Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564782",
    "label": "CRLA - Study and Evaluation of CRLA by California OEO, 1971 (6 of 6)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564782"
}

{
    "id": "118564782",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564782",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "CRLA - Study and Evaluation of CRLA by California OEO, 1971 (6 of 6)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564782",
    "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-P29-018-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408627/40-840-7408627-P29-018-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408627/40-840-7408627-P29-018-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564782",
    "naId": 118564782,
    "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-P29-018-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "8d7e1d1343a0ae3c",
    "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 (6 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/\nsaries. A number of rural newspaper editors throughout\nthe State have told us that the local CRLA office is\nin the habit of dropping off copies of all court filings\nand releases on their proceedings.\n(235)\nVII. THE TWILIGHT ZONE\nThis category has been established for the purpose\nof including certain conduct of CRLA which we cannot prop-\nerly criticize as being proscribed but which, nevertheless,\ncauses us grave concern. This is a gray area. The inform-\nation set forth here should be weighed in this evaluation\nbut is not crucial or critical to its outcome.\nA. Lobbying.\nCRLA has an office in Sacramento. One of the Sac-\nramento staff attorneys is registered as a Lobbyist with\nthe State Legislature. It is abundantly clear that this\noffice not only generates new legislation, but lobbies\nextensively on behalf of its own legislative programs and\nthose of others it considers appropriate. During the 1970\nsession of the Legislature, James F. Smith, CRLA Lobbyist,\nsuccessfully opposed certain amendments to the State Welfare\nlaws that would have reduced the cost of Welfare to the State.\nAlthough lobbying is not specifically proscribed in the\nCRLA grant or OEO legal guidelines, neither is it explicitly\nauthorized.\nIt is time that Congress and/or National OEO clari-\nfies this area of activity. The lobbying question is a\nvery close bedfellow of the \"suit against the government\"\n(236)\nactivity. Clearly it is time that policy decisions were\nmade regarding these activities. Obviously such suits\nincrease costs of government, sometimes dramatically when\nthe suits are successfully prosecuted. It is simply a ques-\ntion of whether, on the one hand, tax dollars ought to pay\nthe salaries of attorneys to bring court actions that in-\ncrease costs of government, and on the other, lobby and en-\ntreat legislators not to rewrite or amend the laws to cut\ndown on these costs.\nNOTE: The State Office of Economic Opportunity is\ninformed that prior to appointment of the current Director,\nthe Office issued a policy memorandum to CRLA indicating\nits approval of CRLA's lobbying activities. As suggested above,\nthis office cannot continue to condone such activities.\nB. Fee Generating Cases.\nBy virtue of a special condition to its grant, CRLA\nis prohibited from accepting cases which generate fees, ex-\ncept in very special cases:\n\"The grantee shall not provide legal assist-\nance in\nrepresentation in any case in\nwhich a fee may be provided by statute or\nadministrative regulations, or in contingent\nfee or similar cases in which competent pri-\nvate counsel will provide representation be-\ncause the case may generate a sufficient fee;\nsuch case shall be referred to a local lawyer\npanel, but in the event the lawyer referral\npanel is unable to make satisfactory arrange-\nments for representation, such satisfactory\narrangements meaning that the prospective\n(237)\nclient and a private attorney are able to\nreach an agreement on representation, in such\ncase, the grantee may provide representation\n\"\n(CRLA Grant, Special Condition 6b.)\nMost fee-generating cases fall in the categories of\npersonal injury and workmen's compensation. Such cases are\neasily and, presumably, regularly referred by CRLA to pri-\nvate attorneys practicing in the various communities.\nNevertheless, CRLA regularly files civil actions which con-\ntain prayers for substantial monetary damages. In most in-\nstances it appears that CRLA has not first referred such\ncases to other attorneys.\nCRLA has filed suits claiming monetary damages in\nthe following kinds of cases, among others:\nPolice beating and false imprisonment - $125,000;\nunlawful detention and violation of civil rights - $423,000\ngeneral and punitive damages; infliction of corporal punish-\nment upon a school child - $39,600 in general and punitive\ndamages; claim of illegal firing for union activity - over\n$500,000 general and punitive damages; a false arrest and\npolice brutality case claiming $40,000 damages; a claim of\npersonal injuries in a counterclaim to an unlawful detainer\naction - $20,000 damages; a personal injury action against\nthe City of Delano - claim of $100,000 general damages;\nan action against the City of Delano and its Police Officers -\na claim of $11,000 in exemplary and general damages; a\n(238)\ncharge of injuries sustained due to an unlawful dismissal by\nthe City of Delano - $5,000 damages. (Exhibits 16-0065, 71,\n72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78.)\nIn filing these cases it appears to us that CRLA finds\nitself on the horns of a dilemma: Either CRLA has simply\nsidestepped the fee-generating prohibition and has proceeded\nearnestly to secure just compensation for its clients; or these\ncases are not, realistically speaking, capable of producing a\ndollar result for the plaintiffs (i.e., there is no demon-\nstrable damage), in which event these cases must be deemed\nlittle more than frivolous or harassing action.\nThis Office does not possess the capacity to determine\nwith precision the honesty and propriety of the damage claims\nasserted and is, therefore, not in a position to judge on\nwhich side of the dilemma's horns each case may fall. But\nit seems clear that CRLA is put to an election here: Either\nit has filed fee-generating cases (in which event it has\nviolated the terms of its grant), or CRLA has asserted claims\nfor damages without any realistic belief in its power to\ncollect same (in which event the claims would be spurious,\nfrivolous or harassing.)\nC. In-Kind Contributions.\nEach operational OEO grantee is required to obtain a\nlocal share to augment the Federal dollars granted to the\n(239)\nprogram. In the case of CRLA, this local share must equal\n20% of the total dollar value of the grant.\nTraditionally, legal programs have provided the local\nshare through the medium of in-kind contributions, i.e.,\ncontributions of legal services from attorneys not affiliated\nwith CRLA but whose efforts are focused upon cases and mat-\nters being handled by CRLA for its clients.\nConcern about the extent, nature and quality of in-\nkind contributions to CRLA has arisen for the following\nreasons:\n1. It does not appear that attorneys located in the\nCRLA operational area have given much, if any, contributions\nof time to CRLA. (It would seem that the intent of the non-\nFederal share requirement would be to obtain in-kind contrib-\nutions throughout the CRLA office system, rather than ob-\ntaining same from urban areas.)\n2. CRLA may have claimed as in-kind contribution\ntime of law students spent in researching articles for law\nreviews and other publications. We have information that\nleads us to believe that articles which have no demonstrable\nrelationship to the poor have been counted as in-kind con-\ntributions. (Exhibit 05-0202.)\n(240)\n3. Attached is a local contribution agreement made\nin favor of the South Alameda County Economic Opportunity\nAgency and signed by Cruz Reynoso for in-kind contribution\nof services (consultation - legal and economic) in the sum\nof $3,000. The signature block would indicate that Mr.