Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118564844
label
Issue Papers - OEO Program [California Rural Legal Assistance] (2 of 2)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564844
contentType
document
title
Issue Papers - OEO Program [California Rural Legal Assistance] (2 of 2)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Issue Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118564844
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-12-31
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-01-01
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
055d6de05b1f80f1
ocrText
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: Issue Papers - OEO Program
[California Rural Legal Assistance]
(2 of 2)
Box: P31
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/
GEO
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
Sacramento, California
MEMO TO THE PRESS
Contact:
Paul Beck
445-4571
5-13-71
The attached is for your information.
Certain names contained in the CRLA memoranda have been blocked
out to prevent the possibility of harm to innocent persons.
######
EJG
State of California
LEWIS K. UHLER
RONALD REAGAN
DIRECTOR
GOVERNOR
Office of Erounmic Opportunity
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
800 CAPITOL MALL SACRAMENTO 95814
916 445-9670 OR 445-7011
Memorandum to:
Governor Reagan
From:
Lewis K. Uhler
"KU
Subject:
Commission Hearings on CRLA
Date:
May 13, 1971
For your information, the attached memoranda have been submitted
to the Office of Economic Opportunity Commission on California
Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. (CRLA), by Attorney F. Douglas McDan-
iel of El Centro, who has requested to testify before the Com-
mission.
The two inter-office memos are from Robert B. Johnstone, a CRLA
attorney in the El Centro office, to Marty Glick, director of
litigation for CRLA.
The memos support our contention that CRLA has been directly in-
volved in union (United Farm Workers' Organizing Committee -
UFWOC) activities--a deliberate violation of CRLA's grant con-
ditions.
Among other things, the documents display a cynical disregard
for the integrity of CRLA's proposed witnesses on the part of
CRLA attorneys.
OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION ON
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.
Box 36102
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, Calif, 94102
FORM OF REQUEST TO TESTIFY*
(Must be filed in Commission office by
Noon Wednesday, May 12, 1971)
Name of Proposed Witness:
F. DOUGLAS McDANIEL
Address
of
Witness:
444 So. Eighth Street, E1 Centro, CA 92243
Name of Counsel:
WILLIAM KNECHT
Address of Counsel: 2855 Telegraph Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94705
Concise statement of the alleged facts to be proved by such
witness in terms sufficiently specific to give State 0EO and
CRLA fair and reasonable notice of such facts and the Commission
a fair opportunity to determine the appropriateness of granting.
such request:
Witness observed CRLA attorneys from the E1 Centro office
in company with U.F.W.O.C. massed pickets at an Abatti field on
June 6, 1970. Witness then and there talked to John Denvir, a
CRLA attorney, who stated that he was advising the U.F.W.O.C. pickets
to violate the restraining order then in force and that they were
trying to provoke a contempt citation.
Witness will also testify concerning his observations as a
member of the board of trustees of CRLA from August of 1967 to
January of 1969, as contemplated by Rule 4(a).
A description of any documents to be introduced into evidence,
including the name of addressee and addressor and the date of
the document. (Copies must be attached):
CRLA inter-office memorandum dated April 2, 1971, with covering
letter of Robert Johnstone dated April 6, 1971.
Counsel will be provided to represent those witnesses which are
selected to appear but do not have counsel of their own.
*See copies of Rules attached - note especially Rule 2(b)(1),(2)
and (3).
Signature of Witness
MARTY GLICK
April 6, 1971
ROBERT B. JOHNSTONE - EL CENTRO
EL CENTRO REFUNDING COMMISSION INFORMATION
Here is most of the El Centro Refunding Commission infor-
mation. The only thing missing is the various information
regarding ogr local Advisory Committee, its meetings and
a witness who could testify as to its priorities. This
information is in the process of being "assembled."
ROBERT JOHNSTONE
RBJ:db
MAY 122 EDITION
CSA FPMR (11 CFR) 101-11.6
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
Memorandum
TO
:
MARTY GLICK - Central CRLA
DATE:
4-2-71
FROM
:
ROBERT B. JOHNSTONE - El Centro CRLA
SUBJECT:
EL CENTRO OFFICE OFFICE REFUNDING COMMISSION INFORMATION
I, NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF WITNESSES WHO CAN TESTIFY
AS TO CRLA:
(A.) El Centro Witnesses Listed In Bill McCable
Memo Of March 16, 1971.
(1) Ventura Huerta, Project Director
Clinica De Salubridad De Campesinos
1166 "K" Street
Brawley, California 92227
Mr. Huerta has a. Master's degree in
Public Health from the University of
California and is the Director of a
migrant clinic for migrant farmworkers
in Brawley, California set up with HEW
money. This clinic was set up largely
through the efforts of the El Centro
CRLA office which documented its need
in the face of strong opposition from
the Imperial County Board of Super-
visors and the Imperial County Medical
Society. CRLA also represented the
clinic and the Casa De Amistad, the
local funding grantee for the clinic,
in a lawsuit instituted by Brawley
doctors to stop the funding of the
clinic.
Our feeling is that some staff member
of the clinic should be a witness but
that it probably should not be Mr. Huerta
as Mr. Huerta lacks the stage presence
in articulation to be a convincing wit-
ness. (See resumes below regarding
Doctors Flannagan and Thompson of the
clinic staff.)
Buy U.S. Savings Bonds Regularly on the Payroll Savings Plan
2010-104
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE
Page 2.
