Client Grievance Procedures, 3946-3955 [E7-1290]

Agencies

• LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 18 (Monday, January 29, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3946-3955]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-1290]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION

45 CFR Part 1621


Client Grievance Procedures

AGENCY: Legal Services Corporation.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the Legal Services Corporation's 
regulation on client grievance procedures. These changes are intended 
to improve the utility of the regulation for grantees and their clients 
and applicants for service in the current operating environment. In 
particular, the changes clarify what procedures are available to 
clients and applicants, emphasize the importance of the grievance 
procedure for clients and applicants and add clarity and flexibility in 
the application of the requirements for hotline and other programs 
serving large and widely dispersed geographic areas.

DATES: This final rule becomes effective on February 28, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mattie Cohan, Senior Assistant General 
Counsel, Office of Legal Affairs, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K 
Street, NW., Washington DC 20007; 202-295-1624 (ph); 202-337-6519 
(fax); mcohan@lsc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Legal Services Corporation's (LSC) regulation on client 
grievance procedures, 45 CFR Part 1621, adopted in 1977 and not amended 
since that time, requires that LSC grant recipients establish grievance 
procedures pursuant to which clients and applicants for service can 
pursue complaints with recipients related to the denial of legal 
assistance or dissatisfaction with the legal assistance provided. The 
regulation is intended to help ``insure that legal services programs 
are accountable to those whom they are expected to serve.'' 42 FR 37551 
(July 22, 1977).
    As noted above, Part 1621 has not been amended since its original 
adoption nearly 30 years ago. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 
was published in 1994 which would have instituted some more specific 
requirements for the grievance process and clarified the situations in 
which access to the grievance process is appropriate. However, due to 
significant legislative activity in 1995 and 1996, no final action was 
ever taken on the 1994 NPRM and the original regulation has remained in 
effect.
    As part of a staff effort in 2001 and 2002 to conduct a general 
review of LSC's regulations, the Regulations Review Task Force found 
that a number of the issues identified in the 1994 NPRM remained 
extant. The Task Force recommended in its Final Report (January 2002) 
that Part 1621 be considered a higher priority item for rulemaking. 
Representatives of the grantee community agreed at that time that 
rulemaking to revise and update Part 1621 was appropriate. The Board of 
Directors accepted the report and placed Part 1621 on its priority 
rulemaking list. No action was taken on this item prior to the 
appointment of the current Board of Directors.
    After the appointment of the current Board of Directors, LSC 
Management recommended to the Board that a rulemaking to consider 
revision of Part 1621 was still appropriate. The Board of Directors 
agreed and on October 29, 2005, the Board of Directors directed that 
LSC initiate a rulemaking to consider revisions to LSC's regulation on 
client grievance procedures, 45 CFR Part 1621. The Board further 
directed that LSC convene a Rulemaking Workshop and report back to the 
Operations & Regulations Committee prior to the development of any 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). LSC convened a Rulemaking 
Workshop on January 18, 2006, and provided a report to the Committee at 
its meeting on January 27, 2006. As a result of that Workshop and 
report, the Board directed that LSC convene a second Rulemaking 
Workshop and report back to the Operations & Regulations Committee 
prior to the development of any NPRM. LSC convened a second Rulemaking 
Workshop on March 23, 2006 and provided a report to the Committee at 
its meeting on April 28, 2006. As a result of the second Workshop and 
report, the Board directed that a Draft NPRM be prepared. The Committee 
considered the Draft NPRM at its meeting of July 28, 2006 and the Board 
approved this NPRM for publication and comment at its meeting of July 
29, 2006. LSC published the NPRM on August 21, 2006 (71 FR 48501). LSC 
received five timely comments on the NPRM.
    A draft final rule was prepared by Management for presentation to 
the Committee at its October 27, 2006, meeting. Prior to that meeting, 
however, LSC received a request from the National Legal Aid and 
Defender Association (NLADA) that LSC postpone consideration of the 
draft final rule and reopen the comment period to allow the client 
community additional time to respond to the proposed changes in the 
rule. In response to that request, action on the draft final rule was 
deferred and the NPRM was republished for comment on November 7, 2006 
(71 FR 65064). LSC received three timely additional comments, one from 
the client caucus of an LSC grantee, one from the client committee of a 
non-LSC grantee legal services provider, and one from the Center for 
Law and Social Policy on behalf of NLADA, replacing CLASP/NLADA's 
previously submitted comments. LSC also received two late filed 
comments, one from an individual past client of a recipient and one 
from the Chairperson of the NLADA Client Policy Group.\1\ After 
consideration of

[[Page 3947]]

the additional comments, Management presented a revised draft final 
rule to the Committee at its meeting of January 19, 2007. The Committee 
recommended adoption of the draft final rule to the Board of Directors 
and the Board adopted the changes to Part 1621, as set forth herein, at 
its meeting of January 20, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The comments from the Chairperson of the NLADA Client Policy 
Group although dated December 21, 2006 (prior to the close of the 
comment period) were not submitted properly in accordance with the 
directions set forth in the NPRM and were, consequently, received 
late. The late filed comments were nonetheless considered in the 
development of this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Summary of the Rulemaking Workshops

