State Precluded From Spending $100 Million on Civil Legal Needs of Low-Income People
Providing civil legal services to the poor is a wonderful service. But the Judiciary of New York spending $100 million per year of taxpayer money to do so is inappropriate and probably unconstitutional.
January 29, 2018 at 02:46 PM
2 minute read
Maybe Chief Judge DiFiore was correct when she said at the annual New York State Bar meeting that New York is the undisputed national leader in serving the civil legal needs of low-income people. However, having the court system spend $100 million per year on such programs is wrong. Article 7, Section 8 of the State Constitution precludes giving or loaning money of the state in aid of any private corporation or association. Given this restriction, how does the Judiciary justify requesting and spending $100 million per year on Civil Legal Services to Legal Aid Societies and other organizations? In 2016 Legal Services NYC and the Legal Aid Society each received $9,786,789 from the Office of Court Administration.
Even if you do consider paying this money not a violation of Article 7 of the Constitution, Article 6 provides that the legislature shall provide for the allocation of the cost of operating and maintaining New York's courts. It does not allow the court system to enrich organizations that provide civil legal services that are not mandated by law or judicial decision. If any such payments are to be made, it should be a decision of the Legislature, not the court system which was established to run the trial and appellate courts.
Providing civil legal services to the poor, even if not mandated, is a wonderful service. Twenty-five years ago I started a law clinic in Albany County to provide free divorce papers for people who met federal poverty guidelines. I volunteered for years to train law students to aid poor people in Albany County Family Court with the preparation of petitions. Thousands have benefited from those services throughout the years. I was fortunate to have received pro bono awards from, among others, the New York State Bar Association and the New York Law Journal. My commitment to volunteering to provide free civil legal services has never wavered. But the Judiciary of New York spending $100 million per year of taxpayer money is inappropriate and probably unconstitutional.
Michael P. Friedman is the former president
of the Albany County Bar Association.
He practiced law in Albany County for 28 years.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllA Biblical Reconciliation Between Judaism and Islam: A Lesson for Everyone, Everywhere
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250