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
118564778
label
CRLA - Study and Evaluation of CRLA by California OEO, 1971 (4 of 6)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564778
contentType
document
title
CRLA - Study and Evaluation of CRLA by California OEO, 1971 (4 of 6)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118564778
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
8d77d87424618899
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: CRLA - Study and Evaluation of CRLA
by California OEO, 1971 (4 of 6)
Box: P29
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
In answer to questions raised by the District
Attorney of Imperial County, Robert Johnstone, of CRLA's
El Centro Office, sent a letter to the El Centro Press,
openly stating his support of UFWOC, but claiming that all
of his activities were on his own time. He wrote to the
Editor:
"In regard to Mr. Hamilton's question about me
supporting the Chavez movement, he is absolutely
right. I have never made any secret of the fact
that I support Cesar Chavez in his attempt to
bring the basic rights of collective bargaining
to farm laborers. This is particularly so in the
absence of any meaningful legislation governing
farm labor organization.
However, anything I do for Cesar Chavez is
entirely on my own time. Our office records
reflect that so far this year at different times
and at varying intervals I have taken a total of
11 days of my 15 day annual vacation to work for
Mr. Chavez, and no other vacation whatever.
There are tremendous social conflicts in this
country today and if I choose to spend my free time
working for social issues in which I believe while
Mr. Hamilton and others are sitting around sipping
cocktails and wondering what the world is coming
to, that is my business." (Exhibit 03-0176)
-- In August, 1970, Judge Warren C. Conklin was
assigned to the Municipal Court in Salinas during the
lettuce strike called by UFWOC. Judge Conklin describes
the representation provided UFWOC members by CRLA
attorneys"
"While this strike was in progress, 3 women were
arrested for trespassing. While I was in my
chambers, prior to noon, I was contacted by an
(151)
individual who stated that he was an attorney for
CRLA, however, he also stated that he was not repre-
senting CRLA. This person, a male caucasian, light
brown hair, afro-style, approximately 5'8", 140 to
145 lbs., dressed in a sports jacket, pants, tie and
wearing saddle shoes, stating that he was making a
courtesy appearance for William Carder, attorney
for UFWOC, who was making a court appearance in
Fresno, California. This CRLA attorney asked me if
I would arrange bail for the 3 women or release them
on their recognizance. I advised this attorney
that I would arraign these women if the charges
were filed. My normal position in these matters is
that I would not release anyone prior to arraign-
ment before I had a chance to read the police re-
port. That afternoon, Mr. Carder returned and the
3 women were arraigned and released. Shortly after
lunch of the same day, I was contacted by another
attorney who claimed to be from CRLA who was making
a courtesy appearance on behalf of Mr. Carder and
requesting release of 10 men who had been arrested
for, I believe, blocking a driveway. This
individual, as with the first attorney, stated
that he was not representing CRLA but was doing
this on his own time. I explained my position to
this attorney as I had done with the first attorney.
This attorney made it quite clear that he was not
representing the defendants in any court action and
therefore he could make no commitment on behalf of
UFWOC. When I was advised of this, I stated to
this attorney that I was not interested in re-
leasing these 10 men without receiving some type
of commitment from UFWOC that UFWOC would influence
their people against using violence, and would con-
trol their pickets. I cannot, at this time, recall
the physical description of the second attorney.
At a meeting held later in the day, attended by
myself, the first attorney from CRLA, a Mr. Kahn,
Mr. Ross and attorney William Carder from UFWOC,
it was resolved that the 10 men would be released
on reduced bail. (Exhibit 03-0162).
Brice Bonnard, Ranch Manager for Cel-A-Pak, told of
his experience with CRLA during the recent UFWOC strike
in the Salinas area:
(152)
"Originally, when some of our workers went on strike
here, who are living in our own housing units, I
came down with two of the foremen one day early in
the year and requested - went door to door, and
requested - of each member of the family that was
striking that we couldn't continue to give them
free housing unless they showed up for work, which
I thought was reasonable. And about that time a
couple of gentlemen approached us with quite a
following behind them, and they were from the CRLA,
two attorneys, and they did not state at first who
they were. And he asked me, he said, "what are
you telling these people?" Well, when somebody
asks you that, you know, on your own ranch and
you're talking to your own personnel, that sort of
gets your ire up a little bit. So I told him, I
said, well, I said, it's none of your business,
and with that
Frane: Did they identify themselves?
Bonnard: Well, he did, he said I'm with the CRLA.
Frane: Did he give you a name?
Bonnard: Yes, he did.
Frane: Will you quote the name, please?
Bonnard: Levy.
Frane: Levy?
Bonnard: Levy was the only name I remember; I
can't remember his first name. And with that he
turned around and told all the people, he said,
don't listen to this man and don't pay any atten-
tion to this man at all. He says, I'm going to
represent you. And with that I jus t told him to
turn around and get off the ranch, and with that
he wheeled around and left. And then after that
was when we were served with an injunction, which
stated that we couldn't bother or harass any of
the people in our apartments - we weren't harass-
ing them - we were merely asking them if we were
going to give them free housing they had to show
up for work.
(153)
Frane: This housing is actually free?
Bonnard: That's right, that's right.
Frane: To your employees?
Bonnard: To our employees. And we've never had
any problems in the past about this.
(Exhibit 03-0181)
During the same strike in Salinas, Silvio Bernardi
stated:
"I observed eight to ten pickets at the Apollo
Ranch Company on Preston Road on August 26, 1970.
The pickets have threatened workers of Apollo
Ranch Company by telling them that if they worked
they would be hurt and that the pickets would get
them after work. The pickets have gone into the
fields of Apollo Ranch Company and prevented new
workers from working. The attorneys for the
pickets, the California Rural Legal Association,
have come on to my property to contend that I have
shut off water, gas and electricity of my workers,
which is untrue." (Exhibit 03-0182-09)
A prominent attorney who has represented a number of
grower defendants in actions carried by CRLA has commented
upon the relationship between CRLA and UFWOC. He has
noted especially the "orchestration" between CRLA and
UFWOC in the organizing activities of UFWOC and the suits
filed by CRLA.
Naturally, during a time of strike, any narrowing
of reduction of the available labor force serves to put
additional pressure upon employers to recognize a union
in order to be assured of adequate labor supply. In the
case of Diaz V. Kay-Dix Ranch (Sacramento County Superior
(154)
Court No. 194357), CRLA sought to preclude the hiring of
wetbacks by placing the responsibility for determining
citizenship status upon employers prior to hiring of
labor. The allegation was that wetbacks constituted un-
fair competition with U. S. Citizens in agricultural work.
The case was commenced on meager evidence, lost in the
trial court and subsequently lost on appeal. However,
the timing of this case is what may be paramount. As the
prominent attorney suggests:
" The Diaz V. Kay-Dix Ranch case and six other
like cases involving 16 grower defendants were
filed during approximately the same period and in
the same area that UFWOC was actively engaged in
a campaign to organize agricultural workers and to
force growers to sign union contracts without
elections, etc. Also, UFWOC was using the pesti-
cide issue in its organizational campaign in
California and boycott activities in eastern
markets, and the Bravo and Atwood Aviation cases
were efforts to assist unions in that direction."
(Exhibit 03-0177-01)
(Note: The citations on the above cases are: Bravo V.
Althouse Groves (Tulare County Superior Court No. 69754),
and Atwood Aviation V. C. Seldon Morley (Kern County
Superior Court No. 103595) .)
(5) Conclusion.
It now appears clear that CRLA's conduct with
respect to agriculture in California does not consist of
simply isolated actions and cases helping individual poor
farm workers and their families with their problems.
(155)
There is, in fact, a grand strategy, which, until one has
an opportunity to view the scene from a State-wide per-
spective, is only a concealed agenda.
