Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564772",
    "label": "CRLA - Study and Evaluation of CRLA by California OEO, 1971 (1 of 6)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564772"
}

{
    "id": "118564772",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564772",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "CRLA - Study and Evaluation of CRLA by California OEO, 1971 (1 of 6)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564772",
    "identifierLocal": "840",
    "collections": [
        "Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit",
        "California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408627/40-840-7408627-P29-013-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408627/40-840-7408627-P29-013-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408627/40-840-7408627-P29-013-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564772",
    "naId": 118564772,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-12-31",
        "year": 1975
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1967-01-01",
        "year": 1967
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408627/40-840-7408627-P29-013-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "f79a5a3819905d1d",
    "ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.\nCollection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,\n1966-74: Press Unit\nFolder Title: CRLA - Study and Evaluation of CRLA\nby California OEO, 1971 (1 of 6)\nBox: P29\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at: [email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\nNational Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/\nA STUDY AND EVALUATION\nOF\nCALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL\nASSISTANCE, INC.\nBY\nCALIFORNIA OFFICE OF ECONOMIC\nOPPORTUNITY\n1971\nLEWIS K. UHLER\nDIRECTOR\nA STUDY AND EVALUATION\nOF\nCALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.\nBY\nCALIFORNIA OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY\nTable of Contents\nPage\nI.\nINTRODUCTION\n1\nII.\nCONDUCT OF THE EVALUATION\nA. General Background\n2\nB. Problems of Evaluation\n2\nC. Gathering the Facts\n11\nD. Weighing Evidence\n12\nE. Other Evaluations\n13\nF. Irrelevant Considerations\n20\nIII. THE PURPOSE AND CONDITIONS OF THE\nCRLA GRANT CONTRACT\nA. Purpose\n26\nB. Conditions\n26\nC. Rules and Principles\n27\nIV.\nA CASE AND COMMENT MONTAGE OF CRLA --\nRES IPSA LOQUITUR\n29\nV.\nMAJOR AREAS OF CRLA IMPACT\nA. CRLA's Activities and Involvement\nin California's Prisons\n72\nB. CRLA and the Youth\n91\nC. CRLA and the Farm\n130\nVI.\nA CASE OF NON COMPLIANCE\nA. Criminal Representation\n158\nB. Eligibility Standard for CRLA Attorneys\n168\nC. Soliciting Clients and Stirring up\nLitigation\n175\nD. A Case of Non-Compliance -- Conduct\nUnbecoming an Attorney\n192\nE. Harassing and Frivolous Actions on\nthe Part of CRLA\n203\nF. Waste, Inefficiency and Misuse\nof Resources\n218\nG. Publicity\n226\nVII. THE TWILIGHT ZONE\nA. Lobbying\n236\nB. Fee Generating Cases\n237\nC. In-Kind Contributions\n239\nVIII. COMMUNITY REACTION TO CRLA\n243\nIX.\nCONCLUSION - THE CASE FOR AN ALTERNATIVE\n258\nX.\nRECOMMENDATION\n280\nXI.\nALTERNATIVE PLAN - PRIVATELY FINANCED LEGAL\nSERVICES FOR THE RURAL POOR\n281\nI. INTRODUCTION.\nUnder the provisions of the Economic Opportunity\nAct of 1964, as amended, Section 242 thereof, the Gover-\nnor of any state is given the authority to approve or\ndisapprove any grant initiated by OEO. This authority\napplies to the refunding of California Rural Legal Assis-\ntance, Inc., a California nonprofit corporation, which\nhas been refunded for calendar year 1971 by the Legal\nServices Division, Office of Economic Opportunity, Head-\nquarters, Washington, D.C. This refunding is in the sum\nof $1,884,101 (federal share).\nThe California State Office of Economic Opportunity\nhas conducted this extensive evaluation into CRLA, so\nthat a rational decision can be made in terms of their\nrefunding request pursuant to Section 242 of the Economic\nOpportunity Act.\nCRLA carries out its functions from nine offices\nin rural areas (Marysville-Yuba City, Modesto, Madera,\nGilroy, McFarland, El Centro, Santa Rosa, Salinas and\nSanta Maria), conducts a lobbying function through its\nregistered lobbyist in Sacramento and is administered out\nof a central headquarters in San Francisco. The latter\noffice also conducts a substantial amount of the appellate\nwork carried on by CRLA. CRLA employs approximately 44\nattorneys and a substantial clerical staff, and has com-\nmunity workers and investigators in its employ as well.\n(1)\nII. CONDUCT OF THE EVALUATION.\nA. General Background.\nWe began by considering all available information\nconcerning CRLA, including past evaluations, as well as\ncorrespondence and other materials in our files. It was\nsoon obvious, however, that the scale of CRLA's opera-\ntion, as well as the importance and dimension of the\nissue, required more thorough and, in some respects, more\nrefined techniques of evaluation than had been used in\nthe past. As CRLA itself is fond of pointing out, no\nprogram has been more thoroughly investigated and evalu-\nated. But despite the resources deployed from every\nquarter to its evaluations, the complaints continued to\npour into our office, not only from CRLA's adversaries,\nbut, much more significantly, from the poor, whom CRLA\nis supposed to serve.\nB. Problems of Evaluation.\n(1) Size and Organizational Complexity of CRLA.\nCRLA is one of the largest publicly-financed legal ser-\nvice program in the United States. Its nine operational\nfield offices, though geographically separated by sub-\nstantial distances, nevertheless often seem to have oper-\national ties with one another. Particularly, the mobility\nof CRLA attorneys between operational field offices makes\nit quite difficult to ascertain the operating rationale\nfor the organization. This problem can be appreciated,\n(2)\nwhen in any limited period of time, CRLA attorneys may\nturn up in different operational areas, and sometimes\neven participate in cases that are filed by other OEO\nlegal service programs. Thus, geography and a lack of\nrational organizational structure complicated our evalu-\nation efforts.\nThe geographical distances involved are formidable,\nwith more than 500 miles separating CRLA's office in\nMarysville on the north to its El Centro office in the\nsouth, only a few miles from the Mexican border. Each\noffice normally services more than one county ------------------------- which\nmay comprise an area as large or larger than many states.\n(2) Use of Questionnaire. The situation re-\nquired new approaches, particularly to augment the capabilities\nof our office to undertake a task of this size. The result\nwas the mailing of a questionnaire to 3,400 judges and law-\nyers, randomly selected, within the areas served by CRLA's\noperational offices. The questionnaire was designed to\nenable the respondent to comment upon the major facets of\nCRLA operations (Exhibit 11-0131). From our review of the\nmaterials in our files, we were aware that CRLA had been\ncriticized for specific kinds of activities, and that\ncertain leitmotifs ran like threads through its whole\nprogram. Thus, to get a better total profile of CRLA, we\nincluded certain questions in the mailed inquiry which were\ndesigned to better define the program areas.\n3\n(8)\nThe questionnaire resulted in an attack upon\nthe Director personally in his capacity as an attorney\nand against the State Office of Economic Opportunity\n(Exhibit 22-1049). In addition to criticism directly\nfrom CRLA, we were censured by the National Legal Aid\nand Defenders Association (NLADA). We have since learned\nthat approximately 75 percent of the membership of NLADA\nis composed of OEO-financed lawyers from legal programs.\nWe were unaware of this censure (which took place in\nTexas) until informed of it by local newspapers, who had\nreceived copies of the censure resolution. The news re-\nports of this censure prominently displayed the name of\nthe Honorable Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the\nUnited States, as Honorary President of NLADA. We later\ndiscovered that this was untrue and very misleading.\nThe Chief Justice, and Mr. Justice Harlan, had resigned\nfrom their positions in the organization in July, 1970.\n(Exhibit 22-1049.)\nAlthough NLADA and CRLA endeavored to get our office\nto burn or otherwise dispose of the responses to the\nquestionnaire, we refused to do so and have found the re-\nsponses useful in achieving a perspective on CRLA that\nwould have been unavailable to us in any other fashion.\nWe have maintained the responses in strictest confidence\nand will continue to do so, as we have assured our respon-\ndents that we would. The questionnaire was largely sub-\njective and does not lend itself to statistical analysis\n(4)\nin the way a public opinion poll does. Not a single\nquestionnaire is included among the supporting documents\nto this evaluation, and none have been quoted.\nThe incident involving the questionnaire dramatized\nseveral key factors that had to be taken into account.\nFirst, it demonstrated that if we were to maintain the\nintegrity of our investigation, we would have to foil\nefforts in the form of brute powerplays by members of the\npoverty-law establishment. Obviously, one of the concerns\nthat led to this outcry was that for the first time since\nthe 1968 GAO investigation, an independent organization,\nother than one substantially influenced by poverty law-\nyers, was going to evaluate a legal services program.