Memo To:
Marty Glick
From:
Robert B. Johnstone
Date:
April 2, 1971
(2) Dr. David Flannagan
665 Maryland Avenue
Brawley, California 92227
Dr. Flannagan is one of the three staff doctors
at the Brawley migrant clinic mentioned above.
From the point of view of articulation and
middle class "apple pie" appearance, Dr. Flannaga
would be the ideal witness to testify to CRLA's
involvement with the clinic and related matters.
He is quite soft-spoken and articulate and can
testify to the fact that the clinic would probabl
not exist without CRLA, that the clinic is very
necessary and can do so in a very convincing,
soft-spoken, middle class way.
The basic question probably comes down to a choic
between him and Dr. Thompson mentioned in the
following paragraph. Dr. Thompson is probably
not as poised or as "apple pie" looking as
Dr. Flannagan nor, perhaps, as softly articulate.
However, he was present in Imperial County during
the period of time from August 1 until Oct. 1,
1970, which were the critical months in the fundi
of the clinic and can testify in more detail to
our actual involvement during those months than
Dr. Flannagan can.
(3) Dr. Thompson, Robert
Clinica De Salubridad De Campesinos
1166 "K" Street
Brawley, California 92227
See resumes of Ventura Huerta and Dr. David
Tlannagan above. Basically there is nothing
more to add here. Dr. Thompson is an Internist
who prior to joining the migrant clinic in Brawle
was with The Good Ship Hope in Columbia. He is
able to testify to more of the early facts about
CRLA's involvement with the clinic. However, he
is also more excitable and does not present as
much of a middle class image as Dr. David Flannag
does.
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE
Page 3.
Memo To: Marty Glick
From:
Robert B. Johnstone
Date:
April 2; 1971
(4) Michael English
Imperial County Welfare Department
1046 Commercial Street
El Centro, California 92243
Our feeling is that basically here we basically
have a choice between Michael English and his
wife, Donna English, both of whom are Social
Workers for the Imperial County Welfare Depart-
ment. Both of them know the CRLA "law and order"
song and dance by heart and in addition can
testify to the innumerable service which we
handle and also to the cooperative arrangement
we have with the Imperial County Welfare Depart-
ment in regard to divorces and adoptions. (We
de default divorces for people on welfare if
an initial questionnaire is filled out by the
Social Worker at the Imperial County Welfare
Department, this amounts to approximately 50
to 100 per year. ) I think, Donna English would
be the superior witness in this regard as
Michael's beard and hair are probably contrary
to the image we are trying to project. Donna
exudes loving, middle class concern for the
welfare of poor people and as mentioned above
knows by heart the sorg and dance. In addition,
Donna is a member of the El Centro CRLA Advisory
Committee. However, I don't think, she is the
witness we would prefer to have in that regard.
(5) Mr.
Brawley, California
Mr.
is a very convincing, soft-
spoken witness on the stand (having observed him
once in the Brawley doctor's lawsuit) and in addition
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE
Page 11
Memo To:
Marty Glick
From:
Robert B. Johnstone
Date:
April 2, 1971
will basically say anything we tell him to. He
is able to testify from first-hand knowledge
and very convincingly that the presence of CRLA
attorneys in regard to the controversial Brawley
Button suit saved that campus from violence since
the Mexican-American students have come to trust
the CRLA lawyers, etc., etc. and are learning to
use the American system of justice, etc., etc.
because of CRLA lawyers. Again, I stress,
will say anything We want him to.
(6)
City Councilman
Mr.
is probably one of our most potentially
impressive witnesses. He is very soft-spoken, very
articulate and in addition to being able to testify
to innumerable individual service cases he has
referred to our office, he can give a very heart-
warming pitch on his attempts in
as a City
Councilman to convince young people to use the system
and its laws to create change rather than resorting
to violence and to the fact that because of CRLA he
has been having increasing success in so doing. Again,
I think, he would be a must as a witness and by and
large will testify to anything we want him to.
(7) Mr.
City Councilman also
Commission
of Imperial County
Much of what I have already said in regard to
is also true of
He will
testify to anything we wish him to along the "law
and order" lines. Also and, perhaps, very important
is that he will testify to the fact that while the
Unler reports purported to give the impression that
the Imperial County Economic Opportunity Commission
opposed CRLA neither he nor the Director of the
EOC were ever contacted by any member of the Uhler
Commission. One draw-back on
is that
his son,
is a CRLA attorney in the
Santa Rosa office, which gives some basis for
impeachment of his testimony.
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE
Page 5.
Memo To:
Marty Glick
From:
Robert B. Johnstone
Date:
April 2, 1971
(8)
Imperial County Poverty Program
I would say that as a representative of the
poor Mexican-American,
is probably
the most convincing witness we have. He
testified on the stand in San Diego in our
Brawley Doctor's suit and was absolutely
sensational as Marty Glick will, I am sure,
agree. Faced with some fairly difficult
cross-examination questions, he was totally
unflustered, humble and very, very effective.
He can testify as to individual service cases
he has sent to us and as to the necessity of
our involvement in the clinic issue and to
our very, very close ties with the Economic
Opportunity Office in terms of helping them
out with service cases.
(9)
El Centro, California 92243
Mr.
is in a very delicate political
position as he is directly under the Board of
Supervisors of Imperial County. He would make
a convincing witness; however, I would prefer
not to put him on the spot since we can probably
obtain the same basic testimony through Willie
Moreno, the Chairman of the Board of Directors
and through Ernie Caro, one of their Program
Directors. However, to the extent it is important
I am sure we could probably get Mr
to
testify in regard to the fact that he was not
contacted at all during the whole Uhler investi-
gation despite the fact that one of his letters
was used to give the impression that the El Centro
CRLA was opposed by EOC.