This grand strategy is to organize and unionize
the farm workers in California into a labor monolith -
a monopoly union - under the control and direction of
UFWOC. The means of accomplishing this objective are:
(1) assistance to UFWOC's activists - pickets,
demonstrators, organizers - and its rank and file members
(and, therefore, necessarily, to the union itself); and
(2) diminution or destruction of the major ob-
stacles in this path. These obstacles are the Farm Labor
Service of the State of California and the farm labor
contractors who operate throughout the State, both of
which constitute competition for UFWOC in providing
employment opportunities for farm workers.
Does this help the poor? Does this provide legal
services for the disadvantaged in rural areas? Or is
this legal services at taxpayers' expense to favor a
labor organization?
And what about the long run? Inevitably, on the
heels of the union comes mechanization. Of course, only
those who have the capital necessary to mechanize may do
so, and the marginal farmers simply cannot compete. With
mechanization and a reduction in the number of farms
(156)
comes the inevitable reduction in farm labor jobs. It is
an unfortunate fact that the knowledge and skill level of
most of those displaced does not auger well for their re-
training potential. Probably, permanent exclusion from
gainful employment will be the lot of many farm workers.
In the name of the poor, the number of poor will have been
increased.
(157)
VI.
A CASE OF NON-COMPLIANCE
A. Criminal Representation
CRLA is prohibited from representing criminals
(except in very special and restricted instances). This
provision has been made to assure that CRLA's resources
will not be dissipated where other Legal Services, such
as those of the Public Defender, are already available
to the indigent in California.
"The grantee shall not provide legal assistance
in the defense of persons indicted or proceeded
against by information for the commission of a
crime, except in extraordinary circumstances where,
after consultation with the court having jurisdic-
tion, the Director of OEO has determined that
adequate legal assistance will be available for
an indigent defendant unless such services are
made available;
=
(CRLA Grant, Special Condition,
6a)
(1) The Honorable Claude J. Miller, Judge of
the Yuba Judicial District, Yuba City, stated in affidavit:
" During the past year, 1970, there has been at
least five criminal cases that have come before
me in which the defendant was represented by CRLA
attorneys.
The types of criminal cases that
are handled by CRLA were disturbing the peace.
Two of these cases occurred in July, 1970, when
on two different and separate occasions two indivi-
duals were brought before me for vulgarity. Both
the defendants were colored people. One, a Mr.
Goodwin, had called the Police "dirty fu-king pigs"
at the Sutter County Fairgrounds. He was represented
(158)
by Peter Haberfeld of the CRLA. Mr. Haberfeld
represented the defendant in my court. Mr. Good-
win was later held to answer in the higher court
(Superior Court). The other vulgarity case was
Beatrice Johnson, a colored woman. She was also
represented by Peter Haberfeld through completion
of the case by trial when she was found guilty.
The only other case that I can recall was a wel-
fare fraud case. Mr. Rogers of CRLA represented
Mr. Whitney through the entire court process. This
case occurred in September, 1970. It is my
opinion and observation that any of the criminal
cases that were handled by CRLA would have been
handled by the public defender's office."
(2) James W. Houlihan, Deputy District Attorney of
Santa Barbara County, stated that CRLA attorneys had been
involved in the following criminal cases:
People V. Angel de Jesus, (a criminal failure to
provide for minor children) ; People V. Santiago
Arquijo (another criminal failure to provide case) ;
Tiburcio Cardoza V. Guadalupe, Justice Court (a
criminal matter in which CRLA is attempting to have
a guilty plea set aside).
The CRLA paid staff attorney named by the affiant
as handling the criminal cases for the above clients
is Donald W. Haynes, of the Santa Maria CRLA office.
(Exhibit 01-0004)
(3) Eugene Grady, Jr. (alias Eugene Four X Brady)
was arrested by the California Highway Patrol,
August 5, 1966, at the intersection of Lakeview
and Brundage in Bakersfield. Grady, Jr., was
charged with a violation of PC 370 (selling the
Black Muslim newspaper, "Muhammed Speaks"). Grady,
Jr., had an arrest record of 33 previous arrests.
After a three-day trial, Grady, Jr., was found
guilty. His defense attorney was one Carol Ruth
Silver, a paid staff member of the CRLA office in
McFarland.
(Exhibit 01-0006)
(159)
(4) Martha White was found guilty of a violation
of Section 242 CPC - assault on plaintiff Sam Evans
(Case No 8725, Justice Court, El Centro, California,
December 6, 1966). In February, five paid CRLA
attorneys, Don B. Kates, Frank N. Denison, L.
Harold Chaille, James D. Lorenz, Jr., and Robert
E. Burke, undertook the representation of Martha
White, alleging by way of habeas corpus that her
jail sentence on the misdemeanor was unconstitutional.
(Exhibit 01-0008)
(5) In April and May of 1970, CRLA attorneys Dan
Lowenstein and Phil Neumark represented initially 42,
but ultimately only 3, demonstrators who had been charged
with trespassing at the district offices at the Modesto
Unified School District. (Exhibit 01-0010) The problems
for the poor people represented in criminal cases by CRLA
attorneys are illustrated in the following statement by
a private attorney representing one of the co-defendants
during the trial that followed:
"This trial consumed eight days. Mr. Neumark
and Mr. Lowenstein had represented all of the de-
fendants originally and represented approximately
five of the defendants who actually went to trial.
"During the course of the trial I felt that Mr.
Neumark and Mr. Lowenstein did not exhibit the
professional competence necessary to adequately
represent the defendants. Further, during the course
of the trial, while engaged in conferences with
all of the defendants and all of the attorneys, I
was given the impression that Mr. Lowenstein and
Mr. Neumark had given their clients erroneous
advice before the sit-in demonstrations took place
in that the section of the Penal Code with which
(160)
we were dealing, namely, Section 602 (p) of the
Penal Code had been twice tested and found consti-
tutionally valid prior to the time these incidents
arose.
(Exhibit 09-0143-28)
(6) Juan Riveria Lopez and Alberto Treillous
Lopez. Both entered a plea of guilty to battery
in Municipal Court in Salinas, (Municipal Court
Trial No. 60492.), April 18, 1970. Juan Lopez
pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced
to 90 days. Alberto Lopez was referred to juve-
nile officer.
Mr. Maurice Jourdane, a paid attorney in the
Salinas CRLA office, represented both brothers.
(Exhibit 01-0011)
(7) Maria Castro Reyes stood trial at Soledad
Justice Court October 1, 1970 (Case No. 40965)
involving two Vehicle Code violations (CVC 22350
and CVC 21950). Attorney of Record for Reyes was
Dennig Powell, CRLA Salinas office, directing
attorney.
(Exhibit 01-0012)
(8) Ramon Mazon and Carlos Bowker were arrested
on June 13, 1970, and charged with the violation
of an Imperial County ordinance that prohibits
ths use of a sound equipped vehicle without a per-
mit.
Mazon and Bowker were represented in the criminal
action by the CRLA El Centro Office.
(Exhibit 01-0014)
(9) Roger Goodwin was arraigned in the Yuba City
District Court on August 4, 1970, for attacking
Sutter County Sheriff Deputy Stephen Sizelove with
a piece of pipe at the intersection of Franklin
Road and Garden Highway in Marysville.
(161)
Goodwin's attorney of record in this criminal
action was CRLA attorney Peter Haberfeld of the
Marysville CRla office.
(Exhibit 01-0005)
(10) Trinidad Segovia (alias Trinidad Perez) was
arrested and tried for a violation of Section
11482 of the Welfare and Institutions Code rela-
tive to welfare fraud. On January 27, 1969, she
was found guilty of the charge in Superior Court,
Madera County, No. 3572.
Trinidad Segovia's defense attorney of record was
a Dennis R. Powell, a paid staff attorney for the
CRLA office, Madera.
(Exhibit 01-0015)
(11) On January 3, 1968, Gary Bellows, a CRLA
attorney with the McFarland office, successfully
petitioned the Municipal Court to dismiss proceed-
ings against Samuel R. Florez and Frank Espinozo,
who on October 16, 1969, had been convicted by a
jury of resisting arrest.