\nReynoso signed on behalf of California Rural Legal Assist-\nance, Inc., in which event it is clearly a disallowance for\nthe South Alameda County CAA. The contribution of this kind\ncould be allowable if Mr. Reynoso worked for the South\nAlameda County CAP during hours in which he was not paid\nby CRLA. At best this is very poor judgment by both par-\nties. When CRLA makes such an issue out of its lack of\nstaff, as it has in its refunding proposal, it is difficult\nto see how anyone in its organization would have the time\nto donate to other organizations.\nWhether, in fact, CRLA was able to generate the total\nnon-Federal share required in the budget would need to be\ncompletely audited to establish its authenticity. First,\nthe documentation would have to be audited, then there needs\nto be an audit of whether those claiming contributions in\nfact spent the time claimed doing CRLA work in their profes-\nsional capacities.\nThe following hours were indicated as CRLA's non-\nFederal share in their budget for 1970:\n(241)\nAttorneys\n12,570\nPsychologists\n258\nTeachers (Secondary)\n1,390\nSecretaries\n3,670\nLaw Students\n97,300\nTypists\n1,810\nFile Clerks\n4,270\nInvestigators\n6,540\n(242)\nVIII. COMMUNITY REACTION TO CRLA:\nThis section will serve to inform you of the mani-\nfest concern demonstrated by responsible and vital parts\nof the community served by CRLA. This section is included\nso that we do not lose sight of the fact that local\ncommunities are the most important ingredients of any\ntype of governmental program, particularly where OEO is\nconcerned. However, merely listing them would do in-\njustice to them and would fail to relate them to the\nspirit and intent of the Economic Opportunity Act and its\norganizational structures.\nThe intent and spirit of the Economic Opportunity\nAct of 1964, as reaffirmed by Congress in succeeding years,\nwas to mobilize every segment of a concerned community\ntowards the eradication of poverty. Thus, OEO is not only\na change-oriented agency developing creative solutions to\nthe problems of poverty but also is an integrating force\nto solidify the drives of productive community action.\nWe must, therefore, look at comments regarding CRLA from\nconcerned citizens with respect to their responsible con-\ncern for the intent and spirit of OEO programs as they are\nmanifested and realized in the actual workings of CRLA.\nFirst, let us look at the reaction of several\ncounty Bar associations that are coterminus with the\nservice areas of CRLA. OEO guidelines for legal services\n(243)\nprograms in part state that one of the goals of any legal\nservice program is to:\n\"acquaint the whole practicing Bar with its\nessential role in combatting poverty and pro-\nvide the resources to meet the response of\nlawyers to be involved in the war on poverty.\"\nThus, OEO mandates that its legal services programs not\nonly inform local bar associations of its activities but\nwill also actively integrate the good offices of said\nattorneys in providing legal assistance to the poor.\nHowever, there is room to question whether CRLA has\nattempted -- and if it has whether or not it has succeed-\ned - to enlist the aid, or even gain support, of local\nbar associations.\nFor example, a special committee of the Imperial\nCounty Bar Association, in a report to its membership on\nCRLA (see Exhibit 22-1001) summarizes its concems about\nwhether CRLA was in fact meeting the needs of the poor and\nliving up to the guidelines and codes of ethics; it states\nthat CRLA,\n\"functions as a device for promoting special in-\nterest groups and only operates as a law office\nbecause it has determined that it is a convenient\nmeans to effectuate its ends.\"\nThe recommendation of the Special Committee was that the\nImperial County Bar Association:\n\"withdraw its representative from the CRLA board\nof directors and sever all official connections\n(244)\nbetween the Imperial County Bar Association and\nCRLA\n\"\nThe final statement of the Committee was that the\nCounty Bar Association once again would take over the\nfunction of the Lawyers Referral Services \"to provide\nlegal services to the poor.' On March 13, 1970, said\nreport was adopted by the Imperial County Bar Association.\nOn December 9, 1970, the Stanislaus County Bar Association\nstated that:\n\"California Rural Legal Assistance is not adequate-\nly serving the needs of the poor, measured by the\nexpress purposes for which it was originally\nfunded.'\nFurthermore, it stated that:\n\"it is the opinion of the Stanislaus County Bar\nAssociation that operation of CRLA should not be\ncontinued on their present basis.\" (Exhibit\n22-1032.)\nOn or about December 21, 1970, the Executive Board\nof Sonoma County Bar Association adopted a resolution\nwhich in part stated that:\n\"the Sonoma County Bar Association and/or the\nLegal Aid Foundation of Sonoma County can best\nmeet the needs of the poor in Sonoma County;\"\nit further stated that:\n\"this executive board reaffirms its position that\nlocal control by the Sonoma County Bar Association\nand/or the Legal Aid Foundation of Sonoma County\ncan best implement the indigent legal services pro-\ngram and provide the most efficient utilization of\nfederal funds.\" (Exhibit 22-1034.)\n(245)\nThus, the Sonoma County Bar Association reaffirmed\nthe previous two statements of County Bar Associations that\nCRLA was not meeting the needs of the rural poor and that\nlocal control could best provide these services.\nOn or about December 27, the State OEO received a\nresolution from 23 members of the 50 member bar associa-\ntion of Yuba and Sutter Counties recommending:\n\"to the Governor of the State of California he\nveto the forthcoming refunding proposal of\nCalifornia Rural Legal Assistance and VISTA, and\nthat a legal program operated, controlled, and\nsupervised by the Yuba-Sutter Bar Association be\nestablished to provide legal aid for those persons\nwith inadequate means to otherwise obtain legal\nassistance.\"\nThe unmistakable pattern that emerges from these\ncomments from Bar associations is that CRLA has not only\nfailed to integrate their efforts with the local bar but,\neven more importantly, there are severe questions con-\ncerning the quality and amount of legal assistance that\nthe poor are receiving from said organization. CRLA has\nshown a latent hostility to the established legal pro-\nfession because CRLA attorneys in many cases regard their\nself-image as \"movement lawyers.\" =\nAnother significant segment of the legal profession,\nnamely the district attorneys, also introduce serious\nquestions as to CRLA's capability to provide competent\nlegal services to the poor and to work harmoniously with\n(246)\nlocal legal groups. In a letter from the district attorney\nof Monterey County, Mr. Bertram M. Young (Exhibit 22-1033),\nthe following comment about CRLA is made:\n\"The actions of this agency have been in gross\ninterference with and infringement upon the\nauthority of the Grand Jury of the County, the\nBoard of Supervisors of the County, and those\nfields in which the office of the Attorney General\nof California could, and would, act for complaints\nwithin its authority. This agency has failed\nmiserably to discharge its obligations to the in-\ndigent rural poor, has wasted hundreds of thou-\nsands of dollars of our taxes, and has caused\nexpensive and timeconsuming involvement of our\nlocal agencies in answering its vicious attacks.\"\nOn December 14, 1970, the district attorney of\nStanislaus County, Mr. Alexander M. Wolfe, (Exhibit\n22-1031) reinforced District Attorney Young's contention\nthat CRLA has little respect for locally-elected officials\nand local control when commenting upon the actions of CRLA\nto inhibit the Stanislaus County Grand Jury from investi-\ngating it. He in part states:\n\"In this action, CRLA labeled itself a \"federal\nlegal services project.\" By virtue of this de-\nscriptive title, and having in mind the various\ntypes of actions which CRLA has filed and the\ncourse of conduct it has pursued, it would appear\nthat the federal government, knowingly or unknow-\ningly, is financing groups to undermine the opera-\ntion, effectiveness and integrity of state and\nlocal government. I cannot believe that Congress\nor the President of the United States ever intended\nsuch a result.