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
118564718
label
Draft - Judicare Proposal
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564718
contentType
document
title
Draft - Judicare Proposal
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118564718
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
662e2905f9ac096d
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: Draft - Judicare Proposal
Box: P28
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/
I. THE PROBLEM STATED
Currently, California Community Action Agency target areas are
served by three (3) basic kinds of legal programs:
A.
Urban legal services programs, which are basic staff-
attorney offices located near or in target areas;
B.
Rural programs operated by California Rural Legal Assistance,
Inc. (CRLA), which are also staff-attorney programs funded
by the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO); and
C.
Special Indian legal services programs, which provide ser-
vices to the Indian communities throughout the State.
A fourth program, which operated in Washington Township of Southern
Alameda County, was recently discontinued by Federal OEO. This
program was a pilot "judicare" program. The judicare program was
deemed by Regional OEO to be a successful and efficiently operated
program; however, there was some question concerning the ability of
the Board of Directors to both serve in the program and direct its op-
eration. Steps are now being taken by our office to have that program
re-instituted in Washington Township.
This judicare-type proposal will deal primarily with rural legal ser-
vices programs, many of which are in the service area of CRLA, plus
an additional number of counties (eleven [11] CRLA counties and
eleven [11] non-CRLA counties).
At present, the target rural service areas are served, in part, by CRLA,
a staff-attorney program funded by OEO. CRLA provides its services
to eleven (11) counties in the rural parts of.the State through nine (9)
service offices.
To the extent that CRLA is the only publicly-subsidized legal services
program in the target areas, it is a monopoly. Poor clients must ac-
cept CRLA's service or none at all. In several of their offices, for
substantial periods of time, the program attorneys refused certain
kinds of service to clients entitled to it under the terms of the pro-
gramt's grant, while simultaneously pursuing causes and activities
proscribed by the grant.
Because of its huge service area, CRLA attorneys are often entirely
inaccessible to their clients. These people are unserviced by any
program.
Many of CRLA's attorneys are young and inexperienced. They typically
come into the program with little or no experience and then, in almost
every case, leave the service area after a maximum of eighteen (18)
months' service. Not only is the present system inefficient, it dis-
courages long-lasting relationships between attorneys and the clients.
We have concluded that most of CRLA's most conspicuous problems
can be solved by adopting a "judicare" approach for delivering civil
legal services to low-income people in CRLA's service area. Under
this approach, the public authority would subsidize the clients,
rather than the attorneys, and permit the clients to choose their own
attorneys and the kind of service they desire. Among other things,
this approach would expand the total number of attorneys available
to give assistance to low-income people from approximately thirty-
five (35) currently providing service through CRLA to 1100.
It has been argued that established members of the Bar may not re-
spond to the program and that, therefore, the quality of service
would decline.
Both the theory and experience of judicare indicate otherwise. Sub-
sidizing the client, rather than the lawyer, merely gives the individual
client a choice. It opens to him the option, if he chooses to take it,
to go beyond the lawyers provided for him at present through staff-
attorney programs. He is not compelled to do SO. If he chooses, as
we have indicated, to go to staff attorneys now in place (or those
formerly with the program, now in private practice), he can do that.
In fact, every sign from the service areas under consideration indi-
cates an enthusiastic attitude by the local Bar Associations toward
the program we are presenting. Every Bar Association we have polled
on the question has overwhelmingly endorsed the concept.
This enthusiasm mirrors the enthusiasm and participation of local Bar
attorneys in other areas where judicare programs have been under way
for as long as five (5) years. In Washington Township, for example,
the entire Bar participated in the program - thirty-six (36) lawyers out
of thirty-six (36) members of the County Bar Association. And in
Northern Wisconsin, the site of the country's largest and most highly
touted judicare program, covering twenty-eight (28) rural counties in
Northern Wisconsin, the response of the Bar has been very enthusiastic,
despite fee arrangements that remain barely fifty per cent (50%) of the
minimum Bar fee schedule. On an inspection tour of that program, we
found that the local lawyers treat their judicare clients exactly like
their paying clients, and that often they do not discover which category
a client is in until the service has been entirely rendered. In those
rural counties, the sense of professionalism is high, and the lawyers
are keenly aware of their responsibilities to do their best work in every
situation, whether the bill is paid by the client or at a lower rate by
the judicare program.