    LSC convened the first Part 1621 Rulemaking Workshop on January 18, 
2006. The following persons participated in the Workshop: Gloria 
Beaver, South Carolina Centers for Equal Justice (now known as South 
Carolina Legal Services) Board of Directors (client representative); 
Steve Bernstein, Project Director, Legal Services of New York--
Brooklyn; Colleen Cotter, Executive Director, The Legal Aid Society of 
Cleveland; Irene Morales, Executive Director, Inland Counties Legal 
Services; Linda Perle, Senior Counsel, Center for Law and Social 
Policy; Melissa Pershing, Executive Director, Legal Services Alabama; 
Don Saunders, Director, Civil Legal Services, National Legal Aid and 
Defender Association; Rosita Stanley, Chairperson, National Legal Aid 
and Defenders Association Client Policy Group (client representative); 
Chuck Wynder, Acting Vice President, National Legal Aid and Defenders 
Association; Steven Xanthopoulous, Executive Director, West Tennessee 
Legal Services; Helaine Barnett, LSC President (welcoming remarks 
only); Karen Sarjeant, LSC Vice President for Programs and Compliance; 
Charles Jeffress, LSC Chief Administrative Officer; Mattie Condray, 
Senior Assistant General Counsel, LSC Office of Legal Affairs; Bert 
Thomas, Program Counsel, LSC Office of Compliance and Enforcement; 
Michael Genz, Director, LSC Office of Program Performance; Mark 
Freedman, Assistant General Counsel, LSC Office of Legal Affairs; and 
Karena Dees, Staff Attorney, LSC Office of Inspector General.
    The discussion was wide-ranging and open. The participants first 
discussed the importance of and reason for having a client grievance 
process. There was general agreement that the client grievance process 
is important to give a voice to people seeking assistance from legal 
services programs and to afford them dignity. The client grievance 
process also helps to keep programs accountable to their clients and 
community. It was generally agreed that the current regulation captures 
this purpose well. However, it was noted that the client grievance 
process also can be an important part of a positive client/applicant 
relations program and serve as a source of information for programs and 
boards in assessing service and setting priorities. This potential is 
not currently reflected in the regulation.
    The participants noted that the vast majority of complaints 
received involve complaints regarding the denial of service, rather 
than complaints over the manner or quality of service provided. The 
vast majority of complaints over the manner and quality of service 
provided are resolved at the staff level (including with the 
involvement of the Executive Director); complaints which need to come 
before the governing body's grievance committee(s) are few and far 
between. It was noted that many recipients have the experience of 
receiving multiple complaints over time from the same small number of 
individuals.
    In the course of the discussion, the group discussed a variety of 
other issues related to the client grievance process. The group also 
considered the fact that some of the issues raised, although important, 
may not be easily or most appropriately addressed in the text of the 
regulation. Some of these issues are summarized as follows:
     Whether programs can be more ``proactive'' in making 
clients and applicants aware of their rights under the client grievance 
procedure, but do so in a positive manner that does not create a 
negative atmosphere at the formation of the attorney-client 
relationship. It was noted that while informing clients of their rights 
can be empowering, suggesting at the outset that they may not like the 
service they receive is not conducive to a positive experience.
     The appropriate role of the governing body in the client 
grievance/client relations process;
     Challenges presented in providing proper notice of the 
client grievance procedure to applicants and clients who are served 
only over the telephone and/or email/internet interface;
     Application of the process to Limited English Proficiency 
clients and applicants;
     Whether and to what extent it is appropriate for the 
composition of a grievance committee to deviate from the approximate 
proportions of lawyers and clients on the governing body, e.g., by a 
higher proportion of clients than the governing body has generally;
     Challenges presented by a requirement for an in-person 
hearing and what other options may be appropriate;
     Whether the limitation of the grievance process related to 
denials of service to the three enumerated reasons for denial in the 
current rule is too limited given the wide range of reasons a program 
may deny someone service;
     Whether the grievance process should include cases handled 
by non-staff such as PAI attorneys, volunteers, attorneys on assignment 
to the grantee (often as part of a law firm pro bono program);
    Finally, the group was in general agreement that additional 
opportunity for comment and fact finding would prove useful to both LSC 
and the legal services community before LSC committed to moving ahead 
with the development of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
    LSC convened its second Part 1621 Rulemaking Workshop March 23, 
2006. The following persons participated in the second Workshop: 
Claudia Colindres Johnson, Hotline Director, Bay Area Legal Aid (CA); 
Terrence Dicks, Client Representative, Georgia Legal Services; Breckie 
Hayes-Snow, Supervising Attorney, Legal Advice and Referral Center 
(NH); Norman Janes, Executive Director, Statewide Legal Services of 
Connecticut; Harry Johnson, Client Representative, NLADA Client Policy 
Group; Joan Kleinberg, Managing Attorney, CLEAR, Northwest Justice 
Project (WA); George Lee, Client Representative, Kentucky Clients 
Council; Richard McMahon, Executive Director, New Center for Legal 
Advocacy (MA); Linda Perle, Senior Counsel, Center for Law and Social 
Policy; Peggy Santos, Client Representative, Massachusetts Legal 
Assistance Corporation; Don Saunders, Director, Civil Legal Services, 
National Legal Aid and Defender Association; Rosita Stanley, 
Chairperson, NLADA Client Policy Group; Helaine Barnett, LSC President 
(welcoming remarks only); Karen Sarjeant, LSC Vice President for 
Programs and Compliance; Charles Jeffress, LSC Chief Administrative 
Officer; Mattie Condray, Senior Assistant General Counsel, LSC Office 
of Legal Affairs; Bertrand Thomas, Program Counsel, LSC Office of 
Compliance and Enforcement; Cheryl Nolan, Program Counsel, LSC Office 
of Program Performance; and Mark Freedman, Assistant General Counsel, 
LSC Office of Legal Affairs.
    The motivation for convening a second Workshop was to elicit 
further information about how hotlines approach the issue of providing 
notice

[[Page 3948]]

