Despite some gains over the past year, New York City law firms continue to face challenges in the area of diversity, concludes the New York City Bar Association’s sixth Diversity Benchmarking Report.

The 2011 diversity results paint a picture of stagnation for women and minority attorneys. At the micro level there are improvements to be celebrated, interspersed with signs of slippage. Minority attorneys have reclaimed some ground lost during the recession and women continue to improve their representation at the partner level, yet are simultaneously declining among the associate ranks. While new hires across levels are more diverse than attorneys at signatory firms, elevated turnover for women and minorities continues to erode the gains. We are encouraged to find that firms with a critical mass of women on their management committees, defined as three or more, reported better results for women attorneys at every level.

The report’s findings, compiled from 74 surveys of New York City law firms that signed the City Bar’s Statement of Diversity Principles, included:

•    Despite efforts to retain the diversity of senior associates among new partner promotes, women attorneys declined from 44.4% to 33.0%, and minority attorneys from 18.7% to 16.8%, of senior associates elected to firm partnerships in 2011.

•    While there are more women and minority partners in firms with a two-tier partnership structure, there are fewer minority equity partners than those firms with a single tier. In 2011, while women accounted for 16.9% of equity partners, they represented 24.5% of non-equity partners. Respective results for minority partners were 6.1% and 8.5%.

•    After dropping from 3.6% of attorneys in 2009 to 3.1% in 2010, Hispanic attorneys rebounded slightly to 3.3% as of the end of 2011, while Asian attorneys remained at 12.8% of associates after declining from the 2009 to 2010 results. Conversely, Black attorneys declined overall and at the associate, special counsel and partner levels in the most recent reporting.

•    Usage of reduced-hour flexibility peaked in 2010 at 4.7% of all attorneys, 10.8% of women and 1.4% of men, declining to 4.2% overall in the latest reporting. Over 10% of signatory firms do not have any attorneys working part-time while 40% of firms report no men working on a reduced-hour schedule. The gender skew for part-time work is greatest at the associate level.

However, some positive findings were also noted:

•    More women on the management committee were associated with greater diversity by gender at nearly every level. For example, firms with no women management committee members reported 30% women new partner promotes compared with 42% at firms with three or more women among this leadership group.

•    Minority associates gained some of the ground lost from 2009 to 2010. Across all minority attorneys, representation rose from 16.6% to 17.2% in 2011 after declining from the high of 18.1% in March of 2009.

•    The percentage of women partners continued to grow, rising to a high of 18.3% since the City Bar began tracking diversity data. In addition, women attorneys registered gains among firm leadership, rising from 17.1% to 17.7% of management committee members and 15.4% to 17.3% of practice group heads.

•    The representation of openly gay attorneys continues to increase among signatory firms rising to its height at 3.6% in the 2011 results.

“While we are pleased that an emphasis on diversity has become increasingly prevalent in New York City law firms, the numbers presented in this report demonstrate a slow rate of change and indicate that many firms may need to reassess how they go about creating a workforce that better reflects our society,” said New York City Bar President Carey R. Dunne.

In 2003, more than 100 New York City firms signed the City Bar’s Statement of Diversity Principles, committing to work toward several goals focused on improving the diversity of the pipeline from the entry level all the way through to firm leadership.

The 2011 Diversity Benchmarking Report is available at: bit.ly/W7yV9i

The report’s appendices are here: bit.ly/T1p72i

 

Posted in New York City Bar Association | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Barbara Berger Opotowsky, Executive Director of the New York City Bar Association, will step down in May 2013, after a 15-year tenure.

“It has been a privilege to serve an association with such a rich tradition and dedication to the highest principles of the profession. I have been honored to work with true leaders of the Bar who have shown an unwavering commitment to a just society, and an amazingly talented staff,” said Opotowsky. “While the decision to leave the City Bar, an organization I look at as a family, has not been an easy one, I am excited and energized by the thought of starting a new chapter in life.”

