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
118564782
label
CRLA - Study and Evaluation of CRLA by California OEO, 1971 (6 of 6)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564782
contentType
document
title
CRLA - Study and Evaluation of CRLA by California OEO, 1971 (6 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
118564782
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
8d7e1d1343a0ae3c
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 (6 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/
saries. A number of rural newspaper editors throughout
the State have told us that the local CRLA office is
in the habit of dropping off copies of all court filings
and releases on their proceedings.
(235)
VII. THE TWILIGHT ZONE
This category has been established for the purpose
of including certain conduct of CRLA which we cannot prop-
erly criticize as being proscribed but which, nevertheless,
causes us grave concern. This is a gray area. The inform-
ation set forth here should be weighed in this evaluation
but is not crucial or critical to its outcome.
A. Lobbying.
CRLA has an office in Sacramento. One of the Sac-
ramento staff attorneys is registered as a Lobbyist with
the State Legislature. It is abundantly clear that this
office not only generates new legislation, but lobbies
extensively on behalf of its own legislative programs and
those of others it considers appropriate. During the 1970
session of the Legislature, James F. Smith, CRLA Lobbyist,
successfully opposed certain amendments to the State Welfare
laws that would have reduced the cost of Welfare to the State.
Although lobbying is not specifically proscribed in the
CRLA grant or OEO legal guidelines, neither is it explicitly
authorized.
It is time that Congress and/or National OEO clari-
fies this area of activity. The lobbying question is a
very close bedfellow of the "suit against the government"
(236)
activity. Clearly it is time that policy decisions were
made regarding these activities. Obviously such suits
increase costs of government, sometimes dramatically when
the suits are successfully prosecuted. It is simply a ques-
tion of whether, on the one hand, tax dollars ought to pay
the salaries of attorneys to bring court actions that in-
crease costs of government, and on the other, lobby and en-
treat legislators not to rewrite or amend the laws to cut
down on these costs.
NOTE: The State Office of Economic Opportunity is
informed that prior to appointment of the current Director,
the Office issued a policy memorandum to CRLA indicating
its approval of CRLA's lobbying activities. As suggested above,
this office cannot continue to condone such activities.
B. Fee Generating Cases.
By virtue of a special condition to its grant, CRLA
is prohibited from accepting cases which generate fees, ex-
cept in very special cases:
"The grantee shall not provide legal assist-
ance in
representation in any case in
which a fee may be provided by statute or
administrative regulations, or in contingent
fee or similar cases in which competent pri-
vate counsel will provide representation be-
cause the case may generate a sufficient fee;
such case shall be referred to a local lawyer
panel, but in the event the lawyer referral
panel is unable to make satisfactory arrange-
ments for representation, such satisfactory
arrangements meaning that the prospective
(237)
client and a private attorney are able to
reach an agreement on representation, in such
case, the grantee may provide representation
"
(CRLA Grant, Special Condition 6b.)
Most fee-generating cases fall in the categories of
personal injury and workmen's compensation. Such cases are
easily and, presumably, regularly referred by CRLA to pri-
vate attorneys practicing in the various communities.
Nevertheless, CRLA regularly files civil actions which con-
tain prayers for substantial monetary damages. In most in-
stances it appears that CRLA has not first referred such
cases to other attorneys.
CRLA has filed suits claiming monetary damages in
the following kinds of cases, among others:
Police beating and false imprisonment - $125,000;
unlawful detention and violation of civil rights - $423,000
general and punitive damages; infliction of corporal punish-
ment upon a school child - $39,600 in general and punitive
damages; claim of illegal firing for union activity - over
$500,000 general and punitive damages; a false arrest and
police brutality case claiming $40,000 damages; a claim of
personal injuries in a counterclaim to an unlawful detainer
action - $20,000 damages; a personal injury action against
the City of Delano - claim of $100,000 general damages;
an action against the City of Delano and its Police Officers -
a claim of $11,000 in exemplary and general damages; a
(238)
charge of injuries sustained due to an unlawful dismissal by
the City of Delano - $5,000 damages. (Exhibits 16-0065, 71,
72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78.)
In filing these cases it appears to us that CRLA finds
itself on the horns of a dilemma: Either CRLA has simply
sidestepped the fee-generating prohibition and has proceeded
earnestly to secure just compensation for its clients; or these
cases are not, realistically speaking, capable of producing a
dollar result for the plaintiffs (i.e., there is no demon-
strable damage), in which event these cases must be deemed
little more than frivolous or harassing action.
This Office does not possess the capacity to determine
with precision the honesty and propriety of the damage claims
asserted and is, therefore, not in a position to judge on
which side of the dilemma's horns each case may fall. But
it seems clear that CRLA is put to an election here: Either
it has filed fee-generating cases (in which event it has
violated the terms of its grant), or CRLA has asserted claims
for damages without any realistic belief in its power to
collect same (in which event the claims would be spurious,
frivolous or harassing.)
C. In-Kind Contributions.
Each operational OEO grantee is required to obtain a
local share to augment the Federal dollars granted to the
(239)
program. In the case of CRLA, this local share must equal
20% of the total dollar value of the grant.
Traditionally, legal programs have provided the local
share through the medium of in-kind contributions, i.e.,
contributions of legal services from attorneys not affiliated
with CRLA but whose efforts are focused upon cases and mat-
ters being handled by CRLA for its clients.
Concern about the extent, nature and quality of in-
kind contributions to CRLA has arisen for the following
reasons:
1. It does not appear that attorneys located in the
CRLA operational area have given much, if any, contributions
of time to CRLA. (It would seem that the intent of the non-
Federal share requirement would be to obtain in-kind contrib-
utions throughout the CRLA office system, rather than ob-
taining same from urban areas.)
2. CRLA may have claimed as in-kind contribution
time of law students spent in researching articles for law
reviews and other publications. We have information that
leads us to believe that articles which have no demonstrable
relationship to the poor have been counted as in-kind con-
tributions. (Exhibit 05-0202.)
(240)
3. Attached is a local contribution agreement made
in favor of the South Alameda County Economic Opportunity
Agency and signed by Cruz Reynoso for in-kind contribution
of services (consultation - legal and economic) in the sum
of $3,000. The signature block would indicate that Mr.
Reynoso signed on behalf of California Rural Legal Assist-
ance, Inc., in which event it is clearly a disallowance for
the South Alameda County CAA. The contribution of this kind
could be allowable if Mr. Reynoso worked for the South
Alameda County CAP during hours in which he was not paid
by CRLA. At best this is very poor judgment by both par-
ties. When CRLA makes such an issue out of its lack of
staff, as it has in its refunding proposal, it is difficult
to see how anyone in its organization would have the time
to donate to other organizations.