(Exhibit 01-0016)
(12) Judge Howard T. Hudson, Judge in the King City
Judicial District, Monterey County, California, states:
"I have been a judge for six (6) years. I have
had knowledge of California Rural Legal Assistance
CRLA since its inception. On numerous occasions
I have had personal contact with attorneys from
CRLA who represented individuals regarding civil
action in unlawful detainer cases. Approximately
three (3) years ago, in Soledad Judicial District,
an attorney defended an individual in a criminal
matter, violation of section 12500 California Ve-
hicle Code which is operating a vehicle without
a valid driver's license. I cannot recall the
name of the case or the attorney; however, I do
(162)
recall that he was a member of CRLA. This attor-
ney stated that he was appearing for the defendant
as a private attorney and not as a member of CRLA.
In the matter of the People VS. Manuel Echavarria,
Burton Fretz appeared as counsel for the defendant;
however Mr. Fretz made it a point to state that he
was defending Echavarria as a private attorney and
not as a member of CRLA. Several weeks ago, Mr.
Fretz appeared in the Grover City Judicial District,
San Luis Obispo County, to defend an individual and
again stated that he was appearing on behalf of the
defendant as private counsel and not as a member of
CRLA. In both of these incidents in the Grover City
Judicial District, Mr. Fretz has appeared before
me during the normal hours the court is in session.
These hours are normally 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday. Mr. Fretz appeared in this
court on four (4) different occasions with respect
to Echavarria matter. Mr. Fretz appeared in
court on July 31, 1970 to file a motion to dis-
qualify me on the grounds that I was lay judge,
on August 6th and August 7th, 1970 for the trial,
and on October 5th, 1970 to prepare a settled state-
ment. Mr. Fretz also appeared in the Superior
Court, San Luis Obispo, after October 5th, 1970,
to argue the case on appeal. Mr. Fretz has also
appeared in this court on other occasions with
regard to this matter. However, I was not present
on these occasions and I do not know the exact dates.
(In my opinion the original concept of CRLA is a
valid one; however, CRLA, during recent months ap-
pears to be more concerned with filing suits in
class action suits as opposed to representing under-
privileged individuals in civil matters)
(Exhibit 01-0017)
(13) Louis Gordan was charged with the misdemeanor
of disturbance of the peace and failure to disperse
in the Yuba City District Court in August, 1970.
Gordan was arrested for disturbance at the Sutter
County Sheriff's Office when he was demanding the
release of a prisoner held on an assault with a
deadly weapon charge.
(Exhibit 01-0007)
(163)
(14) Dolores Duarte Padilla, Delano, was arrested
on September 1, 1967, for double parking, resisting
arrest and reckless driving. She was convicted of
resisting arrest and entered a plea of guilty to
reckless driving.
Dolores Duarte Padilla was represented in court
by a paid CRLA staff member, Carol Ruth Silver, of
the McFarland office.
(Exhibit 01-0013)
(15) CRLA attorney Burton Fretz of the Santa Maria
office defended one Pedro Castillo Ybarra on a
drunken driving charge (violation of CVC 232102a).
When Fretz was asked by Deputy District Attorney
R. A. Carsel his reason for taking this case in
light of the OEO restrictions, Fretz (on or about
12/7/70) replied he had received a special dispen-
sation "because the issues presented were of great
significance to large numbers of persons on a class
action basis. =
(Exhibit 01-0049)
(16) Jorge Jarpa was listed as a community worker
for the Santa Maria CRLA office. He was arrested
on February 21, 1970, by the California Highway
Patrol on a charge of possession of marijuana.
Jarpa was defended in this criminal action by
Burton D. Fretz, listed as a paid associate attorney
for the Santa Maria CRLA office. Although no longer
on the staff, Jarpa remained in the employ of
CRLA for more than six months after his arrest.
(Exhibit 01-0138)
(17) People V. Art Bryant, Bakersfield Municipal
Court, charge of disturbing the peace, to wit,
allegedly mouthing obscenities at a police officer
on a college campus in the presence of female
students - represented by Martin Spiegel, CRLA
attorney, Santa Rosa.
(Exhibit 01-0021-01)
(164)
Contrary to the claim of CRLA, as contained in
its 1971 Refunding Proposal, - narrative and budget, in
which on page 33 thereof is claimed, "CRLA has never
been formally accused of violating the conditions of its
grant with regard to handling of criminal cases." (11-0171).
It is obvious that CRLA attorneys have ignored the pro-
scription as to representation of those accused of crimes.
The record is replete with such representations. The
District Attorney of Sutter County, Mr. David Teja, indi-
cates that he has given up objecting to representation of
criminals by CRLA attorneys. Several District Attorneys
have shifted the focus of their concern about CRLA's
representing criminal defendants from concern about vio-
lations of CRLA's grant conditions to the quality of rep-
resentation that criminal defendants are receiving from
CRLA attorneys. CRLA's indifference to complaints about
criminal representation has successfully deterred people
from complaining about that. But these District Attorneys
continue to be concerned about the quality of representation,
because of their deep concern that the poor receive quality
service. One District Attorney we spoke to said he felt
uncomfortable having to assist CRLA attorney in criminal
defense, when his office was supposed to be on the other
side of the case. He said his office continued to do it
reluctantly, because of his fear that otherwise the defendants
(165)
would not receive adequate counsel.
When the fact of CRLA attorneys representing clients
in criminal actions has been brought to the attention of
CRLA Management in San Francisco, the Central Office
inevitably responds by saying that the erring attorney
has provided representation "on his own time, at his own
expense, and without charging a fee.' = (See letter of
Richard Petherbridge, Chairman, CRLA Board of Trustees,
to James R. Hanhart, District Attorney, Madera County,
December 23, 1969 (Exhibit 01-0199)
In response to this claim, Mr. Hanhart declared,
"This
is
ridiculous
to say that an attorney working for
a corporate law firm may take on clients which are prohi-
bited to him during the regular working day. To follow
this to its logical conclusion, then a District Attorney
might well represent a lucrative personal injury case or
rich criminal defendant on internal "days off". It may
be that neither CRLA nor Mr. Spiegal has given this matter
any close thought. (Exhibit 01-0199)
See also the affidavit of Reverend Monroe Carter
Taylor, commenting on the participation of CRLA attorneys
in the Modesto school demonstrations, and their claim
that it was all "on their own time.' (Exhibit 09-0143-18)
(166)
Eligibility
Eligibility as per OEO Instruction 6004-lb
(December 1, 1970) is as follows:
OEO Poverty Guidelines for All States Except
Alaska and Hawaii:
Family
Nonfarm
Farm
Size
Family
Family
1
$1,900
$1,600
2
2,500
2,000
3
3,100
2,500
4
3,800
3,200
5
4,400
3,700
6
5,000
4,200
7
5,600
4,700
For families with more than 7 members, add
$600 for each additional member in a non-
farm family and $500 for each additional
member in a farm family.
(Exhibit 11-0172)
This office, during our recent evaluation, never
saw any grave concern in any CRLA office that this guide-
line be adhered to. Busy as so many CRLA offices are with
their class action law suits, representation of school
demonstrators, harassing local and governmental agencies,
and generally doing their "legal thing," they neglect
monumentally their obligation to conform with the guide-
lines for poverty qualifications for free legal services.
1. OVER $100,000 NET WORTH AND GETS CRLA LEGAL
AID
James T. May and Margaret H. May were co-plaintiffs
in a lawsuit filed against Emmett Gene McMenamin, County
(167)
B.
ELIGIBILITY STANDARD FOR CRLA ATTORNEYS
There is a requirement for CRLA that clients meet
a prescribed income eligibility standard, so that those,
in fact, able to pay for an attorney will do so and will
not utilize the limited resources of CRLA.