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE
Page 6.
Memo To:
Marty Glick
From:
Robert B. Johnstone
Date:
April 2, 1971
(10) Colin O'Brian, Judge Justice Court
Post Office Box 7
Westmorland, California
Mr. O'Brian is very enthusiastically pro
CRLA despite the fact that his appointment
as Justice Court Judge was through a County
Supervisor who is anti-CRLA. I have not
approached him about the possibility of
testifying. He might; however, it would
put him very much on the spot politically.
If it is necessary and if there is a lack of
judges to testify, I will be happy to contact
him.
(B.) ADDITIONAL WITNESSES NOT MENTIONED IN THE LETTER
OF WILLIAM McCABE:
(1) Bonnie Best King
279 "J" Street
Brawley, California 92227
I would suggest that Mrs. King is a "must" as
a witness. She was an EMR teacher at Brawley
Union High School until June of 1970 and was
an EMR teacher at the very time of the CRLA
statewide EMR clàss-action. She is a lifelong
Republican and very, very articulate (her only
problem is that she sometimes talks too much).
She is able to testify very convincingly to the
validity of the EMR suit and more important to
the fact that on one occasion that she remembers
very explicitly, the intervention of CRLA
attorneys at Brawley Union High School was the
single cause of some students who thought they
had a gripe but were basically just wising off,
returning to school solely on the basis of the
fact that they trusted the judgment of CRLA
that they were wrong. This involved students of
Mrs. King who were basically trying to concoct
a racial issue where one did not exist. CRLA
attorney, Robert Johnstone, spoke with Mrs. King
and after speaking to the students they all re-
turned to school and dropped the issue and she
will very convincingly testify to this. Also,
she has expressed a willingness to testify to a
somewhat broader issue that maybe important but
maybe beyond the scope of what we are trying, to
do. I think, however, it could be done and done
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE
Page 7.
Memo To:
Marty Glick
From:
Robert B. Johnstone
Date:
April 2, 1971
convincingly. This is the issue of CRLA
"stiring up racial turmoil where none existed
before". I am sure she would be willing to
testify that racial discrimination has existed
in the past, that it exists today and even
where it does not exist its fisticial effects
in education and job opportunity exists, and
that the effect of CRLA, if any, in this area
has been to calm the flames of an imminent
explosion and to help to show potentially
dissident individuals that the American system
of democracy is worth preserving, etc., etc.
(2) The Rev. Oscar Newby
Neighborhood House
506 East Fourth Street
Calexico, California 92231
The Rev. Newby is a very sincere, 50-year-old
Minister who runs the Neighborhood House in
Calexico, which is basically a community center
for various poor-person, oriented activities.
He would particularly be able to testify to the
help he has gotten from us in setting up a drug-
treatment hotline in the county. We have incor-
porated this group for him and since drug abuse.
prevention is always a winner, I think, he would
be important to put on the stand. He could also
testify to individual cases which have been
referred to us, etc.
(3)
or
These are two very articulate student leaders in
Imperial Valley. They would say anything we would
want them to and have basically already learned
the CRLA song and dance by heart.
Mr.
is a Vietnam veteran also and can
probably give some good heart-throb stuff obout
trying to keep kids within the system.
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE
Page 8.
Memo To: Marty Glick
From:
Robert B. Johnstone
Date:
April 2, 1971
II. MEMORANDUM ON THE UHLER CHARGES RELATING TO THE LOCAL OFFICE:
The only things which should be included in addition to the
rebuttal already submitted by CRLA are as follows:
(A) INVOLVEMENT OF EL CENTRO COMMUNITY WORKER, HECTOR REYES,
WITH THE UNITED FARMWORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE:
(This should self-destruct within 30 seconds after being
read. ) For the past four years Mr. Reyes has basically
worked fulltime out of the United Farmworkers office in
Calexico. Our official position on this, of course, is
not that his time has been that extensive in that office
but that as a good community worker he uses that office
as an outreach on the basis that hundreds of poor farm-
workers pass through it every day and he is able to
communicate with them in regard to their legal problems
he then refers to CRLA. Since the refunding crsis,
Mr. Reyes has not been spending time in that office.
However, one potentially embarrassing feature of his
time there is a large number of telephone calls from that
office to the Delano UFWOC office which are billed to
our telephone. Our position on this is that we never
authorized it and that since we discovered this we
issued immediate instructions to the Telephone Company
(I believe last December) that we would accept no more
billings to this number on third party calls and that
only credit calls would be accepted. From December to
February, 1971, a number of credit calls from the
Calexico Office to Delano on Hector's credit card #
were recorded. Hector has reported his credit card as
stolen and a new card has been issued and basically our
official position on this is that someone must have
gotten a hold of his card. This has not come out yet
and hopefully it will not. There is no way that can
deny Hector's presence at the farmworkers' office and,
I think, our best approach to this is to readily admit
that he did spend time there in an effort to keep in
contact with the farm working poor and refer their
individual legal problems to us. In addition, as the
report reflects, be was very actively involved in the
canteloupe picketing activity in June of 1970 and has on
occasion been a speaker at a Cesar Chavez rally.
In addition a memo was
given to Hector requidy
use of lus credit attached.
(cory
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE
Page 9.
Memo To:
Marty Glick
From:
Robert B. Johnstone
Date:
April 2, 1971
The rallies have always been on Sunday to my knowledge
and as to the canteloupe picketing, you have our res-
ponse in the rebuttal. He, like Mr. Johnstone of this
office and Mr. Banaga, took vacation time during that
whole period.
