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
118564842
label
Issue Papers - OEO Program [California Rural Legal Assistance] (1 of 2)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564842
contentType
document
title
Issue Papers - OEO Program [California Rural Legal Assistance] (1 of 2)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Issue Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118564842
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
54a5fc1163386662
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: Issue Papers - OEO Program
[California Rural Legal Assistance]
(1 of 2)
Box: P31
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
OEO- CRLA
State of California
file
YOUTH AND ADULT CORRECTIONS AGENCY
Memorandum
To:
Mike Deavers, Assistant Executive Secretary Date: October 4, 1967
Governor's Office
State Capitol
File No.:
Sacramento, California
Subject: Re. Comments on CRLA
From: Department of Corrections, Sacramento 95814
Following are some random comments for your use as per our phone
conversation this morning. As I told you most of my information
is via word-of-mouth and I would not advise use of such items
as in the E1 Macreado representation or how the Salinas CRLA of-
fice views their role without verification.
1. The position of CRLA in some Central California Counties. It
is common knowledge that CRLA is used as a vehicle to curb any
legal services programs initiated by local Bar Associations in
certain Central California counties. This is particularly true
in San Joaquin County and in Stanislaus County. In a discussion
with the Executive Director of the Legal Aid Society in San
Joaquin County it was pointed out to me that CRLA was to repre-
sent clients in the "southern half" of said county. I called
this same person today -- Mr. Walter A. Hastings -- and he men-
tioned to me that the Bar Association of San Joaquin County and
the Directors of the Legal Aid Society of San Joaquin County have
gone on record as opposing representation of San Joaquin residents
by the CRLA office in Modesto, Stanislaus County. This was to
be the office which represented clients in the southern half of
the county.
There has been no official notification from either Regional OEO
or from the CRLA organization in Modesto that this position by
the San Joaquin lawyers has been accepted. San Joaquin Legal
Aid and the Bar Association in the county were against such ar-
rangement from the beginning and are operating on the premise
that the San Joaquin Legal Aid Society is the duly constituted
representative of indigent clients throughout the county.
However, it evidently is a matter of formal record that CRLA
is recognized by the Regional office of Economic Opportunity as
the representative body for indigent clients in the southern
half of San Joaquin County.
In Stanislaus County the Regional Office of Economic Opportunity
approved a legal services program sponsored by the Stanislaus
County Bar Association and the Stanislaus Community Action
Commission with the restrictive condition that the program operate
only within the confines of the Modesto Airport district and the
city limits of Modesto. This condition was devised after the
Bar Association had cooperated in good faith in the preparation
GA 47 (42166)
Mike Deavers
October 4, 1967
Assistant Executive Secretary
Governor's Office
Page 2
of the legal services program and grant request. The conditions
limiting coverage of the program were imposed at the request of
the Community Action Commission's Executive Director, such re-
quest being made subsequent to the Bar Association's approval
of the program. This restrictive condition, in actuality, allows
the CRLA office in Stanislaus County to represent all other in-
digent clients not within the boundaries defined above. This
condition was objected to by the Bar Association and negotiations
are currently in process to resolve the conflict.
2. CRLA has evidently been used as a lever by community action
agencies to coerce local Bar Associations into accepting programs
which they feel are a compromise of their own principles. The
method by which this is done is that the local community action
agencies let the Bar associations know that, if they do not
accept a program which is agreeable to the community action
agencies they will find that the CRLA program is ready to come
into the county and be the legal service program for the county.
3. It can be fairly inferred from one of the conditions of the
CRLA grant that I have read that the CRLA program is to cease
operation in any county where a suitable alternative to it exists.
This same thought was conveyed to me by the Executive Attorney
of the CRLA office in Salinas, California when he pointed out in
conversation that he viewed the length of their operations as
being somewhere in the nature of a five-year duration. He felt
that after the five year period the Monterey County Bar Associa-
tion would be prepared to pick up the legal services program
and carry it forth from that time. The five-year period is an
arbitrary figure which he selected for conversation purposes
but it does point up the fact that some members of CRLA do not
view themselves as being a permanent legal services program.
I would say, however, that this philosophy does not seem to carry
across the board and, certainly, has not been made known by
actions or by words to other members of the Bar or to represen-
tatives of local action agencies or the public at large.
4. CRLA has just recently completed an agreement with the Cali-
fornia Bar Association which would seem to indicate that they
are going on the premise of being a permanent organization in
California. A copy of this agreement is attached.
5. I was told by James Lorenz, Executive Director of California
Rural Legal Assistance that his program has acted in a legal
capacity in behalf of E1 Macreado, the publication of the National
Farm Workers' organization. He expressed some dismay with the
activities of El Macreado in that it had printed numerous libelous
statements (to the tune of $30 million in libel suits) which evi-
dently CRLA was trying to extricate them from.
Mike Deavers
October 4, 1967
Assistant Executive Secretary
Page 3
Governor's Office
6. CRLA attorneys seem to become involved in other controversial
programs which don't necessarily involve law. As an example I
would cite the Vista volunteer program which was vetoed by the
Governor last summer. The Executive Director of that program --
a Miss
is a CRLA attorney of some notoriety.
Her principal purpose in this particular program was to involve
law students from out-of-state in a massive effort to re-write
and update the welfare rights program in Los Angeles County.
In our contact with her she was totally uncooperative and lacking
of any courtesies which one would ascribe to an attorney.
BOB WALTERS
Executive Officer
Board of Corrections
CRLA
file
Paul Beck
October 3. 1967
Governor's Statements
on CRLA
Ed Meese
In response to your request for suggested comments concerning
the California Rural Legal Assistance matter, the following infor-
mation is submitted. This applies particularly to the defense other
CRLA that "the poor should be entitled to legal representation,
even in disputes with the government."
We have no dispute with the general concept that the poor should
have access to legal services on a par with other citizens of the
community. However, to provide extensive legal resources to COX-
tain special interest groups (which include the so-called "poor")
to engage in essentially political matters gives such groups and
persons a great advantage over the average citizen and taxpayer.
This even becomes doubly unfair when it is financed at the expense
of the taxpayers.
The ordinary citizen does not have financial or legal resources
to launch a massive legal fight when a government agency takes
some action with which he does not agree, or which directly or
indirectly interferes with his own desires. To provide a battery
of attorneys, at public exepane, to attack the decisions of public
officials which are made on behalf of the majority of citizens,
is thus to give particular special groups an unfair advantage over
the rest of society.
In the very litigation being pressed by CRLA (Medi-Cal and supple-
mental farm labor) many citizens of average financial means have
opinions or objectives directly opposed to the position of CRLA.
Yet these citizens have no public or private legal resources to
effect their representation in this dispute.
The basis on which legal services for the poor was originally
developed and "sold" to the public was to provide the traditional
legal resources usually available to average citizens, 1.0. lawyers
to represent them in the resolution of private legal disputes and
to advise them on legal matters pertaining to themselves and their
families (such as property disputes, dévorces, accidental and
personal injury claims, etc.) The difficulty has developed when
the CRLA and similar organizations leave the realm of providing
legal services to individuals and engage in political activity
representing special interest groups. Often the legal actions
Paul Beck
-2-
October 3, 1967
brought are simply maneuver tactics used to harass the public
officials making the decisions, and to obtain leverage to force
policy changes. The legal action itself may be unsuccessful, or
actually dismissed, but the harassment has had its effect when
policy decisions are delayed or thwarted. If an ordinary citizen
were paying for such legal representation, his attorney would tell
him that his suit had little or no chance of success, and therefore
would advise him that such an action would not be fasilixx
economically feasible. However, when lawyers for CRLA and similar
programs are bankrolled by the government, they have no such
inhibitions. This again gives the special interest groups an
advantage over the ordinary citizen.
Another aspect of this problem is the ethical responsibility of
lawyers. Attorneys fax have an obligation, under the canons of
legal ethics, not to advertise, solicit clients, or encourage
others to maintain litigation. Clearly, there is a great temp-
tation for legal assistance lawyers, representing so-called
"class actions" to engage in such tactics -- indeed it is almost
necessary if they are going to engage in such quasi-political
activity. It is in this area that public officials, the State Bar,
and other leaders of the legal profession must develop standards
of professional conduct which will guide the "lawyers for the poor"
and bring their practices into line with the standards of dignity
and responsibility which have traditionally ERER characterized
the legal profession.
Edwin Meese III
EM:fr
CC: Bill Clark
OEO
William P. Clark, Jr.
