Areas of Law

Community Legal Aid SoCal provides support and services to help people who are struggling with civil legal issues. Our representatives can address a wide variety of legal challenges, but not all of them. Sometimes we connect individuals to additional legal services needed to ensure their safety and security.

Our workshops and clinics have helped thousands of residents with difficult situations.

Family

Housing

Consumer Defense

Public Benefits

Health

Immigration

Seniors

Systemic Impact

Domestic Violence

Expungement

Sarah Reisman

“Our work impacts our clients’ lives beyond the tangible legal benefit provided; our services help them feel heard and give them a safety net during a difficult period of their lives.”

-Erica Ettinger,
Senior Attorney,
Systemic Impact Unit

Systemic Impact

The Systemic Impact Unit seeks to effect meaningful social and legal change that benefits vulnerable, historically marginalized, and low-income communities in Southeast Los Angeles and Orange counties.

Our core values include: preserving and expanding constitutional and civil rights for our client communities; safeguarding access to justice for our client communities; and enhancing governmental accountability by challenging abuses of power and catalyzing reforms in government policies and law.  We partner with CLA SoCal’s substantive units to identify and resolve systemic issues in their practice areas—including consumer protection, family law, housing, immigration, health, and public benefits—and leverage our respective areas of expertise to expand the impact of our advocacy.

Guided by our values and CLA SoCal’s mission, we use an array of tools—writs, appeals, impact litigation, and policy advocacy—to achieve the best possible outcomes for our client communities.  In addition to collaborating with the substantive units, we work with community partners and pro bono counsel who share our vision for a better world.

Some of our recent case successes are detailed below.

The Kennedy Commission v. City of Huntington Beach

After years of protracted litigation against the City of Huntington Beach, The Kennedy Commission caused the City to amend its Housing Element to comply with state law and plan for its share of affordable housing. For its work, the Kennedy Commission was awarded over $3.5 million in attorneys’ fees. The Court of Appeal has now issued a unanimous published opinion affirming every aspect of the trial court’s ruling. The Court found the trial court was well within its discretion to issue the $3.5 million fee award, and recognized that “[t]he litigation against the City was instrumental in the City adopting [a Housing Element], which conferred a significant benefit to residents in Huntington by assuring that development in Huntington included lower-income housing.” The Kennedy Commission was represented by Community Legal Aid SoCal, Public Interest Law Project, Public Law Center, and Jones Day.

Attenello v. Basilious

On October 26, 2022, Community Legal Aid SoCal’s Housing Unit and Systemic Impact Unit secured published precedent from the Appellate Division of the Orange County Superior Court in Attenello v. Basilious that vindicates tenant protections enshrined in California law. The Basilious decision will make it harder for landlords to evict tenants based on boilerplate agreements that are not prepared by the tenant, and therefore cannot constitute a tenant’s written notice terminating the tenancy.

City of Huntington Beach v. State of California

When the City of Huntington Beach sued the State of California to avoid complying with state affordable housing law, The Kennedy Commission successfully intervened to protect the state laws, its interests in related litigation it had filed against the City, and to encourage the development of affordable housing in Huntington Beach. The City lost its legal challenge, and The Kennedy Commission was awarded attorneys’ fees as an intervenor. The City appealed the fee award, and The Kennedy Commission successfully defended it in the California Court of Appeal in 2023. The Kennedy Commission was represented by Community Legal Aid SoCal, Public Interest Law Project, and Jones Day.

Settlement Agreement with Orange County will Expand Access to Benefits for Vulnerable Immigrants

Community Legal Aid SoCal (CLA SoCal) and the Public Interest Law Project (PILP), on behalf of their client, have reached an amicable settlement agreement with Orange County that will expand access to public benefits for vulnerable immigrants who are victims of crime, human trafficking, and domestic violence. Pursuant to the agreement, Orange County will no longer deny General Relief to U Visa, T Visa, and VAWA applicants solely on the basis that they do not have a social security number, or have not applied for one. This change in policy best reflects the complicated reality that these immigrants must navigate: they have limited opportunities to apply for a social security number, and often must wait several years to apply for one.  Now they can obtain much-needed General Relief that is critical aid for them to access the basic necessities of life.

