Ask the Scholar
Page 1 of 1
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: CRLA - Study and Evaluation of CRLA
by California OEO, 1971 (1 of 6)
Box: P29
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
A STUDY AND EVALUATION
OF
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL
ASSISTANCE, INC.
BY
CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF ECONOMIC
OPPORTUNITY
1971
LEWIS K. UHLER
DIRECTOR
A STUDY AND EVALUATION
OF
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.
BY
CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
Table of Contents
Page
I.
INTRODUCTION
1
II.
CONDUCT OF THE EVALUATION
A. General Background
2
B. Problems of Evaluation
2
C. Gathering the Facts
11
D. Weighing Evidence
12
E. Other Evaluations
13
F. Irrelevant Considerations
20
III. THE PURPOSE AND CONDITIONS OF THE
CRLA GRANT CONTRACT
A. Purpose
26
B. Conditions
26
C. Rules and Principles
27
IV.
A CASE AND COMMENT MONTAGE OF CRLA --
RES IPSA LOQUITUR
29
V.
MAJOR AREAS OF CRLA IMPACT
A. CRLA's Activities and Involvement
in California's Prisons
72
B. CRLA and the Youth
91
C. CRLA and the Farm
130
VI.
A CASE OF NON COMPLIANCE
A. Criminal Representation
158
B. Eligibility Standard for CRLA Attorneys
168
C. Soliciting Clients and Stirring up
Litigation
175
D. A Case of Non-Compliance -- Conduct
Unbecoming an Attorney
192
E. Harassing and Frivolous Actions on
the Part of CRLA
203
F. Waste, Inefficiency and Misuse
of Resources
218
G. Publicity
226
VII. THE TWILIGHT ZONE
A. Lobbying
236
B. Fee Generating Cases
237
C. In-Kind Contributions
239
VIII. COMMUNITY REACTION TO CRLA
243
IX.
CONCLUSION - THE CASE FOR AN ALTERNATIVE
258
X.
RECOMMENDATION
280
XI.
ALTERNATIVE PLAN - PRIVATELY FINANCED LEGAL
SERVICES FOR THE RURAL POOR
281
I. INTRODUCTION.
Under the provisions of the Economic Opportunity
Act of 1964, as amended, Section 242 thereof, the Gover-
nor of any state is given the authority to approve or
disapprove any grant initiated by OEO. This authority
applies to the refunding of California Rural Legal Assis-
tance, Inc., a California nonprofit corporation, which
has been refunded for calendar year 1971 by the Legal
Services Division, Office of Economic Opportunity, Head-
quarters, Washington, D.C. This refunding is in the sum
of $1,884,101 (federal share).
The California State Office of Economic Opportunity
has conducted this extensive evaluation into CRLA, so
that a rational decision can be made in terms of their
refunding request pursuant to Section 242 of the Economic
Opportunity Act.
CRLA carries out its functions from nine offices
in rural areas (Marysville-Yuba City, Modesto, Madera,
Gilroy, McFarland, El Centro, Santa Rosa, Salinas and
Santa Maria), conducts a lobbying function through its
registered lobbyist in Sacramento and is administered out
of a central headquarters in San Francisco. The latter
office also conducts a substantial amount of the appellate
work carried on by CRLA. CRLA employs approximately 44
attorneys and a substantial clerical staff, and has com-
munity workers and investigators in its employ as well.
(1)
II. CONDUCT OF THE EVALUATION.
A. General Background.
We began by considering all available information
concerning CRLA, including past evaluations, as well as
correspondence and other materials in our files. It was
soon obvious, however, that the scale of CRLA's opera-
tion, as well as the importance and dimension of the
issue, required more thorough and, in some respects, more
refined techniques of evaluation than had been used in
the past. As CRLA itself is fond of pointing out, no
program has been more thoroughly investigated and evalu-
ated. But despite the resources deployed from every
quarter to its evaluations, the complaints continued to
pour into our office, not only from CRLA's adversaries,
but, much more significantly, from the poor, whom CRLA
is supposed to serve.
B. Problems of Evaluation.
(1) Size and Organizational Complexity of CRLA.
CRLA is one of the largest publicly-financed legal ser-
vice program in the United States. Its nine operational
field offices, though geographically separated by sub-
stantial distances, nevertheless often seem to have oper-
ational ties with one another. Particularly, the mobility
of CRLA attorneys between operational field offices makes
it quite difficult to ascertain the operating rationale
for the organization. This problem can be appreciated,
(2)
when in any limited period of time, CRLA attorneys may
turn up in different operational areas, and sometimes
even participate in cases that are filed by other OEO
legal service programs. Thus, geography and a lack of
rational organizational structure complicated our evalu-
ation efforts.
The geographical distances involved are formidable,
with more than 500 miles separating CRLA's office in
Marysville on the north to its El Centro office in the
south, only a few miles from the Mexican border. Each
office normally services more than one county ------------------------- which
may comprise an area as large or larger than many states.
(2) Use of Questionnaire. The situation re-
quired new approaches, particularly to augment the capabilities
of our office to undertake a task of this size. The result
was the mailing of a questionnaire to 3,400 judges and law-
yers, randomly selected, within the areas served by CRLA's
operational offices. The questionnaire was designed to
enable the respondent to comment upon the major facets of
CRLA operations (Exhibit 11-0131). From our review of the
materials in our files, we were aware that CRLA had been
criticized for specific kinds of activities, and that
certain leitmotifs ran like threads through its whole
program. Thus, to get a better total profile of CRLA, we
included certain questions in the mailed inquiry which were
designed to better define the program areas.
3
(8)
The questionnaire resulted in an attack upon
the Director personally in his capacity as an attorney
and against the State Office of Economic Opportunity
(Exhibit 22-1049). In addition to criticism directly
from CRLA, we were censured by the National Legal Aid
and Defenders Association (NLADA). We have since learned
that approximately 75 percent of the membership of NLADA
is composed of OEO-financed lawyers from legal programs.
We were unaware of this censure (which took place in
Texas) until informed of it by local newspapers, who had
received copies of the censure resolution. The news re-
ports of this censure prominently displayed the name of
the Honorable Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the
United States, as Honorary President of NLADA. We later
discovered that this was untrue and very misleading.
The Chief Justice, and Mr. Justice Harlan, had resigned
from their positions in the organization in July, 1970.
(Exhibit 22-1049.)
Although NLADA and CRLA endeavored to get our office
to burn or otherwise dispose of the responses to the
questionnaire, we refused to do so and have found the re-
sponses useful in achieving a perspective on CRLA that
would have been unavailable to us in any other fashion.
We have maintained the responses in strictest confidence
and will continue to do so, as we have assured our respon-
dents that we would. The questionnaire was largely sub-
jective and does not lend itself to statistical analysis
(4)
in the way a public opinion poll does. Not a single
questionnaire is included among the supporting documents
to this evaluation, and none have been quoted.
The incident involving the questionnaire dramatized
several key factors that had to be taken into account.
First, it demonstrated that if we were to maintain the
integrity of our investigation, we would have to foil
efforts in the form of brute powerplays by members of the
poverty-law establishment. Obviously, one of the concerns
that led to this outcry was that for the first time since
the 1968 GAO investigation, an independent organization,
other than one substantially influenced by poverty law-
yers, was going to evaluate a legal services program.
This meant that poverty lawyers would be effectively de-
nied the control they had enjoyed over all previous eval-
uations. Second, in light of such activity, the question-
naire can now only be seen as a secondary issue given the
broader and deeper significance that legal services has
taken within the political system. An understanding of
these issues is paramount to understanding the signifi-
cance of our report and the irrational responses that were
manifested even to the idea that some other agency would
dare evaluate a legal services program. Thus, we turn our
attention first to the political context within which this
investigation took place, and then to the dominant sub-
stantive opposition to our effort.
5
(3)
(3) (a) The Political Context of Our Evaluation.
During 1970, National OEO, under the leadership of Donald
Rumsfeld, was considering the idea of regionalizing legal
service programs. This move was interpreted by the
poverty-law establishment as an attempt by OEO to weaken
the legal services program by diffusing and localizing
its control. In late November, this poverty-law estab-
lishment mobilized national protest, to decry the long-
coming dismissal of National Legal Service Director Terry
Lenzner and his assistant. Thus, OEO Director, Donald
Rumsfeld, was regaled by angry denunciations from this
establishment's representatives from every legal service
program in the United States. Pressure built up to the
point where, in order to counter the impression that the
Nixon Administration was opposed to legal services, the
Director of OEO made a highly unusual public announcement
that he had approved CRLA's refunding proposal for 1971--
an approval that accelerated the program's refunding
cycle.
The political sensitivity of the issue increased
with the r esignation of Mr. Rumsfeld as Director. His
successor, Frank Carlucci, has been appointed by the
President, but not yet confirmed. If we concluded that
the delivery of quality legal service to the poor required
that CRLA be abolished, there was always the possibility
that Mr. Carlucci's confirmation might be held up as the
(6)
price of his overriding the veto. (We think this possi-
bility is extremely unlikely, given the reprehensible
conduct that such political blackmail would entail, but
we have had to consider the possibility nonetheless.)
(3) (b) Substantive Opposition to Legal Service
Evaluations. The whole series of incidents placed this
office under increased pressure to evaluate objectively
a program whose refunding had already become both public
and political. The acceleration of the cycle reduced the
time for evaluation, and made a difficult job all the
more SO.
The power of the poverty-law establishment is aug-
mented by an extremely friendly press, which is always
ready to transmit and amplify the poverty-law establish-
ment's propaganda barrage.
In addition, any service agency threatened with
extinction has available to it virtually unlimited scare
tactics with respect to its constitutents. For those who
have received legal services from CRLA (we do not deny
there are many in absolute numbers during its four-year
life), the prospect of its demise appears far more alarm-
ing than the possible attendant prospect for improvement.
The poverty-law establishment's willingness to
flex and deploy its political muscle is ironic, in light
(7)
of its repeated protests against "political interference"
in legal services. The most frequently heard argument
against public scrutiny of legal service programs is that
they can only be effective if they are free from "poli-
tical interference". Even certain organized bar associa-
tions have come down very hard against any moves which
would tend to put legal service programs under closer scru-
tiny by public officials.
This position confuses legal service law practice
with the practice of the private Bar. In private prac-
tice, the client, who receives the service, also pays the
bills and is, therefore, sovereign. In publicly-funded
legal services, the recipient (poor person) and buyer
(taxpayer) are different people. The poor person has no
sovereignty, no effective control over the person giving
service to him. In the face of this, the legal service
lobby has argued that in fact they, as the monopoly pro-
vider of service, ought to be able to speak for the reci-
pients. They argue, in effect, that the seller of the
service ought to be able to speak for both the recipient
and the buyer. It is as if the moguls of the Standard Oil
Trust of the early 1900's had demanded the right to speak
for the interests of their consumers. In fact, given the
tendency for consumers to be exploited by monopoly pro-
ducers, it is legitimate to ask whether or not the consu-
mers in this case, the rural poor, are being exploited by
(8)
the monopoly producers, CRLA. If this is the case, the
consumer has little choice in terms of the type of legal
assistance he desires to consume and, furthermore, has
even less chance of influencing how the product is, in
fact, to be produced and distributed.
In a certain sense, the problem is insoluble.
Somebody must determine how legal service can best serve
the poor, and it seems reasonable that the determination
should ultimately be made by elected officials, who are at
least responsible to their constituents (which include
both buyers and recipients). Yet the present program is
controlled by vested interests that provide the service
far removed from the local communities they serve.
As the August evaluation pointed out:
"When there are a number of attorneys choosing
which ones (i.e., cases) he is going to bring,
there may be, in a sense, a political judgment. =
(Page 27; emphasis added.)
It is possible to put the point more directly:
legal services have the capacity to be politically manip-
ulated and, therefore, in a democracy, must have an explicit
base to which they are responsible. They are established and
funded by public bodies and administered by providers whose
service will depend in large measure on their own political
predilections. The argument that legal services are to be
left entirely to poverty lawyers is disingenuous, as it
(9)
demands a privilege available to no other provider of
services, either public or private. The severity of this
problem is clearly demonstrated when it is juxtaposed to
the legislative mandate of OEO that the total local com-
munity must be the basis of decision and responsibility.
(3) (c) Prohibitive Costs Incurred by Citizens
Desiring to Participate in the Evaluation of CRLA.
In some ways the most difficult aspect of the evaluation
concerned the people in the communities who assisted us.
Given the ability of the poverty-law establishment to
harass those who disagree with it, through the press and
in court, some people in the communities we have talked
to felt a great reluctance to speak their dissatisfaction
with CRLA publicly. This genuine fear may help to account
for the inadequacies of response that other evaluations
have received when the evaluators have gone out for one
day to ask what lawyers and judges in an area think about
the program. If a representative of the American Bar
Association goes to a rural community and asks the mem-
bers of the local bar and bench what they think of CRLA,
more likely than not the representative will receive sub-
stantially bland comments, even from those who may feel
very strongly.
(10)
Many people who assisted us in the communities
acknowledged the chance they were taking in doing SO.
To a considerable extent, the willingness of OEO to re-
spond to their call will determine whether they ever
again go on record, and put themselves on the line in
evaluations. We feel a great debt to those who have
put themselves on the line, for often the instinct of
people is not to get involved in controversy. Of course
it is always much "safer" to remain aloof, but we believe
strongly that at the heart of a healthy democracy is a
citizenry willing to take risks for the things in which
they believe.
C. Gathering the Facts.
Our primary interest in the evaluation has been to
get the facts. We have sought to avoid the difficulty
acknowledged in the August 1970 evaluation of CRLA that
"different preconceptions and characterizations" produced
"subjectivity" (Page 51). We interviewed people from all
walks of life and all political and philosophical points
of view. We have relied upon facts and specificcases, as
well as informed opinion. In several instances we enlisted
the assistance of the professional investigating service
of the Department of Human Resources Development. They
were deployed to take statements from persons whom we had
identified as possessing information of value about CRLA.
(11)
Their independence and detachment assured objectivity in
this vital statement-taking function.
D. Weighing Evidence.
(1) Predisposition of Witnesses. Inweighing the
credibility of testimony, we looked carefully at an indi-
vidual's position and political philosophy. Opposition
to CRLA emanating from a person who opposed the concept
of legal services for the poor we tended to discount.
Similarly, support from sectors of the poverty-law estab-
lishment, we evaluated in light of their special interest.
Opposition to CRLA from people working in OEO pro-
grams (especially those presently or formerly associated
with CRLA) or from people who have worked in other legal
service programs, we considered to be highly significant.
Also, we gave special weight and credibility to opinions
about CRLA from those who affirmed their support for the
concept of publicly-supported legal service to the poor.
(2) Location of Witnesses. We have considered
the geographical location of those offering facts and
opinions to be highly relevant. OEO programs are pre-
mised upon local control and the ability of local commu-
nities to determine their own needs and evaluate their
success. Thus, those who live and work in the areas served
by CRLA's operational offices have had the best opportu-
(12)
nity to formulate informed opinion as to the actual im-
pact of CRLA in all its dimensions. Opinions from persons
in urban areas, unless they exhibit some specific know-
ledge about CRLA, are almost useless and have been omitted.
E. Other Evaluations.
We have been asked constantly by CRLA and its sup-
porters why we are evaluating a program that was evaluated
as recently as August, 1970 (Exhibit 11-0134). Apart from
the separate and formal responsibility that Section 242
of the Economic Opportunity Act as amended imposes on the
Governor to review programs funded by OEO, we have felt
it necessary to conduct our own evaluation of CRLA because
of our deep concern that other evaluations have been lim-
ited not only in scope but in thoroughness.
(1) The August 1970 evaluation was conducted by
14 people who each spent seven days, one in each of seven
of CRLA's nine operational offices. They spoke with CRLA
attorneys and individuals in the area. Few of the eval-
uators were from California and none of them from its
rural areas. As one evaluator put it:
"So, I feel that as a result of my short in-
vestigation, that CRLA is probably doing a
good job
I didn't get a chance to talk to
some people as I would like, but you can only
do SO much in a day (August 1970 Evalua-
tion, pp. 11-12).
(13)
To ask such people to "paradrop" into the rural commu-
nities served by CRLA and attempt to learn anything in
depth about the full impact of the program in a day is
asking a great deal, even from the distinguished people
who participated in the evaluation.
The limitations and scale are dramatized in this
excerpt from the August evaluation. One participant con-
cluded that CRLA attorneys were "universally competent
and highly professional", giving as the basis for his
judgment the following:
"
The lawyers in the CRLA office there were
universally competent and highly professional.
