EXHIBITA · Honorable Jonathan Lippman Chief Judge of the State of New York 230 Park Avenue, Suite 826 New York, NY 10169 ... and our recommendation for additional funding. In addition,

EXHIBIT A

THE TASK FORCE TO EXPAND ACCESS

TO CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES IN NEW YORK

NOVEMBER 2012

REPORT TO THE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

November 30, 2012

Honorable Jonathan Lippman Chief Judge of the State of New York 230 Park Avenue, Suite 826 New York, NY 10169 Dear Chief Judge Lippman:

On behalf of the Task Force to Expand Access to Civil Legal Services in New York, I am pleased to forward our third year’s Report for your consideration. The Task Force once again assisted in the preparation for your four public hearings on civil legal services held to assess the extent and nature of the current unmet civil legal needs of low-income New Yorkers throughout the State and identify the level of resources necessary to meet that need. Our Report includes the Task Force’s findings on the continuing unmet need based on the hearing testimony, provided both orally and in writing, and our recommendation for additional funding. In addition, the Task Force engaged in substantial study, research and analysis leading to six non-monetary recommendations that provide a multi-faceted strategy for helping to close the justice gap. The Task Force also convened a major conference this year involving representatives from the fifteen New York law schools, the private bar, legal services providers, and the courts.

The members of the Task Force are unanimous in supporting this Report. They represent many diverse perspectives and bring to the Task Force a breadth of experience, special insights and a commitment to creative solutions. They have made especially significant contributions of time and energy to our work this year. The Task Force was ably assisted by its Counsel Jessica Klein and Lara Loyd, both from Sullivan & Cromwell, as well as by Mary Mone and Lauren Kanfer from your office.

We continue to be inspired in our work by your unequivocal commitment to the need to provide civil legal assistance to the most vulnerable low-income New Yorkers in matters that involve the very basic necessities of life and by your determination to bring us closer to the ideal of ensuring equal access to justice.

We look forward to continuing our work in the coming year to fulfill our broad mission, including developing recommendations to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the delivery of civil legal services.

Respectfully submitted,

Helaine M. Barnett Chair, Task Force to Expand Access to Civil Legal Services in New York

Hon. Rolando T. AcostaAssociate JusticeAppellate Division, First Department

Steven BanksAttorney-in-Chief, The Legal Aid Society

Hon. Carmen Beauchamp CiparickSenior Associate Judge, Court of Appeals

Robert N. Convissar[Past President, Bar Association of Erie County]Offices of Robert N. Convissar, Esq.

Mark G. Cunha[Past Chair, Legal Services NYC]Partner, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP

Stephen M. CutlerGeneral Counsel, JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Matthew DillerDean, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

Shelley J. Dropkin[Immediate Past Chair, New York Lawyersfor the Public Interest] Deputy CorporateSecretary and General Counsel, CorporateGovenance, Citigroup Inc.

Camille Siano Enders[Women's Bar Association of the State of New York] Town Justice for theTown of Duanesburg. Deputy Director, Administrative Review Division, Workers’Compensation Board

Anne EricksonPresident & CEO, Empire Justice Center

Barbara FinkelsteinExecutive Director, Legal Services of the Hudson Valley

Kevin FinneganPolitical Director, 1199 SEIU

Alexander D. ForgerSpecial Counsel, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy

Emily F. Franchina[Past President, Nassau County Bar Asso-ciation] Partner, Franchina & Giordano PC

Michael D. FricklasExecutive Vice President, General Counsel& Secretary Viacom Inc.

Sheila A. Gaddis[Executive Director, Volunteer Legal Services Project of Monroe County Inc.]Partner, Hiscock & Barclay LLP

Michael E. Getnick[Past President, New York State Bar Association] Partner, Getnick Livingston Atkinson & Priore, LLP

Robert J. Giuffra, Jr.Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP

Taa Grays[President, Network of Bar Leaders]Assistant General Counsel & Chief of Staff, MetLife

Denise KronstadtDeputy Executive Director/Director of Advocacy, The Fund for Modern Courts

C. Bruce LawrencePartner, Boylan Code LLP

Hon. George H. Lowe[Co-Chair, NYSBA President's Committee on Access to Justice]Of Counsel, Bond Schoeneck & King PLLC

Hon. E. Leo MilonasPartner, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

Lillian M. MoyExecutive Director, Legal Aid Society ofNortheastern NY

Christopher O’MalleyExecutive Director, The IOLA Fund of the State of New York

Herbert Pardes, MDExecutive Vice Chair, Board of Trustees,New York-Presbyterian Hospital, The University Hospital of Columbia and Cornell

Bettina B. PlevanPartner, Proskauer Rose LLP

Robert C. Sheehan[Former Vice President, New York City Bar]Of Counsel, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Lorie SlutskyPresident, The New York Community Trust

Deborah L. Wright United Auto Workers, President, Local 2325

EX OFFICIO

Hon. Fern FisherDirector, NYS Courts Access to Justice Program; Deputy Chief AdministrativeJudge for New York City Courts

Senator John BonacicChair, Senate Judiciary Committee

AssemblymemberHelene E. WeinsteinChair, Assembly Judiciary Committee

COUNSEL

Jessica KleinSpecial Counsel & Head of Pro BonoPractice, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP

Lara LoydSullivan & Cromwell LLP

Mary C. MoneCounsel to the Chief Judge

Lauren KanferAssistant Deputy Counsel to the Chief Judge

SPECIAL ADVISOR

Marcia LevyAssociate Dean of Career Services andProfessor of Professional Development,Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

TASK FORCE TO EXPAND ACCESS TO CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES IN NEW YORK

Helaine M. Barnett, ChairPresident, Legal Services Corporation (2004–2009)

THE TASK FORCE TO EXPAND ACCESS

TO CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES IN NEW YORK

NOVEMBER 2012

REPORT TO THE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

TASK FORCE TO EXPAND ACCESS TO CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES IN NEW YORKiv

REPORT TO THE CHIEF JUDGE • NOVEMBER 2012 v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The Continuing Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Judiciary Civil Legal Services Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Non-monetary Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Investing In Civil Legal Services Provides A Six To One Rate Of Return For New York . . . . 2

PART A. OVERVIEW: The Chief Judge’s Civil Legal Services Initiative . . . . . . . 4

The Allocation Of Judiciary Funds To Expand Access To Civil Legal Services For Year Two Of The Chief Judge’s Civil Legal Services Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

The Chief Judge’s Third-Year Hearings In Each Judicial Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

The Witnesses Who Testified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Significant Testimony From Major Religious, State And Local Leaders . . . . . . . . . . 8

Judiciary Testimony On The Impact Of The Second Year Of The Judiciary’s Civil Legal Services Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

PART B. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

I. Additional Funding In The Judiciary Budget Is Essential To Continue To Make Progress On Bridging The Substantial Gap Between The Need For Civil Legal Assistance And Available Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

1. Additional Judiciary Funding Is Needed To Bridge The Access-To-Justice Gap . . . . . 12

2. The Unmet Need For Civil Legal Assistance Is Still Substantial . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143. Federal Poverty Data And Unemployment Data Document High Need . . . . . . . . . 154. There Are Still Large Numbers Of Unrepresented Litigants, Which Adversely Affects

The Functioning Of The Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155. Decreased IOLA Funding Has A Continuing Adverse Impact On The Unmet Need For

Civil Legal Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166. The Testimony Of Legal Services Clients Demonstrates The Profound Impact Of The

Lack Of Legal Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

II. Additional Judiciary Civil Legal Services Funding Is Needed Because Investing In CivilLegal Services Provides Substantial Economic Benefits To New York State And A Return Of Approximately Six Dollars For Every One Dollar Of Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

1. NERA Concluded That The Provision Of Civil Legal Services Enables Low-Income New Yorkers To Obtain Or Retain Access To Specific Federal Benefits . . . . . . . . . 19

2. NERA Calculated That The Provision Of Civil Legal Assistance Results In Nearly $1 Billion In Federal Benefits Coming Into New York State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

A. The Value Of Federal Disability Benefits Obtained . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

B. The Value Of Other Federal Benefits Obtained . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

C. The Overall Value Of Federal Benefits Obtained . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3. NERA Calculated That The Provision Of Civil Legal Assistance Results In An Additional Economic Stimulus For New York State Of $561 Million And The Creation Of 5,600 Jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

4. NERA Calculated That The Provision Of Civil Legal Services Reduces New York State’s Excess Federal Tax Burden By 2 Percent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

III. The 15 Law Schools In New York State Can Take — And Are Taking — Concrete Steps To Help Meet The Increasing Need For Civil Legal Assistance For Low-Income Families And Individuals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

1. Law Schools Should Participate In Regional Planning To Respond To The Justice Gap And Establish A Law School Access to Justice Council To Provide Better Cooperation And Collaboration Among Schools And With The Broader Justice Community . . . . . 27

A. Each Law School Should Create An Access To Justice Committee . . . . . . . . 27

B. Each Law School Should Create An Access To Justice Law School Webpage With A Portal On The New York State Law School Access To Justice Council Website . 28

2. An Annual Conference Should Be Convened To Continue The Dialogue On The Law Schools’ Efforts To Bridge The Justice Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

3. An Online Clearinghouse Should Be Established To Identify Pro Bono Opportunities And Enhance Online Services To Track And Support Law Student Pro BonoWork . . . . . 28

4. A New York State Uniform Student Practice Order Should Be Established . . . . . . . 295. Law Schools Should Establish Incubator And Related Projects To Help Law

Graduates Build Solo or Small Practices In Underserved Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306. Law School Curricula Should Prepare Students For Public Service . . . . . . . . . . . 30

A. There Should Be A Required Class On Access To Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

B. Basic Doctrinal Classes Should Include Consideration Of How The Law Impacts Low-Income Clients And Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

C. Law Schools Should Educate Students In The Skills And Competencies Necessary To Represent And Advise Low-Income Clients . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

IV. Attorneys In Private Practice In New York State Are Already Providing A High Level Of Pro Bono Legal Assistance For Low-Income Clients And Additional Reporting And Other Initiatives Will Enhance These Efforts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

1. New ABA Data Documents Pro Bono Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332. Recommended Steps To Increase Pro Bono Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

A. New York Rule Of Professional Conduct 6.1 Should Be Revised In Two Areas To Encourage Pro Bono Participation By Private Attorneys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

B. The Biennial Attorney Registration Form Should Be Revised In Two Areas To Encourage Pro Bono Participation By Private Attorneys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

TASK FORCE TO EXPAND ACCESS TO CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES IN NEW YORKvi

C. Rule 522.8 Of The New York Court Of Appeals Should Be Revised To Encourage Pro Bono Participation By In-House Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

D. Participation In The Attorney Emeritus Program For Attorneys Who Are At Least 55 Years Old Should Be Encouraged To Enhance Pro Bono Efforts. . . . . . . . . . 35

E. Consideration Should Be Given To Revising The Continuing Legal Education Requirements For Newly Admitted, Unemployed Lawyers To Encourage Pro Bono Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

V. A New Initiative To Examine The Potential Further Contributions That Non Lawyers Can Make To Bridge The Access-To-Justice Gap Should Be Implemented. . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

VI. Specific Steps Can Be Taken To Improve The Ability Of Town And Village Courts To Address The Needs Of Low-Income And Other Unrepresented Litigants In Summary Proceedings . . 40

1. The Need For A Summary Proceedings Reference Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402. The Need For Improved Training Relating to Summary Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . 413. The Need To Provide Upfront Information On Tenants’ Rights At The Clerks’ Office . . . 414. The Need To Increase The Opportunity For Litigants To Be Able To Obtain Counsel . . 41

A. The Need For Scheduled Days For Summary Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

B. The Need For An Adjournment Rule To Obtain Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

5. The Need For Required Reporting On Summary Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

VII. Collaboration Among Civil Legal Services Providers Is An Important Initiative To Leverage Limited Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

VIII. The Establishment Of A Council For The New York State Courts Can Enhance Judiciary Initiatives, Including The Civil Legal Services Initiative To Bridge The Access-To-Justice Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

ENDNOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

REPORT TO THE CHIEF JUDGE • NOVEMBER 2012 vii

found by examining private barcontributions to 10LA grantees, which totaled more than $12 millionin2011. That data shows that law firms contributed $11,239,251, bar associations contributed $656,514,bar funds and the Campaign for Justice contributions amounted to$56,000, and individual lawyers donated $181,528.78

The Task Force ismindful that assistance from the private bar isan "essential mechanism for narrowingthe justice gap, especially where efforts to engagepro bono lawyers are adequately resourced and supported?19 Leaders of the private barhave affirmed the importance ofpro bono work in their testimonyduring the ChiefJudge's hearings on civil legal services.80 Accordingly, theTaskForce concludes thatthe "strong recommendation" of Section 6.1 has encouraged thecontributions being made bytheprivatebar, but clearly more needs to be done.

2. Recommended Steps To Increase Pro Bono Involvement: Therefore, the Task Force recommends that the following specific steps be taken to enhanceprobono involvement by privateattorneys:

A. New York Rule Of Professional Conduct 6.1 Should Be Revised In Two Areas To En

courage Pro Bono Participation By Private Attorneys: While the increase in pro bono hours overthe last decade that is documented in the new ABA data is encouraging, the problem of unrepresentedlow-income litigants in the New York courts has grown substantially, exceeding two million in 2010and 2011.8l Consequently, the Task Force urges that Section 6.1 be amended to increase the requestedannual number ofpro bono hours per attorney from 20 to 50 annually, which, as the new survey shows,is fewer hours than the average New York attorney now performs. A 50-hour level would also be consistent with the new 50-hour standard for bar admission for law school graduates. The Task Force recommends that the goal cited in Section 6.1 remain precatory, at least until results of the change inSection6.1 upon the number ofpro bonohours performedcan be assessed. While the proposed revisionwould not add enforcement consequences for failure to meet the increased goal, as described below,the Task Force urges that reporting of those hours be required in the biennial attorney re-registrationprocess.82

Tofoster greatercontributions from a largerpercentage of attorneys, theTaskForce furtherrecommendsthat a guideline be added to Section 6.1 that quantifies the minimum contribution annually which isurged to be madeto legalserviceproviders for low-income clients.83 TheTaskForce recommends thatattorneys in private practice annually contribute to legal services providers for low-income clients adonation at leastequivalent to the amountof the individual attorney's typical billing rate for one hourof time. Lawyers working at for-profit entities are strongly urged to contribute annually an aggregateamount equal to the amount typically paid by theirentity for one hour of legal work for attorneys ofthe seniority of the reporting lawyer, or, if not known to the lawyer, an amount equal to at least one-tenth of one percentof the lawyer's salary. Lawyers whoworksolelyon a contingencybasis wouldbeasked to contribute at least the equivalent of the value of an hour of legal work as is typical in theircommunity. Forunderemployed lawyers, the request wouldnot be expected to exceed one-tenth of onepercent of the attorney's fee revenue.

B. The Biennial Attorney Registration Form Should Be Revised In Two Areas To Encourage Pro Bono Participation By Private Attorneys: To encourage compliance with these voluntaryrequests in the revisionsto Rule 6.1, the TaskForce recommends that the registration rules require thatattorneys in privatepractice or workingat for-profitentities report biennially: 1) theirpro bonohours;

34 TASK FORCE TO EXPAND ACCESS TO CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES IN NEW YORK

and2) theiraggregate annual contributions to legal service providers for low-income NewYorkers.84

In recognition of the positive impact that reporting requirements are anticipated to have on both probono hours and monetary contributions, the Task Force recommends that the existing Rule ofthe ChiefAdministrator of theCourts Part 118.2(a) concerning public access to attorney registration informationremain ineffect. This ruleallows information contained inattorney registration statements to be madeavailable to thepublic upon submission of a written request, with some limited exceptions.85 TheTaskForce expects and intends that the public availability of reported probono hours and monetary contributions will serve to encourage greatergiving and higherparticipation.

