Lawyers for Civil Rights Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
043490614
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Boston, MA, USA
Phone
6179880624
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Legal Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,494,143
Expenses
$3,410,058
Assets
$6,646,131
Liabilities
$545,182

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

Leadership & pay

53 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • IVAN ESPINOZA ESQ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • IVAN ESPINOZA ESQ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $479,219 total reported compensation
  • OREN SELLSTROM ESQ (LITIGATION DIRECTOR): $346,479 total reported compensation
  • SOPHIA HALL ESQ (ATTORNEY): $257,314 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Lawyers for civil rights, inc. (the organization") is a nonprofit, nonpartisan legal organization that fosters equal opportunity, promotes economic justice and fights discrimination on behalf of low-income people. The organization engages in creative and courageous legal action, education, and advocacy in collaboration with law firms and community partners.

What it reported doing in 2025

Case v. Parakeet communities (worcester superior court) class action lawsuit filed on behalf of mobile home park residents, challenging unfair and deceptive practices used by mobile home park owner. If we prevail, attorneys' fees are available.owens v. Edgar p. Benjamin healthcare center (suffolk superior court) lawsuit filed on behalf of family members of residents of nursing home, successfully seeking receivership of facility. Attorneys' fees received from receiver in 2025.hri v. Charlesgate realty et al. (suffolk superior court) source-of-income housing lawsuit against numerous boston-area landlords and brokers. Matter concluded in 2024; no attorneys' fees received.newsom v. Gadles (mcad) represent disabled veteran retaliated against by condo developer. If we prevail, attorneys' fees are available.guerrero v. U.s. Federal tort claims act claim filed on behalf of family unlawfully stopped on way to church on mothers day. If we prevail, attorneys' fees are available.pineda v. U.s. Federal tort claims act claim filed on behalf of detained lawful resident. If we prevail, attorneys' fees are available.ramirez sanan v. U.s. Federal tort claims act claim filed on behalf of family. If we prevail, attorneys' fees are available.chrispin v. Cox (suffolk superior court) lawsuit on behalf of decorated boston police officer who was unlawfully demoted. If we prevail, attorneys' fees are available. Lopez v. Southwick-tolland-granville regional school dist (hampden county superior court) lawsuit filed on behalf of eighth-grade student against district that failed to prevent a hostile school environment. Case settled in 2025, including attorneys' fees that were received in 2025. Doe et al. V. U.s. (federal court) case filed challenging federal order. Favorable rulings in district court and appeals court. Attorneys' fees not anticipated.lawyers for civil rights v. Ma interscholastic athletic assoc. (norfolk superior court) public records case filed seeking documents concerning miaa's policies and procedures to respond to bullying at school sporting events. If we prevail, attorneys' fees are available.edwards v. Framingham public schools (mcad) represent former compliance manager of public school district, who was demoted and fired. If we prevail, attorneys' fees are available.carbajal v. J. Derenzo co. (mcad) represent construction worker who endured a hostile work environment. If we prevail, attorneys' fees are available.escalante v. Charter foods north llc represented worker who was unlawfully denied employment at a fast-food restaurant. Matter settled in 2025 for damages and attorneys' fees, which were received in 2025.adams v. Town of marblehead (suffolk superior court) lawsuit filed on behalf of nine-year-old boy with asthma who was improperly restrained by school officials on multiple occasions. If we prevail, attorneys' fees are available.city of chelsea et al. V. U.s. (federal court) case filed to preserve ability of cities to set local police policies and priorities. If we prevail, attorneys' fees are available.hau et al. V. U.s. (federal court) case filed to preserve temporary status. Attorneys' fees not anticipated.kapur v. Boston public schools (suffolk superior court) whistleblower retaliation lawsuit filed on behalf of educator forced out of boston public schools. If we prevail, attorneys' fees are available.lawyers for civil rights v. Town of saugus (essex superior court) public records lawsuit filed against town seeking information about overly restrictive student residency policy. Matter settled in 2025. Attorneys' fees are available.alianza et al. V. Vertol. (federal court) class action lawsuit filed september 2022 on behalf of fraudulently induced to travel to martha's vineyard by plane. If we prevail, attorneys' fees are available.firrp v. U.s. (federal court) foia case filed march 2023. Matter concluded in 2025; no attorneys' fees received.dabney v. Millbury memorial junior/senior high school (us dep't of education, then

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 93% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80.7%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 81.5%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $31.91 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.4%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.95; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 44.8%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.9% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.9% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 80.7% of revenue deployed · 81.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 48 of 48 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $479K · 53 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 35/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.