Carey R. Dunne, President of the City Bar, said, “Barbara Opotowsky has been a cornerstone of the City Bar for a decade and a half, during one of the most tumultuous and challenging periods since our founding in 1870. At every step, she has guided the organization to greater success, with her characteristic intellect, energy, judgment and wit. While we will all miss her leadership, the good news is that, due to her efforts, the Association is in a stronger position than it has ever been before.”

As Executive Director of the 24,000 member organization, Opotowsky continued the City Bar’s long tradition of speaking out forcefully on critical public issues, most notably on the erosion of civil liberties following the September 11th attacks, ranging from an early analysis of the shortcomings of military tribunals to recent calls to lift restrictions on attorneys representing clients in Guantanamo. Among the many other issues tackled by the City Bar’s 150 committees during Opotowsky’s tenure were government ethics reform, including curbing “pay-to-play” practices and requiring client disclosure by legislators; same-sex marriage; the Sarbanes-Oxley Act; and human rights violations around the world.

Under Opotowsky, policy has been complemented by service, notably by the City Bar’s sister organization, the City Bar Justice Center. The nationally-recognized Justice Center has grown to leverage the expertise of its staff to provide over $20,000,000 in pro bono legal services annually. In what has been called the City Bar’s shining moment, within 48 hours of 9/11 the Justice Center began training and mobilizing over 3,000 lawyers to provide legal services to the families of the victims. In addition to ongoing pro bono programs ranging from asylum cases to services for homeless families, the Justice Center has been nimble in addressing emerging issues. The Justice Center has worked on the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund; temporary status for Haitians following the earthquake in Haiti; young noncitizens seeking to obtain Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals; and most recently, addressing the legal needs emerging from Hurricane Sandy. Over the past 15 years, the Justice Center’s staff has more than doubled and its funding has increased six-fold.

In addition, the Cyrus R. Vance Center for International Justice, founded during Opotowsky’s tenure, has spread the City Bar’s pro bono culture around the world, particularly in Latin America. More than 500 law firms from 17 countries, representing more than 10,000 lawyers, have signed the Pro Bono Declaration of the Americas. The Vance Center spearheaded the drafting and promulgation of the Declaration, and now its legal team is designing projects for law firms to support human rights organizations with their pro bono commitment. Other Vance Center initiatives include the South African Legal Fellows Program and the Latin American Women in the Profession program, modeled again on the City Bar’s pioneering diversity efforts.

As the legal profession changed dramatically over the past 15 years, so did the City Bar to keep pace. Recognizing the need for greater support for young lawyers, the City Bar has implemented a wide range of programs and services to assist in professional development. In response to the growth in solo and small practitioners, a Small Law Firm Center was established to provide services and resources to that segment of the Bar. A Lawyer Assistance Program with a psychiatric social worker on staff was added to assist those with alcohol, drug dependency and mental health issues. And in response to the 2008-09 financial crisis, the City Bar helped to place lawyers whose employment start dates were deferred in public service positions, and provided training and resources to this group.

Other services that have been enhanced over the past 15 years include a robust Continuing Legal Education Program and a thriving Legal Referral Service.

The challenge of creating a truly inclusive legal profession remains, and the City Bar has recommitted to enhancing diversity in the profession. In 2003, over 100 law firms and corporate law departments pledged to support defined diversity goals and to participate in an annual benchmarking study to monitor progress. Recognizing the need to reach underrepresented groups earlier, a comprehensive diversity pipeline initiative was created to provide programming, mentoring and summer jobs for high school students.

The many initiatives of the past 15 years have been made possible by a strong financial foundation. During Opotowsky’s tenure, the City Bar’s budget doubled, and the Association has run a surplus every year except the year of 9/11.

During her tenure, Opotowsky served with nine presidents: Michael A. Cardozo, Michael A. Cooper, Evan A. Davis, E. Leo Milonas, Bettina B. Plevan, Barry M. Kamins, Patricia M. Hynes, Samuel W. Seymour, and Carey R. Dunne.