Available data demonstrates that States adopting a rule requiring attorneys to report their pro bonoservice have seen an increase over time in the number of pro bono hours contributed by members oftheirprivatebar. In Florida, the hours ofprobono workcontributedby lawyershave increasedby about100 percent since reporting began in 1993 under Rule 4-6.1 ofthe Rules ofProfessional Conduct.86 Increases in annualpro bono hours are also reflected in available data from other States, including Illinois,87 where annualpro bonohours have risen about 10percent since Illinois Supreme Court Rule 751went into effect in 2007, and Maryland, where reported pro bono hours have risen over 18 percent sinceMaryland Rule 16-903 went into effect in 2002.88 Whatever the number ofhours completed, compliancerates with reporting are generally high, according to data compiled for a 2008 report to the FloridaSupreme Court.89

While the above recommendations focus on affecting the participation of individual lawyers, the TaskForce does, however, urge that law firms be encouraged to monitor their lawyers'pro bono participationand to create and support opportunities for their lawyers to meet the 50-hour pro bono commitment request.

C. Rule 522.8 Of The New York Court Of Appeals Should Be Revised To Encourage ProBono Participation By In-House Counsel: The Task Force examined a New York State Bar Association proposal to amend Section 522.8 of the Rules of the Court ofAppeals for the Admission of Attorneys and Counselors of Law concerning pro bono services by attorneys registered in New York asin-house counsel. The Task Force also reviewed Resolution 11 adopted by the Conference of ChiefJudges in July 2012 in support ofpractice rules enablingin-housecounsel to providepro bonoservices.The potential for in-house counsel to contribute in a meaningful way to addressing the gap in access tojustice is compelling.90 The simplified rule proposedby the NewYork State Bar Association removesunnecessary obstacles topro bono service by in-house counsel and allows registered in-house counselto meet their own ethical obligations while still subjecting them to the same ethical and disciplinaryrules that apply to attorneys licensed to practice in NewYork. TheTask Forcerecommends adoption ofthis revision to Section 522.8 to allow registered in-house counsel to contribute to meeting the unmetlegalneedsof NewYorkers. However, in order for this recommendation to have the intendedbeneficialeffect on addressing the access-to-justice gap, it is essential that efforts be made to make sure that in-house counsel actually register as currently only a limited number do so.

D. Participation In The Attorney Emeritus Program For Attorneys Who Are At Least 55Years Old Should Be Encouraged To Enhance Pro Bono Efforts: The Task Force further recommends encouragement of law firm participation in the Attorney Emeritus Program ("AEP") by any lawfirm with a New York office that has 50 or more attorneys in that office. In 2010, as an initiative oftheChief Judge, the New York State Unified Court System established an "Attorney Emeritus" status for

REPORT TO THE CHIEF JUDGE • NOVEMBER 2012 35

EXHIBIT B

APPENDICES

The Task Force to Expand Access

to Civil Legal Services in New York

REPORTTOTHE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

The Task Force to Expand Access to Civil Legal Services in New York


APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1:

List of Those Who Provided Pro Bono Assistance to the Task Force. . . 4

APPENDIX 2:

Request for Proposals from the Oversight Board for 2012-2013 7

APPENDIX 3:

Notification of the Issuance of the Request for Proposals 36

APPENDIX 4:

Grants Awarded by the Oversight Board for Judiciary Civil LegalServices Funds In New York for 2012-2013 39

APPENDIX 5:

Witness Lists for the Chief Judge's Four Hearings 42

APPENDIX 6:

Transcript of the Third Department Hearing Held onSeptember 27, 2012 47

APPENDIX 7:

Transcriptof the First Department Hearing held on October 1,2012. . 169

APPENDIX 8:

Transcript of the Fourth Department Hearing Held onOctober 2, 2012 285

APPENDIX 9:

Transcript of the Second Department Hearing Held onOctobers 2012 424

APPENDIX 10:

Written Statements Submitted at the Third Department HearingHeld on September 27, 2012 571

— 2

APPENDIX 11:

Written Statements Submitted at the First Department Hearing held onOctober 1, 2012 673

APPENDIX 12:

Written Statements Submitted at the Fourth Department HearingHeld on October 2, 2012 752

APPENDIX 13:

Written Statements Submitted at the Second Department HearingHeld on October 4, 2012 850

APPENDIX 14:

Public Notice of the Chief Judge's Hearings Published on the UnifiedCourt System's Website 971

APPENDIX 15:

Report of the Task Force's Working Group on Law SchoolInvolvement 973

APPENDIX 16:

Report of the Task Force's Pro Bono Involvement Working Group . . 1058

APPENDIX 17:

Research Memorandum Prepared for the Task Force's WorkingGroup on Non-Lawyer Involvement 1087

APPENDIX 18:

Report of the Task Force's Working Group on Town and VillageJustice Courts 1144

APPENDIX 19:

Report of the Task Force's Working Group on Collaborations andShared Services 1218

NOTE: Appendices can be viewed on the Task Force's website:

http://www.nycourts.gov/ip/access-civil-legal-services

— 3 —



APPENDIX 16:

Report of the Task Force's Pro Bono Involvement

Working Group

NOVEMBER 2012

— 1058 —

THE TASK FORCE TO

EXPAND ACCESS TO

CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES

IN NEW YORK

Private Bar Support for Pro Bono,Subcommittee Report

— 1059 —


Private MarSupportfor Pro Bono, Subcommittee Report

In its 2011 Report, the Task Force recognized the "long-standing tradition ofpro bono

efforts by private attorneys to expand the availability ofcivil legal assistance for low-income

families and individuals."1 Relying on the strength ofthat tradition, the Task Force concluded

that, in 2012, it would "explore new efforts to increase the already high levels ofpro bono

assistance that the private bar provides."2

After study ofcurrent trends inpro bono participation by the private bar in New York,

statewide average monetary contributions by individual lawyers to legal service providers and

various means to increase private bar support for pro bono assistance to low-income families and

individuals, the Task Force makes the following seven key recommendations:

• ReviseNew York Rule of Professional Conduct6.1 to Encourage 50 Hours ofPro BonoService Per Year

• Revision ofthe Biannual Attorney Registration Form to Include a Pro Bono HoursReporting Requirement

• Revise New York Rule of Professional Conduct 6.1 to Include a Monetary ContributionGuideline for Donations to Legal Service Organizations that Serve Low-IncomePopulations

• Revision of the Biannual Attorney Registration Form to Include a Monetary ContributionReporting Requirement for Donations to Legal ServiceOrganizations that Serve Low-Income Populations

• Law Firm Participation in the Attorney Emeritus Program• RevisionofPart 522 of the Rules ofthe Court of Appeals for the Admission ofAttorneys

and Counselors of Law to Allow Pro Bono Service by Attorneys Registered in New Yorkas In-house Counsel

• Exploration by the Continuing Legal Education Boardof the Advisabilityof AllowingNewly Admitted, Unemployed Lawyersto Fulfill Some Portion ofthe MandatoryContinuing Legal Education Requirements for Skills, Law PracticeManagement andProfessional Practice Credits through Qualified Pro Bono Work

1Task Force to Expand Access to Civil Legal Services in New York, Report to the ChiefJudge ofthe State ofNewYork at 36 [hereinafter 2011 Task Force Report].

22011 Task Force Report, supra note 1at40.

1060 —

The Task Force to Expand Access to Civil Legal Services in New YorkPrivate BarSupportfor Pro Bono, Subcommittee Report

As was documented in the 2011 Task ForceReport, whilepro bono resources"are finite

and cannot beexpected to meet the extraordinary unmet need for civil legal help," IOLA's

analysis of matters involving pro bono assistance continues to show a slightly positive trend in

increasing numbers of civil legal matters thatare handled with the benefit ofpro bono assistance.

Specifically, IOLA datashows that the number of cases closed by IOLA grantees involving pro

bono assistance increased from 20,526 cases in2010 to 20,653 in2011.3 Also, barassociations

across the state are working diligently to stimulate andaccelerate pro bono assistance; the New

YorkCity Bar Association reported 2,171 volunteers helped alongside the City Bar Justice

Center Staff to assist nearly 20,000 people in 2012.4 The ChiefJudge's own initiative leading to

a new rule requiring 50 hours ofpro bonowork as a condition ofadmission to the New York bar

promises to inculcate a new generation of lawyers who understand the importance ofpro bono

work.

In an effort to obtain a broader picture of the baseline pro bono contributions ofattorneys

in New York—one that extends beyond the information that the IOLA data provides— the Task

Force coordinated with the American Bar Association in its national study of the pro bono

participation ofAmerica's lawyers.5 By supplementing the ABA's survey instrument with

32011 Task Force Report, supra note 1at37 and IOLA 2011 Pro bono Report.

4The ChiefJudge's Hearing on Civil Legal Services, First Dep 7, Oct. I, 2012 (testimony ofCarey Dunne, NewYork City Bar Association, President, at 2).

5The ABA Standing Committee onPro Bono and Public Service contracted with The Research Intelligence Group("TRIG") to conduct its third national study on the pro bono participation ofAmerica's attorneys. The TaskForce submitted additional questions for the New York survey that focused on: 1) the county in which thelawyer conducts the preponderance of legal work, 2) monetary donations to legal service providers, 3) total

(cont'd)

— 1061 —

The Task Force to Expand Access to Civil Legal Services in New YorkPrivateBar Supportfor Pro Bono, Subcommittee Report

additional New York specific interview questions, the Task Force has the first statewide pro

bono data available since 2002 when a statewide survey of thepro bono activities of theNew

York bar was last conducted.6 The 2012 ABA Survey ("New Survey") indicates that almost

three-quarters of New York attorneys performed at least some pro bono work in 2012 and thata

majority performed over 20 hours last year, with theaverage number ofpro bono hours totaling

66 or4.7% ofthe billable hours reported by the attorneys for the year.7 These are significant

improvements from the 2002 survey which indicated only46%of attorneys performed anypro

bono work in 2001, and only 27% met the 20 hoursofpro bono which Section 6.1 "strongly

encourages" each New York admitted attorney to perform.8

While the increase over the decade is encouraging, the problem of unrepresented poor

litigants in the New York courts has grown inexorably, exceeding 2 million in 2010 and 2011.9

Consequently, the Task Force urges that Section 6.1 be amended to increase the requested

numberofpro bono hours per attorney from 20 to 50 annually which, as the New Survey shows,

is fewer hours than the average New York attorney now performs. It is proposed by the Task

Force that the goal cited in Section6.1 should remain precatory, at least until results of the

(cont'dfrom previouspage)numberofbillable hours and 4) the number of hours worked fitting the definition of services provided in Rule6.1. The New Survey is annexed as Exhibit 1.

6NewYork StateUnified CourtSystem, Report onthe 2002Pro bono Activities of the New York State Bar (January2004) [hereinafter 2002 Pro Bono Report].

7 TRIG reported that the portion of their survey related toNew York attorneys' pro bono efforts had a 6.5% marginoferror at the standard 95% level of confidence.

82002 Pro Bono Report, supra note 6 at iii.

92011 Task Force Report, supra note 1at 16; The ChiefJudge's Hearing onCivil Legal Services, First Dep %Oct.1, 2012 (testimony ofCareyDunne, New York CityBarAssociation, President, at 1).

— 1062

The Task Force to Expand Access to Civil Legal Services in New YorkPrivateBarSupportforPro Bono, SubcommitteeReport

change in Section 6.1 upon the number ofpro bono performed can be assessed. While there

would continue to benoenforcement consequences imposed with the revision for failure to meet

the increased goal, we urge that reporting ofthose hours be required in the biannual attorney re-

registration process.10

TheNew Survey also askedthe respondents abouttheir monetary contributions in 2011

to legal service providers for the poor; but, while the survey required responses related topro

bono services performed, the respondent could elect not to answer the contribution question and

45% of respondents chose not to answer this query. Of the 55% who did respond, they reported

contributions to legal service providers equal to, on average $522 per lawyer, despite the fact that

47% ofthe responders contributed no money tosuch organizations in 2011.11 However, given

the limited response rate and the effect of one outlier respondent on the calculation of the

average, a more representative figure may be the median contribution of $250 per attorney.

Lawyers in practice over 20 yearsor more contributed almosttwice as much ($1271) as those

who had not practiced for 20 years ($633).l2 We note that the likelihood that the 45% ofthose

polled who did notanswer this question, were quite likely to have contributed less than those

who voluntarily responded to the question; and, this implies that average giving to civil legal

services is considerably lower than the $522 overall average of thosewhodid choose to respond.

10 Proposed Biannual Attorney Registration questions related topro bono hours areannexed as Exhibit 2. The NewYork City BarAssociation hassupported a reporting requirement forpro bono hours since 1997. The ChiefJudge's Hearing onCivil Legal Sendees, First Dep7, Oct. I, 2012(testimony ofCarey Dunne, New York CityBar Association, President, at 2).

1' New Survey, supra note 5 at 11.

12 New Survey, supra note 5 at 11.

1063 —

The Task Force to Expand Access to Civil Legal Services in New YorkPrivate Bar Supportfor Pro Bono; Subcommittee Report

Another indicator ofthe level offinancial support by the private bar for legal service

providers can be found by looking atprivate bar contributions to IOLA grantees, which total

over $12,000,000 in2011. That data shows that law firms contributed $11,239,251, bar

associations contributed $656,514, bar funds andthe Campaign for Justice contributions

amounted to $56,000 and individual lawyers donated $181,528.13

There have been significant cutbacks in funding for the legal service providers in the

State emanating principally from the over 85% reduction in IOLTA funding in the State given

the persistently low interest rates being paid on bank deposits. The resulting lay-offs from the

reduction in revenues of the legal service providers for the poor, despite the additional funding

added (through the initiatives of the Chief Judge) to the budget of $25 million 2010 and an

additional $12.5 million in 2011, has exacerbated the plight of the millions of unrepresented poor

involved in court proceedings each year.

The Task Force is mindful ofthe fact that assistance from the private bar is an "essential

mechanism for narrowing the justice gap, especiallywhereefforts to engagepro bono lawyers

are adequately resourced and supported.'"14 Leaders ofthe private bar affirmed the importance

of properly supporting pro bono work in testimony during the ChiefJudge's 2011 hearings on

Civil Legal Services by indicating thatpro bono efforts of private lawyers require additional

resources for civil legal services programs in order for those civil legal services programs to

13 The IOLA Fundof the Stateof New York, 2011 Report on Funding for IOLA Grantees.

14 TheLegal Services Corporation Report of thePro Bono Task Force at 3 (July 2012) (emphasis added).

1064 —

TMTaskforce toExnand Access to Civil Legal Services inNew YorkRfficitePQrS^

screen cases and train and supervise pro bono attorneys.15 Additional resources supportive of

pro bono work call for increased financial support. We trust that the "strong recommendation"

of Section 6.1 has encouraged the contributions being made bythe private bar; but, clearly more

needs to be done.

To foster greater contributions from a larger percentage ofattorneys, the Task Force

recommends that a guideline be added to Section 6.1 that quantifies the minimum contribution

annually which isurged to be made to legal services providers for the poor.16 The Task Force

recommendsthat attorneys in private practice annuallycontribute to legal services providers for

the poora donation at least equivalent to the amount ofthe individual attorney's typical billing

rate for one hour of time. Lawyers working at for-profit entities are strongly urged to contribute

annuallyan aggregate amount equal to at least the amount typically paid by their organization for

one hourof legalwork for attorneys ofthe seniority of the reporting lawyer, or if not known to

the lawyer, an amount equal to at least one-tenth ofone percent of the lawyer's salary. Lawyers

whoworksolelyon a contingency basis would be asked to contribute at least the equivalent of

the valueofan hourof legal work as is typical in theircommunity. For underemployed lawyers,

the request would notbe expected to exceed one-tenth of 1% of the attorney's fee revenue. The

request for monetary contribution under these specific guidelines would notextend mutually to

lawyers working for entities primarily engaged in the provision of legal services to the poor,

lawyers working for the government orthose who primarily work for other not-for-profit entities.