to clients and applicants and how they process grievances given that 
in-person contact with such programs is extremely rare, and how clients 
and applicants experience the grievance process and what the process 
means for them. This, accordingly, was the primary focus of the 
discussion at the second Workshop, although there was also some 
discussion of additional issues, such as client confidentiality and 
potential application of the grievance process to private attorneys 
providing services pursuant to a grantee's PAI program. The following 
issues and themes emerged from the discussion:
     The programs felt that a strength of the regulation is its 
flexibility. Programs have different delivery systems, even among 
hotlines, and different approaches. They cautioned against adopting 
specific practices in the regulation itself. Rather, they felt that 
programs should be free to adopt practices that best meet their 
delivery model and communities.
     Hotlines have different approaches to providing notice to 
callers. Some programs include it in their automated script while 
others do not mention the grievance process. There is some concern 
about making the initial contact seem negative by bringing up the 
grievance process. There is also a concern about callers being denied 
service without knowing about their grievance rights. Many participants 
felt that the regulation should not require notice in the automated 
hotline script.
     The regulation could emphasize the importance of the 
notice but leave it to the programs to figure out the best way to 
provide it in different situations.
     Client and applicant dignity is very important. Most 
concerns are addressed when the applicant feels that they were heard 
and taken seriously, even if they are denied service.
     All of the programs reported that intake staff will deal 
with dissatisfied callers by offering to let them talk to a supervisor, 
sometimes the executive director. They are given the choice of talking 
to someone or filing a written complaint. They almost always want to 
talk to someone. Talking with someone higher up almost always resolves 
the issue and usually entails an explanation of the decision not to 
provide service.
     Decisions to deny service sometimes involve consideration 
of the priorities of other entities such as pro bono programs that take 
referrals. Some programs handle intake for themselves and for other 
organizations. The criteria for intake for different entities are not 
always the same. A program may have to handle complaints about denials 
of service that involve a different program's priorities.
     In many situations there is nothing more that the program 
can do, especially when a denial of service decision was correct. There 
was a concern about creating lots of procedures that would give a 
grievant false hope. It is important that the applicant get an ``honest 
no'' in a timely fashion.
     The oral and written statements to a grievance committee 
do not require an in person hearing. These can be conveyed by 
conference call, which may be better in some circumstances. In some 
cases though, clients or applicants have neither transportation nor 
access to a phone. Programs may have difficulty providing grievance 
procedures in those situations.
     Hotlines have a number of callers who never speak to a 
member of the hotline staff. They include hang ups, disconnected calls, 
people who got information through the automated system, and people who 
could not wait long enough. These calls may include frustrated 
applicants who never got to the denial of service stage.
     Websites could provide client grievance information, but 
that also raises questions about how to make grievance information 
available only to people with complaints about that program. There is a 
danger of a generally available form becoming a conduit for a flood of 
complaints unrelated to a program and its services.
     The grievance process itself should not be intimidating. 
Often the applicants and clients are already very frustrated and upset 
before contacting the program.
     There was discussion of what process, if any, a client had 
for addressing quality concerns with a PAI attorney or a pro bono 
referral. One program reported informally mediating these disputes. 
Another program reported surveying clients at the end of PAI cases and 
following up on any negative comments. One program reported that its 
separate pro bono program has its own grievance procedures. There was a 
concern that private attorneys would not volunteer if they felt that 
they would be subject to a program's grievance process and grievance 
committee. There was some discussion acknowledging a distinction 
between paid and unpaid PAI attorneys, but noting that clients do not 
see a difference.

Section-by-Section Analysis

    After considering the discussions from the Workshops and all of the 
comments received in response to the NPRM, LSC has determined that the 
regulation is generally working as intended and that some of the issues 
raised in the course of the Workshops, while of significant importance, 
are not issues which can easily be addressed by changes in the 
regulation itself. Accordingly, LSC is adopting only modest changes to 
the text of the regulation. LSC believes, however, that these changes 
will improve the regulation and benefit grantees, clients and 
applicants for legal assistance. These changes are discussed in greater 
detail below.
    At the outset, we note one comment in which the commenter requested 
that LSC confirm its understanding of the terms ``applicant'' and 
``deny'' (or ``denial'') as those terms are used throughout this 
regulation. LSC intends no change to the meaning of the terms 
``denial'' and ``deny'' as they are used in the current client 
grievance procedures rule. LSC intends that ``applicant'' has the same 
meaning as it does in Part 1611, Financial Eligibility, except that for 
the purposes of this Part, ``applicant'' shall also include groups 
which apply for legal assistance.

Section 1621.1--Purpose

    LSC proposed to amend this section to clarify that the grievance 
procedures required by this section are intended for the use and 
benefit of applicants for legal assistance and for clients of 
recipients and not for the use or benefit of third parties. LSC 
received one comment specifically supporting and no comments 
specifically opposing this amendment. Accordingly, LSC adopts this 
change as proposed.
    In addition, LSC proposed to delete the reference to ``an effective 
remedy'' because the grievance process is just that, a process and not 
a guarantee of any specific outcome or ``remedy'' for the complainant. 
LSC received three comments specifically supporting and three comments 
specifically opposing this change.\2\ The comments opposing the 
proposed change (all of which are from client representative groups) 
stated

[[Page 3949]]

that removal of the reference to an effective remedy undermines the 
purpose of the rule and suggests that so long as the recipient provides 
a grievance process, the outcome to the client in cases in which the 
client has a meritorious complaint is immaterial. Each of these 
comments suggested that LSC retain the current language of the rule. 
LSC is sensitive to the concerns of the client community that the rule 
not imply that the complainant's satisfaction with the ultimate outcome 
of the process is entirely immaterial. LSC agrees that a goal of an 
effective grievance procedure should be to foster a mutually 
satisfactory outcome in as many cases as possible. Indeed, this concern 
underlies LSC's decision to add language to the rule (in sections 
1621.3 and 1621.4) that a recipient's grievance procedures must be 
designed to foster effective communication between the complainant and 
the recipient. However, LSC disagrees that deletion of the reference to 
a ``remedy'' either undermines the purpose of the rule or implies that 
the applicant's/client's satisfaction as to the outcome of the 
grievance is immaterial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ One of the comments opposing this change was from the 
Chairperson of the NLADA Client Policy Group which included as 
attachments a petition signed by various client representatives 
opposing the proposed changes to the purpose section of the 
regualtion and 14 individual comments similarly opposing the changes 
to the purpose section. Although it is not entirely clear from the 
Chairperson's comments, it appears that these individual comments 
formed the basis for the Chairperson's comments. As such, they have 
been considered as part of the Chairperson's comments. It should 
also be noted that one of the 14 individual comments addressed 
proposed changes to sections 1621.3 and 1621.4. These remarks are 
addressed separately in the respective discussions of those 
sections, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As one commenter notes, the current rule is not understood to 
require applicants or clients with non-meritorious complaints to be 
awarded the remedy they seek. To the extent that the current language 
of the regulation is understood not to mean what it says, it is 
appropriate to amend it to more clearly reflect what the language is, 
in fact, intended to mean. Moreover, on the basis of the comments made 
during the Rulemaking Workshops and other comments, although it appears 
that nearly all grievances are resolved to at least some level of 
satisfaction on the part of the applicant/client, the rule is not 
intended to and cannot guarantee that the grievance process provide a 
particular resolution to the applicant's/client's satisfaction in all 
cases. There are and will continue to be instances in which, even after 
the grievance process, an applicant or client does not receive the 
specific ``remedy'' he or she wants. For example, an applicant may not 
be accepted as a client or a client may not get the recipient to agree 
to appeal his/her unsuccessful case, notwithstanding that this is the 
``remedy'' the applicant/client wants. In such cases, the best the 
regulation can do is ensure that complainants have access to a fair and 
reasonable complaint process.
    In light of the above, LSC is adopting a revised statement of 
purpose which LSC believes addresses both LSC's and the client 
community's concerns. Specifically, LSC is adding an additional 
sentence to this section providing:

    This part is further intended to help ensure that the grievance 
procedures adopted by recipients will result, to the extent 
possible, in the provision of an effective remedy in the resolution 
of complaints.

