New York Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman and New York Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence Mark are condoning and encouraging the crime of unauthorized practice of law and hope it will spread.
Good gracious.
Why the practices described in the article about "Legal Hand" operations is likely criminal?
Well, because, according to Judiciary Law 90(2)(b), the following behavior is unauthorized practice of law:
And, because I was put through hell when my husband was disbarred and the State of New York asked me whether he works in my law office in ANY capacity, even as a secretary.
Well, in offices of "Legal Hand", there is only one attorney on-site and 40 "volunteers" who "screen out" cases and make sure that they do not go to court.
First of all, that is NOT a public service, and screening out cases so that they DO NOT reach the court, may not be in the interests of the indigent clients who come to such organizations.
Second, New York law does not allow non-lawyers to give legal advice, even when the Chief Administrative Judge and the Chief Judge of the State of New York sit there beaming and approve and encourage behavior that is pronounced as criminal by statutory law.
Third, every client who comes to this "Legal Hand" is committing a crime of criminal solicitation and aiding and abetting of unauthorized practice of law, if UPL laws are to be applied equally to all New Yorkers.
Of course, by introducing such operations and claiming that it is a step forward in helping New Yorkers obtain "affordable" legal advice - albeit through what is now criminal behavior in New York - New York acknowledges that regulation of the legal profession is what prevents New Yorkers from obtaining free or affordable legal advice in the first place.
After all, the 40 "volunteers" per office of the "Legal Hand" are not attorneys. They are "like" nurse practitioners who "prepare" clients to see a doctor. Only a similar graded scheme as exists in New York for practicing medicine does not exist in New York for practicing law.
The strictures of the criminal law and attorney are easily avoided though - when you have available an "anonymous donor" who is willing to finance an operation that is otherwise criminal in New York, and approval of top state court officials.
And, as to anonymity of the donor, I am making a Freedom of Information request to end that anonymity. Why?
Because "Legal Hand" is a program of a "public-private" partnership of the so-called Center of Court Innovation with - guess! - The Unified New York State Court System!
Here it is, zoomed in:
A public/private partnership between a non-profit and New York Court System?
And what kind of business organization is this so-called "Center for Court Innovation" if it is not listed in the database of corporations of the New York State Department of State? I checked, right now. I also checked on Guidestar.org listing all non-profits in America. It's not there either.
What is a partnership between the court system with an unknown private entity that does not appear to be registered as a non-profit, and thus, does not appear to be abiding by any laws governing non-profits in the state of New York and in the United States?
There may not be anonymous "donors" of partnerships with the state government, so this "anonymous donor" thingy definitely is subject to Freedom of Information Law of the State of New York.
Nor is it clear who and on what grounds authorized such a "partnership" between an unknown private entity and New York Unified Court System.
Moreover, when this Center runs its declared "court-based" programs, in partnership with the actual court system, judges who preside over cases in the program are - who are they? Business partners?
So, Judge Lippman and Judge Marks, beaming in the picture introducing a "program" of this "public-private" partnership financed by a 1 million dollar donation of an "anonymous donor" are at the top of this business partnership?
Nice!
Under such circumstances, judges are not neutral adjudicators, and validity of their adjudications is questionable.
I will try to get the particulars of this "public-private" partnership and will report the answer to my FOIL request on this blog.
Stay tuned.
No comments:
Post a Comment