supreme court of the state of new york … · association of the bar of the city of new york (the...

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKCOUNTY OF NEW YORK

In the Matter of the Application of

THE NEW YORK COUNTY LAWYERS’ASSOCIATION, THE BRONX COUNTY BARASSOCIATION, THE BROOKLYN BARASSOCIATION, THE QUEENS COUNTYBAR ASSOCIATION, THE RICHMONDCOUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

For a Judgment Under Article 78 of the CPLR,

- against -

MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG, in his officialcapacity as Mayor of the City of New York, theCITY OF NEW YORK, and JOHNFEINBLATT, in his official capacity as theCriminal Justice Coordinator for the Office ofthe Mayor of the City of New York,

Defendants-Respondents.

NOTICE OF PETITIONPURSUANT TO CPLRARTICLE 78

Index No.

TO THE ABOVE NAMED RESPONDENTS:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the annexed Complaint and Verified

Petition, verified on June 1, 2010, and the exhibits attached thereto, the undersigned

shall move at the court house of the New York State Supreme Court, New York County

Courthouse, located at 60 Centre Street, New York, New York 10007, in the Motion

Submission Part, Room 130, at 9:30 a.m. on June 22, 2008, or as soon thereafter as

counsel may be heard for an Order of Judgment pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil

Practice Law and Rules:

declaring that Executive Order 132 ("Order 132") entitled "IndigentDefense Plan for the City of New York," issued by Mayor Michael R.Bloomberg and dated March 2, 2010, and the Request for Proposals:Indigent Criminal Services dated February 3, 2010 (along with any and allsubsequent addenda) (collectively, the "RFP’), violate Article 18-B,Sections 722 - 722-f ("Article 18-B"), Municipal Home Rule Law §§11(1)(e) and 32(2)(f), the New York State Constitution and/or New YorkCity Charter §§ 329 and 1043 and are, as a result, invalid;

b) directing and compelling Respondents and their agencies, officers andemployees immediately to reinstate, implement and enforce ExecutiveOrder 178 ("Order 178") entitled "Furnishing of Counsel to IndigentCriminal Defendants Within the City of New York"dated November 27,1965, and the plan proposed by Petitioners and the Association of the Barof the City of New York pursuant to Order 178 (the "1965 Bar Plan");

c) enjoining Respondents and their agencies, officers and employees fromexecuting, entering into or renewing any contracts pursuant to ExecutiveOrder 132 or the RFP;

d) directing and compelling Respondents to identify any and all contractsentered into by Respondents and their agencies, officers andemployees pursuant to Order 132 or the RFP;

e) directing that Respondents continue the current provision of indigentdefense services under the status quo conditions, unless and until aconstitutional and statutorily compliant alternate system is established;

declaring any contracts entered into by Respondents and/or their agencies,officers, agents and employees pursuant to Order 132 or the RFP are invalidto the extent they do not comply with all provisions of Article 18-B and the1965 Bar Plan;

declaring that Chapter 13 to Title 43 of the Rules of the City of New York("Chapter 13") published on October 27, 2008, violates Article 18-B,Municipal Home Rule Law §§ 11(1)(e) and 32(2)(f), the New York StateConstitution and/or New York City Charter §§ 329 and 1043 and are, as aresult, invalid;

h) Should Chapter i3 be deemed valid and enforceable, which it is not, andOrder declaring that the RFP and/or Order 132 violate Chapter 13; and

i) granting such other, further or different relief as the Court deems just andproper.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, Pursuant to CPLR 7804(c) an answer

and any supporting papers must be served on the undersigned no later than five (5)

days before the return date set forth above.

Dated: June 2, 2010New York, New York

HAYNESANDBOONE, LLP

David M. SiegalKendyl T. HanksJonathan D. Pressment1221 Avenue of the Americas26th FloorNew York, New York 10020(212) 659-7300

Attorneys for Petitioners The New YorkCounty Lazoyers" Association, The BronxCounty Bar Association, The Brooklyn BarAssociation, The Queens County BarAssociation, and the Richmond County BarAssociation

To," New York City Law DepartmentOffice Corporation Counsel100 Church StreetNew York, New York 1007-2601

Attorneys for Respondents the Cityof New York, Michael R. Bloombergin his official capacity as the Mayorof New York, and John Feinblatt, inhis official capacity as the CriminalJustice Coordinator for the Office ofthe Mayor of the City of New York

(BY HAND)

SUMMONS






- against-



Index No.

SUMMONS

TO: Defendants-Respondents (as listed in the caption)New York City Law DepartmentOffice Corporation Counsel100 Church StreetNew York, New York 1007~2601

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve upon Plaintiffs-

Petitioners’ attorneys an answer to the Complaint and Verified Article 78 Petition in this

action (to the extent not already required pursuant to the annexed Notice of Petition

Pursuant to CPLR Article 78) within twenty (20) days after the service of this summons,

exclusive of the day of service (or within thirty (30) days after the service is complete if

N-77553 1.DOC

this summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York), and in

the case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by

default for the relief demanded in the Complaint and Verified Petition Pursuant to

CPLR Article 78.

Dated: June 2, 2010New York, New York

HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP

By: ~ ...........David M. SiegalKendyl T. HanksJonathan D. Pressment1221 Avenue of the Americas26th FloorNew York, New York 10020(212) 659-7300

Attorneys for Petitioners The New YorkCounty Lawyers" Association, The BronxCounty Bar Association, The Brooklyn BarAssociation, The Queens County BarAssociation, and the Richmond County BarAssociation

To; New York City Law DepartmentOffice Corporation Counsel100 Church StreetNew York, New York 1007-2601

Attorneys for Respondents the Cityof Nezo York, Michael R. Bloombergin his official capacity as the Mayorof New York, and John Feinblatt, inhis official capacity as the CriminalJustice Coordinator for the Office ofthe Mayor of the City of New York

(BY HAND)

N-77553_l.DOC - 2 -

COMPLAINT ANDVERIFIED ARTICLE 78 PETITION






- against -



COMPLAINT AND VERIFIEDARTICLE 78 PETITION

Index No.

Plaintiffs-Petitioners The New York County Lawyers’ Association ("NYCLA"), The

Bronx County Bar Association (the "Bronx Bar"), The Brooklyn Bar Association (the

"Brooklyn Bar"), The Queens County Bar Association (the "Queens Bar"), and The

Richmond County Bar Association (the "Richmond Bar") (collectively, "Petitioners" or the

"County Bars"), by and through their attorneys, Haynes and Boone, LLP, as and for their

Complaint and Verified Petition in the above-captioned proceeding, respectfully allege as

to their own conduct, and upon information and belief as to the conduct of others and

matters of public record as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Etched in stone above the doors to the State Supreme Courthouse at 60

Centre Street in Manhattan, the words of George Washington, first delivered in 1789,

endure to proclaim that, "[t]he true administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good

government." For nearly five decades, the "true administration of justice," with respect to

indigent defendants in New York City’s criminal courts, has depended on the collective

efforts of institutional providers of indigent services and panels of private practitioners

qualified by the bar to represent criminal defendants.

2. This collaborative system was created by all the County Bars and the

Association of the Bar of the City of New York (the "City Bar") in 1965, at the request of

the City, pursuant to Article 18-B, Sections 722 - 722-f of the County Law ("Article 18-B’),

which was enacted in order to provide the constitutionally mandated right to effective

assistance of counsel to indigent defendants.

3. Pursuant to Article 18-B each county within the State of New York is

restricted to four options for the provision of counsel to indigent defendants in criminal

matters: (1) an office of a public defender (the "Public Defender Option"); (2) a private

legal aid society or bureau organized and operating for the provision of indigent defense

counsel (the "Legal Aid Option"); (3) private attorneys who are paid an hourly rate

defined in Section 722-b, and are furnished pursuant to a plan proposed by a bar

-2-

association and approved by the state administrator (the "Bar Plan Option"); or (4)

counsel furnished in accordance with a plan containing a combination of any of the above

(the "Combined Option").

4. The framework imposed by Article 18-B further mandates that any plan for

indigent defense counsel adopted by a county or city include provisions for cases in which

a conflict of interest arises or the primary provider is otherwise unable to provide

adequate legal assistance. If the city or county does not elect to utilize a Bar Plan Option

or a Combined Option (both of which inherently provide for conflict counsel), Article 18-B

creates a judicial safety valve that delegates responsibility for the selection of indigent

defense counsel in conflict cases to the presiding court, which may appoint counsel to be

paid at hourly rates. By reserving oversight for the County Bars and the courts, Article 18-

B ensures that the City cannot unilaterally fashion an indigent.defense system by fiat.

Article 18-B thereby requires a role for entities dedicated to the administration of justice

and the effectiveness of counsel, without the conflicting financial and other considerations

of the City.

5. In 1965, New York City elected to satisfy its obligations under Article 18-B

through the Combined Option - in this case, a combination of the Legal Aid Option and

the Bar Plan Option. Pursuant to Executive Order 178 ("Order 178"), the City enacted a

plan proposed by the County Bars and the City Bar (the "1965 Bar Plan") for the provision

of indigent defense services in all five boroughs.

6. Under the 1965 Bar Plan, institutional providers (including the Legal Aid

Society of New York ("Legal Aid") and, since the mid-1990s, a number of smaller,

-3-

"alternative" providers) serve as the primary providers of indigent defense counsel. The

County Bars and City Bar are charged with responsibility for preparing panels of private

attorneys (the "1965 Bar Plan Panels") for use as conflict counsel when "required in the

interest of justice because of either a conflict of interest or any other good cause" or when

the defendant is charged with a crime "punishable by death or life imprisonment." New

York City’s indigent defense system has operated under the 1965 Bar Plan, and has

depended heavily on participation by the 1965 Bar Plan Panels, for forty-five years.

7. On February 2, 2010, the Mayor’s Criminal Justice Coordinator (the "CJC’)

issued a Request for Proposal pertaining to the provision of indigent defense counsel. The

Request for Proposal patently violates Article 18-B by, inter alia, transferring responsibility

for the provision of indigent defel~se counsel from the institutional providers and the 1965

Bar Plan Paneis to the Mayor’s office and the CJC, which will select the "winning bidder"

in a confidential competitive procurement process, aimed at "private institutional"

vendors, regardless of whether such vendors are organized for the provision of indigent

defense counsel as required by Section 722(2).

8. On March 2, 2010, Mayor Michael Bloomberg issued Executive Order 132,

which repealed earlier Executive Orders concerning the provision of indigent defense

services, expressly abandoned the 1965 Bar Plan, and purported to promulgate a new plan

for indigent defense system that combines: (i) the winning bidder(s) in the February 2,

2010 procurement process (which itself violates Section 722(2)); and (ii) panels of private

attorneys utilized (if at all) and administered by an office of the Mayor rather than through a

plan of the County Bars that is approved by the state administrator. This feature

constitutes a violation of Section 722(3), which only recognizes such panels if they are part

of a plan approved by the Bar Associations. Taken together, the Request for Proposal and

Executive Order 132 emphasize cost-cutting measures that threaten to render the "true

administration of justice" a class-dependent concept.

9. By excluding the County Bars from the proposed indigent defense system,

Respondents propose to sideline those "stakeholders" in the existing system who have

stated missions and purposes to protect the rights of the indigent and whose participation

is free from financial conflicts of interest.

10. New York City’s indigent defense system is already over-burdened and

under-funded. Respondents’ proposed overhaul of the system, through Executive Order

132 and the Request for Proposal, threatens to further stress and financially starve both

the institutional providers and any remaining private attorney panels under the control of

the City without any participation by the County Bars as advocates and monitors for the

Constitutional rights of the indigent. Moreover, Respondents’ overhaul, which was

developed without consulting the County Bars, attempts a unilateral rescission of the 1965

Bar Plan in violation of state and federal laws.

11. If not enjoined, Executive Order 132 and the Request for Proposal will

unlawfully abrogate the statutory rights and responsibilities of the County Bars under the

1965 Bar Plan with respect to the protection of the rights of indigent defendants entitled to

the effective assistance of counsel.

12. The County Bars will not be silenced or sidelined by the proposed overhaul.

Petitioners bring this action, to protect the 1965 Bar Plan until such time as it is lawfully

modified, and to protect the rights of countless poor New Yorkers whose Constitutional

right to the effective assistance of counsel is imminently threatened by Respondents’ plans

to replace a legislatively-mandated indigent defense system with a new, untested system

in which there are no stakeholders free from financial conflicts of interest.

13. Accordingly, through this action, Petitioners seek relief pursuant to Articles

30 and 78 of the CPLR, including: (i) a declaration that Respondents failed (individually

and/or collectively) to perform a duty enjoined upon them by law through their issuance

of Executive Order 132 and the February 2, 2010 Request for Proposal (and its addenda);

(ii) a declaration that Executive Order 132 and the February 2, 2010 Request for Proposal

(along with its addenda) are invalid because they violate Article 18-B, sections of the

Municipal Home Rule Law precluding county laws from superseding state statutes

affecting the courts, and the New York City Charter; (iii) injunctive relief designed to

ensure that Order 178 and the 1965 Bar Plan remain in full force and effect and prevent

Respondents from entering into any contracts procured pursuant to Executive Order 132

or the February 2, 2010 Request for Proposal (and its addenda); and (iv) any and all other

appropriate relief necessary to ensure that the current system for the City’s provision of

indigent defense services is maintained (including any and all contracts currently in place

pursuant to the 1965 Bar Plan) until such time as the merits of this action are adjudicated.

PARTIES TO THE ACTION

A. Petitioners.

14. Petitioner NYCLA is a 102-year-old not-for-profit association of attorneys

who practice primarily in New York County in the City of New York. NYCLA is

-6-

organized and operated with the objectives of promoting the administration of justice and

reforms in the law that are in the public interest, applying its knowledge and experience

in the field of law to the promotion of the public good, and arranging for, inter alia, the

provision of legal services for children and indigent adults. NYCLA’s principal place of

business is located at 14 Vesey Street, New York, New York 10007;

15. NYCLA’s Restated Certificate of Incorporation in 1972 provides that one of

the means by which NYCLA is to fulfill its charitable mission is "by arranging for the

provision by its members of free legal services for indigent, low income and other persons

in need ...." In furtherance of this mission, NYCLA was an original sponsor of, and

signatory to, the 1965 Bar Plan, which was established under Article 18-B to provide

representation by assigned private counsel in criminal trial and appellate proceedings in

the First and Second Departments.

16. Since the 1965 Bar Plan’s adoption, NYCLA has provided institutional

support for the screening and continuing education components of the 1965 Bar Plan.

NYCLA’s members have served on the various 1965 Bar Plan Panels and the First

Department Central Screening Committee, which evaluates attorneys seeking placement

on the 1965 Bar Plan Panels in the First Department. NYCLA was the moving force in the

creation of the Indigent Defense Organizations Oversight Committee (the "IDOOC’), a

volunteer Committee established by Court Rule 22 NYCRR 613, to evaluate and oversee

the institutional providers’ ability and efficacy in delivering indigent defense services in

New York City. NYCLA also played a leading role in the development of the standards,

adopted by the Appellate Division, First Department, that ensure indigent defendants

have access to qualified representation. Indeed, NYCLA has a de jure role in fulfilling the

profession’s obligation to ensure the availability of qualified, competent counsel to be

provided by 1965 Bar Plan Panels pursuant to 22 NYCRR Part 612 (Rules to Implement a

Criminal Courts Panel Plan) and 22 NYCRR Part 613 (Rules to Implement An Indigent

Defense Organization Oversight Committee). In both cases, NYCLA, together with other

bar associations, plays an active role in developing and implementing rules and standards

to ensure that the indigent have access to qualified and professional representation.

17. Petitioner Bronx Bar was incorporated in 1902 and is a not-for-profit

association of attorneys who practice primarily in Bronx County in the City of New York.

The Bronx Bar is an organization dedicated to, among other things, promoting the practice

of law in a professional manner, advancing reforms in the law that are in the public

interest, applying its knowledge and experience in the field of law to the promotion of the

public good, and arranging for, inter alia, the provision of legal services for children and

indigent adults seeking representation in criminal, civil or administrative proceedings.

The Bronx Bar’s principal place of business is located at 851 Grand Concourse, Bronx,

New York 10451.

18. Petitioner Brooklyn Bar was established in 1872 and is a not-for-profit

association of attorneys who practice primarily in Kings County in the City of New York.

The Brooklyn Bar is organized and operated with the objectives of promoting professional

competence among attorneys, increased respect for the legal system, and increased access

to the legal system by those in need of legal assistance. Among other things, the Brooklyn

Bar is active in arranging for, inter alia, the provision of legal services for children and

-8-

indigent adults. The Brooklyn Bar also serves as the exclusive central screening body for

attorneys seeking to be considered for inclusion in Brooklyn on the Second Judicial

Department’s 1965 Bar Plan Panels. The Brooklyn Bar’s principal place of business is

located at 123 Remsen Street, Brooklyn, New York 11201.

19. Petitioner Queens Bar was founded in 1876 and is a not-for-profit association

of attorneys who practice primarily in Queens County. in the City of New York. The

Queens Bar is organized and operated with the objectives of facilitating interactions

between members and members of the Judiciary, enhancing and fostering the public’s

understanding of the practice of law and the judicial system by providing public outreach

and educational programs, and cultivating professional competence, development,

education, cooperation, collegiality and diversity among members of the bar association.

In addition, the Queens Bar, through its members, is active in arranging for, inter alia, the

provision of legal services for children and indigent adults. The Queens Bar’s principal

place of business is located at 90-35 148th Street, Jamaica, New York 11435.

20. Petitioner Richmond Bar was established in 1909 and is a not-for-profit

association of attorneys who practice primarily in Richmond County in the City of New

York. The Richmond Bar is organized and operated with the objectives of promoting the

cultivation of the science of jurisprudence, promoting reforms in the law, facilitating the

administration of justice, and elevating the standards of integrity, honor and courtesy in

the legal profession. The Richmond Bar utilizes its knowledge and experience in the field

of law to promote the public good, and to assist in the provision of, inter alia, legal

-9-

services for children and indigent adults. The Richmond Bar’s principal place of business

is located at 152 Stuyvesant Place, Staten Island, New York 10301-1969.

21. The County Bars (individually and/or collectively) bring this proceeding as

authors og parties to, and signatories of the 1965 Bar Plan, with responsibilities under the

1965 Bar Plan and the statutory authority to approve any plan formulated pursuant to

Section 722’s Bar Plan Option.

22. The County Bars all have members who serve on the 1965 Bar Plan Panels

under the 1965 Bar Plan, and also members who are employed by Legal Aid and other

alternate institutional providers. NYCLA and the Bronx Bar both support and host the

Assigned Counsel Central Screening Committee, the Committee empowered to screen,

train and oversee the appointment of counsel to the 1965 Bar Plan Panels, in their

The County Bars also have members who volunteer on the IDOOC.facilities.

23. Further, the County Bars all have as part of their historic missions a

commitment to advance the profession and serve the public. Indeed, the County Bars’

role helps implement the ethical obligations adopted by the First Judicial Department on

behalf of thousands of First Department and other attorneys to "to uphold the legal

process; to demonstrate respect for the legal system; to seek improvement of the law; and

to further the public’s understanding of and confidence in the rule of law and the justice

system ...." New York Rules of Professional Conduct, Preamble: A Lawyer’s

Responsibilities (Effective April 1, 2009). The County Bars’ disinterested de jure and de

facto role in the administration and delivery of constitutionally mandated indigent defense

services is plain.

-10-

24. In addition, the County Bars (individually and/or collectively) possess

organizational and third-party standing to bring this action because: (i) the indigent

defense plan set forth in Executive Order 132 and the Request for Proposal (including its

addenda) render the County Bars unable to satisfactorily discharge their responsibilities

under the 1965 Bar Plan, as, inter alia, members of departmental advisory committees, the

Family Court and the Departmental Central Screening Committee(s) of the Criminal

Courts Panel Plan, and other committees or associations bearing responsibility in

connection with the implementation of the 1965 Bar Plan; (ii) if the Executive Order and

Request for Proposal challenged herein remain effective, the County Bars, each of which is

committed to improving the administration of justice and promoting the effective

assistance of counsel, will have lost their ability and/or rights to discharge their duties

and responsibilities under the 1965 Bar Plan or otherwise implement the 1965 Bar Plan’s

provisions, in violation of Article 18-B; and (iii) The County Bars (individually and/or

collectively), while not providers of legal services, are entitled to bring this proceeding on

behalf of the indigent who need’ assigned counsel and whose Constitutional rights to

assistance of counsel will be directly impacted by the proposed overhaui of the 1965 Bar

Plan.

25. Finally, the County Bars have an inherent interest and related standing to

assert the claims set forth in this action because under Article 18-B and the 1965 Bar Plan,

the County Bars and their respective members have, for forty-five years, played a

sigr~icant role in the provision and monitoring of indigent defense services in the City.

The indigent men, women and children served by counsel assigned pursuant to the 1965

-11 -

Bar Plan are plainly not in a position to protect their own rights to receive effective

assistance of counsel, especially with respect to a wholesale change in the City’s plan for

indigent defense.

26. The County Bars’ important historical and consequential role in how

indigent defense services are delivered gives voice to the under-represented and

disenfranchised indigents who are otherwise without effective means or recourse to

challenge systemic inadequacies in the provision of indigent defense services.1

B. Respondents.

27. Respondent Michael R. Bloomberg (the "Mayor") is the Mayor of the City of

New York and as such is the "chief executive officer of the city" charged with

responsibility for "exercising all the powers vested in the city, except as otherwise provided

by law." New York City Charter §§ 3, 8. The Mayor’s principal place of business is

located at City Hall, New York, New York 10007. The Mayor is sued herein in his official

capacity and acted in such capacity at all times relevant hereto.

28. Respondent City of New York (the "City") is a municipality organized and

existing under the laws of the State of New York. The City was and is responsible for the

policy, practice, supervision and conduct of its executive officers and agencies at all

relevant times hereto. The City’s principal place of business is City Hall, New York

County, New York 10007.

Just this month, a divided Court of Appeals reversed lower court decisions that held that there was nomechanism for challenging systemic inadequacies other than post-conviction appeals in each case.Hurrell-Harring v. New York, --N.E.2d ---, 2010 WL 1791000 (N.Y. May 6, 2010).

- 12-

29. Respondent John Feinblatt is sued in his capacity as the Criminal Justice

Coordinator for the Mayor of the City of New York and has, at all relevant times, held the

position of CJC in the Mayor’s Administration. The CJC advises the Mayor on criminal

justice policy and legislation and is responsible for coordinating the activities of the City’s

criminal justice agencies. The CJC’s principal place of business is located at the

Municipal Building, One Centre Street, 10th Floor North, New York~ New York 10007.

The CJC is sued herein in his official capacity and acted in such capacity at all times

relevant hereto.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

30. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to C.P.L.R. 8 3001.

31. This Court also has jurisdiction pursuant to C.P.L.R. 88 7801 - 7806, to

review the actions by bodies or officers who have failed to perform a duty enjoined upon

them by law.

32. Venue in the County of New York is proper pursuant to C.P.L.R. 88 504(3),

506(b) and 503(a) as: (i) claims are asserted against the City and the cause of action arose

in New York County; (ii) claims are asserted against officers whose principal offices are in

New York County; and/or (iii) one or more of the parties resides in New York County.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

I. I~ackground.

33. The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S.

335 (1963), imposed the constitutional obligation upon each state, including the State of

-13-

New York, to provide legal services to defendants in criminal matters who are unable to

afford counsel.

34. The New York legislature enacted Article 18-B in 1965 to answer Gideon’s

call and ensure that adequate representation is provided under both the United States and

New York Constitutions to criminal defendants who are financially unable to retain

counsel. U.S. Const., 6th and 14th Amendments; N.Y. Const. Art. I, § 6.

35. Article 18-B requires that cities and counties, through action by their

"governing bodies," provide legal counsel, at public expense, for all defendants

financially unable to obtain counsel in all criminal cases (except those arising out of minor

traffic infractions).

36. Specifically, Article 18-B requires that all counties in New York State

(including the five boroughs comprising the City) provide assistance to indigent criminal

defendants utilizing one of four options, as follows:

§ 722. Plan for representation. The governing body of eachcounty and the governing body of the city in which a county iswholly contained shall place in operation throughout thecounty a plan for providing counsel to persons charged with acrime or who are entitled to counsel [and] ... who arefinancially unable to obtain counsel ....The plan shall conformto one of the following:

1. Representation by a public defender pursuant to countylaw article eighteen-A; [the "Public Defender Option"]

In criminal proceedings, representation by counselfurnished by a private legal aid bureau Or societydesignated by the county or city, organized and operatingto give legal assistance and representation to personscharged with a crime within the city or county who are

-14-

financially unable to obtain counsel... [the "Legal AidOption"]

Representation by counsel furnished pursuant to a plan of abar association in each county or the city in which a county iswholly contained whereby the services of private counsel arerotated and coordinated by and administrator... Any planof a bar association must receive the approval of the stateadministrator before the plan is placed in operation ....[the"Bar Plan Option"]

Representation according to a plan containing acombination of any of the foregoing..... [the "CombinedOption"]

County Law § 722 (emphasis added).

37. Article 18-B further provides in Section 722(4) and 722(5) that when:

the city.., has not placed in operation a plan conforming to[Section 722(3) or Section 722(4)] and the judge, justice ormagistrate is satisfied that a conflict of interest prevents theassignment of counsel pursuant to the plan in operation, orwhen.., the city.., has not placed in operation any planconforming to that prescribed in [Section 722] ... the judge,justice or magistrate may assign any attorney [in the city]...[and] such attorney shall receive compensation andreimbursement.., at the same rate [in 722-b].

County Law § 722 (emphasis added).

38. Article 18-B has been formally implemented by the First Department in 22

NYCRR Part 612 ("Part 612"), entitled Rules to Implement a Criminal Courts Panel Plan. Part

612 establishes, inter alia, standards, screening committees, screening processes and

training programs in which the County Bars have specified roles.

39. In order to safeguard each defendant’s constitutional right to effective and

meaningful assistance of counsel, Article 18-B requires that any indigent defense plan a

city or county adopts include certain vital checks and balances. Article 18-B’s provisions

-15-

require that any plan adopted, regardless of the option selected, will have a "safety valve"

in the form of conflict counsel who are qualified and able to take a case when primary

counsel are unable to do so.

40. If the City does not implement a plan at all - or if a plan does not strictly

conform to the Bar Plan Option or the Combined Option - Sections 722(4) and 722(5)

provide a default "safety valve" that enables the courts to assign "any attorney in such

county or city" who shall be paid at statutory rates provided by Section 722(b) in a "safety

valve" situation. County Law §§ 722(4), 722(5).