That would be my judgment as well, from talk-
ing to them. There are five lawyers in the
office, one was not there. I had a chance to
talk with only one, briefly. The other three,
I would say, are all very good lawyers."
(Page 6--Emphasis added.)
The most severe limitation of the August 1970
evaluation (and others as well) was its failure to con-
sider that many of CRLA's admittedly recurring problems
might be institutionally and structurally founded. (Of
course, the limited time in the field for each evaluator
precluded any one individual from gaining an overall
perspective of the CRLA program.) There is implicit ac-
ceptance of CRLA's structure in the report. No other
conclusion can explain the complete lack of concern for
possible structural defects despite recitation of many
(14)
problems which might suggest them.
The report's failure to relate problems to
the institution is illustrated in the following discus-
sion:
"Also, recently, an incident at the Delano
High School involved one of the newer mem-
bers of the CRLA staff and this provoked
hostility by the community. This is the
most controversial aspect of the entire
focus and has been very sensitive for us...
Recently, they hired a young Chicano attor-
ney, who we found has a great passion for
the people and a great sense of outrage.
Unfortunately, he has found it difficult to
channel his passion into a legal context
and has, in a number of instances, literal-
ly taken to the streets as a community
organizer. This happened in particular at
the Delano High School, which resulted in
the withdrawal by students and a picketing
of the school. He led the picketing."
(Page 14--Emphasis added.)
This discussion was followed by the following
observation:
"It is true, many of the lawyers attached to
CRLA are inexperienced lawyers, and some-
times members of the Bar whom I interviewed,
referred to that inexperience. In the Salinas
office, for example, with the exception of
the senior lawyer, all of the lawyers have
less than five years of practice." (Page 16--
Emphasis added.)
Incidents recited throughout the evaluation suggest
that the problem goes considerably beyond inexperience.
What is disappointing is that the August evaluation lacked
the imagination and depth to consider the possibility
that these problems had their roots in institutional flaws
of CRLA.
(15)
Beyond this problem, the evaluation did contri-
bute some serious and alarming observations. On community
relations, for example, the following is significant:
"There is one point I would like to make about
the office in McFarland, at least in my impres-
sion, is that it has not always been able to
deal well in matters affecting the community.
It is not always able to involve itself dispas-
sionately. That is to say, theyhave assumed
from the very outset that the poor community,
that is, the poor white community were the good
guys, the establishment, the government, the
growers, were all the bad guys and what has
happened, in a sense, is that the adversary
relationship has been withdrawn from the court-
room and has taken place initially in the
streets, in their initial confrontation with
the community." (Page 15--Emphasis added.)
The evaluator then noted that the community did not
possess the hostility toward CRLA which the CRLA office
imagined:
"I guess what came out of McFarland was for the
nonpoverty community to say, "I wish CRLA in
McFarland would work with us. If they are going
to sue us, fine. But I wish they'd work with us
and speak to us and research the problem, not
so much legally but factually before they plunge
into a suit. (Page 15--Emphasis added.)
One of OEO's major emphases is the mobilization and
integration of all segments of a community to eradicate
poverty. Here was a problem going to the very heart of
such a concept. Here was an instance in which an OEO Legal
Service office was disrupting a community, stirring tensions
and hostilities and which, had they been done by someone
outside of the poverty industry, would have been universally
(16)
condemned. Thus, questions concerning the institutional
soundness of CRLA as an organization capable of providing
legal services to the poor while producing meaningful
and integrated changes in rural communities are necessary
and legitimate.
(2) The other most celebrated evaluation of CRLA
was that done by the General Accounting Office of the
Comptroller General of the United States, which was re-
leased in July 1968. (Exhibit 03-0150-02. This evalua-
tion is discussed elsewhere in this report.)
The GAO Report grew out of a request by Congressman
Robert B. Mathias to undertake an investigation primarily
of CRLA's relationship with the United Farm Workers Organi-
zing Committee (UFWOC). Specifically, the investigation
inquired into the charge:
that the grantee (CRLA) may not have complied
with certain conditions of its grant because of
(1) a possible connection between the grantee
and the union, (2) the alleged harassment of a
county welfare department, (3) inadequate repre-
sentation of agricultural producers on the
grantee's board, and (4) the alleged engagement
of the grantee in political activities.
The inquiry into CRLA's connection with UFWOC was limited
to five charges, relating to grant conditions that have
been made more stringent since 1968, when the report was
issued.
(17)
The GAO Report was extremely interesting to us
as a point of departure. Although it was limited both
in scope and in its conclusions, discussed in another section
of this report, additional information has since come to
light that makes it dubious at best.
(3) In some respects the most hopeful opportunity
for a fresh look at CRLA took place in Stanislaus County
only weeks before this evaluation was prepared. This
occurred when a Grand Jury convened in response to the
"growing public concern that California Rural Legal Assis-
tance, Inc., is not carrying out its stated corporate
purpose of providing adequate legal assistance for the
poor". CRLA had always exhibited a public eagerness to
be evaluated by anyone who cared to do so, but when the
Stanislaus County Grand Jury convened for the purpose of
doing an evaluation, the objectivity of which no one could
deny, CRLA secured from the Federal District Court an in-
junction against any investigation of their program.
The incident is lamentable, for this was the first
time that a program would be evaluated by people in the
area being served by that program. This point is most im-
portant, for typically, legal service programs are evaluated
by people from far away, who know nothing about the commu-
nity in which the program functions. This severe limita-
tion in past CRLA evaluations is ironic in view of OEO's
(18)
explicit and dominant emphasis on communities and local
control.
In this particular case, the Stanislaus County
Grand Jury had several members with excellent credentials
to evaluate the impact of CRLA on poor people. Among
them were the head of the local branch of the NAACP, and
a local leader of the Mexican-American community. But
when faced with the possibility they might be evaluated
by people not precommitted to the poverty-law establish-
ment, and by people whose intimate knowledge of the
community and their constituents could not be questioned,
they sought a sanctuary in the federal injunction that
prevented the Grand Jury from proceeding further with its
evaluation.
The result was that the Grand Jury voted unanimous-
ly a resolution urging Governor Reagan to veto CRLA's
1971 budget, and urging him to institute an immediate in-
vestigation into CRLA's activities.
In important respects, the Grand Jury evaluation
of CRLA that never took place was the most revealing
evaluation of the program that has ever occurred. It
demonstrates that a duly-constituted body of citizens,
with a responsibility to their community, were prevented
from discharging their responsibility. They were thwarted
(19)
by a highly vocal special interest group bent on preserving
its elitist prerogatives-the most important of which was
the right to control not only the criteria but also the
conduct of their own program's evaluation. The similarity
between the Stanislaus experience and our experiences with
NLADA over the questionnaire is clear. The only inferen-
ces that can be drawn are that local control is fiction
rather than fact, and that local citizens cannot modify
the behavior of existing elites and institutions such as
CRLA, because the costs to them are too high.
F. IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS.
Before we address our attention to relevant indices
of CRLA's performance, it is well to take a moment to
identify some considerations of CRLA's performance which
are not relevant to our evaluation or, if relevant, are
not sufficiently precise to 91 ve the basis for reasonable
judgment.
(1) Suits by CRLA against the State of California
or other political subdivisions.
CRLA has and continues to carry on a multiplicity of
actions against the State of California. Some of these
have caused substantial increases in expenditure of tax-
payer dollars in the area of Welfare and Medi-Cal. However,
other OEO-supported legal programs in San Francisco, Ala-
meda County and Berkeley have cost the taxpayers many times
the dollars in additional taxes that CRLA has. If one
(20)
were to take this area of activity into consideration in
his evaluation there are much "bigger fish" available than
CRLA.
The matter of allowing or disallowing OEO-supported
attorneys to sue the government with the risk of increasing
the taxpayer costs is a matter of policy for Congress
and/or OEO to decide upon. Since it is not proscribed in
the CRLA grant, we cannot properly take it into consider-
ation.
(2) The Use of Class Actions.
Class actions are being used with increasing frequency
by attorneys everywhere. Class actions are legal tools
to be employed as the facts and circumstances warrant.
Criticism of CRLA in this area should not, therefore, focus
upon the use of class actions per se, but upon specific
class actions that either have no necessary relationship
to the poor or that contravene some other standard or
condition set out herein. It should be added that class
actions, by their nature, are very time-consuming enter-
prises for both sides of the case. In light of the legal
hours that must be devoted, great care should be used in
deciding to expand a particular case beyond the circum-
stances of a particular individual seeking to be served.
(21)
(3) Statistical Analyses.
CRLA frequently advances a multitude of statistics as
evidence of its own success. These statistics primarily
involve the number of people served and cases won and
lost. We find their facility as statisticians at the
very least suspicious in the face of the nonstatistical
information and evidence we have gathered concerning the
actual operation of their program in the areas affected.
This is particularly true of consistent reports that CRLA
attorneys are unavailable for service, that they represent
criminals frequently and that in the field their ordinary
service work is sloppy and unprofessional-- in contrast
to favorable reports about the high quality of their appel-
late work out of the Central Office in San Francisco. It
is difficult for us to see how one could measure the suc-
cess of a legal service program numerically. We are con-
vinced that to be truly successful, a program must be
concerned with people, not with numbers.
The statistics CRLA cites are almost meaningless,
in any event. Among other things, it is most difficult
to determine whether a case has taken five minutes or
five months to handle.
A win-loss record is hardly relevant to marriage
dissolutions, bankruptcies, consumer advice, etc., which
have to do with really serving the individual needs of
(22)
poor people. Furthermore, it appears that CRLA has not
included in its win-loss determination the number of
cases which it may have dismissed prior to trial. It
clearly does not reveal the numerous losses in criminal
cases where its personnel, contrary to its grand condi-
tions, have represented criminal defendants (see section
on criminal representation, page ).
Recently, the President of the Sonoma County Bar
Association, Newton Dal Poggetto, forwarded a letter to
our office, which, among other things, indicated the
following:
"We obtained the figures from the Santa Rosa,
California, Rural Legal Assistance office on
their activities for 1970, and after our Board
studied them, we were unable to conclude that
the figures were meaningful." (Exhibit 22-1034.)
Similarly in the August, 1970, evaluation of CRLA,
it was stated:
"I know that OEO uses statistics for getting
Congressional appropriations and the like,
but statistics are very often misleading.. =
(Exhibit 11-0134.)
SUMMARY
Though the political controversy surrounding CRLA
is highly emotional and symbolic, the need to assess cor-
rectly the empirical reference of OEO legal concepts and
the facts about actual behavior appear necessary if the
rural poor are to have a significant voice in determining
(23)
what types of legal services they wish to consume. Thus
the State Office has conducted its investigation from the
following concerns and methods.
First, our concerns about CRLA were twofold. We
were concerned with whether or not CRLA was a sound
organization. Implicit in such concerns are questions
relating to CRLA's ability to represent heterogeneous
legal needs of the poor; CRLA's ability to work harmonious-
ly in communities; CRLA's ability as an organization to
establish its own authority and internal control; and
finally whether CRLA, as presently constituted, is capable
of living within the intent and guidelines of OEO. This
broad range of questions is oriented primarily towards
ascertaining whether or not the present organizational
structure has the potential to deliver the goods and ser-
vices that are explicitly stated in its work program.
Our second concern has to do with whether the poor have
access to the policy-making organs of CRLA to determine
the types of legal services that they desire to consume.
It is important to point out that at the date of
this writing, information and evidence is still pouring
into our office from all over the State. We expect that
once news becomes public of the Governor's veto, many
people who may have felt reluctant to speak out before,
(24)
will do SO for the first time. Thus, it is possible
that we may continue gathering information sent to us
about CRLA for some time to come.
In several specific areas, we have investigations
underway, which were not completed at the time of writing,
and we have seen fit, therefore, not to include them.
Some of them could turn out to be items of major importance
for this legal program, but we are forced to stand on the
evidence herein for our recommendation to the Governor.
(25)
III. THE PURPOSE AND CONDITIONS OF THE CRLA GRANT CONTRACT
A. PURPOSE
CRLA has been mandated by its grant to provide legal
services to the eligible poor in civil matters only within
the rural areas served by its operational offices.
"California Rural Legal Assistance is esta-
blished to give legal aid to people in need,
who cannot afford to pay for a private attor-
ney, and who would not otherwise be helped.
"In order to be entitled to our services, a
person must seek aid from CRLA. He must also
show that he makes no more than a certain
amount of money each year. Finally, he must
demonstrate that his case is not the kind which
would support a contingent or court-awarded fee,
so that it may be presumed that a private attor-
ney would be unwilling to represent him. Only if
these three requirements are satisfied may a per-
son become the client of a CRLA attorney."
Appendix E, CRLA Refunding
Proposal, 1971
B. CONDITIONS
In order to carry out this mission, the Federal
Government has imposed certain specific restrictions,
limitations and requirements on CRLA as a part of its grant
contract. These conditions are designed to assure that
CRLA's mission can and will be carried out effectively.
These conditions include, but are not limited to:
(1) A prohibition against representing criminals
(except in very special and restricted instances). This
(26)
has been done to assure that CRLA's resources will not
be dissipated where other services, such as those of the
Public Defender, are already available in California.
(2) A prohibition against accepting cases
which generate fees (except in very limited and special
cases), so that such cases may be referred to private
legal counsel.
(3) A requirement that clients meet a pres-
cribed income eligibility standard, so that those in
fact able to pay for an attorney will do so and will not
utilize the limited resources of CRLA.
(4) CRLA is proscribed from representing a
labor union.
C. RULES AND PRINCIPLES
In addition to the specific grant conditions out-
lined above, there exists a body of rules of professional
conduct and canons of legal ethics designed to create an
atmosphere, framework and relationship with those to be
served and with the community at large, which maintains
the dignity of the legal profession and gives the program
its highest potential for success. Following are some
of these considerations:
(1) A prohibition against soliciting clients
and stirring up litigation. This conforms with long-
established professional principles of the bench and bar.
(27)
(2) A prohibition against conduct unbecoming
an attorney. This provision is vital to maintenance of
the dignity of the profession.
(3) A prohibition against the filing of har-
assing or frivolous actions. This is of special importance
in the context of OEO-supported legal programs because
of the public trust which the use of public funds engenders.
The attorney must be ever cognizant of the fact that his
clients who pay nothing for his service enjoy thereby a
distinct advantage over their adversaries, who must pay
for the services of private counsel. These services pro-
vided at zero cost create an economic leverage which
carries the potential for horrendous abuse and which can
serve to distort, rather than enhance, the interests of
justice toward a fair and proper result.
(4) A special prohibition attends taxpayer-
supported legal services, to wit, that the attorney shall
not waste precious resources and shall be guided by con-
cerns for economy in all respects. Only in this fashion
can he justify his performance and nurture public confidence.
(5) A prohibition against newspaper publicity
by a lawyer as to pending or anticipated litigation so
that there will not be interference with a fair trial or
the proper administration of justice.
(28)
IV. A CASE AND COMMENT MONTAGE OF CRLA--
RES IPSA LOQUITUR
"California Rural Legal Assistance is estab-
lished to give legal aid to people in need,
who cannot afford to pay for a private attor-
ney, and who would not otherwise be helped."
(Refunding Proposal, App. E, p. 1.)
Mrs. Amelia Harris was employed by CRLA's Salinas
office from September, 1966, to June, 1969. She is cur-
rently interim director of the Monterey County Anti-
Poverty Coordinating Council, an OEO-supported agency.
While she was with CRLA, she was employed as directing
legal secretary and office manager. She states in affi-
davit:
"All or almost all of the legal briefs went
through my hands. I worked for two directing
attorneys, Robert Gnaizda (now Deputy Director
of CRLA in Central Office) and Dennis Powell.
Mr. Powell assumed his duties in February,
1969. Cases accepted for clients were accep-
ted under guidelines set down by the Office of
Economic Opportunity. At least, at first.
Cases were accepted for clients charged with
criminal offenses particularly after Attorney
Bill Daniels transferred from the Marysville
office.
Many conscientious objector cases,
to avoid the draft, were accepted and defended
by Mr. Daniels, in Federal Courts.
Mr. Dan-
iels was involved with the inmates at Soledad
Prison, in the preparation of cases, to be
presented in court by the inmate, seeking writs,
new trials, and so forth. I do not recall any-
one in particular. Some of these cases were
accepted because of correspondence received
from inmates of the prison. I do know that Mr.
Daniels would go to Soledad Prison. Some of
these clients were involved in criminal cases,
and some were civil cases.
During the early
months of 1969, all domestic relations cases,
most consumer credit and automobile credit cases
were dropped because the caseload was too high.