\"\nThe apparent disrespect that CRLA manifests for\nduly-elected local officials is again exhibited by the\n(247)\nremarks from the County Counsel of Monterey County,\nWilliam H. Stoffers (Exhibit 22-1014), when he states:\n\"I am convinced from what I know about this organi-\nzation that with them it matters not so much who\ntheir clients are (be they rich or poor), but\nrather who the defendant is, (government, big busi-\nness, etc.). It may be that they feel that they\ncan best help the poor by knocking over the estab-\nlishment.\"\nThus, one can legitimately question whether CRLA\nis an integrating and essential ingredient for a legal\nservices program for the poor.\nIn an affidavit to our office dated December 8,\n1970 by James W. Houlihan, Assistant District Attorney\nfor the County of Santa Barbara (Exhibit 22-1035), affirms\nthat CRLA is not an essential ingredient to a legal\nservices program for the poor when he states:\n\"I do not believe that the poor of this community\nwould suffer if the CRLA office was disbanded.\nHowever, as in any community of this size, we\nshould have some workable legal aid for the poor,\nwhich is not CRLA, but rather a community action\nprogram or whatever program existed in the City\nof Visalia.\"\nFrom his comments we can see that several district\nattorneys or their representatives do not feel that CRLA\nis working in the best interest of the poor, nor is it\nattempting to integrate and coordinate its actions with\nlocal law professions and enforcement agencies.\nComments from jurists in the State of California\n(248)\nillustrate another severe problem with CRLA. This has to\ndo with the relationship between the intent and guidelines\nof legal services, and specifically CRLA, vis-a-vis the\nactual behavior that is manifested by said organization.\nJudge Roy P. Schmidt of Hollister in a letter to our office\ndated December 15, 1970, (Exhibit 22-1013) states in part:\n\"If the intended purposes are not ignored, then\nthis aid can be capable of doing a great deal of\ngood... If the CRLA's governing body would take\nsteps to eliminate certain philosophies, it would\naccomplish what it originally intended - to give\nlegal assistance to those too poor to get help\nelsewhere.\n=\nIn a letter dated September 23, 1970, Superior\nCourt Judge Kenneth M. Eymann of Santa Rosa (Exhibit\n22-1048), after criticizing CRLA attorneys for attempting\nto gain constitutional precedent from every case, states:\n\"If CRLA were to help the poor and underprivileged\nin their present rather than their long range prob-\nlems, it would serve a great and needed purpose.\nReorientation of purpose must be accomplished if\ntheir program is to be effective.\"\nIn an affidavit dated December 8, 1970, Judge\nRichard C. Kirkpatrick of Santa Maria states:\n\"As an attorney, I have referred several clients\nto California Rural Legal Assistance on domestic\nrelations cases. California Rural Legal Assistance\nwould not handle the cases referred to them within\na reasonable length of time or would not handle\nthe case at all even though the income level of\nthese people fell within the limits normally\nhandled by this organization.\"\nJudge Kirkpatrick also noted that -\n(249)\n\"Mr. Marper, another attorney for California\nRural Legal Assistance, has appeared before\nme in connection with civil cases wherein\nCalifornia Rural Legal Assistance was represent-\ning clients and from all indications, Mr. Morper\ndoes not appear to have the legal ability to\ntry these cases in such areas as laying legal\nfoundations and direct and cross-examinations. 11\n(Exhibit 22-1035)\nThese comments demonstrate that jurists themselves\nhave difficulty reconciling the actual behavior of CRLA\nwith the intent and actual guidelines for legal services\nunder OEO.\nRather than continue to cite letter after letter\nexpressing concern about the present organizational behavior\nof CRLA vis-a-vis intent and guidelines of OEO legal ser-\nvices, it is more beneficial to merely list the number of\nconcerns that have been manifested from a single illustrative\nlocal community. Through this, we can demonstrate the level\nof concern that exists from many legitimate sectors of the\ncommunity that not only should be concerned with CRLA\nbut should also have the ability to contribute significantly\nto policy formation regarding the actual behaviour of CRLA.\nFor without such input it becomes clear that CRLA is not\nfunctioning to bring about social change through the desires\nof its local constitutents but rather is operating as a\nfederally funded program that has little local input. Let\nus, therefore, take the case of Stanislaus County to\n(250)\ndemonstrate the inherent problems of CRLA. On December 1, 1970\nStanislaus County Board of Supervisors (Exhibit 22-1030)\nauthorized the following resolution:\n\"That the chief administrative officer be,\nand hereby is, authorized and directed to draw\na letter in the place and stead of said question-\nnaire urging that the California Rural Legal\nAssistance be abolished.\"\nOn December 2, 1970, our office received a letter from\nBert C. Corona, Superintendent, Modesto City Schools (Exhibit\n22-1017), in which he outlined ten specific complaints that\nhe had against CRLA. These complaints were summarized in\nthe following comments:\n\"In my judgment these men have shown their\ncommitment to violent and illegal means to\nobtain designed social goals. They have\nresorted to divisive community tactics and\nattempted to pit group against group. Surely\nthe rights of the poor and their improved\nwelfare can be achieved through more civilized\nmeans. 11\nOn December 9, 1970, our office received a letter from\nthe Stanislaus County Bar Association (Exhibit 22-1032) in\nwhich the Stanislaus County Bar Association recommended\nthat CRLA \"should not be continued on their present basis.\"\nThe reason for this was that the County Bar felt that CRLA\nwas not \"adequately serving the needs of the poor\" as\nmeasured \"by the express purposes for which it was originally\nfunded.\" On December 14, 1970 our office received correspondence\nfrom the District Attorney of Stanislaus County, Alexander M.\nWolfe (Exhibit 22-1031), in which he requested that the\n(251)\nGovernor not appropriate funds for CRLA. The reason for\nthis request is found in the following statement:\n\"It is the opinion of this office that CRLA\nis not carrying out the purposes for which\nit was intended as enumerated in its articles\nof incorporation as filed with the Secretary\nof State March 3, 1966. This request would\nnot be made if CRLA were truly serving the\nneeds of the poor. #\nThe remaining portion of this letter is a succinct expression\nof the problems that legitimate governmental agencies have\nin attempting to work with CRLA. On December 16, 1970 our\noffice received the resolution of the 1970 Stanislaus County\nGrant Jury, (Exhibit 22-1021) which resolved \"that the 1970\nStanislaus County Grand Jury hereby recommends to the\nGovernor of the State of California that he cause investigations\nto be instituted and conducted by appropriate federal, state\nand local agencies into corporate activities of California\nRural Legal Assistance, Inc. = and furthermore, it was\nresolved \"that the 1970 Stanislaus County Grant Jury hereby\nrecommends to the Governor of the State of California that\nhe veto funding for the legal services program of the California\nRural Legal Assistance, Inc.\" It should also be noted that\nthis resolution was unanimously adopted by a quorum of 16\nmembers present at a regular meeting of the Grand Jury and\nwas not the result of a special event on their calendar.\n(252)\nIt is also of significance that among members of the\nGrand Jury were recognized spokesmen for the poor in\nStanislaus County, including the President of the local\nchapter of the NAACP, and a prominent member of the\nMexican-American Community.\nNumerous other instances of dissatisfaction with CRLA\non the part of the poor which CRLA was founded to serve might\nbe mentioned. For example, we have an affidavit from Mrs.\nPeggy Joyce Ramirez, Modesto welfare recipient, dated\nDecember 16, 1970 wherein she states that on two separate\noccasions, separated by approximately three years, she was\nunable to gain assistance from CRLA when she went to their\noffice asking for their help in divorce proceedings. In\nboth instances Mrs. Ramirez was told at the CRLA office\n\"we do not handle domestic cases.