Whether, in fact, CRLA was able to generate the total
non-Federal share required in the budget would need to be
completely audited to establish its authenticity. First,
the documentation would have to be audited, then there needs
to be an audit of whether those claiming contributions in
fact spent the time claimed doing CRLA work in their profes-
sional capacities.
The following hours were indicated as CRLA's non-
Federal share in their budget for 1970:
(241)
Attorneys
12,570
Psychologists
258
Teachers (Secondary)
1,390
Secretaries
3,670
Law Students
97,300
Typists
1,810
File Clerks
4,270
Investigators
6,540
(242)
VIII. COMMUNITY REACTION TO CRLA:
This section will serve to inform you of the mani-
fest concern demonstrated by responsible and vital parts
of the community served by CRLA. This section is included
so that we do not lose sight of the fact that local
communities are the most important ingredients of any
type of governmental program, particularly where OEO is
concerned. However, merely listing them would do in-
justice to them and would fail to relate them to the
spirit and intent of the Economic Opportunity Act and its
organizational structures.
The intent and spirit of the Economic Opportunity
Act of 1964, as reaffirmed by Congress in succeeding years,
was to mobilize every segment of a concerned community
towards the eradication of poverty. Thus, OEO is not only
a change-oriented agency developing creative solutions to
the problems of poverty but also is an integrating force
to solidify the drives of productive community action.
We must, therefore, look at comments regarding CRLA from
concerned citizens with respect to their responsible con-
cern for the intent and spirit of OEO programs as they are
manifested and realized in the actual workings of CRLA.
First, let us look at the reaction of several
county Bar associations that are coterminus with the
service areas of CRLA. OEO guidelines for legal services
(243)
programs in part state that one of the goals of any legal
service program is to:
"acquaint the whole practicing Bar with its
essential role in combatting poverty and pro-
vide the resources to meet the response of
lawyers to be involved in the war on poverty."
Thus, OEO mandates that its legal services programs not
only inform local bar associations of its activities but
will also actively integrate the good offices of said
attorneys in providing legal assistance to the poor.
However, there is room to question whether CRLA has
attempted -- and if it has whether or not it has succeed-
ed - to enlist the aid, or even gain support, of local
bar associations.
For example, a special committee of the Imperial
County Bar Association, in a report to its membership on
CRLA (see Exhibit 22-1001) summarizes its concems about
whether CRLA was in fact meeting the needs of the poor and
living up to the guidelines and codes of ethics; it states
that CRLA,
"functions as a device for promoting special in-
terest groups and only operates as a law office
because it has determined that it is a convenient
means to effectuate its ends."
The recommendation of the Special Committee was that the
Imperial County Bar Association:
"withdraw its representative from the CRLA board
of directors and sever all official connections
(244)
between the Imperial County Bar Association and
CRLA
"
The final statement of the Committee was that the
County Bar Association once again would take over the
function of the Lawyers Referral Services "to provide
legal services to the poor.' On March 13, 1970, said
report was adopted by the Imperial County Bar Association.
On December 9, 1970, the Stanislaus County Bar Association
stated that:
"California Rural Legal Assistance is not adequate-
ly serving the needs of the poor, measured by the
express purposes for which it was originally
funded.'
Furthermore, it stated that:
"it is the opinion of the Stanislaus County Bar
Association that operation of CRLA should not be
continued on their present basis." (Exhibit
22-1032.)
On or about December 21, 1970, the Executive Board
of Sonoma County Bar Association adopted a resolution
which in part stated that:
"the Sonoma County Bar Association and/or the
Legal Aid Foundation of Sonoma County can best
meet the needs of the poor in Sonoma County;"
it further stated that:
"this executive board reaffirms its position that
local control by the Sonoma County Bar Association
and/or the Legal Aid Foundation of Sonoma County
can best implement the indigent legal services pro-
gram and provide the most efficient utilization of
federal funds." (Exhibit 22-1034.)
(245)
Thus, the Sonoma County Bar Association reaffirmed
the previous two statements of County Bar Associations that
CRLA was not meeting the needs of the rural poor and that
local control could best provide these services.
On or about December 27, the State OEO received a
resolution from 23 members of the 50 member bar associa-
tion of Yuba and Sutter Counties recommending:
"to the Governor of the State of California he
veto the forthcoming refunding proposal of
California Rural Legal Assistance and VISTA, and
that a legal program operated, controlled, and
supervised by the Yuba-Sutter Bar Association be
established to provide legal aid for those persons
with inadequate means to otherwise obtain legal
assistance."
The unmistakable pattern that emerges from these
comments from Bar associations is that CRLA has not only
failed to integrate their efforts with the local bar but,
even more importantly, there are severe questions con-
cerning the quality and amount of legal assistance that
the poor are receiving from said organization. CRLA has
shown a latent hostility to the established legal pro-
fession because CRLA attorneys in many cases regard their
self-image as "movement lawyers." =
Another significant segment of the legal profession,
namely the district attorneys, also introduce serious
questions as to CRLA's capability to provide competent
legal services to the poor and to work harmoniously with
(246)
local legal groups. In a letter from the district attorney
of Monterey County, Mr. Bertram M. Young (Exhibit 22-1033),
the following comment about CRLA is made:
"The actions of this agency have been in gross
interference with and infringement upon the
authority of the Grand Jury of the County, the
Board of Supervisors of the County, and those
fields in which the office of the Attorney General
of California could, and would, act for complaints
within its authority. This agency has failed
miserably to discharge its obligations to the in-
digent rural poor, has wasted hundreds of thou-
sands of dollars of our taxes, and has caused
expensive and timeconsuming involvement of our
local agencies in answering its vicious attacks."
On December 14, 1970, the district attorney of
Stanislaus County, Mr. Alexander M. Wolfe, (Exhibit
22-1031) reinforced District Attorney Young's contention
that CRLA has little respect for locally-elected officials
and local control when commenting upon the actions of CRLA
to inhibit the Stanislaus County Grand Jury from investi-
gating it. He in part states:
"In this action, CRLA labeled itself a "federal
legal services project." By virtue of this de-
scriptive title, and having in mind the various
types of actions which CRLA has filed and the
course of conduct it has pursued, it would appear
that the federal government, knowingly or unknow-
ingly, is financing groups to undermine the opera-
tion, effectiveness and integrity of state and
local government. I cannot believe that Congress
or the President of the United States ever intended
such a result."
