Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564784",
    "label": "CRLA - Study and Evaluation of CRLA by California OEO, 1971 - Condensation (1 of 2)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564784"
}

{
    "id": "118564784",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564784",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "CRLA - Study and Evaluation of CRLA by California OEO, 1971 - Condensation (1 of 2)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564784",
    "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-P29-019-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408627/40-840-7408627-P29-019-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408627/40-840-7408627-P29-019-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564784",
    "naId": 118564784,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-12-31",
        "year": 1975
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1967-01-01",
        "year": 1967
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408627/40-840-7408627-P29-019-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "2b57a248e5999022",
    "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 - Condensation\n(1 of 2)\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 ASSISTANCE, INC.\nBY\nCALIFORNIA OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY\n1971\nLEWIS K. UHLER, DIRECTOR\n(A Condensation)\nA STUDY AND EVALUATION\nOF\nCALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.\nBY\nCALIFORNIA OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY\n1971\nLEWIS K. UHLER, DIRECTOR\n(A Condensation)\nA 283-page evaluation report of California\nRural Legal Assistance, Inc., based on almost 9,000 pages\nof reference material and documentation, was made public\nduring the first week of January, 1971, after its deliv-\nery to OEO officials in Washington, D.C.\nThe final report constitutes the work product\nof the Office of Economic Opportunity, State of Califor-\nnia - its Director and its staff.\nCalifornia Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., is one\nof the largest publicly financed legal service programs in\nthe United States. It is structured as a California non-\nprofit corporation, funded by an OEO grant and created to\nrender civil legal services to the rural poor from nine\noperational offices, a central administrative office in\nSan Francisco and an office involved in legislative ad-\nvocacy in Sacramento. During 1970, National OEO, under\nleadership of Donald Rumsfeld, was considering the idea of\nregionalizing legal service programs. This move was inter-\npreted by the poverty-law establishment as an attempt by\nOEO to weaken the legal services program by diffusing and\nlocalizing its control. In late November, this poverty-law\nestablishment mobilized national protest to decry the long-\ncoming dismissal of National Legal Service Director Terry\nLenzner and his assistant. Subsequently, Donald Rumsfeld\nwas regaled by angry denunciations from this establishment's\nrepresentatives from every legal service program in the\nUnited States. Pressure built up to the point where, in\norder to counter the impression that the Nixon Administration\nwas opposed to legal services, the Director of OEO made a\nhighly unusual public announcement that he had approved CRLA's\nrefunding proposal for 1971 - an approval that accelerated the\nprogram's refunding cycle.\nIn some ways the most difficult aspect of the\nevaluation concerns the people in the communities served by\nCRLA. Given the ability of the poverty-law establishment to\nharass those who disagree with it in the press and in court,\nsome people in the communities have felt a great reluctance\nto speak their dissatisfaction with CRLA publicly. In fact,\nsince the release of the report in the first week in January,\nacts of harassment have been reported against those who\ncontributed by affidavit or statement to the investigative\nstaff of California State OEO.\n-2-\nCRLA has always exhibited a public eagerness\nto be evaluated by anyone who cared to do so, but in early\nDecember, 1970, when the Stanislaus County Grand Jury\nlaunched an investigation in response to the \"growing public\nconcern that CRLA, Inc., is not carrying out its stated\ncorporate purpose of providing adequate legal assistance for\nthe poor,\" CRLA secured from the Federal District Court\nan injunction against any investigation of their program.\nThe incident is lamentable, for this was the first time\nthat a program of this nature was to be evaluated by people\nin the area being served by that program.\nBy its grant conditions, CRLA is prohibited from\ninvolving itself in the following activities:\n(1) representation in criminal cases;\n(2) accepting cases that are fee-generating\nin nature;\n(3) accepting clients who do not conform with\npoverty income guidelines;\n(4) accepting labor unions as clients.\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 the\ndignity of the legal profession and gives the program its\n-3-\nhighest potential for success. Following are some of\nthese considerations:\n(a) a prohibition against soliciting clients\nand stirring up litigation;\n(b) a prohibition against conduct unbecoming\nan attorney;\n(c) a prohibition against the filing of har-\nassing or frivolous actions;\n(d) a special prohibition attending taxpayer-\nsupported legal services, to wit, that the attorneys shall\nnot waste precious resources and shall be guided by a con-\ncern for economy in all respects;\n(e) a prohibition against newspaper publicity\nby an attorney as to pending or anticipated litigation.\nThe 1971 grant evaluation which led to Governor\nReagan's veto of CRLA constitutes an alarming profile of\nflagrant violation of the terms of CRLA's grant contract,\narticles of CRLA's incorporation and the spirit of the\npurpose of CRLA.