(B) MECHA AT IMPERIAL VALLEY COLLEGE
The only other potentially dangerous, new charges that
could be made in regard to this office would involve
an incident which was developed at Imperial Valley
College over the past six weeks. MECHA, the student
group of the college has been picketing the student
cafeteria in an effort to get them to use only UFWOC
lettuce. On March 25th, MECHA was suspended from the
campus and this has received alot of publicity in the
local papers and there is apossibility that there maybe
some student activities out there which could argueably
be called demonstrations. We are attorneys for poor
individual members of MECHA in this matter. However,
we have witnesses to the effect that the basic effort
has been to convince the students to remain peaceful,
"law and order", etc.
I am informed that at the time of their last picketing
a week ago a State Investigator from Governor Reagon's
Office investigating CRLA was at the campus; perhaps,
in the hopes that there would be some violence he could
get pictures of. However, it was all totally peaceful
and within the first amendment so he was probably dis-
appointed and he was probably also disappointed because
no CRLA person was present.
Our position on this, of course, is that we are repre-
senting individual poor students on a First Amendment
issue uñlrelated to Chavez or the lettuce boycott.
Our further position is that this is pending litigation
and, therefore, we are not free to talk about it. But,
we do infact, represent individual members of MECHA
in this dispute with the Imperial. Valley College.
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE
Page 10.
Memo To:
Marty Glick
From:
Robert B. Johnstone
Date:
April 2, 1971
III. CRLA INVOLVEMENT WITH THE LOCAL BAR ASSOCIATION:
As already documented in the support letters, the President
and Vice-President of the Imperial County Bar Association
have written letters of support of CRLA. The President is
Mr. John Duddy and the Vice-President is Mr. John Pattie.
In addition, and which does not appear in our rebuttal but
which is relevant to the implication in the Uhler report
that the Bar Association opposes us, local CRLA attorneys
are very active with the Bar Association in the following
respects:
(A.) CRLA attorney, Robert B. Johnstone, was on Friday,
April 2, 1971, unanimously elected by the Imperial
County Bar Association to be an alternate delegate
to the up-coming State Bar Convention in September.
(B.) CRLA attorney, Fred H. Altshuler, is the Program
Chairman of the Imperial County Bar Association.
(C.) CRLA attorney, John Denvir, is a member of the Legal
Services Committee of the Imperial County Bar
Association.
(D.) CRLA attorney, Robert B. Johnstone, is a member of the
Scholarship Committee of the Imperial County Bar
Association and, in fact, this committee was formed
by the Imperial County Bar Association at the request
of Mr. Johnstone pursuant to a State Bar resolution
endorsing the concept of local Bar scholarships for
minority students.
To give you a complete picture, including negative aspects,
the Bar Association at its February meeting did adopt by
a vote of something like 15-4 or 18-4 the Uhler Judicare
resolution. This was the standard form that came out of
Uhler's office so I don't think it will be necessary to en-
close a copy at this time. Please let me know if you want
one.
*** As Doug McDaniel of Imperial County was one of the attorneys
who attempted to commandeer the first commission hearings
and as he and his partner, Chuck Pinney, have been the stalwart
over any CRLA forces in the Imperial County Bar Association
time immemorial. It should be brought to your attention that
we have a very interesting document with Mr. McDaniel's signa-
ture on 1t. This is a Lawyer's Reference Service referral slip
dating from the time when we administered that program in which
a domestic matter was referred to Mr. McDaniel's office. It
was returned under Mr. McDaniel's signature with a statement
that domestic matters were not his line of business and he has
basically a corporate practice and please do not refer anymore
to him, which is very interesting in view of the fact that the
Shibboleth of the Bar Association down here is that we don't
handle the real legal problems of the poor such as divorces.
A copy of this referral slip is attached. Also attached is
an article from the local newspaper on the day following the
first commission hearing when McDaniel attempted to show that
he was forcibly ejected and not allowed to testify at the
commission hearings. This should make for some interesting
cross-examination.
ROBERT J. JOHNSTONE
RBJ:mn;db
Hector Reyes
Sanz 6142973
P. Altohulor
Tolophone Charges
In reviewing the credit card telephone calls charged to
our telephone number, I have just noticed that you have been
billing large numbers of telephone calls placed from Calexico
to Dolano to uo.
The CRLA credit call which you have been given 10 solely
for use in conjunction with CRLA business.
) would Mike from you an explanation of what appeared to
be a large number of callo unrelated to CREA business which
you have been charging to your ORLA tolophone crodit card?
PHA102
C.
Carol Bryant ₹ Central
Foir O₂ 3972
Torri Lopos de El Contro
Tolophone Credit Card
Hoctor Reyes informs me he 2038 his tolephone
credit card no. 170-3505-164-8
CRLA
STATEMENT BY OEO DIRECTOR FRANK CARLUCCI, JUNE 29. 1971
I have carefully reviewed the report submitted to me
on June 25 by the Commission on California Rural Legal
Assistance, Inc. and wish to convey my. appreciation as
Director of OEO to the members and staff of the Commission
for the public service they have rendered. The information
developed in their review and the fundings they have offered,
have been useful, not only in formulating a decision about
the delivery of legal services to the rural poor in California,
but also in offering guidance on the future direction and
administration of legal services programs nationally.
The creation of this Commission was an unusual step.