(29)
It is my opinion and was at that time that
California Rural Legal Assistance attorneys
were accepting too many cases which were
outside the quidelines. Many cases of class
action were accepted. Some of these cases
were filed simultaneously with the same types
of organization in Connecticut. Many cases
were established as a result of manufactured
situations. I mean by this that clients or
potential clients were instructed in certain
actions and dialog with agencies and private
firms that would lead to litigation.
This
case related to the fact that Mrs. Rodriguez
was about to be evicted from her house, how-
ever the action was designed to attack another
part of the rules of the Department of Welfare.
Another case I can recall involves a man at
the Day Hall Center, California Farm Labor
Service. The persons who were sent to the
Day Hall Center were instructed as to actions
to take and what to say. These instructions
came from Dennis Powell, who was the directing
attorney. As I recall, this case involved
people handing out leaflets and literature at
the Day Hall Center. I do not recall the exact
instructions given or to whom they were given.
Mr. Powell did coach the persons who went to
the Day Hall Center on exact actions to take
and instructions as to what they were to say.
I know he wanted the farm labor service to have
to remove people from the premises, and there-
by provide a course of action against the farm
labor service to the end of abolishing it.
In the case of Jeremio V. Salinas Strawberries,
that involved the discharge of eight men for
organizing a union, that this was a contrived
situation wherein the men were instructed as to
how to go about organizing a union and then when
they were discharged an action was filed against
Salinas Strawberries. This same situation OC-
curred in the Martin Produce, Inc., case*.
I
* It will be noted that Mrs. Harris has evidently confused
the facts of the Salinas Strawberries case with those of
the Martin Produce case, which she discusses together. The
discharge of men for organizing a union (actually there
were 9) was involved in the Martin Produce case. This does
not compromise, however, the potency of her testimony re-
garding the "contrived" situations on which she said both
cases were prosecuted by CRLA.
(30)
recall that I was directed, as Directing Legal
Secretary, to seek out times that specific fed-
eral courts and federal judges were available.
I was given these instructions by the directing
attorney, at the particular time. I was direc-
ted to seek open dates in the federal courts
before Judge Peckham and Judge Zirpoli for the
filing and trial of cases. These cases would
open up chambers to California Rural Legal Assis-
tance attorneys and were sympathetic to the
causes of these attorneys. After the C lifornia
Rural Legal Assistance decided to drop domestic
relations cases, consumer credit cases and auto-
mobile credit cases I voiced the opinion that
this was not correct procedure under the guide-
lines set forth and that acceptance of other
types of cases outside the guidelines while not
accepting cases inside the guidelines was wrong,
morally and legally. I was discharged in June,
1969. At the time of my discharge I had leave
pay and severance pay coming. I made demand on
California Rural Legal Assistance for payment of
pay due me. I did not receive my pay. I filed
a demand and claim through the Labor Commissioner,
Division of Labor Law Enforcement, California
Department of Industrial Relations, 21 West Laurel
Drive, Salinas. My attorney in this action was
William Moreno. The Labor Commissioner ordered
payment of the moneys due me plus punitive dam-
ages and I was fina lly paid through the Labor
Commissioner office. During the first few months
I was with California Rural Legal Assistance the
attorneys were performing services to help poor
people. However, during the latter part of
my tenure this was not true. The attorneys be-
came more concerned with class actions for chan-
ges and cases outside the guidelines that were
not helping the poor people. *
* Mrs. Harris did not sign this affidavit, because she felt
it was inappropriate for her to do in view of her pre-
sent association with an OEO-funded program. The state-
ment was made before two witnesses, however, and she has
expressed a willingness to testify personally to the truth
of the facts she presents.
(31)
=
They now have to turn away cases that they
can't handle in the Salinas office. They don't
handle domestic relations. A very big publi-
city campaign as to the type of routine ser-
vices they handle would swamp the office. They
would have to turn away people and cause antag-
onism.
=
(August 1970 Evaluation of CRLA,
pp. 21-22. Exhibit 11-0134--Emphasis added.)
"In order to be entitled to our services, a
person must seek aid from CRLA..." (1971
Refunding Proposal, Appendix E, p. 1.)
In the case of Wolfin V. Vinson, CRLA filed suit
on behalf of 16 Indians against a local car dealer.
(Wolfin V. Vinson, Superior Court, Lake County, No. 10155.)
In the defendant's motion to dismiss, attorneys attached
depositions from 15 of the 16 plaintiffs, stating that
they had never requested to be part of the lawsuit. An
excerpt from one of the depositions follows:
"Question: Now, what did you do on your part
to get this lawsuit started?
"A. Nothing.
"Q. Nothing?
"A. No.
"l. Well, now, your attorney has indicated that
he has authorizations signed by each plaintiff
authorizing and instructing his firm to bring
this lawsuit. Do you recall signing any such
authorization?
"A. Yes, I did. After I heard about it.
"Q. After what?
"A. After I heard about it.
(32)
"Q. After you heard about what, the lawsuit?
"A. Yes.
"Q. You signed the authorization after you heard
about the lawsuit being filed?
"A. Yes.
"l. How long after the lawsuit had been filed
did you sign that authorization?
"A. Oh, I don't know. About--I couldn't remem-
ber that far back.
"Q. I see. Alright. Now, other than signing
that document after the lawsuit was filed, what
if anything did you do before the lawsuit was
filed to get the lawsuit started?
"A. Nothing.
"Q. Absolutely nothing?
"A. Absolutely nothing.
...
"Q. When you heard about this lawsuit being
filed, were you surprised?
"A. Yes.
(Exhibit 09-0137--Emphasis added.)
One of the people who participated in the August
evaluation of CRLA commented: (page 20)
"Some of the attorneys seem to turn people off
because a lot of Chicanos I spoke to felt
CRLA was using the people to get publicity and
not following through with the issues that
directly affected the people. They thought that
priorities were all wrong because the priori-
ties did not come from the people but come from
the attorneys
I
think the essence of the peo-
ple's feeling is that the attorneys should be
there to serve the people and not the people to
serve the attorneys." (Exhibit 11-0134--Empha-
sis added.)
(33)
"The empathy--when I went around I found a
tremendous amount of empathy on the part of
the attorneys involved. You could use such
descriptive terms as 'dedicated', 'extremely
concerned'
=
(August Evaluation, p. 6.)
The affidavit of Rachel Pauline Hubbard states
as follows:
"About March 5, 1964, I agreed to take a
baby boy three days old who was the son of
my husband's nephew. My husband and I
agreed to raise the boy in our home. We
did not attempt to adopt the child in 1964.
During the Fall of 1967, my husband, William
Frank Hubbard, suffered a heart attack and
was in the Sutter County Hospital for about
three weeks. He had a history of heart at-
tacks since 1957. He came home and shortly
thereafter we were able to obtain aid from
the Sutter County Welfare Department of $144
per month. In August, 1969, I needed to make
a trip to Mansfield, Arkansas, as my 85-year
old mother was in ill health. I contacted
the Welfare Department and obtained permis-
sion for me and the child to be out of the
State. The day before I was going to leave
by bus, my husband decided that he wanted to
go. He was feeling good and felt that the
trip would do him good. His doctor gave him
permission.
I then went to the Welfare
Department and obtained permission for the
child, myself and my husband to make the trip
by automobile. We drove to Dumas, Texas,
where he said he did not feel well, and he
was admitted to the hospital in Dumas. He
was in the hospital for about three weeks.
I telephoned the Sutter County Welfare Depart-
ment and reported that my husband was ill in
the hospital. I wanted them to send my wel-
fare check to Dumas, Texas, where I was stay-
ing with my sister. They told me that we
would have to come back to California in order
to receive any more money as we could not be
listed as California residents otherwise. The
doctor in Dumas, Texas, stated that we should
return to California. We left Dumas, Texas,
because we did not qualify for welfare aid from
(34)
Texas and my husband needed continued medical
help. I drove the car and when we got as far
as Modesto area, my husband died right along-
side of the highway. After coming home to
Sutter County I went to the Welfare Department
for aid and the maximum amount I could get was
$150 per month. I then went to the United
States Social Security Administration to get
assistance, if possible, as my husband had
been receiving $92 per month from them. I
wanted to know if the child could obtain fin-
ancial aid from my husband's account. I was
told that if I had adoption papers completed
I could obtain financial aid through my hus-
band's account. I went directly to the Calif-
ornia Rural Legal Assi stance Office on Seventh
Street in Marysville, California, and asked
for legal assistance in getting adoption papers
for the child. I talked to the head man,
Mr. Henry, and explained all the facts to him.
He referred me to another CRLA attorney,
Mr. Rogers. * I explained everything to Mr. Rog-
ers. He telephoned the Social Security and
verified the facts. Then he said he would help
me if I would sue the Sutter County Welfare De-
partment for the death of my husband. He said
that if they had not wanted my husband to return
to California he would not have died. Mr. Rogers
wanted me to also sign a paper so he could go
to the Welfare Department and obtain my welfare
file or records. I would not do that. All I
wanted was the adoption papers. Mr. Rogers said
all they wanted to do was sue the Welfare and
this was the best case they had come across. I
just refused to sue the Welfare Department and I
walked out. Mr. Rogers telephoned me about five
times afterwards asking me to come back to his
office and sign the papers so they could get
my welfare files. He said the only way I could
get the adoption papers was to sue the Welfare
Department. This all happened during (about)
October, 1969. I still do not have the adoption
papers, and I still have not received any fin-
ancial aid from Social Security. The Welfare
* There is some question about Rogers' exact relationship
to CRLA. James Henry was a paid attorney in 1969 with
CRLA's Marysville office, but it appears that Rick Rogers
may have worked for CRLA through VISTA. He appears on num-
erous court cases filed by CRLA and lists the same office
address. Furthermore, we have a record that he attended at
least one CRLA Advisory Committee Meeting and was listed
there among employees attended.
(35)
Department increased my monthly amount in
November, 1969, and again the first part of
this year, 1970, because I have sugar dia-
betes and cannot work. At this time I am
barely able to exist on what I get monthly.
If I could get some financial aid from Social
Security I could support myself and the child,
now six years, much better. A; CRLA refused
to help me with legal help, I have not been
able to get the adoption completed and I can-
not afford the legal expenses for a private
attorney.' (Exhibit 02-0018--Emphasis added.)
The following statement indicates CRLA's willing-
ness to consider alternative mechanisms for improving
the delivery of quality legal services to the poor (quo-
ted from notes taken by investigator) :
Neil B. Van Winkle, attorney-at-law stated
that when he was President of the Merced Coun-
ty Bar Association, 1967, to 1968, he tried
to institute a Judicare Program (supposed to
be like Medicare). Indigents who qualified
for this program would be given a Judicare
Card. When this program was being formulated,
Van Winkle ran into heavy opposition from
CRLA, because CRLA wanted to come to Merced
County and CRLA cannot come into a county
where there is free legal service. Mr. Van
Winkle further stated that when he gave talks
about the program, CRLA was always where he
was giving a speech and voiced opposition to
the program. (Statement taken December 10,
1970. Exhibit 09-0197.)
"Time pressure forces the attorney first to
accept his clients' own simplistic character-
izations of their problems, then to solve
these problems at the lowest level of contro-
versy. = (Refunding proposal, p. 31.)
In the early summer of 1969, people throughout
Santa Barbara County read in the local press that a local
grower was spraying dangerous pesticides that were caus-
(36)
ing serious injury to the agricultural workers they em-
ployed. The same article announced the institution of
a suit by CRLA against the Department of Agriculture and
the Santa Maria Berry Farms on behalf of two plaintiffs
who claimed to be injured by the pesticides. (Ybarra V.
Fielder, et. al., Santa Maria Superior Court, No. 6833.)
The choice of defendants was somewhat ironic in view of
the characterization of that farm by one CRLA attorney
as a "model" farm in a newspaper article only a few weeks
before the filing of the suit.
Prior to the filing of the complaint, CRLA made
no effort to inquire from the defendant what pesticides
he was using. It was later determined that harmess fer-
tilizer was all that was sprayed. The same plaintiffs
alleging personal injury produced no evidence of injury.
After several lengthy hearings, the directing attor-
ney of CRLA's Santa Maria office, Burton D. Fretz, wrote
a letter dismissing the case with the following comment:
"As the complaint herein indicates, the action
focuses upon the problem of the availability
of information within the records of govern-
mental offices to farm workers injured by
exposure to pesticides. The promulgation after
the filing of this lawsuit of a Policy Letter
by the Director of Agriculture dated August 11,
1969, (enclosed) and now in effect makes such
information generally available."
And he concluded:
(37)
"Although concern remains about dangers pre-
sent in other areas of pesticide application
we believe the question of access to informa-
tion is largely resolved and accordingly we
request entry of dismissal." (Exhibit 09-0184--
Emphasis added.)
If CRLA dismissed the case because in fact no
injury occurred, the plaintiffs were guilty of misre-
presentation when they filed it and the suit was expli-
cit harassment. If injury did occur, CRLA exhibited
gross neglect in failing to pursue their case to just
conclusion on behalf of their clients who suffered in-
jury. The letter quoted above indicates "injury" was
simply a pretext for getting into court.
The suit died with the dismissal, but the damage
had been done. The defendants had been forced to defend
a costly suit. Equally important, fears and tensions had
been stirred in the local citizenry, who believed they
were being poisoned by local growers spraying dangerous
pesticides. The resentments and hostilities had been
fueled between farm workers and their employers, by en-
couraging the workers to think they were being infected
and injured by their employers.
* In a separate administrative hearing, the crop dusters
were suspended for 90 days for dropping the harmless
fertilizer on the workers, but CRLA had no direct involve-
ment in this proceeding, other than as witnesses.
(38)
"The Bar Association, on county and municipal
levels, are least attuned to the basic prob-
lems on a statewide and national basis. The
deficiency here, in my view, is not with the
CRLA but in the failure of the organized
Bar in many areas to meet their responsibili-
ty to the poor in the legal services program."
(August Evaluation, p. 58.)
Is it any wonder that members of the local bar
shy away from, or totally refuse to assist, CRLA when
that organization involves itself in the following type
of activity?
In the Spring of 1970, a "People's Paper" was
published by the Marysville office of CRLA, listing,
among others, CRLA attorney Peter Haberfield (sic) as
a contributor. The paper listed as its address 1212 F
Street, Marysville, which is the address of the local
CRLA office. A section entitled "Chief Judicial Racism,"
states:
"This visa required the signature of Attorney
General PIG Mitchell for approval, which he
did not approve. This is the same man that
will stand up and lie to your face about the
reasons for being in Viet Nam, Cambodia, Afri-
ca, Europe, and why you should remain a peace-
ful and trusting mass while thousands of inno-
cent people are being killed for no reason.
So that the rest of the world can be oppressed
by this white racist government. We say take
heed to this man's message, for if you believe
in this man you will forever be a race that will
be oppressed, tortured, beaten and killed.
This man is willing to take all the steps to
keep minority groups from winning human rights,
which he will say is all for law and order.
What type of law can exist where people want
to be free and are fighting for this freedom
(39)
that they have been deprived of where the
Pig can kick down your door, beat and kill
your children for protesting against what
they feel is wrong, and your Black Brothers
and Sisters are being shot down in the street
like animals. WE ARE ASKING ALL BROTHERS AND
SISTERS TO 'TAKE ARMS'. THE PEOPLE NEED YOU. "
(Exhibit Emphasis added.)
On March 16, 1970, at Yuba College, at a Semi-
nar on Minority Problems, CRLA attorney Peter Haberfeld
is quoted as saying:
"We've learned a lot from the Black Panther
party; it's time for a White Panther party.
We have to find a course of action, we have
to start the revolution is coming."
(Exhibit 09-0110 - Emphasis added.)
On January 14, 1969, the Board of Trustees of
Gavilan College, Gilroy, California, considered proposed
policy for establishing an uncensored bulletin board
and table. Gavailan student, Miss Kathe Fish, represen-
ted by CRLA attorney Don Kates, Jr., opposed the college
rules governing the distribution of materials at that
meeting. The President of Gavilan College states in
affidavit:
"Miss Fish and about 30 or 40 students who
followed her lead were actively campaigning
to have 'four-letter words' authorized for
print in the college newspaper." (Exhibit
10-0063.)
On or about January 22, 1969, the President of the
College was served with a temporary restraining order
filed by CRLA on behalf of Miss Fish. The complaint alleged:
(40)
"Defendants, the President and members of
the Board of Trustees of the College now
seek to expel, suspend or otherwise exclude
plaintiff because of her aforesaid activi-
ties."