15 2011 Task Force Report, supra note 1at 10.

1065

The Task Force toExpand Access to Civil Legal Services in New YorkPrfvate Bar Supportfor Pro Bono, Subcommittee Report

To encourage compliance with this voluntary request, the Task Force again recommends

that the registration rules require that attorneys in private practice orworking at for-profit entities

biannually report aggregate annual contributions to legal services providers for the poor in New

York State. At least initially, this reporting requirement would beoptional for government

personnel and those working fornot-for-profit entities. Attorneys employed by entities primarily

engaged inthe provision of legal services to thepoor would beexempt from this reporting

requirement.

In recognition of the positive impact that reporting requirements are anticipated to have

on bothpro bono hours and monetary contributions, the Task Force recommends that the

existing Rule of the Chief Administrator of the Courts Part 118.2(a) concerning public access to

attorney registration information remain in effect. This rule allows information contained in

attorneyregistration statements to be made available to the public upon submission of a written

request, with some limited exceptions.18 The Task Force expects and intends that the public

availability of reported pro bono hours and monetary contributions will serve to encourage

greater giving and higher participation.

Support for the contention that reporting requirements promote increased pro bono work

by the private bar can be found by examining the effect ofFlorida's adoption ofa rule requiring

(cont'dfrom previous page)16 Proposed revisions to New York Rule 6.1 (a) (2) concerning suggested monetary contributions are annexed at

Exhibit 3.

17 Proposed Biannual Attorney Registration questions related tomonetary contributions to legal service providers inNew York are annexed as Exhibit 2.

18 Apayment of a charge for production is required.

1066 —

The Task Force to Expand Access to Civil Legal Services in New YorkPrivate Bar Support for Pro Bono, Subcommittee Report

attorneys to report their pro bono services. Florida's Rule 4-6.1 of the Rules of Professional

Conduct requires members of the barto annually report whether the lawyer has satisfied the

member's professional responsibility to the poor. The reporting system elicited 90% response

rates in 1997 and 1998, 87% in 1999 and 88% in2000. Florida credits the reporting requirement

in part with bringing about significant increases in participation, the number ofvolunteer hours

and monetary contributions.19 Notably, in contrast, 2002 data from states with voluntary

reporting requirements indicates that response rates are low, ranging from 3% toa high of 35%.20

While the Task Force focused the above recommendations on affecting the participation

of individual lawyers, the Task Force does, however, urge that law firms be encouraged to

monitor their lawyers'pro bono participation and to create and support opportunities for their

lawyers to meet the 50 hour pro bono commitment request.

The Task Force further recommends encouragement of law firm participation in the

Attorney Emeritus Program ("AEP") by any law firm with a New York office that has 50 or

more attorneys in that office. In 2010, as an initiative of the ChiefJudge, the New York State

Unified Court System established an "Attorney Emeritus" status for attorneys in good standing,

19 In a2008 report prepared for the Florida Supreme Court that studied the state of pro bono in Florida, researchersfound thatapproximately 17 percentof attorneys in 2006did notcomplete the required pro bono report. The studyrecommended revisions to thepro bono reporting section of the Florida Bar'sannual membership formto simplify itand recommended the creationof a system to send follow up notices to attorneyswho did not complete the form.The reportnoted that whilepro bono reporting is required, implementation of a consequence for non-compliancehad not beenadoptedand might be advisable. The reportcited to data from other states with reportingrequirements,including Nevada, Illinoisand Marylandthat experienced a 99 or 100percentcompliance rate. In those states, theconsequence for non-reporting is a fineor decertification. KellyCarmody and Associates, Pro Bono: Looking Back,Moving Forward (September2008), available at: www.flabarfndn.org/downloads/pdf/pro-bono.pdf

20 Guide for BarLeaders and Others on theReporting of Pro bono Service, available at:http://apps.americanbar.org/legalservices/probono/reportingguide.html (updatedAugust2002).

1067

The Task Force to Expand Access to Civil Legal Services in New YorkPrivatei&ar Supportfor Pro Bono, Subcommittee Report

who are at least 55 years old, with a minimum of 10 years of legal experience and who are

willing to provide at least 30 hours annually of unpaid legal assistance. Thecourts, legal

services providers, barassociations, and law schools work in partnership to provide emeritus

attorneyvolunteers with opportunities to providepro bono assistance to New Yorkers who

cannot afford counsel.

As an indicator of their commitment to supportingpro bono work by eligible firm

attorneys and retired firm attorneys, law firms should be asked to sign the Attorney Emeritus

Program Statement ofParticipation and return it to the AEP Program/New York State Access to

Justice Programs.21 The Statement ofParticipation details means by which law firms can

support experienced volunteer attorneys, including attorneys retired from the law firm, by

providingwork space and professional support, secretarial and technology support, and

malpractice insurance coverage, and by ensuringthat there will be no effect on a retired

attorney's compensationor retirement benefitsbecauseof participation by that attorney

performing pro bono work under the AEP. To date, seven law firms havealready signed the

Statement ofParticipation.22

The Task Force also examined the New York State Bar Association proposal to amend

§522.8 of the Rules of the Court ofAppeals for theAdmission of Attorneys and Counselors of

21 TheAttorney Emeritus Program Statement of Participation isannexed as Exhibit 4.

22 Asof thedate of thisReport, the following firms have agreed to Attorney Emeritus Program participation: DavisPolk & WardwellLLP; Hiscock & Barclay LLP; ProskauerRose LLP; Simpson Thacher & BartlettLLP; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP; Sullivan & Cromwell LLP; and Weil, Gotshal & MangesLLP.

— 1068 —

The Task Force to Expand Access to Civil Legal Services in New YorkPrMeWtfrSuffl

Law concerning pro bono services by attorneys registered in New York as in-house counsel and

Resolution 11 adopted bytheConference of ChiefJudges inJuly2012 in support of practice

rules that enable in-housecounsel to providepro bono services. The potential for in-house

counsel to contribute in a meaningful way to resolving the crisis in access to justice is

compelling. The simplified rule proposed by the New York State Bar Association removes

unnecessary obstacles to pro bono service by in-house counsel and allows registered in-house

counsel to meet their own ethical obligations while still subjecting them to the same ethical and

disciplinary rules that apply to attorneys licensed to practice in New York. The Task Force

recommends adoption of this revision to §522.8 to allow registered in-house counsel to

contribute to the unmet legal needs ofNew Yorkers.

Finally, the Task Force is cognizantof the financial burden that mandatory continuing

legal education requirements may place upon newly admitted, unemployed lawyers. These

requirements, often referred to as "bridge the gap" or transitional programs, dictate that newly

admitted attorneys acquiresixteencredits per yearwithin the first two years of admission to the

bar as follows: three hours of ethics and professionalism, six hours of skills and seven hours of

law practice management and areas of professional practice. While heedful of the importance of

the rolecontinuing legaleducation plays in preparing newly admitted attorneys to become

competent to deliver legal services, particularly incultivating an understanding of ethical

obligations, theTask Force recommends that theContinuing Legal Education Board examine the

advisability of allowing newly admitted, unemployed lawyers to fulfill some number of the skills,

^Right toPractice Reform: Registered In-House Counsel and Pro bono Service, Report of theCorporate CounselSection of the New York State Bar Association (June 2012).

10

— 1069

The Task Force to Expand Access to Civil Legal Services in New YorkPrivate Bar Supportfor Pro Bono, Subcommittee Report

practice management and professional practice credit requirements (but not the ethics and

professionalism credits) with pro bono service.

II

— 1070 —


Private Bar Support for Pro Bono, Subcommittee Report

EXHIBIT 1

ABA/New York Pro Bono Survey 2012Preparedfor The ChiefJudge

ofthe State ofNew York's Task Forceto Expand Access to Civil Legal Services

12

— 1071


Private BarSupportfor Pro Bono, Subcommittee Report

w i1

The ChiefJudge of the State o

Pro Bono Service Provided byNew York Attorneys

Prepared For:f New York's TaskForce to ExpandAccessto Civil LegalServices in New York

September, 2012

Leoer

TABLE •:::.;=-"

OF -c-j.-t.f.

CONTENTS .ve*;,^.^,

•Ztu -: F rr -;:

•i?p*r.3 «

•

««.ei

^ 1

! - -

13

— 1072 —

:

4

5

6

7

14


Background

in August 2011, the ABA Standing Committee on Pro Bono and Public Servicecontracted with The Research IntelligenceGroup(TRiG) to conduct its third nationalstudy on the pro bono participation of America's attorneys. For this version of thestudy, the Committee worked with TRIG and an advisory group of pro bono and legalservices professionals from around the country on revisingthe study methodologyand created a new and improved survey instrument. The study also changed from aprimarily phone based survey to an email based one which will allowed a largersamplingofover 2,500attorneys.

For the firsttime, the ABA offered the use of its data to states to conduct

their own data collection studies. The states were also able to supplement thenational survey interviews with attorneys in their states with their own specifiednumber of attorney interviews to achieve a representative state sample.Furthermore, states were ableto addon specific questions of interestwhich would

be asked of their state respondents.

Objectives

The Chief Judge of the State of New York's Task Force to Expand Access to Civil LegalServicesin New Yorkopted to takeadvantageofthiscpportunitywitlnhespecificstudyobjectivestounderstandthefollowingabout New York attorneys:

• How manyyearshavethey been practicing?

• How many pro bono legal matterswerehandied in 2011?

• How many hours of pro bono v.1 ere provided in 2011?• What are the referral sources for a typicalTier 1 case?

• How much moneywasgivento legalsen/ice prcvidersthat assistthepoor in New York?• Total number of billable hours and the number of hours dedicated to clients in 2011 that

met the definition ofpro bono under Rule 6.1 of the New York Rulesof ProfessionalConduct?

erLeS

14

— 1073 —


Private Bar Supportfor Pro Bono, Subcommittee Report

Methodology & SampleIn New York,230 surveyswere completed as part of the national web study. This sample isassociatedwfth a maximum margin of error of+/-6\5?c atthe95?o confidence level. In total,45,637 emails were sent to New Yorkattorneys inviting them to take the survey.

New York completeswereweightedto the

proportions of actual attorneys by county,resulting inthefolbwing proportions by

judicial department...

Judicial Department | PercentofSurveys |

Department 2 3456

Department 3 496

Department 4 8*

The230comp!etedsun/ey5felloutacross practice settings as follows...

Practice Setting Percent ofSurveys

Private Practice 88*6

i: : 17S

2 to iO 23%

UtoSO 17H

51toiCO 3«

101+ 24*

Corporate Counsel 8%

Government 496

erLeS

Execu tive Summary

nearly on&thsrdprdingSThdicatethat lawyersa

the poor in New

Among New York lawyers that were willing to respond tothe question, neatly half

recK>rtedthatthevarenmRivineaTwrnonevtoleeal service orovkJersthat assist

the poor in NewYork.45Mwereonwillingtoanswer thequestion. Ofthosethatdogive, lawyers practicing morethan 20 years give about double that of thosepracticing 20yearsor less(51,271vs.$633). [<;.

KewVork bwyers report thattitt'tai anaverage of1400hours peryear anda.trs~ of A.7Sef their bâb'* t:rr.c to pro bene service. The average amour

dedicated annuaty tocSentjthat met the definition of probono under RidewNewferk Ruôf Profess'<>nJêmducta66,»rth more than kaff-V"— **— *

::-t:::: -;:t20hoor*.

15

1074


Private Bar Supportfor Pro Bono, Subcommittee Report

Detailed Findings

erLeS

Years Practicing• The average (mean) number of years New Yorkattorneys have been practicing law is 21

years.

• The median number of years is 22.

Years Licensed to Practice Lav/

Average (mean) = 21 YearsAverage (median) = 22 Years

21+ Years

(515=)

20 Yearsorless-

(49%)

10%

18%

7 V-

15%

12%

r

u41 years or more

U31 to 40 years

• 21 to 30 years

U11 to 20 years

• 6 to 10 years

u 5 years or less

B*se (Tottl Uew York Attorneys) = 230

L©Q©| 52. How msriy-(e:rs.•»;-,»-rcu seen :;-.;;-3 tc pr:r. :: ;.%r

16

1075 —


Nearly three-quarters of pranking attorneys in NewYork providedat least one hour of free legalservice to personsof limited means or organizations that address the needs of persons of limitedmeans in 2011.

Nearly one-third (29?:) providedat least 50 hours and the majorityprovidedatleast 20hours, with anaverage nearly 65 hours per attorney.

Additionally, five inten handled at leastthreeTierl legal matters. On average, a NewYork attorneyhandled close toseven Tier 1 legal matters durin? 2011.

Number of HoursAverage = 64.7B

Less th*n 50 hours = 71H

LNumber of Tier 1 Legal Matters

Average = 6.64

5156

Three

orMore

Y Q2A1. - ;:s: -e~-; .-.--:-;• :•• -.;:.:. srev'-re: :-:':---;:':•: :•:•-.: :t-. :;: ;:;:. .. •.-;.:•;; :- to-::::'o-iaVee„ in 2011.» 0.242. -•:••• -.i-.f :::—.r.'.t-. ,sj-.:-,z tc'c-:••••;,zz •••;-•,:,

V/ Q2AS. not,- -ar,-, rouri ,oj spent il 2011. ' See Appends) tor Definition

Referral Sources for Typical ServiceAmong those attorneys that providedTierl probonoin 2011 that they considered "typical", seven in

ten indicated that the client was referred tothem.

The referral source was most oft en a legal aid or legal services pro bono program (30?:), followed by afamily member or friend (17?;). About one inten also received referrals from a bar association probono program or an attorney outsidetheir organization.

: lit ,~r^ — t ,1 :•:» a-fit,1; c* "•?:}«-> »!• lî

Referral Sources

-•!• »: :• •;« •-':o:-:,:a-::-:p'* ^^m^^^ "VV

'i-. j-i-:r j'-i«j ^^ 17>"i

!i-m:c r.z- r^= =-c :-=|-»-^ fc^J •! A;^

Kxz-n :•.-j :•:•: /=-• =rji- jr.:- | i ^-;.

'.=-«•*.•-•...,*.„.-,.-.^ i 5;;

Beie=94 *>.=!• | 3:.;

""*—| 3Mt— ••>!•>•. J 296

N=--;-=^t =•!•-i«=- I 7ii

C: .•«( ™-*r/ >]i'-'M" I 2H

'-in :-• ai'.wa | 1«

* •» r=v« wi»--•*•=- |1 ;j

I ©0©r °-sl- Ws! t"* MimM rtfttrea :o-,oj or olo tney comeefctatf 10 you «riMat areaenwr\ Q12. Weitf*referrir5?irrf-?

17

— 1076 —

10


Ofthose that were willing to respond to the question, neanyha:f ofthe attorneys reportedthattheyarenct giving anymoneyto legalserviceprovidersthat assistthepoor in NewYork.

Ofthose that did reportgivingany money, the average amongthem is$992 per year.Lawyers practicing mere than 20 years grve about double that of those practicing 20 yearsor less ($1,271 vs. 5533).

Amount Given to LegalService Providers that Assist PoorOverall Average =$522

& M$501+

Average=$992

uS101-$5G0

uSl-SlOO

Base (Total New York Attorneys That Agreed To Answer) = 126Not:: 455*' preferred not to answer

Q70. On s-<er;-e. re* mjr.rw«| oo)Oj :.;:•»• ,*:-::• ;:: :t-.c: ;•:-.::•;•.-:•.:;:;: r: :•:•:-'- '.:.. •-•<"11

Billable Hours and Rule 6.1* Pro Bono Hours

Total Billable Hours

Average = 1,400

1,501-*

Total Rule 6.1* Pro Bono Hours

Average = 66

:76-

The average amount of billablehours among attorneys in New Yorkper year is 1,400, including the fivepercent of attorneys that report

having no billable hours.The 11lawyers that reported having no

billable hours were Government

attorneys (5), sclos (3), corporatecounsel(2)andonewasfrom a 2 to10 attorney sizedfirm.

The average amount of hoursdedicated annually to clients that

met the definition of pro bono underRule 6.1 of theNewYork Rules of

Professional Conduct* is 66, with

more than half giving therecommended amount of at least 20

hours.

As a percentage, attorneys overallgive an average of 4.7rj of their

billable time to probono.

L

erLeS

u 1,001-1,500

wl-1,000

m0

19;

21%• 36-75

17?u ul 20-35

ul-19

.- . .,....,1

20% i •

&ase (Total New York Attorneys! = 2:

Q7I. IMst was yojr tots: rijrr&er tf STaoe rojrs |r&ji.-z pro»-« r»jrj| • 1011?Q72. wr«»-sstr»etoteirMroer«fworjyouo<Oiatedtoc»emjin»lltT«««tneoeriw -^Rj«6JCfff*rve-A-»-..-:.«yPr:.-ij;:o.-,;lCero^fr • See isoe-.rx':-:**-.•.•:--. 1-

— 1077 —


AverageRule 6.1* Pro Bono Hours by Practice Setting

Average Rule 6.1* Pro Bono Hours

70.64

Privete Prettice Corporate Government(203) (IB") [9")

'' CaJt«n: Vtrt SmtMsase

145.75

33.3254.46 50.76 56.77

Lawyers in private practice dedicate more

hours on averageto probonoth3n eitherCorporate crGovernment lawyers.

Within private practice, the lawyers

working in thelargestfirmstendto providethe most pro bono hours, while solos tend

to provide the least

So!:

(40)

Leoer

2 to 10 11 to 50 51 to 100 101+

(52) (38) (18") (55)

•" CmIkk Vesy Sana esse

C72. Wist wsj tr>e tots! n^rroer of nojrs you oeoiesteo to oie-its in 1011 tr,st met f* aefriitiy) c? pro wio tmoer

• See Ao:*-".;:> 'zr £*?.-,',.;•-.:. ::::':-••.-..'•:•• :. ;; :' =•:'::;:-: ::-.;.-.*• 13

HHIOM^ni

19

— 1078 —


tier 1 Pro Bono:The ASA Rue 5.1says thit "i i.vye- shouip aspi-s to rer.rsr at east 30hours of pro bonopubfco -;»!se-.-oes p-s-ysa-.": ir.pfCites futher th:t "a suostar.t i majority of the 50 h:-_-s" sh-uio fceto pe-s=ns of m.ited meir.s o-to s-s-sr ::: zr:that suppo-t the needs of pe-s:ns of m.ited msar.s. The survey qualifed thattbefo ;.-.- -; ::t"-.-tes te considered Te-l:Free legal services to persons of I'r'ted means or or;ar'.:at"or.s that ar=-e:s the r.eess of persons of "m.ited meansth-ou;h full case repressr.tatlor., irr.'ted scope representation, era ar.-'ce o- -sp-sser.tst'sn in rrer at'orv

of Terms

Rule 6.1 of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct :Lawyers sre stron-ry encou-a;ed to p-o/oe pro tor.o eg: se-v;ces to benefit poor persons.(a) Every lawyer shou-'d aspire to:

(1) provide it least 20 hours of p-o son; e;;i ss-v :es each, year to 00" persons; and

(2| contribute fnar.ola y to c-;ar.":at or.s that p-o/re e;a ser.-':es to poo-pe-sors.(b| Probono leja1 ser.-ices that meet this 50a! are:

(1) p-ofess'or.a se-.-'ces rendered -:. mitte-5 anr "nthose r-lm>i T.atte-s fo-.vh';h. the ;o.-eTTert 's r.otob.'sed to p-o.ide funds for eea: ^presentation to pe-sor.s who a-i fir.ar-'a ,- ur.as ; to compensate counsev

(2) aotlvt'ss re'aterJ to improving the airr.'n jtrat'on of .iu-stiee by simplifying the legal p'ocess for, o.rInc-easlng theavailability and quality of legal services to, poor persons; and

(3| profssscr.il ser»--es to chi-tab s, -e g'ous, cvcir: to.ratrjra o-gir. -iters ir, fritters oes r-eo p-edom rar.tytea:;-;:: tr; rises :{:::-:f::rj

(e| Appropriate organ'-at'ens fe-fnanc a cont-'oufons a-sjl| organ'sat'or.s prima- .' epgaged in the p-ov~s'onof sg: se-.-:es :z tre poo-; ar.o

|2| o-;ani:at ons substantia y srgage: in. the p-ov's'on of e;a se-.- ::-. to tne poo- p-o/ped that the donate:: Fur.osa-e to be used fo-the p-ov s'on. of sum ega se-.':es

•o| ~h's -I-, e s not "tr-cer tobe enfo-ced through tne :::': >a-y process, anr ths Fa'-u-e to f_.f t-e asp"-at": r a gea scontained herein should be without '.ega' consequence.

erLeo15

20

— 1079 —

The Task Force to Expand Access to Civil Legal Services in New YorkPrfvateBar Supportfor Pro Bono, Subcommittee Report

EXHIBIT 2

Proposed Biannual Attorney Registration Questions

21

1080


Proposed Biannual Attorney Registration Questions

Specify which of the following categories best describes your legal practice or employment thatyou have been principally engaged in sinceyou last registered as an attorneypracticing in NewYork: (Select Only One)

D Employment by or service with a governmental (federal, state or local) entity (inclusiveofa judicial or legislative branch or an administrative agency, unit or division thereof)

Q Employment by orservice with an entity primarily engaged in the provision of legalservices to the poor

D Employment with othernot-for-profit entities

D Private practice (whether self-employed or practicing in a law firm, or employment by acorporation or other entity engaged in for profit activity. [If selected, complete questionsA and B below. ]

D Other [Ifselected, complete questions Aand Bbelow. ]

A. During the last 12 months, did you perform at least 50 hours of pro bono legal services asdefined in Section 6.1(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct ("RPC")?

(Select One): Yes [J No •

Pleasespecify the approximate numberofsuch pro bono hours performed in such 12-monthperiod: hours.

B. During the last 12 months, did you contributefinancially to organizations specified inSection 6.1 (c) of the RPC in an aggregate amount at least equal to that specified insection 6.1 (a)(2)?:

(Select One): Yes D No D

Please specifythe aggregateamountso contributed in such 12 month period: $ .

22

— 1081 —


EXHIBIT 3

Proposed Revisions to Rule 6.1 (a) (2)

23

1082 —


Revised Section 6.1 (a) (2)

6.1(a)(2) contribute financially to organizations that provide legal services to

poor persons. Lawyers in private practice or who areemployed by a for-profit entity should

aspire to contribute annually in an amount at least equivalent to (i) the amount typically billed by

the lawyer (or the firm with which the lawyer may be associated) to paying clients for one hour's

worth ofthe lawyer's time, (ii) ifwork is done on a contingency basis, an amount at least

equivalent to the value of an hour's worth of the lawyer's time as is typical in that community, or

(iii) the amount typically paid by the organization which the lawyer is employed for an hour of

the time of the lawyer's seniority, or an amount at least equivalent to 0.1 percent of the salary of

the lawyer.

24

1083 —

The Task Force to Expand Access to Civil Legal Services in New YorkRtâteBat^

EXHIBIT 4

Attorney Emeritus Program Statement ofParticipation

25

1084 —


Attorney Emeritus ProgramStatement ofParticipation

New York's lawyers have a proud history of helping those in need. It is in that spirit that theCourtSystem created a new attorney registration status - Attorney Emeritus - to encourageexperienced attorneys to volunteer their legal skills and experience to help the growing numberof New Yorkers who cannot afford counsel. It is also in that spirit that our firm is pleased tojointhe Attorney Emeritus Program as a participating member firm and pledges to make best effortsto accomplish the following voluntary goals:

1. Our firm will encourage and support eligible firm attorneys and retired firm attorneysresident in New York to participate in the Attorney Emeritus Program. We understandthat eligibility for Attorney Emeritus status requires that:

(a) whether active or retired, an attorney must have practiced for at least 10 years andbe at least 55 years old, and

(b) that attorneys participating in the program will commit to doing at least 30 hoursper year of pro bono work on behalf of low-income persons in civil matters underthe auspices of qualified legal services providers, bar associations and/or court-sponsored volunteer lawyer programs.

2. While there is no requirement that an attorney be retired in order to register for AttorneyEmeritus status, our firm recognizes that many participants in the program will be retiredfrom our firm; and, we will further demonstrate support for these attorneys (who have notpracticed law after retiring from our firm, except solely to do pro bono work) and for theAttorney Emeritus Program by providing:

(a) Work Space and Professional Support. We understand that reasonable workspace availability can be a significant issue for many legal service organizationsand that it may well be more comfortable for a retired attorney to continue towork with associates and other lawyers in his or her former firm in conductingpost retirement pro bono matters. Accordingly, we agree to provide appropriatespace for our Attorneys Emeritus to continue to perform pro bono work at thefirm itself and to encourage other attorneys of the firm to work with our AttorneysEmeritus on pro bono matters, except where conflicts issues limit our firm'sinvolvement in a matter.

26

— 1085 —


Firm:

(b) Secretarial and Technology Support. In an effort to facilitate the pro bono workof our Attorneys Emeritus, our firm will provide continued access to appropriatesecretarial help and to technology and similarsupport within the firm; provided,that, after an attorney's retirement, appropriate limitations may be required to beimposed on access to certain proprietaryor confidential client related information.

(c) Malpractice Insurance Coverage. We will provide assurance that the retiredattorney will continue to be covered by the firm's malpractice insurance programin doing pro bono work under the aegis of the firm, subject to the terms of thefirm's then existing insurance policies. Where permitted under the firm'smalpractice insurance policies, the coverage provided by such policies shallrespond even if under the Attorney Emeritus Program malpractice coverage isavailable through a legal service provider for the poor with which the lawyer mayassociate.

(d) No Effect On Retirement Benefits/Compensation. Finally, should a retiredattorney wish to participate in the Attorney Emeritus Program, our firm willarrange that the retired attorney's practice of pro bono work as an AttorneyEmeritus will not affect the entitlement (if any) by the former attorney tocompensation or other form of benefits which otherwise would be due from ourfirm to the retired attorney if she or he had retired fully from the practice of law.

Partner Executing on Behalf of Firm:

Address:

City/State/Zip:

Phone/Email:

Date:

Please return the signed Statement of Participation to: AEP Program/New York State Access lo Justice Programs111 Centre Street. Room 1240 •New York, NY 10013 Telephone: 877-800-0396 • Email: [email protected]: htlp:/Avww.nycourts.gov/attorneysA'oluntecr/emeritus/rsaa/index.shtml

27

— 1086 —

EXHIBIT C

LexisNexis1 of 2 DOCUMENTS

Copyright 2013 ALM Media Properties, LLCAll Rights Reserved

Further duplication without permission is prohibited

New York Law Journal (Online)

This article also appears in the following ALM publications:NYLJ Special Reports Newsletter

January 22, 2013 Tuesday

LENGTH: 957 words

HEADLINE: Work on Closing the Justice Gap

BYLINE: Jonathan Lippman ,[email protected]

BODY:

Page 1

The unmet need for civil legal services to low-income New Yorkers continues to be one of the greatest challengesfacing our state's justice system. In recentweeks, the Task Force to Expand Civil Legal Services in New York reportedforthe third year in a row that there is a continuing and unacceptable crisisof the unrepresented in the courtsof NewYork state.

' Every year, millions of the most vulnerable New Yorkers arc left to navigate a complex legal system without thehelp of a lawyer. We have made great strides in addressing thejusticegap between the need for legal assistance and theresources available to fill that need through increased public funding and the efforts of the judiciary and the bar. But thejob is far from done. We must continue to look for ways to promote access tojustice in New Yorkstate.

Addressing the Crisis

The judiciary has been successful in obtaining substantial funding for civil legal services in its budget for the last twoyears, with the support of the legislatureand the governor. Our budget proposal for the coming year includesadditionalmonies for civil legal services, and again includes funds to help rescue the Interest on Lawyer Account Fund of NewYork state. IOLA in past years has been a significant source of funding for service providers, but has dwindled bynearly80 percentdue to historic low interest rates. This effort to secure permanent and steady public funding for civil

Work on Closing the Justice Gap New York Law Journal (Online)This article also appears in the following ALMpublications:NYLJ Special Reports Newsletter January 22, 2013 Tuesday

legal services has been bolstered by the strong advocacy ofthe organized Bar in New York state. Earlier this month, theState Bar Association unveiled its legislative priorities for the coming year, which reiterated its focus on legal servicesfor thepoor who are facing life-altering civil legal problems.

Funding for civil legal services does not only benefit the clients receiving the services. It results inconsiderableeconomic advantage to our state. In 2012, NERA Economic Consulting conducted an analysis ofthe amount and impactoffederal funds that flow into the state as a result ofthe provision ofcivil legal services. NERA concluded that, forevery dollar spent on legal representation for thepoor, approximately sixdollars arereturned to ourstate incombinedcost-savings, benefits obtained, and economic activity.2

More Can Be Done

For all the difference that current funding has made, however, it is not enough given the extent of the crisis, where atbestonly20 percentof the civil legal service needsof low-income New Yorkersare being met. The individual effortsofattorneysgiving their time and skills to help those in need are essential to closing the justice gap. The wonderfulcontributions of the Bar deserve recognition. The Task Force to Expand Civil Legal Services in New York tells us thatnearly three-quarters ofNew York's lawyers provided pro bono legal services in 2012.^ On average, these attorneyscontributed 66 hours ofpro bono work, with the majority exceeding the 20-hour goal set by New York Rule ofProfessional Conduct 6.1.

But more can be done to enhance the pro bono contributions of private attorneys. The Task Force to Expand Civil LegalServices in New York made several recommendations in its most recent report to increase the level of pro bonoinvolvement by the Bar. Most notably, the Task Force recommended amendments to New York's Rule of ProfessionalConduct 6.1, which "strongly encourages" lawyers to perform pro bono work to benefit poor persons. The amendmentswould raise the aspirational goal for pro bono work from 20 hours each year to 50 hours each year. This modificationwouldbringNew York in line with the ABA'smodelrule,whichpromotes 50 hours of service, and would be consistentwith the 50 hours in New York's new pro bono bar admission requirement. Rule 6.1 also encourages lawyers to makefinancial contributions to legal service providers; the Task Force recommends that guidelines for financial contributionsbe added to Rule6.1 quantifying a suggested annual contribution basedon the valueof one hour'sworthof theattorney's time.

In addition, the Task Force recommends that attorneys be required to report their pro bono hours and financialcontributions to legal service providers on their biennial attorney registration forms. Byasking attorneys to include theirhours ofpro bono service ontheir registration forms, we can hope toencourage them to do more. Other states that haveinstituted reporting of probono work have found a significant increase in participation in theyears following their newrequirement. Moreover, collecting data onthe pro bono service ofNew York's attorneys can help usmake better use ofthe resources that supportpro bonowork and improve the delivery of services.