The apparent disrespect that CRLA manifests for
duly-elected local officials is again exhibited by the
(247)
remarks from the County Counsel of Monterey County,
William H. Stoffers (Exhibit 22-1014), when he states:
"I am convinced from what I know about this organi-
zation that with them it matters not so much who
their clients are (be they rich or poor), but
rather who the defendant is, (government, big busi-
ness, etc.). It may be that they feel that they
can best help the poor by knocking over the estab-
lishment."
Thus, one can legitimately question whether CRLA
is an integrating and essential ingredient for a legal
services program for the poor.
In an affidavit to our office dated December 8,
1970 by James W. Houlihan, Assistant District Attorney
for the County of Santa Barbara (Exhibit 22-1035), affirms
that CRLA is not an essential ingredient to a legal
services program for the poor when he states:
"I do not believe that the poor of this community
would suffer if the CRLA office was disbanded.
However, as in any community of this size, we
should have some workable legal aid for the poor,
which is not CRLA, but rather a community action
program or whatever program existed in the City
of Visalia."
From his comments we can see that several district
attorneys or their representatives do not feel that CRLA
is working in the best interest of the poor, nor is it
attempting to integrate and coordinate its actions with
local law professions and enforcement agencies.
Comments from jurists in the State of California
(248)
illustrate another severe problem with CRLA. This has to
do with the relationship between the intent and guidelines
of legal services, and specifically CRLA, vis-a-vis the
actual behavior that is manifested by said organization.
Judge Roy P. Schmidt of Hollister in a letter to our office
dated December 15, 1970, (Exhibit 22-1013) states in part:
"If the intended purposes are not ignored, then
this aid can be capable of doing a great deal of
good... If the CRLA's governing body would take
steps to eliminate certain philosophies, it would
accomplish what it originally intended - to give
legal assistance to those too poor to get help
elsewhere.
=
In a letter dated September 23, 1970, Superior
Court Judge Kenneth M. Eymann of Santa Rosa (Exhibit
22-1048), after criticizing CRLA attorneys for attempting
to gain constitutional precedent from every case, states:
"If CRLA were to help the poor and underprivileged
in their present rather than their long range prob-
lems, it would serve a great and needed purpose.
Reorientation of purpose must be accomplished if
their program is to be effective."
In an affidavit dated December 8, 1970, Judge
Richard C. Kirkpatrick of Santa Maria states:
"As an attorney, I have referred several clients
to California Rural Legal Assistance on domestic
relations cases. California Rural Legal Assistance
would not handle the cases referred to them within
a reasonable length of time or would not handle
the case at all even though the income level of
these people fell within the limits normally
handled by this organization."
Judge Kirkpatrick also noted that -
(249)
"Mr. Marper, another attorney for California
Rural Legal Assistance, has appeared before
me in connection with civil cases wherein
California Rural Legal Assistance was represent-
ing clients and from all indications, Mr. Morper
does not appear to have the legal ability to
try these cases in such areas as laying legal
foundations and direct and cross-examinations. 11
(Exhibit 22-1035)
These comments demonstrate that jurists themselves
have difficulty reconciling the actual behavior of CRLA
with the intent and actual guidelines for legal services
under OEO.
Rather than continue to cite letter after letter
expressing concern about the present organizational behavior
of CRLA vis-a-vis intent and guidelines of OEO legal ser-
vices, it is more beneficial to merely list the number of
concerns that have been manifested from a single illustrative
local community. Through this, we can demonstrate the level
of concern that exists from many legitimate sectors of the
community that not only should be concerned with CRLA
but should also have the ability to contribute significantly
to policy formation regarding the actual behaviour of CRLA.
For without such input it becomes clear that CRLA is not
functioning to bring about social change through the desires
of its local constitutents but rather is operating as a
federally funded program that has little local input. Let
us, therefore, take the case of Stanislaus County to
(250)
demonstrate the inherent problems of CRLA. On December 1, 1970
Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors (Exhibit 22-1030)
authorized the following resolution:
"That the chief administrative officer be,
and hereby is, authorized and directed to draw
a letter in the place and stead of said question-
naire urging that the California Rural Legal
Assistance be abolished."
On December 2, 1970, our office received a letter from
Bert C. Corona, Superintendent, Modesto City Schools (Exhibit
22-1017), in which he outlined ten specific complaints that
he had against CRLA. These complaints were summarized in
the following comments:
"In my judgment these men have shown their
commitment to violent and illegal means to
obtain designed social goals. They have
resorted to divisive community tactics and
attempted to pit group against group. Surely
the rights of the poor and their improved
welfare can be achieved through more civilized
means. 11
On December 9, 1970, our office received a letter from
the Stanislaus County Bar Association (Exhibit 22-1032) in
which the Stanislaus County Bar Association recommended
that CRLA "should not be continued on their present basis."
The reason for this was that the County Bar felt that CRLA
was not "adequately serving the needs of the poor" as
measured "by the express purposes for which it was originally
funded." On December 14, 1970 our office received correspondence
from the District Attorney of Stanislaus County, Alexander M.
Wolfe (Exhibit 22-1031), in which he requested that the
(251)
Governor not appropriate funds for CRLA. The reason for
this request is found in the following statement:
"It is the opinion of this office that CRLA
is not carrying out the purposes for which
it was intended as enumerated in its articles
of incorporation as filed with the Secretary
of State March 3, 1966. This request would
not be made if CRLA were truly serving the
needs of the poor. #
The remaining portion of this letter is a succinct expression
of the problems that legitimate governmental agencies have
in attempting to work with CRLA. On December 16, 1970 our
office received the resolution of the 1970 Stanislaus County
Grant Jury, (Exhibit 22-1021) which resolved "that the 1970
Stanislaus County Grand Jury hereby recommends to the
Governor of the State of California that he cause investigations
to be instituted and conducted by appropriate federal, state
and local agencies into corporate activities of California
Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. = and furthermore, it was
resolved "that the 1970 Stanislaus County Grant Jury hereby
recommends to the Governor of the State of California that
he veto funding for the legal services program of the California
Rural Legal Assistance, Inc." It should also be noted that
this resolution was unanimously adopted by a quorum of 16
members present at a regular meeting of the Grand Jury and
was not the result of a special event on their calendar.
(252)
It is also of significance that among members of the
Grand Jury were recognized spokesmen for the poor in
Stanislaus County, including the President of the local
chapter of the NAACP, and a prominent member of the
Mexican-American Community.
Numerous other instances of dissatisfaction with CRLA
on the part of the poor which CRLA was founded to serve might
be mentioned. For example, we have an affidavit from Mrs.
Peggy Joyce Ramirez, Modesto welfare recipient, dated
December 16, 1970 wherein she states that on two separate
occasions, separated by approximately three years, she was
unable to gain assistance from CRLA when she went to their
office asking for their help in divorce proceedings. In
both instances Mrs. Ramirez was told at the CRLA office
"we do not handle domestic cases." (Exhibit 04-0032) The
attorney who did eventually handle Mrs. Ramirez's case,
Mr. Thomas A. Lacey of Modesto, states in an affidavit dated
December 14, 1970 that in his opinion CRLA "will take any
case which has some publicity to it. They do not render
the kind of services that the poor need, although it would
certainly appear that they have ample time to handle these
kinds of matters." Mr. Lacey substantiates the last part of
this allegation by reference to a case wherein CRLA represent-
ed a tenant asking for a restraining order against her landlord,
Mr. Lacey's client. Mr. Lacey states:
(253)
"I do not condemn California Rural Legal
Assistance for pursuing the rights of the
tenant in this case. However, my condemnation
lies with the fact that they had two attorneys,
in addition to the trial attorney and an
investigator sit through almost the whole
trial."
The trial continued for three days. Mr. Lacey declares:
"It would seem to me that if they have time
to have that many attorneys tied up in a
landlord-tenant lawsuit, just listening to
the case and observing, they should have time
to handle needy clients in regard to domestic
matters." (Exhibit 04-0039)
This shortcoming on the part of CRLA is mentioned by
another attorney in Modesto, Mr. E. M. Azevedo, in a letter
dated December 15, 1970 wherein he states:
"I am particularly concerned about this when
I have numerous clients who come to me and
say that they are seeking our services for
which they cannot pay, in some instances,
because they have called CRLA and found that
it will be thirty, sixty, and sometimes
ninety days before they can even talk to a
lawyer in their offices. I wonder if a lot
of this delay is caused by the fact that
everybody in that office is in court some-
where representing one man." (Exhibit 22-
1015)
In another letter to our office, dated December 23,
1970, Judge William Zeff of Modesto (Exhibit 22-1037)
states:
"the clear impression gained from observing the
activities of the local CRLA office is that
its primary concern appears to be with effect-
ing social change and the original expressed
purposes of assisting the indigent have
(254)
apparently been lost signt of. Radical changes
in the operating procedures of the CRLA are
necessary to correct the existing situation
if the originally expressed and noble objectives
of CRLA are to be implemented."
The Stanislaus County Farm Bureau has strongly urged
the "discontinuance of funds to CRLA (as) they are clearly
in
violation of their legal sphere of activity." (Exhibit 22-
1062 and Exhibit 22-1063). The Growers Harvesting Committee
wired Governor Reagan on December 21, 1970, urging his veto
of CRLA refunding due to the fact that "CRLA has a record of
irresponsibility and has consistently concentrated on disruptive
and discriminatory activities." (Exhibit 22-1058)
The final illustration of discontent with CRLA in
Stanislaus County which we offer here is from the Director
of Social Services at the King-Kennedy Memorial Center of
the City of Modesto, who is also a member of the advisory
board of the Modesto Office of CRLA, Reverend Monroe Carter
Taylor. His criticism is aimed at misuse of CRLA funds by
CRLA attorneys. In one instance CRLA paid $400 for lunches
for demonstrators at the City School Office demonstration
scene. In another instance CRLA funds were used to help
finance a political campaign: Candidate for the State
Assembly, M. Lopez, told Reverend Taylor that:
"CRLA had made cash contributions to his
campaign fund and the CRLA office staff had
printed and reproduced
bumper stickers
and various other materials free of charge
to him. I later talked to a member of the
(255)
CRLA staff, who no longer is on the staff,
and found that what Mr. Lopez told me was
true. Apparently they had also printed up
bumper stickers advocating free lunches for
children during the Modesto City Schools
bond elections. I feel that the funds were
not properly used as there was a heavy case
load of poor clients who needed representation
while the two lawyers were off involved with
demonstrations and defending them in court."
Reverend Taylor concludes his testimony as follows:
"In fact it was during this period that I
telephoned
Governor Reagan's staff request-
ing an audit of CRLA books to determine how
the funds were actually being used." (Exhibit
10-0062)
The above illustration dramatically represents a cross
section of responsible and concerned citizens. Their criticisms
and recommendations concerning CRLA cannot be dismissed as
irrelevant and unconcerned
or to a man they reaffirm the
need for legal services to the poor and their willingness to
participate in such programs. These letters give credence to
the fact that CRLA has ignored the noble intent of the
Economic Opportunity Act and, further, has exploited
responsible and concerned citizens, be they poor or well-to-
do, for the realization of ideal states of affairs narrowly
conceived in radical political philosophies. CRLA has
exploited the poor by assuming that the needs and outlook
of the poor are homogeneous and thus fit nicely into sterile
and false political theories. They have exploited the poor
by producing legal services that are narrow and one-sided and
(256)
therefore CRLA only caters to those who desire to consume
such legal services. They have exploited poor citizens by
making them accept one mode of dealing with their problems;
radical confrontation with the so-called establishment, surely
a figment of demented psychologising. The poor have the
right, as citizens, to consume legal service (especially
when produced by public money) that is non-ideological and
flexible, and suited to the legitimate legal needs of the
individual concerned. Furthermore, the communities served
by CRLA also have the right to deal with the problems of the
poor, when manifested through legal channels, in a professional
and orderly manner. The above clearly indicates that these
options are neither available to the poor nor to the
communities in which CRLA operates. Thus, CRLA as a
community phenomena, essential and integrating, is fiction
rather than fact. It has not attempted to mobilize the
resources of the communities concerned into an integrated
effort to solve the problems of the poor, but has set out
to establish its own sense of community, thus often producing
a situation in which the responsible citizen has no choice
but either to remove himself because the personal costs have
become too high, or to respond in an unethical manner -
violently, as CRLA is prone to do.
(257)
IX.
CONCLUSION - THE CASE FOR AN ALTERNATIVE
We could simply let the case rest. We think the
information presented above speaks for itself. We were
concerned when we set out that in the short time available,
the results might be inconclusive. This is clearly not the
case: What has been surprising is the systematic and con-
clusive nature of the results. The very serious problems
of CRLA, many of which were eloquently recited in the
August 1970 Evaluation, follow a definite pattern, indica-
ting more than haphazard lapses.
We are convinced that mere recitation of CRLA's
problems would present an incomplete picture of the whole.
For a catalogue of problems, CRLA's August Evaluation is
a good primer. In the Introduction to this evaluation
we said that the August evaluation's major shortcoming
was its failure to consider that the problems they cited
have institutional roots. It is to the institutional
and structural provenance of CRLA's recurring problems
that we now turn.