"The grantee shall not provide legal assis-
tance in
representation in any case where
the applicant exceeds the financial eligibi-
lity standard where a private attorney is
willing to provide representation and the
client and private attorney are able to reach
an agreement on representation. In all cases
exceeding the financial eligibility standard,
the applicant shall be referred to the local
lawyer referral panel in order to obtain re-
presentation. In the event the lawyer referral
panel is unable to make satisfactory arrange-
ments for representation, the grantee shall
consider the following factors in order to
determine whether representation shall be
provided: (1) the amount of the fee likely
to be charged the applicant by a private attor-
ney; (2) the extent to which the income of
the applicant exceeds the financial eligibility
standards; (3) the debts and obligations owing
by the applicant; (4) the amount of real and
personal property owned by the applicant; (5)
the urgency of the applicant's problem; (6) the
relationship of the nature of the applicant's
legal problem to the general legal problems
of the low income community intended to be
served by the grantee.
"If private counsel can be obtained for repre-
sentation at any time during the case proceed-
ings, without jeopardizing the client's in-
terest, the grantee shall terminate its repre-
sentation of said client."
CRLA Grant, Special Condition
6c
(168)
Clerk Registrar of Voters for Monterey County, for in-
junctive relief after McMenamin discharged the Mays as
deputy registrars (civil action number 68060 -
August 25, 1970, Monterey County Superior Court.)
James T. May, co-plaintiff, is a supervising
accountant for Kaiser Refractories at Moss Landing, with
a salary in excess of $1,000 per month. Further, James
T. May has property in Monterey County with an approxi-
mate market value in excess of $75,000. A credit source
in Salinas, California, indicates May's net worth is in
excess of $100,000.
It must be assumed that CRLA attorneys Dennis
Powell, Maurice Jourdane, Richard A. Gonzales, David H.
Kirkpatrick, and Neil M. Levy (all of the Salinas CRLA
office) felt that the Mays qualified for poverty law
legal service. To be sure, the Mays in their lawsuit
had the whole CRLA office in Salinas at their disposal
for legal services free of charge. (Exhibit 06-0050-01)
2. CRLA REPRESENTS SELF
CRLA, on October 16, 1970, represented themselves
(CRLA, et al, versus Eugene Zanger, et al, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California, No. C702236GSL)
in a complaint for injunction, damages, and declaratory
relief, for a violation of the plaintiff's civil rights.
Plaintiffs (including the following CRLA Gilroy
(169)
office staff members: Jose Chapa, Senior Investigator,
annual salary - $8,250; Brian Paddock, Associate Attorney,
annual salary - $14,000; and Don B. Kates, Directing
Attorney, annual salary - $17,500) claimed their civil
rights were violated while attempting to visit a farm
labor camp on defendant Zanger's property, and that they
were unlawfully detained by deputy sheriffs, who were
also listed as co-defendants. CRLA, Incorporated, has
an annual budget in excess of $1,500,000 a year and the
Gilroy office of CRLA, one of the plaintiffs of this cause
in action, has an approximate budget in excess of $80,000
a year. It is only for us to speculate how any of these
named plaintiffs or CRLA, Incorporated, qualified for a
poverty lawyer or rural legal assistance. (Exhibit 06-
0051-01 through 48)
3. ANOTHER CLEAR-CUT CASE
Attorney Elmer L. Winger of Modesto, in an affi-
davit dated December 11, 1970, discusses a lawsuit in
which CRLA attorneys of the Modesto office defended one
Roy T. Hodge during the month of March 1968, in a civil
matter, wherein Hodge was being sued for delinquent pay-
ments on outstanding obligations.
Hodge lost the case and immediately paid his cre-
ditors. Hodge owned his own home, his wife was employed,
he owned an automobile and a Dodge mobilehome valued at
(170)
$20,000. Hodge's net worth barred him from free legal
services of CRLA, as stated in the guidelines, yet he
was provided those services by CRLA. (Exhibit 06-0052-01
through 03)
4. SOME WEALTHY ORGANIZATIONS GO TO CRLA
Prior to February 1970, the Chowchilla, California,
School District had a disciplinary policy that demanded
suspension of students guilty of using vile and profane
language on the school grounds.
According to Edward Chidlaw, President of the
Madera County Bar Association, CRLA attorneys came to
Chowchilla to organize the Chowchilla Committee for
Better Schools -- an organization that purported to be
involved with equitable treatment of students in the
above matters of discipline. The legal counsel for the
committee was a CRLA attorney, Fred J. Hiestand, who
was the attorney of record as legal counsel for the
committee.
In his affidavit, Mr. Chidlaw states that the
treasurer of the Chowchilla Committee for Better Schools
was worth in excess of $250,000, and that the main mem-
bers of the committee were financially above the pro-
scribed guidelines for eligibility to receive free legal
aid (Exhibit 06-0053-01 through 08).
(171)
5. CRLA AND THE ROCK FESTIVAL
CRLA has acted as attorney for entrepreneurs who
staged a rock festival in El Centro on December 15, 1970,
at Buckland Park. According to news reports, an estimated
800 persons attended the rock festival.
Bob Johnstone, of the CRLA office in El Centro,
acted as legal representative of the entrepreneurs who
staged this rock festival, which does not conform with
eligibility guidelines for the CRLA in the opinion of
this office. (Exhibit 06-0129-01 and 02)
6. CAUSES ARE CONSIDERED MORE OFTEN THAN GUIDE-
LINES BY CRLA
The representation of Steve Smith and Kieth Jeffers
by the Marysville CRLA office in a suit against the Yuba
City Unified School District over dress regulations as
regards the length of male students hair, according to
Don Soli, Vice-Principal of Yuba City High, may well
have been in violation of CRLA's financial eligibility
guidelines. Mr. Soli reports that the father of Steve
Smith is an electrician. He further states that the
father of Kieth Jeffers is retired from the Air Force
and is now employed by a newspaper and that Jeffers mother
is a bookkeeper at a bank. Exhibit 09-0103
7. ELIGIBILITY IS OF LITTLE CONCERN TO CRLA
An article in the Los Angeles Times, July 30, 1968,
(172)
discusses a complaint filed by two attorneys for CRLA,
in which two teachers at Seaside, California, High School,
Bedford and Wilhelmina Vaughn, are plaintiffs against a
Seaside landlord for refusing to rent a house to the couple.
Despite the merits of the case, the Vaughns have only two
children, and it would certainly appear that their com-
bined salaries as high school teachers places them above
the eligibility standards for service to the rural poor.
(Exhibit 21-0196)
8. CRLA SUES FOR POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS
News article from the Wall Street Journal dated
November 16, 1970, states that CRLA filed a suit against
Human Resources Development on behalf of five organiza-
tions:
American G.I. Forum
Spanish Speaking Surnamed Political Association
Mexican-American Political Association
League of United Latin American Citizens, District 10
Chicano Law Students Association
The suit charges discriminatory employment practices
by the California Department of Human Resources Develop-
ment toward California's three million Spanish surnamed
residents.
All five above-named organizations are political
in nature and CRLA is prohibited from representing political
organizations.
(173)
9. CONCLUSION
There seems to be a total disregard for assessing
eligibility guidelines as per the CRLA grant as a matter
of course in all CRLA offices.
It seems apparent that CRLA offices accept or re-
ject clients on the particular whim of the local office.
There is no doubt in our mind that cases are accepted
that tend to reflect the dramatic, the political and
tend to conform with the cause in vogue of the indivi-
dual CRLA office involved.
(174)
C.
SOLICITING CLIENTS AND STIRRING UP LITIGATION.
Lawyers are prohibited from soliciting clients
and stirring up litigation or cases.
"Stirring up litigation, directly or through
agents. It is unprofessional for a lawyer to
volunteer advice to bring a lawsuit
Stirring
up strife and litigation is not only unprofes-
sional but it is indictable at common law. It
is disreputable to hunt up
causes of action
and inform thereof in order to be employed to bring
suit or collect judgment, or to breed litigation
by seeking out those with
grounds of action
in order to secure them as clients, or to employ
agents or runners for like purposes
A
duty
to the public and to the profession devolves upon
every member of the bar having knowledge of such
practices upon the part of any practitioner im-
mediately to inform thereof, to the end that the
offender may be disbarred. "
Canons of Professional Ethics
of the American Bar Association,
Rule 28.
