Mr. FORD. Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen.

I would like to say for those of you who are here a word or two about why we are here.

First of all, I would, however, like to introduce us. I am Congressman William Ford of the State of Michigan, and sitting immediately to my right is Congressman Romano Mazzoli of Louisville, Kentucky, a member of the Education and Labor Committee.

We are here representing the Education and Labor Committee as a part of a nationwide study of the ongoing programs under the Economic Opportunity Act which must, if these programs are going to be continued, be renewed by the Congress this summer.

The present law expires on the 30th of June of this year.

This subcommittee has two functions. One of them is to carry out the oversight function of the committee which has jurisdiction over this legislation; that is to determine how the programs are working, and to determine what if any problems exist which might have a legislative solution.

The second is to lay the foundation for the action of the committee in making its recommendations to the balance of the Congress for the re-enactment or modification of this legislation.

We spent a very productive day Friday observing what are generally regarded as successful Headstart programs here in Dade County, as well as a visiting with a number of the attorneys working in a part of the Legal Services program, not only for Dade County but for the State of Florida as well.

We are going to ask first to have Mr. Burton Young, President of the Florida Bar, come forward.

Mr. Young, you may proceed in any way that you would like to. Do you have a written statement?

Mr. YOUNG. Yes, I have a written statement which I will leave with the Reporter.

STATEMENT OF BURTON R. YOUNG, PRESIDENT, FLORIDA BAR, NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLA.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege to have been invited to appear before this august committee to express my personal views with respect to the proposed amendment of the Economic Opportunity Act.

At the outset, may I state for the record that my statements are not to be construed as the views of the Florida Bar. Since receiving the committee's invitation on April 21st, I have not had an opportunity to submit the proposed bill to the Executive Committee of the Florida Bar.

However, I intend to do that, and I am hopeful that the Florida Bar will, in due course, make its position known on this most important legislative proposal. Therefore, the expressions that I hereafter make are my own and are to be attributable to no one other than the speaker.

On December 1, 1970, in an address before the Tallahassee Bar Association, I commented:

We say that we serve the poor, that we handle indigent cases when they come to us, and we do-but we wait until they come to us. The poor in the community who have a legal problem do not know that a lawyer on the 10th floor of the TB & T Building would help him solve his legal problem if he seeks that help. Our plea that we are ready to help when we are asked is false, simply, the poor don't know to ask. And we do not aggressively offer to help so we must employ a new approach to this problem. We resent, sometimes openly, the federal government agencies going out to solicit the poor to help them. We say there is no need to do this, but aren't we fooling ourselves?

There is a need, and there will remain a need, until we make it known by responsible actions that we can take care of the legal problems of the poor, as a profession, without the help of the federal government providing funded agencies to do our work.

The Board of Governors of the Florida Bar, just 20 days prior to those remarks, had approved the allocation of $3,000 for the purpose of conducting a most relevant survey.

Into this record I read the regular Minutes of the November, 1970 meeting of the Board of Governors of the Florida Bar:

16. Legal Aid and Indigent Defendant Committee-Request for Survey. Chairman of the Legal Aid and Indigent Defendant Committee, John Edward Smith of Miami, Florida, appeared before the Board of Governors to request authority to conduct a survey of legal services to the indigent under the direction of Professor L. Harold Levinson of the College of Law, University of Florida.

Mr. Smith, together with Mr. Levinson, explained to the Board of Governors that the purpose of the survey would be to (1) survey the legal services now being provided for the indigent in Florida; compile nationwide statistics and literature on legal services; identification of topics requiring detailed study, (2) study of additional legal services required to satisfy (a) existing legal requirements, and (b) expansion of legal requirements, as recommended by pending legislative proposals and other responsible suggestions, (3) study of most effective utilization of scarce legal services resources, and evaluation of possible changes in the legal system which might maximize the effectiveness of legal services, including possible training and utilization of para-legal personnel. It was further explained to the Board of Governors that the Division of Sponsored Research, University of Florida, had awarded to Professor Levinson $10,000 to conduct the subject survey.

