Community Action for Legal Services, Inc., Application of

• Decision Date: 15 November 1966
• Citation: 26 A.D.2d 354,274 N.Y.S.2d 779
• Parties: Application of COMMUNITY ACTION FOR LEGAL SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, for approval of its organization and incorporation pursuant to Section 280 of the Penal Law. Application of NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner, for approval of its organization and incorporation pursuant to Section 280 of the Penal Law. Application of HARLEM ASSERTION OF RIGHTS, INC., Petitioner, for the Approval of its incorporation pursuant to Section 280 of the Penal Law.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 779

274 N.Y.S.2d 779

26 A.D.2d 354

Application of COMMUNITY ACTION FOR LEGAL SERVICES, INC.,

Petitioner, for approval of its organization and

incorporation pursuant to Section 280 of the

Penal Law. Application of NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE

CORPORATION, Petitioner, for approval of its

organization and incorporation pursuant

to Section 280 of

the Penal Law. Application of HARLEM ASSERTION OF RIGHTS,

INC., Petitioner, for the Approval of its

incorporation pursuant to Section 280 of

the Penal Law.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Nov. 15, 1966.

Before BOTEIN, P.J., and BREITEL, RABIN, McNALLY and STEVENS, JJ.

BREITEL, Justice.

Three applications on behalf of proposed corporations wishing to practice law under the provisions of section 280 of the Penal Law are pending before the Court. The proposed corporations would be Community Action for Legal Services, Inc., New York Legal Assistance Corporation, and Harlem Assertion of Rights, Inc. The programs they are to implement were conceived, developed, and materially changed, from time to time, over a period of about a year and a half. The instant applications have been presented piecemeal to the Court since late August 1966. ¹ The plans are to establish neighborhood law offices and provide representation for disadvantaged members of the community, disadvantaged because of poverty and just as often because of disfavored minority status. The financial support for the programs is expected to come largely, if not exclusively, from federal funds under the auspices and control of the federal Office of Economic Opportunity.

Regrettably, the present applications may not be approved by the Court. In rejecting them, however, the Court invites the resubmission of proposals free from the infirmities in the present applications, with the suggestion that any new applications be submitted promptly, in final form, and in succinct integrated documents.

In order to assist those who may be interested in preparing new conforming applications it is appropriate to discuss some principles. It is, however, obvious that the discussion cannot possibly be inclusive of all relevant principles or even of all important ones. Too much time and space would be consumed now in such a complete discussion, even if it were possible as an intellectual matter to have one. Moreover, the Court can only act on particular submissions before it.

Section 280 of the Penal Law is the governing statute making it a crime for corporations to practice law. It contains, however, an exception for charitable or other corporations which have first obtained approval by the applicable appellate division. ² It is immediately evident that the allowable practice of law by corporations is highly exceptional, permissible only in carefully circumscribed conditions consonant with the policy of limiting the practice of law to licensed professionals. This is a general principle to be observed.

Basic to the principle is that the restriction of legal practice to lawyers and the maintenance of professional standards are for the benefit of the public and not for the economic preservation or professional enhancement of the bar. The professional standards and Canons of Ethics are justifiable only as protective of the public. Inherent to the legal professional system is the direct and often summary control and discipline of lawyers by the courts (Drinker, Legal Ethics, ch. III). No similarly direct, and rarely any summary, control over laymen exists in the courts. The direct and summary control over the members of the profession by any agency, but especially by the courts, is a unique difference distinguishing the legal profession from other professions.