"A member of the State Bar shall not advise the
commencement, prosecution or defense of a case,
unless he has been consulted in reference thereto
=
Rules of Professional Conduct,
California State Bar, Rule 10
The issue of stirring up litigation is a particu-
larly sensitive one, because of the extent to which liti-
gation of any sort, particularly suits alleging exploitation
between one group and another, tend to stir hostilities and
tensions between them. This is especially dangerous in
(175)
race relations, where tensions and hostilities may already
be aggravated to near violence.
The importance of keeping controversies at the low-
est level is vital with respect to the poor. The greater
the publicity suggesting exploitation, the more the indi-
vidual poor person is apt to feel he has no real control
over his own life and his own chances for personal ful-
fillment. Consequently, there are here opportunities for
a very special kind of exploitation of the poor - - one
which promotes psychological dependency by the poor person
on the individual raising the complaint.
Settling a problem at the lowest level of contro-
versy does not compromise the material solution. But
the quieter the solution, the less apt it is to encourage
and aggravate the psychological dependency that may make
it virtually impossible for "poor people to help them-
selves." It is for this reason that the following section
is so important: because it illustrates the depths of
the exploitation that is taking place in CRLA's relations
with its clients and constituents.
The dangers in the situation are explored with
sensitivity and depth in the 1970 Introduction to Nathan
Glazer's and Daniel P. Moynihan's classic Beyond the
(176)
Melting Pot (Joint Study for Urban Studies of the Massa-
chusetts Institute of Technology and the President and
Fellows of Harvard University) :
(page XVI of "Beyond the Melting Pot")
"
but we do not feel, on balance, that the pri-
mary failure (in race relations) was in the poli-
tical response of government to recognized need
"We would point to two other areas of failure, at
least as important. One was the failure of intel-
lectuals and the mass media to report and analyze
what was happening. The intelligencia, as it
so often has, lusted after the sensational and
the exotic. The hard work of politics and social
change bored it. An increasingly dangerous romance
with social brinkmanship and violence developed.
The main task of individuals, keeping the channels
of thought and of communication honest, was in-
creasingly abandoned. Thus, until the rise of Black
militancy a few years ago, it was typical for the
intelligencia to argue that whatever the shape
of race realtions, whatever the conditions of
Negroes, it was fully and exclusively to be ascribed
to Whites. This was an exaggerated and distorted
view of the situation even 5 and 10 years ago. "
(page XVIII)
"The point is that the political failures of the
1960s also include a failure by intellectuals
and by the mass media they increasingly influenced
to give a true and honest account of the situation.
Lies started, and they were not stopped, because
those whose task was to monitor words and ideas
had less and less interest in doing SO. It was no
wonder that, even while progress was substantial,
fears of genocide rose. =
The point to be emphasized here is that by escal-
ating their charges of exploitation, the intelligencia
(177)
(and here CRLA) tended to render the constituents psycho-
logically impotent to control their own affairs and to
"help themselves." A New Exploitation was at hand, and
the result was to make the poor more helpless than ever.
It was difficult to avoid the tragic irony of the situation
which occurred as the agents of the Economic Opportunity
Act, which had been charged with promoting independence,
in fact set about to produce the most aggravated and in-
tractable dependency the poor had yet known.
(1) CRLA's Passion for Controversy.
CRLA's passion for controversy and litigation are
captured in the following incident, described by Detective
C.E. Brown of the Delano Police Department.
On May 8, 1970, Patrolman Brown stopped a vehicle
driven by two Mexican-Americans in their early 20's for
running a stop light. Because of a call on his Police
radio, the Patrolman warned the driver but did not issue
a traffic citation for the violation. He describes the
incident as follows:
"I was standing talking with the driver when a
vehicle pulled up across the street and stopped.
A MMA (Mexican-American) got out of the vehicle
and walked over to the officer and traffic vio-
lator saying in Spanish 'what's the trouble,
(178)
brother?' I thought the two subjects were
relatives and advised him that there was no
trouble and that the vehicle had run a stop
sign. I also advised him that the subject
had received a verbal warning and that no
traffic citation was being issued.
"At this point the MMA identified himself
as John Ortega (CRLA attorney in the McFarland
office), stating that he was an attorney and
was there to give the driver legal advice.
I asked Mr. Ortega for one of his business
cards, whereupon he stated, 'I wouldn't give
you cops the time of day, and walked around
to the passenger side of the vehicle and
began talking with the other passenger. I
asked the driver if he knew this subject and
he stated, 'No, but he sounds like some type
of nut.' Again Ortega approached the under-
signed, demanded my name and badge number,
saying, 'We'll see you in court.' The driver
told him there was no problem and that he did
not need an attorney, whereupon Ortega stated,
'Don't say anything, I'll represent you free.
It appeared to me this subject was attempting
to cause a confrontation and to antagonize the
undersigned. I advised Mr. Ortega of Penal
Code Section 148 (interfering and delaying
a Police Officer), again stating there was
no citation being issued and no need for his
presence. He turned and put his face close
to mine and shouted, 'You had better read the
Constitution, if you can read.' The driver
was advised he was free to go, and drove away.
Ortega stood and looked at the undersigned
for several moments, muttered to himself and
walked back to his vehicle."
(Exhibit 17-0080.)
The Patrolman's recollection of the incident is
supported by the affidavit of Jerry Silva Hernandez, at-
tached here as Exhibit 17-0080-08, which he signed July 21,
1970, more than two months after the incident.
(2) "Looking" for a Woman on Welfare.
Another incident reveals the general orientation.
(179)
In 1969 Mr. Fred Hiestand, a paid CRLA staff attorney,
informed Mr. Herbert E. Bartow, a private attorney in
Madera, that CRLA was "looking" for a woman Welfare recip-
ient who had been requested to take a polygraph examination
by the Madera County District Attorney's office, so that
they could take legal action. Mr. Bartow mentioned to
Mr. Hiestand that he had talked to just such a woman re-
cently, but when Hiestand asked him to furnish him with
her name and address, Mr. Bartow refused. (Exhibit 07-0086.)
(3) One Class Action Needed
Call CRLA.
The CRLA local office in El Centro solicited clients
to make complaints against feed lots in the Calexico area
in a newspaper article in the Imperial Valley News of Feb-
ruary 3, 1967. The CRLA attorney soliciting clients in
this matter was Frank Dennison. Dennison said in his news
article that he "needs a - class suit - to work with a
group of people to bring an action
"
The article goes
on to state that complaints may be made to Dennison at
the legal assistance office in El Centro. (Exhibit 07-0089.)
(4) A CRLA Either-Or Lawsuit.
The experience of Rachel Hubbard with the CRLA
Marysville office combines an illustration of CRLA's
insensitivity to poor people with their passion to stir
up litigation. As discussed in other sections,
(180)
Mrs. Hubbard went to the Marysville office shortly after
the death of her husband to finalize adoption proceedings
for the child she had brought up since he was three days
old. Mrs. Hubbard found the maximum grant of $150 that
she was able to receive from Welfare was insufficient to raise
her child, but in order to qualify for the Social Security
payments from her late husband's account, she had to have
adoption papers for the child. Mrs. Hubbard went to CRLA
for assistance with the adoption, but CRLA told her they
would help her only if she agreed to act as a plaintiff in
a suit against the Sutter County Welfare Department. Mrs.
Hubbard refused to be a party to CRLA's scheme, and she
left the office. She states, in affidavit, that CRLA at-
tempted to contact her five times on the telephone, offer-
ing to assist her with her adoption proceeding if she would
sue the Welfare Department. She said their particular in-
terest in this case came from the fact, described by a
CRLA attorney over the phone to her, that this was "the
best case they had come across." (Exhibit 02-0018.) She
continued to refuse to submit to this form of extortion,
even though it meant she had to do without the Social
Security payments that would otherwise have been coming
to her.
