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
118564780
label
CRLA - Study and Evaluation of CRLA by California OEO, 1971 (5 of 6)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564780
contentType
document
title
CRLA - Study and Evaluation of CRLA by California OEO, 1971 (5 of 6)
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
118564780
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
118bcbc6297eec56
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: CRLA - Study and Evaluation of CRLA
by California OEO, 1971 (5 of 6)
Box: P29
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
"It is unlawful for a lawyer to volunteer
advice to bring a lawsuit, except in those
cases where ties of blood, relation or trust
make it his duty to do so."
Apart from Mr. Ortega's apparent disregard for
this canon, his conduct vis a vis police officer Brown
is patently "unprofessional" by any standard. (Exhibit
17-0080)
(11) CRLA attorneys of Madera County, in the
welfare matter of Maria Molina, drafted a trust agreement
with Maria Molina designed to hide the proceeds of a sale
of real property from the Madera County Welfare. Maria
Molina was (at the time CRLA drafted the trust agreement)
on the Madera County Welfare rolls. The trust agreement
drafted by CRLA placed in trust the proceeds of the sale
in lieu of reporting the proceeds to the welfare agency.
(Exhibit 17-0078)
(12) Edward Chidlaw, President of the Madera
County Bar Association, in an affidavit dated December 11,
1970, stated that a letter critical of the Madera City
Council and Police Department was sent to a Madera News-
paper. This "Letter to the Editor" purported to speak
for seven youths who were arrested on July 27, 1969, for
disturbing the peace. We identified the letter as being
written on CRLA stationary by the union identification
mark which appeared at the bottom of each page. The fact
that the letter was written on CRLA stationary indicated
(201)
to this office that a very strong possibility exists
that CRLA was largely responsible for the contents of
the letter.
One of the seven defendants, Scott Ingle, was
represented by Mr. Chidlaw. When Mr. Chidlaw contacted
his client and asked him why he had signed his name to
such a letter, the boy replied that he had never seen
the letter before. A brief examination of at least two
other signatures on the letter (copy attached) indicate
that they were written by the same person. This further
serves to refute the possibility that the letter was in-
deed the combined and mutual effort of the seven defend-
ants involved. (Exhibit 14-0125)
(13) WHAT IS CRLA DOING TO MAINTAIN PROFES-
SIONAL STANDARDS?
The above sequence of cases portray a profile of
crass, vulgar and unprofessional behavior of CRLA staff
members in their professional capacity.
We have no record of any official punitive CRLA
action concerning these incidents or the individual
staff members involved.
(202)
E.
HARASSING AND FRIVOLOUS ACTIONS ON THE PART OF
CRLA
CRLA attorneys, as are other attorneys, are pro-
hibited from engaging in harassing and frivolous acti-
vities.
"The lawyer must decline to conduct a civil
cause or to make a defense when convinced
that it is intended merely to harass or to
injure the opposite party or to work oppres-
sion or wrong. But otherwise it is his right,
and, having accepted a retainer, it becomes
his duty to insist upon the judgment of the
court as to the legal merits of his client's
claim. His appearance in court should be
deemed equivalent to an assertion on his
honor that in his opinion his client's case
is one proper for judicial determination."
(Canons of Professional
Ethics of the American
Bar Association, Rule 30
- emphasis added.)
"A member of the State Bar shall not
accept employment to prosecute or de-
fend a case solely out of spite or
solely for the purpose of harassing
or delaying another; nor shall he
take or prosecute an appeal merely for
delay, or for any other reason, except
in good faith."
(Rules of Professional Conduct,
State Bar of California, Rule
13 - emphasis added.)
"A member of the State Bar shall not advise
the commencement, prosecution or defense of
a case, unless he has been consulted in re-
ference thereto, except when his relation to
a party or to the subject matter is such as
to make it proper for him to do so."
(Rules of Professional Conduct
State Bar of California, Rule 10.)
(203)
"Nothing operates more certainly to create
or to foster popular prejudice against law-
yers as a class, and to deprive the profes-
sion of that full measure of public esteem
and confidence which belongs to the proper
discharge of its duties than does the false
claim, often set up by the unscrupulous in
defense of questionable transaction, that
it is the duty of the lawyer to do whatever
may enable him to succeed in winning his
client's cause
But it is steadfastly to
be borne in mind that the great thrust of the
lawyer is to be performed within and not
without the bounds of the law. The office of
attorney does not permit, much less does it
demand of him for any client, violation of
law or any manner of fraud or chicane. He
must obey his own conscience and not that of
his client."
(Canons of Professional Ethics
of the ABA, Rule 15-emphasis
added)
An affidavit from Mr. Norman Shaw, attorney, and
a member of the Board of Directors for the Legal Aid
Society of San Joaquin County, deals at length with
harassing tactics used by Edward Mattison, attorney with
the CRLA office in Modesto, California.
Shaw was representing a Mr. and Mrs. Pena, recent
purchasers of an apartment house in Stockton, California.
A 30-day notice to vacate was served upon the tenants
of the apartment house on October 1, 1970, for the pur-
pose of refurbishing the premises. Mr. and Mrs. Pena
received a letter from Mattison dated October 12, 1970,
in which he informed the Penas that he had been asked to
represent the affected tenants of the apartment house
(Modesto is located approximately 30 miles from Stockton,
(204)
with the latter city being a metropolitan area.) Two days
later, Shaw received a letter from Mattison stating that
he had accepted the rent money for October from a number
of the tenants and would retain it until the occupants
were apprised of Shaw's opinion that the rent was due
forthwith and should not be held for some reason. One
day later the San Joaquin District Health Officer de-
clared the premises unfit for human habitation, and on
October 19, Shaw received another communication from
Mattison promising to be in touch with him the following
day regarding the due rent. It was not, however, until
October 30th that Mattison recommunicated with Shaw,
stating that he would not remit the due rent money until
such time as written assurances were received that the
tenants could continue to live on the condemned premises
until there were able to find a new place. Shaw refused
to give any written assurances. Finally, on November 24,
1970, Mattison again communicated with Shaw, stating that
all but one of the families had left or paid their rent,
and concludes the letter by saying:
"I am sorry for the delay because I realize
that the Penas are by no means wealthy them-
selves."
And so, an "unwealthy" couple is forced to retain
a private attorney at their own expense and is delayed
for almost two months in receiving their justly due rent
moneys. (Exhibit 02-0019)
(205)
In the suit of Godley, et al, V. Knudsen Creamery
Company, et al, San Francisco Superior Court No. 625183,
CRLA is suing eight milk companies for code dating milk
cartons, rather than using a clearer system of date mark-
ing. This case alleges that poor people are getting old
milk because of the "unfair and deceptive" practice of
the milk companies. Despite the fact that the Legisla-
ture recently determined the coding practice to be satis-
factory, this suit has been filed to harass the dairy
companies, and if successful, will cause the cost of milk
to increase as much as three cents a quart, according
to dairy spokesmen. (Exhibit 02-0022.)
An affidavit from Robert R. Stewart, Judge of
the Justice Court, Guadalupe Judicial Court, gives us
an example of harassing of the court systems by CRLA.
It quotes as follows:
"I wrote a letter to CRLA headquarters in May
1969, inquiring as to whether or not CRLA could
enter into criminal proceedings. This letter
was answered in July 1969, stating that CRLA
did not handle criminal matters. The reason
for this inquiry was prompted by CRLA which
represented two clients in criminal proceed-
ings in my court. I do not have the names
of the persons involved in these matters,
however, if it ever becomes necessary, I can
have the members of my staff research through
my records and obtain the facts concerning
these particular incidents. Some time after
I received this letter, I became subjected
to harassment type tactics from CRLA whereby
several clients represented by CRLA filed
affidavits of prejudice against me. On the
basis of the facts in these cases, such
(206)
affidavits were entirely unreasonable. When
I inquired of these people as to why they
filed such affidavits, the only response I
received was that CRLA had advised them to
do this. I feel that such actions present
an undue hardship upon this court because I
am the only judge in Guadalupe and, therefore,
it would necessitate the County spending money
to have another judge come from another area
to sit on this bench." (emphasis added)
This is only the first of the items covered by
Judge Stewart. He goes on to further state:
"I feel that because of my close association
with the people in this community I have
been aided in my responsibility and that
such association does not hinder justice.
A particularly personal example of CRLA
becoming involved in a criminal manner con-
cerns a case of T. Cardoza. Mr. Cardoza was
found guilty, in 1968, of a traffic violation
and was fined $115. In September 1970, I re-
ceived a telephone call from Mr. Burton Fretz,
chief attorney for CRLA. Mr. Fretz inquired
as to whether or not Mr. Cardoza had been
charged with drunk driving at the time of his
arrest. I informed Mr. Fretz that Mr. Cardoza
had been charged with drunk driving, however,
this charge had subsequently been reduced to
reckless driving. This was the substance
of the telephone conversation between Mr. Fretz
and myself. In October 1970, I learned through
a story released in the Santa Barbara press
that CRLA was attempting to have the decision
against Mr. Cardoza reversed because Mr. Cardoza
had not been informed of his constitutional
rights. The fact of the matter is that the
contention of CRLA is not correct. At the
time of his hearing, Mr. Cardoza had been
made aware, through an interpreter in this
court, what he was charged with and what his
constitutional rights were. I had not released
this information concerning Mr. Cardoza to any
newspaper and, therefore, I feel the only way
such information could have been released would
have been through the office of CRLA. After I
filed an answer to the writ of habeas corpus,
(207)
CRLA sought to have the case removed from the
court calendar, however, this was blocked by
the District Attorney of Santa Maria and a
hearing was set for December 2, 1970, but the
matter is still pending. I feel that CRLA
attempted to remove this matter from the court
calendar after the news had been released through
the paper so that I would be unable to clear my-
self in this matter. I fully intend to pursue
this matter because I feel that the facts in
the case will prove that there was no wrong-
doing on my part. My office staff has been
subjected to some harassment by CRLA with
respect to requests that they submit to my
office. CRLA has demanded that their inquiries
be answered immediately instead of asking for
such information in a polite manner. I do not
have a very large staff and they do their best
to answer all requests from all agencies."
(Exhibit 02-0026 - emphasis added.)
Mrs. Florence Kinlock, Director of Imperial County
Welfare Department, has stated that she has been subjected
to harassment from CRLA as indicated by demands made on
her by the El Centro CRLA office in the following instances:
(a) Letter of CRLA attorney Altschuler, July 13
1970, in which he asserts the constitutional rights of
individuals are being violated because prior notice is
not given to welfare recipients before they are terminated;
(b) Letter of Ollie Rodgers, CRLA community
worker, of September 12, 1969, asking for changes in
selection of representative for welfare recipients;
(c) And letter of Altschuler, November 25,
1970, charging Welfare Department's gross under-utiliza-
tion of Spanish-surname employees, which is so unclear
(208)
that it resulted in the following reply from Mrs. Kinlock:
"Dear Mr. Altschuler:
In reply to your letter of November 25 in
which you made many allegations against the
Welfare Department, I shall not grant your
request to meet personally with me for dis-
cussion.