A search committee under President Carey Dunne’s leadership has been formed. Interested candidates should contact Georgiana Hsu-Luk, City Bar Human Resources Director, at ghsu-luk@nycbar.org.

 

Posted in New York City Bar Association | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Leaders of New York City bar associations and legal services organizations met today to collaborate on providing free legal services to Hurricane Sandy victims. The groups will collaborate on three important areas:

1. Information – LawHelp.org/NY and ProBono.Net will share disaster-relief information online, with LawHelp focusing on the individuals affected and ProBonoNet on lawyers who wish to volunteer.

2. Training – There will be increased need for training, particularly in areas such as insurance and FEMA, and the bar associations will assist in hosting trainings in these areas.

3. Service – There was a recognition that the areas affected will need to be reached on a local level. The groups committed to organizing large pro bono legal clinics in hard-hit communities in the weeks ahead.

In the longer term, the groups plan to set up a series of additional community-based clinics and seek pro bono assistance in staffing the clinics, which might cover such matters as replacing public benefits, disaster unemployment insurance, FEMA, foreclosure, insurance denials and other claims.

Today’s meeting was facilitated by the City Bar Justice Center and involved leaders from two City Bar Committees—Insurance and Pro Bono and Legal Services—as well as leaders of the Brooklyn Volunteer Lawyers Project, LawHelpNY, Lawyers Alliance for New York, Legal Services for New York City, New York County Lawyers’ Association, New York Lawyers for the Public Interest, ProBonoNet, The Legal Aid Society, and Volunteers of Legal Service.

Posted in New York City Bar Association | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The New York City Bar Association has evaluated candidates running in the November 6th general election for Supreme Court, Surrogate’s Court, and Civil Court in Bronx, Kings, New York, and Queens Counties.

In examining candidates for the judiciary, the Committee on the Judiciary of the Association seeks to determine whether the candidate possesses the requisite qualifications for judicial office, such as integrity, impartiality, intellectual ability, knowledge of the law, industriousness, and judicial demeanor and temperament.

The Committee advances two ratings: Approved and Not Approved.  Candidates rated Approved have affirmatively demonstrated qualifications necessary for the performance of the duties of the court for which they are being considered.


Bronx County

Supreme Court

Donna Marie Mills The Judiciary Committee was unable to complete a review of this candidate
Fernando Tapia Not approved by reason of the candidate’s failure to affirmatively demonstrate that he possesses the requisite qualifications for the court for which he is a candidate
John H. Wilson Approved

Surrogate’s Court

Nelida Malave-Gonzales Approved
Frances M. O’Leary Approved

Civil Court (1st District)

Harry Hertzberg Not approved by reason of the candidate’s failure to affirmatively demonstrate that he possesses the requisite qualifications for the court for which he is a candidate
Llinet Beltre Rosado Approved

Civil Court (2nd District)

Eddie McShan Approved
Daniel Szalkiewicz Not approved by reason of the candidate’s failure to affirmatively demonstrate that he possesses the requisite qualifications for the court for which he is a candidate

 

Kings County

Supreme Court

Cheryl E. Chambers Approved
William Gerard Not approved by reason of the candidate’s failure to affirmatively demonstrate that he possesses the requisite qualifications for the court for which he is a candidate
Barry Kamins Approved
Arshad Majid The Judiciary Committee could not complete a review of this candidate
William Miller Approved

Civil Court (Countywide)

Ross Brady Not approved by reason of the candidate’s failure to affirmatively demonstrate that he possesses the requisite qualifications for the court for which he is a candidate
Robin S. Garson Approved
Vincent F. Martusciello Not approved by reason of the candidate’s failure to affirmatively demonstrate that he possesses the requisite qualifications for the court for which he is a candidate
Craig S. Walker Approved

Civil Court (1st District)

Richard J. Montelione Approved

Civil Court (2nd District)

Wavny Toussaint Approved

Civil Court (5th District)

Steven Z. Mostofsky Approved

 

New York County

Supreme Court

Shlomo Hagler Approved
Manuel J. Mendez Approved
Saliann Scarpulla Approved
George Silver Approved

