Pelican was one of the derogatory terms used to describe private lawyers who represented indigent defendants under New York’s 18b law. It comes from their appointment by the Appellate Division (appellate= pelican), New York’s middle appellate court. While clients haven’t always shown respect for their Pelicans, whether because people don’t respect that which comes free as they perceive it to have no value, or because they ended up with one of the losers on the panel, the Pelicans endured.
Facing extinction, the organized private criminal defense bar is faced with the most significant challenge ever presented. Genay Leitman, President of the New York Criminal Bar Association, the Manhattan flavor, has risen to the challenge. She’s held a number of meetings, with a clear focus on her constituency, the private criminal defense bar, and an even clearer understanding of her mission. While the outcome, a resolution by the NYCBA denouncing the RFP and determining the viability of a suit to stop it, may have the scent of camel to it, an unfortunate by-product of the weakness of group decision-making, she’s done a excellent job of herding cats.
At the same time, the Queens County Criminal Bar Association has been collecting $500 per member to launch a suit against the City to stop the RFP, and seeks the involvement and support of the other associations and lawyers across the City.
As a result of these efforts, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers has come aboard, issuing its own statement in support:
While I’m not generally a fan of studies, this is a calculated move to both appeal to the City’s fear of moving forward without adequate recognition of the unintended consequences of its RFP, as well as a way to delay its implementation so that the defense bar has time to marshal its forces to oppose this ill-conceived move. In this instance, it’s the right move and the best move.
Notably, the NYCBA is the New York City affiliate of the NACDL. But what of the state affiliate, the New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers? While everyone else saw their purpose clearly, the NYSACDL was busily squabbling within itself, ever-fearful of offending anyone or taking a stance on anything. While President George Goltzer tried to spin it to the members that he had some material role in Genay’s meetings, the plan was to have yet another discussion at a retreat to be held next weekend. Not that it is on the agenda, but it will be the primary topic of discussion around the bar.
While the rest of the organized private criminal defense bar has mobilized, the NYSACDL still can’t figure out which side it’s on. But at least it will have a getaway weekend to drink about it on the members’ dime, a smart move considering that the members may not have many dimes left if the RFP goes through.
Facing extinction, the organized private criminal defense bar is faced with the most significant challenge ever presented. Genay Leitman, President of the New York Criminal Bar Association, the Manhattan flavor, has risen to the challenge. She’s held a number of meetings, with a clear focus on her constituency, the private criminal defense bar, and an even clearer understanding of her mission. While the outcome, a resolution by the NYCBA denouncing the RFP and determining the viability of a suit to stop it, may have the scent of camel to it, an unfortunate by-product of the weakness of group decision-making, she’s done a excellent job of herding cats.
At the same time, the Queens County Criminal Bar Association has been collecting $500 per member to launch a suit against the City to stop the RFP, and seeks the involvement and support of the other associations and lawyers across the City.
As a result of these efforts, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers has come aboard, issuing its own statement in support:
Criminal Defense Bar Sounds Alarm Concerning Uninformed,
‘Radical’ Changes to New York City’s Indigent Defense System
WASHINGTON, DC (March 1, 2010) – The Mayor’s Office of the Criminal Justice Coordinator for the City of New York issued a request for proposals in February, with a short March 15, 2010, deadline, that contemplates a sudden and severe change abolishing the role of appointed assigned counsel in the City’s indigent defense delivery system. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), through its indigent defense project, is concerned that without adequate study, consultation and public hearings, such a significant disruption in the manner by which indigent defense counsel is provided in the City of New York may contribute to, rather than ameliorate, a system already at the breaking point.
At its quarterly meeting last week, NACDL’s Board of Directors passed a resolution opposing any swift change to the city’s current, balanced indigent defense system and urged studies, consultations, and hearings on any such proposed changes. The board resolution points out that in connection with any proposed change to the current system, it is critical to examine matters such as excessive caseloads, compensation, protection against conflicts of interest, training for lawyers and proper oversight.
“Any significant change to the indigent defense system in the City of New York, particularly one as radical as that now being contemplated by Mayor Bloomberg’s office, should come only after careful study, consultation and hearings,” explained William P. Wolf, a Cook County Assistant Public Defender in Chicago and co-chair of NACDL’s Indigent Defense Committee. “This is about much more than a budget line item in a challenging economic environment. What’s at stake are the well-established constitutional rights of the rapidly growing ranks of poor persons and the unambiguous constitutional responsibility of New York to ensure that indigent persons accused of a crime enjoy their Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. It is critical to acknowledge that increasing defender caseloads will lead to overworked lawyers and increased risk of conviction for the innocent, a cost that society cannot afford.”
Added NACDL President Cynthia Hujar Orr, “Across the nation, we are witnessing a deeply troubling squeeze of constitutional dimensions on already overburdened indigent defense delivery systems. In all their forms, programs everywhere are in a state of crisis with overwhelming demand and unacceptable cuts in resources. Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal to abolish the role of appointed counsel in the City of New York, in what has historically been a dual system that relied on both the private bar and public defender offices, without the benefit of any serious investigation and public discussion, risks degrading further an already overburdened system.”
NACDL, the nation’s largest criminal bar association, urges the City of New York not to change course without a meaningful study of the proposed changes, including substantive consultations and hearings exploring the range of critical issues implicated by the proposal.
While I’m not generally a fan of studies, this is a calculated move to both appeal to the City’s fear of moving forward without adequate recognition of the unintended consequences of its RFP, as well as a way to delay its implementation so that the defense bar has time to marshal its forces to oppose this ill-conceived move. In this instance, it’s the right move and the best move.
