CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Tucked in President Obama's budget is a proposal to repeal several rules from the 1990s that make it more difficult to provide legal help to poor people.

The rules were part of Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America," which overhauled and cut a number of services for the poorest Americans. At the time, Congress cut legal service corporation budgets by a third and prohibited these non-profit law firms from practicing certain aspects of law, such as filing class-action suits.

The change has been inefficient and unfair, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law.

Congress did not stop at dictating how these organizations could spend federal funding. Congress also prohibited these firms, often known as Legal Aid societies, from spending state and local funding and private donations on civil disputes on behalf of poor Americans.

To get around the restrictions, some communities set up separate non-profit groups, funded by grants and donations, to help people who are in danger of losing their homes to foreclosure, for example.

The federal rules force communities into an inefficient use of time and resources, according to an analysis from Rebekah Diller, deputy director of the Brennan Center's Justice Program.

Much Legal Aid work concerns circumstances unique to each family involved, such as domestic violence, divorce or child custody. But there are times when a number of people may find themselves in similar circumstances, as when benefits or programs are incorrectly administered or when predatory lenders target certain populations. The federal rules prevent Legal Aid lawyers from making the best use of court time and money by pursuing such cases together. They could, in theory, pursue each case individually. In fact, some people are helped by the newer groups that receive no federal funding, and some people get no help.

The president's proposed rule changes would not cost any more federal funds, but it could free local resources to be spent as local people see fit, to help their residents.

"The president's cost-free measure would substantially expand equal access to legal assistance in civil cases," the Brennan Center said.

Fortunately, Rep. Alan B. Mollohan of West Virginia's first Congressional District is in a good position to help this change along. As chairman of the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Subcommittee, Mollohan will have first crack at preparing the draft of the bill that other members of Congress will work from. He will have the opportunity to include the president's recommended rule changes from the start.

Under the current rules, low-income people who rely on federally funded legal services corporations cannot use the same legal tools available to other Americans. That concept is unworthy of this country. President Obama is right to ask Congress to change it.

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Tucked in President Obama's budget is a proposal to repeal several rules from the 1990s that make it more difficult to provide legal help to poor people.

The rules were part of Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America," which overhauled and cut a number of services for the poorest Americans. At the time, Congress cut legal service corporation budgets by a third and prohibited these non-profit law firms from practicing certain aspects of law, such as filing class-action suits.

The change has been inefficient and unfair, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law.

Congress did not stop at dictating how these organizations could spend federal funding. Congress also prohibited these firms, often known as Legal Aid societies, from spending state and local funding and private donations on civil disputes on behalf of poor Americans.

To get around the restrictions, some communities set up separate non-profit groups, funded by grants and donations, to help people who are in danger of losing their homes to foreclosure, for example.

The federal rules force communities into an inefficient use of time and resources, according to an analysis from Rebekah Diller, deputy director of the Brennan Center's Justice Program.

Much Legal Aid work concerns circumstances unique to each family involved, such as domestic violence, divorce or child custody. But there are times when a number of people may find themselves in similar circumstances, as when benefits or programs are incorrectly administered or when predatory lenders target certain populations. The federal rules prevent Legal Aid lawyers from making the best use of court time and money by pursuing such cases together. They could, in theory, pursue each case individually. In fact, some people are helped by the newer groups that receive no federal funding, and some people get no help.

The president's proposed rule changes would not cost any more federal funds, but it could free local resources to be spent as local people see fit, to help their residents.

"The president's cost-free measure would substantially expand equal access to legal assistance in civil cases," the Brennan Center said.

Fortunately, Rep. Alan B. Mollohan of West Virginia's first Congressional District is in a good position to help this change along. As chairman of the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Subcommittee, Mollohan will have first crack at preparing the draft of the bill that other members of Congress will work from. He will have the opportunity to include the president's recommended rule changes from the start.

Under the current rules, low-income people who rely on federally funded legal services corporations cannot use the same legal tools available to other Americans. That concept is unworthy of this country. President Obama is right to ask Congress to change it.