Surrogate’s Court

Rita Mella Approved

Civil Court (Countywide)

Melissa A. Crane Approved
Verna Saunders Approved
Anil C. Singh Approved

Civil Court (2nd District)

Debra Rose Samuels Not approved by reason of the candidate’s failure to affirmatively demonstrate that she possesses the requisite qualifications for the court for which she is a candidate

Civil Court (3rd District)

Lisa Sokoloff Not approved by reason of the candidate’s failure to affirmatively demonstrate that she possesses the requisite qualifications for the court for which she is a candidate
Civil Court (6th District)
Arthur F. Engoron Approved
Shawn T. Kelly Approved
Civil Court (8th District)
Jeanette Rodriguez-Morick Approved

 

Queens County

Supreme Court

Robert V. Beltrani Not approved by reason of the candidate’s failure to affirmatively demonstrate that he possesses the requisite qualifications for the court for which he is a candidate
Lawrence V. Cullen Approved
Charles S. Lopresto Approved
Leslie J. Purificacion Approved
Giovanni P. Silvagni Not approved by reason of the candidate’s failure to affirmatively demonstrate that he possesses the requisite qualifications for the court for which he is a candidate

Civil Court (Countywide)

Robert I. Caloras Approved
Donna-Marie E. Golia Approved

Civil Court(4th District)

Ulysses B. Leverett Approved

Civil Court (5th District)

Larry L. Love Approved

Note: To ensure the thoroughness and integrity of the ratings process, the City Bar cannot comment beyond what is provided above.

Posted in New York City Bar Association | 2 Comments

The New York City Bar Association has a long-held, deep commitment to human rights and the rule of law worldwide. Our membership and committee activity reflect that we are based in the pre-eminent global city, with fifteen committees exclusively focused on international issues and many others also including international issues on their agendas. In addition, our  Cyrus R. Vance Center for International Justice extends the City Bar’s pro bono reach by engaging lawyers across borders to advance fundamental justice in countries undertaking legal and institutional reform. All of this is reflected in City Bar activities within the past couple of months.

On September 24th, Betsy Plevan, our past President and current Chair of our Council on International Affairs, and I were among the few bar representatives invited to attend the United Nations session on the Rule of Law. This is part of a major UN initiative to focus on the rule of law and its importance in all aspects of society. The topic was addressed by a number of heads of state, and a broad-ranging Declaration was issued. We hope to follow this up with programming this spring.

An aspect of rule of law that we have focused on recently is the use of arbitration to resolve cross-border disputes. Our Committee on International Commercial Disputes issued two reports on this topic over the summer. The first report sets forth recommended procedures for the recognition and enforcement of international arbitration awards rendered under the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of other States (the “ICSID” Convention). The second report addresses the “Manifest Disregard of Law” doctrine, which some argue makes New York a less appropriate venue for arbitration. The report demonstrates that this doctrine essentially is also applied in other major arbitral jurisdictions and that, both here and elsewhere, it is seldom used.

We continue to advocate for basic human rights on a variety of fronts. Our African Affairs Committee has been pressing to eliminate the use of child soldiers, and recently urged the Obama Administration to condition the provision of foreign military assistance to nations who use child soldiers on those nations’ taking measurable steps to eradicate the practice. Our Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Rights Committee wrote in opposition to a proposed law in the Ukraine that would punish publishing or using the media for the purpose of “promoting  homosexuality.” We have also written in opposition to anti-gay legislation proposed in some African nations, which represents a disturbing international trend. Our International Human Rights Committee continues to address particular instances where lawyer and judicial independence is threatened, as has been happening with lawyers representing plaintiffs asserting their rights in China.

In our own hemisphere, the Vance Center is currently engaged in supporting the inter-American human rights system. On September 27th, we hosted the Secretary General of the Organization of American States, Jose Miguel Insulza, who discussed the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The Commission, based in Washington, D.C., promotes human rights through research and education and offers protection to individuals and organizations claiming violations of their rights by OAS member states.

