Students of the administrative process generally agree that all interested and affected persons should have an opportunity to participate in agency decision making.¹ Full participation is thought to serve the public interest because it achieves thorough exposition and consideration of information relevant to a particular rulemaking or adjudication; in short, it is thought to contribute to a better-informed, and, therefore, wiser decision. In addition, it serves to enhance public confidence in the legitimacy of the final result and thus to lessen the number of after-the-fact judicial challenges to agency actions.

In recent years, the correlative judicial expansion of the law of standing has removed one traditional barrier to broadened public participation in administrative proceedings.² But some would-be intervenors have often been unable to put into practice their theoretical right to participate in agency proceedings, particularly in cases where the administrative result sought promises no direct economic benefit. The financial circumstances of many would-be intervenors are precarious, and the expense of such participation is in many instances quite simply beyond their means. While the high cost of a protracted court suit is generally recognized, it is not commonly appreciated that the cost to an intervenor of full participation in an administrative proceeding may be just as great. Attorney's fees may run over $100,000 in complicated agency proceedings, and the expenses of expert witnesses in such cases can easily reach $40,000 or $50,000.³ A growing number of observers have thus come to believe that

if the quality of administrative decisionmaking depends upon the participation of interested groups, assistance for those groups unable to command sufficient resources may be necessary.⁴