41. State law neither provides for nor authorizes the establishment of any plans

for the provision of indigent defense counsel other than the four options set forth by

Article 18-B’s Section 722. Accordingly, neither the Mayor, the CJC nor the City possess

the authority or the power necessary to create an indigent defense system that departs

from the requirements imposed by Article 18-B.

A. The Issuance of Executive Order 178.

42. On or about November 27, 1965, in accordance with Article 18-B, former

Mayor Wagner issued Executive Order 178 ("Order 178"), entitled "Furnishing of Counsel

to Indigent Criminal Defendants Within the City of New York."

43. By virtue of Order 178, the City elected to establish a Combined Plan - the

1965 Bar Plan - under Section 722(4), which includes: (1) Legal Aid as the primary

provider in all five counties (later extended to other institutional providers satisfying the

criteria of Section 722(2)); (2) a rule designating that conflict cases are to be picked up by

the 1965 Bar Plan Panels (supervised by the Appellate Division); and (3) a rule dictating

-16-

that only the 1965 Bar Plan Panels can represent defendants charged with crimes for

which the death penalty or life imprisonment is authorized. A true and correct copy of

Order 178 is annexed hereto as Exhibit A and is incorporated herein by reference.

44. Pursuant to Order 178, Legal Aid would be paid an agreed-upon flat fee as

the City’s primary provider pursuant to a contract witl~ the City, which was permitted to

terminate the contract with 60 days notice. The City’s designation of Legal Aid as an

indigent defense provider in Order 178 complied with the Legal Aid Option under Section

722(2).

45. Implementing the safety valve and ensuririg the availability of conflict

counsel, Order 178 next exercised the Bar Plan Option by calling for a plan of a bar

association, approved by the state administrator, as follows:

[i]n those cases where by reason of a conflict of interest orother appropriate reason provided in the [agreement with.Legal Aid], the Legal Aid Society declines to represent any[indigent] defendant [in criminal proceedings], such defendantshall be represented by counsel furnished pursuant to the jointplan of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York and theNew York County Lawyers" Association... provided such plan isapproved by the Judicial Conference of the State of New York ....

(Ex. A at ¶ 2 (emphasis added).)

46. The City’s election to utilize a system for the provision of indigent defense

counsel through a joint plan of the City Bar and NYCLA qualified as a plan proposed by a

bar association under Section 722(3).

47. The City’s decision, in Order 178, to create a mechanism for the provision of

counsel to indigent defendants in criminal matters utilizing both the Legal Aid Option and

the Bar Plan Option under Section 722 complied with the requirements of Section 722(4)’s

Combined Option.

48. Order 178 became effective on December 1, 1965.

B. The Creation and Establishment of the 1965 Bar Plan.

49. Following Article 18-B’s enactment, and in conjunction with the issuance of

Order 178, the County Bars and City Bar proposed the 1965 Bar Plan in accordance with

Section 722(4)’s Combined Option.

50. Among other things, the 1965 Bar Plan acknowledges the City’s designation

of Legal Aid as the primary provider of indigent criminal defense counsel to the City. The

1965 Bar Plan also establishes a procedure for using attorneys from the 1965 Bar Plan

Panels as indigent defense counsel in criminal matters where the court determines that

counsel, apart from Legal Aid, is required "in the interest of justice because of either a

conflict of interest or any other good cause..." or because the crime charged was

punishable by death or life imprisonment (collectively, the "Conflict Cases"). A true and

correct copy of the 1965 Bar Plan, which was issued along with Order 178, is annexed

hereto as Exhibit B and is incorporated by reference.

51. Under the 1965 Bar Plan, Conflict Cases are handled by the 1965 Bar Plan

Panels, which are coordinated by an Administrator or Administrators appointed by the

Appellate Divisions in the First and Second Judicial Departments.

52. The 1965 Bar Plan Panels are comprised of assigned counsel identified by the

County Bars and screened by Central Screening Committees. The County Bars play key

(and in some instances exclusive) roles on the Screening Committees in helping to decide

or dictating the make-up of the 1965 Bar Plan Panels.

53. To be placed on a 1965 Bar Plan Panel, attorneys must be experienced and

submit an application detailing, inter alia, their experience trying felony and misdemeanor

cases, a writing sample, and letters of recommendation and references. In addition,

attorneys are interviewed and must be approved by a screening committee.

54. The 1965 Bar Plan was approved by the Judicial Conference of the State of

New York on April 28, 1966. At no time since the issuance of Order 178 in 1965 have the

County Bars agreed to any effort by the City to repeal or modify the 1965 Bar Plan, or

otherwise proposed or agreed to a new plan for the provision of counsel to indigent

defendants in the City.

55. Since the 1965 Bar Plan’s enactment over forty years ago, it has continued to

function as the only official system for providing indigent criminal defense counsel in the

City. Throughout this hybrid-system period, the 1965 Bar Plan Panels have served as

safety valves, providing conflict counsel and over-flow counsel for those institutional

providers who limit their caseloads by contract, and playing a critical role in ensuring that

indigent defendants receive their constitutional right to the meaningful and effective

assistance of counsel.

56. Year after year, the annual reports from the independent IDOOC bemoan

the excessive caseloads borne by the same institutional providers upon which the Mayor

seeks to impose even more cases with potentially less funding. As stated in the Report of

the Appellate Division First Department’s IDOOC for Fiscal Year 2006 - 2007:

-19-

As this Committee has previously noted, the problem of excessivecaseloads has been a central theme of every report this Committee hasissued. Indeed, as we observed in our report for the FY 04-05 reportingcycle, "[a]fter a decade of monitoring indigent defense in the FirstDepartment, it has become clear to the Committee that indigent defenseproviders - and, in particular, the Legal Aid Society - cope continuouslywith limited resources for expanding caseloads."

The news for FY 06-07 is no better. Indeed, if anything, it is significantlyworse. The Legal Aid Society continued to operate under a contract thatrequired it to handle a potentially limitless increase in work for a fixedamount of money, and various prosecutorial initiatives drove home thatthe potential for a limitless increase in work was anything but abstract. ByFY 07, the collective caseload of Legal Aid’s trial units had soared tonearly 50% above the First Department’s maximum caseload. Moreover,by virtue of a combination of changes in how their contracts wereadministered and an increase in arrests on more serious charges, theBronx Defenders and the New York County Defender Services likewisecarried caseloads that were substantially in excess of the FirstDepartment’s maximum.

As a result, this report brings the grim news that during FY 06-07 all butone of the First Department’s indigent defense organizations (with theexception being by far the smallest of those organizations) struggledunder caseloads that the First Department has declared to be excessive.

57. When attorneys from the 1965 Bar Plan Panels do take matters, they are able

to do so absent some of the economic pressures affecting providers who contract with the

City on a flat-fee or a pre-negotiated budget basis. Accordingly, the 1965 Bar Plan Panels

serve as vital safety valves under the 1965 Bar Plan in instances where a primary provider,

particularly one under a flat-fee contract with the City, is unable, in its professional

determination, to represent a particular defendant due to excessive caseloads or

insufficient funding.

- 20 -

C. Executive Order 118, Chapter 13, and the ContinuedEffectiveness of the 1965 Bar Plan.

58. On or about June 13, 2008, the Mayor issued Executive Order 118 ("Order

118") purportedly repealing Order 178. However, Order 118 specifically left in place the

indigent defense system established by the 1965 Bar Plan.

59. Although Order 118 set forth a proposed plan for the provision of counsel to

indigent defendants in criminal matters, no new procedure was put into effect or

established and, as of February 2, 2010, no requests for proposals have been issued

pursuant to Order 118. Further, Order 118 specifically reaffirmed that any prospective

plan for the provision of indigent criminal defense counsel would have to comply with

Article 18-B.

60. On October 27, 2008, the CJC published a revision to Title 43 of the Rules of

the City of New York ("Title 43") that purported to amend Title 43 through the addition of

new language under Chapter 13 ("Chapter 13"). Chapter 13 purports to help "bring the

Plan into conformity with current practice .... "

61. While Chapter 13 goes one-step further beyond Order 178 by providing

details into a proposed procurement process for selecting indigent legal service providers

in the City, Chapter 13 neither established, nor set forth guide.lines for the proposed

procurement process to which it alluded.

62. Chapter 13 was not created or approved by any bar association within any

of the five counties of the City. However, like Order 118, Chapter 13 did not alter, repeal,

modify or amend the 1965 Bar Plan established under Order 178.

-21 -

63. Because Chapter 13 was adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) of Chapter

1043 of the New York City Charter, it could not, and did not purport to, adopt any rule

that abrogated or superseded federal, state or local law.

D. The 2003 Settlement Agreement Between the City andNYCLA on Behalf of Indigent Defendants.

64. In February 2000, NYCLA commenced an action (the "NYCLA Action")

against the State of New York and the City on behalf of indigent defendants in the

criminal and family courts seeking an increase in the statutory rates of compensation for

Assigned Counsel. In a trial before the Honorable Lucindo Suarez, the suit alleged and

proved that the nominal rates at which counsel from the 1965 Bar Plan Panels were being

compensated under Section 722-b threatened to deprive indigent defendants in criminal

matters of their constitutional rights to meaningful and effective representation. The Trial

Court issued an injunction raising the rates and declared the Section 722-b rates at issue in

the NYCLA Action - $40.00 per hour for in-court work and $60.00 per hour for work

outside of court - so inadequate as to create an imminent risk of the deprivation of the

right to counsel, and ordered the State of New York to set rates at $90 per hour.

65. The NYCLA Action was settled while on appeal in 2003. Pursuant to the

terms and conditions of the settlement agreement (the "2003 Settlement") between

NYCLA, the City and the State of New York (the "State"), the State increased the

compensation for Assigned Counsel to rates of $60.00 per hour for misdemeanors or lesser

offenses, and $75.00 per hour felony cases (collectively, the "2003 Rates"). As a result of

the 2003 Settlement, the 2003 Rates were codified in Section 722-b of the New York

- 22 -

County Law, Section 245 of the New York Family Court Act and Section 35 of the New

York Judiciary Law.

II. The Current Dispute.

A. The Request for Proposal.

66. On or about February 3, 2010, the CJC released a "Request For Proposals:

Indigent Criminal Defense Representation" (the "RFP"): A true and correct copy of the

RFP is annexed hereto as Exhibit C and is incorporated herein by reference.

67. The RFP delineates a process by which the CJC proposes to award

contract(s), on behalf of the City, for the provision of counsel to indigent defendants in

criminal matters.

68. The RFP purports to address the selection of at least one and potentially

multiple "providers" in each of the City’s five counties for use in both primary

representation (a "Primary Provider"), the position held by institutional providers under

the 1965 Bar Plan, and conflict case representation (a "Conflict Provider"), the position

currently held by the 1965 Bar Plan Panels under the 1965 Bar Plan.

69. The RFP provides for the possibility that any one organization, selected as a

provider, may be permitted to serve as both a Primary Provider and a Conflict Provider in

a county. The RFP also provides for the possibility that a single provider may be selected

for the provision of indigent defense services in any or all of the City’s counties.

70. The RFP restricts the term "conflict cases" for the selection of Conflict

Providers to "cases in which the provider at arraigrunent has a conflict of interest and is

thereby barred from representing the defendant." (RFP at § A, ¶ 5). Accordingly, the RFP

- 23 -

restricts use of Conflict Providers to situations involving actual conflicts rather than for

good cause or other appropriate reasons as had been the case under Order 178 and has

been the practice for nearly forty-five years.

71. The RFP specifies that selected provider(s) "will be expected to provide

representation to indigent clients in all non-conflict, non-homicide criminal cases" from

arraignment until the case is decided. Yet, the RFP does not disclose the criteria for the

selection of a Conflict Provider (apart from delineating the potential scope of conflict

representation).

72. The RFP dictates that the City’s contracts for indigent defense providers will

not exceed 2 years with up to two 2-year options to renew.

73. The RFP establishes that the economic interests of the City will weigh

heavily in selecting providers under the RFP. For example, the RFP dictates that payment

awards will be made to those bidders who "most likely ensure that the selected proposers

will perform the work under the contracts awarded from [the] RFP in a manner that is

cost-effective for [the City] and most likely to achieve the [CJC]’s goals" (Ex. C at § IV(C)).

The RFP also asserts a right to "select any payment structure that is in the City’s best

interest." (Ex. C at § IV(A)(3)).

r,74. None of the Respondents consulted with the County Bars prior to the

issuance of the RFP, nor did the County Bars at any time approve of the RFP.

75. The County Bars are not proposers or providers under the RFP.

76. The RFP was not approved by a governing body of the State, by the First or

Second Judicial Departments, or by the City Council.

¯ "/’/. The RFP imposed a deadline of March 15, 2010 for the submission of

proposals. No terms of any such proposals have been disclosed to the County Bars, and

the County Bars have not been included in the review or selection process set forth under

the RFP. The RFP indicates that contracts will be awarded to winning bidders by July 1,

2010.

The RFP does not comply with the 1965 Bar Plan or the provisions of Article

18-B.

Bo Executive Order 132.

79. On or about March 2, 2010, the Mayor issued Order 132, purportedly in

accordance with the provisions of Article 18-B. A true and correct copy of Order 132 is

annexed hereto as Exhibit D and is incorporated by reference herein.

80. Order 132 repeals Order 118 as well as Order 178, and in their place

promulgates a new system for the provision of indigent defense counsel (the "New

Plan"), which enables the CJC to "select Providers through a competitive procurement

process in accordance with the rules of the Procurement Policy Board." (Ex. D at § 3).