In other sections, we have discussed CRLA's
(181)
prosecution of the Santa Maria Berry Farm case, in which
the CRLA Santa Maria office sued a local grower, alleging
that he was spraying dangerous pesticides, but without
bothering to communicate with him before the prosecution
of the suit. As stated in his letter of dismissal, CRLA
attorney Burton Fretz implicitly admits the only purpose
of the litigation was to force the Department of Agriculture
to make public, information regarding the spraying of pest-
icides. CRLA imposed great costs both on the private de-
fendant and on the Department of Agriculture in defending
the suit, which was brought against a private defendant
for the purpose of getting information from a public agency.
(5) Solicitation Before a Demonstration.
In the Modesto School demonstration incident, de-
scribed at pages and herein, CRLA was responsible
for organizing and directing a demonstration which resulted
in the arrest and trial of some 42 demonstrators for tres-
pass at the Modesto School District building in April, 1970.
The affidavit of Rev. Monroe Carter Taylor, who is a mem-
ber of the local CRLA Advisory Board and Director of Social
Services at the King-Kennedy Memorial Center in Modesto,
is especially important in description of this incident.
Rev. Taylor states:
(182)
These two lawyers were all too active.
First, they told the demonstrators that
they would represent them legally in court
if arrested. Second, they spent the entire
day, day after day, at the City School's
office, with the demonstrators, where in
fact they should have been at their offices
doing their official duties talking to clients.
Thirdly, they did represent some of the dem-
onstrators who were arrested, and the two,
Lowenstein and Neumark, spent weeks in court
defending the demonstrators."
CRLA's offer in advance to legally represent the
demonstrators in court if they were arrested was part of
CRLA's organization of the incidents that resulted in the
arrests. It is notable that when the arrests actually took
place, the two CRLA attorneys who had organized the demon-
strations that led to them, had absented themselves and
avoided the discomfiture they had caused for their followers.
Solicitation of cases is essential to CRLA's prison
penetration, which is explored and revealed in Section V.A.
hereof. In most of the affidavits we collected from pris-
oners at Soledad Prison and San Quentin, CRLA attorneys
contacted them in a great many instances for the purpose
of solicitation. See Section V. (A) for further discussion
on this point.
(6) The "Hot Stove" Case.
The so-called Hot Stove Case," described at page 60
hereof, indicates both CRLA's passion for litigation of
(183)
cases that have publicity value and for perpetuating liti-
gation after a solution has already been found. In that
case, CRLA claimed that the Welfare Department was with-
holding funds to meet unmet shelter needs of Welfare recip-
ients. As pointed out above, the total moneys available to
the Sutter County Welfare Department amounted to $1200
(some State, some County and some Federal) - which were
estimated by the Director of the local County Welfare De-
partment to be sufficient to assist two families during
the entire year when they were allocated. The Welfare
Department was notified of the availability of these funds
in December, and CRLA filed its suit in mid-January. No
effort was made to negotiate the release of the limited
funds. When a local merchant offered to provide a stove,
for payment of which CRLA was suing the Welfare Department,
CRLA asked the merchant to hold off until they could press
the case to decision. The result delayed delivery of the
stove to the Welfare family for between four and six weeks.
The court sustained the Welfare Department's demurrer.
(7) T.V. Solicitation in Salinas.
In September, 1970, at 6:00 p.m. newscast on KSVW,
Channel 8, in Salinas, described a UFWOC rally and CRLA's
participation in it as follows:
(184)
"California Rural Legal Assistance Attorney
Neil Levy asked that all workers return sum-
monses from growers notifying them to leave
the camp, so that they can be answered in
court, adding that in that way he may be
able to prolong the day of eviction.
(Exhibit 07-0088.)
His purpose is clearly to assist the organizing
efforts of UFWOC by soliciting and stirring up litigation.
This incident is dealt with at pages
and
hereof.
(8) Deluded into CRLA Suit.
Stirring up litigation often involves conscripting
plaintiffs. In the case of Wolfin V. Vinson, discussed at
page
hereof, CRLA filed suit on behalf of 16 Indians
against a local car dealer. When they were later questioned
in depositions, 15 of the 16 plaintiffs denied that they had
ever been requested to be part of the lawsuit. For more on
this see page
(9) Conscription of Plaintiffs.
Conscripting plaintiffs obviously goes considerably
beyond mere solicitation, for solicitation implies some
kind of consent by the plaintiff. Another blatant case of
conscription occurred in the 250 Farm Workers case against
the California Farm Labor Bureau, discussed herein at page
The affidavit of one of the plaintiffs states as follows:
"On or about March 3, 1970, I attended an
English class at the San Benito County High
School
A Mr. Del Buono of California Rural
(185)
Legal Aid spoke to the class. He asked the
whole group to sign a petition to get the
State Farm Labor offices closed. He said
that these offices were not of any bene-
fit to the worker and that the offices
should be closed, because if they were
closed then the workers could get higher
wages. He recommended that if the offices
were closed then the farmers could come to
a union run by the workers or an agency
run by the workers. Mr. Del Buono tried
to get all of us to sign the petition.
Everyone else signed it, but I did not.
(Exhibit
The conscripted plaintiffs' later surprise is re-
corded explicitly, for instance, in the affidavit of Felix
Gusman Gaono:
A bearded man who said he was an attor-
ney for the California Rural Legal Assistance
came to my home inquiring of the people next
door. With this man was a Mexican-American
of approximately 25 years of age They
said they were gathering signatures
toward the protection and betterment of farm
labor wages
Approximately two weeks
later the Mexican-American returned to my
home with a typed statement for me to sign.
He did not read the statement to me. He
said the statement was for the protection
of the farm laborer who worked by the hour
or piece rate. The man who had me sign the
statement did not tell me that the paper I
was signing was a complaint against the
Farm Labor Office. If I had known that it
was, I would not have signed it, as I have
no complaint whatsoever against the Farm
Labor office. "
(10)
Manufactured Situations."
In some ways, CRLA's passion for solicitation and
stirring up litigation is best described in the affidavit
of Mrs. Amelia Harris, who was employed by the CRLA Salinas
(186)
office from September, 1966, to June, 1969:
"Many cases were established as a result
of manufactured situations. I mean by this
that clients or potential clients were in-
structed in certain actions and dialog with
agencies and private firms that would lead
to litigation."
She goes on to describe several cases brought in
response to manufactured situations. Mrs. Harris was
treated summarily when she raised an objection to CRLA's
conduct:
"After the California Rural Legal Assistance
decided to drop domestic relations cases,
consumer credit cases and automobile credit
cases, I voiced the opinion that this was
not correct procedure under the guidelines
set forth and that acceptance of other types
of cases outside the guidelines while not
accepting cases inside the guidelines was
wrong, morally and legally. I was discharged
in June, 1969."
(11) CRLA Intolerant of Criticism - Private
Law Firm.
CRLA is not tolerant of opinions that deviate from
their own. Mrs. Harris was entitled to leave pay and sev-
erance pay at the time of her discharge, but CRLA forced
her to go to the Labor Commissioner through an attorney:
"The Labor Commissioner ordered payment of
the moneys due me plus punitive damages,
and I was finally paid through the Labor
Commissioner office." (Exhibit 09-0174)
Occasionally, an effort by CRLA to stir up litigation
and solicit clients is foiled by a private attorney who
(187)
sadistically offers to donate time. This situation is
frustrating enough for CRLA's attorneys, but it is intol-
erable when the attorney appears satisfied that the problem
can be settled without filing a suit and going to court. It
has been suggested by one observer that perhaps such insensi-
tive behavior by the private bar ought to be expressly for-
bidden by OEO, or the Bar. The reasoning is that no exper-
ience is more frustrating for a poverty lawyer than judicial
onanism.
Such a case as that described above was the case of
Delfina Bocanegra, et al., V. Salinas Strawberries, et al.,
Superior Court, Monterey. The farm workers were represented
in that case by Mr. W. F. Moreno, who described his contact
with CRLA in a letter he wrote on May 5, 1970:
"You may not know that we received a tele-
phone call just prior to the time when we
contacted your office in that case and in
this telephone conversation the CRLA tried
to convince us that we did not want this case
because of the fact (a) that the people could
not get into our office during normal times;
(b) that they did not speak English, and:
(c) that it would not produce very much money.
"We insisted that we would make some special
arrangements to have a meeting at a time
convenient to the workers, that we could
speak Spanish if no other interpreter was
available, and that we were willing to don-
ate our services.
"As it turned out, the CRLA had already pre-
pared a complaint which they wanted us to
file before even contacting the proposed
(188)
defendants. They requested permission to
be associated with our office in the suit,
and we denied them permission. It was ob-
vious from the fact that appointments were
not kept and other innuendos that they were
not really happy that we had accepted this
case. We believe that someone had required
them to really go down the list of lawyers on
the lawyers referral panel before they could
take the case."
Mr. Moreno continues in his letter a description of
the inappropriateness of litigation in this case:
"As you will recall, we contacted your office
and demanded, and received, complete copies
of all of the payroll records and we were
able to resolve the matter to everyone's
satisfaction. There were errors in the
payroll and the back pay was collected. No
suit was required. In the course of our
investigation of the matter, we found that
no attorney from the CRLA had ever talked to
any of the proposed plaintiffs at any time,
and as far as we know, even up to today.
The entire matter was handled by one of the
CRLA field workers whom we have information
tending to indicate was also an organizer
for the Chavez union."
Mr. Moreno ends his letter expressing the general
helplessness that people in the communities feel against
the poverty law establishment:
"Quite frankly, we are sending this inform-
ation over to you, but we do not expect that
you will have any luck in doing anything about
the CRLA.
Mr. Moreno's letter is Exhibit 07-0180. (See also
the affidavit of Mrs. Amelia Harris, Exhibit 09-0174.)
Mrs. Harris indicates that CRLA set up the Salinas Straw-
berries case with a "contrived situation. At the time,
(189)
she was directing legal secretary for the CRLA Salinas office,
which attempted to take the case. (As indicated in our dis-
cussion of Mrs. Harris' affidavit at pages and hereof,
in recalling both the Salinas Strawberries case and the
Martin Produce case, she evidently confused their respective
facts, ascribing the Martin Produce facts to the Salinas
Strawberries case. The significance of the testimony,
however, is not compromised, in view of her charge that
in both situations CRLA "contrived" the circumstances on
which the suits were based.)
(12) Conclusion.
To end the discussion of solicitation and stirring
up litigation by mere reference to the rules of professional
conduct of the American Bar Association and the State Bar of
California would be to miss the vital significance that those
rules have where poor people are involved.
As we have said, the genius of the Economic Oppor-
tunity Act and its major innovation was its attempt to
approach the problems of poverty by attacking poverty's
psychological roots, which are buried in dependency. The
issue is complicated, of course, because dependency has
both material and psychological dimensions, which often
conflict. Often, a material victory (reducing material
dependency) may produce a psychological defeat (by
(190)
aggravating psychological dependency). This fact explains
the critical importance of the Bar Associations' rules
against solicitation and stirring up of litigation when
they are applied to the poor. If a poverty lawyer spends
all of his time telling an agricultural worker that he is
being exploited by the grower, the lawyer is almost cer-
tainly exploiting the worker psychologically. For the
result of this relationship will be to encourage the worker
to resent the grower and depend on the lawyer, who has be-
come at once his "champion" and exploiter.
We think the incidents cited above concerning CRLA
attorneys soliciting cases and stirring up litigation
reveal at best a blatant indifference to the needs of
the poor, at worst a disposition to use their clients
as ammunition in their efforts to wage ideological
warfare.
(191)
D.
A CASE OF NON-COMPLIANCE - CONDUCT UNBECOMING
AN ATTORNEY
"He (an attorney) should strive at all times
to uphold the honor and maintain the dignity
of the profession
=
Canons of Professional
Ethics of the American
Bar Association, Rule 29
Professional behavior just as ethical behavior
must have some objective yard stick of measurement.
This is a factor not readily understood by the "new breed
movement lawyer" who is more often than not the captive
of a strong and dogmatic set of socio-political emo-
tions that result in a behavioral myopia. Thus, a
"movement lawyer" (As defined by Faye Stender) can,
in the course of his legal profession write "F*ck
Vietnam" on the blackboard in front of a junior high
school class (as CRLA's Newmark did) and feel that his
act is constructive and productive in its brash crudity
and rote simplicity.
THE LEGAL STYLE OF THE "MOVEMENT LAWYER"
(1) On August 30, 1970, a telegram was sent
to Dr. James Cavanaugh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Health and Scientific Affairs, Department of Health,
Education and Welfare in Washington, D.C. The telegram
requested that Health, Education and Welfare funds for
the Migrant Health Clinic in Brawley, California, not be
(192)
dealyed or its opening date postponed. This telegram
was sent over the name of Dr. Elmer Werner, President,
Imperial County Medical Association. The charge for the
telegram was made to CRLA. On October 21, 1970, another
telegram was sent to Dr. Cavanaugh stating in part the
following:
"The telegram of August 30, 1970, over my signa-
ture was not sent by me and did not represent
my opinion."
According to a letter of August 31, 1970, addressed
to Dr. Werner, CRLA attorney John Denvir admits he sent
out the original telegram without the approval of Dr. Werner.
(Exhibit 14-0120)
(2) The Director of Legal Services of the
State Bar of California, F. Jay Lutz, sent a letter dated
October 26, 1970, to Cruz Reynoso, Director of California
Rural Legal Assistance. In this letter Mr. Reynoso was
"advised that the committee (of the State Bar)
has reviewed the application of California
Rural Legal Assistance for OEO refunding for
the year ending December 31, 1971, and has
approved the same."
The letter stated further that "concurrently
herewith
appropriate members of the
staff of the Honorable Ronald Reagan are being
advised of the foregoing."
In response to this routine approval by the State
Bar, CRLA issued a press release beginning "In an un-
precedented action," = and suggesting that the Bar had
(193)
affirmatively urged the Governor to approve the program.
The Sacramento Bee picked up the story and escalated the
language, presenting an even stronger impression of the
State Bar's action.
A member of our staff contacted the Chairman of
the Bar's Committee on Legal Services, which was responsi-
ble for the approval, and asked (a) if it was true that
the Bar was doing anything it had not done over the years
for all programs, and (b) if the Bar was urging the Gover-
nor affirmatively to approve the program. The Chairman
of the committee said on the phone emphatically that his
committee had done no such thing, and that it would have
been inappropriate for them to have done it, in any event.
It is interesting in this connection to consider
the nature of the State Bar's approval of CRLA. In an-
other conversation with a member of our staff, the same
gentleman referred to above indicated a dissatisfaction
with the amount of information they were given on the
basis of which they had to approve or disapprove the pro-
gram. In some respects, this latter point, no doubt true
in view of the evidence collected in this report, suggests
a possible area for reform in the way Bar Associations go
about evaluating legal service programs.
(3) In an affidavit taken on December 23, 1970,
Mr. Richard A. Weiss, Los Angeles attorney, attested to
(194)
three separate instances of "unprofessional conduct and
frivolous waste of taxpayers' money by attorneys employed
by the California Rural Legal Assistance." The first
instance concerns the case of Dubney versus Harold L.
Anderson, wherein Mr. Budney was represented by Mr. Weiss'
firm, and Mr. Anderson was represented by CRLA attorneys
Robert Bell and James A. Kealey. Mr. Weiss states that
"the CRLA attorneys represented Anderson for
the sole purpose of filing a motion to trans-
fer the Los Angeles Municipal Court case to
Sonoma.
