there is the creation of a pilot program that would be a partnership between the city, the court system, b and systemar. -- and the bar. it would be on a basis of by the private legal community. a quick amendment to my colleagues to insure that as we move forward with a one-year pilot program, we have a plan to evaluate the impact of this program so we can think about if this program has the impact we hope it will have. i will read some amendments i would like the committee to consider adopting after public comment. after commencement, a work plan for evaluation shall be developed and all parties involved in the program will be required to participate in the evaluation. i want to thank the folks that helped us get this through as well as individuals from stanford university and other

academic institutions interested in looking at what the impact would be in san francisco. it further states that the evaluation will be submitted to the board of supervisors within six months of the completion of the pilot program and it would include an analysis of data, the impact of the program on demand for services, considering the need for the program as it relates to access to justice. and it lays the recommendations for maximizing the benefit in the future. i know there are a number of members of the public that wish to speak. speaker cards.%ek"éi will call in numbef individuals. two minutes here? i would like to ask jim, a senior partner at morrison and foerster. he has been a legal giant for his advocacy in his leadership at bart.

>> two minutes is harder than 20 minutes. i am deeply moved by the fact you are considering this bill. if you will be the first city in the united states that has directly addressed, as a municipal matter, the deprivation that the people are experiencing in the courts on a daily basis. i know you are all lawyers, those of us in court see these people like a late-night movie wandering the halls trying to figure out the water -- the order. how can i maintain a relationship with my child, how can i get evidence of spousal abuse? what is admissible? are my papers in good order for the clerk's office? these stories would bring tears to a stone. this statute is not only aspirational, but it is practical.

i think evaluation is crucial. it is a real program and it should be critically evaluated. this statute lives in a moment because i have not seen the bar. not only here in the city, but nationwide. i have not seen them on their hind legs defending the court because of the representation of the courts. it is also historic. why would we dare to even think of doing this? because this is san francisco, and you had tony bennett on the steps. this is a special city, and your predecessors and you have done things. if you do this, you will be the first in the country. it is a pleasure that you will hear from people that will describe the details, cost savings, how the program would work. this is a very exciting program for a lot of people.

president chiu: if i could ask you one question. part of the success of the program has to rest with the private bar. and the extent to which members that up. can you give us a sense -- >> i would be happy to. i don't fear the willingness of the bar when properly approached. we had discussions on how best to do that to increase the amount of pro bono. every lawyer has an obligation to do pro bono. it is not that it is mandatory, but it is in the case law. more practically, there are people you will hear from a moment with the bar and others, i will participate to the extent i can to make this a professional endeavor. when you pass this statute, it will be a message to the legal

profession in the city that those, and there are some, those that don't need to do wit. they will have a small trial in the family court. there are ways to convince them to do with. we need to increase that tremendously. the need is enormous and we have to do it. based on practicing law for 53 years and working on this problem most of the time -- [laughter] the bar always responds. i may have a romanticized view of the lawyers in san francisco, but it is based on fact. they will come and it will be real. president chiu: i would like to and by jen donado. -- invite jen donado. -- jim donado.

>> i am also a former deputy city attorney and it is nice to be back with an older client. [laughter] as we think about the critical first step, it is important to be candid, forthright, and up front on if we can afford this. is this a fiscally responsible road to start traveling down? the answer is, we have really solid evidence that has been prepared over the last couple of years that not only can we afford it, the expenditures that we make to provide civil counsel, it pays back by multiples of five-seven times each. in new york state in 2010 and the great state of texas in 2009, both commissioned independent studies to look at this exact question. what are the fiscal impacts of

paying for civil representation? in both studies, they found that for every dollar spent by the local government entity, $5-$7 was brought back to the community. one is the savings to the local government and the costs avoided in dealing with the disruptions from homelessness, foster care, educational issues, those savings. and federal benefit money brought back to the community. there are tons of folks out there that don't have the lawyers they need to get those benefits paid. no one is advocating that we invest in this because we have a nice return. we are doing it for the reasons that we know our rights. but as you think about it, it is a fiscally responsible thing to do as well. president chiu: i would like to invite the president of the bar

association of san francisco. congratulations on your recent induction as president. >> i am president of the bar association in san francisco. you will hear from many people describing the devastating impact of the lack of representation. i would like to highlight a different aspect of that problem, the way that the funding of the court has exacerbated the problem and the avalanche is costing the entire system more than it can bear. first, the funding crisis.. in the last three years, the budgets have been cut roughly 33% due to realignments and a court security funding. what is meant? for starters, widespread layoffs, furloughs, reduced office hours, the closing of self-help centers, closures of

san francisco -- they fail to answer the most basic questions. 11 of 12 commissioners were laid off last fall. he's extremely skilled professionals primarily handled family law and domestic violence matters. places where it was highly likely that the parties would be unrepresented. unrepresented litigant are experiencing dire consequences. their children, their housing, and their physical safety. you have heard the cost savings, the expense of not spending for this prevention is something that's at the it is cannot bear -- that san francisco cannot bear. that cost is picked up elsewhere. it is picked up in the health-