The committee requested that the Florida Bar allocate $3,000 additional funds to help offset costs that would be incurred in salaries for research graduate assistants, travel, consultants, on and off campus, books and other supporting materials for the survey. Acting Dean E. L. "Roy" Hunt appeared before the Board of Governors in support of the survey proposal.

Following discussion and debate, the Board of Governors of the Florida Bar approved the allocation of $3,000 to the Legal and Indigent Defendant Committee for the purpose of conducting a statewide survey of legal services to the indigent under the superivsion of Professor L. Harold Levinson. A subsequent motion was made to reconsider this action, and upon vote, the motion failed. At that same meeting of the Board of Governors of the Florida Bar, I requested permission to issue a call to lawyers working in OEO programs, selected Government personnel, the U.S. district attorneys in Florida and others affiliated with federally funded legal service programs to meet in conference and conduct a much-needed dialog on problems.

It was evident that there were problems existing that these people were having and a forum had to be made available for a full and fair discussion. The Florida bar recognized the need for such a conclave and authorized the requested program.

On December 15, 1970, 22 legal assistance lawyers, U.S. attorneys and Government representatives from the Department of Justice and

the Office of Economic Opportunity met to discuss the civil rights grievances of indigents.

To our knowledge, this meeting was the first of its type and magnitude in the United States. Though the agenda included such matters as handling complaints of civil rights violations, types and incidents of complaints, legal tools available, manpower requirements and methods for better cooperation between the agencies, the conclusion of the conclave was significant.

The parties involved indicated that the Government should take a greater interest in protecting the civil rights of indigents and it should do so now before patience, cooperation, or manpower run out. Another manifestation of the interest of the Florida Bar in the plight of the poor and their quest to secure equal justice under the law was the amendment of the integration rule of the Florida Bar which allows senior law students, under the supervision of a member of the Bar, to appear in court or before an administrative tribunal on behalf of any indigent person who consents to such representation.

The Supreme Court of Florida approved the amendment and this procedure is now authorized in Florida.

Several years ago, the Board of Governors of the Florida Bar approved the formation of a corporation called the Florida Legal Services Program, Inc. and joined with a number of organizations who were similarly interested in making legal services available on a greater scale to those in need. This effort was unsuccessful because of funding problems.

These references are made to indicate, in my judgment, that the lawyers of Florida are most conscious of the need to reach the ultimate goal of that American dream, that is to maintain our liberty "with justice for all."

This means that no man should be denied his day in court because he is poor.

I cannot address myself at this time to the extent that the poor are being denied legal services in Florida. When the survey we discussed is concluded by the summer's end, we will have definite conclusions thereon.

We will know the extent of the problem, which we acknowledge now as a problem, and then address ourselves to the search for solutions. But it would appear to be obvious that the profession will not be able to finance the full cure. That is the organized Bar, in my judgment, should welcome federal aid.

But lawyers, in order to discharge their full commitment to their client, regardless of whether that client be poor or rich, must be bound by only their profession's canons of ethics. The canons tell us that a lawyer can only have one master and that is his client. He cannot, if he is to observe ethical proprieties, be worried about economic and other sanctions in the discharge of his commitment.

We cannot deny the existing fear of some in the profession, if not the profession itself, that government controlled legal aid programs weaken, if not destroy, the sanctity of the attorney-client relationship. The Code of Professional Responsibility for lawyers engaged in these programs tends to be less meaningful because of the dual role they must play. That is, of having to serve two clients, the indigent and the government. Their interests may be diverse.

Too, I think that many Bar leaders are concerned with young lawyers seeking reform through the courts under the guise of aid to the indigent. Some say that this is legislation by judicial fiat. Some say that this type of activity destroys the balance of a three-branch government theory.

Personally, I think, the former argument has merit. The latter is overemphasized. I have confidence that our Federal judges observe their oaths.