\" (Exhibit 04-0032) The\nattorney who did eventually handle Mrs. Ramirez's case,\nMr. Thomas A. Lacey of Modesto, states in an affidavit dated\nDecember 14, 1970 that in his opinion CRLA \"will take any\ncase which has some publicity to it. They do not render\nthe kind of services that the poor need, although it would\ncertainly appear that they have ample time to handle these\nkinds of matters.\" Mr. Lacey substantiates the last part of\nthis allegation by reference to a case wherein CRLA represent-\ned a tenant asking for a restraining order against her landlord,\nMr. Lacey's client. Mr. Lacey states:\n(253)\n\"I do not condemn California Rural Legal\nAssistance for pursuing the rights of the\ntenant in this case. However, my condemnation\nlies with the fact that they had two attorneys,\nin addition to the trial attorney and an\ninvestigator sit through almost the whole\ntrial.\"\nThe trial continued for three days. Mr. Lacey declares:\n\"It would seem to me that if they have time\nto have that many attorneys tied up in a\nlandlord-tenant lawsuit, just listening to\nthe case and observing, they should have time\nto handle needy clients in regard to domestic\nmatters.\" (Exhibit 04-0039)\nThis shortcoming on the part of CRLA is mentioned by\nanother attorney in Modesto, Mr. E. M. Azevedo, in a letter\ndated December 15, 1970 wherein he states:\n\"I am particularly concerned about this when\nI have numerous clients who come to me and\nsay that they are seeking our services for\nwhich they cannot pay, in some instances,\nbecause they have called CRLA and found that\nit will be thirty, sixty, and sometimes\nninety days before they can even talk to a\nlawyer in their offices. I wonder if a lot\nof this delay is caused by the fact that\neverybody in that office is in court some-\nwhere representing one man.\" (Exhibit 22-\n1015)\nIn another letter to our office, dated December 23,\n1970, Judge William Zeff of Modesto (Exhibit 22-1037)\nstates:\n\"the clear impression gained from observing the\nactivities of the local CRLA office is that\nits primary concern appears to be with effect-\ning social change and the original expressed\npurposes of assisting the indigent have\n(254)\napparently been lost signt of. Radical changes\nin the operating procedures of the CRLA are\nnecessary to correct the existing situation\nif the originally expressed and noble objectives\nof CRLA are to be implemented.\"\nThe Stanislaus County Farm Bureau has strongly urged\nthe \"discontinuance of funds to CRLA (as) they are clearly\nin\nviolation of their legal sphere of activity.\" (Exhibit 22-\n1062 and Exhibit 22-1063). The Growers Harvesting Committee\nwired Governor Reagan on December 21, 1970, urging his veto\nof CRLA refunding due to the fact that \"CRLA has a record of\nirresponsibility and has consistently concentrated on disruptive\nand discriminatory activities.\" (Exhibit 22-1058)\nThe final illustration of discontent with CRLA in\nStanislaus County which we offer here is from the Director\nof Social Services at the King-Kennedy Memorial Center of\nthe City of Modesto, who is also a member of the advisory\nboard of the Modesto Office of CRLA, Reverend Monroe Carter\nTaylor. His criticism is aimed at misuse of CRLA funds by\nCRLA attorneys. In one instance CRLA paid $400 for lunches\nfor demonstrators at the City School Office demonstration\nscene. In another instance CRLA funds were used to help\nfinance a political campaign: Candidate for the State\nAssembly, M. Lopez, told Reverend Taylor that:\n\"CRLA had made cash contributions to his\ncampaign fund and the CRLA office staff had\nprinted and reproduced\nbumper stickers\nand various other materials free of charge\nto him. I later talked to a member of the\n(255)\nCRLA staff, who no longer is on the staff,\nand found that what Mr. Lopez told me was\ntrue. Apparently they had also printed up\nbumper stickers advocating free lunches for\nchildren during the Modesto City Schools\nbond elections. I feel that the funds were\nnot properly used as there was a heavy case\nload of poor clients who needed representation\nwhile the two lawyers were off involved with\ndemonstrations and defending them in court.\"\nReverend Taylor concludes his testimony as follows:\n\"In fact it was during this period that I\ntelephoned\nGovernor Reagan's staff request-\ning an audit of CRLA books to determine how\nthe funds were actually being used.\" (Exhibit\n10-0062)\nThe above illustration dramatically represents a cross\nsection of responsible and concerned citizens. Their criticisms\nand recommendations concerning CRLA cannot be dismissed as\nirrelevant and unconcerned\nor to a man they reaffirm the\nneed for legal services to the poor and their willingness to\nparticipate in such programs. These letters give credence to\nthe fact that CRLA has ignored the noble intent of the\nEconomic Opportunity Act and, further, has exploited\nresponsible and concerned citizens, be they poor or well-to-\ndo, for the realization of ideal states of affairs narrowly\nconceived in radical political philosophies. CRLA has\nexploited the poor by assuming that the needs and outlook\nof the poor are homogeneous and thus fit nicely into sterile\nand false political theories. They have exploited the poor\nby producing legal services that are narrow and one-sided and\n(256)\ntherefore CRLA only caters to those who desire to consume\nsuch legal services. They have exploited poor citizens by\nmaking them accept one mode of dealing with their problems;\nradical confrontation with the so-called establishment, surely\na figment of demented psychologising. The poor have the\nright, as citizens, to consume legal service (especially\nwhen produced by public money) that is non-ideological and\nflexible, and suited to the legitimate legal needs of the\nindividual concerned. Furthermore, the communities served\nby CRLA also have the right to deal with the problems of the\npoor, when manifested through legal channels, in a professional\nand orderly manner. The above clearly indicates that these\noptions are neither available to the poor nor to the\ncommunities in which CRLA operates. Thus, CRLA as a\ncommunity phenomena, essential and integrating, is fiction\nrather than fact. It has not attempted to mobilize the\nresources of the communities concerned into an integrated\neffort to solve the problems of the poor, but has set out\nto establish its own sense of community, thus often producing\na situation in which the responsible citizen has no choice\nbut either to remove himself because the personal costs have\nbecome too high, or to respond in an unethical manner -\nviolently, as CRLA is prone to do.\n(257)\nIX.\nCONCLUSION - THE CASE FOR AN ALTERNATIVE\nWe could simply let the case rest. We think the\ninformation presented above speaks for itself. We were\nconcerned when we set out that in the short time available,\nthe results might be inconclusive. This is clearly not the\ncase: What has been surprising is the systematic and con-\nclusive nature of the results. The very serious problems\nof CRLA, many of which were eloquently recited in the\nAugust 1970 Evaluation, follow a definite pattern, indica-\nting more than haphazard lapses.\nWe are convinced that mere recitation of CRLA's\nproblems would present an incomplete picture of the whole.\nFor a catalogue of problems, CRLA's August Evaluation is\na good primer. In the Introduction to this evaluation\nwe said that the August evaluation's major shortcoming\nwas its failure to consider that the problems they cited\nhave institutional roots. It is to the institutional\nand structural provenance of CRLA's recurring problems\nthat we now turn.\nThe key is local control and home rule. These are\nthe essence of the New Federalism, to which the Nixon\nAdministration has given open support. The Economic Oppor-\ntunity Act was enacted in large measure to supplement\nwhat increasingly looked like a colonialist system, in\nwhich social services for the disadvantaged were controlled\n(258)\nand administered far from the areas of impact. OEO em-\nphasized communities, and in doing so, created the first\nimportant innovation in social services since the New Deal.\nCRLA's dominant institutional and structural failing\noccurs because it was constituted at odds with OEO's pre-\nvailing premise. CRLA has had the problems it has, sub-\nstantially because its organization ignored the rest of\nOEO's experience - which has demonstrated the value of\ncommunity participation and home rule.\nIn 1967, the State Bar of California entered into\nan agreement with CRLA, in which the State Bar attempted\nto increase community participation. The agreement laid\nparticular stress on including local bar members on CRLA's\nlocal advisory boards.\nUnfortunately, the local advisory boards exist more\nin theory than in fact, however much CRLA attempts to give\nthe opposite impression. On at least one occasion, a local\nadvisory committee (in Marysville) wrote a letter to the\nCRLA Central office, complaining about the remoteness of\ncontrol. Mr. Jose Luis Vasquez wrote to the Central Board\nmembers as follows, in part:\n\"Like all of the areas served, Marysville has\nseen several attorneys come and go. Our former\ndirecting attorney, John Moulds, left in August.\nAt that time, we wanted J. V. Henry to take his\nplace. Cruz Reynoso came to Marysville and talked\nto us. We told him our wishes at that time.\nHowever, our wishes were not followed. Cruz\n(259)\nReynoso appointed someone else. We have no quar-\nrel with Ralph Abascal, who was appointed, but\nthat is not the point. CRLA makes a lot of pro-\npaganda about 'institutions being responsive to\nthe people they are supposed to serve.' When it\ncomes to anything real, CRLA is just like wel-\nfare or any other agency which they sue. The\nimportant decisions are made by the San Francisco\noffice. They do not share our problem or try to\nunderstand us.\n\"Each area where we have an office is different.\nHow can Central CRLA know what is best for the\npeople in Marysville or in El Centro?\n\"What we want isto be a real voice - not just\nto have a suggestion box. We want to cooper-\nate with Central, but we want a real voice in\nCRLA.' (Exhibit 09-0107)\nThe participation of local bar associations is non-\nexistent, despite the 1967 agreement. In the fall of 1970,\nthe State Bar sent out a questionnaire to the presidents\nof all the state's county bar associations, asking about\ntheir participation in CRLA's program. Some local bar\nmembers asked at the time if the State Bar was kidding,\ngiven their non-existent participation in CRLA's affairs.\nThe formal responses from local state bars indicate the\ntrue levels of support. Among those bar associations\nwhich did not go on affirmative record condemning CRLA,\nwe were unable to find a single case in which a local bar\nassociation had actively assisted or participated in the\nprogram.\nThese efforts to promote local control of CRLA\nfailed because the essential structure of the program\nfails to give institutional support to local control.\n(260)\nThe money comes from Washington, and the direction comes\njointly from Washington and from San Francisco. If a\nlocal CRLA office cooperates with the local community and\nbar, as has happened for short periods in several of the\nCRLA offices personalities, not policy, are responsible.\nBut personalities willing to cooperate are relative rari-\nties among CRLA's attorneys, and the result has been the\nchaos and hostility in every operational area.\nThe problem is not difficult to understand. The\npeople who become CRLA attorneys are rarely from the com-\nmunities they serve. They are often from big cities, often\nfrom the East Coast, and equally often possess no appre-\nciation of, or sensitivity for, the communities they serve.\nThe problem is cultural. The colonialist comparison is\ndifficult to resist here, for there is a definite cultural\ndislocation when an urban lawyer is placed in a small com-\nmunity like El Centro or Marysville. Speaking for the\nCRLA lawyers, one participant in the August 1970 Evalua-\ntion put it well when he referred to one of CRLA's service\nareas as a \"desolate and lonely spot.\"\nNo doubt many of CRLA's attorneys feel that way\nabout the areas they serve. And perhaps it is this atti-\ntude that explains why a CRLA attorney in the El Centro of-\nfice, when asked why he was doing the work he was doing,\nreplied in front of the three hundred people present,\n(261)\n\"Where else can I make this kind of money\nright out of law school?\"\nIn some ways it is difficult to blame CRLA's attor-\nneys for feeling cynical about what they are doing, and\nabout their motives for doing it. But the time has come\nto blame the structure that puts them in such positions.\nWe have concluded that some of the incidents cited\nmust have taken place without the knowledge of management\nin San Francisco. There is no other way to explain the\nflagrancy involved in certain of the violations. But that\nfact simply illustrates the extent to which CRLA is unman-\nageable. The only way to eliminate the most aggravated\nviolations of the grant conditions and other standards\nis to put legal services under local control - as they\nare everywhere else throughout the State.\nThe problem for the community is often acute.\nYoung urban lawyers come in, and perhaps assuming a\nhostility against them that does not exist, proceed to\nproduce a genuine and legitimate hostility. The August\nEvaluation recites the willingness of the communities\nto assist CRLA, if only CRLA would let them:\n=\nOne of the problems he mentioned, as\nfar as the CRLA staff was concerned, was they\nwere antagonized towards other members of\nthe Bar and that it created a lot of difficulty\nwhen CRLA attorneys filed lawsuits or wanted\nsomething from the local bar. The general\nimpression that I got was that the people in\npositions of power, in Modesto, wanted CRLA\nto cooperate with them in dealing with the\nproblems of the poor. Let the attorneys in\n(262)\nthe community spot the issues and let them sit\ndown with the school board or members of the\ngovernment to see what can be done to alleviate\nthe problem of the poor rather than filing a\nlawsuit.\" (p. 18.)\nThe problem of local bar cooperation is vital to\nthe operation of a successful legal service program. No\none seriously disputes that. It is in a spirit of coopera-\ntion that problems are solved outside court. But in most\nareas served by CRLA, either outright hostility exists\nbetween CRLA and the local bar, or there is a complete\nabsence of relations between them.\nFrom another service area the August Evaluation\nrecites the willingness of the local communities to\ncooperate:\n\"I guess what came out of McFarland was for the\nnon-poverty 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\nus and speak to us and research the problem,\nnot so much legally but factually before they\nplunge into a suit.'\" (p. 15.)\nThat the communities remain eager to cooperate\nwith CRLA emphasizes their commitment to legal services.\nIt is particularly surprising in view of CRLA attorneys'\nconspicuous disinterest in any form of cooperation or\ncommunity participation. The contrast between the OEO\nlegal service program in, for example, Visalia, and CRLA\nin almost every one of its service areas is incredible.\nWhile the Visalia program has the full cooperation and\nparticipation of the local bar, CRLA has at best arm's\n(263)\nlength coolness, at worst outright hostility.\nWe were startled when we went out into these com-\nmunities and watched CRLA try to relate to the communities.\nIn most of its service areas, CRLA is the largest office\nin town, with probably the only law firm Xerox machine.\nIn virtually every case, CRLA moved into town and began\nmaking demands on everyone with whom they had any contact:\njudges, the local district attorney, welfare department,\nFarm Labor Bureau, and so on. Often they dress in blue\njeans, even in court, and sometimes without shoes.\nThere is no effective local control over the cases\nthey carry. Because they have no practical economic limi-\ntations on the way they prosecute any particular suit,\nthey have unlimited opportunities to harass whenever they\nchoose, not only private defendants (or plaintiffs, as in\nunlawful detainer actions), but public agencies. They\nrarely ask; they usually demand. They typically become\ninvolved in school activities, in which they encourage\nhigh school students to prosecute legal claims based\non the constitutional right of a student to be immune\nfrom reasonable school disciplinary procedures. In their\nrelations with children, often they act as if they were\nabove the law, indifferent to the wishes of the children's\nparents, where the children may be useful to them in pur-\nsuing a \"cause\" they may think important. Usually it re-\nlates to their general assault on authority and discipline.