\nThis meant that poverty lawyers would be effectively de-\nnied the control they had enjoyed over all previous eval-\nuations. Second, in light of such activity, the question-\nnaire can now only be seen as a secondary issue given the\nbroader and deeper significance that legal services has\ntaken within the political system. An understanding of\nthese issues is paramount to understanding the signifi-\ncance of our report and the irrational responses that were\nmanifested even to the idea that some other agency would\ndare evaluate a legal services program. Thus, we turn our\nattention first to the political context within which this\ninvestigation took place, and then to the dominant sub-\nstantive opposition to our effort.\n5\n(3)\n(3) (a) The Political Context of Our Evaluation.\nDuring 1970, National OEO, under the leadership of Donald\nRumsfeld, was considering the idea of regionalizing legal\nservice programs. This move was interpreted by the\npoverty-law establishment as an attempt by OEO to weaken\nthe legal services program by diffusing and localizing\nits control. In late November, this poverty-law estab-\nlishment mobilized national protest, to decry the long-\ncoming dismissal of National Legal Service Director Terry\nLenzner and his assistant. Thus, OEO Director, Donald\nRumsfeld, was regaled by angry denunciations from this\nestablishment's representatives from every legal service\nprogram in the United States. Pressure built up to the\npoint where, in order to counter the impression that the\nNixon Administration was opposed to legal services, the\nDirector of OEO made a highly unusual public announcement\nthat he had approved CRLA's refunding proposal for 1971--\nan approval that accelerated the program's refunding\ncycle.\nThe political sensitivity of the issue increased\nwith the r esignation of Mr. Rumsfeld as Director. His\nsuccessor, Frank Carlucci, has been appointed by the\nPresident, but not yet confirmed. If we concluded that\nthe delivery of quality legal service to the poor required\nthat CRLA be abolished, there was always the possibility\nthat Mr. Carlucci's confirmation might be held up as the\n(6)\nprice of his overriding the veto. (We think this possi-\nbility is extremely unlikely, given the reprehensible\nconduct that such political blackmail would entail, but\nwe have had to consider the possibility nonetheless.)\n(3) (b) Substantive Opposition to Legal Service\nEvaluations. The whole series of incidents placed this\noffice under increased pressure to evaluate objectively\na program whose refunding had already become both public\nand political. The acceleration of the cycle reduced the\ntime for evaluation, and made a difficult job all the\nmore SO.\nThe power of the poverty-law establishment is aug-\nmented by an extremely friendly press, which is always\nready to transmit and amplify the poverty-law establish-\nment's propaganda barrage.\nIn addition, any service agency threatened with\nextinction has available to it virtually unlimited scare\ntactics with respect to its constitutents. For those who\nhave received legal services from CRLA (we do not deny\nthere are many in absolute numbers during its four-year\nlife), the prospect of its demise appears far more alarm-\ning than the possible attendant prospect for improvement.\nThe poverty-law establishment's willingness to\nflex and deploy its political muscle is ironic, in light\n(7)\nof its repeated protests against \"political interference\"\nin legal services. The most frequently heard argument\nagainst public scrutiny of legal service programs is that\nthey can only be effective if they are free from \"poli-\ntical interference\". Even certain organized bar associa-\ntions have come down very hard against any moves which\nwould tend to put legal service programs under closer scru-\ntiny by public officials.\nThis position confuses legal service law practice\nwith the practice of the private Bar. In private prac-\ntice, the client, who receives the service, also pays the\nbills and is, therefore, sovereign. In publicly-funded\nlegal services, the recipient (poor person) and buyer\n(taxpayer) are different people. The poor person has no\nsovereignty, no effective control over the person giving\nservice to him. In the face of this, the legal service\nlobby has argued that in fact they, as the monopoly pro-\nvider of service, ought to be able to speak for the reci-\npients. They argue, in effect, that the seller of the\nservice ought to be able to speak for both the recipient\nand the buyer. It is as if the moguls of the Standard Oil\nTrust of the early 1900's had demanded the right to speak\nfor the interests of their consumers. In fact, given the\ntendency for consumers to be exploited by monopoly pro-\nducers, it is legitimate to ask whether or not the consu-\nmers in this case, the rural poor, are being exploited by\n(8)\nthe monopoly producers, CRLA. If this is the case, the\nconsumer has little choice in terms of the type of legal\nassistance he desires to consume and, furthermore, has\neven less chance of influencing how the product is, in\nfact, to be produced and distributed.\nIn a certain sense, the problem is insoluble.\nSomebody must determine how legal service can best serve\nthe poor, and it seems reasonable that the determination\nshould ultimately be made by elected officials, who are at\nleast responsible to their constituents (which include\nboth buyers and recipients). Yet the present program is\ncontrolled by vested interests that provide the service\nfar removed from the local communities they serve.\nAs the August evaluation pointed out:\n\"When there are a number of attorneys choosing\nwhich ones (i.e., cases) he is going to bring,\nthere may be, in a sense, a political judgment. =\n(Page 27; emphasis added.)\nIt is possible to put the point more directly:\nlegal services have the capacity to be politically manip-\nulated and, therefore, in a democracy, must have an explicit\nbase to which they are responsible. They are established and\nfunded by public bodies and administered by providers whose\nservice will depend in large measure on their own political\npredilections. The argument that legal services are to be\nleft entirely to poverty lawyers is disingenuous, as it\n(9)\ndemands a privilege available to no other provider of\nservices, either public or private. The severity of this\nproblem is clearly demonstrated when it is juxtaposed to\nthe legislative mandate of OEO that the total local com-\nmunity must be the basis of decision and responsibility.\n(3) (c) Prohibitive Costs Incurred by Citizens\nDesiring to Participate in the Evaluation of CRLA.\nIn some ways the most difficult aspect of the evaluation\nconcerned the people in the communities who assisted us.\nGiven the ability of the poverty-law establishment to\nharass those who disagree with it, through the press and\nin court, some people in the communities we have talked\nto felt a great reluctance to speak their dissatisfaction\nwith CRLA publicly. This genuine fear may help to account\nfor the inadequacies of response that other evaluations\nhave received when the evaluators have gone out for one\nday to ask what lawyers and judges in an area think about\nthe program. If a representative of the American Bar\nAssociation goes to a rural community and asks the mem-\nbers of the local bar and bench what they think of CRLA,\nmore likely than not the representative will receive sub-\nstantially bland comments, even from those who may feel\nvery strongly.\n(10)\nMany people who assisted us in the communities\nacknowledged the chance they were taking in doing SO.\nTo a considerable extent, the willingness of OEO to re-\nspond to their call will determine whether they ever\nagain go on record, and put themselves on the line in\nevaluations. We feel a great debt to those who have\nput themselves on the line, for often the instinct of\npeople is not to get involved in controversy. Of course\nit is always much \"safer\" to remain aloof, but we believe\nstrongly that at the heart of a healthy democracy is a\ncitizenry willing to take risks for the things in which\nthey believe.\nC. Gathering the Facts.\nOur primary interest in the evaluation has been to\nget the facts. We have sought to avoid the difficulty\nacknowledged in the August 1970 evaluation of CRLA that\n\"different preconceptions and characterizations\" produced\n\"subjectivity\" (Page 51). We interviewed people from all\nwalks of life and all political and philosophical points\nof view. We have relied upon facts and specificcases, as\nwell as informed opinion. In several instances we enlisted\nthe assistance of the professional investigating service\nof the Department of Human Resources Development. They\nwere deployed to take statements from persons whom we had\nidentified as possessing information of value about CRLA.\n(11)\nTheir independence and detachment assured objectivity in\nthis vital statement-taking function.\nD. Weighing Evidence.\n(1) Predisposition of Witnesses. Inweighing the\ncredibility of testimony, we looked carefully at an indi-\nvidual's position and political philosophy. Opposition\nto CRLA emanating from a person who opposed the concept\nof legal services for the poor we tended to discount.\nSimilarly, support from sectors of the poverty-law estab-\nlishment, we evaluated in light of their special interest.\nOpposition to CRLA from people working in OEO pro-\ngrams (especially those presently or formerly associated\nwith CRLA) or from people who have worked in other legal\nservice programs, we considered to be highly significant.\nAlso, we gave special weight and credibility to opinions\nabout CRLA from those who affirmed their support for the\nconcept of publicly-supported legal service to the poor.