The method of your approach and the contents
of your letter require that any discussion
should take place with your own profession,
therefore, a copy of your letter is being for-
warded to the County Counsel. Another reason
for this is that to me as a layman the contents
of your letter are so poorly based and dis-
connected that I am unable to cope with it.
You should take note of the fact that you
are the only one of the four CRLA attorneys
who came to Imperial County about a year ago
whose methods close the door to discussion
with me. Because of your method of approach
and lack of information concerning the Welfare
Department, County Government and State agencies,
please in the future refer all matters direct
to the County Counsel. Our staff will also be
so advised.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Florence Kinlock, Director
November 30, 1970."
Mr. Altschuler answered her letter on December 2,
1970, disagreeing with her letter of November 30 and
closed out his letter with the following paragraph:
"Your letter would appear to foreclose in-
formal methods of resolving problems, there-
by necessitating my recourse to more formal
procedures to vindicate the legal rights of
my clients. I would deeply regret my having
to undertake this course of action, for it
would inevitably lead to inconvenience for
all concerned."
(209)
In a memo to Mr. James Harmon, County Counsel from
Mrs. Kinlock on November 4, 1970, regarding Altschuler's
letter of December 2nd, Mrs. Kinlock writes as follows:
"He does not seem to realize that his letters
contain threats that make it illogical for me
as a lay person to meet with him. Even his
letter of December 2 still contains the threat
of 'course of action.' On the subject he pro-
poses, my own thinking is to let him 'take
action.' In the first place specifically what
group is it he wants hired? In addition, he is
laboring under several misapprehensions. There
will be no reply to this one from me."
This is a good example of the polarization that
CRLA attorneys are developing between their offices and
various County and State agencies. (Exhibit 02-0027)
In an affidavit from Russell H. Green, President
of Simi Winery, Inc., of Healdsburg, California, Mr. Green
discusses a case filed against himself, his partner and
his ranch manager by CRLA on behalf of one Adolfo Olivas,
a vineyard worker terminated for numerous absences from
work and use of intoxicants while on the job. The suit
was filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco on
September 1, 1970, complaint number C 70 1853, as a
class action alleging Olivas' employment had been unfairly
terminated and that non-resident alien workers were hired
to replace him. On November 19, 1970, judgment was entered
in favor of the defendants but is presently being appealed.
Before Green had any knowledge that a suit was being
(210)
filed against him there was a big press release in the
Santa Rosa Press Democrat that his vineyards were being
sued for firing domestic workers and replacing them with
wetbacks. This action not only resulted in unfavorable
publicity, but also cost $3,700 to defend. (Exhibit 02-
0121)
In Rodriguez, et al, V. Duane Furman, et al, Madera
Superior Court, Case No. 15641, Madera CRLA attorney Barbara
Sena represented a group of parents and students against
the Madera Unified School District in 1967. The School
District had closed the schools for five days so that
students and teachers alike would be free to aid in the
critical task of harvesting the local grape crop, which
was in great danger of spoiling. The suit charges that
plaintiffs had suffered irreparable damage by the schools
being closed; states that defendants did not check to be
sure children didn't work without permits; and that plain-
tiffs were exposed to unsanitary conditions, etc. All
that the School District had done was to close the schools
to help prevent the entire grape crop from being lost,
which would have resulted in a tremendous economic hard-
ship on the entire community. The judge agreed with this
and the case died with demurrer; however, it is still
under appeal.
In an open letter to the Madera Unified School
(?11)
District from Duane E. Furman, District Superintendent,
October 15, 1969, Mr. Furman comments on the above case.
He says that school days lost by the closing of the
schools were made up during the school term. He goes on
to say:
"During the trial a witness (one of the
plaintiffs) included in his testimony a
statement that the schools and rich farmers
were going to be made to pay for what they
had done to the Mexican people. The Dis-
trict won the case on all counts. The cost
to defend this suit was approximately $7,500
of educational funds. Cost to the taxpayers
for the preparation of CRLA, since they used
several attorneys was probably considerably
more." (Exhibit 02-0122)
In the case of Ray and Sena Radley V. Mona
Randall, et al, in the Municipal Court of the Central
Judicial District for the County of Sonoma, California,
No. 24607, an unlawful detainer action, the defendant
claimed that property was in "substantial violation" of
the housing code, and that defendant had "repeatedly
and continually" informed Fred Bollinger, real estate
agent for the property, of these violations. This is
refuted by Mr. Bollinger. In addition, the defendant
asked general damages of $20,000, plus $625 for rent
already paid due to injuries sustained by defendant in
a fall on the premises.
CRLA filed five affirmative defenses, totaling 7
pages, and three counterclaims, totaling 3 pages. Hearing
(212)
date on motion to set aside arrived and CRLA and defendant
failed to appear. The defendant quit property shortly
thereafter. (Exhibit 02-0123)
As referred to in the montage section of our re-
port, the Kathe Fish and Gavilan College incident is no-
thing more than the actual use of legal processes to
harass. (Exhibit 02-0124)
In an affidavit of William Leach, Director of
Welfare, Monterey County, he makes the following state-
ment:
"I have had extensive contact with repre-
sentatives of California Rural Legal Assis-
tance organization. It has been my experience
that the CRLA is more interested in repre-
senting causes than they are individuals.
It has also been my opinion for some time
that their cases are more harassing and/or
publicity cases than cases whereas they are
truly interested in the person involved. It
is also my opinion, from personal experience,
that CRLA is not interested as to what can be
accomplished with the money that is funded
to a state agency but how much they can get
from the taxpayers and therefore show certain
portions of the community how great they are at
the expense of the rest of the community. I
do not think that the CRLA is doing a good
job representing welfare recipients, as they
are not interested in learning the mechanics
of how the Welfare Department has to operate
but more on changing regulations regardless
of how it may affect people personally or
the department financially. I am sure
that they would be able to do a much better
job if they cooperated with the Department more
rather than demand such and such or they would
take the Department to court attempting to use
them as a lever rather than attempting to iron
out problems as most attorneys will before taking
court action
"
(Exhibit 02-0163)
(213)
The Santa Rosa office of CRLA filed a class type
action in the form of a Complaint for Declaratory Relief
on behalf of Arthur and Bonnie Self, individually, and
as representatives of a class of persons pursuant to CCP
382, in November of 1967. This arose out of a writ of
attachments against their client's paycheck and an attach-
ment in the amount of $60.00. In their own pleadings,
CRLA sets forth that this was an assigned claim to a
collection agency and that none of the alleged debts set
forth in the original complaint in said action filed in
the Municipal Court for the Central Judicial District
of the County of Sonoma, State of California was in the
total sum of $444.18. By this action the California Rural
Legal Assistance brought a change of court from the lower
court to the higher court incurring additional expense
by way of court costs and attorneys fees to the original
plaintiff and actually accomplished no more than they
could have accomplished by a simple claim of exemption.
(Exhibit 02-0020)
In 1968, the city of Imperial, California, was
negotiating an application for a loan and grant with the
Economic Development Administration. The purpose of this
loan was to refurbish and extend the city's sewer and
water facilities to the south end of the Imperial County
Airport which is within the city limits of Imperial.
(214)
An election had been held on a referendum basis pertain-
ing to this EDA application wherein revenue bonds were
approved to finance the City's share of the project by
a plurality in excess of 90% of the voters. However,
the CRLA representatives, James Lorenz, then a staff
attorney for CRLA and now a deputy director, and Donald
Jueneau, a non-admitted attorney in California, contacted
city officials on behalf of a number of "residents."
They expressed the dissatisfaction of their "clients"
with the outcome of the election and the purpose of the
loan, implying expensive litigation to overturn the re-
sults of the election and negating the loan if their
various demands were not met.
After a series of private meetings at which these
threats were made, and a public meeting at which they
were inferred, CRLA presented a list of their purported
plans and it was determined that a good number of their
clients were not even residents or voters of the City of
Imperial. (Exhibit 02-0021)
Another class action filed by Madera CRLA attorneys
against the Madera County Welfare Department alleged
that three children, purportedly under the age of 16,
and their grandmother were removed from the AFDC roles
of the Welfare Department because the children did not
work in the local grape harvest during the time the
(215)
Madera schools were closed for that specific purpose. In
addition to general damages in the amount of $22,050 for
the plaintiffs, the sum of $200,000 was asked as punitive
damages for "persons similarily situated." This action
was clearly one of harassment in nature as it could easily
have been settled by a conversation with the Welfare Depart-
ment or, if necessary, settled through an administrative
process. This would have alleviated the general damage
loss by reason of retroactive payment. (Exhibit 02-0023)
A harassing defensive action in response to a simple
unlawful detainer pertaining to the residency of a small
dwelling was filed by Santa Rosa CRLA attorneys in 1969.
(Radford VS. Wimmer, Municipal Court for the Central Judicial
District, County of Sonoma, No. 23111) This lawsuit was
predicated upon a three-day notice to vacate served on
the defendant on October 14, 1969. The unlawful detainer
was filed on October 20, 1969, which was followed by the
CRLA action which consisted of an answer to the complaint,
October 27, interrogatories to plaintiff on October 27,
a notice to set on November 11th and a continuance to
the Master Calendar on November 12, a notice of motion
to compel answers to the interrogatories on November 19,
a notice of motion for summary judgment on November 14,
answers to the interrogatories on November 17, and an
argument on the motion on November 24. This finally re-
(216)
sulted in a trial date being set, at which trial the de-
fendant did not appear and the attorney acting in behalf
of CRLA at the trial, Miss Lagomarsino, stipulated to a
judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $135.00 in
rent and the costs of the lawsuit. Actually the only
thing which was accomplished in this matter was a pro-
fit to the attorney for the plaintiff and a delaying
tactic for the defendant, the CRLA client. (Exhibit 02-
0028)
In our evaluation, in case after case, including
the above, there seems to be an immediacy and finality in
the modus operandi of CRLA attorneys in lieu of reason,
negotiation and calculation. They are prone to sue,
seek injunctive action, as in the vernacular "do their
thing", without due respect to the disciplined manner of
thought process that is so vitally important to the
practice of law.
They are prone to initiate actions without re-
gard to a cost or time factor that would be prohibitive
for a private attorney and his client.
(217)
F.
WASTE, INEFFICIENCY AND MISUSE OF RESOURCES
"No matter how many hours a day the (legal
services offices) remain open, no matter
what systems are used to streamline intake
and processing, the offices cannot handle
the floods of people that come to them for
legal help (Quoted from a speech
given by former CRLA Deputy Director Gary
Bellow at the Harvard Sesquicentenniel Celebr-
ation in late 1967, in CRLA's 1971 Refunding
Proposal, page 31.)
Despite pious statements like the above, we dis-
covered numerous instances in which CRLA misuses the re-
sources it so often declares to be inadequate. Often
the problem is simple waste. But a few cases cited be-
low suggest a problem more than mere waste.