The most embracive of the applications is that on behalf of Community Action for Legal Services, Inc. (CALS). CALS itself would not practice law but it would finance and control subcontractors or delegate agencies which would. Indeed, CALS itself is described as having been delegated its functions and responsibilities by the New York City Council Against Poverty, the community agency for the channeling of federal anti-poverty programs. The moneys would, it is anticipated, be received from federal anti-poverty appropriations. CALS would have a board of directors of 32 members, at least 12 of whom are to be chosen from or recommended by the New York City Council Against Poverty from 'nominations made by community committees in designated poverty areas in the City'. It might have as many as 35 directors who shall 'in the main' be lawyers. It would have power to establish 'guidelines' for the operation of legal services programs, that is, neighborhood law offices, and render advice and assistance to delegate agencies. CALS may also conduct audits to insure that there is conformance with its guidelines. It would be empowered to 'conduct and fund research and informational programs relating to the legal problems of the poor and the amelioration thereof.' It would be empowered to establish a 'training program' for lawyers and lay personnel of the delegate agency. Under the proposals submitted on its behalf to the federal Office of Economic Opportunity, the regional unit of that agency would have the oversight of the program as well as the power to audit its finances. CALS would have an advisory committee on legal services with 18 members (only 6 of whom will definitely be lawyers) who would be chosen by law school deans and delegate agencies not represented on the CALS board.

The second application is on behalf of New York Legal Assistance Corporation (NYLAC). This organization is intended to be the principal subcontractor or delegate agency of CALS. It too, however, in addition to the power to operate its own neighborhood law offices, would be empowered to 'contract with other agencies and organizations for the provision of legal services'. All of its professional staff would be lawyers. It would be governed by a board of directors of 20 members, thirteen of whom must be lawyers. The remaining seven members would be 'representatives of the poor' to be recommended by an 'appropriate community agency' from each of the areas where NYLAC would operate a neighborhood law office. Its board of directors could be increased eventually to as many as 35. It would be financed with federal anti-poverty funds 'administered' by CALS. It would be empowered to represent groups but 'without pursuing non-legal activities'. It could use law students under programs approved by the Appellate Division. Initially, NYLAC would establish at least seven neighborhood law offices, and the operation of these offices might either be left to NYLAC itself, another delegate agency, or the existing Legal Aid Society. But the creation of these seven offices would not bar communities from establishing their own offices with CALS or NYLAC assistance and funds.

The third application is on behalf of Harlem Assertion of Rights, Inc. (HAR). This proposed corporation is sponsored by Haryou-Act, Inc. The papers submitted on its behalf are the least succinct and the most dependent upon cross-incorporations by reference or necessary effect. As a consequence, this application is the most difficult of the three to summarize with any assurance of accuracy or with confidence that the proposal is being fairly described. The plan is to establish five neighborhood law offices in what is designated as Central Harlem under delegation from CALS through NYLAC. The services to be provided are to be wide-ranging, covering not only legal advocacy but 'community education, and research so that the poor will have equality before the bar of justice and mutual respect will be created between law enforcement officials and the Central Harlem community'. HAR would have three separate training programs to educate the lawyers, 'the professionals', and 'the consumers of injustice'. The 'professionals' are defined as personnel of Haryou-Act, Inc. HAR would educate the 'consumers of injustice' in 'consumer education' as well as 'the rights of the arrested'. It would send lawyers to community group meetings and would disseminate written or printed material. Lawyers would be urged to acquaint themselves with the social services available to their clients. It would start with limited indigency standards but these would be open-ended for the future. It would also utilize a lawyer referral system and the Harlem lawyers would have a 'first right of refusal'. Its board of directors would be limited to 15, of which five would be poor persons in the neighborhood, six lawyers, two representatives of Haryou-Act, Inc., and the executive director of Harlem Neighborhood Legal Assistance Project (HNLAP). ³ The executive directors of Haryou-Act, Inc. and HAR would be ex officio members. Eleven of the members would have alternates who would be entitled to attend all meetings of the board but to vote only in the absence of their principals. Most important, the executive director for HAR would be designated by Haryou-Act, Inc., not by HAR's own board of directors.

The three applications have only been very sketchily described and primarily to demonstrate the complex interrelationship and the great potential for coexistence in the same areas of differently sponsored anti-poverty neighborhood law offices. With only partial separation of fiscal controls from professional supervision there is at the top the federal Office of Economic Opportunity, functioning through its regional office. The local community office, the New York City Council Against Poverty is also involved. Then at the professional top but not completely professionalized is CALS. It would be created, it is said, in order to provide an independent, and presumably insulating, entity. Under CALS is NYLAC operating its own offices but also being the channel for all others who will act as delegate agencies. In the case of HAR, it not only functions as a delegate agency of CALS...