\nCRLA's Activities Behind Prison Walls\nCRLA has accelerated its activities in California\nprisons since the celebrated \"Soledad Soul Brothers\" murder\ncase and a second case referred to in the press as the\n\"Soledad Seven\" case. Both of these cases are murder cases\n-4-\nin which Black inmates are accused of killing Caucasian\nguards.\nOne of the defendants in the \"Soledad Soul Brothers\"\ncase, George Jackson, is the brother of the Jackson killed at\nthe San Rafael Courthouse break attempt in August, 1970. Three\nother persons, including the Presiding Judge of the Court, were\nkilled during this break attempt. Jackson was in possession\nof weapons registered to Angela Davis, the Black militant who\nhas been accused of conspiracy in the murders. CRLA attor-\nneys tried to intercede on behalf of Angela Davis or her\nattorneys to gain permission for her to visit George Jackson\nat the Soledad Penitentiary prior to the break attempt at\nthe San Rafael courthouse.\nThe following incident at Soledad Penitentiary\nshows the gravity of CRLA's involvement within the California\nState Prison System. On October 30, 1970, David Kirkpatrick,\nCRLA attorney for the Salinas office, telephoned to Monterey\nCounty Assistant District Attorney Edward Barnes. Kirkpatrick\nstated that he wanted to see a prisoner at the Correctional\nTraining Facility at Soledad. The inmate in question was a\npotential witness in the \"Soledad Soul Brothers\" murder case.\nKirkpatrick told Barnes that one Peter Haberfeld (a CRLA attor-\nney with the Marysville office, who left the employ of CRLA in\nSeptember) represented the prisoner on a writ of habeas corpus,\nand Haberfeld wanted him (Kirkpatrick) to take a message to\nthe prisoner.\n-5-\nAssistant District Attorney Barnes contacted the\nprisoner in question and was told that he (the prisoner) did\nnot know any Peter Haberfeld. Nevertheless, Kirkpatrick did\ntalk to the prisoner and asked him if he was going to be a\nwitness in the case and testify for the prosecution. The con-\nversation is recorded in an affidavit:\n\"I,\n# am an inmate at Soledad\nCorrectional Training Facility, Soledad,\nCalifornia. The first contact I had with\nrepresentatives of the California Rural\nLegal Assistance was in November, 1970,\nwhen Faye Stender and Richard Silver came\nto see me at Folsom Prison. I was told by\nthem that they wanted to talk to me about\nthe killing that I had witnessed at Soledad\nwhile I was there. They showed me a letter\nthat had been written to CRLA by another\ninmate named\n,\nwho was, I believe,\nmay have been involved in the crime. This\nletter stated that some of the correctional\nofficers may be trying to set me up to be\nkilled and that maybe CRLA could help me.\nBoth of the attorneys talked with (me) for\na while then asked me if I wanted them to\nrepresent me. I advised them that I did\nnot and that if I needed a lawyer I could\nget one of my own. They then stated that\nthey would recommend a lawyer to me from\nthe Marysville, California, area. Shortly\nafter that I was transferred back to the\nSoledad facility. In late November, 1970,\nI received an unrequested visit from a Mr.\nKir (k) patrick, who told me he was a lawyer.\nHe stated the reason that he was there was\nbecause a lawyer in Marysville had asked\nhim to stop by and see me. He advised me\nthat he wanted to know my position regard-\ning the killing. I told him that I had\nalready told Captain\n, of the\nSoledad Facility, what I had seen. The\nlawyer then asked me if I wanted him to\ntell the Black inmates that I was okay?\n-6-\nI answered no. He then asked if that\nmeant that I was going to testify for the\nState. I answered yes, that I was. He\nthen asked if I thought the State could\nprotect me better than 'we' can. I ans-\nwered yes, I thought they could. He then\nsaid 'That's it?' I answered yes. He\nthen advised me that I had better write\nmy lawyer in Marysville and tell him to\nforget about helping me get out. Since\nI didn't know his name and address I asked\nhim to tell him. At this time I had less\nthan\nto do on my sentence, and\nI would be released, so I don't know why\nanyone said they would try and get me out.\nThis was the only contact I had with CRLA,\nand I don't know any more about the organ-\nization.\"\n(Emphasis added.)\nIt appears that Kirkpatrick subtly threatened\nthe inmate and suggested that the inmate, at best, suppress\nevidence and, at worst, commit perjury at the murder trial.\nThe report also documents CRLA attempts to impose\nthemselves upon the California Correctional System to erode\npenal discipline and revise administrative correctional pol-\nicies by filing civil actions based on questionable and, in\nsome cases, preposterous claims.\nCRLA's posture in its prison thrust, especially\nat Soledad and San Quentin, has been to attempt to make in-\nroads into and establish a rapport with incarcerated ethnic\nminorities, with the intention of creating disharmony and\ne xploiting extant racial and ethnic tensions between inmates,\nas well as between inmates and the established prison order.\n-7-\nCRLA and Youth\nThe report reveals very disturbing evidence that\nCRLA and individual CRLA attorneys and staff members have\nacted and are acting as catalytic agents in school agitation\nincidents. Their actions have been direct and vigorous in\nhelping to foment serious student harassment of school\nauthorities, assaults on school discipline and the orderly\nconduct of local schools in California.\nThe report includes nine in-depth case studies\nof open CRLA involvement in fomenting and carrying through\nschool confrontations and incidents.