Executive Secretary
file
January 16, 1968
Paul G. Zimmer
Deputy Director
State Office of Economic
Opportunity
RE: Modifications of proposed CRLA program made on the basis
of Governor's staff review:
1. Governor's recommendation: Program personnel, operations
and outside services should be reduced, etc.
OEO actions
a. eliminated 10 supportive staff personnel.
b. reduced operational expenses by approximately
$200,000.
2. Governor's recommendation: The Indian legal services
program is unrelated to CRLA operation.
OEO action: Allocation of funds to CRLA for Indian legal
assistance will be terminated in the event another pro-
gram of service is approved.
3. Governor's recommendation: The program shall provide
legal assistance to all eligible clients, etc.
OEO action: CRLA shall submit plan for allocation of
assistance, and method of determining caseload priorities.
4. Governor's recommendations Program shall adopt a reason-
able standard of financial eligibility and procedure of
verification.
OEO action: CRLA shall submit plan for incorporating
standards for marginal clients and procedure for veri-
fication of eligibility.
5. Governor's recommendation: Program shall not provide
legal assistance in cases of a fee generating nature.
OEO action: Program shall refer cases in which a fee
is provided for by statute, administrative regulation, or
William P. Clark, Jr.
-2-
January 16, 1968
contingency to a lawyers reference panel, etc.
6. Governor's recommendations Program shall not provide
representation in criminal matters.
OFO action: Program shall not provide assistance in
criminal matters, except in extraordinary circumstances,
where there has been consultation with the court, and
approval by Director of US OEO.
7. Governor's recommendation: Program shall not provide
legal assistance or involve themselves in any way with
union activities, etc.
OEO actions Program shall not provide assistance in
union collective bargaining, union negotiations, union
organizing or representation of union officials in
union matters.
PGZ:js
OEO- CRLA
RESOLUTION OF THE 1970 STANISLAUS COUNTY GRAND JURY
WHEREAS, as the result of its investigations during
its term of office, the 1970 Stanislaus County Grend Jury,
representing the conscience of the community, recognizes the
need for adequate legal assistance for the poor; and
WHEREAS, there is growing public concern that
California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. is not carrying out
its stated corporate purpose of providing adequate legal
assistance for the poor; and
WHEREAS, California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. has
refused to comply with the process of this Grand Jury in an
investigation of the corporate activities of California Rural
Legal Assistance, Inc. to determine whether it is providing
adequate legal assistance for the poor;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the 1970 Stanislaus
County Grand Jury hereby recommends to the Governor of the State
of California that he veto funding of the legal services program
of California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc.; and
BE IT FURTHER 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
the corporate activities of California Rural Legal Assistance,
Inc. ; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution
shall be forthwith transmitted to the Governor of the State of
California, to all Stanislaus County members of the State
Legislature, to the elected California representatives in Congress,
1
and to the federal officials having jurisdiction in this matter
for appropriate action consistent with this Resolution.
The foregoing Resolution was unanimously adopted, a
quorum of sixteen members being present, at a regular meeting
of the Grand Jury held on Wednesday, December 16, 1970, at
Modesto, California.
1970 STANISLAUS COUNTY GRAND JURY
Janes JAMES P. LIVINGSTON, Hiangston
Foreman
2
FOME ADDRESS
COMMITTEES
F. 0.5012227
ASRICULTURE, CHARRAN
REDUCTS. CALIFORNIA 06001
EDUCATION
(310) 241-3230
FINANCE
FRED W. MARLER, JR.
GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION
SACRAMENTO ADDRESS
TRANDPORTATION
STATE/CAPITOL
SECOND SENATORIAL DISTRICT
REDIA
(210) 443-3455
MICHAEL R. PROCT
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
COUNTIES:
FUTTE
COLUSA
GLENN
SHASTA
II a t P
SUTTER
TERAMA
YO:0
TUBA
SOLAND (DICON AREA)
December 18, 1970
Honorable Ronald R. Reagan
Governor of California
State Capitol
Sacramento, California
Dear Governor Reagan:
Since you will soon make a decision regarding continued funding
for certain federally financed legal organizations, including
California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., this letter is written
to respectfully ask that you decline to accept such funds.
I am convinced that this agency has fallon far short of its
objective; namely, to provide legal aid for those who cannot
afford it.
Naturally, during my years in the Legislature many constituents
have brought their problems to my attention or that of my staff.
Upon evaluation of these problems I realized that there was no
legislative or agency remody for many of then. These particular
constituents obviously needed an attorney and nany of them could
not afford one. Consequently they were referred to C.R.L.A.
This has been especially true in my district office in Yuba City.
My field representative there, Mr. Blaine Grahan, has informed
ne on nany occasions that he has referred such cases to the
Marysville office of C.R.L.A. and that these constituents have
returned to hin saying that C.R.L.A. would not accept then 2.S
clients even though they qualified for help insofar as financial
inability to pay was concerned.
At my direction Mr. Graham contacted Mr. Richard Turner of your
legal staff and has been supplying him with documented evidence
which serves to show that this organization is not providing
legal services for the poor per SC.
Governor Ronald P.. Reagan
December 18, 1970
Page 2
lie has also discussed this matter with Superior Court Judges,
members of the local Bar Association, District Attorneys,
County Welfare Directors and others and has found that nearly
all of then agree with his conclusion.
Rather C.R.L.A. is engaged in devoting 3 major part of its
time to so-called "class actions" and "landmark" cases.
For example, this organization brought suit against the Yuba
City Unified School District when that district sought to take
disciplinary action against three high school boys in connec-
tion with the length of their hair. It was later established
that at least one of these boy's parents had the means to re-
tain counsel but that the C.R.I.A. virtually insisted on acting
as counsel in the action.
This organization has also carried on a program of harassment
aimed at the Director of the Sutter County Social Welfare
Department. It is my understanding that word of this par-
ticular activity of C.R.L.A. has already reached your office
from other sources but it is true that the harasswent is con-
tinuing. Mr. Graham recently personally witnessed a C.R.L.A.-
led protest at the Sutter County food commodity distribution
building. An anonymous note was pushed through Mr. Grabam's
office mail slot alluding to the protest in a somewhat anbiguous
fashion. He found that newsmen and camera crews had already
been summoned in advance of the "protest" and that many of the
participants were not welfare recipients of this area but ap-
peared to have been imported for the occasion.
There is certainly 2 need for legal services for those who
cannot afford them but it is obvious to MO that this organi-
zation is not doing the job for which funds were provided.
Actually, C.R.L.A. 's activities have resulted in the taxpayer
financing lawsuits against hinself, a situation which I don't
believe should be allowed to continue.
It is my sincere hope that you will veto any further appropri-
ations for this extremely unfortunate flav in our federal
government's attempt to help the poor.
Sincerely,
FRED V. MARLER, JR.
11:bj
OFFICE OF
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
1100 EYE STREET - ROOM 300
MODESTO, CALIFORNIA
PHONE 524-1251
OUN
December 11, 1970
Mr. Lewis K. Uhler, Director
State Office of Economic Opportunity
Department of Human Resources Development
800 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, California
Dear Mr. Uhler:
Recently you sent a letter and a question-
naire to at least two members of our Board of
Supervisors asking their evaluation of the CRLA
program.
Rather than respond individually, they dis-
cussed the matter with their colleagues at a
regular Board meeting.
As a result of this discussion, our Super-
visors adopted a motion urging that the entire
program be abolished. A copy of their Board
order is enclosed.
Cordially,
George Gaekle
Chief Administrative Officer
GG:bd
Enclosure
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Date: December 1, 1970
IN RE:
URGING THAT CALIFORNIA RURAL
LEGAL ASSISTANCE BE ABOLISHED
WHEREAS, the Department of Human Resources, Office
of Economic Opportunity, has submitted a questionnaire
for the purpose of ovaluating the California Rural Legal
Assistance; and
WHEREAS, this Board of Supervisors desires to express
itself toward elimination of wasted money and manpower and
duplication of efforts of existing governmental agencies; and
Upon motion by Supervisor Franzen, seconded by Supervisor
Fahoy, it is ordered by majority vote of this Board (Supervisor
Vander Wall dissenting) that the Chief Administrative Officer
be, and hereby is, authorized and directed to draw a letter in the
place and stead of said questionnaire urging that the California
Rural Legal Assistance be abolished.
RECEIVED
1970
ALEXANDER M. VOLF
OFFICE OF
District Attorney
DEPUTIES
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
DONALD N. STAHE, Chis
JUNE WOOLIVER STAHL
JAMES J. MILAM
CHARLES J. PELUSO
RICHARD W. METER
Court House
EDWARD M. LACY JR.