LSC believes that the addition of this language meets the commenters' 
concerns that grievance procedures should be designed and implemented 
with the intention of resolving complaints to at least some level of 
satisfaction of the complainant in as many cases as possible. Indeed, 
LSC believes that this is already the intention and practice of 
recipients. As such, adding this clarifying language to the regulation 
bolsters the notion of accountability to applicants and clients which 
animates Part 1621, while acknowledging that no specific outcome can be 
guaranteed in any particular instance.

    LSC considered including a statement in this section clarifying 
that the client grievance procedure is not intended to and does not 
create any entitlement on the part of applicants to legal assistance. 
LSC specifically invited comment on this issue in the NPRM. One 
commenter agreed with LSC's determination that the addition of such a 
statement would not ultimately be a useful addition to the regulation 
because it seems unlikely that many applicants for legal assistance 
will have read the regulation prior to applying for legal assistance. 
Another commenter expressed some concern that an express statement that 
there is no entitlement to service could be used by a recipient as a 
basis to deny grievances in instances in which the recipient failed to 
follow its own case acceptance or other policies. Another commenter 
suggested that including such a statement would undermine the purpose 
of the rule and would be dispiriting to disappointed clients. However, 
LSC also received two comments suggesting that LSC should include 
language in this section making it clear that the existence of a 
grievance procedure does not mean that an applicant is entitled to 
service. These commenters argue that such a statement would be helpful 
in that, even if applicants do not read the grievance procedures rule, 
recipients would have something concrete to refer to in talking with 
applicants unhappy with being denied legal assistance.
    LSC acknowledges that there are good arguments to be made in favor 
of both positions (inclusion of a non-entitlement statement and non-
inclusion of such a statement). On balance, LSC continues to believe 
that adding such a statement to the regulation is unnecessary. To the 
extent that it may be helpful to have something to cite to when talking 
to a complaining applicant as a way of explaining why he or she is 
being denied service, reference can be made to this discussion in the 
preamble of the regulation and to LSC's financial eligibility 
regulation at 45 CFR Part 1611 (which does explicitly state that a 
determination of financial eligibility does not create any entitlement 
to legal assistance).
    Another issue which came up during the Workshops was the ancillary 
use by recipients of the client grievance procedures as a feedback 
mechanism to help recipients identify issues such as the need for 
priorities changes (i.e., because there are increasing numbers of 
applicants seeking legal assistance for problems not otherwise part of 
the recipient's priorities), foreign language assistance, staff 
training, etc. Although LSC believes that information collected through 
the client grievance procedures can and should, as a best practice, be 
used in this manner, such ancillary use is incidental and not the 
purpose of the client grievance procedures per se. LSC believes that 
adding a reference to such ancillary use to the purpose statement of 
the regulation would be inappropriate and would dilute the focus of the 
regulation from its purpose of providing applicants and clients with an 
effective avenue for pursuing complaints. LSC invited comment on this 
issue and received one comment agreeing with LSC's position. 
Accordingly, LSC is not adding any language to the regulation on this 
issue.
    LSC received one additional comment on this section. This commenter 
suggested that LSC add a statement to the regulation that the client 
grievance procedure process does not take the place of a complaint 
filed with the appropriate state or local bar association and that the 
bar association ``expects the client to make a good faith effort to 
resolve the matter * * * [by] going through the client grievance 
process.'' As an initial matter, LSC is not in a position to speak for 
any bar association about what its complaint process requirements are 
or should be. As such, adding language to Part 1621 about what bar 
associations may or may not expect of clients filing complaints is 
beyond LSC's authority.
    The commenter's first point, regarding the fact that grievance 
procedures are not a substitute for whatever complaint procedure may be 
available under state or local rules of professional responsibility, is 
well taken. LSC agrees with the commenter about this basic fact. LSC 
believes, however, that this

[[Page 3950]]

discussion in the preamble is sufficient to make this point and that 
addition to the regulation of a statement to this effect is not 
necessary.

Section 1621.2--Grievance Committee

    LSC did not propose any changes to this section. There was 
discussion in one of the Workshops about whether and to what extent it 
is appropriate for the composition of a grievance committee to deviate 
from the approximate proportions of lawyers and clients on the 
governing body, e.g. by a higher proportion of clients than the 
governing body has generally. It was not clear from the discussion, 
however, what such a change would accomplish and there was no clear 
feeling that the current requirement was resulting in ineffective or 
inappropriate grievance committees. Accordingly, LSC considers the 
current wording of the regulation, which requires the proportion of 
clients and lawyer members of the grievance committee to approximate 
that of the governing body, to be sufficiently flexible for recipients 
to respond to local conditions. LSC received one comment opposing and 
two comments expressly supporting LSC's approach to this issue. LSC 
continues to believe any change to this section to be unwarranted.
    The comments supporting LSC's position on this issue did, however, 
suggest that LSC add a discussion to the preamble to note that although 
there is a role for each recipient's governing body in the grievance 
process, it is also important to recognize the limited role of the 
governing body in the day-to-day operations of the recipient. Further, 
it is incumbent on all parties to recognize that governing body members 
have fiduciary duties to their organization and must be careful, when 
engaging in any grievance committee activities, to safeguard these 
duties and avoid any potential conflicts of interest. LSC agrees that 
these are important considerations, and, accordingly, sets them forth 
herein. LSC is confident that governing body members currently serving 
on grievance committees are generally balancing their various duties 
and responsibilities appropriately. Inclusion of this discussion in the 
preamble should not be taken as an indication that either LSC or the 
commenters are concerned that current grantee/governing body practices 
are raising problems involving micromanagement of recipients' day-to-
day operations.
    The matter of potential conflicts of interest between a Board 
member's duty to the grievance process and his/her duty to the 
organization was the subject of the one comment LSC received opposing 
the proposed retention without amendment of this section. That 
commenter suggested that LSC create a Grievance Committee within LSC to 
process all client complaints. This, the commenter argues, would 
alleviate any potential conflicts because it would remove recipient 
Board members from the complaint resolution process. This commenter 
further argues that such a change would be appropriate because client 
members of governing bodies who are not attorneys do not have the 
proper ``legal training to sit in judgment of legal procedures.''
    Eliminating recipient grievance committees would eliminate any 
potential conflict of interest issues. However, as noted above, LSC is 
confident that governing body members currently serving on grievance 
committees are generally balancing their various duties and 
responsibilities appropriately. Thus, LSC does not see this issue as 
significant enough to justify the solution proposed.
    More importantly, LSC believes that even with the inherent 
balancing of interests of which recipients and their Board members must 
be mindful, this is a matter appropriately committed to the separate 
and local control of each recipient. Having LSC perform the functions 
of the respective governing body grievance committees would be an undue 
encroachment by LSC on the independence of recipients. Moreover, for 
LSC to exercise such authority would require an unjustified 
reallocation of LSC's resources so that LSC staff could become well 
versed in each recipients' particular grievance procedures and local 
situation.