\n(264)\nIn private litigation, CRLA attorneys do not con-\nsider the economic limitations on their opponents. Any\none at any time can be their defendant, and they can (and\nwill) pursue their point without regard to economic re-\nalities or the underlying merits of the case except as they\nsee it. As one attorney (the County Counsel of Monterey\nCounty) put it,\n\"I am convinced from what I know about this\norganization that with them it matters not\nso much who their clients are (be they rich\nor poor), but rather who the defendant is.\"\n(Exhibit 22-1014)\nIn reality, they are the plaintiffs as well as the\nattorneys, since they have no economic orother stake and\ncan therefore persist to incredible lengths. Their only\nstakes are philosophical and psychological - which may\npress for abandon rather than restraint where the \"cause\"\nis right.\nEverywhere we have gone, people express a real con-\ncern for the legal needs of poor people and whether they\nare being met. But people out in the communities, who\nhave actual contact with poor people, see their individual\nneeds as involving largely such things as domestic rela-\ntions problems, debt adjustment, and non-litigation ser-\nvice work, in which a poor person simply needs to have\nthe answer to a question. This notion does not deny the\nlegitimate place of the so-called \"landmark\" case, when\na legitimate opportunity to bring one arises.\n(265)\nPeople in the communities want to know why OEO, which\nis supposed to help poor people \"help themselves,\" is sub-\nsidizing the kinds of suits that are cited throughout this\nreport? Why, in short, should OEO tolerate the prosecution\nof suits that do not specifically help the poor, when there\nare still many unmet needs they do need help solving? Why\nshould the public pay for suits that will benefit the rich\nas much as the poor, if no rich person feels he can afford\nto bring them? Why should we subsidize a standard of legal\nservices that even the rich cannot afford?\nWe may recall CRLA's suit against the eight cream-\neries for being deceptive in the dating of milk. Why should\nthe public subsidize a suit of that sort on behalf of the\npoor (the net effect of which would be to increase the\nprice of milk), when no private person is willing to bring\nthe suit for himself?\nWhy does CRLA's suit against Standard Oil of California,\nbrought on the eve of the elections in the fall of 1970, to\nenjoin that company from deceiving the public about the pol-\nlution effects of its gas, help the poor \"help themselves?\"\nIf anyone is deceived, surely, it is the middle class,\nwhose interest in pollution might lead them to be deceived.\nBut why is it legitimate for CRLA to bring this suit, when\nCRLA everywhere turns away individual poor people with in-\ndividual problems.\n(266)\nPerhaps the cases most upsetting to the local com-\nmunities involved the long hair cases - which not only\ndisrupted school discipline procedures, but were often\nbrought on behalf of people who would not have qualified\nunder CRLA's eligibility guidelines. Is hair length the\nmissing link in problems of the poor, which if restored,\nwould make genuine independence a reality?\nIt is not enough in response simply to say, as\nCRLA so often does, that creative change is bound to stir\nsome people up. Slogans are appropriate in some situations,\nbut not where tensions and hostilities and even race hatred\nmay result from them. The record is replete with situa-\ntions where creative change was available without tension\nand hostilities, but where CRLA chose the divisive route.\nNo suit was required to secure the safety of Miss Kathe\nFish at Gavilan College, because no action was threatened\nagainst her. CRLA could have discovered that fact with a\ntelephone call. It choose confrontation instead. What\ndid it get besides fear and hostility in return?\nNo suit was necessary to determine whether the Santa\nMaria Berry Farms were spraying dangerous pesticides. A\nphone call would have done the job. Instead, CRLA lurched\ninto court, and once more got in return the fear and hos-\ntility and tension any sensitive man knew would result.\nPerhaps a suit against the Sutter County Welfare\nDepartment was made possible by Mrs. Hubbard's severe\n(267)\nmisfortune. Perhaps it was even the \"best\" case CRLA had\never seen of that sort. But that fact would not seem to\njustify CRLA's open exploitation of Mrs. Hubbard's mis-\nfortune, so that they could get into court.\nPerhaps the Modesto School District was wrong in\nwithdrawing from the National School Lunch Program, but\nit is hard to see how their action could justify the sus-\npension of all other activities for at least two CRLA\nattorneys for weeks while they organized demonstrations\nat the school district, and then defended the people ar-\nrested on account of them.\nWe have heard from many people sympathetic to CRLA\nthat the communities they serve ought not to feel the way\nthey do about certain things. These people say it is absurd\nto be concerned that poverty lawyers wear no shoes in court.\nBut such statements miss the point about communities and\nthe reasons for home rule. Whether local communities are\nright or wrong to feel as they do about the way CRLA law-\nyers dress in court is irrelevant to the issue of community.\nThe fact is they do feel that way. The result is that such\nbehavior, while perhaps acceptable in abstract terms (or\nsomewhere else), in a rural community setting tends to\ncause disruptions and tensions that were not there before.\nThe argument that barefooted or otherwise unkempt appear-\nances in court are necessary in order for poverty lawyers\nto relate to the poor are disingenuous. The essence of a\n(268)\nlawyer's responsibility is to the legal system and to the\ncourt, and appearance in court is a symbol of his acceptance\nof that obligation. How a poverty lawyer behaves will very\nmuch affect a poor person's level of respect for the legal\nsystem. Poverty lawyers can dress anyway they like out-\nside of court for purposes of relating, but what is appro-\npriate out in a poor community is not in a courtroom.\nThe fundamental premise of OEO is that local people\nshould be able to make their own decisions, make their own\nmistakes, and not have outsiders dictate to them what they\nshould or should notthink. If they feel the same kinship\nwith a barefooted poverty lawyer as they might with a tour-\ning Martian, that fact has important consequences for the\nsense of community.\nCRLA's impact on the poor themselves was the sub-\nject of our greatest concern throughout this evaluation.\nFor it is always the poor, who are often helpless to\nspeak for themselves. As we have seen so often, they are\nalways the ones who end up with nothing when vested in-\nterests begin jockeying for position. The dangers of\nexploitation are particularly acute where a social service\nis involved (a) because the provider has the power to\nwithhold it where he sees fit, and (b) because the moral-\nizing and pieties that inevitably accompany the service\nmake its true nature all the more difficult to expose.\n(269)\nBefore we turn to the content of CRLA's exploitation\nof both its clients and its constituency, it is important\nto consider the rhetorical difficulties in trying to\npenetrate the passion for \"landmark,\" revolutionary law.\nMany, if not most, lawyers might be tempted simply\nto dismiss many of CRLA's tactics described in this report\nas absurd, even surrealistic. For instance, the practice\nof advising clients in criminal proceedings that every law\nthey are charged with violating is unconstitutional not\nonly does damage to the client by encouraging him to break\nit (as, for instance, in the Modesto School Demonstrations),\nbut encourages people to think that no law is so solid that\nit cannot be broken with impunity.