Moving Closer to Equal Justice

I am working with theAdministrative Board of theCourts and ChiefAdministrative Judge A. Gail Prudenti to addressthe recommendations outlined in the Task Force's report. Given the tremendousneed, there can be no doubt that wecannotreston our laurels in enhancingcivil legalservicesin our state. We havejust scratched the surface of this deepand continuing crisis that is so fundamental to the fairness of oursystem ofjustice. By working together, thegoal is tomove that much closer to making the ideal of equal justice a reality for all New Yorkers.

JonathanLippman is Chief Judge of the State of New York.

Work on Closing the Justice Gap New York Law Journal (Online)This article also appears in the following ALMpublications:NYLJ Special Reports Newsletter January 22, 2013 Tuesday

Endnotes:

1. November 2012 Report of the Task Force to Expand Access toCivil Legal Services, available athttp://www.nycourts.gov/ip/access-civil-legal-services/.

2.November 2012 Report of theTask Force to Expand Access to Civil Legal Services, at 19.

3. November 2012 Report of the Task Forceto Expand Access to CivilLegal Services, at 33.

LOAD-DATE: January 19,2013

WYLJ.COM ! aVa>B»rtCit.2nimi.ilTUESDAY. JANUARY 22. JOU I 9

NYSBA Annual MeetingJanuary21-26 | Hilton New York

Work on Closing the Justice Gap Rising Above theStorm, Reorganizing

Jonathan LippmanChief JudgeState of New York

The unmet need lor«Iv-ll legalservices to low-Income New

Yorkers continues la i»e one «(the greatestdulenges lacingourstate's Justice system In recentweeks, the Task Force lo ExiMncIOvfl Legal Services In Now Yolkreported for the third year in arowthattherebaconUnumgandunacceptablecrfalsofthe uwepre*lented la the courti ol New Yorkstate.' Every year, millions <J themmt vulnerable New Yorkers areMl to navigate a complex legalsystem without the helpofa lawyer, we have made ntr.it stridesin addrcaalng the |ustice gapbetweenthe needlo*legalastis*

lance and the resource! av.ui.ihirto fill that nrnl through Increasedpublic fundingand (he efforts ofthejudidaryandthebaf Hut ihejob h Lit Bran ikne. We must continue to looklor wan to promotearce** bi justice in New Yiek.stair.

Addressing the Crisis

The niiiiti.iry has been sue*cessful In obtaining sithst.intt.ilfunding lor 1rvil legal services InIts budget lor llie List two years.wiihtin?lupport ol the legislature.milihegcvernocOurbudget|K«t-posal (or the corning year Includesadditional monies (or ctvg legal

services, ami again Includesfunds to Iwlji rescue the Interest<«i Uwya Account Fundol NrwYorkstair. IOLAmpast years hasbeen a significantimiree nl binding(or sn viceproviders,but hasoVIihUmIbyiûlySOorrcenl (ratio historic low interest rates Tillseffort lo secure permanent andsteairypubHc fundingUt« r.illegalsnWn lux l>eetll>ilsteml liyIhestrongadvocacyofthe organizedBar In Nrw York state. Earlier this

riionlh. lite Stale liar Assot tat ton

unveilrtl its legblattTCprioritiesfor the coming year, which reiterated It* focus on legal MiYk rs(sir Ihe poor who are lac Inn life-•hering cMI legal proUems.

Funding lor civil legal srr vicesd<-e«not i>nlybenefit (Its clientsreceiving Ihe service*. Il resultsIn considerable economic advantage In ovirslate. In 2012,NERAEconomic Cons1iltmil;conductedan .111.1ly.si1 of (he amount amiUnpad ol federal funds Out flowinto ihe state.1* a resultitfIheprovision o(. Ml Irg'd services NERA

concluded thai, lor every dolLir•pent on Irg.d representation lorthe DOOR a|(proximatelysix dollars are returned to our stair In

combined <osl-savings, brilrftUobtained, and economic activity.'

More Can Be Done

For el the difference thai current halting has made, however,11 is not enough given Ihe extentof the crisis, whrre at best only 20percent ol ihe civil leg.d serviceneeds of low-lncoine New York

ers are being met The Individualefforts of attorneys giving thrirlime and skills lo help those hineed air essential lo closing Ihe|nslkr nap.The wonderfulcontributions of llie Kir deserve ircog-nttloa Tlir TaskForcelo ExpandCivil Legal Services In Nrw Yorktells lis tliat nearly lltree-murler *OfNew Yolk's lawyers providedpro bono legal services in 20I2,1Onavenge, theseattorneyscontributed Wjhours of pro bonowork, with llie major* » h>r'/

A. Gail Prudenti

Chief Administrative Judge

New York State

Unified Court System

"Good limber does not growwith rase: The stronger lltrwind. Ihe stronger Ihe trees."—PoisJm MaJixhCtanluMipuel)

Just over one year ago. as I f;rstbegan myterm as chief.iduJn-

Istratlvr Judge. I staled In my article (or Oils special Ihtr assiM la-tkxi section of lire New York LawJournal that altlKxigh OUT courtsystem laced unprecedentedchallenges, unprecedenteddoes not mean insurmountable.

Throughout my first year asChid Administrative Judge, Unpeople of Ihe New York Stale

Unified Court System proved meright rising to meet challengeafter challenge, from tacklingoldest cases lo recovering altrrtlie devastating natural dbasterlh.it was Supenlonn Sandy.

Despitefacingmanydauntingchallenge*, our court system,under Ihe steady leadershipof our Chid lodge, has muchlo be proud of Ihis year. Flrsl.courts across Ihe slate have

begun to develop and Implement locally-tailored operationalreforms lo improve efficiencyIncase management. In addition.ihis pasi summer • /•>»rij

E-Filing

From ExperimentalProgram to Standard Method

JLiLuis A. Gonzalez

Presiding JusticeAppellate Division.First Department

I am honored lo serve as the

Presiding Justice o( ihe FirstDepartmentduring the nascenceOl|>.i|>erte.ss staleappellateprac-lice. In lm when the New York

legislature created ihe first pilotprogram to test electronic Stagol documents in a smal numberof uvil trial parts, most attorneys

saved ikicianentson disks. ral)<rr

than 'flash drives ' At that time.

we used our cell phones lor Ihesole purpose of making phonecalls. Bymid-decade,many werelookingfor llw "on*button on anew Invention called the ll'odImagine. TiVoand Facet* • k werenon-existent—and "WbW . well

thai wassotnethingthat childrenexcLiiiiied as Ihey went sledding.or down a stiiie Bycontrast thuyear, my (our- and six-year-oldgrandchildren asked Sania formore "apps" for their iPad and(or expanded access toVYlFi

Theworldwide technologicalrevolution has seen c-fillng gainwidespread acceptance In NrwYork stale courts. culminatingin the enactment c»ia 2ooy lawlli.it has made three importantchanges.

First.Ihe e-filinu implriTlriltrit

in 1999 is no longer consideredan rxprrlment.il program, and IIdor* not rripiire renewedh*ghleuveauthority every twoto three

Bringing IncreasedEfficiency, Security to Cases

Randall T.EngPresiding Justice

Appellate Division.Second Department

Electronic Mag has salved lisave* ua airy, time and nukes

lor the rlfwrnt use U prrfessiunalresources. What follows is a briefreviewof some ofttsfeatures andbenefits,is gatheredfromrecentpublications and rejKirtsof U»eUnified Court .System

The Unified Courl Systemhas. over tin- course ol the pasi

decade, made Sfl 0ng0lngC0P>mllmenl lolhr Implementat Ionof r-filintj The program, begunas a voluntary pilot programIn lityy. has grown to the pointwhereover IDyearslateralmostl il million documents have

been e*fileil In ajiproximatrly3fKI.OOO cases. While not yet ofIhe scale of the federal courts

(where e-Allngli generallymandatory arid II Is estimated thatover six million documents arefiled every month), e-flling InNew York will inevitably continue to grow,

There are more than 23,000registered c-filers In the NewYork State Courts FJectr<»nlc Fll-

iiik System (NYSt'EF) Becominga registered user Isa simple process; a sin kIt [wtssword and usern>slows ansttcrney registeredinNewYnikto dieinanycasewherer>fumRfi authorised.

ThesystemluuibeenshowntoInsecure and elfiUent Attorneycan access their cases anytime,day or nitfht. from any locationwith an Inlet net con- » hnr l)

Diversity

An Inclusive JudiciaryIs a Work in Progress

Moving TowardRepresentative Juries

Karen K. Peters

Presiding JusticeAppellate Dlvlilon.Third Department

ress towards a diverse judiciarymil* ThudDepaitment, wr havea longpath to travel More weachieve espial representation.Simply pui. as a leâl profession, we must remain vigilant Inpromoting diversity because Ihelack ol It is perceived as unfairFor example. In 1990, when Isal as a Family Courl judge InUlster County along with.thitherwoman. Judge Mary Work, I cxi>orienced the .satisfaction of seeing my sou. Av.uitl. grow up in acommunitywhrrehavingwomenjudges and women lawyer* wasperfectly normal Thus, frommy perspective* he was beingexjKised lo a diverse puliciar yYet, one morning when Avantlwas lliree years old. he askrdme a Startling iptes- » f*^l)

HenryJ.Scudder

Presiding JusticeAppellate Division.Fourth Department

Jury eligible population in Monroe County,theyrepresented only73 percent ii i)«iscw1k> appearedfor Jury service.

NewYorkuses a two-step process in selecting |uror«, First.potential (iir.ifs .«rr tent ipiafifi. a-iioii questionnaires. Sunmwnsesare then sent lo people randomly*eleded from among those srilOare OjuaBJM to serve on a|ury

Rcsean her* were satisfied thatIheprocedures for Qualifyingandsummoning jiuois Is l.ur and unbiased. New York emi«loys many ofihe best practices th.»ihas-ebeenshown to Improve jury pool rej>resentatlveness. For example,our state combines five separatesource-lists to create a master listlor Jury qualification. No otherslate uses morr source • •..•"

As lortner Chief JudêJudllh Kaye eloquently

observed;Diversity Is important, notbecause people s brains .uemnnncoplcaJtydrfferrnt butbecause it Is essential thaiwr have tl»e perspective oldifferent lifeexperiences inthevitalroleofadjudicating our lellow citizens' dis

putes. Adiverse bench givesthe public a beUd that theyare Included inthe justicesystem,1Likewise. Chief Judge Jona

than lippman has slated thai*1hevsiueclecgverieworio*orceneeds no argument techistve-ness promotes puNic trust in h'vIke."*Istrongly agree with both,and while wr are making prog

State Bar Is Committed to Preventing Wrongful Convictions,by Seymour W.JameiJr

Superstorm Sandy: An Update and Look to the Future,by David M.Schraver

Beware Discovery of Social Media Posts,by Michael L.Fox

Long Term Care Costs Pose a Threat to Seniors,by Anthony i. Enea

Endeavors Promote Professional DevelopmentSense of Community,

by JeanF.Gorbinl

In20ll,thaOnkvirfCoiaiAilmln-istraiion publisheda study of

|urypoolshiMonroeCounty1 Thestudy. Rlpported by Chlrf JudgeJonatlmi Uptnaui and iriomjitrdby concerns raised throughoutNew York slalr alnnit the ttver-

sityof |ury pools, has sruqifredanaggressive campaign in MonroeCounty lo Increase Jury parlii I-petion among African-American*

Inside

PAGE 11Updating N.Y.Trust Laws:

Much Work Remains,by llene S.Cooper and Ira Mark Bloom

Section Focuses on Interns and Mentors,

by David S. Rothcnberg

Federal Agencies Extend Their Reach,by John G-i.iland Krlsten Smith

Panels Will Address Financial Crisis, Reform,

by TracecE. Davis

Assisting Students and Seasoned Lawyers Alike,by/acharyj Abclla

The Unified Court SysiDffl. of {'. iKei vhandaiImpressive group ol nationallyrrnownrd |ury exerts cundu< trdIhtr study llie slmly confirmedthat the [H-rcentage of African-American* serving on Juries dxl

notreflect theirpercentage tiltheJury eligible jKipulation. AlthoughAfrican-Americans made upapproximately 1- percent of the

PAGE 12Healthcare Reform

Takes Center Slage in 2013,by Ellen V.Weinman

Arbitration:

Factors to Consider,

byRonaG.Shamoon

Taking You Far In Career...and Traby Peter C.Knpff

Senior Lawyer SectionServes Multiple Needs,by Susan B Dndenauer

.VrajxCopifinti I mil C

State Bar Is Committed toPreventing Wrongful Convictions SH

e~*iSeymour W.James Jr.

1 V.-l ti**rL .Kr»-.nT.r-W!lT • |tmiAiiw i(>ai>i ih. K/rtiVdhv*»*.U#tTtf»r**s«.li**rtk» iyi**<-a-KnUn..yv.™ l-.—i* ..•

yv*r*lr»Vla

UhlnqA..

.,.'...•->.*.•-•'•.- andaSW

rssdmt* ewn »f.*t • fjOry (Jr-

O.I*t—w ami |—*S?-"i <»l*n*i*l

«f*. AM kuur. -» ;M*1V«-lrd •I

via«oi«e<« ktSeiraflatteai

•f«fea(CMlHWl>MwroratliJ iii»()"i b •uraUI.Q *l**ra wnwnii w»*r».«*•! wri.W^(.'i'*îvnns, trrtr fi*M*il linl lb*X»**mHyua.1 WtoJ •!*,-.*-ir«rrf&«a'»a-.a p****dal*SU»l >-**llu* w>.41

.W-..-1

Superstorm Sandy: An Update and Look to the Future

• - -

Li----n.i.**i.f-«..'i;.-.\-io«.i NYSBA RffcH IH»m

«l«c qtf'tdv Irce-d aruaVbw

.i - .-..: .-(.it .-•••-. • .• - , ii

by SutwtUoim Saody ami • •"•-

• ..111— County Hfi-alyn. !4*l*n Iv |pir<rl QofM*, N*»au County }

Beware Discovery ofSocial Media Posts

h**« tomr* »h*«|*i1. and tho**»>.'?»***< «<*Wyd*y fcnaj h*«t«wi V:«u»*«*;rh*f*i*-.