This system is an active safeguard for basic human rights throughout the Western Hemisphere but is not well known in the U.S., perhaps because the U.S. has not signed the Convention or accepted the Court’s jurisdiction. Secretary General Insulza discussed the controversies brewing within the inter-American human rights system, with some states claiming the Commission exceeds its authority and others threatening to withdraw from the Convention which established this system. On the other hand, defenders of the system seek not only to maintain existing authority but to increase the resources of the Commission, which receives more than 1,500 petitions annually —on issues ranging from asylum in Ecuador to reproductive rights in Colombia, the rights of Dominicans of Haitian descent, militarization in Mexico, and more— and faces an increasing backlog.

The Vance Center has conceived and launched an admirable initiative to support the Commission and the system generally. Over two years starting this November, it will conduct a half dozen training programs on the procedures and jurisprudence of the Commission and Court.  Lawyers from major law firms in the United States, Latin America, Canada, and the Caribbean will participate in the program and then represent petitioners in cases before the Commission on a pro bono basis. The goal is to train 200 lawyers and have them represent as many petitioners over that period of time.

I look forward to participating in the November 15-16 training program that the Vance Center will conduct in Washington, D.C., along with an expected group of 80 lawyers. Through this process, we will become active members of the inter-American human rights system, furthering the City Bar’s commitment to equal justice throughout the world.

Carey R. Dunne is President of the New York City Bar Association.

 

Posted in New York City Bar Association | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

“After examining every available legal argument to support Morocco’s presence in the territory we have come to the conclusion that Morocco cannot claim a legal right to the territory on the basis of any historic relationship it had with the territory prior to its colonization by Spain,” the New York City Bar Association testified on the dispute over Western Sahara yesterday before the Special Political and Decolonization Committee of the United Nations General Assembly.

In her testimony, based on a report issued by the City Bar’s United Nations Committee, Katlyn Thomas, former Chair of the Committee, noted that in 1975 the International Court of Justice held that Morocco had no claim over the territory of Western Sahara. “Morocco’s action within weeks of that decision to avoid the implications of that ruling by sending its army into the territory against the wishes of its inhabitants arguably violates Article 2, Paragraph 4 and Chapter VII, as well as Artlcle 3(a) of General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) to refrain from acts of aggression,” states the testimony. Nor does the agreement Morocco reached in 1975 with Spain under which Spain agreed to withdraw from the territory and permit Morocco and Mauritania to occupy it justify any legal claim to the territory.

“Despite its more than 30 years of occupation of Western Sahara, neither the United Nations, nor the African Union, nor any individual state has recognized Morocco‘s claims to the territory as legitimate,” states the testimony. “Even the members of the Security Council who have advocated direct talks between Morocco and the Polisario that have taken place since 2007, as opposed to the implementation of the Settlement Plan that would require a referendum, have maintained their support for the right to self-determination of the people of Western Sahara.”

Ms. Thomas testified, “Our Committee concluded that the right to self-determination under international law requires that the Sahraouis have the opportunity to freely determine their political status and that this determination must include the option of independence.”

Turning to the question of how the right of self-determination by the indigenous population of Western Sahara can be exercised, the testimony cites three procedures: enforcement of the original U.N.-OAU 1991 Settlement Plan; enforcement of a version of the Peace Plan advanced by former United States Secretary of State James Baker III when he was the Personal Envoy of the United Nations Secretary General to Western Sahara; or UN-ordered negotiations on a “political solution” with preconditions, including a timetable, similar to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement that was developed for Sudan. Each of these three options may require a mandatory order by the Security Council under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter.

The testimony concludes, “The international community needs to take steps to see that this dispute is resolved in the near future. The longer it takes to resolve the sovereignty issue, the more complicated will be the task of implementing any solution reached. On behalf of the United Nations Committee of The Association of the Bar of the City of New York, I call upon this Committee to adopt a position with regard to the settlement of the dispute over Western Sahara that is consistent with principles of international law.”