\n(2) Location of Witnesses. We have considered\nthe geographical location of those offering facts and\nopinions to be highly relevant. OEO programs are pre-\nmised upon local control and the ability of local commu-\nnities to determine their own needs and evaluate their\nsuccess. Thus, those who live and work in the areas served\nby CRLA's operational offices have had the best opportu-\n(12)\nnity to formulate informed opinion as to the actual im-\npact of CRLA in all its dimensions. Opinions from persons\nin urban areas, unless they exhibit some specific know-\nledge about CRLA, are almost useless and have been omitted.\nE. Other Evaluations.\nWe have been asked constantly by CRLA and its sup-\nporters why we are evaluating a program that was evaluated\nas recently as August, 1970 (Exhibit 11-0134). Apart from\nthe separate and formal responsibility that Section 242\nof the Economic Opportunity Act as amended imposes on the\nGovernor to review programs funded by OEO, we have felt\nit necessary to conduct our own evaluation of CRLA because\nof our deep concern that other evaluations have been lim-\nited not only in scope but in thoroughness.\n(1) The August 1970 evaluation was conducted by\n14 people who each spent seven days, one in each of seven\nof CRLA's nine operational offices. They spoke with CRLA\nattorneys and individuals in the area. Few of the eval-\nuators were from California and none of them from its\nrural areas. As one evaluator put it:\n\"So, I feel that as a result of my short in-\nvestigation, that CRLA is probably doing a\ngood job\nI didn't get a chance to talk to\nsome people as I would like, but you can only\ndo SO much in a day (August 1970 Evalua-\ntion, pp. 11-12).\n(13)\nTo ask such people to \"paradrop\" into the rural commu-\nnities served by CRLA and attempt to learn anything in\ndepth about the full impact of the program in a day is\nasking a great deal, even from the distinguished people\nwho participated in the evaluation.\nThe limitations and scale are dramatized in this\nexcerpt from the August evaluation. One participant con-\ncluded that CRLA attorneys were \"universally competent\nand highly professional\", giving as the basis for his\njudgment the following:\n\"\nThe lawyers in the CRLA office there were\nuniversally competent and highly professional.\nThat would be my judgment as well, from talk-\ning to them. There are five lawyers in the\noffice, one was not there. I had a chance to\ntalk with only one, briefly. The other three,\nI would say, are all very good lawyers.\"\n(Page 6--Emphasis added.)\nThe most severe limitation of the August 1970\nevaluation (and others as well) was its failure to con-\nsider that many of CRLA's admittedly recurring problems\nmight be institutionally and structurally founded. (Of\ncourse, the limited time in the field for each evaluator\nprecluded any one individual from gaining an overall\nperspective of the CRLA program.) There is implicit ac-\nceptance of CRLA's structure in the report. No other\nconclusion can explain the complete lack of concern for\npossible structural defects despite recitation of many\n(14)\nproblems which might suggest them.\nThe report's failure to relate problems to\nthe institution is illustrated in the following discus-\nsion:\n\"Also, recently, an incident at the Delano\nHigh School involved one of the newer mem-\nbers of the CRLA staff and this provoked\nhostility by the community. This is the\nmost controversial aspect of the entire\nfocus and has been very sensitive for us...\nRecently, they hired a young Chicano attor-\nney, who we found has a great passion for\nthe people and a great sense of outrage.\nUnfortunately, he has found it difficult to\nchannel his passion into a legal context\nand has, in a number of instances, literal-\nly taken to the streets as a community\norganizer. This happened in particular at\nthe Delano High School, which resulted in\nthe withdrawal by students and a picketing\nof the school. He led the picketing.\"\n(Page 14--Emphasis added.)\nThis discussion was followed by the following\nobservation:\n\"It is true, many of the lawyers attached to\nCRLA are inexperienced lawyers, and some-\ntimes members of the Bar whom I interviewed,\nreferred to that inexperience. In the Salinas\noffice, for example, with the exception of\nthe senior lawyer, all of the lawyers have\nless than five years of practice.\" (Page 16--\nEmphasis added.)\nIncidents recited throughout the evaluation suggest\nthat the problem goes considerably beyond inexperience.\nWhat is disappointing is that the August evaluation lacked\nthe imagination and depth to consider the possibility\nthat these problems had their roots in institutional flaws\nof CRLA.\n(15)\nBeyond this problem, the evaluation did contri-\nbute some serious and alarming observations. On community\nrelations, for example, the following is significant:\n\"There is one point I would like to make about\nthe office in McFarland, at least in my impres-\nsion, is that it has not always been able to\ndeal well in matters affecting the community.\nIt is not always able to involve itself dispas-\nsionately. That is to say, theyhave assumed\nfrom the very outset that the poor community,\nthat is, the poor white community were the good\nguys, the establishment, the government, the\ngrowers, were all the bad guys and what has\nhappened, in a sense, is that the adversary\nrelationship has been withdrawn from the court-\nroom and has taken place initially in the\nstreets, in their initial confrontation with\nthe community.\" (Page 15--Emphasis added.)\nThe evaluator then noted that the community did not\npossess the hostility toward CRLA which the CRLA office\nimagined:\n\"I guess what came out of McFarland was for the\nnonpoverty community to say, \"I wish CRLA in\nMcFarland would work with us. If they are going\nto sue us, fine. But I wish they'd work with us\nand speak to us and research the problem, not\nso much legally but factually before they plunge\ninto a suit. (Page 15--Emphasis added.)\nOne of OEO's major emphases is the mobilization and\nintegration of all segments of a community to eradicate\npoverty. Here was a problem going to the very heart of\nsuch a concept. Here was an instance in which an OEO Legal\nService office was disrupting a community, stirring tensions\nand hostilities and which, had they been done by someone\noutside of the poverty industry, would have been universally\n(16)\ncondemned. Thus, questions concerning the institutional\nsoundness of CRLA as an organization capable of providing\nlegal services to the poor while producing meaningful\nand integrated changes in rural communities are necessary\nand legitimate.\n(2) The other most celebrated evaluation of CRLA\nwas that done by the General Accounting Office of the\nComptroller General of the United States, which was re-\nleased in July 1968. (Exhibit 03-0150-02. This evalua-\ntion is discussed elsewhere in this report.)\nThe GAO Report grew out of a request by Congressman\nRobert B. Mathias to undertake an investigation primarily\nof CRLA's relationship with the United Farm Workers Organi-\nzing Committee (UFWOC). Specifically, the investigation\ninquired into the charge:\nthat the grantee (CRLA) may not have complied\nwith certain conditions of its grant because of\n(1) a possible connection between the grantee\nand the union, (2) the alleged harassment of a\ncounty welfare department, (3) inadequate repre-\nsentation of agricultural producers on the\ngrantee's board, and (4) the alleged engagement\nof the grantee in political activities.\nThe inquiry into CRLA's connection with UFWOC was limited\nto five charges, relating to grant conditions that have\nbeen made more stringent since 1968, when the report was\nissued.\n(17)\nThe GAO Report was extremely interesting to us\nas a point of departure. Although it was limited both\nin scope and in its conclusions, discussed in another section\nof this report, additional information has since come to\nlight that makes it dubious at best.\n(3) In some respects the most hopeful opportunity\nfor a fresh look at CRLA took place in Stanislaus County\nonly weeks before this evaluation was prepared. This\noccurred when a Grand Jury convened in response to the\n\"growing public concern that California Rural Legal Assis-\ntance, Inc., is not carrying out its stated corporate\npurpose of providing adequate legal assistance for the\npoor\". CRLA had always exhibited a public eagerness to\nbe evaluated by anyone who cared to do so, but when the\nStanislaus County Grand Jury convened for the purpose of\ndoing an evaluation, the objectivity of which no one could\ndeny, CRLA secured from the Federal District Court an in-\njunction against any investigation of their program.\nThe incident is lamentable, for this was the first\ntime that a program would be evaluated by people in the\narea being served by that program. This point is most im-\nportant, for typically, legal service programs are evaluated\nby people from far away, who know nothing about the commu-\nnity in which the program functions. This severe limita-\ntion in past CRLA evaluations is ironic in view of OEO's\n(18)\nexplicit and dominant emphasis on communities and local\ncontrol.\nIn this particular case, the Stanislaus County\nGrand Jury had several members with excellent credentials\nto evaluate the impact of CRLA on poor people. Among\nthem were the head of the local branch of the NAACP, and\na local leader of the Mexican-American community. But\nwhen faced with the possibility they might be evaluated\nby people not precommitted to the poverty-law establish-\nment, and by people whose intimate knowledge of the\ncommunity and their constituents could not be questioned,\nthey sought a sanctuary in the federal injunction that\nprevented the Grand Jury from proceeding further with its\nevaluation.