\nOne case documents how CRLA staff members counseled\na juvenile girl and enticed her into acts of Chicano agit-\nation with the assistance of two school teachers and two CRLA\nstaff members in San Benito County. Another case shows how\nCRLA attorneys and staff members were responsible for trans-\nporting 94 school pupils of high school and junior high level\n(many of them juveniles) to a \"Free Cesar Chavez\" rally and\ndemonstration without the consent of their parents or the\nschool. In this case, one CRLA staff member's car was used\nto transport students to the rally. In another case, a\nCRLA attorney appeared at a junior high school to participate\nin a seminar and in the process of his participation used ob-\nscenities before the class and wrote obscene four-letter words\non the blackboard, much to the chagrin of the faculty members\n-8-\ninvolved in the seminar. Another case shows how a CRLA attorney\npublished an underground newspaper with the return address of\nthe Marysville CRLA office. The underground newspaper in\nquestion, \"The People's Paper for Community Agitation,\" ex-\ntolled the virtues of racial violence and conformed edit-\norially with the myrmidons of the revolutionary Left.\nThe report states, \"What is even more distressing\nis that CRLA attorneys and staff members in their quest to\nfoment school disorders have exploited racism among Negro\nand Mexican-American students.\n\"The image of law displayed by too many CRLA\nattorneys is a vision of dissent - on the streets if it\nis expedient - not a basic concern for justice,\" the report\nstates. \"It is our firm opinion that a great many CRLA\nattorneys are 'true believers', hitch-hiking a ride at the\nexpense of the rural poor to achieve a dislocation of our\nsocial, political and economic order.\"\nCRLA and the Farm\nCRLA operates in rural and, therefore, largely\nfarming areas. The relationship of CRLA to farmers, farm\nworkers and the farm industry is intimate. The State of\nCalifonia is equally deeply enmeshed in agriculture, being\nthe Nation's number one agricultural state, functioning in\n-9-\nareas of farm worker housing, health and safety standards\nenforcement, farm labor services and SO on. The Farm Labor\nService division of the Dept. of Human Resources Development,\nhas 42 offices throughout the State, which act, among\nother things, as a rallying point or marketplace for farm\nworkers so that they may be readily linked up with available\nfarm work.\nIt might be expected that CRLA would work closely\nwith the State in agricultural matters. This is not the\ncase, however. CRLA makes it clear from its actions and\neven its words that it is seeking to put California's Farm\nLabor Services out of business.\nOn March 5, 1970, CRLA filed an action commonly\nknown as the \"250 Farm Workers V. Schultz\" in the U.S.\nDistrict Court for the Northern District of California,\nseeking, among other things, to close down the Farm Labor\nService of the State of California. The case was replete\nwith a variety of subterfuge and misrepresentation on the\npart of CRLA. One man, who was approached to sign a peti-\ntion while attending a remedial class in English for\nSpanish-speaking farm workers held at night at a local high\nschool stated that a CRLA staff member admonished the remedial\nEnglish class to sign petitions against California's Farm\nLabor Service Agency.\n-10-\nThere is a method to CRLA's thrust against the\nCalifornia Farm Labor Service. Without conveniently\nlocated centers through which farm laborers could find\navailable work, it would appear that farm workers would\nbe severely harmed and would have to turn to their own\ndevices for work opportunities. It is the vision of CRLA\nto replace Farm Labor Service offices with UFWOC union\nhalls. In this way, Cesar Chavez' union would not have\ncompetition from State hiring halls.\nJust as CRLA has attempted and is attempting to\nput California's Farm Labor Service out of business, it\nis summarily attempting to harass private farm labor\ncontractors with the hope of eliminating them, too.\nCRLA and UFWOC have apparently combined to seek\nadministrative hearings against farm labor contractors for\na variety of alleged causes. Many of the farm labor contrac-\ntors are very poor themselves. The poor or marginal farm\nlabor contractor, when confronted with a lawsuit or adminis-\ntrative hearing, may well find it financially impossible\nto continue on in this business. Even the larger operators,\nsuch as those which provide housing, transportation, etc.,\nfind a time-consuming, expensive lawsuit too much to handle.\nIf farm labor contrctors (they are licensed and\nare subject to rules of operation and conduct) were severely\n-11-\nconstricted by legal harassment, and if the Farm Labor Services\nbureau of the State of California were terminated, what would\nbe left for the farm worker in the way of assistance in loca-\nting employment? Who would he turn to?\nThe hope of CRLA and UFWOC is obviously the Chavez'\nfarm union. CRLA's relationship with the UFWOC has been\nsubject to controversy since CRLA began in 1966. In Septem-\nber, 1967, Congressman Robert B. Mathias, wrote to the Comptrol-\nler General of the United States and requested that the Genera 1\nAccounting Office (GAO) conduct an investigation of CRLA's\nactivities, with particular attention to its relationship\nwith UFWOC. It is to be noted that both the Economic Oppor-\ntunity Act (Section 603 and attendant regulations) and a\nspecial condition of CRLA's 1970 grant prohibits CRLA from\nrepresenting a labor union.\nGAO conducted a two-month investigation at the\nend of 1967, and published its findings in a report dated\nMay 29, 1968, entitled \"Report on Investigation of Certain\nActivities of the California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc\n,\nunder Grants by Office of Economic Opportunity.\"\nIn his cover letter to Congressman Mathias, acting\nComptroller General Frank H. Weitzel concluded: \"We found\nno evidence that the grantee (CRLA) was working directly\nfor the union or that the activities we reviewed violated\nspecial grant conditions relating to union activities.\"\n-12-\nSince the GAO report, no one has had the temerity\nto reopen the issue.