\nNo intelligent lawyer would argue that the law ought\nnever to change. Every lawyer recognizes that a strong\nconstitution is one that can be invoked to protect rights\nthat are being violated. But these facts, which no lawyer\nwould dispute, do not eliminate a lawyer's fundamental\nobligation to the legal system.\nA lawyer whose entire mode of operation consists\nof challenging the constitutionality of laws he dislikes\nearns the strong suspicions of others concerning his own\nfeeling of obligation to the legal system. The Rules of\nProfessional Conduct of the State Bar of California are\nvery definite about a lawyer's obligation to law:\n(270)\n\"A member of the State Bar shall not advise the\nviolation of any law. This rule shall not ap-\nply to advice, given in good faith, that a law\nis invalid.\" (Rule 11. Emphasis added.)\nThe Canons of Professional Ethics of the American\nBar Association emphasize the point at greater length,\nbeginning with Canon 1:\n\"It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain to-\nwards the Courts a respectful attitude, not\nfor the sake of the temporary incumbent of the\njudicial office, but for the maintenance of\nits supreme importance.\"\nBeginning at Canon 30, the obligation becomes more explicit:\n\"The lawyer must decline to conduct a civil\ncause or to make a defense when convinced\nthat it is intended merely to harass or to in-\njure the opposite party.\nHis appearance in\nCourt should be deemed equivalent to an asser-\ntion on his honor that in his opinion his\nclient's case is one proper for judicial deter-\nmination. (Canon 30.)\nAnd Canon 31:\n\"\nThe responsibility for advising as to\nquestionable transactions, for bringing ques-\ntionable suits, for urging questionable defense,\nis the lawyers reponsibility.\nAnd lastly, Canon 32, on \"The Lawyer's Duty in Its Last\nAnalysis:\"\n\"No client, corporate or individual, however\npowerful, nor any cause, civil or political,\nhowever important, is to receive nor should\nany lawyer render any service or advice in-\nvolving disloyalty to the law whose ministers\nwe are, or disrespect for the judicial office,\nwhich we are bound to uphold\nor decep-\ntion or betrayal of the public. When rendering\nany such improper service or advice, the law-\nyer invites and merits stern and just condemn-\nation. Correspondingly, he advances the honor\nof his profession and the best interests of\nhis client when he renders service or gives\n(271)\nadvice tending to impress upon the client\nand his undertaking exact compliance with\nthe strictest principles of moral law. He\nmust also observe and advise his client to\nobserve the statute law, though until a\nstatute shall have been construed and\ninterpreted by competent adjudication, he\nis free and is entitled to advise as to its\nvalidity and as to what he conscientiously\nbelieves to be its just meaning and extent.\nBut above all a lawyer will find his highest\nhonor in a deserved reputation for fidelity\nto private trust and to public duty, as an\nhonest man and as a patriotic and loyal\ncitizen.\" (Canon 32)\nThe essence of the sections quoted above is that\nthe lawyer's fundamental obligation is to the legal system.\nChallenging laws for unconstitutionality does not mean a\nlawyer feels no sense of obligation, but if he does nothing\nelse, a suspicion may rightfully arise.\nFurthermore, revolutionary activity or sympathy are\nclearly irreconcileable with that obligation to the legal\nsystem. The revolutionary thrust challenges the validity\nof the legal system, to which lawyers owe their deepest\nobligation.\nThe activities of CRLA, not only in the explicit\nrevolutionary associations of some of its lawyers, and\nin the overall ideological thrust of their program, call\ninto serious question the depth of their commitment to our\nlegal system. This happens at a time when some people\nespecially in the media are suggesting that the causes of\ncertain people ought to put them above the law. Such talk\n(272)\nis straight from the pages of authoritarian and fascist\nmanuals.\nEverywhere we have gone people in the local bar and\nbench have expressed concern about CRLA's \"cause\" orienta-\ntion, about its using the legal system for ideological pur-\nposes. Many of these same people are concerned and con-\nvinced that the behavior of CRLA attorneys is debasing their\nprofession. The question goes back to presumptions: what\ndoes CRLA's general orientation suggest about its sense of\nobligation to the legal system?\nThe question of legal service programs and \"land-\nmark\" law raises an economic question which limitations of\nspace and time make it impossible to do more than mention.\nAs a question of resource allocation, we must ask the\nquestion: what kinds of legal services ought the public\nto subsidize, and in what amounts? The record is filled\nwith examples of individual CRLA attorneys claiming that\nthey are doing something that would otherwise be a vio-\nlation of CRLA's grant \"on their own time.\" There is\nhardly any question that many young lawyers, particularly\nthose who become poverty lawyers, have a passion for making\nnew law. A whole new area of poverty law has arisen in\nthe past few years, and it is practiced not only by peo-\nple in government-subsidized programs, but also private\npractitioners, who were formerly associated with OEO\nprograms.\n(273)\nThere is no scarcity of people wanting to practice\n\"landmark\" law. What is in short supply are people willing\nto do the tedious, boring legal service work, which never\nproduces a single headline, but which is vitally important\nto millions of individual poor people with individual\nlegal problems.\nThat we are spending as much as we are to subsidize\nthat which is already in abundant supply, while neglecting\nthe needs of individual people with individual problems,\nis perverse. The story of CRLA (as well as all legal ser-\nvice programs) has an economic dimension, therefore, which\ndeserves the closer attention of officials in Washington.\nAs we review this entire evaluation, and try to\nextract from it the essence of CRLA's activities, we find\na surprising coherence in its direction. Its program is\nundisturbed by ambiguity. The essence of CRLA's direction\nis a passion to wage ideological warfare, with the poor\nas ammunition. The result is to force upon the poor a\nform of exploitation that is in some ways worse and more\nenervating than any other.\nThe dominant thrust of CRLA's activities is ideo-\nlogical. Its causes betray complete indifference to the\nimpact on individual poor people. As this report shows,\ntime and again when they have had opportunities to settle\ncases out of court or solve a problem at a low level of\ncontroversy, they chose escalation. The result was always\n(274)\nto stir dissension, fear and division in the communities\nthey are supposed to be serving.\nThey have exploited the poor in several ways. First,\ngiving high visibility to a cause in which exploitation is\nalleged but is not a reality, tends to encourage the poor\nto feel exploited and impotent. The result is to encourage\nthe poor to think they have less control over their own lives\nthan is in fact the case.\nSecond, in supporting organizations like UFWOC and\nin their lobbying activities, CRLA chooses one group of\npoor people over another. In refusing to give Mrs. Mariano\nservice when she was sued by UFWOC for interrupting their\norganizing activities, they withheld service from the\npoor person who precisely needs it most. These are the\npoorest of the poor, for these are the people who will\nhave no job when the union succeeds in getting the growers\nto automate. Without jobs, there is only despair for these\npeople. CRLA, which is supposed to deliver service to the\npoor impartially, has chosen sides - and made it impossible\nfor one group of poor people to get any service at all.\nLastly, the effects of CRLA's presence is to dis-\ncourage the introduction of an alternative legal service\nprogram that would deliver to the poor the services that\nCRLA was set up to deliver.