In establishing it, I recognized that limitations on time
and resources made unwise the thought of making the procedure
a precedent for other legal services grant reviews. Nonethe-
less, in view of the widespread attention focused on legal
services in California, and because of the widely relevant
philosophical and policy issues which were specifically
related to concerns expressed about CRLA, there seems to be
considerable merit in using the California situation as a
laboratory test for dealing with broad legal services issues
which go beyond the simple question of whether a particular
program receiving Federal funds has technically functioned
within the laws and regulations governing its operation.
Rahher than viewing this controversey merely as a
problem to be resolved, I have come to regard it as an
-2-
opportunity to deal effectively with larger questions. This
is particularly true because legislation now being considered
in the Congress would, if approved, define the Federal role
in legal services for many years to come. I refer, of course,
to the proposals for an independent legal services corporation
which are pending before Congress. The members of Congress
who deliberate on these bills and, those citizens who participate
in the leadership of any newly created corporation, stand to
benefit greatly by the resolution of issues arising out of the
California case.
The Commission on CRLA has found, that, despite various
instances in which particular attaneys have exercised poor
judgment, or engaged in impapper conduct, on the whole
California Rural Legal Assistance has provided a useful
service to hhe rural poor in making available legal
assistance to those in need and is operating within existing
statutory and administrative regulations.
In reading hhe full Commission report, however, I am
forced to the conclusion that many significant questions of
policy have been raised by Governor Reagan which, heretofore,
have been insufficiently met by this agency in a manner
necessary to further our goal of equal access to law by
low-income citizens.
A simple refunding of CRLA which ignores these proper
concerns would constitute a disservice to the poor and to
-3-
the public generally. By the same token, by dealing with
these concerns constructively, we can fulfill our hope of
making this case an opportunity for expanding the impact
of our Legal Services Program. The Legal Services Program
nationally has been good--but it can be better. The program
has been successful because it attracts dedicated, committed
attorneys willing to surrender the benefits of private
practice because of their belief in the rights of the poor.
This complete commitment without a clear definition of roles
has on occasion led to needless conflict within the community.
Such instances of questionable judgment and lack of restraint
cause two evils:
---First, it wastes the energy and dissipates the
resources of a program designed to help the poor; and
Second, it invites attack on the entire program
because of the in discretions of a handful,
Central to the policy issues which have been raised is the
question of the restrictions, ethical considerations and
standards of accountability that should be observed by
Federally-funded legal services attorneys. Many have argued
that, operating as they do with tax dollars, attorneys who
serve on the staffs of legal services grantees owe an extra
duty of care to the public in the performance of their legal
assignments and in their off duty conduct.
-4-
These questions relate to all legal services programs
funded by OEO, and are not unique to CRLA.
It is clear from studying the facts found in the
Commission Report that some CRLA attorneys engaged in
many activities on their "own" time which would have been
obviously irregular and improper 1f subsidized at taxpayer
expense.
The Commission recognizes that while the poor should
be guaranteed their rights in court, "there is a danger
that frivolous complaints may be urged by poor clients
that would not be urged by a man of means who would him-
self have to bear the legal expenses involved." The
Justices, therefore, state that "the legal services attorney
thus has a special duty to be sure that when he sues the
government, the matter is not trivial and the legal theory
has merit.' The legal services attorney also has a responsi-
bility to so conduct himself as to preserve the distinction
in the public eye which makes him an advocate for his client,
rather than a simple participant in or instigator of his
client's cause. It 1s one thing for a lawyer to pursue a
particular course in furtherance of the rights of an individual
client, and quite another for him to seek out clients who serve
merely as instruments to advance the attorney's own philosophics
or political objectives.
-5-
It is imperative that in our efforts to construct and
perfect a program to vindicate the rights of the poor we
maintain a perspective on the overall goals of society and
attempt to build into the program measures to achieve
judgment which will insure attainment of those goals. It
little services the interests of the poor to establish an
elaborate program that cannot last because of its conflict
with such goals.
Since the passage of the Economic Opportunity Act in
1954 the problems of poverty have become more obvious and
we are now more aware that the health and stability of
society as a whole depends greatly upon how well this nation
responds to needs of the poor.
The OEO Legal Services program has played a major role
in assuring that equal access to the law becomes a reality
for poor people. President Nixon in his message to Congress
(May 5, 1971) concerning the establishing of an independent
Legal Services Corporation stated that Legal Services for the
poor must become "a permanent part of our system of justice.'
He praised OEO's Legal Services programs and the organized bar
for their efforts in assisting the poor. He made clear,
however, that we have only traveleed part of the way in seeing
that all the legal needs of poor people are being met. The
President asked Congress to approve new legislation which
-6-
would institutionalize the programs developed in the last
six years and continue the search for new possibilities for
even greater legal assistance to the poor.
Our goal is clear. Yet, which means are most appro-
priate and effective in achieving it is not yet fully
established. The staff attorney concept embodied OEO
sponsored Legal Service program has been one highly effective
means. The private bar and individual attorneys throughout
the country have made their contributions through means and
techniques they deem appropriate. These efforts have
ranged from individual pro bono efforts, to the restructuring.
of corporate law firms' priorities, to voluntary contributions
by lawyers assisting Legal Services programs and finally the
establishment of a dozen or so experimental Judicare efforts
by the organized bar. One point 1s clear -- no one approach
has all the virtues and all can be improved.
On legal services, as with so many other social issues,
California, our nation's most populas state, is the place
where the questions at issue are most clearly recognized.
Much of the current controversey over CRLA can be seen as
reflecting a broad concern over the question of which means
or which way Legal Services to the poor can be delivered
most effectively. It relates also to fundamental issues
which have herefofore been insufficiently addressed by OEO
and by the Congress.
