The Judiciary, the Profession & the Fair, Effective Administration of Justice | 2025 NYS Legislative Agenda
Repeal the Population-Based Constitutional Cap on Supreme Court Justices and Adopt a Modern, Flexible, Evidence-Based Method of Assessing New York’s Judicial Needs
New York State struggles with an insufficient number of judicial seats. The dire need for additional judges overall is a function of the chronic failure to provide adequate judicial resources to New York’s Unified Court System. And while the reasons underlying such failure are manifold and multilayered, the lack of judicial resources stems in part from the population-based cap on the number of judges in each judicial district that is prescribed by the State Constitution. By capping the number of legislatively authorized Supreme Court seats within each judicial district to one justice per 50,000 people, the Legislature is left powerless to authorize additional seats to meet the growing and particular needs of the courts in such districts. To address the lack of resources at the Supreme Court level, the Office of Court Administration (OCA) has long resorted to adopting makeshift measures that involve designating judges from other courts to sit on the Supreme Court on an “acting” basis. Not only has this “robbing Peter to pay Paul” approach depleted these other courts of judicial resources, but it has also created a de facto permanent and large class of “Acting Supreme Court Justices,” sitting in a court other than the one to which they were either elected by the people or appointed by the relevant appointing authority.
To address this issue New York should adopt a constitutional amendment to repeal the cap on Supreme Court Justices. The need for this amendment has been endorsed by Governor Hochul, Chief Judge Wilson and many other organizations and bar associations. The City Bar urges the Legislature to give second passage to the amendment in the current legislative session so it can be put before voters in a timely manner.
In conjunction with repealing the cap on Supreme Court Justices, the City Bar supports legislation requiring that the OCA’s Chief Administrative Judge analyze the caseloads and workloads of judges in each court throughout the court system and request changes when appropriate on an annual basis. This data would help inform the Legislature in carrying out its constitutional duty to set the number of judicial seats in each court, giving OCA the responsibility to initially identify the need to change the number of judicial seats. Having an adequate number of judges in each court is essential to providing civil litigants with access to the court and to assure that all parties in criminal cases can pursue justice in the courts. In this era of metrics, the people of New York are entitled to a modern, flexible, evidence-based method of assessing the state’s judicial needs, as is the case in many other states and the federal judiciary.
Support Enhanced Funding and Support for Civil Legal Services in the Judiciary Budget
The City Bar is deeply committed to increasing access to justice and ensuring adequate resources for our justice system. Civil legal services funding remains critically important, if not lifesaving, for New Yorkers of low income who cannot afford counsel. It translates into an individual or family moving from a homeless shelter to their own home or avoiding eviction or foreclosure to stay in their home; accessing public benefits, medical care, or other vital life essentials; or, in the case of the burgeoning community of asylum-seekers in New York, starting a new life away from the threat of persecution. Each victory in matters like these can and should make us proud. At the same time, civil legal services funding brings great value to New York’s economy and is a sound investment. In its most recent fiscal year, City Bar Justice Center services realized $14.4 million in measurable direct financial benefits for clients, representing nearly a 300% return on investment relative to its budget – yet those benefits stemmed from less than 3% of total matters handled. Numerous successful matters – e.g., securing asylum, resolving a landlord/tenant or family law dispute – may not have a cognizable financial value, but have tremendous human value in freedom secured, rights vindicated, and stresses alleviated. In short, civil legal services funding both “does good” and is a good investment. By now, the civil legal services and nonprofit community is familiar with the 2019 report of the Permanent Commission on Access to Justice which presented a detailed analysis finding that Judiciary Civil Legal Services funding resulted in a return of $10 to our state’s economy for every $1 of funding. Given this context, and the goal of extending and deepening New York’s post-pandemic recovery, maintaining if not further increasing each dollar of that funding remains imperative. That is especially true as the safety net effects of pandemic assistance funding and the eviction and foreclosure moratoriums fade, and providers like the City Bar Justice Center see a rise in appeals for pro bono assistance across a range of civil matters for which such providers are the only recourse for hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers annually.
UPDATE
Judiciary Budget Proposal Adopted in Full
Strengthen and Expand Right to Counsel, Assigned Counsel, and Similar Structures – Including via Sustainable Pay Structures
In addition to funding general civil legal services providers, it is critical that policies be supported that strengthen and expand right to counsel, assigned counsel, and similar structures – including with respect to counsel compensation.
New York City’s Housing Court Right to Counsel (RTC) law was enacted in 2017 and has shown promising results, demonstrating that disturbing trends could be reversed. We must do more to support the RTC law and assure that all tenants who are entitled to counsel are able to obtain counsel and are connected with their lawyers as early in the eviction process as possible and that the legal services providers have sufficient resources and a pipeline of qualified attorneys to assure that all who are entitled are able to obtain representation. Moreover, tenants throughout New York State, not just tenants in New York City, should have a right to legal representation when they face eviction. The City Bar supports the passage of statewide RTC legislation.
The City Bar also continues to endorse the statutory changes required to sustainably provide reasonable and equitable compensation for assigned counsel programs, including 18-B attorneys providing representation in Family Court, Surrogate’s Court and Criminal Court, and Attorneys For Children (AFC). Failure to adequately fund the services of these attorneys has resulted in further marginalization of the thousands of indigent New Yorkers who rely on court appointed legal counsel for representation in matters of fundamental importance.
While the 2024-2025 state budget included salary increases for 18-B attorneys, this raise has not been sufficient to recruit the number of attorneys needed to fully serve New Yorkers in need. As a result, attorney caseloads remain high, and attorney shortages persist. Unlike their federal and state-employed counterparts, 18-B attorneys do not have a compensation structure that accounts for increasing wages over time, leading to further difficulties in recruiting and retaining attorneys. Additionally, the 2024-2025 budget failed to include a cost-of-living adjustment for 18-B attorneys. The high cost of living in New York State, particularly in New York City, encourages these attorneys to seek more lucrative opportunities elsewhere, often resulting in less time spent on their 18-B cases and further exacerbating the burden on an already overextended system.
AFC offices are severely underfunded yet handle over 90% of the legal representation of children in Family Court in New York City and other cities across our State. AFC offices have suffered essentially flat budgets for close to twenty years. Moreover, such funding conditions, coupled with the outrageously high caseload cap of 150 child clients per attorney, have driven experienced staff to resign and have severely hampered the ability of AFC offices to hire new staff. This, in turn, has impacted the ability of those offices to provide crucial legal representation to some of New York’s most vulnerable children and young people. New York State must correct the gross funding inequity that has for years plagued the attorneys who represent children in our Family Courts. Substantially more funding is needed in order for AFC institutional providers to create sustainable, equitable workplaces, which in turn will ensure zealous advocacy and access to justice for the vulnerable youth whom they serve.
We believe that New York State must implement a sustainable compensation structure for assigned counsel — one that includes regular pay increases, as well as a cost-of-living adjustment. This will help ensure that these attorneys and their offices can devote the necessary time and resources to their clients, which will contribute to the equity essential for the fair administration of justice across the City and State.
Reform and Modernize the Administration of Class Actions in New York’s Courts
The City Bar supports amending Article 9 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules to reform and modernize the administration of class actions in New York’s courts. In 1975, New York enacted its current Article 9 for class actions, and the statute has not been materially changed since. Generally, the amendments would: (1) permit class certification for actions demanding a statutory penalty or minimum measure of recovery; (2) amend language which disfavors class actions against governmental entities; (3) adopt language stating that motions for class certification be made “at an early practicable time” rather than within 60-days of a responsive pleading; (4) provide guidance with specified factors to be considered in appointing class counsel; and (5) provide a more flexible notice provision concerning discontinuance, dismissal or compromise of the class action. *City Bar Proposal*
Provide Internet Access to Individuals Living in Temporary Housing Throughout New York State to Ensure Adequate Access to Services
We support legislation that would provide internet access to individuals residing in temporary housing throughout New York State. Since May 2020, with the release of the City Bar Justice Center’s report, “Homeless Need Internet Access To Find a Home: How Access to Internet and Technology Resources can Support Homeless Families Transition out of Homeless Shelters,” the City Bar and the City Bar Justice Center have issued multiple reports and advocated for reliable internet access to be available to shelter residents as part of the #wifi4homeless campaign. New York’s shelters are overwhelmingly lacking internet access, an essential service which could reduce the length of residents’ stays and facilitate their successful exit into permanent housing. Without reliable internet access, shelter residents cannot search and apply for permanent housing or jobs, participate in remote classrooms or complete assigned homework, apply for government benefits, stay connected to friends and family, access basic entertainment, or obtain necessary medical care. Many critical services have become reliant on internet-based platforms as we have moved to a hybrid world post-COVID. Everything from legal services and virtual court appearances to counseling and telehealth are now offered remotely and often preferred by service providers. Poor or no internet connectivity leaves many shelter residents unable to effectively participate in critical services needed for their well-being. This can lead to unnecessary interactions with the criminal justice and court systems, further straining overburdened systems. This legislation would represent a significant step forward by ensuring that all shelter residents across New York State are guaranteed reliable internet access.
Permit Nonresident Attorneys to Practice in New York Without Maintaining a Physical Office in State
The City Bar supports the repeal of Judiciary Law § 470 to permit attorneys to be licensed to practice in New York without maintaining New York residency or office space. Under Judiciary Law § 470, an attorney licensed in New York who maintains an office in state may practice in New York even if they are out-of-state residents. This antiquated residency requirement does not reflect the current reality of hybrid work and the virtual practice of law. With the increasing reliance on electronic court appearances and the desire from both lawyers and their clients to be able to meet remotely, the concept of forcing attorneys – who are overwhelmingly small and solo practitioners – to maintain expensive office space is unnecessary and does nothing to improve access to affordable legal services. The current law creates new motion practice gamesmanship, costing litigants needless legal expense, wasted time, and no tactical advantage. At the time of its enactment, the logic behind the rule was that it helped ensure personal service on a nonresident attorney. However, the Court of Appeals has acknowledged there are enough measures already in place outside of Judiciary Law § 470 to ensure proper service on a nonresident attorney, thus rendering Judiciary Law § 470 obsolete. Moreover, compliance with the current law is financially burdensome for nonresident attorneys and thus, again, increases clients’ legal expenses without providing any clear benefit. With modern technology, the presence of a physical office address is not a determining factor of successful or professional representation, nor does it enhance attorney oversight or regulation. Removing the physical office requirement in New York will lower attorney costs, enhance access to justice, expand services offered and promote access to justice as a meaningful career choice.