, she would have been able to apply for a special immigration status that would allow her to remain in the country based on her being a juvenile victim of abuse. However, because she was in federal custody, she needed to get permission from certain immigration officials in order to apply. That permission was denied in the first instance. When she filed a Motion for Reconsideration, the government refused to decide it despite the rapid approach of the client’s 18th birthday, after which she would no longer be eligible for the special status. Immediately after undertaking this representation, Hangley Aronchick filed a complaint and motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction essentially asking for a mandatory injunction on an emergency basis. Soon after the filing and the presentation of the case to the judge, the government decided to grant the motion for reconsideration, giving its consent for the client to proceed to apply for special immigration status. Six months after her 18th birthday, our client became a lawful permanent resident of the United States.
Juvenile Cases
In the spring of 2008, Alan Promer obtained habeas corpus for a juvenile who had been detained in a residential facility for nine months. The juvenile had gone through an adjudicatory hearing without counsel, despite having never received the required colloquy concerning waiver of counsel. Shortly after entering their appearances, our attorneys moved for habeas corpus and permission to file a Notice of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc from the original adjudication. The Petition to File Notice of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc was quickly granted, and before it became necessary for to file an appeal, the government stipulated to the Court awarding the juvenile habeas corpus. We received the Juvenile Law Center’s Pro Bono Award in recognition of our work on this case.
In the spring of 2007, the Juvenile Law Center asked Hangley Aronchick to assist it in representing three children from Lancaster County who believed that their schools’ mandatory drug testing policy for students seeking to participate in extracurricular activities violated their constitutional rights. The children refused to submit to drug testing because they felt that it fundamentally conflicted with their Quaker faith. Matt Hamermesh and Leslie Kramer agreed to help out and drafted a complaint and motion for preliminary injunction. Shortly thereafter, the school district and the children reached an amicable resolution of their dispute, pursuant to which the children were deemed eligible to participate in extracurricular activities. Matt and Leslie received the Juvenile Law Center’s Pro Bono Award in recognition of their work.
In 2004, Ashely Chan represented a homeless mother who could not afford a private educational facility for her 17-year-old mentally retarded daughter. Since most private institutions will keep children until they are 21 but will not admit children after they turn 18, Ashely had three months to find a suitable private facility and obtain funding for the mother. Ashely quickly contacted several public agencies within Philadelphia and helped the mother find a suitable facility. Within three months, Ashely helped place the daughter in an excellent private, residential facility. Ashely received a Special Recognition Award from the Homeless Advocacy Project for her work on this case.
Litigation
In 2006, a small, nonprofit nursing facility in Newark, Delaware, Exceptional Care for Children, opened to care for chronically and terminally ill children. Within weeks, a large, for-profit pediatric facility in another state sued Exceptional Care, alleging that the tiny newcomer had commercially disparaged it and tortiously interfered with its business. Although Exceptional Care believed that the charges were groundless, it rightly feared that the lawsuit could threaten its ability to remain open. The firm took on the case pro bono, and Michele Hangley demonstrated to the plaintiff that not only would it lose its case, it could itself be liable for substantial damages for defamation and violation of Delaware’s “Anti-SLAPP” statute. Shortly afterward, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss the case, leaving Exceptional Care in a position to continue its good work.
Karl Stephenson Chambers’ life was spared thanks to the legal representation provided by Bill Hangley and Matt Hamermesh. The firm began representing Chambers in 2003, when his capital case was remanded to the Court of Common Pleas for York County for resentencing after Chambers’ death penalty sentence was reversed on a Post Conviction Relief Act petition. Bill and Matt sought to have Chambers sentenced to life in prison (which in Pennsylvania means life without parole) on the grounds that he is mentally retarded and therefore, under the U.S. Supreme Court standard established in Atkins v. Virginia, ineligible to receive the death penalty. At the June 2005 Atkins hearing, Bill served as lead counsel and Matt made the closing argument. At the close of testimony, the Honorable John S. Kennedy of the York County Court of Common Pleas ruled from the bench, finding that—notwithstanding his personal opposition to the Atkins decision—the Hangley Aronchick team had successfully impeached and discredited the Commonwealth’s witnesses and that pursuant to Atkins, Chambers was mentally retarded and could not be put to death. The case was referred to us by the American Bar Association.
Dan Segal successfully represented a candidate for Pennsylvania public office in his fight to uphold the validity of the 300 signatures he received in order to be put on the ballot.