(1) Filed a suit against the Madera Unified
School District in Madera, California, to prevent the
closing of a local school, which would permit teachers
and students from participating in an emergency grape
harvest. In the course of handling the matter, CRLA
demonstrated a total disregard for cost. For example,
two attorneys, a law clerk and an investigator were usually
all present during the taking of depositions when all that
was necessary was one attorney. Efforts were also made
to make photocopies of voluminous school records, whether
or not they were relevant to the issues in the case.
(Exhibit 13-009A)
(218)
(2) In the unlawful detainer action of Watts
V. Parker during a three-day jury trial in the Modesto
Municipal Court, three CRLA attorneys and a CRLA investi-
gator sat through almost all of the trial. During the
same period the Madera office had a policy of refusing
to handle domestic matters. (Exhibit 10-0054)
(3) In March and April 1970, CRLA attorneys
Philip Newmark and Don Lowenstein organized and encouraged
students to demonstrate against the Modesto Unified School
District in connection with a decision of the School Dis-
trict to drop-out of the national school lunch program.
For nearly six weeks these two attorneys were occupied
in either participating in the demonstration or repre-
senting defendants arrested for trespass during it. The
Reverend Monroe Carter Taylor, director of Social Services
at the King Kennedy Memorial Center in the City of Modesto
and a member of the Advisory Board of CRLA's Modesto of-
fice remarks on this allocation of time spent by the
two attorneys, either participating in the demonstrations
or defending the demonstrators, Reverend Taylor relates
the following incident:
"While I was at the City School Office demon-
stration scene I had a conversation with
Mr. Newmark relative to his counseling of
the demonstrators who should have been in
school. The issue was what these young
children were going to eat.
(219)
"Mr. Newmark remarked, 'Monroe, feed the
children something to eat and charge it
to CRLA.' After the school demonstra-
tions I talked to David Talamante, Mana-
ger of the then Stanislaus County Coopera-
tive Association, 409 Mace Road, Modesto,
who had furnished the demonstrators lunches,
and he told me that he had billed CRLA $400
for the food and that they had paid for it.
I think that this was a misdirection of
funds."
(4) Further on in his affidavit Reverend
Taylor relates another flagrant misuse of funds:
"I think that there was another instance of
misdirection of funds and that was during
the campaign for State Assemblyman by one
MacLovio Lopez. Mr. Lopez was in my office
attempting to solicit my support. I told
him I couldn't support him because he did
not have the funds to expend in printing
materials for his campaign that would make
it a success. He said that CRLA had made
cash contributions to his campaign fund
and that the CRLA office had printed and
reproduced brochures, bumper stickers and
various other materials free of charge to
him. I talked later to a member of the
CRLA staff, who isno longer on the staff, and
found what Mr. Lopez told me was true. Ap-
parently they also printed up bumper stickers
advocating free lunches for the children dur-
ing the Modesto City School Bond elections.
I feel that the funds were not properly used
as there was a heavy caseload of poor clients
who needed representation while the two law-
yers were off involved with demonstrations
and defending them in court. In fact, it
was during this period that I telephoned
Mr. Sal Espana of Governor Reagan's staff
requesting an audit of CRLA books to deter-
mine how the funds were actually being used.'
(Exhibit 10-0062)
(5) Roy T. Hodge
The Modesto office of CRLA accepted the defense
(220)
of a Mr. Roy T. Hodge in a suit brought by the Stanislaus
Credit Control Service for a legal fee of $650, owed to
a local attorney. Throughout most of the two-day jury
trial, two members of CRLA, in addition to the CRLA trial
attorney, sat in the courtroom as "observers." The attor-
ney for the plaintiff states that:
"the time, expense and manpower consumed by the
CRLA attorneys in defense of this case was un-
justified, and the efforts made to negotiate
a settlement in advance were far short of those
to be expected in the expeditious handling of
such matters." (Exhibit 10-0055)
(6) Attorney Philip P. Pendergrass recites
in affidavit an incident demonstrating CRLA's sloppiness
in the holding of trust monies as well as waste of man-
power resources: (Exhibit 09-0105)
"In 1969, I had occasion to be involved in litigation
with the California Rural Legal Assistance of
Modesto, California
CRLA filed a lawsuit
attempting to obtain restraining orders against
Mr. Fullon (the plaintiff) from evicting the
tenants in occupancy and to further obtain dam-
ages as a result of defective housing. Fullon
was an individual who was permanently and tota-
lly disabled and was receiving social security;
and the income from the rentals plus his social
security constituted his entire income which put
him at a level declared to be of a poverty level.
...
the County Health Office of Stanislaus
County had complaints made to it and, therefore,
work was demanded by them on the premises.
Further (CRLA attorney), Mattison had accepted
money purposed for rental pursuant to Section
1942 of the California Civil Code. The money
was placed in the trust account and no repairs
were made by the tenant. The amount of money
was $65.00 which was held. Subsequently, an
agreement was made between Attorney Mattison
(221)
and myself that Mr. Torres' money would be
turned over to Mr. Fullon upon the comple-
tion of certain repairs. Those repairs were,
in fact, made. Subsequently, the money held
by CRLA, in their trust account was delivered
back to Mr. Torres rather than being turned
over to Mr. Fullon pursuant to agreement.
However, thereafter, a letter was received
from Mattison indicating that because of his
being out of the office at the time CRLA's
client asked to have his money returned, the
money was returned without knowledge of an
agreement which has been entered into. Fullon
did not receive his rental money in that Torres
apparently left the State and returned to
Mexico."
