Recent court reform efforts across various types of civil proceedings have focused on providing access-to-counsel to allow financially constrained litigants to vindicate their legal rights. But how effective are these programs at delivering increased and improved representation to their target populations? To answer this question, I examine the impact of the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project (NYIFUP), the nation’s first large-scale deportation defense program, on legal outcomes for immigrants facing removal. Using a dataset of over two million removal proceedings, I employ a difference-in-differences and event study design to compare three groups: (1) immigrants in custody in New York City (the treated group), (2) those in custody elsewhere, and (3) those never in custody in New York City. My findings indicate that NYIFUP successfully increased legal representation for detained immigrants in New York City, raising representation rates by 4.6 percentage points. The program also improved legal outcomes, reducing removal orders by 6.4 percentage points, equivalent to about 500 avoided deportations. Notably, most of the decline in removals resulted from procedural case terminations rather than relief grants or voluntary departures, suggesting that the program primarily screened out legally insufficient cases while maintaining outcomes for those seeking relief. I also find considerable distributional and demographic heterogeneity among the respondents who realize these gains. This heterogeneity demonstrates that the policy predominantly operates on the extensive margin of representation; that is, providing representation to those who would have otherwise not had it. This heterogeneity illuminates the mechanisms of NYIFUP, highlighting both the advantages and limitations of “court docket-based” public options in civil proceedings.