- 7 -
It is not surprising that the state of California should
be leading the way in attempting to find innovative ways of
developing legal institutions and programs which will serve
the needs of the boor. The Governor is determined that his
administration shall play a major role in finding new ways
to improve the legal services program and expand its impact
Present discussions about the delivery of legal services
in California provide an excellent opportunity to push forward
and to accept the President's challenge to make equal justice
for the poor "a permanent part of our system" of government.
Governor Reagan's support of the President's Legal Services
Corporation concept, the desire of the State OEO to experiment
with alternative models and means for providing legal aid. as
well as the State Bar's growing interest in experimentation
and study have all been made much more visible and real as a
result of the CRLA controversy. Controversy need not always
be destructive and we are convinced that in California
controversy over the best means for delivering legal services
can have a constructive conclusion.
In spite of California's outstanding record, large sections
of the state are still without organized means to assist the
poor in the many legal problems which deeply affect their lives.
- 8 -
I wish to propose. in cooperation with the Governor,
the State Bar, OEO's Legal Services programs and private
attorneys, a collective effort in planning for a broad and
comprehensive experimental program designed to test a variety
of models for the delivery of legal services to the poor in
California.
In committing the resources of OEO to a partnership
with California and its citizens in developing a model effort
in legal services, I believe other states will ultimately
turn to the California experiment for insight in meeting the
legal needs of their own low-income citizens.
We are seeking to develop in California a universal
legal services program designed eventually to serve the
needs of all the poor. Our efforts obviously cannot be
expected to succeed overnight. Nor can they initially be
expected to affect all the poor throughout the State. I shall
propose we begin where the need is the greatest. CRLA has
provided many services to the rural poor but large portions
of California are uncovered by any organized effort designed
to meet the legal needs of the poor.
For these reasons and others previously noted, I propose
making a grant of $2.5 million for planning a comprehensive
experimental program for the delivery of legal services to
low-income citizens in California. The President in his
message to Congress in establishing an independent Legal
Services Corporation noted that we should not be satisfied
with our previous efforts and progress in the Legal Services
9 -
field during the last six years. We must continue to push
forward. I believe it is not unrealistic to plan for
universal legal services for poor people. I. therefore am
pleased that the Governor as the Chief Executive of the State
has encouraged this approach and is eager to participate
fully in this planning effort. I wish to encourage the
participation of the organized Bar, as well as CRLA and
other OEO Legal Services programs in this effort. The
participation of private attorneys, law firms and the poor
will also be crucial to this vital attempt to plan for the
future.
Pursuant to these general conclusions we will develop
a comprehensive plan for delivering legal services to the
poor in California.
Under this plan a new corporation established under
the auspices of the State OEO interested attorneys and
local bar associations and known as the California Legal
Services Foundation, will in cooperation with the State Bar
begin to design and implement a program to test various
alternatives and supplementary methods of delivering legal
services. Assuming the success of this experiment, a new
combined program to provide comprehensive legal services
within California would be instituted.
CRLA has applied for a grant for 17 months. This
application is approved subject to 22 special conditions
-10-
and subject to the following funding arrangements:
The initial release of funds will be
through the end of 1971 at which time there
will be an evaluation by a joint OEO-State-
State Bar Association-ABA-NLADA-team to measure adherence
to grant conditions. If grant conditions are
adhered to, funds for 1972 will be released,
the decision to authorize such release residing
in the Director of OEO.
EXPERIMENT TO TEST ALTERNATIVE METHODS
OF DELIVERING LEGAL SERVICES
Designing and implementing an experiment to test
alternative methods of delivering legal services in order
to develop the optimum means of establishing a compre-
hensive system of legal services involves extremely
complex problems. There have been several tests of
alternative methods of delivering legal services
(especially Judicare) but all of them have been unsatis-
factory. They have not been properly designed to test
their own efficiency and effectiveness in delivering
legal services nor their ability in comparison with present
legal services programs. If this California experiment is
to achieve meaningful results, hypotheses to be tested
must be agreed upon, variables must be isolated and tested,
-11-
and adequate systems for data collection, comparison and
evaluation must be devised and implemented. Every group
that has experimented with or studied Judicare and other
non-staff attorney projects serving the poor must be
consulted in order to devise the experiment. In short,
careful and comprehensive planning is essential prior to
the implementation of the experiment. And once implemented,
the experiment must rundfor a sufficient length of time to
demonstrate meaningful results. More specific details of
such a project and its proposed timing are as follows:
FIVE MONTH PLANNING PHASE
1. The California Legal Services Foundation in
conjunction with the SEOO, the A erican Bar Association,
the American Bar Foundation, the California State Bar
Association, legal services programs, including
other interested and knowledgeable groups, will design
and prepare for the implementation of all phases of the
experiment.
2. Among O her variations, the experiment should
include projects using a variety of intake and referral
procedures; it should be established in new areas besides
supplementing in areas presently served by CRLA; and it
should be designed to test different mixes of the full
range of present legal services activities on behalf
of clients.
- 12 -
3.
Commencement of the operational phase of the
experiment will occur following OEO's approval of the
prepared plan.
TWELVE-MONTH OPERATIONAL PHASE
1.
Following approval by OEO, the experimental plan
will be put into effect by the Foundation and administered
for a full twelve months.
2.
During. this time, CRLA will continue to provide
legal services under the conditions set forth in its grant.