The President continued in affidavit:
"I did not condone the activities of Miss Fish,
but I never harassed her in any way and I
did not attempt to have her expelled from the
college. The CRLA suit states that I tried to
have Miss Fish excluded from campus, that I
tried to intimidate Miss Fish and keep her
from exercising her right to obtain counsel
of her choice, and that I tried to deter her
from receiving benefits conferred by the
Economic Opportunity Act. None of the above
charges are true. It is my opinion that the
CRLA grossly exaggerated the situation invol-
ving Miss Fish in order to make an issue
where no real issue really existed." (Exhibit
10-0063--Emphasis added.)
No negotiation or communication preceded the
filing of the action, but it stirred tension and turmoil
on the campus and made discipline and stability all the
more difficult to maintain. MissFish left the college
not long after this time and became involved in drug pre-
vention work. She is currently under criminal indictment
for the sale of marijuana.
"Given the credentials of the Government
Accounting Office investigating agency, and
given the thoroughness of their investiga-
tion in this particular case, accusations
regarding CRLA's illicit connection with
labor unions have become much less frequent."
(Refunding Proposal, pp. 34-35.)
(41)
On September 4, 1970, during a UFWOC rally in
support of the Union's lettuce strike in Salinas, a per-
son identified as Neil Levy, who is listed as an attor-
ney with the CRLA Salinas office, is reported by a
newsman to have addressed the rally and offered the sup-
port of the CRLA Salinas office to defend against unlaw-
ful detainer actions. A T.V. film clip showing the
rally, describes the scene as follows:
"California Rural Legal Assistance attorney
Neil Levy asked that all workers return
summonses from growers notifying them to
leave the camp, so that they can be answered
in court, adding that in that way he may
be able to prolong the day of eviction. "
(Exhibit 07-0088--Emphasis added.)
The unlawful detainer actions grow out of the
growers' practice frequently of paying part of their com-
pensation in the form of housing for the workers and
their families. When the union calls a strike, the em-
ployers naturally seek to cut off all compensation, which
includes the right to free housing. The effect of CRLA's
intervention on behalf of the union is to bring addition-
al economic pressure to bear on the employers--an expli-
cit union responsibility--and to force perpetuation of
part compensation (the housing) by the employer.
* See also section V.C. herein.
(42)
"The project will supply legal assistance to
farm workers and other poor persons in Cal-
ifornia. Its goal is to provide the legal
protection necessary to enable the rural poor
to help themselves. (Brief Description of
the project, in 1971 Refunding Proposal, in-
side cover.)
A member of the OEO Board of Directors for Merced
County recalls one contact he had with CRLA:
"
in June of 1969 a problem arose between
the Spanish people and the school board.
This happened in Livingston, California.
There were several problems, among them the
students boycotted the high school. The
students carried placards around the school.
It was found that these placards were made
at the OEO office--the Livingston Service
Center. Because of this, some employees at
the Service Center were fired. The employees
who were fired were represented by CRLA who
appealed the firing. Van Winkle stated that
the Board of Supervisors, of which he is a
member, elected him to be the hearing officer
at the appeal hearing for the fired service
center employees. Van Winkle stated that at
this appeal hearing the CRLA attorneys lined
up the witnesses and the audience and created
such a disturbance that Van Winkle had two
deputies called in to maintain order. Van
Winkle stated he had to have two people re-
moved from the hearing Van Winkle stated
that the name of the hearing was the matter
of Steven Haberfeld, Lana Lincon, William
Heter, and William G. Kex, held on the 17th
of June, 1969. (Exhibit 09-0197.)
On January 6, 1970, Mrs. Kathy Young Sears, who
resided at 1590 - 22nd Street, Oceana, California, returned
from her part-time job to find that her husband had left
her. At the time Mrs. Sears was employed by a packing
plant on a part-time basis, with an annual income of $2,000.
(43)
She was of Korean descent and spoke very little English.
When her husband had left, he had taken all of the house
furnishings and property and had left her nothing.
Mrs. Sears contacted the CRLA office in Santa Maria,
California. CRLA, which responded in a letter dated Jan-
uary 29, 1970, said that they would be happy to repre-
sent her in defending the divorce action filed by her
husband. The letter was signed by CRLA Santa Maria
Directing Attorney Burton D. Fretz. The complaint in the
divorce action should have been answered 30 days after
Mrs. Sears received the summons, which was January 6, 1970.
Mrs. Sears did not hear from CRLA for several weeks; she
then returned to the CRLA office in Santa Maria and was
told by a secretary that she did not need an attorney.
She then received a letter dated February 12, 1970, signed
by CRLA attorney Daniel Morper, which stated:
"Dear Mrs. Sears: I regret that you were not
informed earlier that this office would not
be able to handle your case, due to the in-
come of your husband. I hope this mix-up did
not put you at any disadvantage in defending
this case."
By the time this letter was received by Mrs. Sears,
the 30-day period for answering the complaint had expired.
Mrs. Sears, at a tremendous disadvantage because of her
language problem, turned to a private attorney in Santa
Maria and asked that he help her in this divorce action.
(44)
The private attorney took it upon himself to handle the
case and help Mrs. Sears. He went to court on her behalf
and was able to obtain most of her household goods and
six months' alimony. (Exhibit 09-0167.)
"CRLA has never been formally accused of
violating the conditions of its grant with
regard to the handling of criminal cases
"
(Refunding Proposal, p. 33.)
CRLA's representation of criminal defendants has
become so preponderant that, in fact, one local district
attorney has ceased to complain about their handling of
these cases. CRLA's official answer to these charges is
that their attorneys are doing it "on their own time."
This is the thread that runs throughout charges of grant
violation. The response is so frequent that it has
prompted at least one observer to ask whether CRLA attor-
neys are ever permitted respites from their free time.
In answer to a charge brought by District Attorney
James R. Hanhart, CRLA responded (in a letter from Direc-
tor Cruz Reynoso) by commending the attorney involved for
his "selflessness. The letter went on to recite the
practice of large urban law firms, which encourage their
young attorneys to work for indigent persons in criminal
and civil matters.
* See the exchange of letters in Exhibit 01-0199.
(45)
The analogy is disingenuous, as Mr. Hanhart points
out in his letter in answer:
=
the issue is not Mr. Spiegel's "self-
lessness" (a personal trait which is worthy
of commendation), but rather the equal dis-
pensation of tax-subsidized legal services
to indigent criminal defendants.
"Public defenders are tax-subsidized; they can-
not pick and choose their clients--they must
represent all indigent defendants. Private
law firms are not tax-subsidized; they can
pick and choose their clients.
"I note you did not make this rather critical
distinction in your somewhat hurried letter."
Mr. Hanhart goes on to ask the critical questions
governing the administration of all legal service pro-
grams:
11
if CRLA is tax-subsidized, (1) What is
the legal basis for its policy of selectivity?
(2) What criteria govern these selections?
(3) Who supervises the selection process?
(4) How does an indigent criminal defendant
avail himself of CRLA services? The answers
to the above questions might well trigger
new policies from the Board of Directors of
CRLA. 11 (Exhibit 01-0199 Emphasis added.)
The issue goes further. What prevents CRLA attor-
neys from advancing the argument that they are doing some-
thing on their own time, to circumvent all of their program
conditions? The question here is: what ought the public
to subsidize? Generally, one subsidizes only that which
is in short supply. The evident free availability of
certain kinds of services calls into question the whole
(46)
policy of the services that must be subsidized in order
to be performed.
The tragedy for the poor of CRLA's participation
in criminal matters is CRLA's reported incompetence in
handling them. CRLA attorneys have little experience in
criminal matters, and therefore a client represented by
CRLA in a criminal matter is at a tremendous disadvantage,
should one of them be unfortunate enough to be on the re-
ceiving end of an attorney's "selflessness".
In People of State of California V. Michael Diaz,
CRLA attorney Donald W. Haynes, of CRLA's Santa Maria
office, defended Mr. Diaz, who was charged with the crime
of contribution to the delinquency of a minor (PC Section
272), and appeared in court as attorney of record for
said Diaz. The Deputy District Attorney of Santa Barbara
County describes the incident as follows:
"The case involved an 18-year old boy com-
mitting statutory rape on a 15-year old
girl, and when the girl's parents objected,
members of the CRLA's office took the girl
from her parents, taking her to Mexico and
arranged for them to get married. (At
least, this is what Mr. Haynes stated to
the court.) I seriously considered taking
the case to the Grand Jury, charging Mr.
Haynes and others with a felony. However,
due to evidentiary problems and the press
of other felony maters, I did not do so."
(Exhibit 01-004-02.)
(47)
Examples of CRLA's denying poor people service
that would certainly help them "help themselves" are
numerous. Following are representative examples of re-
fusal.
In August, 1970, Maryann Coronado went to the
Madera office of CRLA for assistance in getting a divorce.
She relates the incident as follows:
"I talked to one man at CRLA. I do not
recall his name. This man told me that I
needed grounds for divorce and that the
only way I could get a divorce was for my
husband to beat me up or something like
that. I told him that I was not going to
give him or my husband that satisfaction.
He then gave me a list of attorneys. I told
him that I couldn't afford private counsel.
He then told me that CRLA did not handle
divorce cases. I do not know why CRLA re-
fused me because they have handled divorce
cases for a couple of my girlfriends."
(Exhibit 04-0192--Emphasis added.)
CRLA is often unwilling to help a poor person with
legal problems, even when property is involved. Helen
Lucille Rohrig relates the following treatment she re-
ceived from CRLA:
"When my divorce was finalized in 1969 I was
supposed to receive clear title to 8½¹/2 acres
of property in North Fork, California. I did
not receive clear title so I went to CRLA
for help. I went to the CRLA office in Madera.
I talked to one man, I do not remember his name,
at CRLA and told him my problem. This man
refused to help me. This man stated that I
had a domestic problem and CRLA does not help
people with family problems. I told the man
(48)
that I was on welfare, and he told me
that if I had any problems with the Wel-
fare Department to contact him, because
CRLA would help if I had a problem with
the Welfare Department. (Exhibit 04-0491--
Emphasis added.)
Affiant Judith Shelton relates her experiences
with the Madera office of CRLA:
11 (About May, 1970) I wanted a divorce. I
went to the CRLA office in Madera. I went
there before normal business hours. A
receptionist let me in. I told her my prob-
lem. The receptionist told me that CRLA
does not handle civil cases and also that I
had to be in the county for three months,
which I had not. The receptionist took my
name and number. CRLA never called me. I
finally called them and they told me that
they did not handle civil cases. During Oc-
tober 1970, I again went to CRLA for help.
A finance company in Fresno, Laurentide
Finance Corporation, was trying to sue me for
not making payments on a car. I told this
finance company that I do not have the car
but that my husband does. I told this company
where the car was, but the company does not
want the car, they want my furniture and
money. Also, this finance company had been
calling me and saying it was my husband. I
told CRLA all this and they told me to con-
tact the finance company and offer them $200
if they would agree to take my name off the
contract. My husband and I both signed the
contract for the car. The company agreed to
do this but I could not come up with $200 in
cash. CRLA also told me to write the finance
company a letter telling them that they could
get into trouble for calling me and saying
it was my husband calling. Again, I asked
CRLA about my divorce and one of the CRLA at-
torneys I talked to, A. Keith Lesar, told me
that CRLA does not handle civil cases. He
would not give me an explanation. He did tell
me that if the finance company brought a suit
against me they would help me. I don't under-
stand why CRLA won't help me with my divorce
(49)
case. A girl I know got a divorce through
CRLA. The girl went with the person, whose
name is Ruben, who works with CRLA. "
(Exhi-
bit 04-0190--Emphasis added.)
In September, 1970, Loma Lee Dean related the fol-
lowing experience when she went to a CRLA office for assis-
tance in getting on welfare.
"The purpose of my visit was to have one of
their attorneys help me to get the neces-
sary papers to show I was separated from
my husband, so I could get on welfare. On
my first visit to CRLA I explained the pur-
pose of my visit to attorney A. Keith Lesar.
Mr. Lesar wanted to know why I could not
get on welfare without legal papers, and I
told him that I did not know. Mr. Lesar
informed me I was entitled to welfare with-
out legal papers and sent me back towelfare
to find out why they were refusing me welfare.
Welfare explained to me that they had too
many servicemen's families on welfare and that
they now needed papers to show there was a
separation. Later on I went back to CRLA
and talked to another attorney whose name I
do not know, but they did not help me."
(Exhibit 04-0034-01.)
In one day, a single investigator turned up seven
individual cases in which a poor person went to CRLA's
Madera office for assistance on domestic matters, some of
them involving property, but was refused service by them.
See Exhibits 04-0034, 36, 37, 38, 35, 33, 31.
