(2 of 2)
When a remote Indian reservation was denied an adequate water supply, C.R.L.A. discovered that a federal law was being violated. Now the Indians no longer have to drink polluted water. C.R.L.A. has fought for normal schooling of migrant workers' children, challenged the California Vehicle Codes' license-revocation provisions (the case is pending), brought suit to stop salesmen who entrapped the unwary in $500 time-payment purchases of $100 cameras, and filed countersuits against finance companies engaging in fraudulent collection procedures.
Stiffest Challenge. C.R.L.A.'s biggest case so far has involved a frontal assault on the state of California itself. Last September, when Governor Ronald Reagan ordered a cutback in medical services available to welfare recipients under his state's Medical Assistance Program (Medi-Cal), a C.R.L.A. lawyer, representing disabled Modesto Laborer Harvey Morris et al., filed suit in Sacramento Superior Court. In effect, C.R.L.A. was battling for the rights of 1,358,200 welfare clients. Last month, in a five-man majority opinion, California's Supreme Court ruled that the cutbacks denying "Morris et al." medical benefits were illegal, thus informing Reagan that he will have to economize some other way.
Initially opposed by California lawyers who mistakenly believe that it would drain business away from them, Lorenz' C.R.L.A. recently faced its stiffest challenge to date: two proposed amendments to the federal antipoverty bill. One would have prevented any OEO-fmanced legal service (OEO sponsors 300 in the U.S.) from bringing suits against a local, state or federal agency. The other would have required local bar-association approval before any such legal service could begin operation. Both amendments were killed.