Notably, the NYCBA is the New York City affiliate of the NACDL. But what of the state affiliate, the New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers? While everyone else saw their purpose clearly, the NYSACDL was busily squabbling within itself, ever-fearful of offending anyone or taking a stance on anything. While President George Goltzer tried to spin it to the members that he had some material role in Genay’s meetings, the plan was to have yet another discussion at a retreat to be held next weekend. Not that it is on the agenda, but it will be the primary topic of discussion around the bar.
While the rest of the organized private criminal defense bar has mobilized, the NYSACDL still can’t figure out which side it’s on. But at least it will have a getaway weekend to drink about it on the members’ dime, a smart move considering that the members may not have many dimes left if the RFP goes through.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The NYSACDL Board meeting and retreat is this coming weekend. The Mayor’s RFP is on the agenda, will be thoroughly discussed and a NYSACDL position will be formulated. As usual, the NYSACDL volunteer Board members will be attending the meeting and retreat on their own dime. Even bloggers, and especially their audience, could benefit from a modicum of fact checking
That’s an interesting point, Michael. Where would one check the facts on this retreat? It’s my understanding that room and board will be covered by the association. Is there any information available to the members, or bloggers, that spells it out? Not that I’ve seen. I would be happy to check my facts, just as soon as the board decides to try a little more transparency. My bet the members aren’t so child-like that they can’t be trusted with the truth.
And your disingenuous inclusion of the word “volunteer” is duly noted, as if the other association boards and officers who have already moved forward to fulfill their mission are getting rich and fat on the huge salaries they get for serving. Please, Michael, if the burden of being a volunteer is too great, no one is forcing you to do it. But if you chose to be on the board, don’t use the fact that you’re a volunteer to justify yourself. Everyone involved is a volunteer. You’re no different.
One last thing, Michael. I hear you’ve been copying my posts in their entirety to the listserv. Didn’t they teach you anything about copyright infringement in law school? Feel free to disagree with me all you want, and to expose my disloyalty to the Association on the listserv whenever it suits you, but try not to violate the law in the process. It’s unbecoming.
Since you ask, perhaps you could check your facts from the same source that gave you the (incorrect) understanding that room and board are being covered by the Association or that the retreat was last weekend. Or, how about picking up the telephone and making a call or sending an email to the Executive Director or president? That’s the way responsible journalists would do basic fact-checking. But sometimes, I suppose it makes for better blogging to get it wrong rather than to make a slight effort to get it right.
The NYSACDL Board demonstrates that volunteerism by members of the bar is alive and well. Nothing disingenuous about it. It was only mentioned in response to your erroneous and scurrilous misstatement that the Board, while considering the RFP (and other matters) will “drink about it on the members’ dime.” If you’d like to buy us all a drink, we’d welcome it, but otherwise, as usual, we’re all running personal tabs.
As for forwarding emails containing salient excerpts of some of your posts, I guess that you only like preaching to the choir. Duly noted.
Michael, if you’re going to write dumb things, don’t be offended when I point it out. Reread your first paragraph (which includes an erroneous assumption, that I have a source the gave me the incorrect understanding). Can you figure out all by yourself where your logic went missing?
Your second paragraph is pure disinegenuous crap. All the associations are voluntary. You want a medal for being a hero?
And your third paragraph completely missed the content, what you send the “my posts in their entirety” to the listserv, not “salient excepts.” I couldn’t care less if you send excepts, and in fact suggest it, but don’t expect to try to spin your way out of a lie and nobody will notice. I realize that few on the board consider you the sharpest knife, but I never thought that you would lie to get yourself out of a hole.
And the one little detail you’ve neglect despite all your self-serving crap is that the NYSACDL has yet to decide on its position, even thougth the NYCBA, QCCBA and even the NACDL have already acted. Pathetic. No wonder George doesn’t want anyone to talk to me.
Instead of admitting that you were dead wrong about 1. the date of the Board meeting, 2. that the NYSACDL pays for Board member’s expenses, and 3. that you didn’t make a phone call or send an email to get your facts right, you resort to the standard refuge of bullies and demagogues – the ad hominem attack. You try to fashion yourself as a journalist, yet you make no effort to fulfill the most basic tenet of Journalism 101 – accuracy. Instead, you prefer to lob (rather pathetic) insults. I’m content to let your readers judge for themselves where the truth lies.
By the way, what’s your rush for a NYSACDL position in advance of its Board meeting? Is the RFP about to take effect momentarily? Might not debate, thought and reflection be warranted? While you sometimes write first and think later, I would prefer that NYSACDL do it the other way around.
You’re still not getting it. The only thing you are half right about was that in the original post, the one you got by email, I had the meeting last weekend instead of next. My mistake. One of my “sources” corrected me and that was changed immediately, well before your first comment. As for the rest, and I’m going to spell this out for you by typing really slowly, my “sources” are the same as you, only not so pompous and pedantic. Is there some mental block that makes this impossible for you to grasp?
As for “debate, thought and reflection,” that speaks for itself now that the rest of the criminal defense bar has left you in the dust. But if it makes you feel better, that’s nice.
Why do you let this guy go on like this? Just delete this crap.
Are you kidding? This isn’t merely entertaining, but a great opportunity for the members to see what their “leadership” has to say. In fairness, Shapiro’s comments do not reflect the thoughts of much of the board and almost all the past presidents, but he is in the majority.
As a dues paying member of the NYSACDL, I really don’t care about this squabbling over the details of the meeting. As a panel member, I care a great deal about the RFP.
It is outrageous that the NYSACDL has done nothing. This is our practice, and you want to debate? Everyone else gets it just fine, and you want time to think about it?
You have got to be kidding. They are trying to destroy us and Goltzer and Shapiro want to fiddle as Rome burns. That’s what matters.