\nThe result was that the Grand Jury voted unanimous-\nly a resolution urging Governor Reagan to veto CRLA's\n1971 budget, and urging him to institute an immediate in-\nvestigation into CRLA's activities.\nIn important respects, the Grand Jury evaluation\nof CRLA that never took place was the most revealing\nevaluation of the program that has ever occurred. It\ndemonstrates that a duly-constituted body of citizens,\nwith a responsibility to their community, were prevented\nfrom discharging their responsibility. They were thwarted\n(19)\nby a highly vocal special interest group bent on preserving\nits elitist prerogatives-the most important of which was\nthe right to control not only the criteria but also the\nconduct of their own program's evaluation. The similarity\nbetween the Stanislaus experience and our experiences with\nNLADA over the questionnaire is clear. The only inferen-\nces that can be drawn are that local control is fiction\nrather than fact, and that local citizens cannot modify\nthe behavior of existing elites and institutions such as\nCRLA, because the costs to them are too high.\nF. IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS.\nBefore we address our attention to relevant indices\nof CRLA's performance, it is well to take a moment to\nidentify some considerations of CRLA's performance which\nare not relevant to our evaluation or, if relevant, are\nnot sufficiently precise to 91 ve the basis for reasonable\njudgment.\n(1) Suits by CRLA against the State of California\nor other political subdivisions.\nCRLA has and continues to carry on a multiplicity of\nactions against the State of California. Some of these\nhave caused substantial increases in expenditure of tax-\npayer dollars in the area of Welfare and Medi-Cal. However,\nother OEO-supported legal programs in San Francisco, Ala-\nmeda County and Berkeley have cost the taxpayers many times\nthe dollars in additional taxes that CRLA has. If one\n(20)\nwere to take this area of activity into consideration in\nhis evaluation there are much \"bigger fish\" available than\nCRLA.\nThe matter of allowing or disallowing OEO-supported\nattorneys to sue the government with the risk of increasing\nthe taxpayer costs is a matter of policy for Congress\nand/or OEO to decide upon. Since it is not proscribed in\nthe CRLA grant, we cannot properly take it into consider-\nation.\n(2) The Use of Class Actions.\nClass actions are being used with increasing frequency\nby attorneys everywhere. Class actions are legal tools\nto be employed as the facts and circumstances warrant.\nCriticism of CRLA in this area should not, therefore, focus\nupon the use of class actions per se, but upon specific\nclass actions that either have no necessary relationship\nto the poor or that contravene some other standard or\ncondition set out herein. It should be added that class\nactions, by their nature, are very time-consuming enter-\nprises for both sides of the case. In light of the legal\nhours that must be devoted, great care should be used in\ndeciding to expand a particular case beyond the circum-\nstances of a particular individual seeking to be served.\n(21)\n(3) Statistical Analyses.\nCRLA frequently advances a multitude of statistics as\nevidence of its own success. These statistics primarily\ninvolve the number of people served and cases won and\nlost. We find their facility as statisticians at the\nvery least suspicious in the face of the nonstatistical\ninformation and evidence we have gathered concerning the\nactual operation of their program in the areas affected.\nThis is particularly true of consistent reports that CRLA\nattorneys are unavailable for service, that they represent\ncriminals frequently and that in the field their ordinary\nservice work is sloppy and unprofessional-- in contrast\nto favorable reports about the high quality of their appel-\nlate work out of the Central Office in San Francisco. It\nis difficult for us to see how one could measure the suc-\ncess of a legal service program numerically. We are con-\nvinced that to be truly successful, a program must be\nconcerned with people, not with numbers.\nThe statistics CRLA cites are almost meaningless,\nin any event. Among other things, it is most difficult\nto determine whether a case has taken five minutes or\nfive months to handle.\nA win-loss record is hardly relevant to marriage\ndissolutions, bankruptcies, consumer advice, etc., which\nhave to do with really serving the individual needs of\n(22)\npoor people. Furthermore, it appears that CRLA has not\nincluded in its win-loss determination the number of\ncases which it may have dismissed prior to trial. It\nclearly does not reveal the numerous losses in criminal\ncases where its personnel, contrary to its grand condi-\ntions, have represented criminal defendants (see section\non criminal representation, page ).\nRecently, the President of the Sonoma County Bar\nAssociation, Newton Dal Poggetto, forwarded a letter to\nour office, which, among other things, indicated the\nfollowing:\n\"We obtained the figures from the Santa Rosa,\nCalifornia, Rural Legal Assistance office on\ntheir activities for 1970, and after our Board\nstudied them, we were unable to conclude that\nthe figures were meaningful.\" (Exhibit 22-1034.)\nSimilarly in the August, 1970, evaluation of CRLA,\nit was stated:\n\"I know that OEO uses statistics for getting\nCongressional appropriations and the like,\nbut statistics are very often misleading.. =\n(Exhibit 11-0134.)\nSUMMARY\nThough the political controversy surrounding CRLA\nis highly emotional and symbolic, the need to assess cor-\nrectly the empirical reference of OEO legal concepts and\nthe facts about actual behavior appear necessary if the\nrural poor are to have a significant voice in determining\n(23)\nwhat types of legal services they wish to consume. Thus\nthe State Office has conducted its investigation from the\nfollowing concerns and methods.\nFirst, our concerns about CRLA were twofold. We\nwere concerned with whether or not CRLA was a sound\norganization. Implicit in such concerns are questions\nrelating to CRLA's ability to represent heterogeneous\nlegal needs of the poor; CRLA's ability to work harmonious-\nly in communities; CRLA's ability as an organization to\nestablish its own authority and internal control; and\nfinally whether CRLA, as presently constituted, is capable\nof living within the intent and guidelines of OEO. This\nbroad range of questions is oriented primarily towards\nascertaining whether or not the present organizational\nstructure has the potential to deliver the goods and ser-\nvices that are explicitly stated in its work program.\nOur second concern has to do with whether the poor have\naccess to the policy-making organs of CRLA to determine\nthe types of legal services that they desire to consume.\nIt is important to point out that at the date of\nthis writing, information and evidence is still pouring\ninto our office from all over the State. We expect that\nonce news becomes public of the Governor's veto, many\npeople who may have felt reluctant to speak out before,\n(24)\nwill do SO for the first time. Thus, it is possible\nthat we may continue gathering information sent to us\nabout CRLA for some time to come.\nIn several specific areas, we have investigations\nunderway, which were not completed at the time of writing,\nand we have seen fit, therefore, not to include them.\nSome of them could turn out to be items of major importance\nfor this legal program, but we are forced to stand on the\nevidence herein for our recommendation to the Governor.\n(25)\nIII. THE PURPOSE AND CONDITIONS OF THE CRLA GRANT CONTRACT\nA. PURPOSE\nCRLA has been mandated by its grant to provide legal\nservices to the eligible poor in civil matters only within\nthe rural areas served by its operational offices.\n\"California Rural Legal Assistance is esta-\nblished to give legal aid to people in need,\nwho cannot afford to pay for a private attor-\nney, and who would not otherwise be helped.\n\"In order to be entitled to our services, a\nperson must seek aid from CRLA. He must also\nshow that he makes no more than a certain\namount of money each year. Finally, he must\ndemonstrate that his case is not the kind which\nwould support a contingent or court-awarded fee,\nso that it may be presumed that a private attor-\nney would be unwilling to represent him. Only if\nthese three requirements are satisfied may a per-\nson become the client of a CRLA attorney.\"\nAppendix E, CRLA Refunding\nProposal, 1971\nB. CONDITIONS\nIn order to carry out this mission, the Federal\nGovernment has imposed certain specific restrictions,\nlimitations and requirements on CRLA as a part of its grant\ncontract. These conditions are designed to assure that\nCRLA's mission can and will be carried out effectively.\nThese conditions include, but are not limited to:\n(1) A prohibition against representing criminals\n(except in very special and restricted instances). This\n(26)\nhas been done to assure that CRLA's resources will not\nbe dissipated where other services, such as those of the\nPublic Defender, are already available in California.\n(2) A prohibition against accepting cases\nwhich generate fees (except in very limited and special\ncases), so that such cases may be referred to private\nlegal counsel.