P. O. Box 442
Modesto, California 95353
Tel. 524-1251
TERRY K. COLE
PAUL F. SHARP
3. AUGUSTUS ACCURSO
INVESTIGATORS
OUN
ROBERT C. HARRITY, Chi
CRIMINAL DIY.
December 14, 1970
PAUL S. MUNTAIN, Chief
FAMILY SUPPORT DIV.
RICHARD G. ESSELMAN
JEFF 1. ZAYA
DONALD H. RUSSELL
The Honorable Ronald Reagan
Governor of California
Sacramento, California
Re: California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc.
Dear Governor Reagan:
This is to request that you yeto any appropriation of funds
for California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. because of its present
operation. 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 on March 3, 1966. This request would not be made if CRLA
were truly serving the needs of the poor.
Although CRLA was incorporated pursuant to the General
Non-Profit Incorporation Law of the State of California, events
of the past month would appear to indicate otherwise. Specifically,
during the latter part of November, 1970, the Stanislaus County
Grand Jury voted to undertake an investigation of the operation
of CRLA. The local Directing Attorney of CRLA stated in the public
press that he welcomed such an investigation. It was only after
my office issued subpoenas to various officials of CRLA, including
a number of subpoenas duces tecum, as well as a subpoena duces
tecum issued to a Fresno bail bondsman, that CRLA claimed that it
vas immune from investigation by county grand juries by virtue of
the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.
On November 30, 1970, CRLA filed a complaint in the Federal
District Court for the Eastern District of California seeking a
restraining order against the Stanislaus County Grand Jury and me
from proceeding with any investigation of CRLA. In this action,
CRLA labeled itself "a federal legal services project". By virtue
of this descriptive 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
Ltr. to The Honorable Ronald Reagan
Re: California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc.
December 14, 1970
Page 2
or unknowingly, is financing groups to undermine the operation,
effectiveness and integrity of state and local governments.
I cannot believe that Congress or the President of the United
States ever intended such a result.
Very truly yours,
abander m.20dfe
ALEXANDER M. WOLFE
District Attorney
AMW/rb
Stamislans County Bar Association
P.D. BOX 855
MODESTO, DALIFORNIA
December 9, 1970
Mr. Lewis F. Uhler
Department of Human Resources Development
Office of Economic Opportunity
800 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Mr. Uhler:
It is the opinion of the Stanislaus County Bar
Association that California Rural Legal Assistance is not
adequately serving the needs of the poor, measured by the express
purposes for which it was originally funded. It is, therefore,
additionally the opinion of the Stanislaus County Bar Association
that operations of CRLA should not be continued on their present
basis.
I am authorized to say that this letter reflects
not only the opinion of the present officers and Executive
Committee of the Bar Association, but the opinions of the former
Presidents, whose names I am authorized to use:
Douglas M. Sutter
Cleveland J. Stockton
William R. Lundgren
J. Wilmar Jensen
Alexander M. Wolfe
Jared Hawkins
Lewis N. Hawkins
Elmer L. Winger
Carlos J. Badger
Ronald E. Bates
James P. Mower
Arthur R. Friedman
E. Dean Price
Very truly yours,
STANISLAUS COUNTY BAR
ASSOCIATION,
John W. Martin,
President
En
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
MEMBER NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES
"WESTERN CITY" OFFICIAL PUBLICATION
Sacramento 95814
1103 "0" Street
444-5790
Area Code 916
Berkeley 94705
Hotel Claremont
843-3083
Area Code 415
Los Angeles 90017
702 Hilton Center
624-4934
Area Code 213
OFFICERS
President:
CLIFFORD F. LOADER
Mayor, Delano
First Vice President
RAY D. PRUETER
Mayor, Fort Huenome
December 19, 1970
Second Vice President Treasurer
RONALD R. JAMES
Mayor, San Jose
The Honorable Ronald Reagan
Past President:
EDWIN W.WADE
Office of the Governor
Mayor. Long Beach
State Capitol
Executive Director and
General Counsel:
Sacramento, CA 95814
RICHARD CARPENTER
DIRECTORS
Dear Governor Reagan:
ALFRED A. AFFINITO
City Councilman, Pittsburg
After careful evaluation, I urge that
RICHARD COLEMAN
you VETO the funds for the California Rural Legal Assistance
Flanning Director, Pomona
program, known as CRLA.
FRANK CURRAN
Mayor, Son Diego
The damage done to Democratic Society
LEE H. DAVIES
far outweighs the service to poor people. A different way
Mayor, Modesto
of giving legal aid to the poor should be devised that is
G. SID GADSBY
Mayor, Salinas
free of activist political action.
ALLEN GRIMES
City Attorney. Deverly Hills
HAROLD M. HAYES
Mayor. Montelair
Respectfully yours,
JACK D. MALTESTER
Mayor, San Leandro
JAMES McCARTY
Director of Public Works, Oakland
MARTIN C. McDONNELL
Chief of Police, San Mateo
Dr. Clifford F. Loader, President
THOMAS J. MELLON
Cnief Administrative Officer,
League of California Cities,
San Francisco
Mayor, City of Delano
REGINALD E. MOORBY
Fire Cnief, Burlingame
MARGARET MOORE
City Clerk. Long Each
FRANCIS ?. PACELLI
Mayor Pro Tem. Daty City
HELEN PUTNAM
Mayor. Petaluma
EDWARD H. RADEMACHER
Mayor, Calipatria
JAMES SNAPP
Mayor, E1 Cajon
HERBERT A. SPURGIN
Mayor, Santa Monica
ALBERT J. TALKIN
City Councilman, Sacramento
JAY M. VER LEE
Director of Parks & Recreation
Oakland
H. DOUGLAS WELLER
City Manager, Atomeda
HOWARD H. WIEFELS
Mayor. Form Springs
ROBERT M. WILSON
Mayor, Costs New
SAM YORTY
Mayor. Los Angeles
Cable Address -- LEAGUECAL, Berkeley, U.S.A.
10854
MAR 101970
REPORT OF IMPERIAL COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON C.R.L.A.
It is the recommendation of this committee that the
Imperial County Bar Association withdraw its representative from
the C.R.L.A. Board of Directors and sever all official connection
between Imperial County Bar Association and C.R.L.A., and further,
that the Imperial County Bar Association urge the State Bar of
California to reconsider its position with respect to C.R.L.A.
toward the end of severing all official connection between the
State Bar of California and C.R.L.A.
The committee has studied and observed the
functioning of California Rural Legal Assistance. The committee
feels that C.R.L.A. as it is operated and staffed exists primarily
for the purpose of provoking social reform. The committee feels
that C.R.L.A. does not function as a law office which specializes
in what has become to be known as "poverty law", but rather, it
functions as a device for promoting special interest groups and
only operates as a law office because it has determined that this
is a convenient means to effectuate its ends.
When C.R.L.A. was originally formed with federal
financing, it was represented to the Imperial County Bar
Association by the then director, James Lorenz, that it would be
an organization which provided legal services for poor individuals
unable to hire their own attorneys. This is still its ostensible
purpose. However, a study of the manner in which C.R.L.A.
functions clearly shows that it is C.R.L.A. intention to
promote whatever social reforms it determines will be helpful to
the poor by means of legal actions. One needs only to read the
C.R.L.A.'s current funding request and its house organ, NOTICIERO,
to determine that its lawyers and other members of its staff
consider this to be C.R.L.A.'s prime function.
It is the feeling of this committee that the federal
government should not subsidize any particular salient social or
political activity. We believe that neither themselves, the
Imperial County Bar Association, nor the State Bar of California
should, by participating in the functioning of C.R.L.A., put a
stamp of approval on C.R.L.A.'s own particular concepts of social
reform. To use an analogy, one cannot quarrel with the right of
the A.C.L.U. to espouse particular political or social causes,
It is hoped, however, that no one would propose that the A. C.L.U.
should be subsidized by the federal government or sponsored by
the American Bar Association, the State Bar, or the Imperial
County Bar Association. It seems fairly obvious that A.C.L.U.
and C.R.L.A. are birds of a feather.
