impact of legal counsel on outcomes for poor tenants in New York City's Housing Court: Results of a randomized experiment, The

Law & Society Review, 2001 by Seron, Carroll, Van Ryzin, Gregg, Frankel, Martin

The lack of legal representation for most tenants, the severe housing problems of the city, and the complex regulatory system in New York have led legal advocates for the poor to argue for a right to counsel in Housing Court (Scherer 1988). This argument rests in large part on the principle of due process of law, a key element of which is protection against procedural error. It is often argued, however, that legal representation slows down the wheels of adjudication. Lawyers may be effective, but they engender inefficiencies by filing multiple motions, or they may demand changes in scheduling to stall resolution of the dispute (Heydebrand & Seron 1990). Such tactics and delays may in turn encourage tenants to hold out without paying rent and deprive landlords of vital rental income to maintain and operate their buildings.

In 1993, the Interest on Lawyer Accounts Fund (IOLA) of New York provided funds to support The Pro Bono Project against Homelessness. The funds were jointly granted to the Legal Aid Society Community Law Offices in the Society's Volunteer Division (hereafter referred to as CLO) and to the Association of the Bar of the City of New York (ABCNY), and CLO was designated as project coordinator. The goal of the project was to enlist the services of volunteer (i.e., pro bono) attorneys, many from the largest law firms in the city, to represent low-income tenants in Housing Court. Because of the enormous need for attorneys, a related goal of the program was to "concentrate on cases that meet two principal requirements: a) they could lead to eviction and b) they give reason to believe that a lawyer could have a significant impact on the outcome" (Housing Court Litigation Project 1992-1993:4). Also, in focusing on eviction cases, a goal of the study was to protect families against breakup, a common side effect of homelessness.

CLO established an in-take office in the Manhattan Housing Court, with support from the Administrative Judge of the Civil Court. Staff from CLO managed the program, including screening of cases and assignment and supervision of pro bono attorneys.' Attorneys from 17 firms were recruited and received basic training by CLO attorneys in the housing code and related matters of litigating in Housing Court. Because the volunteer attorneys in the program were not specialists or even necessarily experienced in Housing Court litigation prior to the program, CLO staff assisted the volunteer attorneys in developing a plan of action for each case. The staff paralegal worked on the welfare aspects of the case with the volunteer attorney, while the staff attorney assisted the volunteer attorney in preparing papers and thinking through case strategies. In other words, CLO attorneys worked closely with volunteer attorneys on all phases of the case, including negotiating, drafting stipulations of settlements, and trying cases before the Court.

An independent evaluation of the program was requested as a condition of funding. The evaluation was intended to answer two primary empirical questions: