In a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry, the New York City Bar Association urges the U.S. government to call upon the United Nations to “perform its obligations” under the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the UN and provide an appropriate mode for settling claims that UN personnel are responsible for the cholera epidemic in Haiti.

“There is evidence pointing to United Nations peacekeepers or personnel being the most likely source of the cholera epidemic in Haiti,” states the letter. It has been alleged that more than 8,000 people have died and hundreds of thousands more have been infected as a result of the epidemic.

The letter, signed by City Bar President Carey R. Dunne, disputes the UN’s contention that the claims would necessarily include a “review of political and policy matters” and that accordingly the claims are “not receivable” pursuant to section 29 of the 1946 Convention.

The United States has been a party to the 1946 Convention since 1970, and while technically the UN cannot be a party to that Convention, it sets out UN rights and obligations and was approved by the General Assembly in 1946. The UN stated to the International Court of Justice in 1949 that it considers itself to be a party to the 1946 Convention and the Court’s advisory opinion in 1949 on “Reparation for injuries suffered in the service of the United Nations” confirmed that the 1946 Convention “creates rights and duties between each of the signatories and the Organization.”

While section 2 of the 1946 Convention provides that the UN shall be immune from interference by executive, administrative, judicial or legislative action, “section 29 provides that the UN ‘shall make provisions for appropriate modes of settlement of disputes arising out of contracts and other disputes of a private law character’ to which the UN is a party,” the letter states. “Thus, for claims of a private law character, section 2 does not provide an absolute shield against claims. “The alleged tortious behavior described in the claims,” according to the letter, is not related to “the official functions of the peacekeeping mission nor to how those functions are being performed.” The position taken by the UN “runs the risk of encouraging governments or courts around the world to lift the UN’s immunity, which is not in the interest of either the UN or the United States.”

The letter can be read here:




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

Last June, I wrote about the New York City Bar Association’s extensive policy recommendations for New York City’s mayoral candidates leading up to the election in November. Based on the collaborative effort of over two dozen City Bar committees, we issued a 95-page report from the perspectives of lawyers who work daily on issues vital to the City’s welfare.  In that June column, I stated my aspirations for this report: “We hope it will inform the public dialogue as the campaign continues between now and November.”

Now that we are nearing the one-year anniversary of our report’s release, I would like to update you on our continuing efforts. We have worked well beyond November in order to ensure that the new administration has our recommendations in hand as it forms the agenda and begins setting policies for the City. In the weeks and months since the election, our Legislative Affairs Department, with the help of our New York City Affairs Committee, has worked to identify the members of Mayor de Blasio’s transition team and administration, facilitate introductions and start to build relationships between our committees and the administration, and convey our recommendations to the right people. In other words, we are working hard to make sure that the City Bar’s voice is heard as the new City government takes shape.

To that end, our “Policy Recommendations for New York City’s Next Mayor” report has been sent to every citywide elected official, the City Council Speaker and all members of the Council, appointed Deputy Mayors, and many of the newly appointed commissioners and directors of City agencies. In recognition of the sheer number of advocacy documents these individuals receive upon taking office, we have worked hard to relay our recommendations in as targeted and tailored a manner as possible. Our goal is to ensure that the newly elected and appointed officials know that we have a point of view on a wide variety of issues pertaining to City governance, on topics ranging from access to justice, public safety and civil liberties to social welfare, consumer protection, emergency preparedness, election law and animal law issues.

In addition, several committees have issued supplemental transition memos to the Mayor, either reinforcing previously stated positions or offering new recommendations for consideration. To date we’ve issued transition memos from our committees on AIDS; Animal Law; Civil Rights; Domestic Violence; Education and the Law; Land Use, Planning and Zoning; and Sex and Law.  Some of the new topics addressed in those memos include the use of public school buildings for religious worship services (the subject of a recent Second Circuit decision regarding which the City Bar submitted an amicus brief), suggestions for improving Community Benefit Agreements in land use projects, and the providing of affordable housing protection and increased rental assistance levels for people living with HIV/AIDS. More reports are expected in the coming weeks.

Committees are also reaching out to newly appointed agency officials to request meetings. In February, we hosted a breakfast featuring Public Advocate Letitia James, providing a forum for members to hear directly from the Public Advocate about her policy agenda and ask questions. We intend to host similar events with other administration officials as well. In other instances, committees have invited officials to attend joint committee meetings and, in doing so, they are facilitating the type of informal, relevant and informative dialogue that our members find so useful.

Our efforts to effect policy changes at the City level are ongoing and something we will continue to build on over the year. We have created a webpage dedicated to our New York City policy recommendations, which we will be updating as new reports are issued. Our committees continue to work diligently to identify, articulate and address the pressing issues facing the City, and we look forward to working with the new administration in the coming years.

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


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

On April 3rd, the City Bar presented its Association Medal for “exceptional contributions to the honor and standing of the bar in this community” to Hon. Leonard B. Sand, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York. To read Judge Sidney H. Stein’s remarks honoring Judge Sand, click here.

From left: Hon. Sidney H. Stein, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York and Chair of the City Bar’s Honors Committee; Hon. Leonard B. Sand; Carey R. Dunne, City Bar President; and Hon. Robert A. Katzmann, Chief Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.


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

The New York City Bar Association has issued a new guide entitled “Judicial Selection Methods in the State of New York: A Guide to Understanding and Getting Involved in the Selection Process.” The guide is designed to inform the public of the different ways judges are selected, and ways the public can participate in the process.

Prepared by the City Bar’s Council on Judicial Administration, this guide gives a brief summary of the different methods for selecting judges for each state and federal court in New York, with a focus on New York City, including whether they are elected or appointed and term lengths.

The guide also discusses the variety of opportunities to participate in the process, including voicing an opinion to the appointing authority (the mayor or governor, for example), running for election as a delegate to a judicial convention, or becoming a member of a screening panel. “Diverse participation is good for the process of selecting judges. Greater participation by individuals brings transparency to the process and promotes public confidence in our courts,” the guide states.

The guide concludes, “New York deserves a judiciary of the highest quality and independence, as well as a judiciary that reflects the broad array of views and experiences of our City’s and State’s diverse population. Active, well-informed citizen participation in the judicial selection process can help achieve these goals. We encourage all lawyers and others to take advantage of the opportunities for involvement that are described in this guide.”

The guide can be read here:

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

One of the fastest-growing segments of the New York City Bar Association’s membership is solo and small-firm practitioners. This fact tracks one of the findings in our report on “New Lawyers in a Changing Profession,” which is that the number of new lawyers practicing in very small firms or as solo practitioners has doubled since 2007.

For some, we know, this is not by choice but by economic necessity, as many of the larger firms are downsizing. This is where organizations like the City Bar can step in to provide the training for new lawyers that large firms have traditionally provided. The City Bar New Lawyer Institute is being set up to provide such training.

At the same time, many lawyers are solo or in small firms by choice, and it’s a choice every bit as valid as working in a large firm. As long as there have been lawyers, lawyers have hung out shingles.

The City Bar’s Small Law Firm Center is in the shingle business, so to speak. In fact, its latest resource for solos and small operations is a “virtual shingle.” Through the Virtual Law Firm Program, City Bar members can get a midtown Manhattan address, with mail drop, use of conference rooms in our landmark building, and more.

Serving the needs of solo and small-firm practitioners, who do not have the infrastructure of the larger law firms and institutional employers, is a key function of the Association. On the business and professional development front, the City Bar’s Small Law Firm Committee oversees monthly luncheons and networking groups that help solo and small-firm practitioners develop their skills, market their practices, and generate referrals, and the Committee and Small Law Firm Center present other programming with a similar focus. For example, this spring we are presenting a three-part series that will provide hands-on assistance in setting up a blog, an e-newsletter and a social media presence. Participants will be able to bring their laptops and leave with a finished product. Throughout the year, there are dozens more law practice management programs, and each November a Small Law Firm Symposium, a full day of workshops on how to start and effectively run one’s own law firm, with extensive networking opportunities and an exhibit hall of vendors that cater to the needs of solo and small firm owners. For lawyers in firms with fewer than 10 lawyers, there are additional discounts, over and above the discounts City Bar members already receive, on over 150 CLE programs each year.

City Bar members have access to an abundance of other benefits of special interest to solos and small-firm lawyers. These include free access to our renowned library, which contains the largest collection of U.S. and New York State appellate court briefs anywhere. Also available free are Westlaw, Lexis/Nexis databases and, for firms of fewer than 25 lawyers, HeinOnline, which includes extensive collections of law reviews, government documents and historic legal materials.  Free legal research, free conference rooms and the Virtual Law Firm program provide quite a cost-effective start-up model for newly born solo and small firm practices.

Perhaps the greatest resource our Small Law Firm Center offers is human: Alla Roytberg, the Center’s Director. City Bar members are entitled to a free practice management/brainstorming session with Alla, and additional consultations can be scheduled for a discounted fee of $50 per session. As someone who has run her own practice for years, Alla advises from experience.

Another great resource that can be hard to find for solos and small-firm lawyers wrapped up in their practices is other lawyers. In particular, every lawyer should have the opportunity to find a mentor. The Small Law Firm Center, in conjunction with the City Bar’s Legal Referral Service, whose panels consist mostly of seasoned solo and small firm practitioners, offers a form of mentoring matchmaking service. There are various scenarios available, from advice on practice-related questions for a reduced fee, to co-counseling on cases with shared workloads and fees. A new “Mentoring Circles” program, which brings solo and small firm practitioners in different practice areas together to network and brainstorm monthly in a small group setting, has been very popular with members who see it as an opportunity to network, share knowledge, exchange referrals and manage caseloads. Look for announcements of additional spots opening up in the mentoring circles this summer.

Last but certainly not least, solo and small firm practitioners, like all City Bar members, can benefit from participation in the Association’s 150 committees and seek pro bono opportunities through the City Bar Justice Center and the Vance Center for International Justice.

For more information about all of these programs, plus additional benefits and deals for solos and small-firm lawyers, please visit and click on Small Law Firm Center.

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


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

A joint report by the New York City Bar Association and Common Cause/New York (“Review Group”) finds that the Joint Commission on Public Ethics (“JCOPE”) thus far has fallen short in meeting its mission of acting vigorously to restore public confidence in government. While performing well in promulgating regulations and providing advice, JCOPE has not persuaded the public of its independence, has appeared reactive rather than proactive, and has not made sufficient use of its statutory authority, according to the report.

“The Review Group believes that the two most important conclusions to draw from this Report are first, that JCOPE can do much more to fulfill its vital mission and second, that any reasonable attack on the conflict of interest in State Government cannot ignore the conflicts of interest created by large campaign contributions and that it is within the mandate of JCOPE under the State Code of Ethics to address this key source of conflict of interest,” the report states.

JCOPE was formed two years ago to administer and interpret the laws governing the ethics of New York public officials in the Legislative and Executive branches in the wake of a series of criminal convictions and proven acts of breach of trust. The Review Group’s report offers what it calls “Hope for JCOPE” through a number of suggestions for restoring public confidence.

Most of these recommendations do not require legislation and can be undertaken immediately. These include:

  • require disclosure of special votes that veto enforcement against the vote of a JCOPE majority
  • delegate to the executive director the ability to issue person of interest or target letters in ongoing investigations
  • to assure appearance of independence, erect a firewall between JCOPE Commissioners and the public officials who appointed them
  • issue guidance regarding the ethical duty to report criminal or fraudulent behavior of public officers
  • promulgate a lobbyist Code of Ethics
  • together with the Attorney General and the Project Sunlight office, convene a roundtable for conflict related database users and work to meet their needs
  • issue guidance that bans legislators, their staffs and their immediate families from holding office, recommending employment, or engaging in certain business dealings with state-funded not-for-profit organizations
  • provide guidance on the ethical rules applicable to dealings with large campaign contributors and their lobbyists
  • specify in that guidance a standard that prohibits the appearance of unethical conduct in selling special access to large contributors or their lobbyists
  • work to use guidance and advocacy to build a better and more ethical culture for the state of New York
  • use video messages from top state leadership to promote an ethical culture

Recommendations that would require legislation include:

  • eliminate the political party component of the special vote requirement for enforcement decisions
  • work to expand Project Sunlight beyond procurement and regulatory issues in the executive branch to include law making and the legislative branch
  • eliminate the express political test for gubernatorial appointments
  • reduce gubernatorial appointments to four
  • reduce legislative leader appointments to a total of six
  • add appointments by the Chief Judge, the Attorney General and the Comptroller
  • make the size of the Commission an odd number, namely thirteen

The report addresses concerns stemming from JCOPE’s structure, which some have called the potential “Achilles heel” of the agency. “Critics noted that even though JCOPE was the largest such ethics agency in the nation at fourteen members, the dissent of only two members can thwart the initiation of an investigation,” the report states. “Twelve commissioners can vote to proceed with an investigation of the executive branch and yet the opposition of two members can prevent it…. Governor Cuomo has acknowledged that ‘[t]o the extent that we need to make some tweaks to the law…then that’s something that needs to be entertained.’”

The report cites the Commission’s most high-profile effort to date, the investigation into sexual harassment allegations against former New York Assemblyman Vito Lopez, as the “primary example of the limitations the Commission’s structure creates for the Commission’s ability, in fact and appearance, to investigate ethical misconduct in state government with full independence.”

The report concludes, “We recognize that the remedies we are recommending constitute strong medicine. However the breach of public trust that now besets State Government requires strong medicine. It is always important to recognize the many persons of the highest integrity and commitment to public service who work in State Government. It is for their sakes as well as the public’s that the seeming unending trail of indicted and convicted legislators must end. As noted above, the Review Group, and the organizations with which it is affiliated, stand ready to help JCOPE in this task.”

The City Bar was represented in the Review Group by its Government Ethics Committee, chaired by Jeremy Feigelson. The Subcommittee that worked on the report was co-chaired by Evan A. Davis and Daniel E. Karson.

The report may be read here:


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

The New York City Bar Association continues to urge passage of the Compassionate Care Act (the “CCA”) and applauds its inclusion in the Assembly’s 2014-15 Health and Mental Hygiene budget.

While commending Governor Andrew Cuomo’s earlier proposal to use his executive power to restart a research program that would allow some ill New Yorkers to obtain medical marijuana, the City Bar’s Drugs and the Law and Health Law Committees express concern in a report regarding the “narrow scope” of the proposal.

The report states, “We believe that appropriately licensed and regulated registered organizations/dispensaries in the community, as provided for by the CCA, are better suited for reaching the populations suffering from the serious conditions that may benefit from treatment with medical marijuana. The CCA will provide for the data collection, research and review necessary to evaluate long-term program efficacy. In short, the CCA addresses the issues of concern: production, distribution, licensing, diversion, taxation, efficacy, program review and protection of medical marijuana.”

The report may be read here:

The City Bar’s Report in Support of Legislation Permitting the Production, Distribution and Use of Medical Marijuana in New York State may be read here:

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

On February 18, 2014, Judge Margo K. Brodie of the Eastern District of New York, spoke to members of the Council on International Affairs of the New York City Bar Association about the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance & Training (“OPDAT”) and her experiences providing training to prosecutors in Africa, the Middle East, the Caribbean, and Eastern Europe.

OPDAT provides technical assistance and training to prosecutors abroad at the request of foreign governments with funding received from the U.S. Department of State and others.  It sends Resident Legal Advisors (“RLAs”) to serve in foreign countries and provide comprehensive assistance for at least one year and Intermittent Legal Advisors (“ILAs”) to assist with specific programs abroad for less than one year.  Judge Brodie noted that not all RLAs and ILAs are federal prosecutors and that some are state and local prosecutors.  Judge Brodie noted that OPDAT selects “people with expertise in particular areas.”

Before joining the bench, Judge Brodie served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of New York and participated in many OPDAT training missions.  In 2005 to 2006, she served 10 months in Nigeria, where she advised prosecution agencies in the areas of public corruption, economic and financial fraud, and human trafficking.  From 2008 through 2012, on behalf of OPDAT, the State Department and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, she provided training to prosecutors and other law enforcement officials in numerous countries, including Tanzania, Lesotho, Swaziland, Jordan, Sierra Leone, Trinidad, the Bahamas, and Bosnia and Herzegovina on various topics.

Judge Brodie described some of the challenges that she encountered abroad, including a lack of access to training materials and CLE-type programs.  When conducting trainings, she would often donate used law books and other materials to foreign prosecutors.  She also noted that improving the rule of law abroad requires enhancing many aspects of the criminal justice system, including improving access to justice to criminal defendants, and referred to the absence in some countries of some of the rights we have in the United States, such as the protection against the use of improperly seized evidence and the right to counsel and bail.

Although evaluation of the effect of the programs may take time and resources, Judge Brodie observed that some positive results were already apparent.  For example, in one country, she provided basic skills training to junior prosecutors during her first training, and when she returned years later, it was evident that the prosecutors had gained substantial experience, so she could engage in more advanced training, including on human trafficking.  In fact, some of the prosecutors she had trained had been elevated to manage their own offices and supervise their own teams around the country.  In her experience, “foreign prosecutors appreciated the training opportunities, which were otherwise rarely available.”

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