The key is local control and home rule. These are
the essence of the New Federalism, to which the Nixon
Administration has given open support. The Economic Oppor-
tunity Act was enacted in large measure to supplement
what increasingly looked like a colonialist system, in
which social services for the disadvantaged were controlled
(258)
and administered far from the areas of impact. OEO em-
phasized communities, and in doing so, created the first
important innovation in social services since the New Deal.
CRLA's dominant institutional and structural failing
occurs because it was constituted at odds with OEO's pre-
vailing premise. CRLA has had the problems it has, sub-
stantially because its organization ignored the rest of
OEO's experience - which has demonstrated the value of
community participation and home rule.
In 1967, the State Bar of California entered into
an agreement with CRLA, in which the State Bar attempted
to increase community participation. The agreement laid
particular stress on including local bar members on CRLA's
local advisory boards.
Unfortunately, the local advisory boards exist more
in theory than in fact, however much CRLA attempts to give
the opposite impression. On at least one occasion, a local
advisory committee (in Marysville) wrote a letter to the
CRLA Central office, complaining about the remoteness of
control. Mr. Jose Luis Vasquez wrote to the Central Board
members as follows, in part:
"Like all of the areas served, Marysville has
seen several attorneys come and go. Our former
directing attorney, John Moulds, left in August.
At that time, we wanted J. V. Henry to take his
place. Cruz Reynoso came to Marysville and talked
to us. We told him our wishes at that time.
However, our wishes were not followed. Cruz
(259)
Reynoso appointed someone else. We have no quar-
rel with Ralph Abascal, who was appointed, but
that is not the point. CRLA makes a lot of pro-
paganda about 'institutions being responsive to
the people they are supposed to serve.' When it
comes to anything real, CRLA is just like wel-
fare or any other agency which they sue. The
important decisions are made by the San Francisco
office. They do not share our problem or try to
understand us.
"Each area where we have an office is different.
How can Central CRLA know what is best for the
people in Marysville or in El Centro?
"What we want isto be a real voice - not just
to have a suggestion box. We want to cooper-
ate with Central, but we want a real voice in
CRLA.' (Exhibit 09-0107)
The participation of local bar associations is non-
existent, despite the 1967 agreement. In the fall of 1970,
the State Bar sent out a questionnaire to the presidents
of all the state's county bar associations, asking about
their participation in CRLA's program. Some local bar
members asked at the time if the State Bar was kidding,
given their non-existent participation in CRLA's affairs.
The formal responses from local state bars indicate the
true levels of support. Among those bar associations
which did not go on affirmative record condemning CRLA,
we were unable to find a single case in which a local bar
association had actively assisted or participated in the
program.
These efforts to promote local control of CRLA
failed because the essential structure of the program
fails to give institutional support to local control.
(260)
The money comes from Washington, and the direction comes
jointly from Washington and from San Francisco. If a
local CRLA office cooperates with the local community and
bar, as has happened for short periods in several of the
CRLA offices personalities, not policy, are responsible.
But personalities willing to cooperate are relative rari-
ties among CRLA's attorneys, and the result has been the
chaos and hostility in every operational area.
The problem is not difficult to understand. The
people who become CRLA attorneys are rarely from the com-
munities they serve. They are often from big cities, often
from the East Coast, and equally often possess no appre-
ciation of, or sensitivity for, the communities they serve.
The problem is cultural. The colonialist comparison is
difficult to resist here, for there is a definite cultural
dislocation when an urban lawyer is placed in a small com-
munity like El Centro or Marysville. Speaking for the
CRLA lawyers, one participant in the August 1970 Evalua-
tion put it well when he referred to one of CRLA's service
areas as a "desolate and lonely spot."
No doubt many of CRLA's attorneys feel that way
about the areas they serve. And perhaps it is this atti-
tude that explains why a CRLA attorney in the El Centro of-
fice, when asked why he was doing the work he was doing,
replied in front of the three hundred people present,
(261)
"Where else can I make this kind of money
right out of law school?"
In some ways it is difficult to blame CRLA's attor-
neys for feeling cynical about what they are doing, and
about their motives for doing it. But the time has come
to blame the structure that puts them in such positions.
We have concluded that some of the incidents cited
must have taken place without the knowledge of management
in San Francisco. There is no other way to explain the
flagrancy involved in certain of the violations. But that
fact simply illustrates the extent to which CRLA is unman-
ageable. The only way to eliminate the most aggravated
violations of the grant conditions and other standards
is to put legal services under local control - as they
are everywhere else throughout the State.
The problem for the community is often acute.
Young urban lawyers come in, and perhaps assuming a
hostility against them that does not exist, proceed to
produce a genuine and legitimate hostility. The August
Evaluation recites the willingness of the communities
to assist CRLA, if only CRLA would let them:
=
One of the problems he mentioned, as
far as the CRLA staff was concerned, was they
were antagonized towards other members of
the Bar and that it created a lot of difficulty
when CRLA attorneys filed lawsuits or wanted
something from the local bar. The general
impression that I got was that the people in
positions of power, in Modesto, wanted CRLA
to cooperate with them in dealing with the
problems of the poor. Let the attorneys in
(262)
the community spot the issues and let them sit
down with the school board or members of the
government to see what can be done to alleviate
the problem of the poor rather than filing a
lawsuit." (p. 18.)
The problem of local bar cooperation is vital to
the operation of a successful legal service program. No
one seriously disputes that. It is in a spirit of coopera-
tion that problems are solved outside court. But in most
areas served by CRLA, either outright hostility exists
between CRLA and the local bar, or there is a complete
absence of relations between them.
From another service area the August Evaluation
recites the willingness of the local communities to
cooperate:
"I guess what came out of McFarland was for the
non-poverty community to say, 'I wish CRLA in
McFarland would work with us. If they are going
to sue us, fine. But I wish they'd work with
us and speak to us and research the problem,
not so much legally but factually before they
plunge into a suit.'" (p. 15.)
That the communities remain eager to cooperate
with CRLA emphasizes their commitment to legal services.
It is particularly surprising in view of CRLA attorneys'
conspicuous disinterest in any form of cooperation or
community participation. The contrast between the OEO
legal service program in, for example, Visalia, and CRLA
in almost every one of its service areas is incredible.
While the Visalia program has the full cooperation and
participation of the local bar, CRLA has at best arm's
(263)
length coolness, at worst outright hostility.
We were startled when we went out into these com-
munities and watched CRLA try to relate to the communities.
In most of its service areas, CRLA is the largest office
in town, with probably the only law firm Xerox machine.
In virtually every case, CRLA moved into town and began
making demands on everyone with whom they had any contact:
judges, the local district attorney, welfare department,
Farm Labor Bureau, and so on. Often they dress in blue
jeans, even in court, and sometimes without shoes.
