Burden of Proof: Finding an Attorney When Facing Eviction
I have been investigating now for quite some time why it is so hard for indigent defendants in San Francisco to obtain legal representation when facing an eviction.
I have found that we are paying over 2.1 million annually to a number of organizations of which-according to city hall-was providing indigent representation.
Apparently there is a big difference between what is written and what is being performed.
I found that most organization do not list or publish in any form the requirements to access their services .
The Population/community never knows in advance which agency would be the most appropriate to serve their need. What I mean is income standards, length of tenancy, and requirement of “back rent” available prior to assistance with a court trial. This is not only in my view a bit condescending, but hypocritical in that the defendant does not in his/her own power have an affirmative defense thus negating the back rent requirement as damages would be on the plaintiff not the defendant. All of these “requirements” should be made in advance and they are not, causing a disservice to the indigent communities these organizations are claiming to serve.
In conversations with these organizations I have found that “representation” is open to interpretation .
Back in the day if someone had a problem they went to legal aid in a building off of Powell St. Upon completion of your paperwork you were referred to 125 Spear St. where an army of attorneys who had to meet their pro-bono requirements for their respective firms were made available to the community to assist indigent defendants in court actions. That is gone.
The main thing defendants need is representation. Without this direct and adversarial process in an open court for the legal system and community at large to gain insight into the tactics of some of our less than upstanding landlords, the same crap persists over and over. If a defendant has affirmative defenses and wants to challenge or just “have his day in court,” why is the city refusing to provide this basic service of defense for a community of people who on average cannot defend themselves?
On September 14th I attended a hearing at the sunshine ordinance task force where Peg Stevenson, Director of Audits for the Controllers Office and David Curto, Director of Contracts for the city were there to present the city’s position.
Mr. Curto admitted that organizations that are providing representative services (attorneys) do have their own set of criteria for choosing which individuals they will assist. However, none of the contracts I have reviewed personally showed any such criteria listed.
I successfully argued before the task force and the task force agreed unanimously that I had proven jurisdiction to proceed on violations that information to obtain counsel was not clearly defined or present at all.
The purpose of my challenging the organizations that are supposed to be providing representative service is simple. I am asking for proof of performance. If you claim you have helped someone I want you to prove to me by your records (financial/reporting) that you actually have done or are doing what you claim to be doing.
As for “criteria,” especially since there is no contract requirement for it, I am looking to see if there are potentially any discriminatory practices in how government funding is being spent to help those who can not help themselves.
In closing, one of the main reasons for this challenge is I personally know of people-specifically people of color-who have asked for representative services (attorney) and have been denied.
I only want to know why.
Richard