(7)
It is apparent that in the holding
of trust monies, CRLA is extremely loose. There would
appear to have been no notation in the file or whoever
returned the money did not examine the file to be aware
of an agreement which had been entered into.
The
net effect of the action by CRLA was as follows:
(a) The property owner who was finan-
cially unable to pay legal costs, rent or legal fees
and court costs which he was then and now is unable to
pay;
(b) The time required for legal services
was extensive and appreciably reduced counsel's time and
ability to serve other clients;
(c) At all hearings and under all cir-
cumstances involved, generally there were two CRLA attor-
neys present.
A hearing on motion to dismiss by the filing of a
(222)
demur and motion brought by CRLA, for temporary restrain-
ing order was heard on Municipal Court and on that oc-
casion Kelly and Mattison were both present wherein the
matter could have reasonably been handled by one attor-
ney and the operation was therefore, inefficient.
The court time was taken on a matter which should
have been resolved without the necessity of litigation
and the exercise of the necessary rights. (Exhibit 09-
0105)
(8) In June 1970, the El Centro office of
CRLA on two separate occasions purchased 22 X 28 white
poster board in large quantities, copies of the invoices
for which are attached as exhibits (Exhibits 03-0153-01
and 02) These two purchases occurred at the same time
as UFWOC's melon strike and picketing in Imperial
County at which 22 X 28 poster board was used for picket
signs.
Later in the year in late November, the
El Centro office again purchased (Exhibit 03-0153-01)
poster boards. Within two weeks the UFWOC demon-
strations (of December 11) to free Cesar Chavez used
22 X 28 poster board. (Also see Exhibit 03-0198 on this
point.)
(9) On March 30, 1970, Mr. and Mrs. Lonnie
Anderson filed a free lunch application with Mr. Clyde R.
(223)
Hull of the Modesto City Schools. The Anderson's stated
that they had outstanding bills, including one which was
a personal loan from CRLA for $32.00. On May 15, 1970,
the Anderson's reapplied and stated that they had a per-
sonal loan from CRLA. (Exhibit 10-0058)
(10) One attorney relates his experience with
CRLA in a landlord-tenant suit of minimal damages:
"My condemnation lies with the fact that they
(CRLA) had two attorneys in addition to the
trial attorney and an investigator, sit through
almost all of this trial. It is common know-
ledge that CRLA does not take needy clients in-
sofar as domestic matters are concerned. This,
they declare to be a policy in their office.
It would seem to me that if they had time to
have those attorneys tied up in a landlord-
tenant lawsuit, just listening to the case
and observing, they should have time to handle
the needy clients in regard to domestic matters."
(Exhibit 04-0039)
A Section on waste and misuse of resources could
naturally include recitation of time spent and resources
spent pursuing matters that fall into most of the other
categories in this report. We have limited this particular
section, however, only to misdirection of funds and wastes
of attorney and office resources. Throughout the state
we heard observations by local attorneys and judges that
CRLA attorneys often travel in groups of two's and three's
wherever they go during the working day. In view of the
severe legitimate needs that the poor have for legal
services, this form of waste seems inexcusable.
(225)
G. PUBLICITY
"Newspaper publications by a lawyer as to
pending or anticipated litigation may inter-
fere with a fair trial in the Courts and
otherwise prejudice the due administration
of justice. Generally they are to be con-
demned. If the extreme circumstances of a
particular case justify a statement to the
public, it is unprofessional to make it
anonymously. An ex parte reference to the
facts should not go beyond quotation from
the records and papers on file in the court;
but even in extreme cases it is better to
avoid any ex parte statement." (Canons of
Professional Ethics of the American Bar
Association, Rule 20.)
In an affidavit of Joseph Graziano, dated Decem-
ber 9, 1970, Mr. Graziano makes the following statement:
"I am the city editor of the Santa Maria
Times, 201 West Chapel, Santa Maria, Calif-
ornia, and I've been in this position since
June, 1970. Prior to this date, I worked
for the Santa Maria Times as a reporter.
During the period 1966 to 1969, in my capa-
city as a reporter, I reported on the suits
being filed within the Municipal and Super-
ior Court system of Santa Maria Judicial
District. While employed by the Santa Maria
Times, I have been aware of the activities
of the California Rural Legal Assistance
(CRLA) with regard to press releases submit-
ted by CRLA. These press releases have been
concerned with lawsuits filed by CRLA. In-
cluded among the various suits submitted by
CRLA have been those filed against the Lucia-
Mar Unified School District, Pismo Beach,
one against the owner of the Santa Maria
Berry Farm which alleged pesticide poisoning
and one against the San Luis Obispo Welfare
Department. The latest press release was re-
ceived by me over the telephone from Burton
Fretz, Chief Attorney for CRLA, which dis-
closed that CRLA was filing a suit against
the Budget Finance Plan of Santa Maria. This
(226)
story appeared in the December 2, 1970
issue of the Santa Maria Times. All of
the press releases submitted by CRLA to
the Santa Maria Times have been concerned
with lawsuits filed by CRLA on behalf of
their clients and I know of no other
press releases submitted by CRLA that have
dealt with any other subject. I personally
feel that the concept of CRLA is a valid
one, and that citizens of a community
should be allowed to have legal assistance
if they cannot afford to hire a private
attorney. From personal experience, I feel
that CRLA, in the Santa Maria area, is
idealistically motivated and that they pur-
sue this idealism with enthusiastic endeavor,
however, I also feel that such enthusiasm
should be tempered by more mature thinking.