There is no effective local control over the cases
they carry. Because they have no practical economic limi-
tations on the way they prosecute any particular suit,
they have unlimited opportunities to harass whenever they
choose, not only private defendants (or plaintiffs, as in
unlawful detainer actions), but public agencies. They
rarely ask; they usually demand. They typically become
involved in school activities, in which they encourage
high school students to prosecute legal claims based
on the constitutional right of a student to be immune
from reasonable school disciplinary procedures. In their
relations with children, often they act as if they were
above the law, indifferent to the wishes of the children's
parents, where the children may be useful to them in pur-
suing a "cause" they may think important. Usually it re-
lates to their general assault on authority and discipline.
(264)
In private litigation, CRLA attorneys do not con-
sider the economic limitations on their opponents. Any
one at any time can be their defendant, and they can (and
will) pursue their point without regard to economic re-
alities or the underlying merits of the case except as they
see it. As one attorney (the County Counsel of Monterey
County) put it,
"I am convinced from what I know about this
organization that with them it matters not
so much who their clients are (be they rich
or poor), but rather who the defendant is."
(Exhibit 22-1014)
In reality, they are the plaintiffs as well as the
attorneys, since they have no economic orother stake and
can therefore persist to incredible lengths. Their only
stakes are philosophical and psychological - which may
press for abandon rather than restraint where the "cause"
is right.
Everywhere we have gone, people express a real con-
cern for the legal needs of poor people and whether they
are being met. But people out in the communities, who
have actual contact with poor people, see their individual
needs as involving largely such things as domestic rela-
tions problems, debt adjustment, and non-litigation ser-
vice work, in which a poor person simply needs to have
the answer to a question. This notion does not deny the
legitimate place of the so-called "landmark" case, when
a legitimate opportunity to bring one arises.
(265)
People in the communities want to know why OEO, which
is supposed to help poor people "help themselves," is sub-
sidizing the kinds of suits that are cited throughout this
report? Why, in short, should OEO tolerate the prosecution
of suits that do not specifically help the poor, when there
are still many unmet needs they do need help solving? Why
should the public pay for suits that will benefit the rich
as much as the poor, if no rich person feels he can afford
to bring them? Why should we subsidize a standard of legal
services that even the rich cannot afford?
We may recall CRLA's suit against the eight cream-
eries for being deceptive in the dating of milk. Why should
the public subsidize a suit of that sort on behalf of the
poor (the net effect of which would be to increase the
price of milk), when no private person is willing to bring
the suit for himself?
Why does CRLA's suit against Standard Oil of California,
brought on the eve of the elections in the fall of 1970, to
enjoin that company from deceiving the public about the pol-
lution effects of its gas, help the poor "help themselves?"
If anyone is deceived, surely, it is the middle class,
whose interest in pollution might lead them to be deceived.
But why is it legitimate for CRLA to bring this suit, when
CRLA everywhere turns away individual poor people with in-
dividual problems.
(266)
Perhaps the cases most upsetting to the local com-
munities involved the long hair cases - which not only
disrupted school discipline procedures, but were often
brought on behalf of people who would not have qualified
under CRLA's eligibility guidelines. Is hair length the
missing link in problems of the poor, which if restored,
would make genuine independence a reality?
It is not enough in response simply to say, as
CRLA so often does, that creative change is bound to stir
some people up. Slogans are appropriate in some situations,
but not where tensions and hostilities and even race hatred
may result from them. The record is replete with situa-
tions where creative change was available without tension
and hostilities, but where CRLA chose the divisive route.
No suit was required to secure the safety of Miss Kathe
Fish at Gavilan College, because no action was threatened
against her. CRLA could have discovered that fact with a
telephone call. It choose confrontation instead. What
did it get besides fear and hostility in return?
No suit was necessary to determine whether the Santa
Maria Berry Farms were spraying dangerous pesticides. A
phone call would have done the job. Instead, CRLA lurched
into court, and once more got in return the fear and hos-
tility and tension any sensitive man knew would result.
Perhaps a suit against the Sutter County Welfare
Department was made possible by Mrs. Hubbard's severe
(267)
misfortune. Perhaps it was even the "best" case CRLA had
ever seen of that sort. But that fact would not seem to
justify CRLA's open exploitation of Mrs. Hubbard's mis-
fortune, so that they could get into court.
Perhaps the Modesto School District was wrong in
withdrawing from the National School Lunch Program, but
it is hard to see how their action could justify the sus-
pension of all other activities for at least two CRLA
attorneys for weeks while they organized demonstrations
at the school district, and then defended the people ar-
rested on account of them.
We have heard from many people sympathetic to CRLA
that the communities they serve ought not to feel the way
they do about certain things. These people say it is absurd
to be concerned that poverty lawyers wear no shoes in court.
But such statements miss the point about communities and
the reasons for home rule. Whether local communities are
right or wrong to feel as they do about the way CRLA law-
yers dress in court is irrelevant to the issue of community.
The fact is they do feel that way. The result is that such
behavior, while perhaps acceptable in abstract terms (or
somewhere else), in a rural community setting tends to
cause disruptions and tensions that were not there before.
The argument that barefooted or otherwise unkempt appear-
ances in court are necessary in order for poverty lawyers
to relate to the poor are disingenuous. The essence of a
(268)
lawyer's responsibility is to the legal system and to the
court, and appearance in court is a symbol of his acceptance
of that obligation. How a poverty lawyer behaves will very
much affect a poor person's level of respect for the legal
system. Poverty lawyers can dress anyway they like out-
side of court for purposes of relating, but what is appro-
priate out in a poor community is not in a courtroom.
The fundamental premise of OEO is that local people
should be able to make their own decisions, make their own
mistakes, and not have outsiders dictate to them what they
should or should notthink. If they feel the same kinship
with a barefooted poverty lawyer as they might with a tour-
ing Martian, that fact has important consequences for the
sense of community.
CRLA's impact on the poor themselves was the sub-
ject of our greatest concern throughout this evaluation.
For it is always the poor, who are often helpless to
speak for themselves. As we have seen so often, they are
always the ones who end up with nothing when vested in-
terests begin jockeying for position. The dangers of
exploitation are particularly acute where a social service
is involved (a) because the provider has the power to
withhold it where he sees fit, and (b) because the moral-
izing and pieties that inevitably accompany the service
make its true nature all the more difficult to expose.
(269)
Before we turn to the content of CRLA's exploitation
of both its clients and its constituency, it is important
to consider the rhetorical difficulties in trying to
penetrate the passion for "landmark," revolutionary law.
