Consumers for a Responsive Legal System

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
271966682
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2011
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2026490399
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$83,532
Expenses
$84,031
Assets
$8,184
Liabilities
$58,531

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Chas Rampenthal (President)
  • Tom Gordon (Executive Director)

People named in this filing

  • Chas Rampenthal (President)
  • Frederick Mulhauser (Treasurer)
  • Josh King (Secretary)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Consumers for a Responsive Legal System works to make the legal system more accessible, affordable, and accountable to its users.

What it reported doing in 2025

Education: Educate people about obstacles to affordable legal help and about how to more effectively use the legal system, including information about how to effectively use a lawyer and alternatives to traditional use of a lawyer such as limited-scope representation, non-lawyer services, and self-help.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 59.4%; rating input score 59
  • Program expense ratio: 59%; rating input score 59

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.6%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.1; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 7.15; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 83.3%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 59.4% of revenue deployed · 59% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $50K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 59/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 41/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 13/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.