3. A broad-based evaluation system will be established
to ensure that existing and experimental programs are
properly administered to provide meaningful results. This
evaluation system will also ensure that statistical data and
narrative reports are compiled and all evidence thoroughly
evaluated.
POST-EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
On the basis of the results of the experiment a
determination will be made of the optimum method of providing
legal services to the poor in California. Assuming that the
experiment proves that a program combining different delivery
mechanisms will be the most efficient and effective method
of providing legal services to the DOOR, such a combined
program would be instituted in California.
-13-
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE
Legal services to the rural poor in California
must be continued. CRLA will continue to aid in delivering
those legal services but in doing so it must continue its
operations in a manner that reflects the concerns previously
stated.
In order to accomplish this, CRLA must adopt new
methods of self-control which will insure that:
---Its separation from partiman and union activities
1s both apparent and real;
It does not engage in prohibited criminal
representation;
---Its attorneys' use of "free time" is not allowed
to interfere with or discredit the activities of
the program;
---Innreased cooperation with State and local bar
associations is promoted.
I have set out below comments regarding specific areas
of CRLA's activities which have caused concern and proposed
solutions to those problems.
UNION ACTIVITIES
C
CRLA's work with the California farmworkers is a very
sensitive area. The CRLA Commission indicated that as a
matter of policy CRLA, a federally funded agency, should
"...not intervene in labor-management disputes." It is
imperative that CRLA's role in this delicate area be carefully
designed and monitored.
-14-
The function of CRLA is to serve the rural poor, not
as union organizers, advisors, or negotiators but as a law
firm concerned with legal matters. CRLA must not be
involved in the formation of any agricultural worker's
nnion or any agricultural collective bargaining association
nor may CRLA negotiate or attempt to negotiate any agreement
concerning wages, hours, or working conditions.
In addition, CRLA must not provide legal assistance in
the following areas:
Representation of a collective bargaining union
in litigation regardless of whether the union is
a plaintiff or defendant in a court session;
Representation of a labor union in negotiations
with employers or with other labor unions;
Providing legal assistance to a labor union in
the incorporation or organizations affiliated with
a union which are devoted exclusively to serving
union members;
Representation of union officials in matters
relating to union business;
Representation of a union member if the union
itself is in fact and in law the real party in
interest and the union member himself only a nominal
plaintiff without a legal interest in the outcome of
the controversey.
-15-
Also, CRLA must not display union posters or signs
in any of its offices or use its client interviewing process
to recruit union members.
CRIMINAL REPRESENTATION
As the Commission report noted, Section 222(a)(3) of
the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, as amended, prohibits
legal services attorneys from representing a criminal
defendant proceeded against by indictment or information
except where the Director (of OEO) determines, after con-
sultation with the court having jurisdiction, that adequate
legal assistance will not otherwise be available.
Although interim guidelines interpreting this provision
were promulgated in Community Action Memo No. 79, in
January, 1968 they do not resolve all the questions in
this area. The Commission, on page 55, suggested that
CRLA "adopt more definitive guidelines to avoid future
confusion within CRLA, as well as in the minds of the public
generally.' As the Commission recognized, the problem is
not only one of determining the precise nature of the
statutory prohibition but also one of focusing the program's
limited resources. Without restrictions, the "demand for
criminal representation would quickly deplete the agency's
limited budget."
-16-
By statute and court decision, California has
provided extensively for the criminal defense of persons
in financial need. Therefore, the use of limited OEO
resources for criminal defense is unnecessary and undesirable.
In order to properly carry out the above-mentioned
restriction in the Economic Opportunity Act and to avoid
dissipating the program's resources, it is proposed that
the following guidel ines be adhered to in the area of
criminal representation:
(1) The statutory prohbilition must be strictly
adhered to in the case of persons proceeded against by
indictment or information. Waivers under the exception
shall be given by the Director of OEO or his designated
representative only in extraordinary circumstances and
only when it has been determined, after such individual
has consulted with the court having jurisdiction, bhat
otherwise
adequate legal assistance will not A be available.
(2) Legal assistance shall not be given in any other
type of criminal proceeding (including misdemeanors, viola-
tions of municipal ordinances and post-conviction remedies
where the underlying confinement was the result of a case
in which representation would have been prohibited under
these guidelines) unless legal representation is necessary
do protect the client's rights and adequate legal assistance
will not otherwise be available.
- 17 -
(3) Representation provided to an indigent through any
organized system such as the public defender system or court-
appointed attorneys will be deemed to be adequate representation.
SPARE TIME ACTIVITIES
In its recommendations, the Commission stated that
foremost of: those problems which have contributed to the
misunderstanding and controversy surrounding the program
"1s that caused by activities of CRLA attorneys on their
spare or 'own time' " The Commission went on to say (p. 85):
"As was testified by numerous witnesses, CRLA
attorneys are permitted to engage in activities
on their own time which either by virtue of
statutory prohibition or special restrictions
in the CRIA are not a permissible use of
CRLA resources,
The Commission concluded that CRLA's existing policies
and procedures to handle this problem may be inadequate.
This is a problem which the Administration specifically
in
focused on/its bill to create an independent Legal Services
Corporation. In tihe bill the Corporation is required to
insure that legal services attorneys "represents only eligible
clients and refrain from any outside practice of law.
In order to take care of this most important problem now,
a limitation on outside professional activities must be
instituted immediately. Certain other specific "spare time"
activities such as participation in demonstrations are dealt
with elsewhere herein. However, as a general rule of conduct
we propose that all Legal Services attorneys in their spare
-18-
time activities be guided by the following paraphrase of
a statement in the Commission's report:
Each Legal Services attorney has a professional
responsibility to its project and to clients
to act so as to preclude not only the actuality
but also the appearance of impropriety in this
area. The improper conduct of one attorney,
acting as a private citizen, can give the
appearance of improper conduct by the program.