This committee feels also, judging by the practices
employed in this county, that some of the procedures and
techniques utilized by the C.R.L.A. practitioners are not
consistent with the commonly accepted canons of legal ethics
under which our private attorneys practice. We feel that this
is particularly so in the area of direct solicitation of litigation
where the same can be justified as a technique to effect social
reform. Further official sanction or sponsorship of C. R.L.A. by
the local Bar Association and by the State Bar would, in our
opinion, constitute an implied acquiesence and approval of
professional legal practices incompatible with our own canon of
legal ethics,
It is further the recommendation of this committee
that the County Bar Association once again take over the function
of the Lawyers Referral Service.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
WILLIAM E. LEHNHARDT, Chairman
ORLANDO B. FOOTE
RUSSELL H. YEAGER
DAVID BLUME
F. DOUGLAS MC DANIEL
-2-
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
OF IMPERIAL COUNTY, INC.
COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM
795 MAIN STREET
ile No. 10759
IL CENTRO, CALIFORNIA 92243
PHONE: 352-8521
352-0527
RECEIVED
From made
Date FEB 18 1970
February 16, 1970
Mr. James H. Carter, President
Imperial County Bar Association
Law Building, Suite 201
895 Broadway
El Centro, California 92243
Dear Mr. Carter:
,
1
At the last regular meeting of this Commission questions were
raised regarding the availability of legal services to the low-
income residents of Imperial County. It was pointed out that
the California Rural Legal Assistance office were now handling
very few domostic and individual cases so some other channels
have to be found. The Commission would like 30me information as
to what other channels are available at a cost relative to their
income.
I have been requested to contact the Bar Association and ask if it
would be possible to have a representative present at our next
regular Commission meeting to give us some information or guidence
on this question.
Our next meeting will be held at the Lion's Memorial Center in
Brawley on Thursday, March 1, 1970 at 7:30 p.m. Will you pleaso
inform this office if a representative can attend.
Sincerely yours
Cameron Hendry Handy
Executive Director
CH/mer
MINUTES OF IMPERIAL COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION MEETING
March 13, 1970
The meeting was called to order by President James Carter, at 12:30 p.m.
on March 13, 1970.
Guests introduced:
Two guests were introduced, the first being John Netterblad, from San Diego,
introduced by Russ Kirk, and Lawrence Sattinger, from San Diego, introduced
by David Dotson.
Report on Conference of Delegates.
President Carter reported that he and Franklin D. McDₐ niel and David
Dotson of the Imperial County Bar Association, attended the Conference of
Delegates meeting on the week-end of March 6th and 7th.
Mr. McDaniel reported that the conference of delegates considered
several resolutions and proposals including a possibility of establishment of a
client's security fund for reimbursement to clients of embezzled funds; group
legal practices in California; and appeals for scholarships for minority law
students. Mr. McDaniel further suggested that the local bar association con-
sider establishment of a scholarship for mexican-american law. student.
California Rural Legal Assistance:
Committee chairman William Lehnhardt reported that his committee had sub-
mitted a written report and recommendations to the Imperial County Bar As-
sociation, a copy of which report was mailed to each member of the Bar. Mr.
Lehnhardt offered several comments on the report including the fact that no
direct emphasis was to be placed on the local CRLA office. Mr. Lehnhardt
further stated that he would resign his position from the Board of Trustees of
California Rural Legal Assistance in the near future. Mr. Altshuler, of the
California Rural Legal Assistance office of El Centro then replied to Mr.
Lehnhardt's comments and Mr. Lehnhardt's committee report and suggested
that an in depth study be made of the issues raised by the committees report.
Mr. Charles Pinney moved that the Imperial County Bar Association
adopt the Lehnhardt committee report and the recommendations contained therein,
and that the Imperial County Bar Association pass a resolution withdrawing all
support of California Rural Legal Assistance, withdrawing its members from the
Board of Trustees, withdrawing the Lawyer's Reference Service from control of
California Rural Legal Assistance and restoring it's control to the Imperial County
Bar Association, that a copy of the resolution and recommendations be forwarded
to the State Bar and to the Board of Trustees at California Rural Legal Assistance.
This motion was seconded by Mr. T. J. Sands and after substantial discussion
the motion was passed.
Economic Opportunity Commission Request for services and guidance:
President Carter then read a letter from Cameron Hendry the local director of the
Economic Opportunity Commission. The letter stated in substance that the local
office of the California Rural Legal Assistance had not been handling all matters
concerning domestic relations cases of indigent clients and Mr. Hendry requested
that representative of the Imperial County Bar Association meet with the Economic
Opportunity Commission of Imperial County and render some guidance on the
question.
Mr. Charles Pinncy moved and Mr. Charles F. Sturdevant, Jr. seconded
a motion that President Carter appoint a representative to the Economic Opportunity
Commission meeting to render such requested guidance. President Carter stated to
the assembled meeting that he would appoint this representative at a later date and
inform this representative and the Economic Opportunity Commission of said
-1-
appointment by letter.
Medical Insurance:
Ron Lane informed the meeting that the Connecticut General Insurance
Company's medical plan had gone into effect on March 1, 1970, and not on
January 1, 1970, as originally planned.
Mr. Lane further informed the meeting that there were some claims
between January 1, 1970, and February 28, 1970, amounting to approximately
$300 to $400 and Mr. Lane suggested that the members of the medical insurance
plan each be assessed on a pro-rata basis to cover the claims for January and
February. Mr. William Byrd moved and Mr. McDaniel seconded that this plan
be adopted to direct the administrator to bill the members of the plan on a pro-
rata basis to pay these claims. After a short discussion the motion was passed.
Imperial County - San Diego County Bar Association Meeting:
Mr. Lou Plourd informed the group that the San Diego Bar Association meeting
with Imperial County would be held in Imperial County this year and after discus-
sion it was suggested that the first choice of dates be April 17, the second choice
to be April 24, and if neither of these dates is agreeable to the San Diego Bar
Association then to suggest that the meeting be held on May 8th or May 15th. It
was further suggested that a Golf Tournament be held in junction with the
meeting at the Imperial Valley Country Club and that the committee, composed of
Mr. Thomas Nassif, Mr. Charles Pinney and Mr. John Carter, be appointed to
set up plans for the Golf Tournament.
Adjournment:
The meeting was adjourned at 1:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted.
President
ATTEST:
Mr. Rane T. J. Sands, Secretary Pro-Tem
DIRECT ALL COMMUNICATIONS TO:
DERTRAM N. YOUNG
P.O. BOX 1309
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
SALIMAS, CALIFORNIA 93901
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
COUNTY OF MONTEREY
COURT HOUSE PHONE: 705-4020
SALINAS, CALIFORNIA 03901
December 8, 1970
PLEASE REFER TO:
Mr. Lewis K. Uhler, Director
Office of Economic Opportunity
State of California
Department of Human Resources Development
800 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, California 95814
Re: C. R. L. A.
Dear Mr. Uhler:
It is my recommendation that California Rural Legal Assistance
shall no longer be permitted to operate in Monterey County.
It has become 2. totally irresponsible and unrestrained opera-
tion of an agency funded by the Federal Government which has
interfered with and has harrassed County and State agencies
and departments with almost total abandonment of its original
concept to serve individual poor people in rural counties.
I have noticed with disgust and alarm its repeated activities
in criminal matters, the details of which are set forth in the
questionnaire sent to me and many other members of the Bar
sometime ago. My opinions are based not only on specific
matters but have come to my attention by general discussion
in past months with members of the local Bar and members of
my own staff who have sent indigent people to C.R.L.A. for
help in matters involving divorce, bankruptcy law, landlord
problems and problems with creditors. The almost uniform
reaction has been that those indigent persons are told by
C.R.L.A. in effect, "we do not have time for your individual
cases
The actions of this agency have been a 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.
- 2 --
Mr. Lewis K. Uhler
December 8, 1970
This agency has failed miserably to discharge its obligations
to the indigent rural people, has wasted hundreds of thousands
of dollars of our taxes, and has caused expensive and time-
consuming involvement of our local agencies in answering its
vicious attacks.
Very truly yours,
Bestram n. young
BERTRAM N. YOUNG
District Attorney
BNY/eb
SONOMA COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION
POST OFFICE BOX 1148
SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA 95402
December 23, 1970
Mr. Geoffrey L. Clark
Office of Economic Opportunity
800 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Mr. Clark:
Confirming our tel ephone conversation of December 21, 1970,
reporting an action of the Executive Board of the Sonoma
County Bar Association at their meeting on that date, the
following is the resolution adopted by the Board:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, he Sonoma County Bar Association filed its
application with the Office of Economic Opportunity for the
funding of a proposed legal assistance program for Sonoma
County in 1967, and
WHEREAS, the California Rural Legal Assistance corpor-
ation has been and still is funded by the Office of Economic
Opportunity for legal services to be rendered to the indigent
in Sonoma County, and
WHEREAS, this Board continues to believe that the legal
care type program proposed in its said 1967 application is
still the best type of program for the poor in Sonoma County,
IT IS RESOLVED that the Executive Board of Sonoma County
Bar Association re-affirms its position as set forth in said
1967 application for a legal assistance program in Sonoma County.