\nOur investigation of the relationship between CRLA\nand UFWOC demands that the case be reopened. Far from dis-\nposing of the issue, the GAO report has served as a launching\npad for a relationship that has grown steadily since 1968,\nwhen the report was released. This growth has taken place\ndespite efforts to strengthen the special conditions to\nCRLA's grant in each of the funding years 1968, 1969, and\n1970. If the GAO had conducted its study under the special\nconditions applied since 1968, we are confident they would\nhave reached much different conclusions.\nThe close association of CRLA and UFWOC is sug-\ngested by the following example:\n--UFWOC's first major target area was the grape\nstrike in Delano. In 1968, CRLA's McFarland office, which\nservices Delano, was among the largest of its regional offices.\nIn 1969 and 1970, the union shifted its attention towards\nImperial County and Salinas. During those two years, the\nCRLA McFarland office shrunk to approximately one-half its\nformer size, as it built up its offices in El Centro and\nSalinas.\n--CRLA's original Board of Trustees included four\nmembers who were either directly connected with UFWOC or\nclosely associated with its work. They were: Cesar Chavez,\n-13-\nPresident of UFWOC; Oscar Gonzales, President of the United\nFarm Workers of San Jose; Larry Itliong, of the Agricultural\nWorkers Organizing Committee; and Miss Kathryn Peake, Vice\nChairman, Emergency Committee to Aid Farmworkers.\n--Gerry Cohen, now General Counsel of UFWOC, was\nformerly employed in CRLA's McFarland office. Charles\nFarnsworth, one of Cohen's partners and active in UFWOC\nmatters, worked in CRLA's El Centro office. Another partner,\nDavid Averbuck, came from CRLA's Marysville office. Gilbert\nFlores, alias Baby Huey, is both a community worker for CRLA's\nMcFarland office and a personal bodyguard for UFWOC's Cesar\nChavez.\nIn all of the dem onstrations and confrontations\nof UFWOC, there is always a prominence of CRLA staff attorneys\nor staff members.\nThe report states, \"It now appears clear that CRLA's\nconduct with respect to Agriculture in California does not\nconsist of simply isolated actions and cases helping individual\npoor farm workers and their families with their problems. There\nis, in fact, a grand strategy, which, until one has an oppor-\ntunity to view the scene from a statewide prospective, is only\na concealed agenda.\"\nThis grand strategy is to organize and unionize the\nfarm workers in California into a labor monolith--a monopoly\n-14-\nunion--underthe control and direction of UFWOC. The means\nof accomplishing this objective are:\n(1) Assistance to UFWOC's activists--pickets,\ndemonstrators, organizers--and its rank and file members;\n(2) Diminution or destruction of the major obstacles\nin its path, to wit, the Farm Labor Service of the State of\nCalifornia and the farm labor contractors who operate throughout\nthe State.\nA CASE OF NONCOMPLIANCE, CRIMINAL REPRESENTATION\nContrary to the claim of CRLA, as contained in its\n1971 refunding proposal--narrative and budget--and which\non page 33 is chimed, \"CRLA has never been formally accused\nof violating the conditions of its grant, with regard to\nhandling of criminal cases,\" the 1971 evaluation study cites\n17 specific cases in which CRLA attorneys were attorneys of\nrecord in purely criminal actions.\nThe District Attorney of Sutter County indicates\nthat he has given up objecting to representation of criminals\nby CRLA attorneys. Several district attorneys have shifted\nthe focus of their concern about CRLA's representing criminal\ndefendants regarding violation of CRLA's grant conditions to\nthe quality of representation that criminal defendants are\nreceiving from CRLA attorneys.\nOne district attorney said he felt uncomfortable\nhaving to assist CRLA attorneys in criminal defense, when\n-15-\nhis office was supposed to be on the other side of the case.\nHe said he has continued to do it reluctantly, because of\nhis fear that otherwise the defendants would not receive\nadequate counsel.\nWhen the fact that CRLA attorneys represented clients\nin criminal actions has been brought to the attention of CRLA\nmanagement in San Francisco, the central office inevitably\nresponds by saying that that the erring attorney has provided\nrepresentation \"on his own time, at his own expenses, and\nwithout charging a fee.\" In response to this claim, one\nDeputy District Attorney declared, \"This is ridiculous to\nsay that an attorney working for a corporate law firm may\ntake on clients which are prohibited to him during a regular\nworking day. To follow this to its logical conclusion, then\na District Attorney might well represent a lucrative personal\ninjury case or rich criminal defendant on interim 'days off. 11\nIt is interesting to note that many of the criminal\ncases handled by CRLA attorneys are the result of arrests in\ndemonstrations that CRLA helped to foment.\nEligibility Standard for CRLA Attorneys\nThere is a requirement for CRLA that clients meet\na prescribed income eligibility standard, so that those,\nin fact, able to pay for an attorney will do so and will not\n-16-\nutilize the limited resources of CRLA.\nThe report states that during the recent evaluation\nthere was never any indication that there was a concern on\nthe part of any CRLA office that the eligibility guidelines\nbe adhered to. The report documents cases in which CRLA\nattorneys represented individuals and/or organizations that\nwere not even close to the guideline restrictions. One case\ndocumented accuses CRLA of filing a suit for a plaintiff who\nwas worth in excess of $100,000. In another case, CRLA re-\npresented the Chowchilla Committee for Better Schools and one\naffiant states that the treasurer of that organization is\nworth in excess of $250,000, and that the main members of\nthe Committee are financially above the prescribed guidelines\nfor eligibility to receive free legal aid from CRLA. There\nare eight cases documented in the 1971 evaluation report showing\ngross neglect in conforming with the OEO grant guidelines for\neligibility by CRLA.