A damning footnote to CRLA's refusal to offer cer-
tain kinds of service for the poor occurred on February 16,
1970, when Mr. Cameron Hendry, Executive Director of the
Economic Opportunity Commission of Imperial County, wrote
(50)
Page data
- Page
- 1
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- document
- Media ID
- f79a5a3819905d1d
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 118564772
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "118564772",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564772",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "CRLA - Study and Evaluation of CRLA by California OEO, 1971 (1 of 6)",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564772",
"identifierLocal": "840",
"collections": [
"Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit",
"California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408627/40-840-7408627-P29-013-2017.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408627/40-840-7408627-P29-013-2017.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408627/40-840-7408627-P29-013-2017.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "118564772",
"label": "CRLA - Study and Evaluation of CRLA by California OEO, 1971 (1 of 6)",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564772"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "118564772",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564772",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "CRLA - Study and Evaluation of CRLA by California OEO, 1971 (1 of 6)",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564772",
"identifierLocal": "840",
"collections": [
"Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit",
"California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408627/40-840-7408627-P29-013-2017.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408627/40-840-7408627-P29-013-2017.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408627/40-840-7408627-P29-013-2017.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564772",
"naId": 118564772,
"coverageEndDate": {
"logicalDate": "1975-12-31",
"year": 1975
},
"coverageStartDate": {
"logicalDate": "1967-01-01",
"year": 1967
},
"levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 1,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "document",
"url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408627/40-840-7408627-P29-013-2017.pdf",
"mediaId": "f79a5a3819905d1d",
"ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.\nCollection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,\n1966-74: Press Unit\nFolder Title: CRLA - Study and Evaluation of CRLA\nby California OEO, 1971 (1 of 6)\nBox: P29\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at: [email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\nNational Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/\nA STUDY AND EVALUATION\nOF\nCALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL\nASSISTANCE, INC.\nBY\nCALIFORNIA OFFICE OF ECONOMIC\nOPPORTUNITY\n1971\nLEWIS K. UHLER\nDIRECTOR\nA STUDY AND EVALUATION\nOF\nCALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.\nBY\nCALIFORNIA OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY\nTable of Contents\nPage\nI.\nINTRODUCTION\n1\nII.\nCONDUCT OF THE EVALUATION\nA. General Background\n2\nB. Problems of Evaluation\n2\nC. Gathering the Facts\n11\nD. Weighing Evidence\n12\nE. Other Evaluations\n13\nF. Irrelevant Considerations\n20\nIII. THE PURPOSE AND CONDITIONS OF THE\nCRLA GRANT CONTRACT\nA. Purpose\n26\nB. Conditions\n26\nC. Rules and Principles\n27\nIV.\nA CASE AND COMMENT MONTAGE OF CRLA --\nRES IPSA LOQUITUR\n29\nV.\nMAJOR AREAS OF CRLA IMPACT\nA. CRLA's Activities and Involvement\nin California's Prisons\n72\nB. CRLA and the Youth\n91\nC. CRLA and the Farm\n130\nVI.\nA CASE OF NON COMPLIANCE\nA. Criminal Representation\n158\nB. Eligibility Standard for CRLA Attorneys\n168\nC. Soliciting Clients and Stirring up\nLitigation\n175\nD. A Case of Non-Compliance -- Conduct\nUnbecoming an Attorney\n192\nE. Harassing and Frivolous Actions on\nthe Part of CRLA\n203\nF. Waste, Inefficiency and Misuse\nof Resources\n218\nG. Publicity\n226\nVII. THE TWILIGHT ZONE\nA. Lobbying\n236\nB. Fee Generating Cases\n237\nC. In-Kind Contributions\n239\nVIII. COMMUNITY REACTION TO CRLA\n243\nIX.\nCONCLUSION - THE CASE FOR AN ALTERNATIVE\n258\nX.\nRECOMMENDATION\n280\nXI.\nALTERNATIVE PLAN - PRIVATELY FINANCED LEGAL\nSERVICES FOR THE RURAL POOR\n281\nI. INTRODUCTION.\nUnder the provisions of the Economic Opportunity\nAct of 1964, as amended, Section 242 thereof, the Gover-\nnor of any state is given the authority to approve or\ndisapprove any grant initiated by OEO. This authority\napplies to the refunding of California Rural Legal Assis-\ntance, Inc., a California nonprofit corporation, which\nhas been refunded for calendar year 1971 by the Legal\nServices Division, Office of Economic Opportunity, Head-\nquarters, Washington, D.C. This refunding is in the sum\nof $1,884,101 (federal share).\nThe California State Office of Economic Opportunity\nhas conducted this extensive evaluation into CRLA, so\nthat a rational decision can be made in terms of their\nrefunding request pursuant to Section 242 of the Economic\nOpportunity Act.\nCRLA carries out its functions from nine offices\nin rural areas (Marysville-Yuba City, Modesto, Madera,\nGilroy, McFarland, El Centro, Santa Rosa, Salinas and\nSanta Maria), conducts a lobbying function through its\nregistered lobbyist in Sacramento and is administered out\nof a central headquarters in San Francisco. The latter\noffice also conducts a substantial amount of the appellate\nwork carried on by CRLA. CRLA employs approximately 44\nattorneys and a substantial clerical staff, and has com-\nmunity workers and investigators in its employ as well.\n(1)\nII. CONDUCT OF THE EVALUATION.\nA. General Background.\nWe began by considering all available information\nconcerning CRLA, including past evaluations, as well as\ncorrespondence and other materials in our files. It was\nsoon obvious, however, that the scale of CRLA's opera-\ntion, as well as the importance and dimension of the\nissue, required more thorough and, in some respects, more\nrefined techniques of evaluation than had been used in\nthe past. As CRLA itself is fond of pointing out, no\nprogram has been more thoroughly investigated and evalu-\nated. But despite the resources deployed from every\nquarter to its evaluations, the complaints continued to\npour into our office, not only from CRLA's adversaries,\nbut, much more significantly, from the poor, whom CRLA\nis supposed to serve.\nB. Problems of Evaluation.\n(1) Size and Organizational Complexity of CRLA.\nCRLA is one of the largest publicly-financed legal ser-\nvice program in the United States. Its nine operational\nfield offices, though geographically separated by sub-\nstantial distances, nevertheless often seem to have oper-\national ties with one another. Particularly, the mobility\nof CRLA attorneys between operational field offices makes\nit quite difficult to ascertain the operating rationale\nfor the organization. This problem can be appreciated,\n(2)\nwhen in any limited period of time, CRLA attorneys may\nturn up in different operational areas, and sometimes\neven participate in cases that are filed by other OEO\nlegal service programs. Thus, geography and a lack of\nrational organizational structure complicated our evalu-\nation efforts.\nThe geographical distances involved are formidable,\nwith more than 500 miles separating CRLA's office in\nMarysville on the north to its El Centro office in the\nsouth, only a few miles from the Mexican border. Each\noffice normally services more than one county ------------------------- which\nmay comprise an area as large or larger than many states.\n(2) Use of Questionnaire. The situation re-\nquired new approaches, particularly to augment the capabilities\nof our office to undertake a task of this size. The result\nwas the mailing of a questionnaire to 3,400 judges and law-\nyers, randomly selected, within the areas served by CRLA's\noperational offices. The questionnaire was designed to\nenable the respondent to comment upon the major facets of\nCRLA operations (Exhibit 11-0131). From our review of the\nmaterials in our files, we were aware that CRLA had been\ncriticized for specific kinds of activities, and that\ncertain leitmotifs ran like threads through its whole\nprogram. Thus, to get a better total profile of CRLA, we\nincluded certain questions in the mailed inquiry which were\ndesigned to better define the program areas.\n3\n(8)\nThe questionnaire resulted in an attack upon\nthe Director personally in his capacity as an attorney\nand against the State Office of Economic Opportunity\n(Exhibit 22-1049). In addition to criticism directly\nfrom CRLA, we were censured by the National Legal Aid\nand Defenders Association (NLADA). We have since learned\nthat approximately 75 percent of the membership of NLADA\nis composed of OEO-financed lawyers from legal programs.\nWe were unaware of this censure (which took place in\nTexas) until informed of it by local newspapers, who had\nreceived copies of the censure resolution. The news re-\nports of this censure prominently displayed the name of\nthe Honorable Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the\nUnited States, as Honorary President of NLADA. We later\ndiscovered that this was untrue and very misleading.\nThe Chief Justice, and Mr. Justice Harlan, had resigned\nfrom their positions in the organization in July, 1970.\n(Exhibit 22-1049.)\nAlthough NLADA and CRLA endeavored to get our office\nto burn or otherwise dispose of the responses to the\nquestionnaire, we refused to do so and have found the re-\nsponses useful in achieving a perspective on CRLA that\nwould have been unavailable to us in any other fashion.\nWe have maintained the responses in strictest confidence\nand will continue to do so, as we have assured our respon-\ndents that we would. The questionnaire was largely sub-\njective and does not lend itself to statistical analysis\n(4)\nin the way a public opinion poll does. Not a single\nquestionnaire is included among the supporting documents\nto this evaluation, and none have been quoted.\nThe incident involving the questionnaire dramatized\nseveral key factors that had to be taken into account.\nFirst, it demonstrated that if we were to maintain the\nintegrity of our investigation, we would have to foil\nefforts in the form of brute powerplays by members of the\npoverty-law establishment. Obviously, one of the concerns\nthat led to this outcry was that for the first time since\nthe 1968 GAO investigation, an independent organization,\nother than one substantially influenced by poverty law-\nyers, was going to evaluate a legal services program.\nThis meant that poverty lawyers would be effectively de-\nnied the control they had enjoyed over all previous eval-\nuations. Second, in light of such activity, the question-\nnaire can now only be seen as a secondary issue given the\nbroader and deeper significance that legal services has\ntaken within the political system. An understanding of\nthese issues is paramount to understanding the signifi-\ncance of our report and the irrational responses that were\nmanifested even to the idea that some other agency would\ndare evaluate a legal services program. Thus, we turn our\nattention first to the political context within which this\ninvestigation took place, and then to the dominant sub-\nstantive opposition to our effort.\n5\n(3)\n(3) (a) The Political Context of Our Evaluation.\nDuring 1970, National OEO, under the leadership of Donald\nRumsfeld, was considering the idea of regionalizing legal\nservice programs. This move was interpreted by the\npoverty-law establishment as an attempt by OEO to weaken\nthe legal services program by diffusing and localizing\nits control. In late November, this poverty-law estab-\nlishment mobilized national protest, to decry the long-\ncoming dismissal of National Legal Service Director Terry\nLenzner and his assistant. Thus, OEO Director, Donald\nRumsfeld, was regaled by angry denunciations from this\nestablishment's representatives from every legal service\nprogram in the United States. Pressure built up to the\npoint where, in order to counter the impression that the\nNixon Administration was opposed to legal services, the\nDirector of OEO made a highly unusual public announcement\nthat he had approved CRLA's refunding proposal for 1971--\nan approval that accelerated the program's refunding\ncycle.\nThe political sensitivity of the issue increased\nwith the r esignation of Mr. Rumsfeld as Director. His\nsuccessor, Frank Carlucci, has been appointed by the\nPresident, but not yet confirmed. If we concluded that\nthe delivery of quality legal service to the poor required\nthat CRLA be abolished, there was always the possibility\nthat Mr. Carlucci's confirmation might be held up as the\n(6)\nprice of his overriding the veto. (We think this possi-\nbility is extremely unlikely, given the reprehensible\nconduct that such political blackmail would entail, but\nwe have had to consider the possibility nonetheless.)\n(3) (b) Substantive Opposition to Legal Service\nEvaluations. The whole series of incidents placed this\noffice under increased pressure to evaluate objectively\na program whose refunding had already become both public\nand political. The acceleration of the cycle reduced the\ntime for evaluation, and made a difficult job all the\nmore SO.\nThe power of the poverty-law establishment is aug-\nmented by an extremely friendly press, which is always\nready to transmit and amplify the poverty-law establish-\nment's propaganda barrage.\nIn addition, any service agency threatened with\nextinction has available to it virtually unlimited scare\ntactics with respect to its constitutents. For those who\nhave received legal services from CRLA (we do not deny\nthere are many in absolute numbers during its four-year\nlife), the prospect of its demise appears far more alarm-\ning than the possible attendant prospect for improvement.\nThe poverty-law establishment's willingness to\nflex and deploy its political muscle is ironic, in light\n(7)\nof its repeated protests against \"political interference\"\nin legal services. The most frequently heard argument\nagainst public scrutiny of legal service programs is that\nthey can only be effective if they are free from \"poli-\ntical interference\". Even certain organized bar associa-\ntions have come down very hard against any moves which\nwould tend to put legal service programs under closer scru-\ntiny by public officials.\nThis position confuses legal service law practice\nwith the practice of the private Bar. In private prac-\ntice, the client, who receives the service, also pays the\nbills and is, therefore, sovereign. In publicly-funded\nlegal services, the recipient (poor person) and buyer\n(taxpayer) are different people. The poor person has no\nsovereignty, no effective control over the person giving\nservice to him. In the face of this, the legal service\nlobby has argued that in fact they, as the monopoly pro-\nvider of service, ought to be able to speak for the reci-\npients. They argue, in effect, that the seller of the\nservice ought to be able to speak for both the recipient\nand the buyer. It is as if the moguls of the Standard Oil\nTrust of the early 1900's had demanded the right to speak\nfor the interests of their consumers. In fact, given the\ntendency for consumers to be exploited by monopoly pro-\nducers, it is legitimate to ask whether or not the consu-\nmers in this case, the rural poor, are being exploited by\n(8)\nthe monopoly producers, CRLA. If this is the case, the\nconsumer has little choice in terms of the type of legal\nassistance he desires to consume and, furthermore, has\neven less chance of influencing how the product is, in\nfact, to be produced and distributed.\nIn a certain sense, the problem is insoluble.\nSomebody must determine how legal service can best serve\nthe poor, and it seems reasonable that the determination\nshould ultimately be made by elected officials, who are at\nleast responsible to their constituents (which include\nboth buyers and recipients). Yet the present program is\ncontrolled by vested interests that provide the service\nfar removed from the local communities they serve.\nAs the August evaluation pointed out:\n\"When there are a number of attorneys choosing\nwhich ones (i.e., cases) he is going to bring,\nthere may be, in a sense, a political judgment. =\n(Page 27; emphasis added.)\nIt is possible to put the point more directly:\nlegal services have the capacity to be politically manip-\nulated and, therefore, in a democracy, must have an explicit\nbase to which they are responsible. They are established and\nfunded by public bodies and administered by providers whose\nservice will depend in large measure on their own political\npredilections. The argument that legal services are to be\nleft entirely to poverty lawyers is disingenuous, as it\n(9)\ndemands a privilege available to no other provider of\nservices, either public or private. The severity of this\nproblem is clearly demonstrated when it is juxtaposed to\nthe legislative mandate of OEO that the total local com-\nmunity must be the basis of decision and responsibility.\n(3) (c) Prohibitive Costs Incurred by Citizens\nDesiring to Participate in the Evaluation of CRLA.\nIn some ways the most difficult aspect of the evaluation\nconcerned the people in the communities who assisted us.\nGiven the ability of the poverty-law establishment to\nharass those who disagree with it, through the press and\nin court, some people in the communities we have talked\nto felt a great reluctance to speak their dissatisfaction\nwith CRLA publicly. This genuine fear may help to account\nfor the inadequacies of response that other evaluations\nhave received when the evaluators have gone out for one\nday to ask what lawyers and judges in an area think about\nthe program. If a representative of the American Bar\nAssociation goes to a rural community and asks the mem-\nbers of the local bar and bench what they think of CRLA,\nmore likely than not the representative will receive sub-\nstantially bland comments, even from those who may feel\nvery strongly.\n(10)\nMany people who assisted us in the communities\nacknowledged the chance they were taking in doing SO.\nTo a considerable extent, the willingness of OEO to re-\nspond to their call will determine whether they ever\nagain go on record, and put themselves on the line in\nevaluations. We feel a great debt to those who have\nput themselves on the line, for often the instinct of\npeople is not to get involved in controversy. Of course\nit is always much \"safer\" to remain aloof, but we believe\nstrongly that at the heart of a healthy democracy is a\ncitizenry willing to take risks for the things in which\nthey believe.\nC. Gathering the Facts.\nOur primary interest in the evaluation has been to\nget the facts. We have sought to avoid the difficulty\nacknowledged in the August 1970 evaluation of CRLA that\n\"different preconceptions and characterizations\" produced\n\"subjectivity\" (Page 51). We interviewed people from all\nwalks of life and all political and philosophical points\nof view. We have relied upon facts and specificcases, as\nwell as informed opinion. In several instances we enlisted\nthe assistance of the professional investigating service\nof the Department of Human Resources Development. They\nwere deployed to take statements from persons whom we had\nidentified as possessing information of value about CRLA.