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the Sonoma County Bar Associa-
tion and/or the Legal Aid Foundation of Sonoma County can best
meet the needs of the poor in Sonoma County.
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that this Executive Board re-affirms
its position that local control by the Sonoma County Bar Asso-
ciation and/or the Legal Aid Foundation of Sonoma County can
best implement the indigent legal services program and provide
the most efficient utilization of Federal funds.
Page One
Mr. Geoffrey L. Clark
December 23, 1970
Page Two
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the Sonoma County Bar Asso-
ciation accept funding by the Office of Economic Opportunity
for indigent legal services in Sonoma County in place of the
California Rural Legal Assistance corporation.
I am enclosing a photocopy of our 1967 legal services appli-
cation, which was the result of a great deal of time and
effort on the part of several members of our Bar Association.
We studied the matter for several months and obtained approval
of the Sonoma County Community Action Council. We did not
obtain the approval of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors.
The Board of Supervisors refused to act on the ground that
some of its members feared the program would create a divorce
mill. It is doubted that the present Board of Supervisors
would take this position.
It is my personal position that the lawyers I have talked to
feel that the Santa Rosa California Rural Legal Assistance
office does not adequately service the existing needs of the
poor in every day situations which require legal help. We
obtained figures from the Santa Rosa California Rural Legal
Assistance office on their activities for 1970, and after
our Board studied them, we were unable to conclude that the
figures were meaningful.
The Resolution will be taken up at our January or February
Sonoma County Bar Association meeting for action by the entire
bar association. If we may be of any further assistance, please
advise.
Sincerely,
Newton Dal Paggette $
Newton Dal Poggetto
ND:jis
Encl.
1
AFFIDAVIT
?
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
)
SS
3
County of Santa Barbara)
4
1, JAMES W. HOULIHAN, being duly sworn, depose and say:
5
That ] am a duly appointed, sworn Deputy District Attorns
6
of the County of Santa Barbara, State of California; that prior tc
1/
being sworn in in this county on November 20, 1967, 1 was a legall
8
appointed, sworn in Deputy District Attorney of the County of
9
Tulare, State of California, from approximately the 1st day of
30
September, 1966, to November 20, 1967. Prior to that, I was a
11
legally appointed police officer of the City of Los Angeles, re-
32
tiring with the rank of Lt. of Police.
13
My first contact with the California Rural Legal Assis-
34
tance was with a Mr. Gary Bello in Visalia, California. Mr. Bello
15
actions were so obnoxious, demanding and showed such a lack of any
16
/
ethical standards that on at least one occasion he was ordered by
17
the Judge to leave his courtroom. During the period of time, he
18
or members of the staff of C.R.L.A. interfered with the prosecutic
19
of several criminal cases involving arrests made by the Visalia
20
Police Department.
21
In Santa Maria, Donald W. Haynes was the Senior Attorney
22
of C.R.L.A. During his tenure it was known by many of the other
23
attorneys in town that he did not have enough legal work to do.
24
However, in my official position, ] found that he actively defends
25
one, Michael Diaz, charged with the crime of contributing to the
26
delinquency of & minor (P.C. Sec. 27?), and appeared in court as
27
attorney of record for said Diaz. The case involved an 18 year
28
old bay committing Stat Rape on a 15 year old girl, and when the
29
girl's parents objected, members of the C.R.L.A.'s office took the
30
girl from her parents, taking her to Hexico and arranged for then
31
get married. (At least, this is what Mr. Haynes stated to the
32
Court). I seriously considered taking the case to the Grand Jury
1
1
charging Mr. Haynes and others with a felony. However, due to
is
evidentiary problems and the press of other felony matters, } did
3
not do SO,
4
Mr. Haynes, in the case of People V. Angel Dedesus
5
(another criminal case involving failure to provide for children),
6
did represent said defendant in court as his attorney. ] recall
7
several other cases involving Failure to Provide where Mr. Donald
8
Haynes did enter on the part of the defendant and, in one particu-
9
lar case, advised the defendant not to take blood tests.
10
In People V. Santiago Arguijo, (another criminal failure
II
to provide case), both Mr. Wolpert and Mr. Burton Fretz of the
12
C.R.L.A. have indicated that they were representing the defendant.
13
Currently, the Santa Barbara County District Attorney's
14
office is appearing on behalf of the People of the State of
15
California in a case brought by the C.R.L.A. on a Writ of Habeas
16
Corpus in the case of Tiburcio Cardoza V. Guadalupe Justice Court.
37
This is 2 criminal matter in which the C.R.L.A. is attempting to
18
have the Superior Court set aside a plea of guilty entered in 1968
19
by Mr. Cardoza. There was one interesting point in that the
20
Petitioner (Cardoza) claims not to be able to speak, read or write
21
English, yet the petition for the writ is in English. There was
22
no English to Spanish interpretation under oath. There were two
23
affidavits attached and the facts of each differ to a point that
24
1, as a non-Spanish reading person, could determine that there
25
were different facts stated in each of the three documents. This
26
is either ? case of perjury or clerical error.
27
During the recent lettuce strike, a Mr. Charles Farnswor
28
United Farn Workers attorney, came to town and did not have an
29
office. During his stay in town ] saw Mr. Farnsworth in constant
30
company with Mr. Fretz of C.R.I.A. In fact, on one occasion, Mr.
32.
Joseph Gallas, an attorney at law, informed me that if ] could
32
not find Mr. Farnsworth at the Union Hall he would probably lic at
1
the office of the C.R.L.A. as he was using their law library and
2
by innuendo, possibly their staff to do legal work. On one occa-
3
sion, after the arrest of Raul Santiago, UFWOC Union Labor Organi
/
zer, and two others for ittempted murder, Mr. Fretz was the first
5
attorney to appear for the UFWOC to interview and advise Mr.
6
Santiago and the other two arrestees at the Sheriff's Station.
7
In fact, he made at least two contacts with the defendants on the
8
particular day.
9
Since the conviction of Raul Santiago for a traffic OF-
10
fense in the Guadalupe Justice Court, Mr. Farnsworth and Mr. Frei
11
of the C.R.L.A have been filing many disqualifications against
12
Judge Stewart, causing undue hardship upon the court system. The
13
only grounds for asserting such disqualification is Judge Stewar
14
alleged lack of sympathy with the lettuce strike. Judge Stewart
15
in my mind, even though he is a lay Justice, is probably the most
16
respected and fair jurist in the County of Santa Barbara. The
17
people of Guadalupe would have no one else as their Judge. He i
38
continually striving to do an outstanding job.
19
It has been my experience that Mr. Haynes, as a member
20
of the C.R.L.A., would write false letters to the Editor of the
21
local paper containing falsehoods and made use of a "back-door"
22
policy in talking to Judges outside the presence of opposing
23
counsel. Mr. Fretz, in his appearances in court, has been very
24
poorly prepared and most arguments are based upon emotion and
25
a non-legal approach. His appearance and that of his associate
26
in the courts here create a very unfavorable feeling toward the
27
office. This is particularly true with regards to the long hai
28
of the associates and their carrying of purses.
29
When ] came to the City of Santa Maria, the C.R.L.A.
30
would not take any cases for a poor person unless it was a "cli
33.
action. For a long period of time, I have followed the approas
32
that when persons call our office for legal assistance ] would
I
refer them to C.R.L.A. On many occasions these people would call
2
back and state that C.R.L.A. would not help them. ) then informe
3
the person to go back to C.R.L.A. and get a rejection in writing
4
and inform C.R.L.A. that the purpose of this was to forward the
5
said rejection to their Congressman. In almost every case, at
6
least to my own knowledge, the case was taken and handled by C.R.
11
Apparently, they are now handling divorce actions, but
8
not until the party has first gone to private attorneys and gotte
9
rejections. This, of course, is in a geographical area where the
10
are few private attorneys. Consequently, it causes a hardship on
11
both the attorneys and the applicant. This referral procedure wa
12
not started until there had first been a movement started to fur-
13
nish these poor people the proper forms and printed instructions
14
so that they could proceed In Propria Personna. The Superior Cou
15
Judge has a very strong feeling about In Propria Personna repre-
16
sentation and it is believed this judicial pressure -is what cause
17
the C.R.L.A. to start accepting a limited number of cases.