Read the testimony here: http://bit.ly/UNcnQ9

 

Posted in New York City Bar Association | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The New York City Bar Association applauds the Legislature for passing, and the Governor for signing into law, Bill Number A.5275/S.1546, which will afford attorneys the same fee protections in cases resolved through alternative dispute resolution or pre-litigation settlements as are available to attorneys in court-filed cases.  Expanding the Lien Law to include both out-of-court settlements and ADR gives attorneys a commonsense added protection, avoids attorney fee disputes, closes an outdated loophole, encourages ADR as a means to resolve both contingency fee and hourly cases, and aids the overburdened court system.

The bill was proposed by the Association’s Professional Responsibility Committee and supported by its Committees on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution, and was sponsored by Assembly Member Matthew Titone and Senator John Sampson. It also received support from the New York State Bar Association.

The law addresses a deficiency in Judiciary Law Sections 475 and 475-a, known as the Lien Law, which govern an attorney’s ability to attach a charging lien to a client’s monetary recovery.  Prior to enactment of the new law, the Lien Law only permitted an attorney to attach a charging lien to a client’s recovery in an “action, special or other proceeding in any court or before any state, municipal or federal department, except a department of labor.”  New York courts consistently interpreted the Lien Law to exclude alternative dispute resolution and out-of-court settlements from the definition of “other proceedings.”  Under the new law, an attorney may now attach a lien to the proceeds of any recovery obtained as the result of arbitration, mediation, or any pre-litigation negotiated settlement.

Alternative dispute resolution is a widely practiced and respected method of resolving disputes.  It is cost-effective and efficient and lightens court dockets. When attorneys represent parties in ADR, they no longer have to assume a greater risk of not getting paid for their services.

The law will take effect on January 1, 2013.  It will have no impact on the Rules of Professional Conduct that currently govern an attorney’s ethical obligations in all cases of attorney representation, including regarding fees.

 

Posted in New York City Bar Association | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

New York City Bar Association President Carey R. Dunne testified today at Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman’s hearing on civil legal services for low-income New Yorkers, at the Appellate Division, First Department, in Manhattan. His prepared testimony follows:

Chief Judge Lippman, Justice Gonzalez, and Mr. James:  I am honored to testify before you today on behalf of the New York City Bar Association at this third series of hearings on access to justice for New Yorkers who cannot afford an attorney for their civil legal services needs.

The City Bar has long been committed to providing access to justice, and we work to achieve this on a local, national and international level.  In addition to our legal and policy work in this area, our public service affiliate, the City Bar Justice center, provides direct legal services by leveraging the efforts and resources of the City’s legal community to increase access to justice for low-income individuals.  And our Vance Center for International Justice stimulates and coordinates pro bono efforts in Latin America, Africa and elsewhere in the world.

The City Bar applauds the Chief Judge for his extraordinary leadership, and the Task Force for its extraordinary efforts, which have made New York a nationwide leader in the provision of civil legal services to the poor.  As a result of these efforts, and despite difficult budget constraints and other pressures, the judiciary budget provided a $12.5 million increase in legal services funding last year and an additional $12.5 million, for a $25 million increase over two years, a remarkable result in these difficult times.

As we all know, however, this funding increase is well short of where we need to be.  Unfortunately, we are confronting an intractable demand for civil legal assistance that all the legal services providers plus considerable pro bono efforts of New York’s lawyers cannot come close to meeting.  Though many statistics demonstrate this crisis, I cannot get past the number of two million – over two million New Yorkers walk into court each year with no legal counsel.  They generally do not have the skills, and often the language ability, to pursue or defend their legal positions, and thus are particularly at risk of losing their shelter or their subsistence or facing a break up of their family.  If these parties received representation, not only would their chances of success be greater, but their cases would be more effectively handled by an overburdened court system, and they might be able to recover some of the hundreds of millions of dollars New Yorkers are owed each year in federal benefits for which they are eligible.