Facfboofc account that U u»**l

I.M1I. On IN* public p.if* *•*f4fc*.>fi*;*.ltiMTi*'*i.*nlt*c*-tk*>dun-* .*•«*• It- ,t—-1 w**..•-.-.- c- 1—l«»..tV«n ..*»<n**> hat ir»*d Fate-

pare*, winch MIt clM<*llo do tiHOwp***»<<o"rlit<-lirjirrU!i. .t.*Jn.;w:ilt».*Ulmc<ii*MUiim \«w VeJfc.wh*tf 4>J* Jo« belt** ditd-nun: CM be »ougM .Wfining ducowy»»OK

thi'd p****-do «. or *•<*«* IV* m«l»-»* IS* *pp*a*l* n*»*iifM«cWM*abMltMSi'-•'m(«' Wwraeeuswy DmeMa, Rm Oipejtmrt. tf-sfc*«***«.both Angara*MTVea • di.eovcry dfirnftd in.***-hrUhrarnrmrr*re,A wJUIoff. siirt hTijttton ltr*klntf coj>tr* ..lib* public •Wi.nrmilhrnirtArf-Thx* i**ti*<abiy antNlp*l*d llfu;

• u-f iJy—< i»rr-.t.:i- »i.l _._i^ ll'HM< »—• »«

»-»4*l*l««i™»iVlB-*««'(l»rf« X—4<aw*<

•at.Jt.flK>> plaMiirt <Ufrn» I.. tl

H...'_--*^,Ffc-'.-a *<«•-« :•!,i*>|jrrf*rVaftlO*frl*t.-dt..Tl.r ««v!<l.IWl'C--.S. .V*VS tru-l. J-.,

*• t»*"»t.. and •5jnr>4 ,»_*. «•c B. «-f**-4l. Ifc-î lo •-'w^t th*T*i MO* lo d.'lnr Of **rt'-'|-ina*rrl«:*>m-lyt»t.t<->l.

w*. I-..1 .1 lk« Sat CMUf m ns. B-,d Ah.»*

Ciarity ft*t» (lb* UlTrf iwitltfa th* ••(•nl "J IV Ta*k F"«* «

NYSftX anuliif **urU.'k*M *• :\r www ntwM .*sÛ»J«jf-rmf3—rfk.lfJu-*.b"'0«..FiUu p<*tWr»iar«>«rttor«ta--Crii;pf^*Vl»»««n4.tta».«rffc«> nc»w«*.Kide*rKrsBA-*brpi*1kK|mbnolrt*l>vf<kVMlo **«*>••-,£[•* f>7>.*tanr1*• jrp*

Long-Term Care CostsPose a Threat to Seniors

:Anthony J.Enea

FfaearlawS«> pOHf »nr tSi •»!*!

r;« '••«• IK* co-at <• Vnymn WdtfaMEy

t«.,. i-i- miie Lfio«.l«Ji**l>lf p*i )**> lo* 71 T .>••. •' Imii

.»t* MhlxmuSy cv«ty tmhir b-I( ndncll<ct<ll fin*inUhMl«.?'.|ll--STi->»«f nil** •tr-tflfOAl LVi'tBUm.-'lv. HHfi-a-i *uri*.»itiiii> wJHWrj' UrOKWd »Ih* r>x»

•uplT'Vril MirfclvrfHf iJ<*>- WilFl:«.'W«. «^ rln'-l.Tf*

ThrV|ln|ifitf|>kVl'ltt»«l

r>tu t«d HeaahMj leMeyftJ

MdfclHl -.-'!•> iv1il(.l- •lllSar||MI||ll

Endeavors Promote Professional Development, Sense ofCommunity

S^btUntit* D»..Up-*-!!

SkUI MfiJr. It UHgatim*:Ihit IWui r« Hbrlm'tW

rptrrTarts.VnwMHranilCort*- «>snnin( rm,ori->4 k* >;«*•>«>• «•"• l«t-A-»Tl-t*i(h-kluliuul1 t»n>atimLawViiknl<«irTt »mr%e*»yw***i•«>mi*f#«ti*» ni'.li* Uw Sarlal n»*Ji* anil

|*<<r>»«ul.|n>b.|KT.mlll>tiAil'i |Tmil.*T«t(t«*«t'J"1i*l«»Srrrn.t • dUrOVUVSrWI(r*(UI*Jli>|-* •eUtJirHS, l»|(-r...|<li(If. an.I U-rttn«lnW**nWlTiA.ic»*il*Jl; «lf»M«tJ.m.M«nm*f ii--rtlt>(lr.l-aA.-lv.nv «».#*> r"»s«-"• 1"'-'*•'* "!"1' SI"*"-J.TS*y«iab-l*tf>**Nil

^fil-o-^f^CHwrvrry »»*•ISylmlpijm ymwiea -i«**»i*i

k Icrqurnll) liislapnîti <

panftMUto it*** about ffliBACi—•It**on C«*"*< a-«fx-V«>->k>!vV*<VJnatOMTKin- L*»alFikacMsnlodktbnat [tm*. nsrprarnltialtudtmnK*(><*:»•.'*.*• car-.i .-. .'.[-..it i.-n. Ii-'T» ar.l lor Noi » 'ii.'iri l'»

• pU-

"mm.*-"-rm; \ i- .i r*«wMlic»H"*»of*>Jbyrh*TfMJ

itt.il Uw »-i11* p>aM.I'.l a> n**l(i**«tK*(al»..ni*(«"iU"»<ilI'yJ ll>aIan 11 pturrntinv. Hi* TtWl l>WV«r«S«tton| I'-* l**oSV»'J*>#h.l. I<Îf

l«fl>"«*r*->alcrnr*"r«V* l*n J» If*m«-(

* .••.' t«*»ois»lly «•••- a*«..

,y.*.i,C..i<*—"«aWW Tl»t-l*AAV* llWaWel.-tfJi-hl«aHo.||

ma .fa(.v~:.-.-,..

Updating N.Y. Trust Laws: Much Work Remains

i». >4»rhHmrl w fh. I *i»u.*-.III. NHtf< f. POT) »**n.linirl,ilrdtl..( MM I. 'jCliUf in .im f * |w«

rdCanmBt..Cimit Tn*u»l*JVs*ral Tswn tu*ir 1. N (.t.iri-f ;j|; M- (>-.»R>pr»t w*. u*Uwf- nari>ibv*»dllrk(an.a. TVf*l- .»airr»t«*UM-» Sul-.*rar*I-

>f(*t'* (*a* R'rMii an appfotrd. »HStrtiX Tfv«l** •**• imuim.. by llf ti«»

*Wfft

...ii. ,.•.[«.iiT.i n-*H

Ij. fm"» »rli^-«»rlh>-̂ .1Hal** *•

k* rortfy%^ Ih* Uw «i lfM»Ii

im-i (tlCAi. would*,

any l*fwi»fv* **thin

•npo*l*« dMHkvi •• KYirrC-LftHUirve Art*v

.it. eary <><"*(wnciAG) *«•*».

eMtvMm-lcrMfV naXcry. w*»f« n.f«talmill" ItiMi-j Ituali *-4FiI*>r*t«>fcn.-i »*.•••*!*<! <nHKat*pI*>t4**>

m»**- naptapandrmtrmff

iN\tT<V

ifrrfintComrnHUrd

• Sank k. ,...f

*t»*n»v«Uwd -îCPTl

Federal Agencies Extend Their Reach

ir-

\si si

r>;L..ttr «• t of Li'-*— I'- |i«»-

•^Jl-cJiy-«-t

V nh t.irntap.!"

Ify p.'•".! lo *nriJ •—' . p.*Vit r«fiH*ry." a* part aUy •***!* IS* l-cr"" pmb t«

anpaet-rd rw luuh a*>Jrtrat*- ol B* 7DIZJ0tf> 5tfal*«)( f

!•.«< Mm-. It.'wutkjdar.'. *lH--i |J»II *Ilat«-it*J-»I^l^.i|f.*lm 1*1-* R>lafHm<

H^K-*tAlAe*T— JloaWrt

-•pulatkmi hy irttnc la-miu-M nophiym Inrnâfrtnebna m |MmI>4*n»K*»t*d aeoVay Ixm—« ««*l**/ fr-W all

• p*o**rt*d ralefory uaalr* l*alwrMari«unfarirv*m>fipbS> e>; Ihrrawhn lo pl*»

t...ll.i.,:• ^ |-.!i. I. . a u<

.r..l . - . I •.-

Assisting Students and Seasoned Lawyers Alike

ZadiaryJ.AMIaf ***lVWi ha-fait rr*>>t*r Mifloo lp>akilnna»ni!~rtl*;i*i IM*r**U ol frrry Uayd

U- «nJ •*" * *uf«J le«*l *Juv*

piKlkc whit they ijkiH Ihtr*.warxt'iiiytiis. withoot trtew

It if..iiM*. m* Many ol II.*.*

.an ) , • • •

•ceabmMd <>u'

1. M.ny

tceM «ij

•n*n>S**« •o«rBll ej«***** andanVk* ias * l»*r>£n rwaltirty psM-lf». MCffdll C»rd »*lll*iT>.i.i.

cult. f*tl*ctlrj *« appfal.'.•1 J'llKI Wllh Iff»*.«»*>!*

ib)*Cl poipc>urtlliWhii<»e*th<C-f»-

e ** eeit h •• It lawy**• in New V

*th». w. nop*F'l •-!.'••< 1J.

• arti^N-vsav.«MiMMJ 'ml. Ill* On*t*l ftartl** frofn th*

tk.n »l m-SBA h.. a Uir*

<••.-.-.

nc*.T><r»»|h .-* CLE

»»»«ilH.ti>n I rttsp*' i*v^*at ri. »i i I 1

Section Focuses on

Interns and Mentors

DavidS. Rothenberg

C^'po>*t*CdVl*ll«Tion

[«>,t>j:> <«!•.* i-<»>r;î„W la*t

v.,-.

Aid***IK*Ufa! Comnsur-ty

[.'..••.. .1 • i , -..r •.• ,.• ,• •

" aelr <...wn-.-f*»iN "i*r>.Jy

r. h*t placrd o

• pfiivld*. Ihuuchtiul

>o*t Sine Rat aete*I pfopuial lo ii'iir.J

o» D.-1+.r-f..rtin p*Hi MMiairr S-«>*i »t

RNRA, NYSTtC and nin*y ir*hm*><y ronilBowr. lor SMtaTM. *- would di!n.i.i;y|l.m-l«t.-nli, i,,.l,. ).,(,( Irim nipi-.il. ini.|.«(ii,cr.^Mi-i

tulnlaUon F.'i*.m Comnany ul l*ad*rihl[t lo How

CMpwat* CMMkhlSculM NVS o*-.<.*

Panels Will Address

Financial Crisis, Reform

edl>*r-illii.f^«-

A l BJ AAnuai W.-Tm* ui L'--

rwmat and In—J U<kU** Vo

(!)h*lpldi<ui». WTh.i*p.ri«,i

liv*n*>V*l* iri* (nnrwn Unit*

<«ir ' ?-,!*.*.-»tl!OnVlfM"l.

I Krt%iM.C*»lhy.rhT**\(.iirtJ

t>>r«*<rrnl (w«»< Cvnrti a*-11»ilun;*i in th* rpfilMoiy *n.

I>*r*w*iml IV'♦*■--•-R. N*,rVi atWlo Amtki w* tuttw tow ^

the ItcMcU and itr ,ir;.. rtiokei

and how |o Wlltlt th**cdh(*e*l

t lopM* to S*

•• M*0-«) a. -! C«nr**T.t*l l«S-

am-p.-v^.. t-.rttt

•«0-.K*k

Awa«dli*n«ha«|.

(i.uiwofnti.lv*i*Ui*h*d <*•**..A-5e*B*koB h*. pUs.d I-*)*vl.aair t'.'»—•I'VN'i.o

riartiial *nd MsstmiM Uw—•*•

a l*d*f*l JodC* «n IU S—Jllwtn

Rutlncii and Scsumiei Fiiud

»»*t*af»«..rj)h« ik-^-a

Healthcare Reform Takes Center Stage in 2013

Taking You Far in Career.. .and Travel

Senior Lawyer Section Serves Multiple Needs

SuunB.Lindenjutr

UgiauWc* th*S«-'M Law- p*,« thai I*ow-.Iandtr; lot• Qttalrj L

•|.jmivn»if fy louf yent ai

NYMU «v mf-r* rrsvali Ih.l nctf *c*<!wtph***,4r-v*r D

pail el SMkaft) I. »*•>-. jft-la- The HrtaMl'l pfo.-famt ai

.*lrj[.*t *i^l^»ail.,!*,li,it** .hv.I t<ta;>p*al l<ilL*dnrrhf r*rmli*ttlup la th* Snalu* UI*t**I» <4UJt t uhort th,

LippmantimrnVov^.-.fî

i thruvfch It* A(c liicrtra-

(**• thai *t*d a*-r*t*t*d *****!*.l.-yi-rtn-f iftrr".-f. *>a,kS-

dbytkw*t**ridurtu(Ihii •**"« of pratm fr* *3 wtw. *-%Au. -I W—I*ji Tbrbna ..V--Arl.iunlSr-v.fk', Iwi'*.nuft>>n fT.iu.ii f lof You .r**w your part* l;.at>«

**ol pm*i* actom*y* Th* w'to***::<•*-•***la—.*..I--fial* B*th*year* fu*ow**i«It*** nrw iw-t.uf...» in-mol [•»•*.* rjv*Fi*trtor*,»a»d04trtal ^lUMjJfir, rSMt9M tofcfftl rr./arrw<^;Urron ctJInTrf. wok** loyrfhrr.th* fualn to

.*prowW* ft* Tata- Fun* data 1*1th* pro '. .. . ...•.-- of .-.-.. r. t -T .',.'.... • lur*ak»ij*l (Ukh-amri lo* Nrw York'* atlmnryt .an I- lj •it it.- l.h-„|ol rqua] fi.-i. «•a rrafery

I'-f M..w..fJ*,i|»,T**. F.*..

f. ./and loi>i«f I ih. I»pea Ikhr»naartr*a*ui4rratrir. •-

raS"--"**-!*.-! i..iTealaffs»»|i».fN»lrtt.*itl

_™ wYockn.bi*io «,t,.)irir-iH hy ft,- |a Ml 6 I vuMityt.(* .'rpffO. lhal 11411.I |*.t l-aso W.4k and

.tYvlxtCmVux. I mil COM

Arbitration: Factors

To Consider

p k--t.i« rtaqe* K*r«a*-ttHt>

d*p*nd. " Li. '(I la th- lnl»r-

abanj rowtarw* ai—it n**- wto

Cr>r*«*ab4ityIru«tp>AII

tneama'It! J.!,.

A**--w*i Ih* artatiafi*

by rbt l>*fit.

•i awaidt It b«-3irfpn^-fly fc-.-iw.il £

'IV"i'ii- ;'i<-r.j.t'

i- •- . .•.----•!

Oth*' l*v (•ntldtrtTlafn.

ailreeleMS >>•(«**gaj».

«-*idi r*-«*altyr «ph*lil by co-ji

• Blrfat-BM Liti«*fh*i

• itfly arid Irotphyapp. all. ("i*an br fruttt atli:( lot a |<>*t(itf

.al Tart th* . -mr-its- dKr-JW.I•. fro**al. «tv*.al.V I.. U-

r>*v»tO*tut fip-Mnl pmc***L

GMU i*iu:tmili

il i-rucf*dm«*iiffd Waf.au rV

alllK>l|h |i

f«-.«*•*•«* fll>

(•ncluil

y piu-rnti-d

thii **n*iilly li

.artin. pi....il.ii lot drp.itt-

Mil COMI bt|>1C»>nl

Peters ,llhrp*.i™-MU«-IU

1 aSxrt tfilwrnalanal *

Studw*Uww thai rh*laat-tra!

UK*, and hope thai yow win1 r* w. Mff*Wt| t» Utatf at***

1' thane* and "ri.»«i publ.c

,.,.....,

Prudenti

(l*H>-!t*Lii*-w**ia

•'".iiu.1 loIti* bat. r^nAmtne

to frssc* anj *uf luJWWy"*

»ii....i.i.tt..

"•"W '"*JY

iralUm ar>o*d.» lo |4«1drItl» TtJfd O-fafto. 1.1 aod IS*

iu.ik-*oiih*Ai"-*.f*urit»o11Third D*t**|tm*iit. I am p*r>u>l

rrtatwjry aUtuuati ih* iMUHUyl

»«ty rVtrrt* Ih* l**al p*i->»-

... d*.a.tat..l by Sup*,-• I rtui Saody •>-.. court Utkly|w>w^*t*d and p*M bajrlbm

6 donalir-l •*n*rouily1court •;---< " C**"*

dlfcpartrw—iha.l-*nCav »dd«wi*i*Dy. tlud** *V— It-an nwo.Hi** tataw ba W,, »*».,

HMt (il rmr-lBJ • . *r.j.a _'• ' *'ob.li,kila<ini:ntin..im*.<l

**iw*ilp.<)uial-wi,

(CitcMnsiudiclal

r.'--fyv,-rtl..'«Wt-

*ii tr-ViS-r^ tart .*t prmutrffj-nmW dn**TU)yIlull tartal and

Omdrf dhmnUy. In a VH2

* detpartry »• SOM.wM*ww- a;n*mm*«r*y 375it ol th* *>fwfal popula-

.[..-ijr-t-^-'.t •

Eng'.' - A ruchatt •-,*•• 1.. Li

*tfanatrd thai ih* ot*>*l,

|iiM.Sa*Hi.th*h*/ai<JtlH

- H-- i-rtyt.-nailad.fr***orh* attofft*y't mall *Mrr» it

' • :•• a '.,-.'. r, .I l|Mf It .'. -

* l-rf*ntUl lo *ha>ply r.