18
1 do not believe that the poor of this community would
19
suffer if the C.R.L.A office was disbanded. However, as in any
20
community of this size, we should have some workable legal aid
is
21
for the poor, which is not the C.R.L.A., but rather a community
22
action program or whatever program existed in the City of Visalia.
23
Dated at Santa Maria, California, this 8th day of
24
December, 1970.
25
DAVID D. MINIER, District Attorney
County of Santa Barbara
26
27
By: James Healthar
James W. Houlihan
28
J. E. LEWIS, County Clerk
Deputy District Attorney
29
BY
Redigo
30
Deputy Chick
31
32
COUNTY OF MADERA, CALIFORNIA
MADERA COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER
200 WEST YOSEMITE AVENUE
ADMINISTRATIVE AND PERSONNEL OFFICE
MADERA. CALIFORNIA 23337
TELEPHONE: 074-4041
December 17, 1970
Lewis K. Uhler
Director
State of California
Office of Economic Opportunity
Department of Human Resources Development
800 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Mr. Unler:
Attached is the response of Supervisor John W. Schmitz Jr. to your inquiry
regarding the 1971 refunding proposal for the California Rural Legal Assis-
tance.
Also attached are copies of a letter dated November 12, 1968 which was
directed to your office and a copy of Resolution No. 68-1. Although these
documents are not current, the comments are still appropriate and reflect
the grave concern of the Madera County Board of Supervisors toward the
operation of the California Rural Legal Assistance program.
Sincerely,
Donald M. Handly
County Administrative Officer
DMH:1c
RESOLUTION NO.
68-1
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Madera County was hopeful
that the granting of E.O.A. funds to the California Rural Legal
Assistance would benefit in some way the poor and underprivileged that
may have escaped other governmental programs, and
WHEREAS, it did not raise its voice in opposition in the begin--
ning because this Board wished to give any legitimate and worthwhile
program an opportunity to demonstrate its benefits and efficiency,
and
WHEREAS, the California Rural Legal Assistance has been given
not only the opportunity to demonstrate, but it has wantonly and
viciously used its authority, money and ability to attack governmental
administration of schools, welfare and health, thus devoting taxpayer's
money to attack and harass local governmental administration with silly,
frivolous and absurd grievances without understanding or appreciation
of the individual's rights, or the rights of the public, or its counter-
part, the government, and
WHEREAS, the real need of the poor and the underprivileged is
to represent such persons with care and understanding in domestic,
contractual and tort litigation. However, the California Rural Legal
Assistance has turned some of these people away with the excuse of
being busy and unavailable for such representation, and
WHEREAS, the activities of the California Rural Legal Assist-
ance have been distorted and misguided with an arrogant disregard of
the desirable and benevolent assistance of the underprivileged; that
the underprivileged concept has been the excuse and the shield for the
extravagent expenditure of public funds for the devious objectives of
the California Rural Legal Assistance,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board does recommend
to the Governor of the State of California that he veto this E.O.A.
program until and unless some beneficial and truly helpful legal
assistance program is formulated.
-1-
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of a prior resolution in
connection with the lawsuit commenced by the California Rural Legal
Assistance against the Madera Unified School District is attached
hereto marked Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be
forwarded to The Honorable Ronald Reagan, Governor of the State of
California, Congressman B.D. Sisk, Senator Howard May and Assembly-
man Ernest Mobley, U. S. Senators George Murphy and Thomas H. Kuchel,
Congressman Harold T. "Bizz" Johnson, and Mr. Sargent Shriver.
The foregoing Resolution was adopted this 2nd day of January,
1968, by the following vote:
Supervisor Schmitz voted:
YES
Supervisor Balmat voted:
YES
Supervisor Thompson voted:
YES
Supervisor Neufeld voted:
YES
Supervisor Cornwell voted:
YES
HAROLD BALMAT
Chairman
Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
HANORA H. DWYER
(SEAL)
Clerk, Board of Supervisors
By UARDA PEZALLA
Deputy Clerk
The foregoing instrument is a true
and correct copy of the original on
file in this office.
Attest
January 4,
1968
HANORA H. DWYER
County Clerk and Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors in and for the County
of Maddra State of California.
By
Deputy
Superior Conti of California
Stanislans Comniy
Mobesto, California
WILLIAM ZEFF. JUDGE
December 23, 1970
California Office of Economic Opportunity
Sacramento, California
Attention: Mr. George Goff
Gentlemen:
I have been requested to comment with regard
to the activities and the operations of the local Calif-
ornia Rural Legal Assistance office, looking toward-an
evaluation to be made with regard to the legal services
which are being afforded to those who are unable to pay
for such services.
Since insufficient time has been allotted
for the purpose of making an in-depth study concerning
the matter, I am, of necessity, limited to a report of
the gross impressions of the activities of the local
C.R.L.A. office.
At the outset, it should be made unmistakably
clear that I have no quarrel with the premise that the
disadvantaged, the needy, the poor, and those for what-
ever reason who are unable to obtain legal services by
reason of lack of financial ability, are entitled to
have such services furnished at public expense, and
that such legal assistance should be capable, efficient
and competent.
A serious question is presented, however, as
to whether locally there has not been a duplication of
services, having regard for the fact that in civil matters,
services of the Stanislaus County Legal Assistance are
available, and in criminal matters, the office of the
Public Defender is available, and that in fact there are
other services which may overlap, but which are also
available to some affected segments of our community
when dealing with particular problems.
Contrary to policy statements and opinions
issued by C.R.L.A. and reiterated from time to time by
counsel for C.R.L.A., that it is not to become involved
California Office of
Page No. 2
Economic Cuportunity
December 23, 1970
in fee generating cases or cases in which the state is
obligated to furnish counsel, the fact is that C.R.L.A.
has, from time to time, persisted in becoming involved
in just such kinds of cases when, for reasons best
known to themselves, they decide that it is a proper
case to assume.
It has also been noted that in civil actions
instituted by the C.R.L.A. in behalf of one who has been
qualified to proceed in forma pauperis and having ob-
tained an order of the court waiving the usual costs in-
cident to such proceedings, there is no hesitancy to in-
cur expense for services which are not normally employed
even by privately financed litigants.
It has been noted also that the local office
almost uniformly assigns two lawyers to the presentation
of each case without regard to how simple the case may be.
In fact, I have on occasion asked of such counsel why it
was thought necessary to have two lawyers present in the
presentation of simple matters and when informed that
this was the policy, I have stated that as an interested
taxpayer, I regarded such policy as extravagant and a
waste of public funds.
The clear impression gained from observing
the activities of the local C.R.L.A. office is that its
primary concern appears to be with effecting social
change and the originally expressed purposes of assist-
ing the indigent have apparently been lost sight of.
Radical changes in the operating procedures
of the C.R.L.A. are necessary to correct the existing
situation if the originally expressed and noble objec-
tives of the C.R.I.A. are to be implemented.
Very truly yours,
WZ:r
William
Zew
William Zeff, Judge UU
OEO-
PB,
Sare
PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT OF REMARKS TO
3
THE SACRAMENTO PRESS CLUB, SACRAMENTO,
CALIF. February 4, 1971, BY CRUZ
most
REYNOSO, DIRECTOR OF CALIFORNIA RURAL
LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.
Let me backtrack to the Sacramento and Washington scene.
Just a quick thumbnail sketch. Back about October I got a call
from one of our attorneys in Santa Rosa who said "Look, there's
a fellow here from-we understand--from a friendly attorney, called
us from Lew Uhler's office and the lawyer said the guy is obviously
under an assignment to do a hatchet job on CRLA." I told him "Look
you must be mistaken. I met, about a year ago, with Ed Meese who
agreed that if any problems came up he would give me a call or I
would give him a call and I have had no calls from Ed." So we
didn't take it that seriously.
Then we started getting similar calls from our offices in
other parts of California and then finally, on about November 6 I
think it was, we got a copy of what is to us, by now, the famous
Lew Uhler questionnaire. This is a novel way of saying "Do the
lawyers do a good job for their clients?" Imagine the reaction of
John Sutro in San Francisco if all of a sudden 3,000 letters went
to San Francisco asking former clients and others how does this
leading law firm in San Franciso do for their clients? Do they
really do a fine job? What is the ethics of the lawyers?
You know, Lew Uhler saw a questionnaire as several questions
dealing with the ethics of lawyers and other questions dealing with
that sort of important matter in terms of how a lawyer does his job.
This is the first time in the history of the bar in this country
that I have ever heard of that happening. What you do is if a
lawyer doesn't do his job there is a complaint, the bar has a
committee that sets this out because you are dealing with serious
matters. Well, then we knew that if Lew was willing to use that
sort of tactic he was out to get CRLA and after that it became even
more bold in what we heard.
One of Lew Uhler's investigators went to our Madera office and
met with some of our attorneys there after being seen downtown Madera
with the local District Attorney who introduced Mr. Uhler's investigator
to our directing attorney by saying "Hi, this is so-and-so from the
Governor's Office. He is down here raking folks over the coals."
This is the sort of thing that we started hearing.
As Lew Uhler indicated in one of his press conferences -- I'm
a classmate of his -- you know I'm also a classmate of Ed Meese --
two of my colleagues saying "My gosh, Cruz, save us from your former
classmates." But anyway I called Lew -- this was about two weeks
before the veto -- and I wanted to see him. I came up, as well as
Dan Uevano (phonetic spelling) Chairman of our Board and we get with
Lew about two weeks before the veto. We said "Look we get all these
terrible phone calls and understand your people are all over asking
very prejudicial questions and if you have something you are unhappy
about tell us. And Lew said "Well, you know it is true we started
getting reports from our mailer and so on and we heard some good
things and some bad things but it is really too early for me to talk
- 2 -
about it because I have asked a young lawyer by the name of
Chickering to put this together and I am not really that
knowledgeable about it."
We said "Well, we really ought to know before you make
recommendations to the Governor." Lew said "You will have a
chance to get with Chickering and go over those things before
our report goes to the Govemor's Office."
It got to be Wednesday before the veto. The veto was on
Saturday night and I hand't heard from Lew, and by that time I
called Ed Meese and said "Ed, you know I hate to go over Lew's
head but I haven't heard from him. He said we would hear from
him and we are only to the last few days of our grant -- "What
do you know about this?" He said "I really don't get involved
in those things until the last minute when I get the report --
give Lew a call anyway."
So I called Lew a few days before Christmas. He answers
"Merry Christmas" and I said "Merry Christmas." Then we talked
for a few minutes. He said "You know we are writing a report and
getting together on it and I will be back to you" he said. This
was Wednesday. I didn't know at that time that his way of getting
back to me was to issue a press release on Saturday night saying
some unkind things about CRLA.
We went to Washington and saw from the very beginning that
the things Lew had put in there were "hogwash" and we knew that OEO
would know they were "hogwash." That's a polite American term
for other descriptive terms I could use for it.
For example, one of the 12 charges was that our lawyers in
Modesto had refused to accept service of process from the Stanislaus
Bar Association grand jury and you know that was one of his charges.
It looked terrible, what are our lawyers doing not accepting service
of process? He forgot to add a few details at that time that there
was a law action in federal court case here in Sacramento that a
federal judge had ruled that the grand jury had no jurisdiction over
a federally-funded program like ours and that we should not accept
service of process.
Now we also knew that we had called OEO when we got the service
of process and said "What do we do," It was their official position
that there was no jurisdiction. They had called the U.S. Attorney
who had appeared in court on our behalf and the judge had ruled
there was no jurisdiction so we knew that what Lew had put there,
the implications were completely untrue and we knew that OEO knew
that. So we said "We are really lucky to have Lew say he is a
lousy lawyer. We will go back to Washington and kill this guy as
a lawyer.
- 3 -
So we went back to Washington and saw that OEO was not about
to act on this and we really pressed them because our grant was
about to be gone and then at the Carlucci hearings later, in a
few days Carlucci announced that the Governor's veto was to be
sustained and no, he wasn't going to override the veto. It
seemed to me I had heard those words a few days ago. But he was
going to issue a 30-day grant while he investigated all these
charges and we were very unhappy about that because it seemed
to lend some credence to things we knew and they knew were false.
We really felt a little betrayed by OEO. So in 30 days they were
going to check it out.
Then we started hearing rumors that they thought they might
give us temporary funding and said "Look, get your inspectors out
and check those things out." They sent inspectors out here for
about three weeks. They had about a dozen or more inspectors
and checked these things out and the result I think I can summarize
in this way.
One of the fellows in OEO, and I won't mentionhis name -- I
would probably get in trouble if I did -- who was working on the
report came to me when they had spot finished the report about a
week before the 30 days were up and he said "What would really
happen if we got together with the Governor and went over his
charges and showed him our facts, there's just nothing to them,
what do you think would happen?" I said "Listen, he would say
'the details are wrong but the conclusions are right'. I think
that is exactly what would have happened and what did happen.
Eventually, I suppose you know from reports, we knew that OEO
concluded there was nothing to the charges with very minor exceptions.
That was the recommendation to the White House.
We have it on good authority that the White House had agreed
with them clear up to late Thursday or Friday sometime and something
happened in that period -- I really don't know what -- then the order
came down -- don't override the Governor's veto but try to save
with CRLA any way you can.
Then what happened was what normally happens in a crisis area.
Poor OEO they fell all over themselves, they got together and had
arguments at the office on whether or not who had written the press
release OEO finally issued, because they had just refunded us for
six months. It started out with the sentence "OEO today announced
it was not overriding the Governor's veto" and some people felt that
the Governor had written it for OEO. I didn't agree with that, I
felt that he had just helped them write it. At any rate, we had two
people in Washington. They were called up to the OEO office and were
given the press release that had been written already at the White House
They kept telling me "Cruz, don't worry you will be the first to know
when we make a decision. They were given the press release and our
guys say® "Is this a draft, is it negotiable?" And they said "Not one
word can be changed." So you see the orders were there.
- 4 -
Then a few minutes later they came down and OEO people gave
our people the Governor's press release before he had his press
conference. So really some great coordina tion took place there.
So then we were going to get money for six months. The
Governor held a press conference and said "Great victory." Then
Carlucci says "My gosh, we can!t let this go down as a great victory."
So then he issues in writing something called "Further answers to
the press" and says "No, it is not a phase-out grant of six months
and no, we are refunding CRLA at the 1971 level. No, it is not a
defeat for CRLA " Poor Carlucci just kept getting into more and
more trouble because they were trying to do the impossible. It
is only now that some of the people realize that the original grant
for CRLA for 1971 called for us to set up a back-up center so that
we can share our expertise with some 21 rural legal services programs
because OEO recognized that we had been so effective in serving the
poor. So they put that money in 1971 and now we are in the process --
we have the attorneys and so on -- of setting up this back-up center.
So with one hand they say well there might be something to the
Governor's charges, therefore only six months. With the other hand
they say CRLA is such a great program we are asking them to help
all these other legal services programs. So you know it is the
sort of thing that happens when people get tied up in their own
verbage and decision making that is completely political, that has
nothing to do with the history of the situation, has nothing to do
with the background, has nothing to do with the facts.
Poor Mr. Carlucci, I don't think his name will ever be sent up
to the Senate for confirmation in that job. I think he will go
back to the foreign service after his year of noble service for
the Nixon administration with OEO because he really has been a
yeoman. My sensibility of how you do a job is just this. I would
never allow my boss to make me appear to be a fool and a liar and
you know it's pretty tough. So Carlucci has been what a friend
of his called "a disciplined bureaucrat" and he should be rewarded
by a high position in foreign service when he leaves OEO. He is
really in a terrible spot and I really feel for him.
I am sorry I have gone on nearly half an hour. I am sure
you must have a few questions and I would be more than glad to
answer.
- 5 -
Q. Have you any idea what the high commission in Washington
will look like and what it will actually do?
A. No, we do not, but we can't have any more trust in Mr. Carlucci
and I am making a decision on the facts. We have trained counsel to
represent us at that hearing. Mr. Carlucci in one of his several
subsequent statements said he would follow the recommendation of
that body so he is out on record. So we have asked them, for goodness
sake, keept it public. We can't win this battle in smoke-filled
rooms. We don"t have the political moxy the Governor does. We
want this to be public hearing, we want everybody who has anything
to say about it to do it in public and do it here in California
where the clients and other poor people can come. But we have no
word in terms of who is going to be on that commission. Whether
or not CRLA is around after six months, federally funded, depends,
in my view, on that commission. If that commission is, in fact,
a high caliber independent commission and Carlucci does what he
says he will do to abide by that decision we will be around after
six months.