A concluding point concerns legal service to minority clients. Increas-
ing numbers of minority lawyers are making exactly the opposite argu-
ment to that made by supporters of the staff-attorney approach. They
are arguing precisely that staff attorneys are without true sensitivity to
their communities. They argue that the "poverty lawyers" are typically
White and middle class, with no roots in their communities and no
intention to stay. They argue, finally, that subsidizing these out-
siders is a form of colonialism, in which indigenous minority lawyers
are deprived of their natural clientele - a situation that hurts the
vitality of the minority Bar and leadership class and presents a dis-
torted picture to the client about the nature of his community.
II. STATEMENT OF OVERALL GOAL
To provide comprehensive civil legal services to low-income people
in the fairest and most efficient possible manner, and to afford the
low-income people the opportunity to select an attorney of their own
choice to represent them in all civil matters covered by the judicare-
type program, thus strengthening the client-attorney relationship in
the low-income communities of our rural areas.
III. OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the program include, but are not limited to, the
following:
A.
To provide freedom of choice for low-in come clients with
respect to choosing an attorney to represent their civil
legal needs;
B.
To increase the base of services and the number of attorneys
available to serve low-income people in rural areas Statewide;
C.
To provide direct legal services in the communities where
people live, and thereby minimize travel by both clients and
attorneys to solve the problems of the "poor";
D.
To encourage relationships between low-income communities
and indigenous lawyers, who are the communities' natural
leaders;
E.
To encourage young lawyers and potential leaders to return to
their racial and ethnic communities to lead the fight against
poverty;
F.
To utilize existing local Bar Association resources, which will
encourage not only a continuity of service, but also experience
and efficiency in meeting the legal needs of the poor;
G.
To maximize the interest and involvement of the legal and low-
income community by placing responsibility of the local Bar
Associations for management of the program, without compromis-
ing individual attorney autonomy;
H.
To make sure that the cause or case is that of the client, not
that of the attorney;
I.
To strengthen volunteerism among attorneys and encourage an
expansion, not a contraction, of the legal aid spirit; and
J.
To increase the delivery of individual legal services to the
poor by local attorneys on non-fee-generating cases and to
develop constructive law reform programs to meet community
needs.
IV. STRUCTURE OF THE PROGRAM
A.
Statewide Judicare Foundation:
1.
General. A non-profit legal foundation will be respons-
ible for the conduct of the program Statewide, will devise
the overall budget, receive the funds and oversee their
expenditure.
2.
Policy. The overall policy of the program will be pro-
vided by a fifteen (15) man foundation board of directors,
consisting of members of the Bench and Bar throughout
the service areas of the program. The board members
shall serve for three (3) years, one-third (1/3) of the
terms expiring each year, the new directors to be elected
by the remaining directors. The board shall elect a
chairman and other officers from among its members,
as well as an executive committee. A special review
committee will be selected to assist in reviewing and
making decisions on those cases in which extraordin-
ary expenditures of legal fees are anticipated because
of the novelty of the question, the need for appeal,
etc. It is anticipated that the board will maintain a
reserve fund to be employed in meeting these needs and
in augmenting service in certain program areas that
cannot be fully anticipated at the time of commencing
this program.
3.
Administration. An attorney administrator will be re-
tained to provide day-to-day administration of the
program, to train para-professionals, to effect liaison
with the Continuing Education of the Bar program for
the purpose of conducting training programs in areas
of the law peculiarly related to low-income people, to
act as liaison with the Chief Administrator and President
of the State Bar of California, and to establish and over-
see effective monitoring and evaluation procedures aug-
mented by proper use of electronic data processing for
maintenance of the kinds of statistics and data from
which we can make realistic cost benefit determinations.
B.
Local Bar Association Grantees:
1.
General. Each local Bar Association (or groupings of
Bar Associations in smaller counties which may com-
prise a natural service area) will be responsible for
the design and implementation of the program in its
area. The local Bar Association may receive the funds
directly itself or set up a separate legal services non-
profit corporation which it controls and through which
the program would be implemented.
2.
Policy. A board of directors, consisting entirely of
attorneys and members of the Bench in the area, would
direct the program. An executive committee and a Bar
fee review committee would be established to provide
day-to-day policy review, as well as to oversee the
expenditure of program dollars. An advisory committee,
consisting of members of the community at large and
low-income people from throughout the service area,
would be established to advise, assist and guide the
board of directors.
3.
Administration. It is not anticipated that any substan-
tial amount of administrative work will be required at
the local level. The determination of eligibility is the
main administrative requirement within the service area.
