The state’s correction ombuds is asking the Department of Correction to immediately suspend its contract with the firm responsible for what’s known as the Inmate Legal Aid Program, claiming it has done little to help people trying to file court cases from prison.
Last week, DeVaughn Ward sent a letter to DOC Commissioner Angel Quiros asking that the department immediately suspend its contract with Bansley Law LLC of Old Saybrook, the firm hired by the state to administer the program.
According to year-end reports from Bansley Law, the firm conducted only three professional visits and initiated four court cases in 2022-23, although it was contacted by 355 incarcerated people during that time. The following year, 2023-24, the firm held five professional visits and initiated two court cases but was contacted by 471 incarcerated people.
Attorneys for the firm did not appear in court on behalf of incarcerated clients at any point during those years.
Ward, the state’s correction ombuds, wrote in the letter to DOC officials that during his visits to prison facilities across the state, he saw almost no signs advertising the legal aid program or any kind of educational materials informing people that the program existed.
“The extraordinary cost of these services compared to the negligible value it delivers is not merely striking — it is unacceptable,” he wrote.
Andrius Banevicius, spokesperson for the Department of Correction, confirmed in an email last week that Quiros had received the letter. He wrote that the commissioner “is reviewing it with members of the agency’s legal team, and they are in the process of preparing a response.”
According to the state’s most recent contract with Bansley Law, Connecticut is paying the firm $800,000 annually for services provided through the Inmate Legal Assistance Program, or ILAP. The firm has been contracted to administer the program since at least 2015.
Walter Bansley IV, the owner of Bansley Law and director of the Inmate Legal Aid Program, told CT Mirror in an email that the program deals only with issues surrounding “conditions of confinement,” and that the attorneys don’t represent inmates in legal actions or appear in court on their behalf.
Instead, he said, the program’s role lies in “evaluating the needs and merit of a given claim and guiding [incarcerated individuals] in making and filing a claim.” That means most of the issues incarcerated people contact Bansley lawyers about land outside the terms of the firm’s contract with DOC, he said.
“Examples of this are actions against non-state actors, probate matters, criminal defense cases, etc,” Bansley wrote. “Unfortunately, when inmates have an issue, and we inform them that we cannot help because the issue is OUTSIDE THE SCOPE, they complain that we do not do anything.”
Judging the firm’s performance based on things like court appearances, case filings and in-person visits “shows that Ombuds does not understand the purpose, intent, and scope of the ILAP program,” Bansley wrote.
But several formerly incarcerated individuals, advocates and civil rights attorneys who spoke to CT Mirror agreed with Ward’s analysis, saying the Inmate Legal Aid Program was ineffective.
Hassan Foster, who was incarcerated at Garner Correctional Institution and at MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution, said he had tried to contact the Inmate Legal Aid Program and that the lawyers had been unhelpful. He tried to file a civil case against a correctional officer, who, he said, punched him in the leg during a strip search, leaving bruises.
Foster said the program attorney he spoke to told him there was nothing they could do. He said eventually he ended up filing a case with the help of another person who was incarcerated, who walked him through the steps. The case was settled with the state for $1,500.
“Between a 1 to a 5, if I had to rate [Bansley]? Three,” said Foster, acknowledging that some of the paralegals were helpful and friendly.
Bryan Jordan, who runs the nonprofit Guided By Purpose Initiative, said he contacted the Inmate Legal Aid Program several times while he was incarcerated regarding medical treatment in the prisons. He said the organization wasn’t responsive, didn’t come to visit him, didn’t explain relevant information and didn’t assist him with filling out forms. Like Foster, Jordan ended up filing his cases on his own.
Asked about specific cases, Bansley said he was unable to comment without a release form signed by a notary public, citing attorney-client privilege.
Attorneys who frequently work with incarcerated people also said the firm’s work was inadequate.
“This program has proven inadequate and is not providing Connecticut individuals with their constitutional rights to access to the courts,” Alex Taubes, a civil rights attorney, said.
Taubes added that getting access to legal materials has been a struggle for decades in Connecticut prisons, ever since a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court Case, Lewis v. Casey, in which the court ruled that an incarcerated person’s right to access the courts does not include the right to access a law library.
Ward said in the letter that he had issued two subpoenas requesting documents from Bansley Law related to ILAP, which the firm refused to provide.
Bansley told CT Mirror that the documents Ward requested were either private under attorney-client privilege or “attorney work product,” or available through a Freedom of Information request.
Ward has filed a motion in state Superior Court requesting that the court force Bansley Law to release the documents. The case is still ongoing.