\n(3) A requirement that clients meet a pres-\ncribed income eligibility standard, so that those in\nfact able to pay for an attorney will do so and will not\nutilize the limited resources of CRLA.\n(4) CRLA is proscribed from representing a\nlabor union.\nC. RULES AND PRINCIPLES\nIn addition to the specific grant conditions out-\nlined above, there exists a body of rules of professional\nconduct and canons of legal ethics designed to create an\natmosphere, framework and relationship with those to be\nserved and with the community at large, which maintains\nthe dignity of the legal profession and gives the program\nits highest potential for success. Following are some\nof these considerations:\n(1) A prohibition against soliciting clients\nand stirring up litigation. This conforms with long-\nestablished professional principles of the bench and bar.\n(27)\n(2) A prohibition against conduct unbecoming\nan attorney. This provision is vital to maintenance of\nthe dignity of the profession.\n(3) A prohibition against the filing of har-\nassing or frivolous actions. This is of special importance\nin the context of OEO-supported legal programs because\nof the public trust which the use of public funds engenders.\nThe attorney must be ever cognizant of the fact that his\nclients who pay nothing for his service enjoy thereby a\ndistinct advantage over their adversaries, who must pay\nfor the services of private counsel. These services pro-\nvided at zero cost create an economic leverage which\ncarries the potential for horrendous abuse and which can\nserve to distort, rather than enhance, the interests of\njustice toward a fair and proper result.\n(4) A special prohibition attends taxpayer-\nsupported legal services, to wit, that the attorney shall\nnot waste precious resources and shall be guided by con-\ncerns for economy in all respects. Only in this fashion\ncan he justify his performance and nurture public confidence.\n(5) A prohibition against newspaper publicity\nby a lawyer as to pending or anticipated litigation so\nthat there will not be interference with a fair trial or\nthe proper administration of justice.\n(28)\nIV. A CASE AND COMMENT MONTAGE OF CRLA--\nRES IPSA LOQUITUR\n\"California Rural Legal Assistance is estab-\nlished to give legal aid to people in need,\nwho cannot afford to pay for a private attor-\nney, and who would not otherwise be helped.\"\n(Refunding Proposal, App. E, p. 1.)\nMrs. Amelia Harris was employed by CRLA's Salinas\noffice from September, 1966, to June, 1969. She is cur-\nrently interim director of the Monterey County Anti-\nPoverty Coordinating Council, an OEO-supported agency.\nWhile she was with CRLA, she was employed as directing\nlegal secretary and office manager. She states in affi-\ndavit:\n\"All or almost all of the legal briefs went\nthrough my hands. I worked for two directing\nattorneys, Robert Gnaizda (now Deputy Director\nof CRLA in Central Office) and Dennis Powell.\nMr. Powell assumed his duties in February,\n1969. Cases accepted for clients were accep-\nted under guidelines set down by the Office of\nEconomic Opportunity. At least, at first.\nCases were accepted for clients charged with\ncriminal offenses particularly after Attorney\nBill Daniels transferred from the Marysville\noffice.\nMany conscientious objector cases,\nto avoid the draft, were accepted and defended\nby Mr. Daniels, in Federal Courts.\nMr. Dan-\niels was involved with the inmates at Soledad\nPrison, in the preparation of cases, to be\npresented in court by the inmate, seeking writs,\nnew trials, and so forth. I do not recall any-\none in particular. Some of these cases were\naccepted because of correspondence received\nfrom inmates of the prison. I do know that Mr.\nDaniels would go to Soledad Prison. Some of\nthese clients were involved in criminal cases,\nand some were civil cases.\nDuring the early\nmonths of 1969, all domestic relations cases,\nmost consumer credit and automobile credit cases\nwere dropped because the caseload was too high.\n(29)\nIt is my opinion and was at that time that\nCalifornia Rural Legal Assistance attorneys\nwere accepting too many cases which were\noutside the quidelines. Many cases of class\naction were accepted. Some of these cases\nwere filed simultaneously with the same types\nof organization in Connecticut. Many cases\nwere established as a result of manufactured\nsituations. I mean by this that clients or\npotential clients were instructed in certain\nactions and dialog with agencies and private\nfirms that would lead to litigation.\nThis\ncase related to the fact that Mrs. Rodriguez\nwas about to be evicted from her house, how-\never the action was designed to attack another\npart of the rules of the Department of Welfare.\nAnother case I can recall involves a man at\nthe Day Hall Center, California Farm Labor\nService. The persons who were sent to the\nDay Hall Center were instructed as to actions\nto take and what to say. These instructions\ncame from Dennis Powell, who was the directing\nattorney. As I recall, this case involved\npeople handing out leaflets and literature at\nthe Day Hall Center. I do not recall the exact\ninstructions given or to whom they were given.\nMr. Powell did coach the persons who went to\nthe Day Hall Center on exact actions to take\nand instructions as to what they were to say.\nI know he wanted the farm labor service to have\nto remove people from the premises, and there-\nby provide a course of action against the farm\nlabor service to the end of abolishing it.\nIn the case of Jeremio V. Salinas Strawberries,\nthat involved the discharge of eight men for\norganizing a union, that this was a contrived\nsituation wherein the men were instructed as to\nhow to go about organizing a union and then when\nthey were discharged an action was filed against\nSalinas Strawberries. This same situation OC-\ncurred in the Martin Produce, Inc., case*.\nI\n* It will be noted that Mrs. Harris has evidently confused\nthe facts of the Salinas Strawberries case with those of\nthe Martin Produce case, which she discusses together. The\ndischarge of men for organizing a union (actually there\nwere 9) was involved in the Martin Produce case. This does\nnot compromise, however, the potency of her testimony re-\ngarding the \"contrived\" situations on which she said both\ncases were prosecuted by CRLA.\n(30)\nrecall that I was directed, as Directing Legal\nSecretary, to seek out times that specific fed-\neral courts and federal judges were available.\nI was given these instructions by the directing\nattorney, at the particular time. I was direc-\nted to seek open dates in the federal courts\nbefore Judge Peckham and Judge Zirpoli for the\nfiling and trial of cases. These cases would\nopen up chambers to California Rural Legal Assis-\ntance attorneys and were sympathetic to the\ncauses of these attorneys. After the C lifornia\nRural Legal Assistance decided to drop domestic\nrelations cases, consumer credit cases and auto-\nmobile credit cases I voiced the opinion that\nthis was not correct procedure under the guide-\nlines set forth and that acceptance of other\ntypes of cases outside the guidelines while not\naccepting cases inside the guidelines was wrong,\nmorally and legally. I was discharged in June,\n1969. At the time of my discharge I had leave\npay and severance pay coming. I made demand on\nCalifornia Rural Legal Assistance for payment of\npay due me. I did not receive my pay. I filed\na demand and claim through the Labor Commissioner,\nDivision of Labor Law Enforcement, California\nDepartment of Industrial Relations, 21 West Laurel\nDrive, Salinas. My attorney in this action was\nWilliam Moreno. The Labor Commissioner ordered\npayment of the moneys due me plus punitive dam-\nages and I was fina lly paid through the Labor\nCommissioner office. During the first few months\nI was with California Rural Legal Assistance the\nattorneys were performing services to help poor\npeople. However, during the latter part of\nmy tenure this was not true. The attorneys be-\ncame more concerned with class actions for chan-\nges and cases outside the guidelines that were\nnot helping the poor people. *\n* Mrs. Harris did not sign this affidavit, because she felt\nit was inappropriate for her to do in view of her pre-\nsent association with an OEO-funded program. The state-\nment was made before two witnesses, however, and she has\nexpressed a willingness to testify personally to the truth\nof the facts she presents.\n(31)\n=\nThey now have to turn away cases that they\ncan't handle in the Salinas office. They don't\nhandle domestic relations. A very big publi-\ncity campaign as to the type of routine ser-\nvices they handle would swamp the office. They\nwould have to turn away people and cause antag-\nonism.\n=\n(August 1970 Evaluation of CRLA,\npp. 21-22. Exhibit 11-0134--Emphasis added.)\n\"In order to be entitled to our services, a\nperson must seek aid from CRLA...\" (1971\nRefunding Proposal, Appendix E, p. 1.)\nIn the case of Wolfin V. Vinson, CRLA filed suit\non behalf of 16 Indians against a local car dealer.\n(Wolfin V. Vinson, Superior Court, Lake County, No. 10155.)\nIn the defendant's motion to dismiss, attorneys attached\ndepositions from 15 of the 16 plaintiffs, stating that\nthey had never requested to be part of the lawsuit. An\nexcerpt from one of the depositions follows:\n\"Question: Now, what did you do on your part\nto get this lawsuit started?\n\"A. Nothing.\n\"Q. Nothing?\n\"A. No.\n\"l. Well, now, your attorney has indicated that\nhe has authorizations signed by each plaintiff\nauthorizing and instructing his firm to bring\nthis lawsuit. Do you recall signing any such\nauthorization?\n\"A. Yes, I did. After I heard about it.\n\"Q. After what?