Many, if not most, lawyers might be tempted simply
to dismiss many of CRLA's tactics described in this report
as absurd, even surrealistic. For instance, the practice
of advising clients in criminal proceedings that every law
they are charged with violating is unconstitutional not
only does damage to the client by encouraging him to break
it (as, for instance, in the Modesto School Demonstrations),
but encourages people to think that no law is so solid that
it cannot be broken with impunity.
No intelligent lawyer would argue that the law ought
never to change. Every lawyer recognizes that a strong
constitution is one that can be invoked to protect rights
that are being violated. But these facts, which no lawyer
would dispute, do not eliminate a lawyer's fundamental
obligation to the legal system.
A lawyer whose entire mode of operation consists
of challenging the constitutionality of laws he dislikes
earns the strong suspicions of others concerning his own
feeling of obligation to the legal system. The Rules of
Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California are
very definite about a lawyer's obligation to law:
(270)
"A member of the State Bar shall not advise the
violation of any law. This rule shall not ap-
ply to advice, given in good faith, that a law
is invalid." (Rule 11. Emphasis added.)
The Canons of Professional Ethics of the American
Bar Association emphasize the point at greater length,
beginning with Canon 1:
"It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain to-
wards the Courts a respectful attitude, not
for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the
judicial office, but for the maintenance of
its supreme importance."
Beginning at Canon 30, the obligation becomes more explicit:
"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 in-
jure the opposite party.
His appearance in
Court should be deemed equivalent to an asser-
tion on his honor that in his opinion his
client's case is one proper for judicial deter-
mination. (Canon 30.)
And Canon 31:
"
The responsibility for advising as to
questionable transactions, for bringing ques-
tionable suits, for urging questionable defense,
is the lawyers reponsibility.
And lastly, Canon 32, on "The Lawyer's Duty in Its Last
Analysis:"
"No client, corporate or individual, however
powerful, nor any cause, civil or political,
however important, is to receive nor should
any lawyer render any service or advice in-
volving disloyalty to the law whose ministers
we are, or disrespect for the judicial office,
which we are bound to uphold
or decep-
tion or betrayal of the public. When rendering
any such improper service or advice, the law-
yer invites and merits stern and just condemn-
ation. Correspondingly, he advances the honor
of his profession and the best interests of
his client when he renders service or gives
(271)
advice tending to impress upon the client
and his undertaking exact compliance with
the strictest principles of moral law. He
must also observe and advise his client to
observe the statute law, though until a
statute shall have been construed and
interpreted by competent adjudication, he
is free and is entitled to advise as to its
validity and as to what he conscientiously
believes to be its just meaning and extent.
But above all a lawyer will find his highest
honor in a deserved reputation for fidelity
to private trust and to public duty, as an
honest man and as a patriotic and loyal
citizen." (Canon 32)
The essence of the sections quoted above is that
the lawyer's fundamental obligation is to the legal system.
Challenging laws for unconstitutionality does not mean a
lawyer feels no sense of obligation, but if he does nothing
else, a suspicion may rightfully arise.
Furthermore, revolutionary activity or sympathy are
clearly irreconcileable with that obligation to the legal
system. The revolutionary thrust challenges the validity
of the legal system, to which lawyers owe their deepest
obligation.
The activities of CRLA, not only in the explicit
revolutionary associations of some of its lawyers, and
in the overall ideological thrust of their program, call
into serious question the depth of their commitment to our
legal system. This happens at a time when some people
especially in the media are suggesting that the causes of
certain people ought to put them above the law. Such talk
(272)
is straight from the pages of authoritarian and fascist
manuals.
Everywhere we have gone people in the local bar and
bench have expressed concern about CRLA's "cause" orienta-
tion, about its using the legal system for ideological pur-
poses. Many of these same people are concerned and con-
vinced that the behavior of CRLA attorneys is debasing their
profession. The question goes back to presumptions: what
does CRLA's general orientation suggest about its sense of
obligation to the legal system?
The question of legal service programs and "land-
mark" law raises an economic question which limitations of
space and time make it impossible to do more than mention.
As a question of resource allocation, we must ask the
question: what kinds of legal services ought the public
to subsidize, and in what amounts? The record is filled
with examples of individual CRLA attorneys claiming that
they are doing something that would otherwise be a vio-
lation of CRLA's grant "on their own time." There is
hardly any question that many young lawyers, particularly
those who become poverty lawyers, have a passion for making
new law. A whole new area of poverty law has arisen in
the past few years, and it is practiced not only by peo-
ple in government-subsidized programs, but also private
practitioners, who were formerly associated with OEO
programs.
(273)
There is no scarcity of people wanting to practice
"landmark" law. What is in short supply are people willing
to do the tedious, boring legal service work, which never
produces a single headline, but which is vitally important
to millions of individual poor people with individual
legal problems.
That we are spending as much as we are to subsidize
that which is already in abundant supply, while neglecting
the needs of individual people with individual problems,
is perverse. The story of CRLA (as well as all legal ser-
vice programs) has an economic dimension, therefore, which
deserves the closer attention of officials in Washington.
As we review this entire evaluation, and try to
extract from it the essence of CRLA's activities, we find
a surprising coherence in its direction. Its program is
undisturbed by ambiguity. The essence of CRLA's direction
is a passion to wage ideological warfare, with the poor
as ammunition. The result is to force upon the poor a
form of exploitation that is in some ways worse and more
enervating than any other.
The dominant thrust of CRLA's activities is ideo-
logical. Its causes betray complete indifference to the
impact on individual poor people. As this report shows,
time and again when they have had opportunities to settle
cases out of court or solve a problem at a low level of
controversy, they chose escalation. The result was always
(274)
to stir dissension, fear and division in the communities
they are supposed to be serving.
They have exploited the poor in several ways. First,
giving high visibility to a cause in which exploitation is
alleged but is not a reality, tends to encourage the poor
to feel exploited and impotent. The result is to encourage
the poor to think they have less control over their own lives
than is in fact the case.
Second, in supporting organizations like UFWOC and
in their lobbying activities, CRLA chooses one group of
poor people over another. In refusing to give Mrs. Mariano
service when she was sued by UFWOC for interrupting their
organizing activities, they withheld service from the
poor person who precisely needs it most. These are the
poorest of the poor, for these are the people who will
have no job when the union succeeds in getting the growers
to automate. Without jobs, there is only despair for these
people. CRLA, which is supposed to deliver service to the
poor impartially, has chosen sides - and made it impossible
for one group of poor people to get any service at all.
Lastly, the effects of CRLA's presence is to dis-
courage the introduction of an alternative legal service
program that would deliver to the poor the services that
CRLA was set up to deliver.
In material terms, CRLA has pursued many causes which
will and have increased costs for the poor. We have men-
(275)
tioned their union activity, which discriminates against
some on behalf of others. The suit against the creameries
for deceptive marking of milk, if successful, will raise
the price of milk. Their prosecuting defenses in unlawful
detainer actions, and even soliciting and encouraging the
defense of these actions, has increased the costs of being
a landlord, and therefore the costs of housing to the poor.
Now a landlord must take into consideration the possibility
of being forced to prosecute a suit in order to dislodge
a tenant who refuses to pay his bill. The result is re-
corded in a letter written by the President of the Apart-
ment and Motel Association:
"We would have no objection to their (i.e.,
poverty lawyers) representing an indigent
tenant if there were a substantial grievance
involved, but most of the actions we have
seen have been attempts to delay the normal
eviction procedures by vague constitutional
arguments where the tenant has not paid
rent or has failed to move after receiving
an adequate legal notice to do so.
"As a result, our members are more and more
turning away from the acceptance of Welfare
Tenants because of the potential hazard of
fighting the United States Government with
no hope of recovery in a monetary sense
and the very real possibility of being un-
able to regain possession except at exhor-
bitant costs or excessive delay." (Exhibit
22-1071. Emphasis added.)
In the course of the evaluation, we had to face
the question whether the task of building quality legal
services for the rural poor was best served (a) by trying
to bring about a sweeping reform of CRLA, or (b) by re-
(276)
commending that the Governor veto the program with
an eye to building an alternative.
The facts demanded a veto for several reasons.
First, throughout its stormy history, CRLA has been re-
galed by criticism from many quarters throughout the state,
but has never demonstrated believable interest in anything
more than cosmetic changes. Unlike the August 1970 Eval-
uation rather even than admit that they had serious pro-
blems, CRLA tends to dismiss charges of wrong-doing, and
commends its attorneys for giving their free time, which
they seem to possess in unlimited amounts. CRLA's union
involvement has gotten successively worse over its four years
and this year it appeared they discarded even the crudest
efforts to camalflage it.
Second, our commitment to the fundamental premise of
OEO, with its emphasis on communitiesand home rule, and to
the President's New Federalism, made us recognize the ex-
tent to which CRLA's recurring problems are structural and
institutional. We have come to be convinced that the kinds
of people who tend to become poverty lawyers tend to aggra-
vate the problems cited herein. But without local control
the aggravation becomes intolerable both for the communities
and for the poor. Having concluded that the structure is
largely to blame for CRLA's problems, we determined our
best course was to avoid the previous cosmetic reform efforts
and to the organic change that we are convinced is necessary
(277)
if the poor are to get adequate legal service.
A number of important issues are at stake in the
Governor's veto of CRLA.
(1) The first question is whether OEO is going
to respect the legislative intent clearly underlying Sec-
tion 242 of the Economic Opportunity Act. That section
requires that in order to overturn a Governor's veto,
the Director of OEO must make an affirmative finding that
the program is "fully consistent with the provisions and
in furtherance of the purposes of this title".
We think the evidence presented herein represents
the most complete possible indictment of any program -
both from the standpoint of the poor and of the communities
in which the program serves. The readiness of OEO to res-
pond to the Governor's veto in this situation will indi-
cate a great deal about OEO's attitude toward Section 242.
Unfortunately, to our knowledge, that section has never
been tested judicially. At some point in the future, such
a test will no doubt take place. But in the meantime, we
can only hope on behalf of all the constituencies adversely
affected that the Director sustains the Governor's veto in
this instance.
(2) A second question goes to the question of
Home Rule and the New Federalism. The Nixon Administration
has gone on official record for its devotion to these prin-
ciples, long at the heart of the OEO concept. CRLA is
(278)
presently organized in direct contravention of those prin-
ciples with control far from the areas of operation.
(3) Thirdly, who is going to stand up for
people in rural America and grant to them the same rights
of local control that have long been taken for granted in
the cities? Big cities are never afflicted with OEO Legal
Service programs administered from rural areas, far away
from them, and we think people in rural areas should be
granted equal protection in this regard.
(279)
X.
RECOMMENDATION
The State Office of Economic Opportunity recommends
that California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., funding for
year 1971 be disapproved, pursuant to the Governor's author-
ity under Section 242 of the Economic Opportunity Act of
1964, as amended.
(280)
XI.
ALTERNATIVE PLAN - PRIVATELY FINANCED LEGAL SERVICES
FOR THE RURAL POOR
This Administration's deep concern for meeting the
legitimate civil legal needs of indigents has prompted us
to devise a privately financed alternative to CRLA which
holds enormous promise for truly serving the rural poor.
In the process of the in-depth analysis of CRLA, we have
gained new insight into the legal needs of the poor, which
has provided us with the kind of background necessary to
design the best possible legal system for the poor. In the
comprehension of CRLA's failure, we stand on the brink of a
major breakthrough in privately financed legal services for
the poor, which will insure not only local responsiveness,
but the mobilization and support of the entire community
behind the legitimate legal needs of the poor.
Our program constitutes much more than simply sub-
stituting private dollars for Federal dollars. We intend
to create variations in the structure of each office,
through which we can determine the most effective way, as
well as the most efficient way, to meet the legitimate legal
service needs of the poor. The variations will include,
but not necessarily be limited to, the following schema.
(It should be noted that in each case the local bar asso-
ciation will be the grantee of the funds, will control the
program, and will participate fully and completely in the
(281)
design of the program for its particular area.)
(a) We will utilize the employed attorney and the
judicare concepts in different areas. (We recognize that
judicare has been rather costly where tried in demonstration
programs to date. We hope that the application of certain
standards, listed below, will assure that the program is
not abused nor excessively costly.)
(b) We intend to insert into the program in the var-
ious areas variations such as: (1) fixed level eligibility
standards for the poor; (2) sliding scale eligibility stand-
ards for the poor (the client pays part of the legal cost
based on income level) ; (3) variations on fee schedules in
judicare; (4) a requirement that attorneys interested in
taking advantage of judicare and participating in the pro-
gram must first contribute a set number of hours free of
charge to poor clients to qualify for participation.
With respect to judicare, our hope is to utilize ex-
isting bar resources more effectively, to ration scarce
legal resources by adding some cost to their utilization
so that at all times there is some barrier to abuse or
misuse of such resources. In suggesting a requirement that
attorneys contribute some time before qualifying to parti-
cipate in judicare, we seek to identify those attorneys who
are wholeheartedly, rather than just marginally, interested
in assisting the poor with their legal needs.
(282)
We are excited by the opportunity to develop, study and
evaluate legal services programs containing these variations.
Once the design is established for the program in the
various counties to be served, we will provide you with more
details on design features county-by-county.
(283)