care system and in the police. i want to assure you that the bar association's stance with you today. [chime] we intend to press our community to stand up for pro bono. what will help us in this incredibly critical moment is for the city to make this part of the public policy. together, we can make this different and we promise you we will join you in this effort. >> thank you, madam president. i am wondering what the bar is doing recently, the various law firms in terms of pushing for pro bono. a lot of firms are already doing pro bono, but is there a specific goal are targets that you have for these firms? is there may be an enhanced --

maybe an enhanced goal you are trying to push forward? >> yes, for many years, we have pushed to the bar to devote 3%- 5% of available hours towards pro bono. just this year, we have a current list of 31 firms that have made that pledge. that is not including all of the other lawyers outside of their firm that have been able to sign up individually. we had a meeting last night of the leadership council that collects a number of the pro bono coordinators' of the major san francisco law firms talking about ways to increase pro bono. the excitement was couple. people want to help, they want to plug in and realize that the community is hurting. supervisor campos: thank you. president chiu: thank you. i would like to invite robert

rubin from the community for civil rights. tyler millin from the defense collaborative? beverly upton from the san francisco domestic violence consortium. >> as the supervisor said, my name is tyler millin. if you're unfamiliar with the edc, we are the agency that assists in 95% plus in responding to lawsuits. it is not true where it says in paragraph 12 that we are unable to meet the increased needs. we have met that need for the past 15 years. we will never turn away a tenant that is being evicted. we help everyone. the problem is with help everyone represent themselves.

president carter is right. 90% go through their case without an attorney. 90% of landlords are represented by aggressive counsel. there is no question that the right to counsel does not exist for low-income people. there is no question that we need more representation for those tenants. there is no question it will result in fewer tenants becoming homeless as a result. however, this is where i depart slightly from the other supporters. we do not need more representation. we need 10 or 15 more attorneys doing tenant the fence now -- defense now. we need a serious commitment, not just a project or a program.

a statement that this city is committed and we are bound by attorneys to defend the rights of citizens. and their house. i urge you, be courageous. do something big. [chime] this is a special city and we have a special obligation to do something big, do something brave. do so by funding the legal aid agencies. thank you so much for putting forward an important issue. president chiu: i would like you to provide us with statistics for how many cases you do and what would be uneder -- [talking over each other] thank you. miss upton? >> good afternoon, supervisors, executive director of the domestic violence consortium.

we are here to enthusiastically support president chiu's proposed legislation. we believe that the justice system is more prepared to work for domestic violence survivors and their children when they are represented. president chiu outlined some of the statistics of domestic violence and family law cases going on represented -- unrepresented. we are as concerned as he is and everyone on the committee. the one caveat we have why we are supportive of this legislation moving forward, these are very complex and sometimes dangerous cases. as the project moves forward, we want to encourage everyone involved to really take the seriousness and complexity of the domestic violence cases into consideration when we look at where we are placing them and who will be representing the survivor.

as you know, san francisco has a rich history of community-based legal professions that has many years of experience of working with domestic violence survivors in many languages. we have this rich resources available, and we would like to see all of that community involved. and closing the complexities -- having the complexities taken into consideration. president chiu: we would love you and your consortiums to give feedback on the best way to do that. a couple more names, the volunteer attorney with the services program, steve collier with the tenderloin housing clinic. if anyone else wants to testify, light up on the left- hand side. >> i'm marty mckeaver, i come to you as a third-generation san franciscan and the managing

attorney of the volunteer legal services program to request your support of this ordinance. our organization provides legal services to low-income people in two ways. we have staff attorneys and also through volunteer attorneys. we are part of the bar association of san francisco, so we leverage $13 million worth of pro bono services every year from the private bar. just last year, we calculated 1600 attorneys provided over 45,000 hours of pro bono services to our clients. it amounts to about 25 full-time staff members. we collaborate with the domestic violence consortium and i would agree with mr. mcnolan, in the ideal society, we would have staff attorneys representing every single lead again. financially, i am not sure -- every single litigant.

financially, i am not sure it is possible. we want to make sure justice is served. the volunteers represented 140 tenants and eviction cases, provided a full scope, they represented 1000 tenants in limited scope, and another 270 people dealing with custody issues. [chime] president chiu: thank you very much. mr. collier? >> good afternoon, members of the board. i am a staff attorney at the tenderloin housing clinic. i think you are aware of the work that we do, we are one of the few organizations that will represent, without charge, people facing eviction. it is full scope representation, but we only have three attorneys

that represent clients. there is a tremendous need for more full scope representation of tenants facing eviction. we would very much encouraged this bill in the hopes of expanding the amount of the eviction defense representation for low-end, and working -- low- income and working people. a study has shown that when a tenant has an attorney, the outcome is so much better for th e tenant. there are some many that go without attorney because they don't have the resources to pay for attorneys to represent them. we encourage them to speak out strongly in favor and thank you, president chiu, for raising it. president chiu: mr. collier has represented the people in my

district. and i can testify that the outcome changed. other speakers? mr. paulson. >gollickson. >> the state of the eviction in san francisco is pretty abysmal right now. we needed it to expand upon what it is right now. we had a court case and the name of it slipped my mind at the moment. about a year-and-a-half ago, it placed a landlord-tenant matters and to the litigation privilege. it is virtually impossible for a tenant to sue a landlord for wrongful eviction unless the tenant has moved and been evicted. that has led to a sharp increase in what we see as bogus and serial eviction notices. the city department was notorious for non-payment, someone that has paid their rent and never missed a rent.

tenants are not able to get an attorney to defend themselves. there are n virtuallyo te -- virtually no tenant attorneys right now. they rely on the defense collaborative, sometimes a pro bono lawyer, sometimes they get some help from the housing clinic. the resources out there are totally inadequate and it has reached the point that tenants are not effectively fighting the evictions in a more even when they are the most unjust and unfair ones. a landlord in san francisco can evict a tenant simply by giving them a 30-day notice. the landlord can be confident that the tenant is going to move because the tenant will not have the resources to fight that eviction. we really need this program, and we need ten times more than this because there is a huge demand

out there. president chiu: next speaker. >> [unintelligible] yesterday, there was a finding from the service that 99% of the foreclosure procedure was in violation of the law. we see that every day. i am here to support the right to defense -- and we would like to inlude those that face foreclosure in low-income neighborhoods in san francisco that can't get access to these legal services. we are asking for improving the representation for low-income people and tenants facing foreclosure. thank you. president chiu: next speaker.

>> my name is bob capostrano, i'm with bay legal aid, representing low-income people in san francisco -- [unintelligible] since 1967. there has been a real reduction in the number of staff attorneys in the legal aid organization able to represent tenants. i want to reiterate that in agreement with all of the comments that have been made, we also support this legislation. one point i did want to add, given that the proposal is to coordinate pro bono services in the city and county of san francisco, a big portion of the legal system lies outside of the

courts. the purposes of this legislation are to deal with, among other things, sustenance or health. we were contacted last week by a very low-income disabled senior around the great highway who have been terminated from the adult day care program. there were 120 disabled seniors dropped off of this program and will not get representation except working with a couple of law firms, they have organized a way of preventing these clients. it has been happening over and over because of budget cuts. there are a lot of benefit recipients. i am thinking of medicaid, medical, sfi.

there is a proceeding in the sense that -- [chime] you rreaeal enemy is the obtuseness of the recommendations. considering this, we also look leg to thealesinto the legaleser residents of san francisco whose legal problems arise in the administrative structure. president chiu: i also want to a knowledge someone that i called earlier. -- acknowledge someone i clalead earlier. robert rubin, he is one of the individuals that brought this to my attention. >> thank you, supervisor chiu, kim, farrell, campos.

it is a pleasure to be here. i am speaking in support of the legislation. at the time has come for the right to counsel to be established in certain civil matters. i think san francisco is the one to do with. we will be the first to be our right to civil counsel city. the impact of this legislation cannot be underestimated. there is no shortage of circumstances in civil proceedings to which you are not entitled to counsel that demand counsel. you can get counsel for minor shoplifting offenses that involve nothing more than a minimum fine. you can get sent back to a country where you can confront persecution and possible death without having the constitutional right to counsel. similarly, you can be kicked out

of your home or denied custody of your child. of dire consequences without the right to counsel. i applaud the rules committee for taking up this matter and we will be urging the full board to adopt the ordinance. once we are finished with a pilot project, we will have a better sense of what we are dealing with. it will underscore the dire need for the legislation, and hopefully we will be able to sustain it in a measurable way that will be true to the right to counsel and honor san francisco as the progressive city, and the first to be right to civil counsel. president chiu: next speaker, please step up. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is douglas yeap.

i would like to speak out in support of this ordinance. i would like to talk about it in a different way that no one else has mentioned. it is obvious that certain groups need to be represented. one group that has been long overlooked is the class of people call the whistle-blowers. a specially whistle-blowers on public agencies. obviously, whistle-blowers with company is likeenron -- companies like enron has gotten the attention. they can get support through a program like this. everyone knows that in the legal program, it is buddy and buddy. if you're going against certain entities and certain persons, you will never -- the word is

never -- get representation in the bay area. you have to get it outside the body that work -- buddy network. i think a lot of people don't want to admit that the problem exists among lawyers like any fraternity of professionals. they will always scratch each other's back and you're going to help each other as much as you can. we are going to be honest and help the poor, etc. you might as well include the whistle-blowers' because that is the fastest way to clean up government. thank you. president chiu: are there any other members of the public that wish to speak on this item? i think public comment is over. >> [inaudible] supervisor farrell: thanks, supervisor kim. thanks to president chiufo