Advocacy Lifting Stay in Social Security Administration Cases During COVID-19 Pandemic

Community Legal Aid SoCal’s Systemic Impact Unit, in collaboration with the Economic Maintenance Unit, successfully advocated for a court order lifting the year-long stay of all social security litigation in the Central District of California during the COVID-19 Pandemic. During the height of the COVID-19 Pandemic, the Social Security Administration (SSA) experienced office closures that delayed its production of administrative records. The SSA requested and received an order from the Central District of California to stay all cases brought or pending as of April 2020. Concerned about the long duration and impact of the stay, CLA SoCal and a coalition of community partners raised the issue with the Central District and engaged in advocacy with the court and SSA regarding the importance of access to the courts, and the harm the stay could have on vulnerable populations who needed to pursue litigation against SSA to receive their social security benefits. Due to CLA SoCal’s advocacy, the stay was lifted.

Gonzalez v. Gonzalez

In Gonzalez v. Gonzalez, Community Legal Aid SoCal successfully appealed the trial court’s denial of our client’s Request for a Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO).  Family Law Senior Attorney Michael Waldren represented our client at trial and presented evidence that she experienced physical and emotional domestic violence.  This included un-rebutted evidence that the adverse party repeatedly violated the temporary restraining order (TRO) protecting our client.  TRO violations constitute abusive conduct under the law, and here, the adverse party repeatedly violated the TRO by sending our client multiple harassing communications.  The trial court denied our client’s Request, and in doing so, failed to consider whether the TRO violations constituted abuse and warranted issuing a DVRO.  On appeal, our client was represented by Community Legal Aid SoCal and pro bono co-counsel O’Melveny & Myers LLP.  The California Court of Appeal agreed with our client’s arguments that the trial court erred by failing to consider the TRO violations.  The Court found that our client had “shown past abuse sufficient to support a DVRO order” on this basis, and therefore, the Court remanded the case so our client may have a new hearing on her Request. (Opinion at 11.)

C.J. v. T.R.

In C.J. v. T.R., Community Legal Aid SoCal secured a favorable ruling for their client T.R. in the California Court of Appeal. This unpublished decision clarifies, for the first time, the proper treatment of motions to set aside default judgments brought by domestic violence survivors who must keep their locations confidential, to ensure their safety and well-being. On appeal, T.R. was represented by Community Legal Aid SoCal and Sidley Austin LLP.

K.L. v. R.H.

In K.L. v. R.H., Community Legal Aid SoCal secured published precedent in the California Court of Appeal that will benefit domestic violence survivors by providing much-needed guidance on the issuance of mutual domestic violence restraining orders. The trial court improperly granted a mutual restraining order against R.H, failing to weigh the acts of the parties against each other to decide which party was the most significant aggressor, and whether either of the parties acted in self-defense. On appeal, R.H. was represented by Community Legal Aid SoCal, the Family Violence Appellate Project, UCI School of Law Domestic Violence Clinic, and pro-bono co-counsel Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton. The Court of Appeal affirmed the restraining order protecting CLA SoCal’s client, and reversed the restraining order issued against her. In doing so, the Court of Appeal “cautioned against the danger of implicit bias affecting the judiciary’s perception of victims of domestic abuse” and “encourage[d] continued diligence and education to guard against such preconceptions.” (Opinion, pg. 22 at n. 11.)

Susana Ortiz v. Zuchowski et al.

Community Legal Aid SoCal sued the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) in federal court to challenge its interpretation of a statutory provision governing immigration relief under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). USCIS interpreted the provision narrowly, which resulted in individuals, like our client Ms. Ortiz, being denied relief to which they were entitled under VAWA. Shortly after we filed suit, USCIS released updated guidance stating that it was revoking its narrow interpretation of the statute and granted our client’s immigration relief. While we cannot be certain that our lawsuit contributed to this result, we are proud to have been part of a series of cases that advocated for USCIS to adopt an interpretation that will expand relief for victims of abuse. Ms. Ortiz was represented by attorneys in Community Legal Aid SoCal’s Immigration Unit and Systemic Impact Unit, as well as Brown Rudnick LLP.

We welcome fellows and interns to join our team. For more information, email probono@clsocal.org.

Do you need legal advice?