\n\"A. After I heard about it.\n(32)\n\"Q. After you heard about what, the lawsuit?\n\"A. Yes.\n\"Q. You signed the authorization after you heard\nabout the lawsuit being filed?\n\"A. Yes.\n\"l. How long after the lawsuit had been filed\ndid you sign that authorization?\n\"A. Oh, I don't know. About--I couldn't remem-\nber that far back.\n\"Q. I see. Alright. Now, other than signing\nthat document after the lawsuit was filed, what\nif anything did you do before the lawsuit was\nfiled to get the lawsuit started?\n\"A. Nothing.\n\"Q. Absolutely nothing?\n\"A. Absolutely nothing.\n...\n\"Q. When you heard about this lawsuit being\nfiled, were you surprised?\n\"A. Yes.\n(Exhibit 09-0137--Emphasis added.)\nOne of the people who participated in the August\nevaluation of CRLA commented: (page 20)\n\"Some of the attorneys seem to turn people off\nbecause a lot of Chicanos I spoke to felt\nCRLA was using the people to get publicity and\nnot following through with the issues that\ndirectly affected the people. They thought that\npriorities were all wrong because the priori-\nties did not come from the people but come from\nthe attorneys\nI\nthink the essence of the peo-\nple's feeling is that the attorneys should be\nthere to serve the people and not the people to\nserve the attorneys.\" (Exhibit 11-0134--Empha-\nsis added.)\n(33)\n\"The empathy--when I went around I found a\ntremendous amount of empathy on the part of\nthe attorneys involved. You could use such\ndescriptive terms as 'dedicated', 'extremely\nconcerned'\n=\n(August Evaluation, p. 6.)\nThe affidavit of Rachel Pauline Hubbard states\nas follows:\n\"About March 5, 1964, I agreed to take a\nbaby boy three days old who was the son of\nmy husband's nephew. My husband and I\nagreed to raise the boy in our home. We\ndid not attempt to adopt the child in 1964.\nDuring the Fall of 1967, my husband, William\nFrank Hubbard, suffered a heart attack and\nwas in the Sutter County Hospital for about\nthree weeks. He had a history of heart at-\ntacks since 1957. He came home and shortly\nthereafter we were able to obtain aid from\nthe Sutter County Welfare Department of $144\nper month. In August, 1969, I needed to make\na trip to Mansfield, Arkansas, as my 85-year\nold mother was in ill health. I contacted\nthe Welfare Department and obtained permis-\nsion for me and the child to be out of the\nState. The day before I was going to leave\nby bus, my husband decided that he wanted to\ngo. He was feeling good and felt that the\ntrip would do him good. His doctor gave him\npermission.\nI then went to the Welfare\nDepartment and obtained permission for the\nchild, myself and my husband to make the trip\nby automobile. We drove to Dumas, Texas,\nwhere he said he did not feel well, and he\nwas admitted to the hospital in Dumas. He\nwas in the hospital for about three weeks.\nI telephoned the Sutter County Welfare Depart-\nment and reported that my husband was ill in\nthe hospital. I wanted them to send my wel-\nfare check to Dumas, Texas, where I was stay-\ning with my sister. They told me that we\nwould have to come back to California in order\nto receive any more money as we could not be\nlisted as California residents otherwise. The\ndoctor in Dumas, Texas, stated that we should\nreturn to California. We left Dumas, Texas,\nbecause we did not qualify for welfare aid from\n(34)\nTexas and my husband needed continued medical\nhelp. I drove the car and when we got as far\nas Modesto area, my husband died right along-\nside of the highway. After coming home to\nSutter County I went to the Welfare Department\nfor aid and the maximum amount I could get was\n$150 per month. I then went to the United\nStates Social Security Administration to get\nassistance, if possible, as my husband had\nbeen receiving $92 per month from them. I\nwanted to know if the child could obtain fin-\nancial aid from my husband's account. I was\ntold that if I had adoption papers completed\nI could obtain financial aid through my hus-\nband's account. I went directly to the Calif-\nornia Rural Legal Assi stance Office on Seventh\nStreet in Marysville, California, and asked\nfor legal assistance in getting adoption papers\nfor the child. I talked to the head man,\nMr. Henry, and explained all the facts to him.\nHe referred me to another CRLA attorney,\nMr. Rogers. * I explained everything to Mr. Rog-\ners. He telephoned the Social Security and\nverified the facts. Then he said he would help\nme if I would sue the Sutter County Welfare De-\npartment for the death of my husband. He said\nthat if they had not wanted my husband to return\nto California he would not have died. Mr. Rogers\nwanted me to also sign a paper so he could go\nto the Welfare Department and obtain my welfare\nfile or records. I would not do that. All I\nwanted was the adoption papers. Mr. Rogers said\nall they wanted to do was sue the Welfare and\nthis was the best case they had come across. I\njust refused to sue the Welfare Department and I\nwalked out. Mr. Rogers telephoned me about five\ntimes afterwards asking me to come back to his\noffice and sign the papers so they could get\nmy welfare files. He said the only way I could\nget the adoption papers was to sue the Welfare\nDepartment. This all happened during (about)\nOctober, 1969. I still do not have the adoption\npapers, and I still have not received any fin-\nancial aid from Social Security. The Welfare\n* There is some question about Rogers' exact relationship\nto CRLA. James Henry was a paid attorney in 1969 with\nCRLA's Marysville office, but it appears that Rick Rogers\nmay have worked for CRLA through VISTA. He appears on num-\nerous court cases filed by CRLA and lists the same office\naddress. Furthermore, we have a record that he attended at\nleast one CRLA Advisory Committee Meeting and was listed\nthere among employees attended.\n(35)\nDepartment increased my monthly amount in\nNovember, 1969, and again the first part of\nthis year, 1970, because I have sugar dia-\nbetes and cannot work. At this time I am\nbarely able to exist on what I get monthly.\nIf I could get some financial aid from Social\nSecurity I could support myself and the child,\nnow six years, much better. A; CRLA refused\nto help me with legal help, I have not been\nable to get the adoption completed and I can-\nnot afford the legal expenses for a private\nattorney.' (Exhibit 02-0018--Emphasis added.)\nThe following statement indicates CRLA's willing-\nness to consider alternative mechanisms for improving\nthe delivery of quality legal services to the poor (quo-\nted from notes taken by investigator) :\nNeil B. Van Winkle, attorney-at-law stated\nthat when he was President of the Merced Coun-\nty Bar Association, 1967, to 1968, he tried\nto institute a Judicare Program (supposed to\nbe like Medicare). Indigents who qualified\nfor this program would be given a Judicare\nCard. When this program was being formulated,\nVan Winkle ran into heavy opposition from\nCRLA, because CRLA wanted to come to Merced\nCounty and CRLA cannot come into a county\nwhere there is free legal service. Mr. Van\nWinkle further stated that when he gave talks\nabout the program, CRLA was always where he\nwas giving a speech and voiced opposition to\nthe program. (Statement taken December 10,\n1970. Exhibit 09-0197.)\n\"Time pressure forces the attorney first to\naccept his clients' own simplistic character-\nizations of their problems, then to solve\nthese problems at the lowest level of contro-\nversy. = (Refunding proposal, p. 31.)\nIn the early summer of 1969, people throughout\nSanta Barbara County read in the local press that a local\ngrower was spraying dangerous pesticides that were caus-\n(36)\ning serious injury to the agricultural workers they em-\nployed. The same article announced the institution of\na suit by CRLA against the Department of Agriculture and\nthe Santa Maria Berry Farms on behalf of two plaintiffs\nwho claimed to be injured by the pesticides. (Ybarra V.\nFielder, et. al., Santa Maria Superior Court, No. 6833.)\nThe choice of defendants was somewhat ironic in view of\nthe characterization of that farm by one CRLA attorney\nas a \"model\" farm in a newspaper article only a few weeks\nbefore the filing of the suit.\nPrior to the filing of the complaint, CRLA made\nno effort to inquire from the defendant what pesticides\nhe was using. It was later determined that harmess fer-\ntilizer was all that was sprayed. The same plaintiffs\nalleging personal injury produced no evidence of injury.\nAfter several lengthy hearings, the directing attor-\nney of CRLA's Santa Maria office, Burton D. Fretz, wrote\na letter dismissing the case with the following comment:\n\"As the complaint herein indicates, the action\nfocuses upon the problem of the availability\nof information within the records of govern-\nmental offices to farm workers injured by\nexposure to pesticides. The promulgation after\nthe filing of this lawsuit of a Policy Letter\nby the Director of Agriculture dated August 11,\n1969, (enclosed) and now in effect makes such\ninformation generally available.\"\nAnd he concluded:\n(37)\n\"Although concern remains about dangers pre-\nsent in other areas of pesticide application\nwe believe the question of access to informa-\ntion is largely resolved and accordingly we\nrequest entry of dismissal.\" (Exhibit 09-0184--\nEmphasis added.)\nIf CRLA dismissed the case because in fact no\ninjury occurred, the plaintiffs were guilty of misre-\npresentation when they filed it and the suit was expli-\ncit harassment. If injury did occur, CRLA exhibited\ngross neglect in failing to pursue their case to just\nconclusion on behalf of their clients who suffered in-\njury. The letter quoted above indicates \"injury\" was\nsimply a pretext for getting into court.