\nSoliciting Clients and Stirring Up Litigation\nThe report states, \"The issue of stirring up liti-\ngation is a particularly sensitive one, because of the extent\nto which litigation of any sort, particularly suits alleging\nexploitation between one group and another, can cause hos-\ntilities and tensions between them. This is especially\n-17-\ndangerous in race relations, where tensions and hostilities\nmay already be aggravated to near violence.\"\nThe report documents a case in which a CRLA paid\nstaff attorney let it be known that he was \"looking for a woman\nwelfare recipient who had been requested to take a polygraph\nexamination by the Madera County District Attorney's office\nso that they could take legal action.\" In another case, it\nis stated that the CRLA local office at El Centro solicited\nclients to make complaints against feed lots in the Calexico\narea (\"Imperial Valley News\" of February 3, 1967.) The story\nsaid, in part, that the CRLA attorney \"needs a class suit to\nwork with a group of people to bring an action 11 The\narticle goes on to state that complaints may be made to the\nCRLA office in El Centro. In Modesto, during the school\nlunch demonstrations during January, 1970, CRLA was\nresponsible for organizing and directing a demonstration\nwhich resulted in the arrest and trial of some 42 demonstra-\ntors for trespass on the Modesto School District building in\nApril, 1970. An affidavit relative to this matter states:\n\" These two lawyers, (CRLA), were all\ntoo active. First, they told the demon-\nstrators that they would represent them\nlegally in court if arrested. Second,\nthey spent the entire day, day after day,\nat the city school's offices, with the dem-\nonstrators, where in fact they should have\nbeen at their offices doing their official\nduties talking to clients...\"\n-18-\nIn another case, during September, 1970, on a\nnewscast on KSVW, Channel 8, Salinas, the newscaster quoted\na CRLA attorney who solicited clients for the CRLA office.\nStirring up litigation often involves conscrip-\nting plaintiffs. In the case of Wolfin V. Vinson, CRLA\nfiled suit on behalf of 16 Indians against a local car\ndealer. When they were later questioned in depositions,\n15 of the 16 plaintiffs denied that they had ever been\nrequested to be part of the lawsuit. Duirng the \"250\nFarm Workers\" action against the California Farm Labor\nBureau, certain of the 250 plaintiffs thought they were\nsigning a mere petition only to find out later that the\npetition was, in fact, a lawsuit against the Farm Labor\nBureau.\nThe report states that CRLA attorneys solicitation\nof clients and stirring up of litigation reveals at best\na blatant indifference to the needs of the poor, at worst a\ndisposition to use their clients as ammunition in their\nefforts to wage idealogical warfare against the \"establishment.\"\nA Case of Noncompliance--Conduct Unbecoming an Attorney\nThis section of the report comments on a myriad\nof documented instances in which CRLA attorneys have flaunted\n-19-\nAmerican Bar Association Rule 29:\n\"He (an attorney) should strive at all\ntimes to uphold the honor and maintain\nthe dignity of the profession\n\"\nA case is cited wherein a CRLA attorney sent a\ntelegram to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health and\nScientific Affairs, Department of HEW in Washington, D.C.,\nrequesting that funds for the Migrant Health Clinic in\nBrawley not be delayed or its opening date postponed. This\ntelegram was sent over the name of the President of the\nImperial County Medical Association. The charge for the\ntelegram was made to CRLA. No approval from the President\nof the Imperial County Medical Association was given to\nCRLA to use his name on the telegram.\nCases are related wherein CRLA attorneys and staff\nmembers have used vile and abusive language (including\nthreats in public meetings), with little or no regard to\nthe status of their profession.\nOn or about March 27, 1970, Delano Police Officer\nC. Brown, stopped a vehicle driven by Gerry F. Hernandez,\nwho ran a stop sign. According to his 7/21/70 affidavit,\nOfficer Brown issued a warning but no citation and was about\nto respond to a pending call when CRLA Attorney John Ortega\npulled up offering to give the driver legal assistance. Brown\nexplained that no citation was being issued and asked Mr. Or-\ntega for a business card, whereupon Ortega stated, \"I don't\n-20-\nand\nSERVICE yourse 100\nDEL\nCO $0007 INS or\n$00 CUISTO\nthe $ CHONE\nyou 0 on\nand main\nTHE\nIndividual decrease and/or\n$ 9\nVII +08\nno THE\nwere\n1.83 STATEM STATE pc\nreturn NAME\nCOST\ne\nWhen CRLA files a frivolous or harassing lawsuit,\nthe party sued is forced to pay for the retention of a pri-\nvate attorney for defense. In many cases, especially in\nunlawful detainer cases, people of meager means are put under\nthe financial hardship of retaining a private attorney while\nCRLA, with unlimited government resources, can delay and\nprolong the case and costs while the hapless defendant is\nput under a more and more severe hardship.\nA leitmotif in case after case seems to show an\nimmediacy in finality in the modus operandi of CRLA attorneys\nthat defies reason, negotiation, and calculation. They are\nprone to sue, seek injunctive action as in the vernacular\n\"do their thing\", without due respect to the disciplined manner\nand thought process that is so vitally important in the practice\nof law.\nThey are prone to initiate action without regard\nto a cost or time factor that would be prohibitive for a\nprivate attorney and his client. Case after case this office\nreport shows how CRLA attorneys have carefully refined the\nimmediate lawsuit as a blatant weapon of instant harassment.\nWaste, Inefficiency, and Misuse of Resources\nDeputy CRLA Director Gary Bellow in an address at\nthe Harvard Sesquicentennial Celebration in 1967, stated:\n-22-\n\"No matter how many hours a day the (legal\nservices offices) remain open, no matter\nwhat systems are used to streamline intake\nand processing, the offices cannot handle\nthe floods of people that come to them for\nlegal help.