Section 1621.3--Complaints by Applicants About Denial of Legal 
Assistance

    LSC proposed to reorganize the regulation to move the current 
section dealing with complaints about denial of service to applicants 
before the section on complaints by clients about the manner or quality 
of legal assistance provided. This change was proposed for two reasons. 
First, the vast majority of complaints that recipients receive are from 
applicants who have been denied legal assistance for one reason or 
another. As such, it seems appropriate for this section to appear first 
in the regulation. Second, and more importantly, the current regulation 
(and the regulation as being proposed herein) requires recipients to 
adopt a simpler procedure for the handling of these complaints. There 
was some concern that some level of confusion is created by having the 
more detailed procedures required by the section on complaints about 
the manner or quality of legal assistance appear first in the 
regulation. Put another way, there was concern that the current 
organization of the regulation obscures the fact that recipients are 
permitted to adopt a different procedure for processing the denial of 
complaints of legal assistance by applicants.
    LSC received two comments specifically supporting the proposed 
reorganization. LSC continues to believe the proposed reorganization 
will clarify this matter and make the regulation easier for recipients 
and LSC to use. Accordingly, LSC adopts the change in organization as 
proposed.
    In addition to the proposed reorganization discussed above, LSC 
proposed modest substantive changes to the regulation. First, LSC 
proposed to add language to the title of this section and the text of 
the regulation to clarify that this section refers to complaints by 
applicants about the denial of legal assistance. Consistent with the 
proposed changes in the purpose section, LSC believes these changes 
will help clarify that the grievance procedure is available to 
applicants and not to third parties wishing to complain about denial of 
service to applicants who are not themselves complaining. LSC notes 
that for applicants who are underage or mentally incompetent, the 
applicant him or herself is not likely to be directly applying for 
legal assistance and LSC does not intend this change to impede the 
ability of any person (parent, guardian or other representative) to act 
on that applicant's behalf. Rather, LSC intends the proposed 
clarification to apply to situations in which a neighbor, friend, 
relative or other third party would seek to complain in a situation in 
which the applicant is otherwise capable of complaining personally. LSC 
received two comments expressly supporting these changes and no 
comments opposing them. Accordingly, LSC adopts these changes as 
proposed.
    Second, LSC proposed to delete the language which limits complaints 
about the denial of legal assistance to situations in which the denial 
was related to the financial ineligibility of the applicant, the fact 
that legal assistance sought is prohibited by the LSC Act or 
regulations or lies outside the recipient's priorities. Applicants are 
denied for these and other reasons, such as lack of resources, 
application of the recipient's case acceptance guidelines, the merit of 
the applicant's legal claim, etc. By removing these limitations, the 
regulation will apply in all situations of a denial of legal 
assistance. From the applicant's point of view it is immaterial why the 
denial has occurred

[[Page 3951]]