\n(11)\nTheir independence and detachment assured objectivity in\nthis vital statement-taking function.\nD. Weighing Evidence.\n(1) Predisposition of Witnesses. Inweighing the\ncredibility of testimony, we looked carefully at an indi-\nvidual's position and political philosophy. Opposition\nto CRLA emanating from a person who opposed the concept\nof legal services for the poor we tended to discount.\nSimilarly, support from sectors of the poverty-law estab-\nlishment, we evaluated in light of their special interest.\nOpposition to CRLA from people working in OEO pro-\ngrams (especially those presently or formerly associated\nwith CRLA) or from people who have worked in other legal\nservice programs, we considered to be highly significant.\nAlso, we gave special weight and credibility to opinions\nabout CRLA from those who affirmed their support for the\nconcept of publicly-supported legal service to the poor.\n(2) Location of Witnesses. We have considered\nthe geographical location of those offering facts and\nopinions to be highly relevant. OEO programs are pre-\nmised upon local control and the ability of local commu-\nnities to determine their own needs and evaluate their\nsuccess. Thus, those who live and work in the areas served\nby CRLA's operational offices have had the best opportu-\n(12)\nnity to formulate informed opinion as to the actual im-\npact of CRLA in all its dimensions. Opinions from persons\nin urban areas, unless they exhibit some specific know-\nledge about CRLA, are almost useless and have been omitted.\nE. Other Evaluations.\nWe have been asked constantly by CRLA and its sup-\nporters why we are evaluating a program that was evaluated\nas recently as August, 1970 (Exhibit 11-0134). Apart from\nthe separate and formal responsibility that Section 242\nof the Economic Opportunity Act as amended imposes on the\nGovernor to review programs funded by OEO, we have felt\nit necessary to conduct our own evaluation of CRLA because\nof our deep concern that other evaluations have been lim-\nited not only in scope but in thoroughness.\n(1) The August 1970 evaluation was conducted by\n14 people who each spent seven days, one in each of seven\nof CRLA's nine operational offices. They spoke with CRLA\nattorneys and individuals in the area. Few of the eval-\nuators were from California and none of them from its\nrural areas. As one evaluator put it:\n\"So, I feel that as a result of my short in-\nvestigation, that CRLA is probably doing a\ngood job\nI didn't get a chance to talk to\nsome people as I would like, but you can only\ndo SO much in a day (August 1970 Evalua-\ntion, pp. 11-12).\n(13)\nTo ask such people to \"paradrop\" into the rural commu-\nnities served by CRLA and attempt to learn anything in\ndepth about the full impact of the program in a day is\nasking a great deal, even from the distinguished people\nwho participated in the evaluation.\nThe limitations and scale are dramatized in this\nexcerpt from the August evaluation. One participant con-\ncluded that CRLA attorneys were \"universally competent\nand highly professional\", giving as the basis for his\njudgment the following:\n\"\nThe lawyers in the CRLA office there were\nuniversally competent and highly professional.\nThat would be my judgment as well, from talk-\ning to them. There are five lawyers in the\noffice, one was not there. I had a chance to\ntalk with only one, briefly. The other three,\nI would say, are all very good lawyers.\"\n(Page 6--Emphasis added.)\nThe most severe limitation of the August 1970\nevaluation (and others as well) was its failure to con-\nsider that many of CRLA's admittedly recurring problems\nmight be institutionally and structurally founded. (Of\ncourse, the limited time in the field for each evaluator\nprecluded any one individual from gaining an overall\nperspective of the CRLA program.) There is implicit ac-\nceptance of CRLA's structure in the report. No other\nconclusion can explain the complete lack of concern for\npossible structural defects despite recitation of many\n(14)\nproblems which might suggest them.\nThe report's failure to relate problems to\nthe institution is illustrated in the following discus-\nsion:\n\"Also, recently, an incident at the Delano\nHigh School involved one of the newer mem-\nbers of the CRLA staff and this provoked\nhostility by the community. This is the\nmost controversial aspect of the entire\nfocus and has been very sensitive for us...\nRecently, they hired a young Chicano attor-\nney, who we found has a great passion for\nthe people and a great sense of outrage.\nUnfortunately, he has found it difficult to\nchannel his passion into a legal context\nand has, in a number of instances, literal-\nly taken to the streets as a community\norganizer. This happened in particular at\nthe Delano High School, which resulted in\nthe withdrawal by students and a picketing\nof the school. He led the picketing.\"\n(Page 14--Emphasis added.)\nThis discussion was followed by the following\nobservation:\n\"It is true, many of the lawyers attached to\nCRLA are inexperienced lawyers, and some-\ntimes members of the Bar whom I interviewed,\nreferred to that inexperience. In the Salinas\noffice, for example, with the exception of\nthe senior lawyer, all of the lawyers have\nless than five years of practice.\" (Page 16--\nEmphasis added.)\nIncidents recited throughout the evaluation suggest\nthat the problem goes considerably beyond inexperience.\nWhat is disappointing is that the August evaluation lacked\nthe imagination and depth to consider the possibility\nthat these problems had their roots in institutional flaws\nof CRLA.\n(15)\nBeyond this problem, the evaluation did contri-\nbute some serious and alarming observations. On community\nrelations, for example, the following is significant:\n\"There is one point I would like to make about\nthe office in McFarland, at least in my impres-\nsion, is that it has not always been able to\ndeal well in matters affecting the community.\nIt is not always able to involve itself dispas-\nsionately. That is to say, theyhave assumed\nfrom the very outset that the poor community,\nthat is, the poor white community were the good\nguys, the establishment, the government, the\ngrowers, were all the bad guys and what has\nhappened, in a sense, is that the adversary\nrelationship has been withdrawn from the court-\nroom and has taken place initially in the\nstreets, in their initial confrontation with\nthe community.\" (Page 15--Emphasis added.)\nThe evaluator then noted that the community did not\npossess the hostility toward CRLA which the CRLA office\nimagined:\n\"I guess what came out of McFarland was for the\nnonpoverty community to say, \"I wish CRLA in\nMcFarland would work with us. If they are going\nto sue us, fine. But I wish they'd work with us\nand speak to us and research the problem, not\nso much legally but factually before they plunge\ninto a suit. (Page 15--Emphasis added.)\nOne of OEO's major emphases is the mobilization and\nintegration of all segments of a community to eradicate\npoverty. Here was a problem going to the very heart of\nsuch a concept. Here was an instance in which an OEO Legal\nService office was disrupting a community, stirring tensions\nand hostilities and which, had they been done by someone\noutside of the poverty industry, would have been universally\n(16)\ncondemned. Thus, questions concerning the institutional\nsoundness of CRLA as an organization capable of providing\nlegal services to the poor while producing meaningful\nand integrated changes in rural communities are necessary\nand legitimate.\n(2) The other most celebrated evaluation of CRLA\nwas that done by the General Accounting Office of the\nComptroller General of the United States, which was re-\nleased in July 1968. (Exhibit 03-0150-02. This evalua-\ntion is discussed elsewhere in this report.)\nThe GAO Report grew out of a request by Congressman\nRobert B. Mathias to undertake an investigation primarily\nof CRLA's relationship with the United Farm Workers Organi-\nzing Committee (UFWOC). Specifically, the investigation\ninquired into the charge:\nthat the grantee (CRLA) may not have complied\nwith certain conditions of its grant because of\n(1) a possible connection between the grantee\nand the union, (2) the alleged harassment of a\ncounty welfare department, (3) inadequate repre-\nsentation of agricultural producers on the\ngrantee's board, and (4) the alleged engagement\nof the grantee in political activities.\nThe inquiry into CRLA's connection with UFWOC was limited\nto five charges, relating to grant conditions that have\nbeen made more stringent since 1968, when the report was\nissued.\n(17)\nThe GAO Report was extremely interesting to us\nas a point of departure. Although it was limited both\nin scope and in its conclusions, discussed in another section\nof this report, additional information has since come to\nlight that makes it dubious at best.\n(3) In some respects the most hopeful opportunity\nfor a fresh look at CRLA took place in Stanislaus County\nonly weeks before this evaluation was prepared. This\noccurred when a Grand Jury convened in response to the\n\"growing public concern that California Rural Legal Assis-\ntance, Inc., is not carrying out its stated corporate\npurpose of providing adequate legal assistance for the\npoor\". CRLA had always exhibited a public eagerness to\nbe evaluated by anyone who cared to do so, but when the\nStanislaus County Grand Jury convened for the purpose of\ndoing an evaluation, the objectivity of which no one could\ndeny, CRLA secured from the Federal District Court an in-\njunction against any investigation of their program.\nThe incident is lamentable, for this was the first\ntime that a program would be evaluated by people in the\narea being served by that program. This point is most im-\nportant, for typically, legal service programs are evaluated\nby people from far away, who know nothing about the commu-\nnity in which the program functions. This severe limita-\ntion in past CRLA evaluations is ironic in view of OEO's\n(18)\nexplicit and dominant emphasis on communities and local\ncontrol.\nIn this particular case, the Stanislaus County\nGrand Jury had several members with excellent credentials\nto evaluate the impact of CRLA on poor people. Among\nthem were the head of the local branch of the NAACP, and\na local leader of the Mexican-American community. But\nwhen faced with the possibility they might be evaluated\nby people not precommitted to the poverty-law establish-\nment, and by people whose intimate knowledge of the\ncommunity and their constituents could not be questioned,\nthey sought a sanctuary in the federal injunction that\nprevented the Grand Jury from proceeding further with its\nevaluation.\nThe result was that the Grand Jury voted unanimous-\nly a resolution urging Governor Reagan to veto CRLA's\n1971 budget, and urging him to institute an immediate in-\nvestigation into CRLA's activities.\nIn important respects, the Grand Jury evaluation\nof CRLA that never took place was the most revealing\nevaluation of the program that has ever occurred. It\ndemonstrates that a duly-constituted body of citizens,\nwith a responsibility to their community, were prevented\nfrom discharging their responsibility. They were thwarted\n(19)\nby a highly vocal special interest group bent on preserving\nits elitist prerogatives-the most important of which was\nthe right to control not only the criteria but also the\nconduct of their own program's evaluation. The similarity\nbetween the Stanislaus experience and our experiences with\nNLADA over the questionnaire is clear. The only inferen-\nces that can be drawn are that local control is fiction\nrather than fact, and that local citizens cannot modify\nthe behavior of existing elites and institutions such as\nCRLA, because the costs to them are too high.\nF. IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS.\nBefore we address our attention to relevant indices\nof CRLA's performance, it is well to take a moment to\nidentify some considerations of CRLA's performance which\nare not relevant to our evaluation or, if relevant, are\nnot sufficiently precise to 91 ve the basis for reasonable\njudgment.\n(1) Suits by CRLA against the State of California\nor other political subdivisions.\nCRLA has and continues to carry on a multiplicity of\nactions against the State of California. Some of these\nhave caused substantial increases in expenditure of tax-\npayer dollars in the area of Welfare and Medi-Cal. However,\nother OEO-supported legal programs in San Francisco, Ala-\nmeda County and Berkeley have cost the taxpayers many times\nthe dollars in additional taxes that CRLA has. If one\n(20)\nwere to take this area of activity into consideration in\nhis evaluation there are much \"bigger fish\" available than\nCRLA.\nThe matter of allowing or disallowing OEO-supported\nattorneys to sue the government with the risk of increasing\nthe taxpayer costs is a matter of policy for Congress\nand/or OEO to decide upon. Since it is not proscribed in\nthe CRLA grant, we cannot properly take it into consider-\nation.\n(2) The Use of Class Actions.\nClass actions are being used with increasing frequency\nby attorneys everywhere. Class actions are legal tools\nto be employed as the facts and circumstances warrant.\nCriticism of CRLA in this area should not, therefore, focus\nupon the use of class actions per se, but upon specific\nclass actions that either have no necessary relationship\nto the poor or that contravene some other standard or\ncondition set out herein. It should be added that class\nactions, by their nature, are very time-consuming enter-\nprises for both sides of the case. In light of the legal\nhours that must be devoted, great care should be used in\ndeciding to expand a particular case beyond the circum-\nstances of a particular individual seeking to be served.\n(21)\n(3) Statistical Analyses.\nCRLA frequently advances a multitude of statistics as\nevidence of its own success. These statistics primarily\ninvolve the number of people served and cases won and\nlost. We find their facility as statisticians at the\nvery least suspicious in the face of the nonstatistical\ninformation and evidence we have gathered concerning the\nactual operation of their program in the areas affected.\nThis is particularly true of consistent reports that CRLA\nattorneys are unavailable for service, that they represent\ncriminals frequently and that in the field their ordinary\nservice work is sloppy and unprofessional-- in contrast\nto favorable reports about the high quality of their appel-\nlate work out of the Central Office in San Francisco. It\nis difficult for us to see how one could measure the suc-\ncess of a legal service program numerically. We are con-\nvinced that to be truly successful, a program must be\nconcerned with people, not with numbers.\nThe statistics CRLA cites are almost meaningless,\nin any event. Among other things, it is most difficult\nto determine whether a case has taken five minutes or\nfive months to handle.\nA win-loss record is hardly relevant to marriage\ndissolutions, bankruptcies, consumer advice, etc., which\nhave to do with really serving the individual needs of\n(22)\npoor people. Furthermore, it appears that CRLA has not\nincluded in its win-loss determination the number of\ncases which it may have dismissed prior to trial. It\nclearly does not reveal the numerous losses in criminal\ncases where its personnel, contrary to its grand condi-\ntions, have represented criminal defendants (see section\non criminal representation, page ).\nRecently, the President of the Sonoma County Bar\nAssociation, Newton Dal Poggetto, forwarded a letter to\nour office, which, among other things, indicated the\nfollowing:\n\"We obtained the figures from the Santa Rosa,\nCalifornia, Rural Legal Assistance office on\ntheir activities for 1970, and after our Board\nstudied them, we were unable to conclude that\nthe figures were meaningful.\" (Exhibit 22-1034.)\nSimilarly in the August, 1970, evaluation of CRLA,\nit was stated:\n\"I know that OEO uses statistics for getting\nCongressional appropriations and the like,\nbut statistics are very often misleading.. =\n(Exhibit 11-0134.)\nSUMMARY\nThough the political controversy surrounding CRLA\nis highly emotional and symbolic, the need to assess cor-\nrectly the empirical reference of OEO legal concepts and\nthe facts about actual behavior appear necessary if the\nrural poor are to have a significant voice in determining\n(23)\nwhat types of legal services they wish to consume. Thus\nthe State Office has conducted its investigation from the\nfollowing concerns and methods.\nFirst, our concerns about CRLA were twofold. We\nwere concerned with whether or not CRLA was a sound\norganization. Implicit in such concerns are questions\nrelating to CRLA's ability to represent heterogeneous\nlegal needs of the poor; CRLA's ability to work harmonious-\nly in communities; CRLA's ability as an organization to\nestablish its own authority and internal control; and\nfinally whether CRLA, as presently constituted, is capable\nof living within the intent and guidelines of OEO. This\nbroad range of questions is oriented primarily towards\nascertaining whether or not the present organizational\nstructure has the potential to deliver the goods and ser-\nvices that are explicitly stated in its work program.\nOur second concern has to do with whether the poor have\naccess to the policy-making organs of CRLA to determine\nthe types of legal services that they desire to consume.\nIt is important to point out that at the date of\nthis writing, information and evidence is still pouring\ninto our office from all over the State. We expect that\nonce news becomes public of the Governor's veto, many\npeople who may have felt reluctant to speak out before,\n(24)\nwill do SO for the first time. Thus, it is possible\nthat we may continue gathering information sent to us\nabout CRLA for some time to come.\nIn several specific areas, we have investigations\nunderway, which were not completed at the time of writing,\nand we have seen fit, therefore, not to include them.\nSome of them could turn out to be items of major importance\nfor this legal program, but we are forced to stand on the\nevidence herein for our recommendation to the Governor.\n(25)\nIII. THE PURPOSE AND CONDITIONS OF THE CRLA GRANT CONTRACT\nA. PURPOSE\nCRLA has been mandated by its grant to provide legal\nservices to the eligible poor in civil matters only within\nthe rural areas served by its operational offices.\n\"California Rural Legal Assistance is esta-\nblished to give legal aid to people in need,\nwho cannot afford to pay for a private attor-\nney, and who would not otherwise be helped.\n\"In order to be entitled to our services, a\nperson must seek aid from CRLA. He must also\nshow that he makes no more than a certain\namount of money each year. Finally, he must\ndemonstrate that his case is not the kind which\nwould support a contingent or court-awarded fee,\nso that it may be presumed that a private attor-\nney would be unwilling to represent him. Only if\nthese three requirements are satisfied may a per-\nson become the client of a CRLA attorney.\"\nAppendix E, CRLA Refunding\nProposal, 1971\nB. CONDITIONS\nIn order to carry out this mission, the Federal\nGovernment has imposed certain specific restrictions,\nlimitations and requirements on CRLA as a part of its grant\ncontract. These conditions are designed to assure that\nCRLA's mission can and will be carried out effectively.