They lost their motion in the
trial court. They appealed and lost their ap-
peal. They then made a motion for a rehearing
and lost that.
The second instance cited by Mr. Weiss was in the
case of Creditors Service versus Fred Reed, wherein
Mr. Reed was represented by the CRLA through Florence
Bernstein, Barbara Sena, and Armando Rodriguez. This
case was started in the Los Angeles Municipal Court and
the CRLA attorneys filed in answer,
"A cross complaint for injunction and four-
teen counts of punitive damages in the amount
of $2,000.00 per count and moved to transfer
the case to the Fresno Superior Court."
"They then, in direct violation of the Code
of Civil Procedure, paid the transfer fees.
No notice was given to the plaintiff and
within ten days after transfer caused the
default of plaintiff to be taken. Despite
telephone calls and letters they (the CRLA
attorneys) refused to set aside the default.
Plaintiff was forced to go to Fresno and move
the court set aside the default.
At the
same time the defendants made a motion to quash
(195)
a writ of attachment. At the time of making
the motion there was no writ of attachment
in existence. Their motion was denied. They
filed an appeal. We filed a respondent's
brief. They filed a reply brief. They then
stipulated to dismiss their appeal.
The third instance also occurred in conjunction
with the Reed case. Here, CRLA attorney Barbara Sena,
in opposition to plaintiff's motion to vacate the default,
"contained several items that were absolutely
false and that declarant knew or should have
known were false." (Exhibit 14-0164)
(4) In an affidavit taken on December 23, 1970,
Mr. Emil A. Markovitz, Manager and Corporate Secretary of
Creditors Service of Los Angeles, states the following:
"I have been told by attorneys personally in-
volved in cases where parties were represented
by CRLA attorneys, that when the CRLA attor-
neys were informed that their clients owned
assets which should disqualify them from re-
ceiving the services of CRLA, the informants
were told that it was none of the informants'
business that these persons owned these assets."
(Exhibit 14-0164-04)
(5) In a letter to Lewis Uhler dated December 8,
1970, Mr. E. M. Azevedo, a Modesto attorney, relates and
documents an instance of unprofessional conduct on the
part of CRLA attorney Phil Newmark. The first point
made concerns a letter written by Mr. Newmark which was
sent directly to one of Mr. Azevedo's clients, Dial Fin-
ance Company, by-passing Mr. Azevedo altogether.
Mr. Azevedo states that he was "quite shocked" to find
from his client that Mr. Newmark had "communicated
(196)
personally with them." Another point Mr. Azevedo makes
regarding Mr. Newmark's conduct is as follows:
the tenor of Mr. Newmark's letter is
obviously slanted towards a class action
threat. They do not really seem to be con-
cerned about the rights of the individual
client. If they were I am sure they would
have researched the law more carefully than
they did to determine that they were in fact
in error, or they would have at least made
some kind of proposal to me that I could dis-
cuss with my client (emphasis added) (Ex-
hibit 14-0091)
(6) CRLA paid staff attorney Philip Newmark
on invitation from the History Department at Grace Davis
High School in Modesto, spoke on October 27, 1970, be-
fore an audience of juniors at that High School. The
topic was "What are the legitimate limits of dissent
in America today;" this talk brought an investigation by
Mr. Pete Doane of the Stanislaus County District Attorney's
office of the use of offensive language by Newmark dur-
ing his presentation. Mr. Doane's report indicates that
Mr. Newmark used the words "sh*t" and "fu*k" or forms
thereof on three separate occasions during his speech
and wrote the latter word on the blackboard. While
one teacher "related that Newmark seemed to have gained
rapport with a number of students by his use of the ob-
jectionable words," one must conclude that such conduct
is hardly in keeping with an attorney's obligation to
"maintain standards of appearance and decorum." (Ex-
hibit 17-0136-01)
(197)
(7) On September 4, 1970, during a UFWOC rally
in support of the union's lettuce strike in Salinas, a
person identified as Neil Levy, who is listed as an attor-
ney with the CRLA Salinas office, is reported by a news-
man to have addressed the rally and offered the support
of the CRLA Salinas office to defend against unlawful
detainer actions. A television film clip in the posses-
sion of our office describes the scene as follows:
"California Rural Legal Assistance Attorney
Neil Levy asked that all workers return sum-
monses from growers notifying them to leave
the camp, so they can be answered in court,
adding that in that way he may be able to
prolong the day of eviction."
Rule 13 of the "Rules of Professional Conduct for
the State Bar of California" states, in part:
"A member of the State Bar shall not accept
employment
solely for the purpose of
delaying another
"
Mr. Levy's actions in the case cited here appears
to constitute a clear violation of this rule. (Exhibit
14-0130)
(8) On January 17, 1970, El Centro CRLA attor-
ney Robert Johnstone was arrested for "willfully and un-
lawfully, as driver of a privately owned vehicle, keep
7 partially filled 11 OZ. bottles of beer which had
been opened
and the contents of which had been par-
tially removed
in a place other than the trunk
(198)
while such vehicle was upon a highway. Johnstone
forfeited $50 bail on March 18, 1970. (Exhibit 17-0082)
(9) Mr. Frank C. Bosso, Department of Labor,
at a San Benito County Board of Supervisors special meet-
ing, June 25, 1970, entered the following into his re-
port concerning the behavior of CRLA attorney Antonio
Del Buono:
"As I was leaving my seat and walking to the
door of the chambers, Antonio Del Buono,
community worker for California Rural Legal
Assistance, shouted that he wanted to talk
to me, the man from the Labor Department, as
he put it. I stated that I did not have any-
thing to talk to him about. He replied that'
he had plenty to talk about to me. I suggested
that if it concerned the farm labor services he
should contact our legal staff in Sacramento
for any discussion he may want to have with
me. While proceeding to walk away from and
out the door, he shouted 'on July 22nd we are
going to close all the Farm Labor offices in
the State.' He did not elaborate who 'we'
were, but I presume he was referring to CRLA.
I told him not to bother me anymore and that I
did not have anything to discuss with him.
Again I repeated that we had a legal staff
who represented the Department in the main
hearings and who I thought had done a good
job of it. At this point, a Maria Martinez
Rivera, who had been in the audience at the
meeting, overheard my last comment to
Mr. Del Buono. She intervened by making
this statement, 'Good, I'm glad you're tell-
ing him off.' When he heard this remark he
turned around and started to shout to her in
Spanish. Several Mexican-American men who
were nearby jumped to her rescue and the police
were called. The evening ended with Mrs. Rivera
signing a complaint against Mr. Del Buono for
using vulgar and profane language in her pre-
sence. According to the police records four
witnesses attested to the allegations." (Ex-
hibit 17-0081)
(199)
(10) On or about March 27, 1970, Delano
Police Officer, C. E. Brown, stopped a vehicle driven
by Gerry S. Hernandez, who ran a stop sign. According
to his 7/21/70 affidavit, Officer Brown issued a warning
but no citation and was about to respond to a pending
call when CRLA attorney John Ortega pulled up offering
to give the driver legal advice. Brown explained that
no citation was being issued and asked Mr. Ortega
for a business card, whereupon Ortega stated, "I
wouldn't give you cops the time of day." When Brown
asked the driver if he knew Ortega, the driver said,
"No, but he sounds like some kind of nut." Ortega de-
manded Brown's badge number, saying "We'll see you
in court." When Brown advised Ortega of Penal Code
Section 148 (interfering and delaying a public officer),
Ortega shouted in Brown's face, "You had better read
the Constitution if you can read," and left mumbling.
Officer Brown's statement is sustained by the July 21,
1970, affidavit of Gerry Hernandez, who stated that
Brown was
"
courteous and friendly at all times,"
and that Brown treated Ortega "
with respect during
the entire time."
Canon 28 of the American Bar Association's "Canons
of Professional Ethics" states, in part, that:
(200)