State Bar Lobbies NY Lawmakers on Proposed Registration Fee Hike, Criminal Discovery
“There is no group on the planet this is more committed to indigent defense,” NYSBA president Michael Miller said. “But to tax lawyers, to have a discriminatory tax that's just lawyers, it's outrageous because this is a state constitutional obligation.”
February 06, 2019 at 02:54 PM
6 minute read
Members of the New York State Bar Association met with state lawmakers this week to lobby against a proposed increase to the two-year attorney registration fee, which Gov. Andrew Cuomo pitched last month as an additional funding source for indigent legal services.
Attorneys with the State Bar were also at the capitol to push other reforms, said president Michael Miller, from changes to the state's laws on criminal discovery to simpler forms designating power of attorney. Miller is a trust and estates attorney from Manhattan.
The two latter issues were already among the priorities of the State Bar, but the proposed registration fee hike came out of left field when Cuomo unveiled his executive budget proposal last month. The plan would increase the biennial fee from $375 to $425, with the extra $50 going directly to fund indigent legal services, or constitutionally mandated legal counsel for low-income defendants.
“There is no group on the planet this is more committed to indigent defense,” Miller said. “But to tax lawyers, to have a discriminatory tax that's just lawyers, it's outrageous because this is a state constitutional obligation.”
A spokesman for Cuomo defended the proposal in a statement Wednesday afternoon.
“Indigent people faced with criminal charges and the potential deprivation of liberty have a right to legal services, and the State is proud to take steps to ensure that legal support and services can be provided,” said Jason Conwall, a Cuomo spokesman.
The Office of Court Administration already requested $25 million from Cuomo and the Legislature for the Indigent Legal Services Fund in their budget this year. The proposed fee increase would generate as much as $7 million in additional revenue annually for that fund, according to the State Bar, but Miller said that would still not be enough to fully fund indigent legal services statewide.
More revenue could have been proposed by increasing fees across the board on licensing and registration for several trades, Miller argued, which he said would have given them less grounds to protest the hike.
“To single out lawyers simply because this is a justice issue—it's unjust, it's not right,” Miller said.
It's been widely acknowledged that more funding could be used to pay for indigent legal services in New York, namely through hiring more attorneys to alleviate the heavy caseloads of current public defenders. If more resources are not gleaned from higher fees on attorneys, that money would have to come from somewhere else if Cuomo and the Legislature want to boost those services.
“Where are they going to find it? That's not my job,” Miller said. “My job is to advocate for them to do what they're supposed to do. Under the constitution, indigent defendants are entitled to counsel provided by the state.”
Miller said about 3,800 attorneys with the State Bar have already sent letters to state lawmakers over the proposed increase, and some have already received responses acknowledging their concerns.
“Our members have been forwarding responses they've gotten from various legislators and so far, consistently, they've said they hear what we're saying,” Miller said. “A lot of the legislators are attorneys, so they understand the argument. It's about fundamental fairness.”
Lawmakers have about seven weeks to negotiate the fee increase out of the state budget if they choose to do so. The spending plan is due at the end of March.
Two other top issues they spoke to lawmakers about this week could be done outside the budget, and it's likely that at least one of them will pass sooner rather than later.
Criminal discovery reform could be taken up by the Legislature as early as next week. A bill on the table would require prosecutors to exchange evidence they intend to use at trial as soon as 15 days after an arraignment. The bill has support from Democrats, who hold the majority in both houses of the Legislature.
Miller said the State Bar has long supported discovery reform, and that they are “very supportive” of the bill, which is sponsored by State Sen. Jamaal Bailey, D-Bronx, and Assemblyman Joseph Lentol, D-Brooklyn.
“New York is close to the bottom of the list in the entire country,” Miller said of the state's laws on discovery. “I work on the civil side, so I really don't have a horse in the race, it's just about justice. In my universe you have full discovery. I know what the other side has and they know what I have.”
Not all attorneys in New York feel the same. The District Attorneys Association of the State of New York has, in recent days, said the deadlines set in the bill wouldn't give them enough time to prepare discovery for the defense. They have also warned that exposing the identities of witnesses and victims that early in a case could lead to witness intimidation and harm future cases where people would be unwilling to testify out of fear of retaliation.
The State Bar also renewed its long-sought push to reform the state's power of attorney form, which it has previously said should be simplified to better help individuals address their needs without jumping through hoops.
“It is unquestionably the most complex power of attorney form in the nation,” Miller said. “It requires initials in a whole bunch of places, sometimes multiple signatures, and if it's not done exactly right, the financial institutions will not accept it.”
Legislation to do so has not yet been introduced this year. The legislative session is scheduled to end June 19.
READ MORE:
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 AllRetired Judge Susan Cacace Elected Westchester DA in Win for Democrats
In Eric Adams Case and Other Corruption Matters, Prosecutors Seem Bent on Pushing Boundaries of Their Already Awesome Power
5 minute readEric Adams Trial Set for April as Defense Urges Dismissal of Bribery Count
Major Drug Companies Agree to Pay $49.1 Million to 50 States, Territories
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Friday Newspaper
- 2Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 3Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 4NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 5A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
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