\nThese conditions include, but are not limited to:\n(1) A prohibition against representing criminals\n(except in very special and restricted instances). This\n(26)\nhas been done to assure that CRLA's resources will not\nbe dissipated where other services, such as those of the\nPublic Defender, are already available in California.\n(2) A prohibition against accepting cases\nwhich generate fees (except in very limited and special\ncases), so that such cases may be referred to private\nlegal counsel.\n(3) A requirement that clients meet a pres-\ncribed income eligibility standard, so that those in\nfact able to pay for an attorney will do so and will not\nutilize the limited resources of CRLA.\n(4) CRLA is proscribed from representing a\nlabor union.\nC. RULES AND PRINCIPLES\nIn addition to the specific grant conditions out-\nlined above, there exists a body of rules of professional\nconduct and canons of legal ethics designed to create an\natmosphere, framework and relationship with those to be\nserved and with the community at large, which maintains\nthe dignity of the legal profession and gives the program\nits highest potential for success. Following are some\nof these considerations:\n(1) A prohibition against soliciting clients\nand stirring up litigation. This conforms with long-\nestablished professional principles of the bench and bar.\n(27)\n(2) A prohibition against conduct unbecoming\nan attorney. This provision is vital to maintenance of\nthe dignity of the profession.\n(3) A prohibition against the filing of har-\nassing or frivolous actions. This is of special importance\nin the context of OEO-supported legal programs because\nof the public trust which the use of public funds engenders.\nThe attorney must be ever cognizant of the fact that his\nclients who pay nothing for his service enjoy thereby a\ndistinct advantage over their adversaries, who must pay\nfor the services of private counsel. These services pro-\nvided at zero cost create an economic leverage which\ncarries the potential for horrendous abuse and which can\nserve to distort, rather than enhance, the interests of\njustice toward a fair and proper result.\n(4) A special prohibition attends taxpayer-\nsupported legal services, to wit, that the attorney shall\nnot waste precious resources and shall be guided by con-\ncerns for economy in all respects. Only in this fashion\ncan he justify his performance and nurture public confidence.\n(5) A prohibition against newspaper publicity\nby a lawyer as to pending or anticipated litigation so\nthat there will not be interference with a fair trial or\nthe proper administration of justice.\n(28)\nIV. A CASE AND COMMENT MONTAGE OF CRLA--\nRES IPSA LOQUITUR\n\"California Rural Legal Assistance is estab-\nlished to give legal aid to people in need,\nwho cannot afford to pay for a private attor-\nney, and who would not otherwise be helped.\"\n(Refunding Proposal, App. E, p. 1.)\nMrs. Amelia Harris was employed by CRLA's Salinas\noffice from September, 1966, to June, 1969. She is cur-\nrently interim director of the Monterey County Anti-\nPoverty Coordinating Council, an OEO-supported agency.\nWhile she was with CRLA, she was employed as directing\nlegal secretary and office manager. She states in affi-\ndavit:\n\"All or almost all of the legal briefs went\nthrough my hands. I worked for two directing\nattorneys, Robert Gnaizda (now Deputy Director\nof CRLA in Central Office) and Dennis Powell.\nMr. Powell assumed his duties in February,\n1969. Cases accepted for clients were accep-\nted under guidelines set down by the Office of\nEconomic Opportunity. At least, at first.\nCases were accepted for clients charged with\ncriminal offenses particularly after Attorney\nBill Daniels transferred from the Marysville\noffice.\nMany conscientious objector cases,\nto avoid the draft, were accepted and defended\nby Mr. Daniels, in Federal Courts.\nMr. Dan-\niels was involved with the inmates at Soledad\nPrison, in the preparation of cases, to be\npresented in court by the inmate, seeking writs,\nnew trials, and so forth. I do not recall any-\none in particular. Some of these cases were\naccepted because of correspondence received\nfrom inmates of the prison. I do know that Mr.\nDaniels would go to Soledad Prison. Some of\nthese clients were involved in criminal cases,\nand some were civil cases.\nDuring the early\nmonths of 1969, all domestic relations cases,\nmost consumer credit and automobile credit cases\nwere dropped because the caseload was too high.\n(29)\nIt is my opinion and was at that time that\nCalifornia Rural Legal Assistance attorneys\nwere accepting too many cases which were\noutside the quidelines. Many cases of class\naction were accepted. Some of these cases\nwere filed simultaneously with the same types\nof organization in Connecticut. Many cases\nwere established as a result of manufactured\nsituations. I mean by this that clients or\npotential clients were instructed in certain\nactions and dialog with agencies and private\nfirms that would lead to litigation.\nThis\ncase related to the fact that Mrs. Rodriguez\nwas about to be evicted from her house, how-\never the action was designed to attack another\npart of the rules of the Department of Welfare.\nAnother case I can recall involves a man at\nthe Day Hall Center, California Farm Labor\nService. The persons who were sent to the\nDay Hall Center were instructed as to actions\nto take and what to say. These instructions\ncame from Dennis Powell, who was the directing\nattorney. As I recall, this case involved\npeople handing out leaflets and literature at\nthe Day Hall Center. I do not recall the exact\ninstructions given or to whom they were given.\nMr. Powell did coach the persons who went to\nthe Day Hall Center on exact actions to take\nand instructions as to what they were to say.\nI know he wanted the farm labor service to have\nto remove people from the premises, and there-\nby provide a course of action against the farm\nlabor service to the end of abolishing it.\nIn the case of Jeremio V. Salinas Strawberries,\nthat involved the discharge of eight men for\norganizing a union, that this was a contrived\nsituation wherein the men were instructed as to\nhow to go about organizing a union and then when\nthey were discharged an action was filed against\nSalinas Strawberries. This same situation OC-\ncurred in the Martin Produce, Inc., case*.\nI\n* It will be noted that Mrs. Harris has evidently confused\nthe facts of the Salinas Strawberries case with those of\nthe Martin Produce case, which she discusses together. The\ndischarge of men for organizing a union (actually there\nwere 9) was involved in the Martin Produce case. This does\nnot compromise, however, the potency of her testimony re-\ngarding the \"contrived\" situations on which she said both\ncases were prosecuted by CRLA.\n(30)\nrecall that I was directed, as Directing Legal\nSecretary, to seek out times that specific fed-\neral courts and federal judges were available.\nI was given these instructions by the directing\nattorney, at the particular time. I was direc-\nted to seek open dates in the federal courts\nbefore Judge Peckham and Judge Zirpoli for the\nfiling and trial of cases. These cases would\nopen up chambers to California Rural Legal Assis-\ntance attorneys and were sympathetic to the\ncauses of these attorneys. After the C lifornia\nRural Legal Assistance decided to drop domestic\nrelations cases, consumer credit cases and auto-\nmobile credit cases I voiced the opinion that\nthis was not correct procedure under the guide-\nlines set forth and that acceptance of other\ntypes of cases outside the guidelines while not\naccepting cases inside the guidelines was wrong,\nmorally and legally. I was discharged in June,\n1969. At the time of my discharge I had leave\npay and severance pay coming. I made demand on\nCalifornia Rural Legal Assistance for payment of\npay due me. I did not receive my pay. I filed\na demand and claim through the Labor Commissioner,\nDivision of Labor Law Enforcement, California\nDepartment of Industrial Relations, 21 West Laurel\nDrive, Salinas. My attorney in this action was\nWilliam Moreno. The Labor Commissioner ordered\npayment of the moneys due me plus punitive dam-\nages and I was fina lly paid through the Labor\nCommissioner office. During the first few months\nI was with California Rural Legal Assistance the\nattorneys were performing services to help poor\npeople. However, during the latter part of\nmy tenure this was not true. The attorneys be-\ncame more concerned with class actions for chan-\nges and cases outside the guidelines that were\nnot helping the poor people. *\n* Mrs. Harris did not sign this affidavit, because she felt\nit was inappropriate for her to do in view of her pre-\nsent association with an OEO-funded program. The state-\nment was made before two witnesses, however, and she has\nexpressed a willingness to testify personally to the truth\nof the facts she presents.\n(31)\n=\nThey now have to turn away cases that they\ncan't handle in the Salinas office. They don't\nhandle domestic relations. A very big publi-\ncity campaign as to the type of routine ser-\nvices they handle would swamp the office. They\nwould have to turn away people and cause antag-\nonism.\n=\n(August 1970 Evaluation of CRLA,\npp. 21-22. Exhibit 11-0134--Emphasis added.)\n\"In order to be entitled to our services, a\nperson must seek aid from CRLA...\" (1971\nRefunding Proposal, Appendix E, p. 1.)\nIn the case of Wolfin V. Vinson, CRLA filed suit\non behalf of 16 Indians against a local car dealer.\n(Wolfin V. Vinson, Superior Court, Lake County, No. 10155.)\nIn the defendant's motion to dismiss, attorneys attached\ndepositions from 15 of the 16 plaintiffs, stating that\nthey had never requested to be part of the lawsuit. An\nexcerpt from one of the depositions follows:\n\"Question: Now, what did you do on your part\nto get this lawsuit started?\n\"A. Nothing.\n\"Q. Nothing?\n\"A. No.\n\"l. Well, now, your attorney has indicated that\nhe has authorizations signed by each plaintiff\nauthorizing and instructing his firm to bring\nthis lawsuit. Do you recall signing any such\nauthorization?\n\"A. Yes, I did. After I heard about it.\n\"Q. After what?\n\"A. After I heard about it.\n(32)\n\"Q. After you heard about what, the lawsuit?\n\"A. Yes.\n\"Q. You signed the authorization after you heard\nabout the lawsuit being filed?\n\"A. Yes.\n\"l. How long after the lawsuit had been filed\ndid you sign that authorization?\n\"A. Oh, I don't know. About--I couldn't remem-\nber that far back.\n\"Q. I see. Alright. Now, other than signing\nthat document after the lawsuit was filed, what\nif anything did you do before the lawsuit was\nfiled to get the lawsuit started?\n\"A. Nothing.\n\"Q. Absolutely nothing?\n\"A. Absolutely nothing.\n...\n\"Q. When you heard about this lawsuit being\nfiled, were you surprised?\n\"A. Yes.\n(Exhibit 09-0137--Emphasis added.)\nOne of the people who participated in the August\nevaluation of CRLA commented: (page 20)\n\"Some of the attorneys seem to turn people off\nbecause a lot of Chicanos I spoke to felt\nCRLA was using the people to get publicity and\nnot following through with the issues that\ndirectly affected the people. They thought that\npriorities were all wrong because the priori-\nties did not come from the people but come from\nthe attorneys\nI\nthink the essence of the peo-\nple's feeling is that the attorneys should be\nthere to serve the people and not the people to\nserve the attorneys.\" (Exhibit 11-0134--Empha-\nsis added.)\n(33)\n\"The empathy--when I went around I found a\ntremendous amount of empathy on the part of\nthe attorneys involved. You could use such\ndescriptive terms as 'dedicated', 'extremely\nconcerned'\n=\n(August Evaluation, p. 6.)\nThe affidavit of Rachel Pauline Hubbard states\nas follows:\n\"About March 5, 1964, I agreed to take a\nbaby boy three days old who was the son of\nmy husband's nephew. My husband and I\nagreed to raise the boy in our home. We\ndid not attempt to adopt the child in 1964.\nDuring the Fall of 1967, my husband, William\nFrank Hubbard, suffered a heart attack and\nwas in the Sutter County Hospital for about\nthree weeks. He had a history of heart at-\ntacks since 1957. He came home and shortly\nthereafter we were able to obtain aid from\nthe Sutter County Welfare Department of $144\nper month. In August, 1969, I needed to make\na trip to Mansfield, Arkansas, as my 85-year\nold mother was in ill health. I contacted\nthe Welfare Department and obtained permis-\nsion for me and the child to be out of the\nState. The day before I was going to leave\nby bus, my husband decided that he wanted to\ngo. He was feeling good and felt that the\ntrip would do him good. His doctor gave him\npermission.\nI then went to the Welfare\nDepartment and obtained permission for the\nchild, myself and my husband to make the trip\nby automobile. We drove to Dumas, Texas,\nwhere he said he did not feel well, and he\nwas admitted to the hospital in Dumas. He\nwas in the hospital for about three weeks.\nI telephoned the Sutter County Welfare Depart-\nment and reported that my husband was ill in\nthe hospital. I wanted them to send my wel-\nfare check to Dumas, Texas, where I was stay-\ning with my sister. They told me that we\nwould have to come back to California in order\nto receive any more money as we could not be\nlisted as California residents otherwise. The\ndoctor in Dumas, Texas, stated that we should\nreturn to California. We left Dumas, Texas,\nbecause we did not qualify for welfare aid from\n(34)\nTexas and my husband needed continued medical\nhelp. I drove the car and when we got as far\nas Modesto area, my husband died right along-\nside of the highway. After coming home to\nSutter County I went to the Welfare Department\nfor aid and the maximum amount I could get was\n$150 per month. I then went to the United\nStates Social Security Administration to get\nassistance, if possible, as my husband had\nbeen receiving $92 per month from them. I\nwanted to know if the child could obtain fin-\nancial aid from my husband's account. I was\ntold that if I had adoption papers completed\nI could obtain financial aid through my hus-\nband's account. I went directly to the Calif-\nornia Rural Legal Assi stance Office on Seventh\nStreet in Marysville, California, and asked\nfor legal assistance in getting adoption papers\nfor the child. I talked to the head man,\nMr. Henry, and explained all the facts to him.\nHe referred me to another CRLA attorney,\nMr. Rogers. * I explained everything to Mr. Rog-\ners. He telephoned the Social Security and\nverified the facts. Then he said he would help\nme if I would sue the Sutter County Welfare De-\npartment for the death of my husband. He said\nthat if they had not wanted my husband to return\nto California he would not have died. Mr. Rogers\nwanted me to also sign a paper so he could go\nto the Welfare Department and obtain my welfare\nfile or records. I would not do that. All I\nwanted was the adoption papers. Mr. Rogers said\nall they wanted to do was sue the Welfare and\nthis was the best case they had come across. I\njust refused to sue the Welfare Department and I\nwalked out. Mr. Rogers telephoned me about five\ntimes afterwards asking me to come back to his\noffice and sign the papers so they could get\nmy welfare files. He said the only way I could\nget the adoption papers was to sue the Welfare\nDepartment. This all happened during (about)\nOctober, 1969. I still do not have the adoption\npapers, and I still have not received any fin-\nancial aid from Social Security. The Welfare\n* There is some question about Rogers' exact relationship\nto CRLA. James Henry was a paid attorney in 1969 with\nCRLA's Marysville office, but it appears that Rick Rogers\nmay have worked for CRLA through VISTA. He appears on num-\nerous court cases filed by CRLA and lists the same office\naddress. Furthermore, we have a record that he attended at\nleast one CRLA Advisory Committee Meeting and was listed\nthere among employees attended.\n(35)\nDepartment increased my monthly amount in\nNovember, 1969, and again the first part of\nthis year, 1970, because I have sugar dia-\nbetes and cannot work. At this time I am\nbarely able to exist on what I get monthly.\nIf I could get some financial aid from Social\nSecurity I could support myself and the child,\nnow six years, much better. A; CRLA refused\nto help me with legal help, I have not been\nable to get the adoption completed and I can-\nnot afford the legal expenses for a private\nattorney.' (Exhibit 02-0018--Emphasis added.)\nThe following statement indicates CRLA's willing-\nness to consider alternative mechanisms for improving\nthe delivery of quality legal services to the poor (quo-\nted from notes taken by investigator) :\nNeil B. Van Winkle, attorney-at-law stated\nthat when he was President of the Merced Coun-\nty Bar Association, 1967, to 1968, he tried\nto institute a Judicare Program (supposed to\nbe like Medicare). Indigents who qualified\nfor this program would be given a Judicare\nCard. When this program was being formulated,\nVan Winkle ran into heavy opposition from\nCRLA, because CRLA wanted to come to Merced\nCounty and CRLA cannot come into a county\nwhere there is free legal service. Mr. Van\nWinkle further stated that when he gave talks\nabout the program, CRLA was always where he\nwas giving a speech and voiced opposition to\nthe program. (Statement taken December 10,\n1970. Exhibit 09-0197.)\n\"Time pressure forces the attorney first to\naccept his clients' own simplistic character-\nizations of their problems, then to solve\nthese problems at the lowest level of contro-\nversy. = (Refunding proposal, p. 31.)\nIn the early summer of 1969, people throughout\nSanta Barbara County read in the local press that a local\ngrower was spraying dangerous pesticides that were caus-\n(36)\ning serious injury to the agricultural workers they em-\nployed. The same article announced the institution of\na suit by CRLA against the Department of Agriculture and\nthe Santa Maria Berry Farms on behalf of two plaintiffs\nwho claimed to be injured by the pesticides. (Ybarra V.\nFielder, et. al., Santa Maria Superior Court, No. 6833.)\nThe choice of defendants was somewhat ironic in view of\nthe characterization of that farm by one CRLA attorney\nas a \"model\" farm in a newspaper article only a few weeks\nbefore the filing of the suit.\nPrior to the filing of the complaint, CRLA made\nno effort to inquire from the defendant what pesticides\nhe was using. It was later determined that harmess fer-\ntilizer was all that was sprayed. The same plaintiffs\nalleging personal injury produced no evidence of injury.\nAfter several lengthy hearings, the directing attor-\nney of CRLA's Santa Maria office, Burton D. Fretz, wrote\na letter dismissing the case with the following comment:\n\"As the complaint herein indicates, the action\nfocuses upon the problem of the availability\nof information within the records of govern-\nmental offices to farm workers injured by\nexposure to pesticides. The promulgation after\nthe filing of this lawsuit of a Policy Letter\nby the Director of Agriculture dated August 11,\n1969, (enclosed) and now in effect makes such\ninformation generally available.\"\nAnd he concluded:\n(37)\n\"Although concern remains about dangers pre-\nsent in other areas of pesticide application\nwe believe the question of access to informa-\ntion is largely resolved and accordingly we\nrequest entry of dismissal.\" (Exhibit 09-0184--\nEmphasis added.)