Section 2 of Order 132 defines the term "Provider" as "[a] private legal services

organization selected by the Criminal Justice Coordinator (’CJC’) in accordance with

section three of this Order to represent indigent persons." (Ex. D at § 2.)

81. The New Plan embodied by Order 132 consists of a combination of selected

"Providers" (as defined in Section 2) and "attorneys appointed from appropriate Assigned

Counsel Panels of the First and Second Judicial Departments ...." in cases where due to a

- 25 -

conflict of interest "or other appropriate reason," a provider declines or is unable to

represent an indigent person at the trial or appeal of a criminal matter. (Ex. D at § 3.)

82. Order 132 defines "Criminal Defense Panels" and "Assigned Counsel

Panels," both of which are composed of private practitioners in the same vein as those

included on the 1965 Bar Plan Panels. For example, Section I of Order 132 provides that,

"Criminal Defense Panels created under the authority of Executive Order 178 of 1965 shall

continue to exist ...." (Ex. D at § 1.) Section 2 of Order 132 provides for "Assigned

Counsel Panels" consisting of "panels of private attorneys certified by the Appellate

Division, First and Second Judicial Departments, to represent indigent persons for

purposes of Article 18-B of the County Law."

83. However, Order 132 departs from the 1965 Bar Plan by mandating that the

proposed "Assigned Counsel Panels" be "administered by the Office of the Mayor, Office of

the Assigned Counsel Plan (’ACP’)... established pursuant to subdivision (3) of section 722

of the County Law [the Bar Plan Option]..." to manage both Order 132’s proposed

"Assigned Counsel Panels" and "Criminal Defense Panels."

84. Contrary to the City’s reference to the Bar Plan Option in Section 722(3), the

County Bars did not approve of the "Assigned Counsel Plan," the "Criminal Defense

Panels," or the use of an "Office of Assigned Counsel Plan" proposed by Order 132, as is

required under Article 18-B. Thus, the New Plan is not in compliance with Section 722(3).

85. Despite providing for the continued role of private practitioners in the

provision of indigent defense services, Order 132 restricts the role of attorneys from the

"Assigned Counsel Panels" to cases where the Providers decline to represent defendants

- 26 -

specifically "at trial or on appeal" due to a "conflict of interest or other appropriate reason,"

and includes Providers in the role of conflict counsel. (Ex. D at § 4.) As a result, to the

extent "Assigned Counsel Panel" attorneys are engaged in a matter, they will be inserted

into the process long after it has begun, after decisions and investigations that may impact

their ability to provide effective assistance of counsel have already been made and acted

upon or not acted upon.

86. Accordingly, Order 132 precludes the possibility that attorneys from the

"Assigned Counsel Panels" (proposed under Order 132) or any other individuals or

entities apart from the selected Primary Provider(s) will provide counsel to indigent

defendants at any point prior to a trial or on appeal. This provision raises grave concerns

that indigent defendants may be entirely without counsel at critical stages of the process

in violation of their Constitutional rights.

8"L Order 132 also provides that vouchers requesting payment by "Assigned

Counsel" under Section 722-b will be subject to the review of the Mayor’s Office of the

Assigned Counsel Plan and the CJC. This places the Mayor’s Office in a clear conflict

position between its obligations to provide indigent defense and its overarching

budgetary concerns.

88. Order 132 materially changes the manner in which private counsel are

rotated and coordinated under the 1965 Bar Plan, and does not allow for participation by

the County Bars in devising or implementing a revised system to provide counsel to

indigent defendants.

- 27 -

89.

of Order 132.

Respondents did not consult the County Bars prior to the Mayor’s issuance

90. Order 132 was not approved by a governing body of the State, the County

Bars, the City Council, the State Administrator, or the Judicial Council of the State of New

York.

91. Order 132 took effect immediately upon issuance on March 2, 2010.

The Addenda.

92. On February 8, 2010, the CJC issued Addendum No. I to the RFP (the "First

Addendum"). A true and correct copy of the First Addendum is annexed hereto as

Exhibit E. On March 2, 2010, the same day on which Order 132 was issued, the CJC

released Addendum No. 2 to the RFP (the "Second Addendum" and, collectively with the

First Addendum, the "Addenda") in order to disseminate information and address

questions relevant to the RFP. A true and correct copy of the Second Addendum is

annexed hereto as Exhibit F.

93. The Second Addendum indicates that the City attempted to establish a

system for the provision of indigent defense counsel based solely on the requirements set

forth in Section 722’s Legal Aid Option as follows:

The City’s current plan for indigent legal services, setforth in Executive Order No. 132, and in chapter 13 ofTitle 43 of the Rules of the City of New York, conformsto subdivision two of section 722, which provides forlegal representation in criminal proceedings by ’aprivate legal aid bureau or society designated by the[City]’. This is entirely in accordance with therequirements of section 722.

-28 -

(Ex. F at p. 5.) However, the plan described in the Second Addendum does not comply

with Section 722(2) because, inter alia, it includes elements of other plans not included in a

Legal Aid Option. Further, these elements are not permissible under any other

subdivision of Section 722.

94. The Second Addendum further confirms that, pursuant to Order 132, the

City was unilaterally purporting to abolish the Assigned Counsel Plan as follows:

As may be seen, section 722 provides four alternativemeans that may be chosen by a locality for theprovision of indigent legal services. One of thosealternatives, set forth in subdivision three, is theadoption of a bar association plan for the rotation oflegal services among private counsel. However, theCity is in no way required, in formatting its plan forindigent legal services, to conform to the alternativeprovided in subdivision three.

The City’s previous plan for the provision of indigentlegal services, explicitly repealed by Executive OrderNo. 132, relied on services provided pursuant to theplan of a local bar association. That plan is no longer ineffect.

(Ex. F at p. 5 (emphasis added).)

95. The Second Addendum expressly permits the CJC to select providers, other

than those required by Section 722, for the provision of indigent defense services.

96. Neither Order 132 nor the RFP (including the Addenda) provide for the

manner in which counsel will be assigned to indigent defendants in matters classified as

homicide cases at the time of arraignment.

- 29 -

97. The CJC issued the Second Addendum without consulting the County Bars

or providing the County Bars with notice of its issuance.

98. The Second Addendum was not approved by a governing body of the State,

the County Bars, the City Council, the state administrator, or the Judicial Council of the

State of New York.

99. The CJC’s issuance of the RFP (including the Addenda) was wholly beyond

the CJC’s legitimate grant of power and was, as a result, an exercise of unlawful power.

100. There are no administrative remedies available to the County Bars to

challenge the legality of the RFP (including the Addenda). Moreover, assuming, arguendo,

that administrative remedies were available to the County Bars, which they are not,

exhaustion would be futile.

D. Departures of the Proposed Indigent Defense System From Article 18-B.

101. The New Plan, including Order 132 and the RFP (including the Addenda),

was promulgated in violation of state and federal law including, but not limited to, Article

18-B, provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law (the "MHRL"), the United States

Constitution, the New York State Constitution, and the New York City Charter.

102. The New Plan provides for the rendering of indigent defense services from

any "private legal services organization selected by the Criminal Justice Coordinator"

rather than a "private legal aid bureau or society.., organized and operating to give legal

assistance and representation to persons charged with a crime within the city or county who are

financially unable to obtain counsel" as required by Section 722.

103. The New Plan plainly fails to require, in any manner, that providers be

"organized and operating" for the purposes of providing legal counsel to indigent

defendants. Accordingly, the New Plan allows for any number of private law firms,

commercial or otherwise, to assume responsibility for the provision of indigent defense

services in criminal matters. Accordingly, this part of the New Plan is not a valid exercise

of either the Legal Aid Option or the Bar Plan Option under Section 722.

104. The New Plan also seeks to confer a right of review over the payment of

compensation to Assigned Counsel under Section 722-b to the City, despite the fact that

both Article 18-B and the federal and state constitutions reserve such right of review to the

courts.

105. The County Bars have not approved, and expressly object to, the attempted

rescission of the 1965 Bar Plan and the 1965 Bar Plan Panels and the formation of the

corresponding "Assigned Counsel Panels" and "Criminal Defense Panels" created by the

New Plan and specifically provided for by Order 132.

106. The County Bars have not approved of the administration of any Assigned

Counsel Panel by the Mayor’s Office or through the Mayor’s Office of the Assigned

Counsel Plan (the "OACP’) as provided for in the New Plan. Although Order 132

purports to establish the OACP pursuant to Section 722(3), Section 722(3) does not

authorize the creation of the OACP absent approval of the County Bars and the state

administrator.

107. Any attempt by Respondents to utilize a means of providing indigent

defense counsel in criminal matters apart from use of a "private legal aid bureau or

-31 -

society," "a public defender," or a combination of both, requires the use of an approved

plan of the County Bars.

108. Respondents’ New Plan does not utilize a "public defender."

109. Instead, Respondents’ New Plan attempts to utilize a combination of an

institutional provider (not necessarily of the kind permitted under the Legal Aid Option),

and the participation of additional defense counsel in a manner that is inconsistent with

the Bar Plan Option because the guidelines for their participation have not been

established pursuant to a plan of a county bar association. Therefore, the New Plan does

not comply with any of the four exclusive options for an indigent defense plan set forth in

Section 722.

E. The Constitutional Concerns Raised by the Proposed System.

110. The City’s unilateral overhaul of the 1965 Bar Plan, particularly when

viewed in the context of the proposed budget, threatens to financially starve an already

malnourished indigent defense system in violation of the New York and United States

Constitutions.

111. Since its inception in 1996, the IDOOC for the First Department Appellate

Division has reported, for each fiscal year, that the institutional providers are already

grossly underfunded and over-extended. For example, the IDOOC Report for Fiscal Year

2006-2007 reported that institutional providers were functioning "under case-loads that

the First Department has declared to be excessive."

112. The assurance that indigent defendants will receive effective and

meaningful assistance of counsel at every critical stage of the criminal proceedings is a

-32 -

basic right guaranteed by both the Federal and New York State Constitutions. U.S. Const.

6th & 14th Amend.; N.Y. Const. Art. I, § 6; and Gideon v. Wainwright.

113. Accordingly, Article 18-B was purposefully enacted to: (i) ensure the State of

New York and local governments fulfill their obligations under the United States and

New York Constitutions to provide for effective assistance of counsel to indigent

defendants; and (ii) dictate the system pursuant to which such counsel is provided.

114. By reserving oversight for the County Bars and the courts, Article 18-B

ensures that the City cannot unilaterally fashion an indigent defense system by fiat.

Article 18-B does not grant the City authority to unilaterally assign counsel for indigent

defendants.

115.

power and in the discharge of its constitutional and statutory duty to ensure that counsel

is provided to every eligible indigent defendant. The courts’ power to assign defense

counsel to indigents is therefore inherent, and cannot be abrogated by the City.

116. According to the Office of Court Administration, the total budget for the

provision of indigent defense counsel in the City for the year 2009 was $140.1 million.

This figure includes $94.6 million allotted to cases handled by Legal Aid (and similarly

situated defender services), and $45.5 million allotted for the 1965 Bar Plan Panels.

117. According to the Office of Court Administration, the total budget for the ’

provision of indigent defense counsel in the City for the year 2008 was nearly $152

million, including approximately $102 million allocated to Legal Aid (and similarly

situated entities) and approximately $50 million allocated to 1965 Bar Plan Panels.

The assignment of counsel is made in the exercise of the trial court’s inherent

118. The budget for the entire New Plan pursuant to the Second Addendum is

$101,180,000 in total - a roughly 30% drop in funding. Of this amount, the Proposed

System budgets $92.4 million for providers selected through the RFP and $8.7 million for

conflict cases of the sort formerly handled by the 1965 Bar Plan Panels.

119. Upon information and belief, the indigent defense system handled

approximately 333,912 cases in 2008, and approximately 332,463 cases in 2009 pursuant to

Article 18-B.

120. The drastic reduction in the costs of providing counsel to indigent

defendants sought by Respondents through the New Plan is, upon information and belief,

an immediate threat to the protection of the rights to which such defendants are entitled

under the United States Constitution and the New York State Constitution.

121. Indeed, Respondents’ proposed system overhaul threatens to further reduce

funding for indigent defense services without a concomitant promise to reduce

burgeoning case-loads. Tellingly, the City has expressly stated in the RFP (and its

Addenda) that it intends to "select any payment structure that is in the City’s best

interest" in implementing a new plan for indigent representation in criminal courts.

122. Upon information and belief, there is no basis to believe that the number of

people requiring the assignment of counsel pursuant to Article 18-B will decrease in

proportion to the proposed budget cuts for spending on such defense costs as detailed in

Order 132, the RFP and the Addenda. In fact, particularly in times of economic crisis,

there is every reason to believe the number of people qualifying for assigned counsel will

increase.

- 34-

123. The Respondents’ New Plan would severely impede indigent criminal

defendants’ rights to due process, equal protection and adequate, meaningful and

effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

States Constitution, as well as under Art. I, § 6 of the New York Constitution. The

Respondents’ New Plan further violates the doctrine of separation of powers to the extent

it seeks to usurp the courts’ role in assigning indigent counsel under Article 18-B where

the City has failed to implement a plan that conforms with the four exclusive options set

forth in Article 18-B’s Section 722.

124. The County Bars have not approved any plan or system for the provision of

indigent defense counsel in the City other than that set forth in the 1965 Bar Plan.