This will be accomplished through various existing
organizations and entities in the communities who will
utilize their existing administrative and clerical per-
sonnel to determine eligibility, after appropriate train-
ing. These will include, but not be limited to, the
local Community Action Agency, local Welfare Depart-
ment, local Courts, local Employment Offices, etc.
V. PROGRAM OPERATIONS
A.
Eligibility Determination (Intake Interview)
1.
Personnel. Existing administrative and clerical staff
in established agencies serving this program will pro-
vide the necessary eligibility services. This staff will
be trained to provide the proper forms to be filled out
and filed for participation in the program, referral to
attorneys, keeping of records and submission of vouchers
for payment. Some administrative reimbursement for
these purposes to the participating agencies will be
made in the program.
2.
Procedure. The existing Community Action Agency
offices in the areas being served, local Department of
Human Resources Development and employment centers,
city and county offices and other local accessible admin-
istrative centers will provide the outreach eligibility
services to prospective clients in this program. This
will allow for the maximum utilization of existing
facilities now operating within the community and mini-
mize the costs for such services or duplication of admin-
istrative services, staff, equipment and other adminis-
trative resources.
B.
Client Eligibility
1.
Co-payment Requirement. Low-income persons receiv-
ing service under the program pay something toward the
legal service, depending upon the level of their income
and assets. By this mechanism we can responsibly ex-
pand the group of persons who become eligible for some
assistance. The part payment by the client helps ma-
terially to cover the cost of the program. We can be
assured that the cause is that of the client and not of
the attorney, since the client is paying some hard cash
for the services; and we can be assured that the case
will not be carried on to ridiculous or unreasonable
lengths (unless, of course, the attorney decides that
he wants to do SO at his own expense).
2..
Co-payment waiver. A "safety valve" will be established,
whereby the Bar fee review committee may decide to waive
any fee if the client is truly destitute and yet the cause
meritorious.
C.
All attorneys in the local Bar Associations will be eligible
and qualified to represent clients under this program. It is
hoped, and as indicated above, we are confident that the
program would have the full cooperation and participation of
the local Bar.
The el ement of volunteerism, an important tradition in the pri-
vate practice of law, is ilt into this program in several ways.
First, to the extent the fee schedule is less than the normal
schedule, attorneys are volunteering the balance of the fee.
Second, at any time attorneys may personally waive the CO--
payment requirement (in effect paying it themselves). Third,
attorneys may volunteer time in special circumstances to do
additional work above and beyond that for which the program
will compensate him. And fourth, attorneys and others will
be encouraged to participate in the educational dimension of
the program, which will attempt to apprise low-income people
of their rights under the law.
D.
1.
Legal Service Charges. A fee schedule will be estab-
lished by a Bar foundation board.
2.
Attorney Compensation. Attorneys will be compensated
directly upon receipt of attorney billings at the central
administrative headquarters of the program, when such
billings are accompanied by the required statistical
data by which performance under the program can be
constantly measured and monitored. When the amount
paid to any one attorney for the program year shall be
$4,000 and for any one case, $300, an automatic review
will ensue of both individual case fee limit as well as
the total program year fee by the local Bar and by the
central staff in Sacramento. Thus, these limits may
be waived for attorneys whose performance, diligence and
quality in representation is such to merit their continued
reimbursement for their representation of low-income
clients on both individual case and total fee basis.
3..
Unusual Fees. If an attorney anticipates that the fee
in a particular matter will exceed that allowed under
the fee schedule, the matter should be submitted to
the Bar fee review committee for approval. With
respect to matters for which no specified fee schedule
exists, if the attorney anticipates that the fee will be
in excess of $300, the matter should be submitted to
the Bar fee review committee for its advice and approval.
This procedure is not designed to discourage the handling
of large and costly matters, so long as there are adequat e
assurances that the cause is sufficiently meritorious to
warrant the utilization of substantial resources in its
prosecution.
E.
Types of Cases Handled
1.
Essential Legal Services. The essential civil legal needs
of low-income people, such as domestic relations, bank-
ruptcies, landlord-tenant, consumer affairs, disputes
with Welfare and other government agencies, etc., are
naturally the kinds of matters which most frequently con-
cern low-income people. These would be handled per
course.
2.
Class Actions, Suits Against the Government, Appeals
and Other Substantial Actions. When any of these mat-
ters arise (which would exceed the per-case maximum)
they shall be considered by the local Bar fee review
committee. If the committee determines that a matter
does not justify payment by the program, the attorney
may seek compensation from the Statewide foundation.