\nIn material terms, CRLA has pursued many causes which\nwill and have increased costs for the poor. We have men-\n(275)\ntioned their union activity, which discriminates against\nsome on behalf of others. The suit against the creameries\nfor deceptive marking of milk, if successful, will raise\nthe price of milk. Their prosecuting defenses in unlawful\ndetainer actions, and even soliciting and encouraging the\ndefense of these actions, has increased the costs of being\na landlord, and therefore the costs of housing to the poor.\nNow a landlord must take into consideration the possibility\nof being forced to prosecute a suit in order to dislodge\na tenant who refuses to pay his bill. The result is re-\ncorded in a letter written by the President of the Apart-\nment and Motel Association:\n\"We would have no objection to their (i.e.,\npoverty lawyers) representing an indigent\ntenant if there were a substantial grievance\ninvolved, but most of the actions we have\nseen have been attempts to delay the normal\neviction procedures by vague constitutional\narguments where the tenant has not paid\nrent or has failed to move after receiving\nan adequate legal notice to do so.\n\"As a result, our members are more and more\nturning away from the acceptance of Welfare\nTenants because of the potential hazard of\nfighting the United States Government with\nno hope of recovery in a monetary sense\nand the very real possibility of being un-\nable to regain possession except at exhor-\nbitant costs or excessive delay.\" (Exhibit\n22-1071. Emphasis added.)\nIn the course of the evaluation, we had to face\nthe question whether the task of building quality legal\nservices for the rural poor was best served (a) by trying\nto bring about a sweeping reform of CRLA, or (b) by re-\n(276)\ncommending that the Governor veto the program with\nan eye to building an alternative.\nThe facts demanded a veto for several reasons.\nFirst, throughout its stormy history, CRLA has been re-\ngaled by criticism from many quarters throughout the state,\nbut has never demonstrated believable interest in anything\nmore than cosmetic changes. Unlike the August 1970 Eval-\nuation rather even than admit that they had serious pro-\nblems, CRLA tends to dismiss charges of wrong-doing, and\ncommends its attorneys for giving their free time, which\nthey seem to possess in unlimited amounts. CRLA's union\ninvolvement has gotten successively worse over its four years\nand this year it appeared they discarded even the crudest\nefforts to camalflage it.\nSecond, our commitment to the fundamental premise of\nOEO, with its emphasis on communitiesand home rule, and to\nthe President's New Federalism, made us recognize the ex-\ntent to which CRLA's recurring problems are structural and\ninstitutional. We have come to be convinced that the kinds\nof people who tend to become poverty lawyers tend to aggra-\nvate the problems cited herein. But without local control\nthe aggravation becomes intolerable both for the communities\nand for the poor. Having concluded that the structure is\nlargely to blame for CRLA's problems, we determined our\nbest course was to avoid the previous cosmetic reform efforts\nand to the organic change that we are convinced is necessary\n(277)\nif the poor are to get adequate legal service.\nA number of important issues are at stake in the\nGovernor's veto of CRLA.\n(1) The first question is whether OEO is going\nto respect the legislative intent clearly underlying Sec-\ntion 242 of the Economic Opportunity Act. That section\nrequires that in order to overturn a Governor's veto,\nthe Director of OEO must make an affirmative finding that\nthe program is \"fully consistent with the provisions and\nin furtherance of the purposes of this title\".\nWe think the evidence presented herein represents\nthe most complete possible indictment of any program -\nboth from the standpoint of the poor and of the communities\nin which the program serves. The readiness of OEO to res-\npond to the Governor's veto in this situation will indi-\ncate a great deal about OEO's attitude toward Section 242.\nUnfortunately, to our knowledge, that section has never\nbeen tested judicially. At some point in the future, such\na test will no doubt take place. But in the meantime, we\ncan only hope on behalf of all the constituencies adversely\naffected that the Director sustains the Governor's veto in\nthis instance.\n(2) A second question goes to the question of\nHome Rule and the New Federalism. The Nixon Administration\nhas gone on official record for its devotion to these prin-\nciples, long at the heart of the OEO concept. CRLA is\n(278)\npresently organized in direct contravention of those prin-\nciples with control far from the areas of operation.\n(3) Thirdly, who is going to stand up for\npeople in rural America and grant to them the same rights\nof local control that have long been taken for granted in\nthe cities? Big cities are never afflicted with OEO Legal\nService programs administered from rural areas, far away\nfrom them, and we think people in rural areas should be\ngranted equal protection in this regard.\n(279)\nX.\nRECOMMENDATION\nThe State Office of Economic Opportunity recommends\nthat California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., funding for\nyear 1971 be disapproved, pursuant to the Governor's author-\nity under Section 242 of the Economic Opportunity Act of\n1964, as amended.\n(280)\nXI.\nALTERNATIVE PLAN - PRIVATELY FINANCED LEGAL SERVICES\nFOR THE RURAL POOR\nThis Administration's deep concern for meeting the\nlegitimate civil legal needs of indigents has prompted us\nto devise a privately financed alternative to CRLA which\nholds enormous promise for truly serving the rural poor.\nIn the process of the in-depth analysis of CRLA, we have\ngained new insight into the legal needs of the poor, which\nhas provided us with the kind of background necessary to\ndesign the best possible legal system for the poor. In the\ncomprehension of CRLA's failure, we stand on the brink of a\nmajor breakthrough in privately financed legal services for\nthe poor, which will insure not only local responsiveness,\nbut the mobilization and support of the entire community\nbehind the legitimate legal needs of the poor.\nOur program constitutes much more than simply sub-\nstituting private dollars for Federal dollars. We intend\nto create variations in the structure of each office,\nthrough which we can determine the most effective way, as\nwell as the most efficient way, to meet the legitimate legal\nservice needs of the poor. The variations will include,\nbut not necessarily be limited to, the following schema.\n(It should be noted that in each case the local bar asso-\nciation will be the grantee of the funds, will control the\nprogram, and will participate fully and completely in the\n(281)\ndesign of the program for its particular area.)\n(a) We will utilize the employed attorney and the\njudicare concepts in different areas. (We recognize that\njudicare has been rather costly where tried in demonstration\nprograms to date. We hope that the application of certain\nstandards, listed below, will assure that the program is\nnot abused nor excessively costly.)\n(b) We intend to insert into the program in the var-\nious areas variations such as: (1) fixed level eligibility\nstandards for the poor; (2) sliding scale eligibility stand-\nards for the poor (the client pays part of the legal cost\nbased on income level) ; (3) variations on fee schedules in\njudicare; (4) a requirement that attorneys interested in\ntaking advantage of judicare and participating in the pro-\ngram must first contribute a set number of hours free of\ncharge to poor clients to qualify for participation.\nWith respect to judicare, our hope is to utilize ex-\nisting bar resources more effectively, to ration scarce\nlegal resources by adding some cost to their utilization\nso that at all times there is some barrier to abuse or\nmisuse of such resources. In suggesting a requirement that\nattorneys contribute some time before qualifying to parti-\ncipate in judicare, we seek to identify those attorneys who\nare wholeheartedly, rather than just marginally, interested\nin assisting the poor with their legal needs.\n(282)\nWe are excited by the opportunity to develop, study and\nevaluate legal services programs containing these variations.\nOnce the design is established for the program in the\nvarious counties to be served, we will provide you with more\ndetails on design features county-by-county.\n(283)"
}