One strongly agrees with the contention that, although the experimentation was deemed to be not typical, yet feasible; the fact that there is a perceived unfairness and inequality in implementation makes it subject to ethical concerns for social and behavioral disciplines. As recognized, the findings from the study showed significant advantages for low-income tenants who had been accorded with the privilege of a legal counsel. As such, the provision of a legal counsel was confirmed to have increased the chances of being provided with rent abatements and reimbursements for fund spent for repairs. Therefore cases sharing similar characteristics with the provision of legal counsel for low-income tenants could benefit from the evaluation. Likewise, one also affirms that the proposed mixed methodology is considered the most appropriate research tool to confirm consistency and reliability of results. It is commendable that the evaluation performed in the Seron, Frankel, Van Ryzin and Kovath article was recognized to be inapplicable to the program evaluation, Medicaid For Pregnant Women and Children. Regardless of the inapplicability, there still have been identified ethical issues in terms of ensuring equality and fairness in selecting participants, who have been prescribed to come from the impoverished sector. One agrees that the mixed methodology was most appropriate to gather and interpret findings using both quantitative and qualitative approaches.The research method would assist in validating the reliability of the results.