CRLA appears to be attempting to correct
injustices and in some of the suits filed
by CRLA they have not been cognizant of all
the facts in the case. This is borne out
by the fact that CRLA has not been success-
ful in these lawsuits. (Exhibit 07-0200--
Emphasis added.)
In a sworn Specification of Charges to the State
Bar of California by W. F. Moreno, Attorney, Salinas,
California, dated February 6, 1968, Mr. Moreno lists the
following specifications in regard to the Martin Produce
case:
"a) It was orally stipulated that the
settlement agreement in this case would
not be made public or released for pub-
lication to any news media for the follow-
ing reasons:
1) It was believed to be in the best
interests of all concerned;
2) There had been too much publicity
already;
(227)
3) The newspaper reports had not
always been accurate;
4) There was still a lawsuit pen-
ding.
Without consent of defense counsel (Moreno),
the settlement agreement was made public and Moreno
swears:
"a) By Robert Gnaizda, the attorney for
the California Rural Legal Assistance,
filing the settlement agreement with the
Court and calling it to the attention
of Eric Brazil, the California news re-
porter;
"b) I am informed and believe and based
upon that information and belief, allege
that the chief administrative officer of
the California Rural Legal Assistance at
Los Angeles, whose name I believe is
Mr. Lorenz, furnished a copy of the set-
tlement agreement to Mr. Harvey Bernstein,
the labor editor for the Los Angeles Times.
At the same time, Mr. Lorenz had an in-
formal news conference with Mr. Bernstein.
A copy of the article which resulted is
attached hereto.
"c) On February 1, 1968, Mr. Robert Gnaizda
at twelve noon at the Italian Villa has
admitted to me that he discussed the set-
tlement agreement with Mr. Bernstein and
that he had made the quotes attributed to
him.
"d) Mr. Gnaizda, at the same time, also ad-
mitted to me that he had tried to contact
me before releasing the settlement agree-
ment to get my consent, but he could not
reach me because of my recent illness. He
did not allege that he had ever attempted
to discuss the matter with my partner,
Donald M. Branner, who has handled my files,
including other files involving the Calif-
ornia Rural Legal Assistance office in my
absence.
(228)
"e) As a result of the settlement agree-
ment, I believe that I had reestablished
a normal, healthy employer-employee rela-
tionship. My client actually made special
arrangements to see that the plaintiffs
were paid before Christmas in spite of the
fact that Mr. Martin, the President of
MARTIN PRODUCE, INC., left the continental
United States for a vacation the day fol-
lowing the signing of this settlement
agreement. Since my client has seen the
newspaper reports, he is extremely upset
with the breach of confidence of the Calif-
ornia Rural Legal Assistance and my efforts
toward good relationship with the California
Rural Legal Assistance and the workers and
the subject employer has been made, to say
the least, most difficult.
"SECOND SPECIFICATION:
"I believe that a careful review of all of
the newspaper leads leads to the conclusion
that the California Rural Legal Assistance
has willfully distorted facts in the follow-
ing fashion:
"a) The California Rural Legal Assistance
has always attempted to create the impression
that the nine plaintiffs were 'poor agri-
cultural field workers' who earn less than
$2,600.00 annually. The truth is that these
plaintiffs are skilled equipment operators
who last year earned $2.00 per hour. Those
who have been employed by MARTIN PRODUCE,
INC. over a period of years, have earned as
high as $6,319.26 for one employee for one
year. It is true that some of the plaintiffs
have been recently employed by MARTIN PRO-
DUCE, INC., and therefore earned nominal
amounts as of the time that their services
were no longer required. A copy of the earn-
ings records from the year 1969 for the
plaintiffs is attached hereto.
"b) The California Rural Legal Assistance has
created the impression (see the news article)
that there was a trial with a judgment which
sets a precedent.
(229)
"c) The California Rural Legal Assistance
has also created the impression through
its oral news release to Mr. Bernstein
that Judge Campbell has issued a judg-
ment to the effect that 'any employer who
fires a worker for union activity must
not only rehire him, but may also be
forced to pay punitive damages', and the
present case represents case law to this
effect.
"d) The California Rural Legal Assistance
did not disclose that they had dismissed
the plaintiffs' case with prejudice, or
that the court had found that there was
no triable issues between the Growers
Farm Labor Association, the Growers-Ship-
per Vegetable Association, E. James
Houseberg or Doe I through Doe XX, and
that the court had summarily dismissed
the suit.
"THIRD SPECIFICATION:
"I sincerely believe that the recent pub-
licity on this case is related to the
recent issue as to whether or not the
California Rural Legal Assistance should
be funded and that a logical conclusion
is that the news releases were intended
to further the interests of the Califor-
nit Rural Legal Assistance even to the
detriment of its clients and contrary
to the express agreement of the parties
not to make the Settlement Agreement pub-
lic.
"FOURTH SPECIFICATION:
"During the period when the lawsuit was
pending, certain tomato growers applied
to the United States Government for the
use of Braceros. The California Rural
Legal Assistance filed suit in the U.S.
District Court allegedly on behalf of
the nine plaintiffs to prevent the impor-
tation of braceros.
None of the defen-
dants of the state court lawsuit, that
is, MARTIN PRODUCE, INC etc., were named
or served.
(230)
"a) The California Rural Legal Assistance
has no basis to be in the Federal Court in
this particular case.
"1) MARTIN PRODUCE, INC. has not
applied for the use of braceros and had
not even used braceros for a number of
years. A reading of the Federal complaint
discloses that the California Rural Legal
Assitance was attempting to recreate the
impression that MARTIN PRODUCE, INC., was
involved in the imporation of braceros
and that the federal law refusing to send
braceros to a place in which there was a
labor dispute applied.