Q.
Will you be around more than six months without federal funding?
A. Well, let me say this. We feel that -- I have been in touch
with legal services lawyers throughout the country -- and we feel
we have to fight this battle on the basis of whether or not the
American people are going to continue the concept that poor people
are entitled to top legal representations with public funds.
Therefore, frankly I am confident that we will be around after
six months even without public funds but we are leaving any special
plans in abeyance because if this matter is handled correctly
CRLA will be around after six months and so will the whole concept
of legal services for the poor through public funding.
Q. I don't think that is the question -- what is the concept of
the way we are going to provide legal services -- I think the
question is are we going to do it in this fashion? I think that
is the crux of the problem.
A. The answer is that we really don't know, we just don't know,
because when the Nixon administration came in it issued brief
statements supporting legal services and the concept of legal
services for the poor. After about six months political problems
come up and it has been back-tracked. We are going to urge Congress
and it may be the Nixon administrations purpose also that a separate
corporation can be established like the Science Foundation or something
of that sort, that gets money from the federal government and then
it is run on a non-political basis. The National administration
may want that because it will get them away from the Reagans in
the world. You know they won't be able to put that press on them
and I hope that is their position because it is certainly ours.
We do not believe that OEO legal services as we have known them
in the last four years will survive in the future because decisions
are now being based on the politics of the White House and not on
the merits so that is what we are going for.
- 6 -
Q.
Who will the Board of Directors be on this program?
A. The ABA is working on the plan. I am not that well acquainted
with it except that I would have no objection to the people being
Presidential appointees so long as once they are there they know
it is their job to run that legal services program independently
and not give in to the political muscles that certain governors
might have
.
Q. Inaudible
A.
Our actions have never been politically motivated to bait the
administration. We have had many discussions about what might
happen to legal services when you get a guy like Governor Reagan
going after them. That's a lot of political muscle. The thing
that we could most do to survive is not file those cases. But
we have filed the cases because, frankly, they have been so clear
legally. Those cases we haven't lost and you can get the most
conservative judge, you show him a regulation and show him a
violation on that regulation and he is a judge, he has to decide
what is before him, so we have won those cases. Some cases are
more complicated obviously, but the cases that have made the
Governor unhappy have been cases that, legally speaking, were
legally clear, so we as lawyers, in good conscience, could not
turn them down.
Q.
Inaudible
A. Liberally oriented cases! My gosh, there have been cases that
have helped our clients who are poor people. By definition those
are liberally oriented. I have always thought that justice and things
like that were rather conservative. As a matter of fact, I have
always thought, and I talked to a man high in public office, a
Republican, in Sacramento, who said "I have argued within the
administration that you people really are in the greatest conservative
tradition. You are helping the little guys untie all that red tape
and when the Governor ignores the law and that little guy gets
swallowed up you are the people who have been able to fight back
in that old Republican and conservative tradition, and apparently
that is the theory that only holds water with this administration,"
he said and he is a member of the administration "only when
they are out of power. " You know we are really conservatives at heart.
- 7 -
Q. I have heard you refer to representing the poor in the
judiciary system. How do you justify sponsoring legislation
like SB 1061 and 1347, and having a registered lobbyist up
here in Sacramento?
A. When the office was set up, and let me say this, a year ago
we had an evaluation of CRLA. On that evaluation that is done
each year were two of Governor Reagan's people on it, including
the head of the OEO office at that time, Mr. James Deasy. They
commended our efforts for having the office here and said "If
there is going to be an input in terms of these regulations and
so on, Sacramento is precisely the place to do it. That's
exactly what poor people ought to do." This is the Governor's
representative speaking. That was over a year ago, he's got a
new head of OEO with a different background now but when we
went to OEO before that was eet up we also gave them a whole
packet of material -- opinions from the California Attorney-General
saying it is a lawyer's job to represent his client before
administrative agencies, before the court, or before the legislature.
A lot of important things happen in Sacramento that affect the
lives of poor people and lawyers have always had a role there and
we, as poverty lawyers, rightfully ought to have a role there
and I thought the Governor and his representatives had said
"ride on" until they changed their minds. That is the justification -
it is the lawyer's job.
Q. Do you think that the job of California lawyers involve CRLA?
A. Absolutely. We were endorsed by the California Bar Association
who approved "our grant. Because they haven't gotten involved in
a lot of this latter fray, but they passed and approved the grant.
Since then and since rumors started flying that the Governor
might veto it the Los Angeles Bar Association, the San Francisco
Bar Association, even the Visalia Assocation, the Sacramento Bar
Association, Santa Clara Bar Association, Beverly Hills Bar Association,
helped me and we have other bar associations composing -- or -let
me say, representing --- more than 50 percent of the lawyers in
California, endorsed CRLA and urged the Governor not to veto us.
They understand, I think, we are doing lawyers' work.
Q. Inaudible
- 8 -
A. We also had endorsements -- first of all the Santa Clara
Bar incorporates our Gilroy office. Secondly we have an office
going down there in Santa Maria and they endorsed our CRLA. Then
I could go straight down. Despite the best efforts from the Governor
and he was lobbying those lawyers. It was no accident that on a
certain, day the Marysville bar was considering anti-CRLA resolution
and that morning, magically, the Governor's representative dropped
by our office for a chat. That bar association defeated the anti-
CRLA resolution and every place where this has come up, with one
exception, anti-CRLA resolutions which were pushed by the Governor
were defeated and we had at least two or three pro-CRLA resolutions,
so that's the history of it. Incidentally, in Uhler's job he gets
$800, OOO from the state government to give technical assistance to
OEO grantees. We are no OEO grantee and I think we will call upon
Mr. Uhler to give us technical assistance because one of our jobs
is to explain to the layman what lawyers do and how they function
and Lew, as a lawyer, can give us some technical assistance along
those lines. But it is not his job to go out and sabotage programs
like ours. I think if he can't accept that job and do what he is
supposed to do he ought to quit.
Q. re OEO questionnaire (inaudible) How is it an agency who is
existing on public funds can consider itself above answerability?
A. We do not. I think everybody who is operating with public funds
is completely answerable in public but we have to keep in mind also
the relationship that a lawyer has to his client and I don't think we
can jeopardize that relationship. That's what we have to guard
against. I was in private practice most of my life and let me tell
you did a lot more things when I was in private practice than I
do as a CRLA lawyer. I am always doubly and triply careful working
as a CRLA lawyer. Anybody can file a complaint against us at any
time and OEO sends out inspectors. We have a yearly evaluation by
OEO. The state is involved in that evaluation or has been in the
past. This last one, you understand, was not an evaluation. We
also have our own board of directors controlled by lawyers and they
keep tabs on what we are doing. We have advisory committees by poor
people and let me tell you they are not at all reluctant to call me
and tell me when they are unhappy with our lawyers. We have 101
controls on our lawyers precisely because we have public funds and
we have always said that we welcome a legitimate investigation of
which we had about 12 in four years. We estimate that about $400,000
have been spent on investigating CRLA and we welcomed them but we
don't welcome a sabotage job like Lew's.
Q. This evaluation once a year -- actually it is a continuing one.
A. Yes. Why should I object to that questionnaire you are asking.
Because that questionnaire was not even an effort to evaluate, it
was a questionnaire that went into the relationship of a lawyer to
his client. It was a questionnaire that was loaded. It said who
are the CRLA people for? Are their cases politically motivated?
They used that term. It was an effort obviously to try to run down
anybody that felt against CRLA. If you are really going to do an
evaluation of an office and a lawyer that is a delicate sort of thing.
You do what I think OEO does - you send people out there. You check
it out pro and con. You go to the court and check out the cases.
- 9 -
Have they really been frivolous? You don't send out a public
questionnaire with loaded questions. As I told Lew that type of
leading question would never be accepted in court. You don't
question people's ethics, it seems to me, in that type of public
questionnaire. That is pretty tough stuff.
Q. Do you think a person sent out from Washington to run an
investigation can quickly determine better than someone who
lives in that area?
A. Absolutely not. They have staff people in San Francisco who
spent full time not only checking complaints but going to our offices
and so on. This is a continuing matter but you don't really do
an evaluation of whether a lawyer is really doing his job with
this type of questionnaire. Remember the National Legal Aid and
Defender Association, a lawyers'group, condemned that as unethical
conduct on Lew's part and Lew later, apparently in acknowledgement of
that, said nothing he had heard or gotten from those questionnaires
formed any basis of the recommendation for a veto.