\n\"\nDespite prior statements like the above, the\nevaluation documents numerous instances in which the CRLA,\nits staff and attorneys, misuse the resources it so often\ndeclares to be inadequate. Often the problem is simple\nwaste: CRLA filed a suit against the Madera Unified School\nDistrict to prevent the closing of a local school, which\nwould permit teachers and students to participate in an emer-\ngency grape harvest. In the course of handling the matter,\nCRLA demonstrated a total disregard for cost. For example,\ntwo attorneys, a law clerk and an investigator were usually\nall present during the taking of depositions, when all that\nwas necessary was one attorney. Efforts were also made to\nmake photocopies of voluminous school records, whether or not\nthey were relevant to the issues in the case.\nIn the unlawful detainer action of Watts V. Parker,\nduring a three-day jury trial in Modesto Municipal Court,\nthree CRLA attorneys and a CRLA investigator sat through almost\nall of the trial. During the same period, the Madera office\nhad a policy of refusing to handle domestic matters.\nCase after case handled by CRLA shows a gross misuse\nof its personnel. Throughout the State, observations by local\n-23-\nattorneys and judges are documented that CRLA attorneys\noften travel in groups of two's and three's wherever they\ngo during the working day. In view of the severe legitimate\nneed the poor have for legal services, this form of waste and\nmisuse of personnel seems inexcusable.\nPublicity\nAmerican Bar Association, Rule 20, states in\npart, \"Newspaper publications by a lawyer as to pending or\nanticipated litigation may interfere with a fair trial in\nthe courts and otherwise prejudice the due administration\nof justice.\"\nIt is a common practice for CRLA attorneys and\nCRLA offices to send out press releases on a regular basis\nconcerning the cases they are handling in court. CRLA uses\nthe newspapers and publicity to create a public image favorable\nto themselves and unfavorable to their adversaries. Rural\nnewspaper editors throughout the State report that the local\nCRLA office is in the habit of dropping off copies of all court\nfilings and releases on their proceedings in acts of pure\npress agentry.\nThe Twilight Zone of CRLA\nCRLA has an office in Sacramento. One of the\nSacramento staff attorneys is registered as a lobbyist for\n-24-\nthe State Legislature. It is abundantly clear that this\noffice not only generates new legislation but lobbys ex-\ntensively on behalf of its own legislative programs and\nthose of others it considers appropriate. During the 1970\nSession of the Legislature, James F. Smith, CRLA lobbyist,\nsuccessfully opposed certain amendments to the State Welfare\nLaws that would have reduced the cost of welfare to the\nState. Although lobbying is not specifically proscribed\nin the CRLA grant or OEO legal guidelines, neither is it\nexplicitly authorized.\nIt is time that Congress and/or National OEO\nclarifies this area of activity. The lobbying in question\nis a very close bedfellow of the \"suit against the government\"\nactivity. Clearly it is time that policy decisions were made\nregarding these activities. Obviously such suits increase\ncost of government, sometimes dramatically when the suits\nare successfully prosecuted. It is simply a question of\nwhether, on the one hand, tax dollars ought to pay the salaries\nof attorneys to bring court actions that increase costs of\ngovernment, and on the other, lobby and intrigue legislators\nnot to rewrite or amend the laws to cut down on these costs.\nBy virtue of a special condition to its grant, CRLA\nis prohibited from accepting cases which generate fees, ex-\ncept in very special cases.\n-25-\nMost fee-generating cases fall into the categories\nof personal injury and workman's compensation. Such cases\nare easily and, presumably, regularly referred by CRLA to\nprivate attorneys practicing in the various communities.\nNevertheless, CRLA regularly files civil actions which con-\ntain prayers for substantial monetary damages. In most\ninstances, it appears that CRLA has not first referred such\ncases to other attorneys.\nCRLA has filed suits claiming monetary damages in\nthe following kinds of cases, among others: police beatings\nand false imprisonment--$125,000; unlawful detention and\nviolation of civil rights--$423,000 general and punitive\ndamages; infliction of corporal punishment upon a school child--\n$39,600 in general and punitive damages; claim of illegal\nfiring for union activity--over $500,000 general and punitive\ndamages; a false arrest and police brutality case, claiming\n$40,000 damages; a claim of personal injuries in a counter-claim\nto an unlawful detainer action--$20,000 damages; a personal\ninjury action against the city of Delano--claim of $100,000 in\ngeneral damages; an action against the City of Delano and its\npolice officers--a claim of $11,000 in exempliary and general\ndamages; a charge of injury sustained due to an unlawful dis-\nmissal by the City of Delano--$5,000 damages.\n-26-\nIn filing these cases, it appears to us that CRLA\nfinds itself on the horns of a dilemma: Either CRLA has\nsimply side-stepped the fee-generating prohibition and has\nproceeded earnestly to secure just compensation for its\nclients; or these cases are not, realistically speaking,\ncapable of producing a dollar result for the plaintiff--no\ndemonstrable damage--in which event these cases must be deemed\nlittle more than frivolous or harassing actions.\nConclusion--the Case for an Alternative\nThe 1971 report states plainly that the problem\nof CRLA is institutional. Its recurring problems are based\non structural defects.\nThe key, according to the evaluation, is local\ncontrol and home rule. These are the essence of the New Fed-\neralism, to which the Nixon Administration has given open\nsupport. The Economic Opportunity Act was enacted in large\nmeasure to supplement what increasingly looked like a colonialist\nsystem, in which social services for the disadvantaged were\ncontrolled and administered far from the areas of impact. OEO\nemphasized communities, and in so doing, created the first\nimportant innovation in social services since the New Deal.