and LSC can discern no good reason to afford some applicants, but not 
others, an avenue for review of decisions to deny legal assistance. 
Moreover, the recipients participating in the workshops noted that they 
do not make any distinction between applicants on this basis and make 
their grievance procedure available to any applicant denied service, 
regardless of the reason. LSC received two comments expressly 
supporting this change and no comments opposing it. LSC continues to 
believe that the proposed change will, therefore, not create any new 
burdens on recipients, yet will implement the policy in a more 
appropriate manner. Accordingly, LSC adopts this change as proposed.
    Third, LSC proposed to clarify that the phrase ``adequate notice'' 
as it is used in this section is adequate notice of the complaint 
procedures. The current regulation is vague on this point, although in 
context the logical inference is that it must refer to notice of the 
content of the complaint procedures. LSC continues to believe 
clarifying the language on this point would be useful. LSC further 
proposed to add the words ``as practicable'' after ``adequate notice.'' 
This change was intended to help recipients who do not have in-person 
contact with many applicants and who, therefore, cannot rely on posted 
notice of the complaint procedures in the office. Such recipients use a 
variety of methods of providing notice, from posting on Web sites, to 
inclusion of notice in phone menus, to having intake workers and 
attorneys speaking with applicants provide the information orally. All 
of these methods can be sufficient and appropriate to local 
circumstances. The proposed phrasing was intended to ensure that 
recipients have sufficient flexibility to determine exactly how and 
when notice of the complaint procedures are provided to applicants, 
while retaining the requirement that the notice be ``adequate'' to 
achieve the purpose that applicants know their rights in a timely and 
substantively meaningful way so as to exercise them if desired.
    LSC received several comments addressing the proposed changes 
concerning ``adequate notice.'' Three commenters suggested that the 
clarification proposed by LSC was not adequate. One of these commenters 
suggested that the phrase ``as practicable'' should instead be ``to the 
extent practicable,'' while another commenter suggested that the 
language LSC proposed in section 1621.4 is clearer and that similar 
language could be used in section 1621.3. LSC does not agree that the 
phrase ``to the extent practicable'' is substantively preferable to 
``as practicable.'' LSC believes that ``to the extent practicable'' 
suggests that that if a recipient decides it is not practicable, the 
recipient is not required to provide notice at all, whereas LSC 
believes that that the phrase ``as practicable'' suggests that adequate 
notice will always be provided, but recognizes the significant leeway 
recipients need in determining the particular time and manner in which 
that notice is to be provided. However, LSC does agree that the 
language it proposed in section 1621.4 is clearer than the language in 
proposed 1621.3. Accordingly, LSC is adopting language that provides 
that the procedure must provide ``a practical method for the recipient 
to provide applicants with adequate notice of the complaint procedures 
and how to make a complaint. * * *'' LSC is also changing the word 
``practicable'' to ``practical'' in the following clause of that 
sentence to maintain consistency in language. Thus, the clause will 
read that the recipient's procedure for review of complaints by 
applicants about the denial of legal assistance ``shall provide for 
applicants to have an opportunity to confer with the Executive 
Director, or the Executive Director's designee, and, to the extent 
practical, with a representative of the governing body.''
    Finally, LSC proposed to add a statement that the required 
procedure must be designed to foster effective communications between 
recipients and complaining applicants. It was clear in the Workshops 
that this is very important to both applicants and recipients. Indeed, 
it is one of the main reasons for having a complaint procedure. 
Accordingly, LSC believes it is important for the regulation to reflect 
this. Because LSC is confident that the vast majority of recipient 
grievance procedures are already designed to foster effective 
communications, LSC continues to believe that the proposed addition to 
the regulation should not create any undue burden on recipients.
    LSC received two comments specifically addressing this change. One 
commenter suggested that this statement should not be mandatory because 
the requirement necessitates a subjective judgment as to what is 
effective. Although LSC agrees that regulations should generally set 
forth clear, objective standards, there are situations in which some 
level of discretion and judgment are appropriately incorporated into a 
rule. An example of this is the ``adequate'' notice requirement 
discussed above. One could argue that ``adequate'' is a subjective 
term, yet LSC believes that there is no appropriate ``one size fits 
all'' approach and that recipients may provide notice in a variety of 
ways, any of which is adequate to inform the applicant as to the 
existence of a complaint procedure and what they are such that the 
applicant can meaningfully exert his or her rights under that 
procedure. Similarly, LSC believes that requiring the procedures to be 
designed to foster effective communication signals the seriousness with 
which LSC takes this element of the complaint procedure process (based 
on the importance which both applicant and recipients place on it), yet 
provides for a necessary level of recipient discretion in achieving the 
desired results. Accordingly, LSC declines to substitute the word 
``should'' for ``must'' as suggested. LSC does believe a change in this 
paragraph, however, is warranted. Another commenter suggested the use 
of the word ``shall'' for ``must'' to be consistent with the use of the 
word ``shall'' throughout the remainder of the regulation. LSC agrees 
that ``shall'' is more appropriate in this context and adopts this 
suggestion.
    LSC considered proposing to add a statement that the required 
procedure must be designed to treat complaining applicants with 
dignity, as this was another recurring refrain LSC heard throughout the 
Workshops. Because treating applicants with dignity is such a basic 
duty, LSC preliminarily determined that it is neither necessary nor 
appropriate to make it a specific regulatory requirement in this 
context and invited comment on this issue. LSC received one comment 
specifically supporting LSC's determination in this respect and none in 
opposition. Accordingly, LSC is not adopting any specific regulatory 
requirement on this issue.
    LSC also received a comment suggesting that the proposed language 
of section 1621.3, ``inappropriately involves the governing body in 
day-to-day case acceptance decisions because of the proposed addition 
of the phrase ``at a minimum.' '' LSC disagrees that the inclusion of 
the phrase ``at a minimum'' either negates the language in the previous 
sentence of the provision that the procedure be ``simple'' or, of 
necessity, elevates the involvement of any governing body in a 
recipient's day-to-day case acceptance decisionmaking. Rather, as 
proposed, the regulation sets forth the minimum elements the procedure 
must have to be compliant with the regulation while inclusion of the 
phrase ``at a minimum'' provides recipients with discretion to have 
procedures which incorporate the required minimum elements, but also

[[Page 3952]]

provides for additional elements, if so desired. LSC does not intend 
and does not believe the language will require most recipients to make 
significant changes in how their governing bodies' grievance committees 
are incorporated into the grievance procedure. As LSC noted in the 
preamble to the NPRM: ``LSC intends that existing complaint procedures 
for applicants who are denied legal assistance which would meet the 
proposed revised requirements may continue to be used and would be 
considered to be sufficient to meet their obligations under this 
section.'' 71 FR at 48505 (August 21, 2006).
    This commenter also argues that, as proposed, section 1621.3 
requires each recipient to have a procedure in place to review all 
decisions to deny legal assistance to applicants and not just those 
decisions which become subject to a complaint and that this represents 
a substantive change to the regulation. There is nothing in the current 
regulation, however, which expressly limits the procedure to a review 
of a decision to deny legal assistance which has become the subject of 
a complaint. The current regulation provides only that each recipient 
``shall establish a simple procedure for review of a decision that a 
person is financially ineligible, or that assistance is prohibited by 
the Act or Corporation Regulations, or by priorities established by the 
recipient pursuant to section [sic] 1620.'' As such, LSC does not agree 
that the proposed revised language (that a recipient ``shall establish 
a simple procedure for review of decisions to deny legal assistance to 
applicants'') implies any more or less than the current language does 
about whether the review is applicable to all decisions or only those 
which become a subject of a complaint. Moreover, to the extent that any 
decision to deny an applicant legal assistance is potentially subject 
to a complaint, all decisions must be subject to review. Nonetheless, 
neither the current regulation nor the proposed revisions are intended 
to require recipients to create a procedure for internal review of 
decisions to deny legal assistance outside of and apart from the client 
grievance procedure. LSC believes that the language of section 1621.3 
can be clarified on this point. Accordingly, LSC is changing the 
language of proposed section 1621.3 to read ``[a] recipient shall 
establish a simple procedure for review of complaints by applicants 
about decisions to deny legal assistance to the applicant.'' This 
language is also more consistent with the similar language in section 
1621.4.
    Finally, LSC received one comment (in the attachments to the 
Chairperson of the NLADA's Client Policy Group comments) suggesting 
that the current language of the regulation is clear and that the 
changes proposed make the language legalistic. This commenter suggests 
retaining the original language. LSC disagrees that the proposed 
language is less clear that the existing language. Rather, LSC believes 
the language being adopted, as discussed above, is clearer than the 
language it is replacing (as well as clearer than the existing 
language). Moreover, the language being adopted includes some 
substantive changes which LSC believes improves the utility of the 
regulation for recipients, applicants and clients. Accordingly, LSC 
declines to adopt the commenter's suggestion.

Section 1621.4--Complaints by Clients About Manner or Quality of Legal 
Assistance

    As noted above, LSC proposed to reorganize the regulation to move 
the current section dealing with complaints about legal assistance 
provided to clients after the section on complaints by applicants about 
denial of legal assistance. For a discussion of the reasons for this 
proposed change, see the discussion at section 1621.3, above. LSC 
received two comments specifically supporting the proposed 
reorganization. LSC continues to believe the proposed reorganization 
will clarify this matter and make the regulation easier for recipients 
and LSC to use. Accordingly, LSC adopts the change in organization as 
proposed.
    LSC also proposed some minor substantive changes. First, LSC 
proposed to add language to the title of this section and the text of 
the regulation to clarify that this section refers to complaints by 
clients about the manner or quality of legal assistance provided. LSC 
received two comments expressly supporting these changes and no 
comments opposing them. Consistent with the proposed changes in the 
purpose section, LSC continues to believe these changes will help 
clarify that the grievance procedure is available to clients and not to 
third parties wishing to complain about the legal assistance provided 
to clients who are not themselves complaining. Accordingly, LSC adopts 
these changes as proposed. As with the similar proposed changes to the 
section on applicants, LSC notes that for clients who are underage or 
mentally incompetent, the client is not likely to be directly applying 
and LSC does not intend this change to impede the ability of the person 
(parent, guardian or other representative) to act on that client's 
behalf. Rather, LSC intends the proposed clarification to apply to 
situations in which a neighbor, friend, relative or other third party 
would seek to complain in a situation in which the client is otherwise 
capable of complaining personally.
    LSC also proposed some revision of the language setting forth the 
minimum requirements for the required grievance procedures. Except as 
noted below, these changes are not intended to create any substantive 
change to the regulation but, rather, to provide more structural 
clarity to the regulation. One such proposed change is the addition of 
a statement that the procedures be designed to foster effective 
communications between recipients and complaining clients. LSC received 
one comment suggesting that this statement should not be mandatory 
because the requirement necessitates a subjective judgment as to what 
is ``effective.'' The rationale for the proposed change and LSC's 
response to this comment are the same as for the parallel proposed 
change in proposed section 1621.3.
    As with proposed section 1621.3, LSC considered also proposing to 
add a statement that the required procedure must be designed to treat 
complaining clients with dignity, but chose not to for the same reasons 
articulated in that proposed section. As noted above, LSC received one 
comment expressly supporting LSC's position on this issue.
    LSC also proposed to amend the time specified in the rule regarding 
when the client must be informed of the complaint procedures available 
to clients. Currently, clients must be informed ``at the time of the 
initial visit.'' This is typically accomplished in one of several 
different ways, such as through the posting of the complaint procedures 
in the office, by providing an information sheet to clients or by 
including information about the grievance procedure in the retainer 
agreement. However, the phrase ``at the time of the initial visit'' 
tends to imply an in-person initial contact--a situation which in 
increasingly uncommon for many recipients and clients. Also, a client 
may not actually be accepted as a client at the time of the initial 
contact (whether in person or not). LSC believes that what is important 
is that the person being accepted as a client be informed of the 
available complaint procedure at that time because that is when the 
information appears to be most useful and meaningful for the client. 
Accordingly, LSC proposed that clients be informed of the grievance 
procedures available to them to complain about the manner or quality of 
the legal assistance

[[Page 3953]]

they receive ``at the time the person is accepted as a client or as 
soon thereafter as practicable.'' LSC did not propose to dictate how 
that notice must be provided. LSC continues to believe that this change 
will assist recipients and clients in situations in which the client 
does not have an in-person initial visit and will afford recipients the 
flexibility to provide notice in a manner and time appropriate to local 
circumstances.
    LSC received three comments addressing this proposed change. All of 
these comments generally supported the proposed change as helpful and 
appropriate, but one suggested substituting the word ``practical'' for 
``possible'' as it appears in proposed section 1621.4(b)(1). However, 
the word ``possible'' is not used in that subsection. Rather, LSC used 
the word ``practicable'' in that proposed subsection. LSC believes that 
the language as proposed already meets the intent of the comments, but 
LSC does not believe the use of the word ``practical'' instead of 
``practicable'' is likely to cause problems in understanding or 
applying the rule. This change would also be consistent with the use of 
the word ``practical'' in section 1621.3 (discussed above). 
Accordingly, LSC adopts the suggested change.
    LSC received two additional comments on this section. The first 
commenter suggested that the terms ``adequate notice'' and ``as 
practicable'' were too vague and instead urged LSC to adopt a 
requirement that recipients be required to provide a written form 
setting forth the grievance procedures to clients (either in person, or 
by mail or fax) at the time the client is accepted for service. As 
noted in the discussion of the term ``adequate notice'' in section 
1621.3, above, recipients use a variety of methods of providing notice 
of grievance procedures to clients, from posting of the procedures in 
the office or on websites, to having written procedures available for 
distribution and/or included in retainer agreements, to the provision 
of the notice orally through recorded phone menus or by having intake 
workers and attorneys speaking directly with clients. All of these 
methods can be sufficient to achieve the purpose that clients know 
their rights in a timely and substantively meaningful way so as to 
exercise them if desired, while still being appropriate to local 
circumstances. Moreover, there are situations in which issues of 
practicality arise in the provision of notice. For example, providing a 
written notice by mail to a client who is seeking legal assistance in a 
case involving domestic violence may put the client's safety in 
jeopardy and in other cases emergency conditions may prevail dictating 
some delay in the provision of notice. For these reasons, LSC believes 
that adopting the commenters' suggestion would unnecessarily impinge on 
recipients' flexibility to determine exactly how and when notice of the 
complaint procedures are provided to clients. Accordingly, LSC declines 
to adopt this suggestion.
    The second commenter asked for guidance on application of the 
requirements as they relate to telephone advice. Specifically, the 
commenter noted that they typically provide the grievance notice to 
clients who never come into the office in person in conjunction with a 
letter summarizing the advice given/actions taken. The commenter asks 
whether this is acceptable in cases in which the closing letter does 
not go out for several weeks, rather than within a few days. It is not 
possible for LSC to provide a definitive answer to this very general 
question in the preamble to the regulation because of the case-by-case 
variables which could determine what is ``practical'' for a given 
recipient in a given situation. In such situations recipients might LSC 
would consider, among other things, whether it is foreseeable that for 
a given client it will likely be several weeks before a closing letter 
is going to be sent out, whether there is another avenue by which the 
client can be reasonably informed of the grievance procedure other than 
the closing letter, the number of cases in which this is actually a 
problem. As LSC stated in the preamble to the NPRM, it intends that a 
recipient's existing complaint procedures for clients who are 
dissatisfied with the manner or quality of legal assistance provided, 
which would meet the proposed revised requirements may continue to be 
used and would be considered to be sufficient to meet their obligations 
under this section. 71 FR at 48505 (August 21, 2006).
    The last change LSC proposed to this section was to include an 
explicit requirement that the grievance procedures provide some method 
of reviewing complaints by clients about the manner or quality of 
service provided by private attorneys pursuant to the recipient's 
private attorney involvement (PAI) program under 45 CFR Part 1614. The 
regulation has previously been silent on this matter and LSC has not 
required recipients to apply the client grievance procedure to private 
attorneys. However, from the clients' standpoint it is immaterial 
whether legal assistance happens to be provided directly by the 
recipient or by a private attorney pursuant to the PAI program. In both 
cases, the client remains a client of the recipient and should be 
afforded some avenue to complain about legal assistance provided. At 
the same time, subjecting private attorneys to the same grievance 
procedure that applies to the recipient would likely be 
administratively burdensome and likely impede recipients' ability to 
recruit private attorneys for the PAI program. In addition, some PAI 
programs, such as ones administered by bar associations, already have 
their own complaint procedures. Also, recipients are required by the 
section 1614.3(d)(3) of the PAI regulation to provide effective 
oversight of their private attorneys. Providing some process for review 
of complaints about their service is reasonably considered part of that 
responsibility.
    LSC received two comments addressing this proposal. One commenter 
supported this proposal, but suggested that the preamble make clear 
that recipients should be aware of their state bar's grievance 
procedures and should be prepared to refer clients to the state bar's 
grievance procedures (or possibly to independent counsel) when such 
referral would be appropriate. We agree that this is an important 
consideration and so note it herein.
    The other commenter suggested that this provision might prove 
difficult for recipients in private attorney recruitment efforts and 
urged LSC to refrain from adopting such a provision without first 
soliciting input from the ABA and state and local bar associations. The 
comment does not address with any specificity how recruitment efforts 
might be impeded in light of the fact noted in the preamble to the NPRM 
(and restated above) that recipients are already required to provide 
some process for review of complaints as part of their responsibility 
under the PAI regulation to provide effective oversight of their 
participating private attorneys. Moreover, LSC believes that the issues 
in the rulemaking have been widely noticed and discussed since the 
inception of the rulemaking. More specifically, the NPRM was not only 
published in the Federal Register for public comment but it was also 
posted on the LSC Web site, and the public meetings at which the 
Rulemaking Workshops and the Draft NPRM were discussed were also 
publicly noticed. Should the any bar association have desired to 
comment, there has been ample opportunity for those organizations to do 
so. As such, LSC sees no reason to delay action on this particular 
provision.

[[Page 3954]]

    In light of the above, LSC continues to believe that it is 
appropriate that this regulation contain a requirement that recipients 
establish a procedure to review complaints by clients about the manner 
or quality of service of PAI attorneys. After further consideration, 
however, LSC believes that there is a better way to state this 
requirement than as proposed in the NPRM. Accordingly, LSC section 
1621.4(c) provides that:

    Complaints received from clients about the manner or quality of 
legal assistance that has been rendered by a private attorney 
pursuant to the recipient's private attorney involvement program 
under 45 CFR Part 1614 shall be processed in a manner consistent 
with its responsibilities under 45 CFR Sec.  1614.3(d)(3) and with 
applicable state or local rules of professional responsibility.

LSC believes this language does not create a substantive change in the 
policy proposed in the NPRM but, instead, states that policy in a 
clearer, more appropriate manner. Accordingly, LSC adopts the PAI-
related provision as described herein. LSC reiterates, that is it not 
requiring recipients to afford the same procedure as provided to 
clients being provided service directly by the recipient. LSC also 
reiterates that it intends that existing formal and informal methods 
for review of complaints about PAI attorneys currently meeting 
recipients' obligations under Part 1614 continue to be used and would 
be considered to be sufficient to meet their obligations under this 
section.
    LSC received three other comments addressing proposed section 
1621.4. Two of these comments ask LSC to clarify that the requirement 
in proposed section 1621.4(d) that recipients maintain files of 
complaints and their disposition applies only to complaints by clients 
about the manner or quality of legal assistance provided and not to 
complaints by applicants about the denial of legal assistance. LSC 
believes that it is clear that this requirement applies only to that 
section and not to any other section in the regulation. Recipients are 
not required to maintain files on complaints by applicants about denial 
of legal assistance. LSC does not believe that any modification of the 
regulation is necessary and anticipates that this discussion will 
remove any possible ambiguity.
    One of these commenters further suggested that either the rule or 
preamble should make clear that files are required only for complaints 
that are not resolved informally by staff, the Executive Director or 
the Executive Director's designee and that the requirement should, 
instead, apply only to complaints that have been considered by the 
Board's grievance committee. The current requirement found in section 
1621.3(c) is not limited in the manner suggested by the commenter. 
Rather, the current language provides that in cases of complaints by 
clients about the manner of quality of legal assistance provided ``a 
file containing every complaint and a statement of its disposition 
shall be preserved for examination by the Corporation'' (emphasis 
added). The proposed provision is exactly the same as the current one 
(except for substitution of ``LSC'' for ``Corporation''). For LSC to 
adopt the position urged by the commenter in the preamble would result 
in a preambular statement directly at odds with the clear language of 
the regulation. For LSC to change the regulation would result in a 
significant substantive change for which no rationale has been 
articulated. LSC declines to adopt this suggestion.
    Finally, LSC received one comment (in the attachments to the 
Chairperson of the NLADA's Client Policy Group comments) suggesting 
that the current language of the regulation is clear and that the 
changes proposed make the language legalistic. This commenter suggests 
retaining the original language. LSC disagrees that the proposed 
language is less clear than the existing language. Rather, LSC believes 
the language being adopted, as discussed above, is clearer than the 
language it is replacing (as well as clearer than the existing 
language). Moreover, the language being adopted includes some 
substantive changes which LSC believes improves the utility of the 
regulation for recipients, applicants and clients. Accordingly, LSC 
declines to adopt the commenter's suggestion.

List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 1621

    Grants programs--law, Legal services.

0
For reasons set forth above, and under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 
2996g(e), LSC revises 45 CFR part 1621 as follows:

PART 1621--CLIENT GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES

Sec.
1621.1 Purpose.
1621.2 Grievance committee.
1621.3 Complaints by applicants about denial legal assistance.
1621.4 Complaints by clients about manner or quality of legal 
assistance.

    Authority: Sec. 1006(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 2996e(b)(1); sec. 
1006(b)(3), 42 U.S.C. 2996e(b)(3); sec. 1007(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. 
299