So, as an individual, I am delighted with the proposed bill seeking to amend the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 to establish a National Legal Service Corporation.

This bill, adopted in principle by the American Bar Association, to me goes a long way in removing the economic restraints, as indirect as they may be, from a lawyer representing a poor man under a Federal grant.

This new act, by the establishment of a non-profit corporation, will eliminate the argument that the organized Bar had relative to ethical considerations. Under the new act, the lawyer will be responsible to no one other than to the cause of his client.

The new act, to me, would also remove the fear of the organized Bar regarding the profession's influence in the operation of this non-profit corporation. I refer to the requirement that the corporation is charged with establishing procedures "for the conduct of legal service programs assisted by the corporation containing a requirement that the applicant will give assurances that the program will be supervised by a policymaking board on which the members of the legal profession constitute a majority and members of the client community constitute at least one-third of the members of such Board."

In sum, I think this new bill is a step forward. I think it is needed. I hope that we, in Florida, will not have to rely too heavily upon such type of Federal aid to provide legal services to our poor and that the organized Bar will be able to fulfill a great measure of the void in this regard. But, we know that we will not be able to take care of it all, and I, individually, will be so very comforted that we will have a viable corporation, free of governmental control, to help our indigents obtain equal justice under the law.

Mr. FORD: Thank you, Mr. Young.

Am I correct in assuming that when you describe the integrated Bar of Florida that membership in the Bar Association is a condition precedent to the practice of law in this State?

Mr. YOUNG. Yes, sir. One must be a member of the Florida Bar in order to practice law.

This has been so since 1951 when the Bar was integrated by the Supreme Court of Florida.

Mr. FORD. I am interested in the fact that your Board of Governors specifically referred to the parameters of your discussions with regard to the problems of indigents in terms of civil rights grievances.

Does that have any significance or is that just something handy? Mr. YOUNG. I don't believe it has too much significance since it was my request to the Board that this particular conference be called.

The history behind that was that I had heard a lot of comment that the United States District Attorneys weren't talking to the OEO

lawyers and the OEO lawyers weren't talking to the Department of Justice.

They were not talking, they had many promises, and we just wanted to provide a forum so they could get together, discuss their problems and reach acceptable solutions.

We tried to get the FBI to join in on this conference, but we were unable to do that.

We did have a member of the Department of Justice down to discuss the problems with us and the conference proved very successful in my judgment.

We had them talking, and that was so very, very relevant and so very important.

Mr. FORD. I am happy to see that we have progressed to the point where the bar association is taking the positive position that if there are communications problems, the bar is the vehicle to solve them. This new rule of the Florida courts permitting senior law students to represent indigents is of some personal interest to me.

I wish that every State in the country would follow in the wake of those States which have proven that the entire bar association does not come tumbling down when senior law students are allowed to represent indigents.

Mr. YOUNG. I couldn't agree with you more, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FORD. I think this committee generally, both Democrats and Republicans, would agree with you and share your concern about government-controlled law practice, and for that reason we have over the years tried as much as possible to fight off proposed impediments to the kind of representation that the Legal Service lawyers would give.

Do I understand from what you have said here today that you feel the limitations on the kinds of cases and the manner of practice ought to be left to be worked out by the individual State and local bar with the Legal Services lawyers rather than having a national standard?

Mr. YOUNG. I don't think there can be a national standard of the type of cases that should be handled.

The problems in Florida are different from the problems in California and the problems of Alaska.

I think the lawyers on the scene are the most competent to handle that situation.

They know where there is a deficiency in the representation of the poor in a given area.

It should be left to the local level. So I don't think there should be an overall national standard that only one type or two types or three types of cases can be handled.

The poor have many problems and they are different in various parts of the country by virtue of the different laws that there are in the various states.

Mr. FORD. Thank you.

Mr. Mazzoli?

Mr. MAZZOLI. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Do you have a Public Defender system in Florida?