\nCRLA's dominant institutional and structural failing\noccurs because it was constituted at odds with OEO's prevailing\n-27-\npremise. CRLA has had the problems it has substantially\nbecause its organization ignored the rest of OEO's experience--\nwhich has demonstrated the value of community participation\nand home rule.\nThe participation of local bar associations seems\nalmost nonexistant. In the fall of 1970, the State Bar sent\nout a guestionnaire to the presidents of all the State's county\nbar associations, asking about their participation in CRLA's\nprograms. Some local bar members asked at the time if the\nState Bar was \"kidding\", given their nonexistant participation\nin CRLA's affairs. The following response from local state bars\nindicates the true levels of support. Among those bar associ-\nations which did not go on affirmative record condemning CRLA,\nwe were unable to find a single case in which a local bar asso-\nciation had actively assisted or participated in the program.\nThese efforts to promote local control of CRLA\nfailed because the essential structure of CRLA's program fails\nto give institutional support to local control.\nThe problem is not difficult to understand. The\npeople who have become CRLA attorneys are rarely from the\ncommunities they serve. They are often from big cities, often\nfrom the East Coast, and equally often possess no appreciation\nof, or sensitivity for, the communities they serve. The prob-\nlem is cultural. The colonialist comparison is difficult to\n-28-\nresist, for there is a definite cultural dislocation when\nan urban lawyer is placed in a small community like El Centro\nor Marysville. Speaking for the CRLA lawyers, one partici-\npant in the August 1970 evaluation put it well when he re-\nferred to one of CRLA's service areas as a \"desolate and\nlonely spot.\"\nThe CRLA problem for the local community is often\nacute. Young urban lawyers come in and perhaps assuming a\nhostility against them that does not exist, proceeds to pro-\nduce a genuine and legitimate hostility for the community.\nThen, too, CRLA attorneys show a conspicuous disinterest in\nany form of cooperation or community participation. The\ncontrast between the OEO legal service program in, for example,\nVisalia, and CRLA in almost everyone of its service areas is\nincredible. While the Visalia program has the full cooperation\nand participation of the local bar, CRLA has at best arms'\nlength coolness at worst outright hostility.\nIt was startling to go out into these communities\nand watch CRLA try to relate to the communities. In most of\nits service areas, CRLA is the largest office in town, with\nprobably the only lawfirm's Xerox machine. In virtually every\ncase CRLA moved into town and began making demands on everyone\nwith whom they had any contact: Judges, the local district\nattorney, welfare agencies, farm labor bureau, etc. Often,\nthey dressed in blue jeans, even in court, and sometimes with-\n-29-\nout shoes. Because they have no practical economic limita-\ntions on the way they prosecute any particular lawsuit,\nthey have unlimited opportunities to harass whenever they\nchoose, not only private defendants, but public agencies.\nThey rarely ask--they usually demand. They typically become\ninvolved in school activities, in which they encourage high\nschool students to prosecute legal claims based on the con-\nstitutional rights of a student to be immuned from reasonable\nschool disciplinary procedures. In their relations with\nchildren, often they act as if they are above the law, indif-\nferent to the wishes of the children's parents, where the\nchildren may be useful to them in pursuing a \"cause\" they\nmay think important or in vogue at the time. Usually it\nrelates to their general assault on authority and discipline.\nIn private litigation, CRLA attorneys do not con-\nsider the economic limitations on their opponents. Anyone\nat any time can be their defendant, and they can (and will)\npursue their point without regard to economic realities or\nthe underlying merits of the case except as they see it.\nIn reality, they are the plaintiff as well as the\nattorney, they have no economic or other stake and can there-\nfore persist to incredible lengths. Their only stakes are\nphilosophical and psychological--which may press for abandon\nrather than restraint where the \"cause\" is right in their way\nof doing it.\n-30-\nIn all quarters people express a real concern\nfor the legal needs of poor people and whether they are\nbeing met. But people out in the communities, who have\nactual contact with poor people, see their individual\nneeds as involving largely such things as domestic relations\nproblems, debt adjustment, and nonlitigation service work,\nin which a poor person simply needs to have the answer to\na question. This notion does not deny the legitimate place\nof the so-called \"landmark\" case, when a legitimate opportu-\nnity to bring one arises.\nIt is not enough in response simply to say as\nCRLA so often does, that creative change is bound to stir\nsome people up. Slogans are appropriate in some situations,\nbut not where tensions and hostilities and even race hatred\nmay result from them. This report is replete with such situ-\nations where creative change was available without tensions\nand hostilities, but where CRLA chose a devisive route.\nThose sympathetic with CRLA are often quoted as\nsaying that the people in the communities served should not\nfeel the way they do about things. These people say it is\nabsurd to be concerned that poverty lawyers wear no shoes\nin court. But such statements miss the point about communities\nand the reasons for home rule. Whether local communities are\nright or wrong to feel as they do about the way CRLA lawyers\n-31-\ndress and act in court is irrelevant to the issue of communi-\nty. The fact is they do feel that way; the result is that\nsuch behavior, while perhaps acceptable in abstract terms\n(or somewhere else), in a rural community setting tends to\ncause disruptions and tensions that were not there before.\nThe argument that bare-footed or otherwise unkempt appearances\nin court are necessary in order for poverty lawyers to relate\nto the poor are disingenuous. The essence of a lawyer's re-\nsponsibility is to the legal system and to the court, and\nappearance in court is the symbol of his acceptance of that\nobligation. How a poverty lawyer behaves might well affect\na poor person's level of respect for the legal system.\nCRLA's impact on the poor themselves was the sub-\nject of the greatest concern throughout the evaluation. For\nit is always the poor who are often helpless to speak for them-\nselves. As we have seen so often, they are always the ones\nwho end up with nothing when vested interests begin jockeying\nfor position. The dangers of exploitation are particularly\nacute when a social service is involved (a) because the pro-\nvider has the power to withhold it where it deems fit, and\n(b) because the moralizing and pieties that inevitably accom-\npany the service makes its true nature all the more difficult\nto expose.\n-32-\nThe activities of CRLA, not only in the explicit\nrevolutionary associations of some of its lawyers and in\nthe overall ideological thrust of their program, call into\nserious question the depth of their commitment to our legal\nsystem. This happens at a time when some people especially\nin the media are suggesting that the causes of certain\npeople ought to put them above the law. As the entire evalu-\nation was reviewed, it was discovered that the essence of\nCRLA's direction is a passion to wage ideological warfare,\nwith the poor as ammunition. The result is to force upon\nthe poor a form of exploitation that is in some ways worse\nand enervating than any other. CRLA has exploited the poor\nin two ways: first, giving high visibility to a cause in\nwhich exploitation is alleged but not a reality, tends to\nencourage the poor to feel exploited and impotent; second,\nin supporting organizations like UFWOC and in their lobbying\nactivities, CRLA arbitrarily chooses one group of poor\npeople over another. Thus, CRLA, which is supposed to deliver\nservice to the poor impartially, has chosen sides--and has\nmade it impossible for one group of poor people to get any\nservice at all.\nRecommendation\nThe report concludes by saying: \"The State Office\nof Economic Opportunity recommends that California Rural\n-33-\nLegal Assistance, Inc., funding for year 1971 be disapproved,\npursuant to the Governor's authority under Section 242 of\nthe Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, as amended.\"\n-34-\nAlternative Plan--Privately Financed Legal Services for\nthe Rural Poor\nThis Administration's deep concern for meeting\nthe legitimate civil legal needs of indigents has prompted\nus to devise a privately financed alternative to CRLA which\nholds enormous promise for truly serving the rural poor.\nIn the process of the in-depth analysis of CRLA, we have\ngained new insight into the legal needs of the poor, which\nhas provided us with the kind of background necessary to\ndesign the best possible legal system for the poor. In the\ncomprehension of CRLA's failure, we stand on the brink of\na major breakthrough in privately financed legal services for\nthe poor, which will insure not only local responsiveness,\nbut the mobilization and support of the entire community\nbehind the legitimate legal needs of the poor.\nOur program constitutes much more than simply sub-\nstituting private dollars for federal dollars. We intend\nto create variations in the structure of each office, through\nwhich we can determine the most effective way, as well as the\nmost efficient way, to meet the legitimate legal service\nneeds of the poor. The variations will include, but not\nnecessarily be limited to, the following schema. (It should\nbe noted that in each case, the local bar association will\nbe the grantee of the funds, will control the program, and\nwill partidpate fully and completely in the design of the\n-35-\nprogram for its particular area.)\n(a) We will utilize the employed attorney and\nthe judicare concepts in different areas. (We recognize that\njudicare has been rather costly where tried in demonstration\nprograms to date. We hope that the application of certain\nstandards, listed below, will assure that the program is\nnot abused nor excessively costly.)\n(b) We intend to insert into the program in the\nvarious areas variations such as: (1) fixed level eligibility\nstandards for the poor; (2) sliding scale eligibility standards\nfor the poor (the client pays part of the legal cost based\non income level); (3) variations on fee schedules in judicare;\n(4) a requirement that attorneys interested in taking advantage\nof judicare and participating in the program must first con-\ntribute a set number of hours free of charge to poor clients\nto qualify for participation.\nWith respect to judicare, our hope is to utilize\nexisting bar resources more effectively, to ration scarce\nlegal resources by adding some cost to their utilization so\nthat at all times there is some barrier to abuse or misuse\nof such resources. In suggesting a requirement that attorneys\ncontribute some time before qualifying to participate in judi-\ncare, we seek to identify those attorneys who are wholeheartedly,\nrather than just marginally, interested in assisting the poor\nwith their legal needs.\n-36-\nWe are excited by the opportunity to develop,\nstudy and evaluate legal services programs containing these\nvariations.\nOnce the design is established for the program\nin the various counties to be served, we will provide you\nwith more details on design features county-by-county.\n--"
}