Unfortunately, nothing happening in the larger world gives us comfort that these pressing needs will be met anytime soon.  Recent census statistics show that the poverty level in New York City grew in 2011 to 20.9%, with almost 1.7 million residents classified as poor.  Median income in the city declined.  Unemployment remains stubbornly high, and the figures do not even reflect all those who have given up looking for work.  While more are suffering in New York, the increase in the poverty population elsewhere in the country will result in a redistribution of federal legal services funding, so that New York providers will see double-digit declines even if the overall allocation to the legal services corporation remains the same.  Many lay-offs in legal services offices are occurring statewide.  And the federal government has not yet retreated from its own budget cliff, risking further cuts to federal funding in the immediate future.

Surely, we need new responses to this deepening crisis.  To start, we have a desperate need for additional civil legal services funding.  No single means of providing services to the poor is as effective as the experienced legal services offices and lawyers that operate so heroically.  They need more money, to offset federal losses and to try to meet the great need, as they have had to turn away at least 80% of those that reach out for help.  We urge that the judiciary budget include a substantial increase in legal services funding, to move closer to the $100 million increased budget goal that has been set by Chief Judge Lippman.

But we need to get more help from other sources.  We and other bar associations in New York have exerted substantial efforts to mobilize the private bar, and many lawyers have heard the call and given generously of their time and resources.  At the City Bar Justice Center, we have 2,171 trained volunteers, who joined with the justice center staff to assist nearly 20,000 people last year.  We increased the value of pro bono legal services donated through programs at the justice center from $18 million to $20 million since last year.  Our free legal hotline is supported by IOLA and OCA funding to assist thousands of New Yorkers with fast, free legal help on basic legal problems such as consumer debt, housing and family law, and it makes referrals to legal services when appropriate.  Our programs also reach veterans, 9/11 victim compensation fund claimants, immigrant women and children, and victims of domestic violence and trafficking.

While other bar associations are also working hard to provide vital pro bono assistance, the current pace of pro bono activity must be greatly accelerated, and we have to be open to new ways of getting that done.  We therefore fully support the recently issued 50-hour pro bono requirement for admission to the New York Bar.  We see the requirement as inculcating the spirit of pro bono, exposing all new lawyers in the state to the rewards of pro bono service and, with 9000 new lawyers being admitted each year, generating a substantial amount of legal services.  The rules provide a flexible approach, giving law students a broad range of ways they can help, and backing that up with a requirement that their efforts be supervised.  It is now up to legal services providers, law schools, bar associations and others concerned about providing legal assistance to develop effective ways for law students to assist.  The New York City Bar looks forward to doing its part and to working with others to see that law student pro bono efforts are harnessed effectively.

Similarly, we experienced lawyers need to do more.  There has been much effort to encourage pro bono service but that has to be greatly intensified.  The city bar has long been in favor of the concept of mandatory pro bono service.  We of course recognize that this has been a highly controversial issue within the bar.  However, we also support another approach which we believe would stimulate greater involvement: the mandatory reporting of pro bono activities.  In 1997, the City Bar proposed that New York lawyers be required to report the extent of their pro bono commitments, as well as their monetary contributions to organizations providing legal services to the poor (the report is appended to this testimony).   Our report drew on the experience of Florida, which was the first to establish the reporting of pro bono activities and contributions, both of which grew substantially after the reporting requirement was put into place.  Now, eight states have mandatory reporting.   Mandatory reporting in New York can be handled in a number of ways, though perhaps the easiest would be in the form used for the biannual registration renewal.  That is one of a number of details that would have to be developed, and we would be happy to work with the task force in designing such a program.

In closing, we face an historic opportunity to step up the funding for civil legal services through the New York State Office of Court Administration and the pro bono efforts of the legal profession.  The new bar applicant pro bono requirement will bring law schools further into pro bono work and create important resources to help combat the increase in the poverty rate and homelessness in New York City.   We must take what we have learned from the past fifty years of expanding access to justice for the poor and create smarter and more efficient ways to reach more people.  At the City Bar, I pledge our full support for these efforts.

Posted in New York City Bar Association | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment