“As a lawyer you have to ask yourself as often as you can: ‘Have I done enough? Am I doing enough to help the people around me?’ That’s the reason why a lot of us went to law school, and pro bono is a great opportunity to have a concrete impact.” – Vanessa Arslanian, Associate, Choate Hall & Stewart LLP
Choate Hall & Stewart Associate Vanessa Arslanian was first connected with Raymond* in 2014 after he attended a Legal Clinic for the Homeless.
Raymond was seeking help with his food stamp benefits. He had been receiving monthly food stamp payments in Massachusetts when someone stole his Social Security number and used it to acquire food stamps in Florida. Because of the subsequent duplicate payments, the Massachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance (DTA) concluded that it had overpaid Raymond and elected to start recouping a significant portion of his monthly benefits.
Raymond had previously overcome homelessness, but his food stamps were critical to helping him stay on his feet. His attempts to appeal the DTA’s decision prior to attending the legal clinic were unsuccessful, and while the financial value of his food stamps was crucial, Raymond also felt he had been wrongly accused of fraud and punished for something he didn’t do.
Vanessa spent the next two years communicating with the DTA and the Florida Department of Children and Families, piecing together what evidence the DTA had to support its allegation that Raymond had committed fraud.
Vanessa argued to the DTA that it lacked evidence to support the allegation of fraud and outlined inconsistencies in the DTA’s actions. At a subsequent hearing to decide a narrow benefits calculation issue, Vanessa was able to persuade the hearing officer to allow Raymond to explain his side of the story on the record and to hear her legal argument on why the DTA should stop recouping Raymond’s benefits. Despite hearing Raymond’s testimony, they received an adverse decision and filed an appeal in Superior Court. The DTA then reached out to Vanessa and agreed to negotiate a settlement, limiting the recoupment period to four months instead of the original three years.
Raymond was satisfied with this outcome. Since then, he has been receiving his full benefits and is happy to no longer have the issue hanging over him.
*Client’s name has been changed to protect privacy.