3.
Unavailability of Local Counsel. If an eligible client
with a meritorious cause cannot, nevertheless, obtain
counsel to handle the matter within that service area,
the executive director of the foundation shall be empow-
ered to arrange employment of counsel in a convenient
adjacent service area. The fees therefor should be
borne by the program in the area of residence of the client.
4.
Exclusions. The program shall not pay for representations
of labor unions or political organizations, nor shall it
handle fee-generating cases. Also, criminal represent-
ation shall be excluded.
F.
The foundation administrator will devise a legal education pro-
gram for low-income people, utilizing the materials currently
available and others to be devised that will assist in making
the low-income persons aware of their legal rights and re-
sponsibilities. The objective will be to systematically reduce
the necessity to utilize attorney time in some legal problem
areas.
VI. PROGRAM EVALUATION
A.
The State Bar Association will be requested to provide an
overall evaluation of the judicare program. This evaluation
will provide for the following:
1.
Report on the year's program activities, including
statistical information on the number of persons served,
average time given clients, number of cases settled out
of court, number litigated, number on appeal, and a
breakout of the adjudication of the cases in court by
type, action, disposition, etc. The report will also
contain a narrative statement on problems and progress
of the program in the areas being served.
2.
An assessment will be made as to the services being
rendered the low-income community, including an
evaluation questionnaire to clients who were served,
a questionnaire to the general poverty community and
a review by the local Bar Association of each area, as
well as the area's judges and governmental adminis-
trators for their assessment of the program.
3.
A judgmental evaluation will then be compiled with
Federal OEO, the local Community Action Agencies of
the area, State OEO and other affected parties to com-
pile a comprehensive evaluation of the program as it
affects the poor, the community and the Bar in relation
to the goals and objectives of the program.
B.
Changes will be made in the program as determined by the gov-
erning board and based upon reasonable needs for improvement
of the program. The administration of the program in conjunc-
tion with the policy board will affect concurrent programmatic
changes as the needs arise. Overall major changes in the
goals and objectives of the program will be instituted after
a definitive review of the final year's comprehensive evalu-
ation has been made. Major program changes will be made
concurrent with the judicare policy board and Federal and State
OEO administrators.
VII. GUIDELINE FOR FEE SCHEDULE AND ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION
A.
The purpose of the fee schedule is to encourage maximum feas-
ible participation of the Bar and to maximize available funds
and resources to meet the legal needs of low-income people.
B.
Basic eligibility will be extended to all persons who qualify
as low-income under current OEO, Department of Labor and
other Federal guidelines, persons on public assistance of any
type, persons on State or Federal disability, special hardship
cases and persons on unemployment compensation where they
do not violate other equity guidelines of the program. In cases
where eligibility schedules conflict, the maximum income
schedule will be used to assure that clients in need may have
their legal services met with the minimum of delay.
The purpose of the eligibility requirements is to provide ser-
vices to those in need but not disqualify those in marginal
"gray" income areas who need services.
A co-payment schedule will be devised and will follow basic-
ally a graduated fee payment by the client. All clients will
pay a minimum $5 fee for all services. In cases of extreme
hardship, this may be waived by the program administrator,
the local Bar or the State central staff.
C.
The payment of fees will be determined by the family income
and assets as adjusted by family size.
Families meeting the minimum eligibility requirements will
pay a minimum fee of $5 per action. This may be waived by
the Bar fee review committee in cases of extreme hardship
or unusual circumstances.
A sliding scale of co-payments will be established, based
upon the amount by which the income/asset value of the client
is below or above the minimum eligibility requirement as set
forth in the eligibility schedule. For example, if, under
current practices, a family would be eligible for free legal
service if its income were under $3500 per year but entitled
to no legal service if its income were in excess of $3500,
our sliding scale proposal would require that family to begin
to pay a portion of the legal fee if its income were below
$3500, and the portion it would be required to pay would in-
crease as the income rose to, through and beyond $3500, to
a point where the co-payment requirement levied upon that
family would be one hundred per cent (100%) of the judicare
fee. (NOTE: Even then, there would be advantage to the
recipient of service under the program because the fees
charged are less than those ordinarily charged by participating
attorneys to private clients.) The precise income figures and
percentages should be decided upon by the board of directors
of the foundation as one of its first orders of business.