\nIf CRLA dismissed the case because in fact no\ninjury occurred, the plaintiffs were guilty of misre-\npresentation when they filed it and the suit was expli-\ncit harassment. If injury did occur, CRLA exhibited\ngross neglect in failing to pursue their case to just\nconclusion on behalf of their clients who suffered in-\njury. The letter quoted above indicates \"injury\" was\nsimply a pretext for getting into court.\nThe suit died with the dismissal, but the damage\nhad been done. The defendants had been forced to defend\na costly suit. Equally important, fears and tensions had\nbeen stirred in the local citizenry, who believed they\nwere being poisoned by local growers spraying dangerous\npesticides. The resentments and hostilities had been\nfueled between farm workers and their employers, by en-\ncouraging the workers to think they were being infected\nand injured by their employers.\n* In a separate administrative hearing, the crop dusters\nwere suspended for 90 days for dropping the harmless\nfertilizer on the workers, but CRLA had no direct involve-\nment in this proceeding, other than as witnesses.\n(38)\n\"The Bar Association, on county and municipal\nlevels, are least attuned to the basic prob-\nlems on a statewide and national basis. The\ndeficiency here, in my view, is not with the\nCRLA but in the failure of the organized\nBar in many areas to meet their responsibili-\nty to the poor in the legal services program.\"\n(August Evaluation, p. 58.)\nIs it any wonder that members of the local bar\nshy away from, or totally refuse to assist, CRLA when\nthat organization involves itself in the following type\nof activity?\nIn the Spring of 1970, a \"People's Paper\" was\npublished by the Marysville office of CRLA, listing,\namong others, CRLA attorney Peter Haberfield (sic) as\na contributor. The paper listed as its address 1212 F\nStreet, Marysville, which is the address of the local\nCRLA office. A section entitled \"Chief Judicial Racism,\"\nstates:\n\"This visa required the signature of Attorney\nGeneral PIG Mitchell for approval, which he\ndid not approve. This is the same man that\nwill stand up and lie to your face about the\nreasons for being in Viet Nam, Cambodia, Afri-\nca, Europe, and why you should remain a peace-\nful and trusting mass while thousands of inno-\ncent people are being killed for no reason.\nSo that the rest of the world can be oppressed\nby this white racist government. We say take\nheed to this man's message, for if you believe\nin this man you will forever be a race that will\nbe oppressed, tortured, beaten and killed.\nThis man is willing to take all the steps to\nkeep minority groups from winning human rights,\nwhich he will say is all for law and order.\nWhat type of law can exist where people want\nto be free and are fighting for this freedom\n(39)\nthat they have been deprived of where the\nPig can kick down your door, beat and kill\nyour children for protesting against what\nthey feel is wrong, and your Black Brothers\nand Sisters are being shot down in the street\nlike animals. WE ARE ASKING ALL BROTHERS AND\nSISTERS TO 'TAKE ARMS'. THE PEOPLE NEED YOU. \"\n(Exhibit Emphasis added.)\nOn March 16, 1970, at Yuba College, at a Semi-\nnar on Minority Problems, CRLA attorney Peter Haberfeld\nis quoted as saying:\n\"We've learned a lot from the Black Panther\nparty; it's time for a White Panther party.\nWe have to find a course of action, we have\nto start the revolution is coming.\"\n(Exhibit 09-0110 - Emphasis added.)\nOn January 14, 1969, the Board of Trustees of\nGavilan College, Gilroy, California, considered proposed\npolicy for establishing an uncensored bulletin board\nand table. Gavailan student, Miss Kathe Fish, represen-\nted by CRLA attorney Don Kates, Jr., opposed the college\nrules governing the distribution of materials at that\nmeeting. The President of Gavilan College states in\naffidavit:\n\"Miss Fish and about 30 or 40 students who\nfollowed her lead were actively campaigning\nto have 'four-letter words' authorized for\nprint in the college newspaper.\" (Exhibit\n10-0063.)\nOn or about January 22, 1969, the President of the\nCollege was served with a temporary restraining order\nfiled by CRLA on behalf of Miss Fish. The complaint alleged:\n(40)\n\"Defendants, the President and members of\nthe Board of Trustees of the College now\nseek to expel, suspend or otherwise exclude\nplaintiff because of her aforesaid activi-\nties.\"\nThe President continued in affidavit:\n\"I did not condone the activities of Miss Fish,\nbut I never harassed her in any way and I\ndid not attempt to have her expelled from the\ncollege. The CRLA suit states that I tried to\nhave Miss Fish excluded from campus, that I\ntried to intimidate Miss Fish and keep her\nfrom exercising her right to obtain counsel\nof her choice, and that I tried to deter her\nfrom receiving benefits conferred by the\nEconomic Opportunity Act. None of the above\ncharges are true. It is my opinion that the\nCRLA grossly exaggerated the situation invol-\nving Miss Fish in order to make an issue\nwhere no real issue really existed.\" (Exhibit\n10-0063--Emphasis added.)\nNo negotiation or communication preceded the\nfiling of the action, but it stirred tension and turmoil\non the campus and made discipline and stability all the\nmore difficult to maintain. MissFish left the college\nnot long after this time and became involved in drug pre-\nvention work. She is currently under criminal indictment\nfor the sale of marijuana.\n\"Given the credentials of the Government\nAccounting Office investigating agency, and\ngiven the thoroughness of their investiga-\ntion in this particular case, accusations\nregarding CRLA's illicit connection with\nlabor unions have become much less frequent.\"\n(Refunding Proposal, pp. 34-35.)\n(41)\nOn September 4, 1970, during a UFWOC rally in\nsupport of the Union's lettuce strike in Salinas, a per-\nson identified as Neil Levy, who is listed as an attor-\nney with the CRLA Salinas office, is reported by a\nnewsman to have addressed the rally and offered the sup-\nport of the CRLA Salinas office to defend against unlaw-\nful detainer actions. A T.V. film clip showing the\nrally, describes the scene as follows:\n\"California Rural Legal Assistance attorney\nNeil Levy asked that all workers return\nsummonses from growers notifying them to\nleave the camp, so that they can be answered\nin court, adding that in that way he may\nbe able to prolong the day of eviction. \"\n(Exhibit 07-0088--Emphasis added.)\nThe unlawful detainer actions grow out of the\ngrowers' practice frequently of paying part of their com-\npensation in the form of housing for the workers and\ntheir families. When the union calls a strike, the em-\nployers naturally seek to cut off all compensation, which\nincludes the right to free housing. The effect of CRLA's\nintervention on behalf of the union is to bring addition-\nal economic pressure to bear on the employers--an expli-\ncit union responsibility--and to force perpetuation of\npart compensation (the housing) by the employer.\n* See also section V.C. herein.\n(42)\n\"The project will supply legal assistance to\nfarm workers and other poor persons in Cal-\nifornia. Its goal is to provide the legal\nprotection necessary to enable the rural poor\nto help themselves. (Brief Description of\nthe project, in 1971 Refunding Proposal, in-\nside cover.)\nA member of the OEO Board of Directors for Merced\nCounty recalls one contact he had with CRLA:\n\"\nin June of 1969 a problem arose between\nthe Spanish people and the school board.\nThis happened in Livingston, California.\nThere were several problems, among them the\nstudents boycotted the high school. The\nstudents carried placards around the school.\nIt was found that these placards were made\nat the OEO office--the Livingston Service\nCenter. Because of this, some employees at\nthe Service Center were fired. The employees\nwho were fired were represented by CRLA who\nappealed the firing. Van Winkle stated that\nthe Board of Supervisors, of which he is a\nmember, elected him to be the hearing officer\nat the appeal hearing for the fired service\ncenter employees. Van Winkle stated that at\nthis appeal hearing the CRLA attorneys lined\nup the witnesses and the audience and created\nsuch a disturbance that Van Winkle had two\ndeputies called in to maintain order. Van\nWinkle stated he had to have two people re-\nmoved from the hearing Van Winkle stated\nthat the name of the hearing was the matter\nof Steven Haberfeld, Lana Lincon, William\nHeter, and William G. Kex, held on the 17th\nof June, 1969. (Exhibit 09-0197.)\nOn January 6, 1970, Mrs. Kathy Young Sears, who\nresided at 1590 - 22nd Street, Oceana, California, returned\nfrom her part-time job to find that her husband had left\nher. At the time Mrs. Sears was employed by a packing\nplant on a part-time basis, with an annual income of $2,000.\n(43)\nShe was of Korean descent and spoke very little English.\nWhen her husband had left, he had taken all of the house\nfurnishings and property and had left her nothing.\nMrs. Sears contacted the CRLA office in Santa Maria,\nCalifornia. CRLA, which responded in a letter dated Jan-\nuary 29, 1970, said that they would be happy to repre-\nsent her in defending the divorce action filed by her\nhusband. The letter was signed by CRLA Santa Maria\nDirecting Attorney Burton D. Fretz. The complaint in the\ndivorce action should have been answered 30 days after\nMrs. Sears received the summons, which was January 6, 1970.\nMrs. Sears did not hear from CRLA for several weeks; she\nthen returned to the CRLA office in Santa Maria and was\ntold by a secretary that she did not need an attorney.\nShe then received a letter dated February 12, 1970, signed\nby CRLA attorney Daniel Morper, which stated:\n\"Dear Mrs. Sears: I regret that you were not\ninformed earlier that this office would not\nbe able to handle your case, due to the in-\ncome of your husband. I hope this mix-up did\nnot put you at any disadvantage in defending\nthis case.\"\nBy the time this letter was received by Mrs. Sears,\nthe 30-day period for answering the complaint had expired.\nMrs. Sears, at a tremendous disadvantage because of her\nlanguage problem, turned to a private attorney in Santa\nMaria and asked that he help her in this divorce action.\n(44)\nThe private attorney took it upon himself to handle the\ncase and help Mrs. Sears. He went to court on her behalf\nand was able to obtain most of her household goods and\nsix months' alimony. (Exhibit 09-0167.)\n\"CRLA has never been formally accused of\nviolating the conditions of its grant with\nregard to the handling of criminal cases\n\"\n(Refunding Proposal, p. 33.)\nCRLA's representation of criminal defendants has\nbecome so preponderant that, in fact, one local district\nattorney has ceased to complain about their handling of\nthese cases. CRLA's official answer to these charges is\nthat their attorneys are doing it \"on their own time.\"\nThis is the thread that runs throughout charges of grant\nviolation. The response is so frequent that it has\nprompted at least one observer to ask whether CRLA attor-\nneys are ever permitted respites from their free time.\nIn answer to a charge brought by District Attorney\nJames R. Hanhart, CRLA responded (in a letter from Direc-\ntor Cruz Reynoso) by commending the attorney involved for\nhis \"selflessness. The letter went on to recite the\npractice of large urban law firms, which encourage their\nyoung attorneys to work for indigent persons in criminal\nand civil matters.\n* See the exchange of letters in Exhibit 01-0199.\n(45)\nThe analogy is disingenuous, as Mr. Hanhart points\nout in his letter in answer:\n=\nthe issue is not Mr. Spiegel's \"self-\nlessness\" (a personal trait which is worthy\nof commendation), but rather the equal dis-\npensation of tax-subsidized legal services\nto indigent criminal defendants.\n\"Public defenders are tax-subsidized; they can-\nnot pick and choose their clients--they must\nrepresent all indigent defendants. Private\nlaw firms are not tax-subsidized; they can\npick and choose their clients.\n\"I note you did not make this rather critical\ndistinction in your somewhat hurried letter.\"\nMr. Hanhart goes on to ask the critical questions\ngoverning the administration of all legal service pro-\ngrams:\n11\nif CRLA is tax-subsidized, (1) What is\nthe legal basis for its policy of selectivity?\n(2) What criteria govern these selections?\n(3) Who supervises the selection process?\n(4) How does an indigent criminal defendant\navail himself of CRLA services? The answers\nto the above questions might well trigger\nnew policies from the Board of Directors of\nCRLA. 11 (Exhibit 01-0199 Emphasis added.)\nThe issue goes further. What prevents CRLA attor-\nneys from advancing the argument that they are doing some-\nthing on their own time, to circumvent all of their program\nconditions? The question here is: what ought the public\nto subsidize? Generally, one subsidizes only that which\nis in short supply. The evident free availability of\ncertain kinds of services calls into question the whole\n(46)\npolicy of the services that must be subsidized in order\nto be performed.\nThe tragedy for the poor of CRLA's participation\nin criminal matters is CRLA's reported incompetence in\nhandling them. CRLA attorneys have little experience in\ncriminal matters, and therefore a client represented by\nCRLA in a criminal matter is at a tremendous disadvantage,\nshould one of them be unfortunate enough to be on the re-\nceiving end of an attorney's \"selflessness\".\nIn People of State of California V. Michael Diaz,\nCRLA attorney Donald W. Haynes, of CRLA's Santa Maria\noffice, defended Mr. Diaz, who was charged with the crime\nof contribution to the delinquency of a minor (PC Section\n272), and appeared in court as attorney of record for\nsaid Diaz. The Deputy District Attorney of Santa Barbara\nCounty describes the incident as follows:\n\"The case involved an 18-year old boy com-\nmitting statutory rape on a 15-year old\ngirl, and when the girl's parents objected,\nmembers of the CRLA's office took the girl\nfrom her parents, taking her to Mexico and\narranged for them to get married. (At\nleast, this is what Mr. Haynes stated to\nthe court.) I seriously considered taking\nthe case to the Grand Jury, charging Mr.\nHaynes and others with a felony. However,\ndue to evidentiary problems and the press\nof other felony maters, I did not do so.\"\n(Exhibit 01-004-02.)\n(47)\nExamples of CRLA's denying poor people service\nthat would certainly help them \"help themselves\" are\nnumerous. Following are representative examples of re-\nfusal.\nIn August, 1970, Maryann Coronado went to the\nMadera office of CRLA for assistance in getting a divorce.\nShe relates the incident as follows:\n\"I talked to one man at CRLA. I do not\nrecall his name. This man told me that I\nneeded grounds for divorce and that the\nonly way I could get a divorce was for my\nhusband to beat me up or something like\nthat. I told him that I was not going to\ngive him or my husband that satisfaction.\nHe then gave me a list of attorneys. I told\nhim that I couldn't afford private counsel.\nHe then told me that CRLA did not handle\ndivorce cases. I do not know why CRLA re-\nfused me because they have handled divorce\ncases for a couple of my girlfriends.\"\n(Exhibit 04-0192--Emphasis added.)\nCRLA is often unwilling to help a poor person with\nlegal problems, even when property is involved. Helen\nLucille Rohrig relates the following treatment she re-\nceived from CRLA:\n\"When my divorce was finalized in 1969 I was\nsupposed to receive clear title to 8½¹/2 acres\nof property in North Fork, California. I did\nnot receive clear title so I went to CRLA\nfor help. I went to the CRLA office in Madera.\nI talked to one man, I do not remember his name,\nat CRLA and told him my problem. This man\nrefused to help me. This man stated that I\nhad a domestic problem and CRLA does not help\npeople with family problems. I told the man\n(48)\nthat I was on welfare, and he told me\nthat if I had any problems with the Wel-\nfare Department to contact him, because\nCRLA would help if I had a problem with\nthe Welfare Department. (Exhibit 04-0491--\nEmphasis added.)\nAffiant Judith Shelton relates her experiences\nwith the Madera office of CRLA:\n11 (About May, 1970) I wanted a divorce. I\nwent to the CRLA office in Madera. I went\nthere before normal business hours. A\nreceptionist let me in. I told her my prob-\nlem. The receptionist told me that CRLA\ndoes not handle civil cases and also that I\nhad to be in the county for three months,\nwhich I had not. The receptionist took my\nname and number. CRLA never called me. I\nfinally called them and they told me that\nthey did not handle civil cases. During Oc-\ntober 1970, I again went to CRLA for help.\nA finance company in Fresno, Laurentide\nFinance Corporation, was trying to sue me for\nnot making payments on a car. I told this\nfinance company that I do not have the car\nbut that my husband does. I told this company\nwhere the car was, but the company does not\nwant the car, they want my furniture and\nmoney. Also, this finance company had been\ncalling me and saying it was my husband. I\ntold CRLA all this and they told me to con-\ntact the finance company and offer them $200\nif they would agree to take my name off the\ncontract. My husband and I both signed the\ncontract for the car. The company agreed to\ndo this but I could not come up with $200 in\ncash. CRLA also told me to write the finance\ncompany a letter telling them that they could\nget into trouble for calling me and saying\nit was my husband calling. Again, I asked\nCRLA about my divorce and one of the CRLA at-\ntorneys I talked to, A. Keith Lesar, told me\nthat CRLA does not handle civil cases. He\nwould not give me an explanation. He did tell\nme that if the finance company brought a suit\nagainst me they would help me. I don't under-\nstand why CRLA won't help me with my divorce\n(49)\ncase. A girl I know got a divorce through\nCRLA. The girl went with the person, whose\nname is Ruben, who works with CRLA. \"\n(Exhi-\nbit 04-0190--Emphasis added.)\nIn September, 1970, Loma Lee Dean related the fol-\nlowing experience when she went to a CRLA office for assis-\ntance in getting on welfare.\n\"The purpose of my visit was to have one of\ntheir attorneys help me to get the neces-\nsary papers to show I was separated from\nmy husband, so I could get on welfare. On\nmy first visit to CRLA I explained the pur-\npose of my visit to attorney A. Keith Lesar.\nMr. Lesar wanted to know why I could not\nget on welfare without legal papers, and I\ntold him that I did not know. Mr. Lesar\ninformed me I was entitled to welfare with-\nout legal papers and sent me back towelfare\nto find out why they were refusing me welfare.\nWelfare explained to me that they had too\nmany servicemen's families on welfare and that\nthey now needed papers to show there was a\nseparation. Later on I went back to CRLA\nand talked to another attorney whose name I\ndo not know, but they did not help me.\"\n(Exhibit 04-0034-01.)\nIn one day, a single investigator turned up seven\nindividual cases in which a poor person went to CRLA's\nMadera office for assistance on domestic matters, some of\nthem involving property, but was refused service by them.\nSee Exhibits 04-0034, 36, 37, 38, 35, 33, 31.\nA damning footnote to CRLA's refusal to offer cer-\ntain kinds of service for the poor occurred on February 16,\n1970, when Mr. Cameron Hendry, Executive Director of the\nEconomic Opportunity Commission of Imperial County, wrote\n(50)"
}