**. TV trtoMlon ol <Ktp*j|r1Ihf-Vt It-- tiaV id Uw ur ,!y •«•

lltrTrardDrpartasnal ••-trru'y

Cam 1 Ih* Sia-roaar« • >\*rt *ajf

.... I

attfalantulriafjrtts-ia'tliri it.'a itv*'t|J.m* of urrnlaf il*W*.a .'-.»t.,. 1 omTMtirr a lar, •••!.

.ndalfrtîckial.™..^r-fiiieimi jkMnpm'.. t ;,«ii . -i^fr.! tn th* i.-'. ••:

. ... •--.-.

- - '•<:.' .-••••• \.\-

|."."r',tVil."i tatSo•tutfifdcspaji M.f pari Il«<i*and ilf.-fr..» ji- «i:LIftilyIntjifitnf

.1- l-a-tr .'!Vt wi*m.*»et a

.HiiUfirly tt> will I- r.Mrw

V^-rtl.*m SuhIv i-4 >*dy harl

i.«*11*»nuVat-l.-.-*vfc«|«.âV

iiattrqum'.ryiaMlunVtafyfpn

I*T**rl w* hat- •».%-«*d

II l*e*J •***»•» ptovkSfti

il It ffi-a'ttl. Ry

rJiiaoaSiJar* u>« iiprf al

itotl i MT*"f*( dayt

M0lthmaat|• *tur*»*auf I

p*u>*iTtw yr-*f alw-ad may tx(hallrnflCrl. b«t by wofkl&llotf^fl^f adr-1-^.^lV.p

tnd***L ua*l*r .-'.••.« pap***nalfUnliul r ..(i--- -a*dal any taw. day c* >a-rj. i^t<ai i<tr.wl a>f*n*y HlWwii.y

ff*i**rl by r-rmiti iy t* Jdpt*

.-.(-a -s..' at V. > -11... Jt 1.

owKfart npataVtlu

rh hwlpfl.

• .i-c;.-!.; .-

lfra*arat>

•fcuniy inNYSCIf

rli'ltV.wl.icbi.. Onward and Up»*'<

I -*.'«^ bc-an a* a ( ••- * pro.

kln...l.-

rlîiiniaeftiiBiweaSi•..t.O .

optaa*">d*upMI- partklpaluai wm o" up-m *ubt*ijjcii j- Bn*.t Court* *f!n thai dat«

l-tl*tr t;t *a«. ll*tr art itwr.» ». 1.1 1.' I U. k "if r.;. ' •' •>• I Of

nil** pfu*»l* Ibaf atrofra-y» 1*K>>>i*n>i Ird asd»*>tat> n*r

|*.af«tn A^**-i"wiHr.ti-iTy

*o«itI appro**! a

In; non-tMrtft r><

Enea

nrSi t« r**id* n tl* ho*»* 1.

rmall>4r«>**rl«flWap-o.

I '. • *H it.-.—-.--.' to ;« . . i

^cwsrJwtr-lV-lWrr inihu.Vfai.tor of 11

w Ifirtl ininpi*i and !i*vj»-i.tly i li*'.(-*i*tl' i-l Hij N*>l«aUi|t llirfc- fi-^llHktn*

plaarja**Kial*f>ra uO- .41** th** lix-*?•*••* ~r.a« a*vi»-«ivT*i purtun] rdtn 1nrt pmtWf*** our -**-rJ*i.

tawwlla- lis* y*-« Ih* er-tt ,4 lona4*m .WH-r*Vi*l1al t*-—1

publK b* conviarnly r;-.-.'•.,..,[.-.!

k p*n.mldo rw *wl* ti

th* Income frrvrtalrd br Ih* at w*3 at |ajnlia>)> l̂unfJn

l«*-'il to >han«* li

THE

VERDICTSEARCHSOLUTION

Case-Winning Intelligence oni tfePhoneandinPrint

V V E K.,.

THE BEST JOBS ON THE BIGGEST LEGALNETWORK lawjobs.com

Ii| TUESDAY. JANUARY 22. 2013 I NYSBA Annu.lMeeting

Gonzalez

Second, legislative approvalIsnalonsjefnqulredlo expandth« programand IhecourlsystemIsauthorizedloprotnulgitanils* permitting voluntary e-fil.lug In atttlillon.il counties. andInr IJCl.lS soft

Finally, (he 2009 retaliationAuihon/rs mandatory c-fiinn;in certain jurisdictions and Incertain type* «>( cases, li it myhope ih.it during my tenure a*presiding justice ol (lie Apod*late fMlslon. First IVporlment.wcwillserve as Ihe first ip|ltt>late court to adopt (he NewYork Suie Courts Electronicnitng System fNYSCEF) as astandard method olflltngandserving documents here al 27Madison Ave

In 1999,the flrsl year whenNew York stale e-llllng wasMdhurturAl.no cueswen filedrln ironically.1 As o| last year.alter Ihestsle legislaturesjr..dually expanded author Izallon lorthe use ol e-lllmg. lltON than.i <C 000 cases have, been Medelectronically, and there Wenmore than 23.000 users ofIheNYSCEFsystem According toIhe Slate Bar Aswictatkin. practitioners have found r-i ling!•• Ihilepnidatile-iidciricUnt SomenMhe heneflls lUghllghted byNYSBA'arras follows:

Simplifying Filing Dratl-H/irr; With e-fihiig. attorneysno longer have hi race to aclerk's ojfice Ult.re five ncl.**.

on the date a document Is tide.

Scudderlists New York also uses several

measures alined al reducing theburden at jury service, such asautouuticpnst|».»ieuient\. shortterms ol service, and higher paylor Jurors.NewYorkfurore'dairypay ol $10 Is among the highestIn Ihe country.

llie lower than expected \xrt-cent age. of African-Americanson |ury pools was attributed tollie high IMitwesjxiit.selates toqualification (|U»tluruudr*a AditpniiMirtiinutely large numbero( rpieslkxinatrrft mailrsl to arraswiih high minority populationseither Ikidrh) response, or werereturned as imiWrverahiV.

Creating a Remedy

The kluily hlrnliflrd Utilesth.it contributed to the under-

representation of African-Americans In the Jurypool, The nextstep was to craft a meaningfulsolution. Seventh Judicial Dis-tllct Admlnlstt.ilive Jutlge I'raigl>oi ,\\\ lixik the lead by convening a meeting ol interested par-ties totltecuvs howfflOte AfrKareAinet leans could lie encouraged

In seive on |urlev Invited guest*Included lodges, memlx-rs trf Ihejury board, members ol localbar associalluus. and leaders

of the Alrican-Amerlcan com

munity, including state ami localOffice holders and members t*the faithcommunity.City("ourt

instead, they can file ihe sul-nns-stun Irnm their ftlftcvcomputer.Iioui home, ur from any remotelocation wlih Internet access.

/tu/om«(/r Service: 11filingelfects service, allornrys willIwve no liasU lor a dispute overwin-Chertltey received a copy ita given document

Vnlvertal Ontlnr sierras;Digital storage ol electronicdocuments would provide Migants. llie «mirts. and tliepuhlMIhe benefit 0| access to courtp.i|H-rs anytline. Iroin .uiy computer. Increasing transparencyIn our ludictal system

ExtrntiirCoitSavings: WithIhe elimination of the costs olpurchaslu>! paper, printing .nutcopying, storing and disposingol documents, service by mail.overnight delivery and messenger costs, the estimated savin,;*(•ire.*, h oAled document rang-**IromMOlo 195.Moreover; ChWJudge Juualhan Lippman esll-matesthat if e-llliug Is Imple-mentrd throughout Ihe stale.It Is estimated that we can save

"hundreds of millions of dollarseach year"

Environmental Concemi:r-dluu; would not only reducethe amount of paper we use. IIwould also eliminate Ihe need

to Iransporl thai paper to ihecourt and to litigants aroundIhe globe

Increaned Security; Ourformer chief administrative

bulge has described, In detail.NYSCEF*comprehensive technological Infrastructure, whichpresently provides security forall e-hled documents 'that is

Supervising Judge Teresa Jolui-son. City Court Judge StephenMillerand Monme County Commissioner ol Jurors Charles Per-reaud were among those whoparticipated

The group com hided thatthe best strategy for Improvingthe diversity of jury pools wasa community outreach cam-|Mlgn combined with Increasedenforcement effort*. The outreach campaign, called "JuryService Mikes a Difference." Isa local version ol the New Yorkslate's "Now It's Your Turn"

campaign. Both campaigns arcaimed at Improving |ury poolrepresentat rveiiess.

The local campaign lealiiiesa poster with plvolograph* ol 12Afr lean-Airier leans In*nMonn>e

County who have served on apiry. The caption reads. *\Veserved." I'osters are displayedat the Department of MoturVehicles, the County Clerk'sOlflce. libraries, churches, re

creation centers and business

es Jurm volunteer qualificationquestionnaires ale available atthose locations. The planninggroup also established a speakers bureau (iocs! speakers havenutIe|>resrntatioiisthrougliout

ununily. generating aidler id favorable nedl..

reports

I'erreaud Is impressed withthe results. "The outreach e(fori lias gone places I neverWOUld have predicted WebaVediNtnbut.-dm.*etluiiH5«Ki4-

unteer qualificationquestion*

far greater than that whichexists (or documents In paperform."' Document* uploaded InNYSOEFare encrypted, backedup and preserved on multiplecomputer servers In separatelocationsin the state, ensuringpreservation of all documentsIn the event ol a natural disas

ter or a computer malfunction. Additionally. NYSCEFfeatures protections againsthackers ami viruses. Includingadvanced encryption, leal timesystem monitor Inn. and oo-slleserver maintenance.1

Presenlly.onr COUrtrequiresany party iMrilecllrik!or answering an appeal to file one text-searchable portable documentformat (VDV)copy of the document via email (see 22 NYCRR$6ixi 11) Conversion to NYSCEFis our goal, but we are sllll Inthe early planningstages. Ilooklorward to implementing thecommunications technologyNYSCEFoilers, which will certainly Improve the quality andefficiency ol practice In OUI

J.I Mttal HHftf,

r Print!*** !>•» t.-.t [i.i,.;i~

irw ).«k UtJft (Virfi'Vt.ltn/ At tin Ia-

1*..,•'.Vila-OMki'Xir Uuintf In ||„ !

mires at more than 70 locations

throughout the community Ithas proven to be extremelyeffective In connecting withthe community Residents frompreviously under-representedzip codes are completing questionnaires."

The planning group alsodecided to utilize enforcement

proceedings available underJudiciary l-iw $527.Prospective jurors who (ail to respond tolour quJificalVin questionnairesare sianmoned to appear bHorra compliance part presidedover by Judge Doran. who liasimi-i»edfui*-..is.\U..*nlby*t.t!.lite.Tlie goaltilthe enforcementproceedings, however. Is notto punish iwople by imposingpenalties for failing to respond.Instead, the effort Is designedto underscore that Jury serviceis ltotli a civic duty and a legalobligation.

Tlie jury study served as theloundatlon for the efforts ol Iheplanning group to imjirovc thediversity o| jury pool* In Monroe County Iry providing reliabledata about the demographicmakeup ol jury pools. Armedwith lhal data, the planninggroupdesigned and Impleinent-ed strategies lo helpensure lhallitigants are tried before a juryselected at random from a fair

cross-sec Hon of iheunniuuuily

1 hay Kr;*r*nJalltTfin*' A |kr-i.—fratJa. M.aly>4 k*f"i (.***!> •«**

ORDER NOW RECEIVE 2010/2011 SUPPLEMENT FREE!

Do you have abusiness litigation matter

in New Jersey?

New

• Director anil

Officer Liability• Uniform

Fraudulent

• Partnership Transfer Act

JerseyBusiness

Liability •Tho Federal Trade

• OppressedMinority

Commission Act

• LanhamAct:

Liu'galion Shareholders Unfair

• Rule 10b-5 and CompetitionSection 10(b) of • PrivacyTortsthe Securities • Franchise

Exchange Act Litigation• Antitrust • Computer• Restrictive Litigation

Convenants • Lender Liability•RICO

•Tortious

•Arbitration

• Employment"Since iKpublication, Intorferenco Law LitigationIhis book has been the •Business Fraud • Limited Liability

go lii resource for •Consumer Fraud Companiescommercial litigation

in New Jersey." Second Edition, hardcover,626pages.with 2010/2011 supplement S169.95

Slcven M. Richman /'.in/ A. Rome, rJmi'roi n o/Crirnlviiiiir, Kowc,Dujcio Morris. UP Smith 0 Dmis, LLP.m Achairofih

Nrw/tntjUwytrMatnmi Lilig.ilicu Dqwtmcnt.

To order:

phone: 973-854-2945online: lawcatalog.com/njbuslit AnALM Publication

Mmi .limit}! iCam .ilminial

EXHIBIT D

NEW YORK STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM

the Stateof the

UDICIARY

2013

ê Done'

JONATHAN LIPPMANCHIEF JUDGE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

the State ofthe Judiciary 2 013

Fiatfustitia, Ruat Caelum"Let Justice Be Done, Though the Heavens Fall"

JONATHAN LIPPMAN

CHIEF JUDGE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Court of Appeals Hall • Albany, New York

february 5, 2013

JONATHAN LIPPMAN

CHIEFJUDGE OF THE STATE OF NEWYORK • CHIEFJUDGEOF THECOURTOF APPEALS

A. GAIL PRUDENTI

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE OF THE COURTS

ASSOCIATE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

VICTORIA A. GRAFFEO

SUSAN PHILLIPS READ

ROBERT S. SMITH

EUGENE F. PIGOTT, JR.

PRESIDING JUSTICES OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION'

LUIS A. GONZALEZFIRST DEPARTMENT

RANDALL T. ENGSECOND DEPARTMENT

KAREN K. PETERSTHIRD DEPARTMENT

HENRY J. SCUDDERFOURTH DEPARTMENT

* The ChiefJudge of the State and the PresidingJustices constitutethe Administrative Board of the Courts.

STATE OF THE JUDICIARY 2013 • Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

I. BAIL INITIATIVE: Ensuring a Rational Approach to Pre-TrialJustice ... 3

II. WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS: Preventing the Ultimate Injustice 7

III. JUVENILE JUSTICE: Establishing anAge-Appropriate Response. 9

IV. CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES: Fostering a Culture ofService 12

V. MORTGAGE FORECLOSURES: Promoting Fairness andIntegrityin the Process 15

VI. COMMERCIAL DIVISION: Renewing a Commitment toExcellence . . 17

VII. CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM: Enhancing Transparency andAccess 18

CONCLUSION 20

TABLE OF CONTENTS III

IV.

CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES:

Fostering a Culture ofService

TURNING NOW TO CIVIL JUSTICE, so many have worked tirelessly towards mak

ingthe ideal of equal justice a reality in New York. The recent report issued by the

Task Force to Expand Access to Civil Legal Services in New York once again brought

to light theenormity of the unmet need for civil legal services in our state. Theiranalysis

also revealed, however, that individual lawyers aredoing their part and that bar associ

ations across our state have beenworking diligently to help deliver pro bono assistance

to low-income NewYorkers. A newAmerican BarAssociation survey indicates that in

2012, almost three-quarters of New York attorneys performed at least some pro bono

work, with the average attorney completing 66 pro bono hours last year. While these

trends arecertainly in the rightdirection, they unfortunately are not keeping pace with

thegrowing need of theunrepresented poor, which has been compounded byeconomic

uncertainty and the recent devastation of Superstorm Sandy. The gap in legal access

has been widened further by thesignificant reductions in funding for the federal LegalServices Corporation and in the revenues of the Interest on Lawyer Account Fund(IOLA). The netresult is that literally millions oflitigants each year are left to confront

critical legal problems without thehelp ofa lawyer.With this enormous need in mind, we are taking action on many fronts. TheJu

diciary's budget submission for the upcoming fiscal year incorporates the Task Force'srecommendation for an increase in the currentallocation for civil legal services to assist

low-income New Yorkers in cases involving basic human needs. And on Law Day lastyear, I announced a new 50-hour pro bono service requirement for admission to theNew York State Bar — the first of itskind in the nation. This boldstepserves the dual

purpose ofhelping to meet the growing civil legal needs oflow income populationswhile allowing prospective attorneys to build valuable skills and embrace our professionscore value ofservice to others. It isabsolutely vital that thenew generations of lawyersin our state are committed to doing their part to meet the justice needs of all New

Yorkers.

Since the requirement went into effect, law students from around the country,and indeed around the world, have answered the call and embarked on a wide variety

12 STATE OF THE JUDICIARY 2013 • Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman

oflaw-related projects to simultaneously fill their requirements and the justice gap. Iwant to thank my colleague, the Hon. Victoria A. GrafFeo, and Alan Levine, Esq. andthe Advisory Committee they chaired for their invaluable assistance in developing ournewpro bono rule. As we continue to implement this new rule, I am truly delighted tohave the distinguished former Dean ofTouro Law Center on Long Island, LawrenceRaful, leading our efforts. I have every confidence that New York's pro bono bar admission requirementwill soon become a model for states across the nation.

To address the unmet need for civil legal services more effectively, we must promote the importance otpro bono work not only in the menand women who enterour

profession as lawyers each year, but also inourcurrent practitioners, as theTask Forcerecognized in its recent report. The legal profession in our stateselflessly provides mil

lions of hours ofpro bono work to help people of limited means, and I do not intend

to mandate that all NewYork attorneys perform pro bono work— a better course is to

adopt the Task Force's recommendation to amend the Rules of Professional Conduct

to increase the aspirational goal for pro bono service per attorney from 20 to 50 hours

annually. This change not only will help narrow the justice gap, but also will further

our efforts to foster a culture of service in all members of our profession. I am pleased

to announce today that the Administrative Board of the Courts, our policy-making

body, has approved this newamendment.

To provide admitted attorneys with further encouragement to participate in pro

bono work, the Administrative Board has also approved theTask Force's recommenda

tion to require attorneys to report the number ofpro bono hours they performed and

the amount ofmonetary contributions they made to legal services providers as partoftheir biennial attorney registration process. In taking this step, New York joins seven

otherstates that have instituted pro bono reporting requirements to promote and en

courage pro bono participation. These states have seen significant increases in thenumber of volunteer pro bono hours contributed by lawyers since instituting mandatoryreporting. The reporting requirement will also enable us to identify and honor thoseattorneys whose dedication topro bono service goes above and beyond theaspirationalgoal. We greatly look forward to celebrating their achievements andto welcoming thepositive impactof this new requirement in our state.

We arecommitted to exploring all possible avenues to expand access to justice in

ourstate. Thisincludes theTask Force's proposal to examine the role that appropriately

trained and regulated non-lawyer advocates can play inproviding out-of-court assistanceindiscrete areas such ashousing, consumer credit andforeclosures. I am today appoint-

CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES 13

inga Committee, headed by Roger Maldonado, of the law firm Balber Pickard Mal-

donado and the Chair ofthe New York City Bar Association's Council onJudicial Administration, and Fern Schair, Chair ofthe Feerick Center for Social Justice at FordhamLaw School, to develop a pilot program in New York thatwill allow those who cannotafford an attorney to receive low-cost guidance in simpler legal matters by qualifiednon-lawyers.

Iwant to thank theTask Force to Expand Access toCivil Legal Services, itsterrificChair, Helaine M. Barnett, and all the members ofits pro bono working group for theirdedicated efforts to find innovative ways to increase pro bono assistance and help fillthegap between available legal services andthe rising needs of low income New Yorkers.

Since 2010, theTask Force's work has been extraordinary, andI amsograteful for theirdedicated study, creative ideas and invaluable insights. TheTask Force's groundbreakingwork makes clear at this critical time more than ever that each and every attorney inthis state has a responsibility to use his or her skills to give real meaning to the phrase"justice for all."

14 STATE OF THE JUDICIARY 2013 • Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman

EXHIBIT E

Pro Bono -N.Y. State Courts Page j of6

COURTS.The Legal Profession - Pro Bono

FAQs - Pro Bono Reporting Requirements - Attorney Registration

Reporting of Voluntary Pro Bono Service & Financial Contributions

WHAT IS THE PRO BONO REPORTING REQUIREMENT?

WHAT TYPES OF PRO BONO SERVICES ARE REPORTABLE?

WHAT FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS ARE REPORTABLE?

WHO MUST REPORT?

WHAT DOES "NO EXPECTATION OF A FEE" MEAN?

These FAQs were amended on June 19, 2013

WHAT IS THE PRO BONO REPORTING REQUIREMENT?

1. What is the new reporting requirement for voluntary pro bono legal services and financialcontributions?

Section 118.1(e)(14) of the Rules of the Chief Administrator (22 NYCRR Part 118) requires that eachattorney registering or re-registering in NewYork report both (1) the number of hours that the registrantvoluntarily spent providing legal services free of charge to poor and underserved clients, and (2) theamount of voluntary financial contributionsthe registrant made to organizations serving the poor andunderserved during the previous biennial registration period.

2. When did this reporting requirement go into effect?

May 1,2013.

3. Does this reporting requirement mandate that I perform pro bono legal services?

No. Pro bono legal service by attorneys admitted in NewYork is completely voluntary. The ruleaddresses onlythe reporting of services voluntarily performed, ifany, as well as any voluntary financialcontributions.

4. Does the reporting requirement mandate that I maintain records of pro bono service andcontributions?

No. While maintenance of such records might be sound business practice, the rule does not require it.

http://www.nycourts.gov/ATTORNEYS/probono/reportingreq-faqs.shtm 5/20/2014

Pro Bono -N.Y. State Courts Page 2ofe

WHAT TYPES OF PRO BONO SERVICES ARE REPORTABLE?

5.What type of pro bono services should be reported under Part 118?

An attorney should report pro bono legal servicesthat comport with the definition set forth in 22 NYCRRPart 1200, Rule 6.1(b), which provides in pertinent part:

(1) professional services rendered in civil matters, and in those criminal matters for which thegovernment is not obliged to provide funds for legal representation, to persons who are financially unableto compensate counsel;

(2)activities related to improving the administration of justice by simplifying the legal process for, orincreasing the availability and quality of legal services to, poor persons; and

(3) professional services to charitable, religious, civic and educational organizations in matters designedpredominantly to address the needs of poor persons.

Further, "pro bono" refers to services undertaken without the expectation of a fee.

6. Who are the "underserved" and the "poor"?

Section 118.1(e)(14) of the Rules of the Chief Administrator mandates reporting of pro bono services "tothe underserved and to the poor." 22 NYCRR § 118.1(e)(14). The Chief Judge's Task Force to ExpandAccess to Civil Legal Services has defined "poor" clients as those living below the federal poverty level,and the "working poor" as those living below 200% of the federal poverty level. See Report to the ChiefJudge of the State of New York (Nov. 2010), p.4. "Underserved" clients are those who, thoughtechnically not "poor," are unable to afford or obtain appropriate legal assistance for demographic,geographic or historical reasons - for example, victims in the aftermath of a hurricane or other natural orman-made disasters; the elderly; disabled veterans; domestic violence victims; persons seeking politicalasylum, and the like.

7.1 perform many hours of pro bono legal services on corporate governance and transactionalmatters for a not-for-profit organization that provides services to the poor, but no legal servicesto the poor. Ialso contribute to that organization. Should I report those services andcontributions under Part 118?

Sincethese types ofservices are described in Rule 6.1(b)(3) ("professional services to a charitable,religious, civic and education organizations in matters designed predominantly to address the needs ofpoorpersons"), pro bono legal services to the not-for-profit organization are reportable.

However, the reporting requirements differ forfinancial contributions and for direct service in thisexample. Because only contributions to organizationsthat provide legal services to the poor arereportable, as described in Rule 6.1(c). contributions to this not-for-profit organization should not bereported.

8.1 do not personally provide legal services to poor and underserved clients or to organizationswhose principal purpose is to provide such services; nor do I personally supervise the provisionof such services. However, other partners and associates of my law firm provide such servicesfar in excess of 50 hours per year, often for work performed during work hours. Should I report aportion of this law firm service contribution under Part 118?

No. The reporting of pro bono legal services under Part 118 addresses only legal services personallyprovided by the attorney to a pro bonoclient or organization described in Rule 6.1(b). Supervision ofwork provided to such clients or organizations maybe included in the report, but services provided byother attorneys in your firm may not be used to satisfy your reporting requirement.

http://www.nycourts.gov/ATTORNEYS/probono/reportingreq-faqs.shtml 5/20/2014

Pro Bono -N.Y. State Courts Page 3of6

9.1 am an uncompensated member ofthe board ofanot-for-profit organization. Should Ireportmy services as a board member?

Whether theservice is reportable depends on the nature oftheorganization:

a. If the organization provides legal services to the poor, service on the board is reportable.

b. If the organization does not provide legal services to the poor but is engaged "in improving theadministration ofjustice by simplifying the legal process for, orincreasing the availability and quality oflegal services to, poor persons" (Rule 6.1(b)(2)), service on the board is reportable.

c. If the organization is notdescribed in (a) or (b) but is a "charitable, religious, civic and educationalorganizations in matters designed predominantly to address the needs of poor persons," service on theboard is not reportable. However, the provision of legal assistance to the organization in the context of aboard membership or otherwise is reportable.

10.1 perform many hours of volunteer work on a bar association committee. Should I report thosehours under Part 118?

This volunteer work is reportable only so long as the committee's activities are directly related to"simplifying the legal process for, or increasing the availability and quality of legal services to, poorpersons" (Rule 6.1(b)(2)). Although serving on a bar association committee performing other functions isa valuable contribution to the legal profession, it is not reportable for purposes of Part 118.

11.1 serve meals to the poor at a local church soup kitchen. Should I report this service underPart 118?

No. Rule 6.1(b)(3) requires reporting only of "professional services" to organizations in matters designedpredominantly to address the needs of the poor. Though laudable, direct non-professional services arenot reportable.

12.1 am employed by a firm or corporation that expects me to perform pro bono legal services forthe poor and underserved as a part of my job, so I am compensated for performing thoseservices. Should I report these services under Part 118?

Yes, those services should be reported, so long as there is no expectation of a fee from the clients.

13.1 performed pro bono legal services outside NewYork State and contributed to organizationslocated outside New York State. May I report such service and contributions?

Yes, as long as the servicesand contributions comport with the requirements set forth in 22 NYCRR Part1200. Rule 6.1(b).

WHAT FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS ARE REPORTABLE?

14. What type of contributions should be reported under Part 118?

An attorney should report contributions that comport with 22 NYCRR Part 1200, Rule6.1(c), which statesthat appropriate organizations for financial contributions are:

(1) organizations primarily engaged in the provision of legalservices to the poor; and

(0\ rtrnaniTatirtnc ciihctantiallw onnanori in tha nrm/icir»n rtf lonal cort/iroc \r\ tho nnnr nrrtwiHort that tho


Pro Bono -N.Y. State Courts Page 4of6

donated funds areto beused for the provision of such legal services.

15. How do Iknow whether an organization to which Icontribute provides legal services to thepoor and underserved?

Registrants are responsible for undertaking an appropriate inquiry to ascertain whether recipientorganizations provide such services.

16.1 am a partner in a firm thatmade financial contributions to a legal services organizationserving the poor during my biennial reporting period. However, Imade no personal contributionsto such organizations. May I report a portion of my firm's contributions under Part 118?

For purpose ofreporting underPart 118, firm contributions may be allocated bythe firm to individualmembers. Ofcourse, such allocations should not exceed the total amount ofcontributions by the firm. Noposition is taken here on whethersuch allocation has tax or other reporting implications. The registeringattorney may report the best and most recent information provided by the law firm in allocating theattorney's contributions.

WHO MUST REPORT?

17.1 am employed full-time by an organization providing legal services to the underserved andpoor. Must I report pro bono service performed or pro bono contributions made outside of myemployment?

Attorneys employed byorganizationsproviding legal services to the underserved and poor are exemptfrom the requirement to report pro bonoservice under Part 118.Accordingly, you may, but need not,report such service and contributions.

The instructions for reporting provide that, ifyou are "employed by an organization primarily orsubstantially engaged in the provision ofpro bono legal services," you may choose not to report financialcontributions or pro bono services bychecking the box marked "Exempt."

18.1 am an attorney employed in the governmental sector. Do Ihaveto report pro bono serviceand contributions?

Yes. Attorneys employed by local, state, county orfederal government ortheir agencies are not exemptfrom the reporting requirement. In registering, government attorneys should check the box marked"GOVERNMENT" on the registration form.

Note also that, in contrast to government service by law students and candidates for baradmission(which isconsidered pro bono service under 22 NYCRR § 520.16(b)(2)), government employment is notreportable pro bono service under Part 118.

19.1 am a registered attorney but presentlydo not generally perform legal servicesprofessionally. Do Istill have to report pro bono service and contributions?

Yes, you are required to do so.

20.1 am listed as "retired" from the practiceof law in the attorney registration database. Must Ireport pro bono service or contributions?

Attorneys who are "retired" from the practice of law under Part 118 (including judges and quasi-judicial


Pro Bono -N.Y. State Courts page 50f 5

under Part118. Accordingly, you may, but need not, report such service and contributions.

The instructions for reporting provide that if you are "retired' from the practice of law as defined in §118.1(g)" you may choose not to report financial contributions or pro bono services bychecking the boxmarked "Exempt."

21. Are attorneys who work outside New York State or outside the United States required toreport contributions and pro bono services?

Yes. Registering and re-registering attorneys are required to report this information, without regard totheir residence or work location.

WHAT DOES "NO EXPECTATION OF A FEE" MEAN?

22.1 commenced an engagement on behalf of a client with the expectation of receivingcompensation, but was later unable to collect my fee. Should I report services to that client underPart 118?

No. Under Part 118, pro bono services are only those provided without expectation of receiving a fee.Here, since there was an expectation of a fee (even though, thereafter, none was actually paid), noservices should be reported.

23.1 have performed legal services on behalf of an impoverished client under a contingency feearrangement. Should I report those services under Part 118?

No, those services should not be reported.

24.1 performed legal services on behalf of an impoverished client, and was subsequentlyawarded attorney's fees as part of a judgment or settlement of the action. Should I report thoseservices under Part 118?

Yes, assuming there was no expectation of being compensated at the time of engagement.

25.1 commenced a legal action with the expectation of receiving payment from my client, but laterexpressly altered the arrangement to provide such services without charge. Should I report thoseservices under Part 118?

Yes, but only for such period as the attorney and client acted with the express understanding that theattorney would receive no compensation for the services.

FOR ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, please email [email protected] and include a contacttelephone number.


Pro Bono - N.Y. State Courts Page 6 of 6

Web pageupdated: June 19,2013