\nThe suit died with the dismissal, but the damage\nhad been done. The defendants had been forced to defend\na costly suit. Equally important, fears and tensions had\nbeen stirred in the local citizenry, who believed they\nwere being poisoned by local growers spraying dangerous\npesticides. The resentments and hostilities had been\nfueled between farm workers and their employers, by en-\ncouraging the workers to think they were being infected\nand injured by their employers.\n* In a separate administrative hearing, the crop dusters\nwere suspended for 90 days for dropping the harmless\nfertilizer on the workers, but CRLA had no direct involve-\nment in this proceeding, other than as witnesses.\n(38)\n\"The Bar Association, on county and municipal\nlevels, are least attuned to the basic prob-\nlems on a statewide and national basis. The\ndeficiency here, in my view, is not with the\nCRLA but in the failure of the organized\nBar in many areas to meet their responsibili-\nty to the poor in the legal services program.\"\n(August Evaluation, p. 58.)\nIs it any wonder that members of the local bar\nshy away from, or totally refuse to assist, CRLA when\nthat organization involves itself in the following type\nof activity?\nIn the Spring of 1970, a \"People's Paper\" was\npublished by the Marysville office of CRLA, listing,\namong others, CRLA attorney Peter Haberfield (sic) as\na contributor. The paper listed as its address 1212 F\nStreet, Marysville, which is the address of the local\nCRLA office. A section entitled \"Chief Judicial Racism,\"\nstates:\n\"This visa required the signature of Attorney\nGeneral PIG Mitchell for approval, which he\ndid not approve. This is the same man that\nwill stand up and lie to your face about the\nreasons for being in Viet Nam, Cambodia, Afri-\nca, Europe, and why you should remain a peace-\nful and trusting mass while thousands of inno-\ncent people are being killed for no reason.\nSo that the rest of the world can be oppressed\nby this white racist government. We say take\nheed to this man's message, for if you believe\nin this man you will forever be a race that will\nbe oppressed, tortured, beaten and killed.\nThis man is willing to take all the steps to\nkeep minority groups from winning human rights,\nwhich he will say is all for law and order.\nWhat type of law can exist where people want\nto be free and are fighting for this freedom\n(39)\nthat they have been deprived of where the\nPig can kick down your door, beat and kill\nyour children for protesting against what\nthey feel is wrong, and your Black Brothers\nand Sisters are being shot down in the street\nlike animals. WE ARE ASKING ALL BROTHERS AND\nSISTERS TO 'TAKE ARMS'. THE PEOPLE NEED YOU. \"\n(Exhibit Emphasis added.)\nOn March 16, 1970, at Yuba College, at a Semi-\nnar on Minority Problems, CRLA attorney Peter Haberfeld\nis quoted as saying:\n\"We've learned a lot from the Black Panther\nparty; it's time for a White Panther party.\nWe have to find a course of action, we have\nto start the revolution is coming.\"\n(Exhibit 09-0110 - Emphasis added.)\nOn January 14, 1969, the Board of Trustees of\nGavilan College, Gilroy, California, considered proposed\npolicy for establishing an uncensored bulletin board\nand table. Gavailan student, Miss Kathe Fish, represen-\nted by CRLA attorney Don Kates, Jr., opposed the college\nrules governing the distribution of materials at that\nmeeting. The President of Gavilan College states in\naffidavit:\n\"Miss Fish and about 30 or 40 students who\nfollowed her lead were actively campaigning\nto have 'four-letter words' authorized for\nprint in the college newspaper.\" (Exhibit\n10-0063.)\nOn or about January 22, 1969, the President of the\nCollege was served with a temporary restraining order\nfiled by CRLA on behalf of Miss Fish. The complaint alleged:\n(40)\n\"Defendants, the President and members of\nthe Board of Trustees of the College now\nseek to expel, suspend or otherwise exclude\nplaintiff because of her aforesaid activi-\nties.\"\nThe President continued in affidavit:\n\"I did not condone the activities of Miss Fish,\nbut I never harassed her in any way and I\ndid not attempt to have her expelled from the\ncollege. The CRLA suit states that I tried to\nhave Miss Fish excluded from campus, that I\ntried to intimidate Miss Fish and keep her\nfrom exercising her right to obtain counsel\nof her choice, and that I tried to deter her\nfrom receiving benefits conferred by the\nEconomic Opportunity Act. None of the above\ncharges are true. It is my opinion that the\nCRLA grossly exaggerated the situation invol-\nving Miss Fish in order to make an issue\nwhere no real issue really existed.\" (Exhibit\n10-0063--Emphasis added.)\nNo negotiation or communication preceded the\nfiling of the action, but it stirred tension and turmoil\non the campus and made discipline and stability all the\nmore difficult to maintain. MissFish left the college\nnot long after this time and became involved in drug pre-\nvention work. She is currently under criminal indictment\nfor the sale of marijuana.\n\"Given the credentials of the Government\nAccounting Office investigating agency, and\ngiven the thoroughness of their investiga-\ntion in this particular case, accusations\nregarding CRLA's illicit connection with\nlabor unions have become much less frequent.\"\n(Refunding Proposal, pp. 34-35.)\n(41)\nOn September 4, 1970, during a UFWOC rally in\nsupport of the Union's lettuce strike in Salinas, a per-\nson identified as Neil Levy, who is listed as an attor-\nney with the CRLA Salinas office, is reported by a\nnewsman to have addressed the rally and offered the sup-\nport of the CRLA Salinas office to defend against unlaw-\nful detainer actions. A T.V. film clip showing the\nrally, describes the scene as follows:\n\"California Rural Legal Assistance attorney\nNeil Levy asked that all workers return\nsummonses from growers notifying them to\nleave the camp, so that they can be answered\nin court, adding that in that way he may\nbe able to prolong the day of eviction. \"\n(Exhibit 07-0088--Emphasis added.)\nThe unlawful detainer actions grow out of the\ngrowers' practice frequently of paying part of their com-\npensation in the form of housing for the workers and\ntheir families. When the union calls a strike, the em-\nployers naturally seek to cut off all compensation, which\nincludes the right to free housing. The effect of CRLA's\nintervention on behalf of the union is to bring addition-\nal economic pressure to bear on the employers--an expli-\ncit union responsibility--and to force perpetuation of\npart compensation (the housing) by the employer.\n* See also section V.C. herein.\n(42)\n\"The project will supply legal assistance to\nfarm workers and other poor persons in Cal-\nifornia. Its goal is to provide the legal\nprotection necessary to enable the rural poor\nto help themselves. (Brief Description of\nthe project, in 1971 Refunding Proposal, in-\nside cover.)\nA member of the OEO Board of Directors for Merced\nCounty recalls one contact he had with CRLA:\n\"\nin June of 1969 a problem arose between\nthe Spanish people and the school board.\nThis happened in Livingston, California.\nThere were several problems, among them the\nstudents boycotted the high school. The\nstudents carried placards around the school.\nIt was found that these placards were made\nat the OEO office--the Livingston Service\nCenter. Because of this, some employees at\nthe Service Center were fired. The employees\nwho were fired were represented by CRLA who\nappealed the firing. Van Winkle stated that\nthe Board of Supervisors, of which he is a\nmember, elected him to be the hearing officer\nat the appeal hearing for the fired service\ncenter employees. Van Winkle stated that at\nthis appeal hearing the CRLA attorneys lined\nup the witnesses and the audience and created\nsuch a disturbance that Van Winkle had two\ndeputies called in to maintain order. Van\nWinkle stated he had to have two people re-\nmoved from the hearing Van Winkle stated\nthat the name of the hearing was the matter\nof Steven Haberfeld, Lana Lincon, William\nHeter, and William G. Kex, held on the 17th\nof June, 1969. (Exhibit 09-0197.)\nOn January 6, 1970, Mrs. Kathy Young Sears, who\nresided at 1590 - 22nd Street, Oceana, California, returned\nfrom her part-time job to find that her husband had left\nher. At the time Mrs. Sears was employed by a packing\nplant on a part-time basis, with an annual income of $2,000.\n(43)\nShe was of Korean descent and spoke very little English.\nWhen her husband had left, he had taken all of the house\nfurnishings and property and had left her nothing.\nMrs. Sears contacted the CRLA office in Santa Maria,\nCalifornia. CRLA, which responded in a letter dated Jan-\nuary 29, 1970, said that they would be happy to repre-\nsent her in defending the divorce action filed by her\nhusband. The letter was signed by CRLA Santa Maria\nDirecting Attorney Burton D. Fretz. The complaint in the\ndivorce action should have been answered 30 days after\nMrs. Sears received the summons, which was January 6, 1970.\nMrs. Sears did not hear from CRLA for several weeks; she\nthen returned to the CRLA office in Santa Maria and was\ntold by a secretary that she did not need an attorney.\nShe then received a letter dated February 12, 1970, signed\nby CRLA attorney Daniel Morper, which stated:\n\"Dear Mrs. Sears: I regret that you were not\ninformed earlier that this office would not\nbe able to handle your case, due to the in-\ncome of your husband. I hope this mix-up did\nnot put you at any disadvantage in defending\nthis case.\"\nBy the time this letter was received by Mrs. Sears,\nthe 30-day period for answering the complaint had expired.\nMrs. Sears, at a tremendous disadvantage because of her\nlanguage problem, turned to a private attorney in Santa\nMaria and asked that he help her in this divorce action.\n(44)\nThe private attorney took it upon himself to handle the\ncase and help Mrs. Sears. He went to court on her behalf\nand was able to obtain most of her household goods and\nsix months' alimony. (Exhibit 09-0167.)\n\"CRLA has never been formally accused of\nviolating the conditions of its grant with\nregard to the handling of criminal cases\n\"\n(Refunding Proposal, p. 33.)\nCRLA's representation of criminal defendants has\nbecome so preponderant that, in fact, one local district\nattorney has ceased to complain about their handling of\nthese cases. CRLA's official answer to these charges is\nthat their attorneys are doing it \"on their own time.\"\nThis is the thread that runs throughout charges of grant\nviolation. The response is so frequent that it has\nprompted at least one observer to ask whether CRLA attor-\nneys are ever permitted respites from their free time.\nIn answer to a charge brought by District Attorney\nJames R. Hanhart, CRLA responded (in a letter from Direc-\ntor Cruz Reynoso) by commending the attorney involved for\nhis \"selflessness. The letter went on to recite the\npractice of large urban law firms, which encourage their\nyoung attorneys to work for indigent persons in criminal\nand civil matters.\n* See the exchange of letters in Exhibit 01-0199.\n(45)\nThe analogy is disingenuous, as Mr. Hanhart points\nout in his letter in answer:\n=\nthe issue is not Mr. Spiegel's \"self-\nlessness\" (a personal trait which is worthy\nof commendation), but rather the equal dis-\npensation of tax-subsidized legal services\nto indigent criminal defendants.\n\"Public defenders are tax-subsidized; they can-\nnot pick and choose their clients--they must\nrepresent all indigent defendants. Private\nlaw firms are not tax-subsidized; they can\npick and choose their clients.\n\"I note you did not make this rather critical\ndistinction in your somewhat hurried letter.\"\nMr. Hanhart goes on to ask the critical questions\ngoverning the administration of all legal service pro-\ngrams:\n11\nif CRLA is tax-subsidized, (1) What is\nthe legal basis for its policy of selectivity?\n(2) What criteria govern these selections?\n(3) Who supervises the selection process?\n(4) How does an indigent criminal defendant\navail himself of CRLA services? The answers\nto the above questions might well trigger\nnew policies from the Board of Directors of\nCRLA. 11 (Exhibit 01-0199 Emphasis added.)\nThe issue goes further. What prevents CRLA attor-\nneys from advancing the argument that they are doing some-\nthing on their own time, to circumvent all of their program\nconditions? The question here is: what ought the public\nto subsidize? Generally, one subsidizes only that which\nis in short supply. The evident free availability of\ncertain kinds of services calls into question the whole\n(46)\npolicy of the services that must be subsidized in order\nto be performed.\nThe tragedy for the poor of CRLA's participation\nin criminal matters is CRLA's reported incompetence in\nhandling them. CRLA attorneys have little experience in\ncriminal matters, and therefore a client represented by\nCRLA in a criminal matter is at a tremendous disadvantage,\nshould one of them be unfortunate enough to be on the re-\nceiving end of an attorney's \"selflessness\".\nIn People of State of California V. Michael Diaz,\nCRLA attorney Donald W. Haynes, of CRLA's Santa Maria\noffice, defended Mr. Diaz, who was charged with the crime\nof contribution to the delinquency of a minor (PC Section\n272), and appeared in court as attorney of record for\nsaid Diaz. The Deputy District Attorney of Santa Barbara\nCounty describes the incident as follows:\n\"The case involved an 18-year old boy com-\nmitting statutory rape on a 15-year old\ngirl, and when the girl's parents objected,\nmembers of the CRLA's office took the girl\nfrom her parents, taking her to Mexico and\narranged for them to get married. (At\nleast, this is what Mr. Haynes stated to\nthe court.) I seriously considered taking\nthe case to the Grand Jury, charging Mr.\nHaynes and others with a felony. However,\ndue to evidentiary problems and the press\nof other felony maters, I did not do so.\"\n(Exhibit 01-004-02.)\n(47)\nExamples of CRLA's denying poor people service\nthat would certainly help them \"help themselves\" are\nnumerous. Following are representative examples of re-\nfusal.\nIn August, 1970, Maryann Coronado went to the\nMadera office of CRLA for assistance in getting a divorce.\nShe relates the incident as follows:\n\"I talked to one man at CRLA. I do not\nrecall his name. This man told me that I\nneeded grounds for divorce and that the\nonly way I could get a divorce was for my\nhusband to beat me up or something like\nthat. I told him that I was not going to\ngive him or my husband that satisfaction.\nHe then gave me a list of attorneys. I told\nhim that I couldn't afford private counsel.\nHe then told me that CRLA did not handle\ndivorce cases. I do not know why CRLA re-\nfused me because they have handled divorce\ncases for a couple of my girlfriends.\"\n(Exhibit 04-0192--Emphasis added.)\nCRLA is often unwilling to help a poor person with\nlegal problems, even when property is involved. Helen\nLucille Rohrig relates the following treatment she re-\nceived from CRLA:\n\"When my divorce was finalized in 1969 I was\nsupposed to receive clear title to 8½¹/2 acres\nof property in North Fork, California. I did\nnot receive clear title so I went to CRLA\nfor help. I went to the CRLA office in Madera.\nI talked to one man, I do not remember his name,\nat CRLA and told him my problem. This man\nrefused to help me. This man stated that I\nhad a domestic problem and CRLA does not help\npeople with family problems. I told the man\n(48)\nthat I was on welfare, and he told me\nthat if I had any problems with the Wel-\nfare Department to contact him, because\nCRLA would help if I had a problem with\nthe Welfare Department. (Exhibit 04-0491--\nEmphasis added.)\nAffiant Judith Shelton relates her experiences\nwith the Madera office of CRLA:\n11 (About May, 1970) I wanted a divorce. I\nwent to the CRLA office in Madera. I went\nthere before normal business hours. A\nreceptionist let me in. I told her my prob-\nlem. The receptionist told me that CRLA\ndoes not handle civil cases and also that I\nhad to be in the county for three months,\nwhich I had not. The receptionist took my\nname and number. CRLA never called me. I\nfinally called them and they told me that\nthey did not handle civil cases. During Oc-\ntober 1970, I again went to CRLA for help.\nA finance company in Fresno, Laurentide\nFinance Corporation, was trying to sue me for\nnot making payments on a car. I told this\nfinance company that I do not have the car\nbut that my husband does. I told this company\nwhere the car was, but the company does not\nwant the car, they want my furniture and\nmoney. Also, this finance company had been\ncalling me and saying it was my husband. I\ntold CRLA all this and they told me to con-\ntact the finance company and offer them $200\nif they would agree to take my name off the\ncontract. My husband and I both signed the\ncontract for the car. The company agreed to\ndo this but I could not come up with $200 in\ncash. CRLA also told me to write the finance\ncompany a letter telling them that they could\nget into trouble for calling me and saying\nit was my husband calling. Again, I asked\nCRLA about my divorce and one of the CRLA at-\ntorneys I talked to, A. Keith Lesar, told me\nthat CRLA does not handle civil cases. He\nwould not give me an explanation. He did tell\nme that if the finance company brought a suit\nagainst me they would help me. I don't under-\nstand why CRLA won't help me with my divorce\n(49)\ncase. A girl I know got a divorce through\nCRLA. The girl went with the person, whose\nname is Ruben, who works with CRLA. \"\n(Exhi-\nbit 04-0190--Emphasis added.)\nIn September, 1970, Loma Lee Dean related the fol-\nlowing experience when she went to a CRLA office for assis-\ntance in getting on welfare.\n\"The purpose of my visit was to have one of\ntheir attorneys help me to get the neces-\nsary papers to show I was separated from\nmy husband, so I could get on welfare. On\nmy first visit to CRLA I explained the pur-\npose of my visit to attorney A. Keith Lesar.\nMr. Lesar wanted to know why I could not\nget on welfare without legal papers, and I\ntold him that I did not know. Mr. Lesar\ninformed me I was entitled to welfare with-\nout legal papers and sent me back towelfare\nto find out why they were refusing me welfare.\nWelfare explained to me that they had too\nmany servicemen's families on welfare and that\nthey now needed papers to show there was a\nseparation. Later on I went back to CRLA\nand talked to another attorney whose name I\ndo not know, but they did not help me.\"\n(Exhibit 04-0034-01.)\nIn one day, a single investigator turned up seven\nindividual cases in which a poor person went to CRLA's\nMadera office for assistance on domestic matters, some of\nthem involving property, but was refused service by them.\nSee Exhibits 04-0034, 36, 37, 38, 35, 33, 31.\nA damning footnote to CRLA's refusal to offer cer-\ntain kinds of service for the poor occurred on February 16,\n1970, when Mr. Cameron Hendry, Executive Director of the\nEconomic Opportunity Commission of Imperial County, wrote\n(50)"
}