Such misguided conduct no matter how well
intentioned can only damage hhe program's public
image and thus handicap its legitimate efforts
in behalf of its clients,
PARTICIPATION IN DEMONSTRATIONS
Problems have developed pertaining to the manner in
which attorneys and community workers relate to organiza-
tions which they represent. A distinction must be made
between participating in an organization as a member of
the organization and undertaking to represent that
organization as an attorney. The problem is compounded
by active participation in demonstrations and picketing.
The CRLA Commission recommended strict limitations on such
actibities.
-19-
It should be understood that representation of
organizations is authorized only when such groups are
composed primarily of individuals eligible to receive
legal assistance.
A simple guideline for CRLA personnel to follow in
dealing with organizations is that hhey should not act as
both client and attorney. If such personnel engage actively
in the affairs of an organization, they should not under-
take to represent it or to give it legal advice to any
extent. Conversely, if an attorney undertakes to represent
an organization in any capacity, whether through a lawsuit,
negotiations, preparation of legal documents or simple
counseling, an attorney should avoid active participation
in the organization and its political decisions.
The attorney's function under these circumstances should
be to represent the organization as a lawyer and to provide
legal counsel. Public statements pertaining to the
activities of the organization should be made by the
leadership of the organization. Statements made by its counsel
should be limited to appropriate statements pertaining to
legal problems, such as law suits. An attorney's function
with regard to picketing, sit-ins, or other forms of
demonstration, should be strictly limited to carrying out
legal duties in accordance with the highest standards of
professional conduct and responsibility.
-20-
To the extent possible, appearances before public
bodies should be undertaken by organizational members and
hheir elected leaders. Such appearances should not be
structured BO that an attorney has a dominant role.
With reference to situations which might develop into
mass arrests or wholesale patterns of government recrimina-
tion, attorneys should counsel the organization that CRLA
can provide no assurance that it will afford representation
with reference to criminal charges which might be brought.
In counseling organizations, it 1s not the attorney's
responsibility or prerogative to make political decisions
for an organization, but rather to advise them as to the
legal consequences of various alternatives.
Therefore, the following are guidelines for all CRIA
attorneys and community workers:
---Actively represent and counsel groups, but,
do not picket or demonstrate on behalf of
the group.
---Regarding activities of the group, except as to
legal matters, leadership should come from group
members and officers, not CRLA attorneys, There-
fore, non-legal public statements, press conferences,
etc. should be issued by group members,
-21-
It must be made unmistakably clear to groups
advised by CRLA that CRLA attorneys are prohibited
from representing them in criminal matters. Although
there may be rare instances in which both CRLA and
OEO will concur that criminal representation is
appropriate, they will be rare. It is, therefore,
inaccurate and unfair to allow a group any prior
expectations.
UTILIZATION OF PROGRAM FACILITIES
PROBLEM
In several instances the Commission found that CRLA
facilities were being utilized by non-CRLA personnel for
non-CRLA activities. As the Commission stated on page 6
of Appendix F to its report, "it would be advisable for
CRLA to use care in allowing others the use of tis
facilities, so that possibilities for misunderstanding will
be minimized."
SOLUTION
In order to deal with this problem, the following
guidelines on the use of CRLA facilities are proposed:
(1) Unique assets of a CRLA office such as its library
or xerox machine may be made available to other attorneys
as a professional courtesy provided that it does not cost
the project any money.
-22-
(2) Other ordinary facilities such as typewriters, telephones
and stationery shall not routinely be made available to or
utilized by non-CRLA personnel
(3) No legal or secretarial assistance shall be pro-
vided to non-CRLA personnel utilizing CRLA activities for
non-CRLA purposes.
(4) CRLA facilities shall not be made available to
any individual or grunp working on a non-CRLA activity
where to do so would identify CRLA with such activity.
MEMBERSHIP IN THE COMMUNITY
Aggressive attempts to vindicate the right of hhe
poor invite controversy and often threaten to divide the
community. Challenges to the establishment brought by
attorneys perceived to be "outsiders" exacerbate the
division. It should be clear that such ad hominem disputes
necessarily detract from the Legal Services attorney's
ability to give help to the poor.
There are two ways that attempts can be made to bridge
the decision between members of the community and CRLA
attorneys.
First, by observing the solutions advanced else-
where in this paper unwarranted controversy with
respect to criminal representation, union activities,
demonstrations, impact litigation. and free time
activities will becessarily be reduced.
- 23 -
Second, CRLA attorneys should be encouraged to
participate in the activities of the state and
local bar associations. This participation which
should lead to increased cooperation and under-
standing by CRLA and other attorneys alike could
be promoted by CRLA's paying membership fees in
the appropriate organizations.
This decision to provide expanded legal services programs
for California and the imposition of stringent control on the
future operations of CRLA has been discussed with Governor
Reagan, who has advised me of his concurrence.
Governor Reagan issued the following statement in response
to Mr. Carlucci's statement (previous).
"I am delighted that Mr. Carlucci has chosen California
to develop a model legal services program for the poor that
may set a nationwide pattern.
"I also am hopeful his imposition of stricter controls on
the future operation of CRLA will improve its service.
"All of us who are committed to the concept of providing
adequate legal services to those who cannot afford them consider
this a major step forward."