"2) MARTIN PRODUCE, INC. has not even been
involved in the harvesting or growing of
tomatoes for many, many years. MARTIN PRO-
DUCE, INC. concerns itself solely with carrots.
"b) The agreement between the Secretary of
Labor and the California Rural Legal Assis-
tance specifically refused the right to
MARTIN PRODUCE, INC., to receive braceros
in paragraph 7, thereby substantiating the
claim that California Rural Legal Assistance
attempted to create the impression that MAR-
TIN PRODUCE, INC. was involved in the impor-
tation of braceros, thereby giving the
California Rural Legal Assistance jurisdiction.
Additionally, the California Rural Legal
Assistance in its agreement and complaint
attempted to create the impression that MAR-
TIN PRODUCE, INC. was paying less than
$1.60 per hour, the minimum hourly wage.
In point of fact, the California Rural Legal
Assistance fully well knew that the lowest
wage paid by MARTIN PRODUCE, INC. was $2.00
per hour, well above the minimum.
"c) Without informing any of the interested
growers associations or farmers throughout
the State, the California Rural Legal Assis-
tance proceeded to enter an agreement with
the United States Labor Department which set
out the rules for which the importation of
braceros could be effectuated. It is inter-
esting to note that under Paragraph 1 of the
agreement, an independent panel, consisting
(231)
of seven members, is established and that
the California Rural Legal Assistance
will appoint three of the seven members.
The wilful entrance of a settlement agree-
ment affecting parties not present is a
flagrant violation of the ethical stan-
dards of the legal profession and cannot
be tolerated.
"d) While the suit in the U.S. Federal Court
was pending, Mr. Robert Gnaizda, the CRLA
lawyer in charge of the Salinas office,
held a press conference which was televised
and in which he discussed the issues which
were to be decided by the Federal Court.
This conduct violates the canons of legal
ethics.
11
Mr. Moreno goes on to make other charges against
CRLA which are not material to this particular section
of the report. Mr. Moreno filed these charges with the
State Bar of California, and they took the incredible
position that they could not act on his Specification of
Charges because:
"Your original documented letter did not
specify which provision or which rule you
charge the attorney with having violated,
nor did it set forth facts from which
a provision or rule violation could be
ascertained.'
At this point, Mr. Moreno became so disgusted with the
entire proceedings, that he elected to not take any
further action. (Exhibit 16-0073-99 through 111.)
In an affidavit from Mr. Russell H. Green, Presi-
dent of Simi Winery, Mr. Green makes the following
reference to unethical publicity:
(232)
"Before we had any knowledge that a suit
was being filed against us, there was a
big press release in the Santa Rosa Press
Democrat that we were being sued for
firing domestic workers and replacing them
with wetbacks. Besides the bad publicity
we received, it has cost us $3700 to de-
fend ourselves in this action brought by
California Rural Legal Assistance."
One worker had been terminated because of absences
and intoxication on the job. (Exhibit 02-0121--Emphasis
added.)
On October 26, 1970, the State Bar of California
sent a letter to CRLA stating that they were approving
the refunding for 1971. In their letter, the Bar
stated that Governor Reagan would be advised of their
action. On the basis of the State Bar's letter, CRLA,
on October 27, 1970, issued a press release in which they
stated that the State Bar had taken an "unprecedented
action" in their approval of the CRLA refunding proposal.
The final perversion of the State Bar's rather innocuous
approval of funds for CRLA came when CRLA's news release
came out in the papers under the headline: "State Bar
Urges Reagan Okay of CRLA Budget." (Exhibit 14-0090.)
Another example of publicity-hounding by CRLA
comes to us from Judge Robert R. Stewart of the Guadalupe
Judicial District:
(233)
"
A particularly personal example of CRLA
becoming involved in a criminal matter con-
cerns a case of T. Cardoza. Mr. Cardoza
was found guilty, in 1968, of a traffic
violation and was fined $115. In September
1970, I received a telephone call from Mr.
Burton Fretz, chief attorney for CRLA.
Mr. Fretz inquired as to whether or not
Mr. Cardoza had been charged with drunk dri-
ving at the time of his arrest. I informed
Mr. Fretz that Mr. Cardoza had been charged
with drunk driving, however, this charge had
subsequently been reduced to reckless driving.
This was the substance of the telephone con-
versation between Mr. Fretz and myself. In
October 1970, I learned through a story re-
leased in the Santa Barbara press that CRLA
was attempting to have the decision against
Mr. Cardoza reversed because Mr. Cardoza
had not been informed of his constitutional
rights. The fact of the matter is that the
contention of CRLA is not correct. At the
time of his hearing, Mr. Cardoza had been
made aware, through an interpreter in this
court, what he was charged with and what his
constitutional rights were. I had not re-
leased this information concerning Mr. Cardo-
za to any newspaper and, therefore, I feel
the only way such information could have been
released would have been through the office
of CRLA. After I filed an answer to the writ
of habeas corpus, CRLA sought to have the case
removed from the court calendar, however,
this was blocked by the District Attorney of
Santa Maria and a hearing was set for Decem-
ber 2, 1970, but the matter is still pending.
I feel that CRLA attempted to remove this
matter from the court calendar after the news
had been released through the paper so that
I would be unable to clear myself in this
matter. I fully intend to pursue this matter
because I feel that the facts in the case will
prove that there was no wrongdoing on my
part." (Exhibit 02-0026--Emphasis added.)
These are but a few of the incidents of CRLA's
use of newspapers and publicity to create a public image
favorable to themselves and unfavorable to their adver-
(234)