125. Because the 1965 Bar Plan has been revoked pursuant to Order 132 and/or

otherwise vacated, repealed or nullified by Order 132 and the RFP, the danger and

irreparable harm to Petitioners and indigent defendants in the City is immediate.

126. Petitioners have no adequate remedy at law.

127. No request has been made for the relief sought in this action prior to the

commencement of this proceeding.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION(For Judgment Pursuant to CPLR §§ 7801-7806 and Article 18-B)(As Against the Mayor and the City with Respect to Order 132)

128. Petitioners repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs I through 127 as if set forth fully herein.

-35 -

129. Article 78 of New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules supersedes the

common-law writs of mandamus and provides a device for challenging the actions of the

City and its officials.

130. Respondents the Mayor and the City are required by the New York State

Constitution and the New York City Charter, among other laws, to enforce and

implement all federal laws, state laws and all laws duly passed by the City Council.

131. Article 18-B was duly passed and enacted by the State Legislature on or

about July 16,1965, and became effective on December 1, 1965.

132. The 1965 Bar Plan received approval of the Board of Estimate by resolution

dated December 16, 1965, and approval of the City Council by resolution dated June 23,

1966.

133. As detailed herein, Executive Order 132 establishes an indigent defense

system that violates Article 18-B.

134. Accordingly, Respondents the Mayor and the City have failed to implement

or enforce Article 18-B and the 1965 Bar Plan notwithstanding their duty to do so.

135. CPLR § 7801 et seq. provides a right of action against governmental officers

and entities that have "failed to perform a duty enjoined upon [them] by law."

136. Petitioners have a clear legal right to the enforcement of, and compliance

with, Article 18-B and the 1965 Bar Plan by the Mayor and the City.


138. Accordingly, Petitioners are entitled to a judgment under CPLR § 7806

ordering the Mayor and the City to enforce and comply with the provisions of Article 18-B

and the Assigned Counsel Plan.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION(For Judgment Pursuant to CPLR §§ 7801-7806 and the MHRL)(As Against the Mayor and the City with Respect to Order 132)



140. Article 78 of the New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules supersedes the



141. Respondents the Mayor and the City are required by the New York State

Constitution and the New York City Charter, among other laws, to enforce and

implement all federal laws, state laws and all laws duly passed by the City Council.


about July 16, 1965, and became effective on December 1, 1965.



1966.

144. The Municipal Home Rule Law was duly passed and enacted by the New

York State Legislature on or about April 30, 1963, and became effective on January 1,1964.

- 37 -

145. Pursuant to the Municipal Home Rule Law § 11(1)(e), no county may "adopt

a local law that supersedes state statute, ff such local law... [a]pplies to or affects the

courts as required or provided by article six of the [New York] constitution."

146. Pursuant to Municipal Home Rule Law § 34(2)(f), "except in accordance

with or consistent with laws enacted by the legislature, a county charter or charter law

shall not contain provisions relating to the.., composition, functions, powers, duties or

jurisdiction of a court or of the officers thereof .... "

147. As detailed herein, the New Plan set forth in Executive Order 132

supersedes a state law, Article 18-B, affecting the courts and/or, officers of the court in

violation of Municipal Home Rule Law §§ 11(1)(e) and 34(2)(f).




with, Municipal Home Rule Law §§ 11(1)(e) and 34(2)(f) by the Mayor and the City.

150. Respondents the Mayor and the City have failed to implement or enforce

Article 18-B and the 1965 Bar Plan notwithstanding their duty to do so.



ordering the Mayor and the City to implement and enforce Municipal Home Rule Law

§§ 11(1)(e) and 34(2)(f).

-38 -

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION(For Judgment Pursuant to CPLR §§ 7801- 7806, Article 18-B and

the New York City Charter §§ 329 and 1043, and the New York State Constitution)(As Against the CJC, the Mayor and the City with Respect to the RFP and Addenda )






155. Respondents the CJC, the Mayor and the City are required by the New York

State Constitution (e.g., Article XI § 2(c)), and the New York City Charter, among other

laws, to enforce and implement all federal laws, state laws and all laws duly passed by the

City Council in performance of their duties and obligations.

156. Section 329 of the New York City Charter requires that all services to be

performed by contract shall be obtained by the agency for whose use the appropriation

shall have been made in accordance with the law.

157. Section 1043 of the New York City Charter requires that each agency adopt

rules necessary to carry out the powers and duties delegated to it in accordance with

federal state and local


about July 16, 1965, and became effective on December 1, 1965.

-39 -



1966.

160. As detailed herein, the RFP, the First Addendum and the Second

Addendum establish a system for an indigent defense system that violates Article 18-B.

161. Accordingly, by issuing the RFP, the First Addendum and the Second

Addendum, Respondents the CJC, the Mayor and the City have failed to implement or

enforce Article 18-B and the 1965 Bar Plan notwithstanding their duty to do so including,

inter alia, duties imposed pursuant to Sections 329 and 1043 of the New York City Charter

and Article IX § 2(c) of the New York State Constitution.




with, the New York City Charter, the New York State Constitution, Article 18-B and the

1965 Bar Plan by the CJC, the Mayor and the City with respect to, inter alia, the RFP, the

First Addendum and the Second Addendum.



ordering the CJC, the Mayor and the City to implement and enforce Article 18-B and the

1965 Bar Plan.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION(For Judgment Pursuant to CPLR §§ 7801- 7806, the New

York City Charter §§ 329 and 1043, and the New York State Constitution)(As Against the CJC, the Mayor and the City

with Respect to Order 132, the RFP and Addenda)






168. Respondents the Mayor, the CJC and the City are required by the New York

State Constitution (e.g., Article XI(2)(c)), and the New York City Charter, among other

laws, to enforce and implement all federal laws, state laws and all laws duly passed by the

City Council in performance of their duties and obligations.?!






federal state and local law.

171. As detailed herein, Order 132, the RFP, the First Addendum and the Second

Addendum establish an indigent defense system that contradicts state law, including but

not limited to, Article 18-B, as well as federal law including, but not limited to, the United

States Constitution and Chapter 42, Section 1983 of the United States Code.

-41 -

172. Accordingly, by issuing the RFP, the First Addendum and the Second

Addendum, Respondents the Mayor, the CJC and the City have failed to implement or

enforce state and federal law, notwithstanding their duty to do so including, inter alia,

duties imposed pursuant to Sections 329 and 1043 of the New York City Charter.



174. Petitioners have a clear legal right to enforcement of, and compliance with,

the New York City Charter and state and federal laws by the Mayor, the CJC, and the City

with respect to, inter alia, Order 132, the RFP, the First Addendum and the Second

Addendum.



ordering the Mayor, the CJC and the City to implement and enforce Sections 329 and 1043

of the New York City Charter, and Article IX § 2(c) of the New York State Constitution by

implementing an indigent defense system in compliance with relevant city, state and’

federal laws.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION(For Declaratory Judgment Pursuant to CPLR § 3001 and Article 18-B)

(As Against the Mayor and the City Regarding Order 132)



178. The provision of legal services to indigent defendants is governed by Article

18-B.

- 42 -

179. The 1965 Bar Plan created by the County Bars (along with the City Bar) in

1966 complies with the provisions of Section 722(3).

180. The Mayor has issued Executive Order 132 to establish a new system for the

provision of defense counsel to indigent defendants.

181. As detailed herein, Executive Order 132 imposes a system for indigent

defense counsel that violates Article 18-B.

182. By virtue of Respondents’ continued activities in connection with Executive

Order 132, an actual controversy exists as to whether Executive Order 132 complies with

Article 18-B.


184. Accordingly, Petitioners are entitled to a judgment declaring that Executive

Order 132 is unlawful and/or violates Article 18-B and is, accordingly, invalid.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION(For Declaratory Judgment Pursuant to CPLR §§ 3001 and the MHRL)

(As Against the Mayor and the City with Respect to Order 132)



186. Pursuant to the Municipal Home Rule Law § 11(1)(e), nocounty may "adopt

a local law that supersedes state statute, if such local law... [a]pplies to or affects the




- 43 -



188. The provision of legal services to indigent defendants is governed by a state

statute, namely, Article 18-B.

189. Executive Order 132 creates a system for the provision of indigent defense

counsel and, as a result, applies to or affects the courts.

190. As detailed herein, Executive Order 132 establishes a system that supersedes

Article 18-B, a state statute.

191. By providing for a system of indigent defense that supersedes a state statute

and affects the courts and/or officers of the courts, the Mayor and the City have violated

Municipal Home Rule Law §§ 11(1)(e) and 34(2)(0.

192. By virtue of Respondents’ continued activities in connection with Executive

Order 132, an actual controversy exists as to whether Executive Order 132 violates Section

11(1)(e) of the MHRL.



Order 132 is unlawful and/or violates Section 11(1)(e) of the MHRL and is, accordingly,

invalid.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION(For Declaratory Judgment Pursuant to CPLR § 3001 and Article 18-B)

(As Against the Mayor, the CJC and the City with Respect to the RFP and Addenda)



- 44 -


18-B.

197. The 1965 Bar Plan complies with the provisions of Article 18-B.

198. The CJC has issued the RFP and the Addenda with the approval of and at

the direction of the Mayor and/or the City, in an attempt to create a new system for the

provision of counsel to indigent defendants.

199. As detailed herein, the RFP and the Addenda provide for a system that

violates Article 18-B.

200. By virtue of Respondents’ continued activities in connection with the RFP

and the Addenda, an actual controversy exists as to whether the RFP and the Addenda

comply with Article 18-B.


202. Accordingly, Petitioners are entitled to a judgment declaring that the RFP

and the Addenda are unlawful and/or violate Article 18-B and are, accordingly, invalid.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION(For Declaratory Judgment Pursuant to CPLR §§ 3001, the New YorkCity Charter §§ 329 and 1043 and the New York State Constitution)

(As Against the Mayor, the CJC and the City with Respect to the RFP and the Addenda)








federal state and local law.

206. Title IX § 2(c) of the New York State Constitution requires that local

governments shall have the power to adopt and amend local laws that are consistent with

the provisions of the New York State Constitution or any general law relating to is

property, affairs or government.

20Z The provision of legal services to indigent defendants is governed by a state

statute, namely, Article 18-B, as well as provisions of the New York Constitution and the

United States Constitution.

208. The CJC has issued the RFP and the Addenda with the approval of and at

the direction of the Mayor and/or the City, in an attempt to create a new system for the

provision of counsel to indigent defendants.

209. As detailed herein, the RFP and the Addenda provide for a system that

violates state and/or federal law.

210. Assuming, arguendo, that Chapter 13 is deemed valid in response to the

Ninth and Tenth Causes of Action to this Petition, below - which it is not - the RFP and

the Addenda also fail to comply with the provisions of Chapter 13, a city rule.

211. By providing for a system of indigent defense in the RFP and the Addenda

that violate state and/or federal law, the CJC, Mayor and the City have violated Sections

329 and 1043 of the New York City Charter and relevant sections of the New York

Constitution and the United States Constitution.

- 46 -



violate Sections 329 and 1043 of the New York City Charter by violating relevant federal

and/or state law.


214. Accordingly, Petitioners are entitled to a judgment declaring that the RFP

and the Addenda are unlawful and/or violate Sections 329 and 1043 of the New York City

Charter.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION(For Declaratory Judgment Pursuant to CPLR § 3001 and Article 18-B)

(As Against the Mayor, the CJC and the City with Respect to Chapter 13)



The provision of legal services to indigent defendants is governed by Article


218. The CJC has issued Chapter 13 with the approval of and at the direction of

the Mayor and/or the City, in an attempt to create a new system for the provision of

counsel to indigent defendants.

219. As detailed herein, Chapter 13 provides for a system that violates Article 18-

B.

220. By virtue of Respondents’ continued activities in connection with Chapter

13, an actual controversy exists as to whether Chapter 13 complies with Article 18-B.

- 47 -


222. Accordingly, Petitioners are entitled to a judgment declaring that Chapter 13

is unlawful and/or violate Article 18-B and are, accordingly, invalid.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION(For Declaratory Judgment Pursuant to CPLI{ § 3001 and the MHRL)

(As Against the Mayor, the CJC and the City with Respect to Chapter 13)



224. Pursuant to the Municipal Home Rule Law § 11(1)(e), no county may "adopt

a local law that supersedes state statute, if such local law... [a]pplies to or affects the






226. The provision of legal services to indigent defendants is governed by a state

statute, namely, Article 18-B.

227. Chapter 13 enacts a local rule for the provision of indigent defense counsel

and, as a result, applies to or affects the courts.

228. As detailed herein, Chapter 13 establishes a system that supersedes Article

18-B, a state statute.

229. As Chapter 13 enacts a rule establishing provisions for a system of indigent

defense that supersedes a state statute and affects the courts and/or officers of the courts,

the Mayor, the CJC and the City have violated Municipal Home Rule Law §§ ll(1)(e) and

34(2)(0.

230. By virtue of Respondents’ continued activities in connection with Chapter

13, an actual controversy exists as to whether Executive Order 132 violates Section 11(1)(e)

of the MHRL.



Order 132 is unlawful and/or violates Section 11(1)(e) of the MHRL and is, accordingly,

invalid.

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION(For Declaratory Judgment Pursuant To CPLR § 3001 and Chapter 13)

(As Against the Mayor, the CJC and the City with Respect to the RFP and Addenda)




18-B.


236. The CJC has issued Chapter 13 with the approval of and at the direction of

the Mayor and/or the City, in an attempt to create a new system for the provision of

counsel to indigent defendants.

237. As detailed herein, Chapter 13 provides for a system of indigent defense.

- 49 -

238. Assuming, arguendo, that this Court declares Chapter 13 a valid Rule

pursuant to Section 1043 of the New York City Charter, which it is not, the RFP and the

Addenda are invalid as they contradict Section 13’s provisions.



comply with Chapter 13 (in such case as Chapter 13 is declared lawful, which it is not).


241. Accordingly, Petitioners are entitled to a judgment declaring that if Chapter

13 is declared lawful, the RFP and the Addenda have violated Chapter 13 and are,

accordingly, unlawful.

WHEREFORE, Petitioners demand judgment for appropriate permanent and

preliminary declaratory and injunctive relief as follows:

a)

b)

c)

d)

declaring that Order 132 and the RFP (along with the Addenda) violateArticle 18-B, Municipal Home Rule Law §§ 11(1)(e) and 32(2)(f), the NewYork State Constitution and/or New York City Charter §§ 329 and 1043 andare, as a result, invalid;

directing and compelling Respondents and their agencies, officers andemployees immediately to reinstate, implement and enforce Order 178 andthe 1965 Bar Plan;

enjoining Respondents and their agencies, officers and employees fromexecuting, entering into or renewing any contracts pursuant to Order 132 orthe RFP (and any of its Addenda);

directing and compelling Respondents to identify any and all contractsentered into by Respondents and their agencies, officers and employeespursuant to Order 132 or the RFP;

e)

(0

i)

directing that Respondents continue the current provision of indigent defenseservices under the status quo conditions, unless and until a constitutional andstatutorily compliant alternate system is established;

declaring any contracts entered into by Respondents and/or their agencies,officers, agents and employees pursuant to Order 132 or the RFP are invalid tothe extent they do not comply with all provisions of Article 18-B and the 1965Bar Plan;

declaring that Chapter 13 violates Article 18-B, Municipal Home Rule Law§§ 11(1)(e) and 32(2)(f), the New York State Constitution and/or New YorkCity Charter §§ 329 and 1043 and are, as a result, invalid;

Should Chapter 13 be deemed valid and enforceable, which it is not, anOrder declaring that the RFP, its Addenda and/or Order 132 violate Chapter13; and

granting such other, further or different relief as the Court deems just andproper.

Dated: June 2, 2010

N-76415DOC

HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP

By:~ ......

David M. SiegalKendyl T. HanksJonathan D. Pressment1221 Avenue of the Americas26th FloorNew York, New York 10020(212) 659-7300

Attorneys for Petitioners The New YorkCounty Lawyers" Association, The BronxCounty Bar Association, The Brooklyn BarAssociation, The Queens County BarAssociation, and the Richmond County BarAssociation

EXHIBIT A

Crr~ oi, NEw YoaKOFFICE OF TIlE MAYORblew YORK, N.Y. 10007

November 27, 1965

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 178SUBJECT: FURNISHING OF COUNSEL TO INDIGENT CRIMINAL DE-

FENDANTS WITHIN THE CITY OF NEW YORK

1. Pursua~t to the provisions of Article 18-13 of the County Law(§§ 722-722e added by Chapter 878 of the Laws of 1965), I hereby designate the LegalAid Society of the City of New York to furnish counsel to persons within the City ofNew York charged with a crime (as defined in County Law, §722-~) who are finan-cially unable to obt~it~ counsel within the meaning of County Law §722. The termsand conditions for the rendition of such services, subject to the provisions of the fore-going statute, shall be as provided in an agreement to be entered into by the Societyand the City; provided, however, that for the services to be rendered by the Societyduring the period from December !, 1965, up to and including June 30, 1966, the Cityshall pay such Society the sum of Three Hundred Thousand ($300,000) dollars, insuch installments and at such times.as shall be provided for in such agreement. Thissum is in addition to the Four Hundred Thousand ($400,000) dollars heretofore paidby the City to the Society for the period from July 1, 1965 to June 30, 1966.

2. In those cases where by reason of a conflict of interest or other ap-propriate reason provided in the above-mentioned agreement, the Legal Aid Societydeclines to represent any such defendant, such defendant shall be represented by coun-sel furnished pursuant to the joint platx of the Association of the Bar of the City ofNew York and the New York County Lawyers’ Association, as set forth in the com-munications by such bodies to the Mad’or, dated November 11 and 12, 1965; providedthat such joint plan is approved by the Judicial Conference of the State of New York;and provided, further, that any imposing dr seeking to impose any expense or chargeupon the City, other than as provided for by §§722-b and 722-c of the County Law,shall not be effective unless approved by the Mayor.

3. The Director of the Budget is hereby authorized to promulgate rulesand regulations for the implementation" of this executive order in conformity withapplicable law.

4. The provisions of the foregoirig plan for providing counsel th~’oughthe Legal Aid Society may be terminated by the City acting by executive order of theMayor, or by the Legal Aid Soeiety, by giving sixty (60) days notice to the other partyin such manner as shall be provided for’in the above-mentioned agreement.

5. -This executive order shall take effect December 1, 1965.

/s/Robert F. WagnerMayor

EXHIBIT B

~ronz County Bar Assocla%ron, Brook!y~ Bar Assoc~atlon. New YorkCounty L~iers’ Association, Queens County Rat Association andRichmond County Bar ~ssocla%ion Adopted Pursuant to Article 18B of~he County Law

Approved by the Judicial Conference of the State of New York, April28, 1966

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 18-B of the County Law(Ch. 878 of the Laws of 1965, approved July 16,. 1965), TheAssocation of the Bar of the City of New York, Bronx County BarAssociation, Brooklyn Bar Association, New York County Lawyer’sAssociation, Queens County Bar Association and Richmond County BarAssociation hereby propose the following Plan for the adequaterepresentation of persons charged with a crime as defined inSection 722-a of the County Law, who are financi@lly unable toobtain counsel, and for the furnishing of investigative, expert andother services as provided in Section 722-c thereof.

As provided in subparagraph (4) of Section 722 of the CountyLaw this Plan combines representation by a private legal aidsociety and by private attorneys, the services of the latter beingrotated (so far as practicable and feasible) and coordinated by theadministrator.

The Legal Aid Society of the City of New York (Legal AidSociety) will be designated as the private legal aid society andthe Asso~ia’tionof the Bar of the City of New York and the’fivecounty BUt Associations within the City of New York will bedesignated as the bar associations which may prepare panels ofattorneys to be rotated as above and coordinated by anadministrator .(Administrator) or administrators (Administrators).

I. The Lecal Aid Society

Under this Plan, whenever a determination has been made by acourt that a defendant is entitled to representation under Article!8-B of the County Law, the court shall designate and appoint theAttorney-in~C~arge of the Criminal Courts Branch of the Legal Aidsociety as the. attorney of record for the defendant in all cases,unless:

i) the court deems the~assignment of other counsel to"be reqgired in the interest of justice because of either a conflictof interest or any other good cause, in which event the court shallappoint counsel to be designated bY the’appropriate Administratorfrom the appropriate panel as hereinafter provided; or

2) the defendant in the case is charged with a crimepunishable by death or life imprisonment, in which eventapplication shall forthwith be made..in the Supreme Court for theassignment of counsel, and in any such case the Supreme Court may,in its discretion name, assign and appoint one or more of the

attorneys l~sted In the panel of. tria! attorneys available forservice in the Supreme Court in the County.

P~e 2

II, Panel of Attorneys~

Each bar association shall prepare and certify to theappropriate Administrator not later than June 30, 1966," a list o£attorneys who are admltted to practice in the State of New York andwho, in the opinion of the bar association, which shall considertheir experience in criminal practice, are competent to giveadequate representation to defendants under Article 18-B of theCounty Law. Such list shall include each attorney’s name andaddress and telephone number, and shall be supplemented by acompilation consisting of’a copy of the application, on the formattached hereto Exhibit A, of each attorney listed.

I. Each attorney whose name is listed shall be designated bythe bar association as available for service in either the SupremeCourt or the Crimina! Court or both; but his~name shall not belisted at all unless he is designated as available, for service inthat court or both courts, as the case may be, in which in hisapplication, as above mentioned, he has expressed.his willingnessto serve.

2. In the event that ah attorney is not designated asavailablel.for the service he has expressed his willingness torender and’accordingly his name is not listed, both the fact thathe has made application and the contents of such application shallbe kept" and deemed in all respects private and confidentia! andshall not be disclosed except upon the written request of theapplicant.

3. It shall not be regarded as an obligation of an attorneyto express willingness to serve in the Supreme Court, even thoughhe is fully qualified and competent to serve should he prefer torestrict its service as assigned counsel to cases in the CriminalCourt; nor Shall it be regarded an obligation of any attorney toserve as assigned counse! in the Criminal Court should he prefer torestrict his service to the Supreme Court, provided, however thatan application for designation for.service.only in the SupremeCourt must be deemed to include a consent to serve~in the CriminalCourt to the extent of~representing a defendant.~t.~rraignment and.at hearings to determine whether such defendant.~should, be held foraction by the Grand Jury, when such defendant is charged with afelony for which an indictment may be found and ~eturned in theSupreme Court.

4. No attorney shall be designated by a bar association asavailable for service as trial counse! in the Supreme Court unlesshe shall hav~ been at the Bar for a minimum of seven years andshall have had substantial experience in the trial of criminalcases, provided, however, that in exceptional circumstances when inthe ooinion of a bar association an attorney is especially well

qrualified by reason of demonstrated ability and experience the bar ¯association may waive the requirement of the minimum of seven yearsat the Bar. In addition to or instead of designation ofavailability as trial counsel, an attorney may be designated asavailable for service on appeals in criminal cases,

5. Additions to and deletions from the panel or panels ofattorneys, prepared as provided in Article III hereof may be madefrom time to time by the bar association which submitted theoriginal list and in accordance with the same principles observedby the bar association initially certifying the list ef attorneysto the Administrator or Administrator~. In addition, theappropriate Appellate Division may at any time make additions to ordeletions from any bar association panel.

6. In order to permit all members of the bar in the City ofNew York to render service in their capacity as officers of thecourts and in keeping with the high traditions of the legalprofession, each bar association shall, in addition to recruiting"the services of its own members, endeavor to enlist the services ofany lawyer not a member of any of the County or City barassociations who is qualified to render service under Article 18-Bof the C~u~ty La~.

II~. The Administrator or Administrators

i. In their discretion the Appellate Divisions of the Firstand Second Judicial Departments shall together appoint oneAdministrator for both Departments, or they each shall appoint anAdministrator for their respective Departments. His or theirsalaries and administrative expenses, including salaries ofassistants and clerical personnel to be appointed as required,shall be paid by The City of New York.

2. Upon receipt of the lists of attorneys certified by thebar associations pursuant to Article II hereof, the Administratoror Administrators shall prepare two panelsof trial attorneys foreach county from the lists provided by the bar.associations onepanel for Supreme Court cases and one panel for Criminal Courtcases. No attorney may be placed on the panels of more than onecounty. The Administrator or Administrators shall similarlyprepare panels for appelas to the Appellate Terms and AppellateDivisions, First and Second Departments. No attorney may be placedon theappellate panels of more than one Department, but anattorney may be on both the trial panels of a county and theappellate p~nels of a Department.

3. The Administrator or Administrators shall prepare allpanels in the following fashion: the names for each of the panelsshall be drawn by lot and placed in the order drawn on a list,

copies of.which should then be ~vailable for distribution asprovided by the appropriate Appellate Division. Al! assignmentsshall be rotated on each panel by the Administrator orAdministrators in accordance u’ith the listing of the pane[ until ana~to~ney is reached who is available for service. ~eneve~. theSupreme Court has exercised its discretion to appoint an attorneyor attorneys from the Supreme Court pane! in a case involving acrime punishable by death or life Imprisonment(as provided InArticle I and paragraph A1 of Article IV hereof) and suchattorney’s name has not previously been reached in order on thelist, such attorney shall thereafter be treated as if his name hadbeen reached in regular rotational order. The Administrator orAdministrators shall maintain adeauate records which will!emonstrate compliance with a rotational procedure.

IV. AppQintment of Counsel

A. Appointments from trial panels.

I. After a determination by the court that a defendant orprospective defendant is entitled to representation under Article18-B of the. County Law and that the Legal Aid Sociewty shall notfurnish counsel for any of the reasons set forth in Article Ihereof, the court shall make an inltial determination whether ornot the case is such that the attorney to be appointed at that timeshould come from the Supreme Court pane! or the Criminal Courtpanel, and shall so notify the appropriate Administrator. In theevent that a case involves .a crime ounishable by death or lifeimprisonment, the Suoreme Court may, in its discretion request theappropriate Administrator to designate for appointment, ~i~houtregard for rotation, one or more attorneys named by the Cou~t whoare listed on the Supreme Court panel to the extent such procedureis permitted by law. In cases where the court determines.,tbatjustice requires the immediate presence of counsel, and counsel~rom the panel is not immediately available~ the cour~ may appointother counsel, who shall not be compensaSed under this Plan, toadvise the defendant until counsel from the panel can be assigned.

2. The appropriate Administrator shall designate an attorneyfrom the appropriate county panel in accordance with the proceduresset forth in paragraph 3 of Article III hereof. A!i designationsof counsel by such Administrator shall be promptly reported to theclerk of the appropriate court and such counsel must be assigned bythe court.

3. In cases involving more than one defendant, one or moreahtorneys may be appointed, as herein orovided, to ~epresent alldefendants, but ~here circumstances warrant, such as conflictinginterests of respective defendants, separate counsel shall beappointed, as herein provided for each of the defendants or any oneof them.

4. No defendant accepting representation under Article 18-Bof the County Law shall be permltted to select his own counsel fromthe panel of attorneys.

5. Subject to paragraph B of this Article IV, whenevercounsel has been appointed by the court such counsel shall continueto act for the defendant throughout the proceedings in the trialcourt and through appeal, unless or until he is relieved by theappellate court.

B. Duration and substitution of appointments.

i. As provided in Section 722 of the County Law, a defendantfor whom counsel is appointed hereunder shalll be represented atevery stage of the proceedings, from his initial appearance beforethe judge or justice through appeal. If at any time after theappointment ’o£ counsel the court finds that the defendant isfinancially able to obtain counsel or to make partial payment forhis representation, the court may terminate the appointment ofcounsel or it may direct that payment be made to the appointedprivate cmu.nsel cr to the City of New York, as authorized bySection 7~2-d of the County Law. Such payments shall be strictlycontrolled by the court, to the end that payments to appointedprivate counsel shal! not exceed the m~ximum permitted by Section722-b of the County Law.

2. The court may, in the interests of justice, substituteone appointed counsel from the panel for another, designated by theappropriate Administrator as herein provided, at any stage of theproceedings. Whenever an attorney who is not on the Supreme Courtpanel has been appointed by the Crimina~ Cour~ to a case whichresults in an indictment, such attorney must withdraw from the caseas soon as practicable and an attorney from the Supreme Courtpanel, whose name has been obtained and furnished by theappropriate Administrator as hereinabove provided, should besubstituted by the Supreme Court. Whenever justice requires,however, the Supreme Court may appoint the original attorney toserve as co-counsel w~th the new attorney. In.no event shall thetotal compensation tQ all appointed private counsel exceed themaximum permitted, by Section 722-b of the County Law. Appointedcounsel replaced by such substitution shall await ~%e finaldisposition of the case before submitting his claim forcompensation as prescribed hereinafter.

3. No’counsel appointed hereunder shall seek or accept anyfee for representing the defendant for whom he is appointed withoutapproval of the court as hereinabove provided. If there shouldcome to the knowledge of shch counsel any information indicatingthat the defendant or someone on his behalf can make payment in

whole, or in part for legal services, it shall be his duty to reportsuch information promptly to the court, so that appropriate actionmay be taken hereunder.

C. Appointments from appellate panels

I. After the appellate court has made a determination that adefendant is entitled to representation under Article 18-B of theCounty Law and that the Legal Aid Society should not furnishcounsel for any of the reasons detailed in Article I hereof, theappointment should be made in the same manner as that prescribed inparagraph A of this Article IV. Counsel representing the defendantin the trial court shall, in appropriate cases and if a member ofthe appropriate panel, be appointed by the appellate court tocontinue on appeal. The appointment of counsel on appeal shall bemade within a reasonable time after the notice of appeal is filed.

2. In appealed cases involving more than one defendant, oneor more attorneys may be appointed to represent.all .appellants, butwhere circumstances warrant such as conflicting interests ofrespective appellants separate counsel shall be appointed for eachof the appellants or any one of them.

3. I:The appellate court may, at any point in the appellateproceedings substitute one appointed counsel from the panel foranother, designated by the appropriate Administrator as hereinprovided, in the same manner and under the same conditions asprovided for in paragraph B of this Article IV.

4. No defendant accepting representation under Article 18-Bof the County Law shall be permitted to select his own counsel fromthe panel of attorneys.

V. Services Other than Counsel

Counsel (whether or not appointed under this Plan), other¯than the Legal Aid Society for a defendant who is financially

unable to obtain investigative, expert,, or other :ser-v£ces necessaryto an adequate defense, in his caseo..may request, such. services in anex parte proceeding before a court. If, after.approprimte inquiry,the court shall find that the services are necessary and that thedefendant is financially unable to obtain them, it shall authorizedefendant’s counsel to obtain such services. Any such proceedingsincident to the aforesaid inquiry shall remain privileged andunavailable to the prosecution until the trial shall have beenconcluded. If the court should find that timely procurement ofsuch services could not await prior authorization, it ~y, in theinterests of justice, ratify such services after they have beenobtained, if it shall find that the defendant is financially unableto pay for them.

P~ge 7

VI. Payment of CoUnsel Fees and for Other Services

i. A private attorney appointed pursuant to this Plan shallbe compensated upon the submission of his claim in accordance wlththe rules, regulations and forms promulgated by the Comptroller ofthe City of New York, and supported by a written statement insubstantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit B, specifying thetime expended, services rendered, expenses reasonably incurred andreimbursement or compensation applied for or received in the samecase from any other source, while the case was.pending in thecourt. Claims for expenses incurred for services under Article Vhereof shall be supported by a sworn statement in substantially theform attached hereto as Exhibit C. Expenses reasonably incurredare limited to out-of-pocket expenses and shall not include anyallocations for general office overhead, such as rent, localtelephone services or secretarial help. For representation onappeal, compensation and reimbursement shall be fixed by theappellate court. For all other representation, compensation andreimbursement shall be fixed by the court where judgment of.conviction or acquittal or order of dismissal was entered. Unlessgood cause is shown, claims for attorney’s fees, expenses andservices shall be submitted to the court within 45 days after thecourt ha~~flnally disposed of the case.

2.t Except as authorized or directed by the court, noappointed attorney furnishing representation under Article I8-B ofthe County Law shall seek or accept any payment or promise ofpayment from a defendant or on his behalf for his reoresentation ofsaid defendant or for reimbursement of any expenses incurred.

3. The clerk of the particular court shall forthwith forwardall approved statements to the appropriate Administrator who shallthen forward them to the Comptroller of the City of New York forpnyment, provided that an application which is approved in anamount in excess of the limits provided in Section 722-b of theCounty Law because of extraordinary circumstances, and in order toprovide for compensation for protracted."representation, shall beforwarded by the clerk of the Presiding.Justice of..the.appropriateAppellate Division, for his approval, disapproval.or.modificationprior to being forwarded to such Administrator.

VII. Forms

In the event that forms are prepared and furnished by theComptroller of the City of New York, they shall be used, whereapplicable, in all proceedings under this Plan. Any revisions ofsaid forms or any’additional forms that may be prescribed by theComptroller of the City of New York shall likewise be used, whereapplicable, in all proceedings under this Plan.

VIII. Rules and Reoorts

The Appellate Divisions of the First and Second JudicialDepartments may promulgate such rules with respect to this Plan asthey may deem necessary and the Administrative Board of theJudicial Conference may require such records to be kept by theAdministrator or Administrators as will reflect the operation ofthe Plan.

EXHIBIT C

THE CITY OF NEW YORK

THE MAYOR’S OFFICE OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATOR

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS:INDIGENT CRIMINAL DEFENSE SERVICES

PIN # 00210DMPS413

TABLE. OF CONTENTS:

SECTION ISECTION HSECTIONHISECTION IVSECTION VSECTION VI

PAGE#

TIMETABLE2

SUMMARY OFTHE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS3SCOPE OF SERVICES5FORMAT AND CONTENT OF THE PROPOSAL7PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD PROCEDURES11GENERAL INFORMATION TO PROPOSERS12

ATrACHMENTA PROPOSAL COVER LETTERATTACHMENTBI LINE:ITEM BUDGET INSTRUCTIONSATTACHMENT:B2 PRICE PROPOSAL :FORMATFACHMENT C ACKNOWLEDGMENT OFIADDENDAATTACHMENTDI DOING~BUSINESS DATA FORMATTACHMENT D2.DOING BUSINESS Q&A

AUTHORIZED AGENCY CONTACT PERSON

Proposers are advised that theAuthorized Agency Contact Person for all matters concerning thisRequest for Proposals is: --

Migdalia VelozCrimina! Justice Coordinator’s Office

Municipal BUildingOne Centre SWeet, Room 1012 North

New York, New York 10007Telephone #: (212) 676-4933

Fax #: (212) 312-0824MVeloz@cityh all.nyc.gov

SECTION 1 - TIMETABLE

A. Release Date of this Request for Proposals: February 3, 2010

All questions and requests for additional information concerning this RFP should be directed to Migdalia Veloz,Agency Chief Contracting Officer, the Authorized Agency Contact Person, at:

Telephone #:Fax #:E-Marl Address:

(212) 676-4933(212) [email protected]

B. Pre-Proposal Conference:

Date:Time:Location:

February 18, 201010:00 A.M2 Washington Street, Room 1980

Attendance by proposers is optional but recommended by the Agency.

C. Proposal Due Date and Time and Location:

Date:Time:Location:

March 15, 20103:00 p.m.Ct-iminal Justice Coordinator’s OfficeMunicipal Building1 Centre Street, Room 1012 NorthNew York, NY 10007

E-mailed or foxed proposals will not be accepted by the Agency.

Proposals received at this location after the proposal due date and time are late and shah not beaccepted by the agency, except as provided under New ,York City’s Procurement Policy BoardRul___.~. The Agency will consider requests made to the Authorized Agency Contact Person to extend theproposal due date and time prescribed above. However, unless the Agency issues a written addendum tothis RFP which extends the proposal due date and time for all proposers, the proposal due date and timeprescribed above shall remain in effect.

D. Anticipated, Contract Start Date: January 1, 2011

SECTION II - SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

A. ~Pg_ ~e of ~the,Re~uest for Prol~osals

Tho Office of the Criminal Justice Coordinator (’~IC’3, established pursuant to Section 13 of the City Charter,is primarily the Mayor’s advisor on criminal justice policy md legislation and is responsible for coordinating theactivities of the City’s criminal justice agencies including the Police Department, Fire Department, theDepartment of Correction, the Department of Probation and the Department of Juvenile Justice and serves as theCity’s primary liaison with the court system, the five District Attorneys and the State criminal justice system.Additional responsibilities include oversight of the arrest to arraignment system, the use of City monies for legalservices to indigent defendants, funding of alternative to incarceration programs, the City’s Court Facilities,Master Plan and Persons in Need of Supervision (PINS) services.

Pursuant to the United States Constitution, Gideon v. Wainwright and Section 722 of the County Law of theState of New York, the City has an obligation to provide representation for indigent criminal defendants at thetrial-level. Additionally, in Bronx County, services include the representation of indigent parolees in parolerevocation proceedings. Such representation will be provided to parolees in all parole revocation proceedingsand will include legal representation as well as social work intervention.

The City currently contracts with seven organizations providing trial-level indigent defense representation in allfive counties in New York City. These providers, along with attorneys appointed from appropriate AssignedCounsel Panels of the First and Second Judicial Departments, provide trial-level indigent defense representation

The City expects to award at least one contract in each of the five counties/boroughs in the City, and isinterested in maintaining multiple providers in at least Bronx, Kings (Brooklyn), New York (’Manhattan) andQueens counties, and anticipates awarding multiple contracts in each of these four counties. Vendors are eligibleto receive contract awards in multiple counties. However, a separate and complete proposal must be submittedfor each county. In addition, the City will consider issuing awards to vendors who propose to providespecialized services to a particular catchment area (to be determined by the proposing vendor) and who fulfillneeds endemic to a specific population. A complete and separate proposal must be submitted for eachcatchment area.

Furthermore, the City is interested in providing representation in conflict cases and anticipates issuing awards tovendors who propose to provide representation in conflict cases. The term conflict cases refers to cases inwhich the provider at arraignment has a conflict of interest and is thereby barred from representing thedefendant. Some common examples of conflict cases include the representation of co-defendants or eases inwhich a witness against the defendant was previously represented by the provider at arraignment. Proposersmay include representation in conflict cases in their proposals, but such proposals will only be considered inconjunction with a proposal to be a provider in the proposed county or catchment area. The City will not awarda contract to proposers seeking to provide representation for conflict cases only.

B. Program Description

1. Trial-level Indigent Defense Representation

Proposers will be expected to provide representation to indigent clients in all non-conflict, non-homicidecriminal cases. Proposers who seek to provide services in Bronx County must propose to provideservices to indigent parolees in parole revocation proceedings. Such repre~sentation will be provided ~oparolees on all parole revocation proceedings. Parole revocation hearings are held on Rikers Island.

Furthermore, if the proposer seeks to provide representation in conflict cases, representation will includethe items listed below. Representation commences at the time of assignment either at arraignment or byorder of the court. The attorney will be required to represent a client until the final resolution of theircase. Such representation will include, but is not limited to, th¢ following:

¯ attorney representation at all court appearances and proceedings up to and including filing noticesof appeal,

¯ where appropriate, preparation ofpre-sentence reports and referrals to alternative to incarcerationand drug treatment programs,

¯ interlocutory appeals, where appropriate,¯ grand jury proceedings,¯ parole violations,¯ probation proceedings,¯ psychological evaluations,¯ subsequent in-county a~rests while the initial ease is pending,¯ consultations with client/jail visits, as needed,¯ providing copies of motions and cour~ papers, as requested by client, and¯ consuRation with client’s family, as requested by client.

Additionally, the City is interested in proposers who will provide City-wide collateral consequenceservices in such areas as immigration, housing and other situations arising from a criminal case. In aneffort to achieve the contracted caseload in each proposed county, proposers will be required to staffarraignment shifts. The exact shifts and number of shifts will be determined periodically by agreementbetween the contractor and the City in consultation with the Supervising Judge.

Resources

Each selected vendor will be expected to maintain an array of resources in addition to legal staff, whichcould include social workers, paralegals, investigators, and experts and have the capacity to serve non-Engtish speaking clients. As required during court appearances, the proposer will be required to ensurethat interpreter/translation services are available.

3. Client-Attorney Communication/Office Space

Providers will establish reliable methods of contact so that client-attorney communication is maintainedoutside of court appearances. Additionally, providers will be required to maintain a central office ineach contracted county which operates during regular business hours, is accessible by publictransportation and near that county’s criminal court.

Reporting

Providers will be required to submit monthly data and quarterly reports and are strongly encouraged tomaintain caseload data electronically. Reports will cover each calendar quarter, and will be due by theend of the month tbllowing the end of the quarter (e.g., for the quarter July I through September 30, thereport would be due by October 31). Quarterly reports should present data for the quarter and shouldalso present cumulative data for the year. In addition to the quarterly reports as set forth above, thecontractor will be required to submit monthly data on:

¯

¯

O

0

Arraignment Intake (felony and misdemeanor intake)Percent of cases disposed at arraignmentNumber and type of dispositions including:

¯ Guilty Pie,as¯ AC’D’s¯ Trials¯ VOP-Resolved¯ Re Sentenced & SORA" Bench Warrant¯ Provider Relieved¯ Abated by Death

Average caseload per attorney (felony and misdemeanor) for both supervisors and staffattorneys

Number of video conferewces heldCases relieved after arraignmentNew assignments post arraignrnentAverage life of felonies/misdemeanorsAverage number of appearances on a caseAverage number of adjournments on a caseAverage number of client visits on a case

The contractor will follow the City’s specified format for monthly reporting. These reports will be duewithin 10 days following the end of the month for which the report is being submitted. The City reservesthe right to require additional data from the selected proposers.

C. Jurisdictions/Estimated Annual Caseloads

There were approximately 355,000 arraignments .billed in City Fiscal Year 2009. Listed below are theapproximate numbers of billed arraignments by county:.

Kings (Brooklyn): 96,498Bronx: 76,923New York (Manhattan): 103,398Queens: 68,669Richmond (Staten Island): 13,071

CJC expects awarding multiple contracts in at least the Bronx, Kings (Brooklyn), New York (Manhattan) andQueens counties. CJC also anticipates awarding caseloads to provide representation for conflict cases tomultiple groviders (if proposer seeks to provide representation for conflict cases). For purposes of the RFP, anestimate of conflict caseloads in Calendar Year 2009 is provided. Conflict caseloads are a subset of the 355,000arraignments billed in City Fiscal Year 2009. Caseloads are estimated as follows: 7.5% of arraigned arrests inManhattan, 3.7% in Queens, 15.8% in the Bronx, 10.8% in Brooklyn, and 10.7% in Staten Island. Proposersshould state in their proposals the maximum caseloads (trial-level and conflict) for which they are proposing. Acomplete and separate proposal must be submitted for each county or catchment area, with specified caseloadmaximums for each county or catchment area, as applicable. A complete and separate proposal must besubmitted for each catchment area and each county with specified trial-level caseload and conflict caseloads, ifapplicable.

Primed on pap~ e~mtainmg 30"/* po~a--con~urr~t material

D. Program Competitions

The program competitions for which proposals are being sought through this RFP are listed below:

County-wide*¯ Competition 1:o Competition 2:¯ Competition 3:¯ Competition 4:¯ Competition 5:

Kings County (Brooklyn)Bronx CountyNew York County (Manhattan)Queens CountyRichmond County (Staten Island)

*Proposals for county-wide services may includea proposal for a conflict caseload. The City will not award acontract to proposers seeking to provide representation for conflict cases only.

Catchment Areas**¯ Competition 6: New York County (Manhattan), Bronx County, KingsCounty (Brooldyn), Queens

County and Richmond County (Staten Island) catchment areas.

**CJC has not delineated specific catchment areas. Proposers are encouraged to submit proposals to providespecialized services to a particular catclunent area in order to fulfill needs endemic to a specific population.Proposals for a catchment area may include a p~oposal for conflict eases; however, a separate and completeproposal must be submitted for each catchment area proposed. The City will not award a contract to proposersseeking to provide representation for conflict cases only.

E. Anticipated Contract Term

R is anticipated that the term of the contracts awarded from this RFP will be from July l, 2010 to June 30, 2012.In addition, the contracts may include up to two 2-year options to renew. The Agency reserves the right, prior tocontract award, to determine the length of the initial contract term and each option to renew, if any.

F. Anticipated Available Annual Fundin~

The Agency anticipates that the total available funding for the program citywide will be approximately$92,480,000i annually. Anticipated funding for conflict cases annually is $8,700,000.

Contracts may be awarded to multiple vendors, and annual funding will be distributed according to thenegotiated caseload for each provider. There are no ftmdh~g match requirements.G. ~a~yment Structure

It is anticipated that the payment structure of the contracts awarded fi-om this RFP will be cost reimbursement,based upon an agreed upon line item budget. However, the Agency will consider proposals to structurepayments in a different manner and reserves the fight to select any payment structure that is in the City’s bestinterest.

The total funding excludes 18-b expenditures and City Council funding for indigent repre~-tatation.

SECTION IH - SCOPE OF SERVICES

A. A~encv Goals and Obiectives for this Request for Proposal

The Agency’s goals and objectives for this RFP are to ensure that:

¯ constitutionally mandated trial-level indigent criminal defense services are providedthroughout the City,

¯ there are multiple providers in at least Bromc, Kings, New York artd Queens counties and theCity anticipates multiple awards in these boroughs,

¯ the provider(s) selected for each county (or catchment area) will address the uniquecharacteristics or factors endemic to that county or catchment area,

¯ the City maintains institutional flexibility to respond to emergent criminal justice trends,¯ there are multiple providers to handle conflict cases for each county,. the City provides cost effective representation for conflicts cases,¯ the City increases the overall administrative efficiency and cost effectiveness of indigent

defense services,o the City maintains data for selected providers in order to address cost effectiveness, program

efficiency, and is able to identify and respond to emergent criminal justice trends, and,¯ selected providers provide collateral consequence services, thereby representing clients in

ancillary matters in such areas as immigration, housing, and other situations arising ~om acriminal ease.

A~encv Assumptions Re~ardin~ Contractor Appro~,ch

The Agency’s assumptions, applicable to all counties and catchments areas across all 6 competitions, regardingwhich approach for providing indigent defense services will best achieve the goals and objectives set out above

Attorney Experience

¯ the contractor would use attorneys who are admitted to the practice of law in the State of NewYork and who are in good standing,

¯ at least 50% of contractor’s attorney staffwould be felony or appeals certified, as appropriate, for18-B work in the jurisdiction in which the work will be done or have sufficient criminal defenseexperience to qualify for such certification, and

¯ the contractor would provide appropriate and adequate supervisory attorney staff.

2. Homicides

¯ The contractor would not handle homicide cases pursuant to the contract resulting from this RFP.

Client Representation

The Attorney staffwouid represent clients:, at all court appearances and proceedings up to and including filing notices of appeal,¯ for interlocutory appeals, where appropriate,

. at grand jury proceedings,¯ for parol~ violations and violations of probation,¯ at subsequent in-county arrests while initial case is pending, and,¯ at parol~ revocation hearings held on Rikers island (for Bronx County proposals only).

The City is interested in proposers who will provide City-wide collateral consequence services in suchareas as immigration, housing and other situations arising from a criminal case.

Further, the attorney staffwould consult with incarcerated clients in person at their jail/prison facility, asnecessary, provide to client copies of motions and court papem, as requested by client and staffthearraignment parts for specified shifts each week.

Additionally, the City is interested in providing representation in conflict cases and will considerproposals that include representation in conflict cases as defined in Section I/A.

Support Staff

The contractor would provide:¯ bi-lingual staff (in languages specific to the client population in the proposed county), which

would include attorneys,¯ investigators, and¯ social workers

5. Reporting

The City seeks to award contracts to vendors who either currently maintain an electronic databasesystem or have a developed vision of an electronic database system that may be quickly implementedupon ~pt of a contract award.

Such case electronic database system would allow the contractor to maintain internal data to measureprogram effectiveness and maintain information that will be reported in monthly and quarterly reportsincluded in Section B. 4 "Program Description." The contractor will follow an Agency specifiedformat for monthly and quarterly reporting.

An effective electronic database system would allow the contractor to efficiently manage cases andreport timely and accurate data. Set forth below are specifications of a basic electronic database systemthat would best achieve the City’s goals and objectives. The electronic database system ideally would:

ReportingPossess the capability to manipulate entered data to produce reports on:¯ Client Demographics¯ Arraignment Intake (felony and misdemeanor intake)¯ Percent of cases disposed at arraignment¯ Number and type of dispositions including:

¯ Guilty Pleas¯ ACD’s

o

Functionali~

¯ Trials¯ VOP-Resolved- Re Sentenc~ & SORA¯ Beach Warrant~ Provider Relieved= Abated by D~ath

¯ Average caseload per attorney (felony and misd~m~mnor) for both supervisors and staffattorneys

¯ Cases relieved after arraignment¯ New assignments post arraigmnent¯ Average life of felonies/misdemeanors¯ Average number of appearances on a case¯ Average number of adjournments on a case¯ Average number of client visits on a case

Allow filtering of case identifiers (percentage of cases disposed at arraignment, averagecaseload per attorney, number and type of disposition, etc.).

¯ Allow users to document progress on a case from start to finish and assess the length of acase from arraignment to disposition.

¯ Allow filtering of client identifiers through demographics captured within the system.¯ Allow early identification of conflicts of interest., Allows reports to be scheduled to mn on a periodic basis and produce reports in multiple

formats.¯ Maintain security measures to prevent external access to confidential information.

Program Site/Office Space

The contractor would maintain:¯ a central office in the county or catchment area being proposed for that is near that county’s

Criminal and Supreme courthouses and accessible by public transportation. For vendorsproviding services in a particular catchment area, a central office near the courthouse is notrequired,

¯ an office space suitable for meeting with clients and/or family of clients,¯ a phone answering system whereby incoming calls will be answered by staff when the office is

open, at minimum Monday though Friday (except for New York City-observed holidays), 9:00a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and

¯ a system for clients to leave non-emergency messages during off-hours and receive return callswithin a reasonable time period, and,

¯ observance of national holidays when court is not in session.

Library Facifittes/Training/Continuing Legal Education (CLE)

The contractor would:¯ have physical access to a law library on the premises and/or on-line research capabilities will be

provided for legal staff and¯ arrange for the provision of ongoing relevant training for legal and non-legal staff.

C. Ae:enc~ Assuml~tlons Re~a~ Performance-Based Payment Structure

The Agency has det~mined that a performance-based payment s~:uctur~ that will most likely ensure thai theselected proposers will perform the work under the contracts awarded from this RFP in a manner that is cost-effective for the Agency and most likely to achieve the Agency’s goals.

D. Compfiance with Local Law 34 of 2007

Purmmnt to Loc~l Law 34 of 2007, amoading the City’s Campaign Finance Law, the City is required to establisha computerized database containing the names of any "person" that has "business dealings with the city" as suchterms are defined in the Local Law. In order for the City to obtain necessary information to establish therequired database, vendors responding to this solicitation are required to complete the attached Doing BusinessData Form and return it with this proposal submission, and should do so in a separate envelope (If theresponding vendor is a proposed joint venture, the entities that comprise the proposed joint venture must eachcomplete a Data Form). If the City determines that a vendor has failed to submit a Data Form or has submitteda Data Form that is not complete, the vendor will be notified by the agency and will be given four (4) calendardays from receipt of notification to cure the specified deficiencies and return a complete Data Form to theagency. Failure to do so will result in a determination that the proposal submission is non-responsive. Receiptof notification is defined as the day notice is e-mailed or faxed (if the vendor has provided an e-mail address orfax number), or no later than five (5) days from the date of mailing or upon delivery, if delivered.

10

SECTION IV - FORMAT AND CONTENT OF THE PROPOSAL

Instructions: Proposers should provide all information required in the format below. The proposal should betyped on both sides of 8 ½" X 11"" paper. The City of New York requests that all proposals be submitted onpaper with no less than 30% postoonsumer material content, i.e., the minimum recovered fiber content level forreprographic papers recommended by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (for any changes tothat standard please consult: htto://www.epa.Kovicpv./products/printi~g.htm). Pages should be paginated. Theproposal will be evaluated on the basis of its content, not length.Failure to comply with any of theseinstructions will not make the proposal non-responsive.

A. Proposal Format

1. Proposal Cover Letter

The Proposal Cover Letter form (Attachment A) transmits the proposer’s Proposal Package to theAgency. It should be completed, signed and dated by an authorized representative of the proposer.

2. Program Proposal

The Program Proposal is a clear, concise narrative addressing the following:

a. Experience

Describe the successful relevant experience of the proposing entity and the proposed key staffinproviding the work described in Sections 1/and III of this RFP. Specifically address thefollowing in terms of the entity’s experience and individual staffexperience:

EntiW Exl~erience:

¯ Handling large indigent caseloads as set forth in Section II C.¯ Overall management of a legal entity, particularly legal and non-legal support staff.¯ Aggregate experience of lawyers.

In addition:

Attach letters from at least five relevant eottrt related references (i.e., judges, ADA’s orother defense counsel not related to the proposing entity) including the name of thereference entity, a brief statement describing the relationship between the proposer andthe reference entity, and the name, title and telephone number of a contact person at thereference entity, for the proposer.

Individual Staff Experience:

Individual experience of staff lawyers, social workers and investigators.

I[

In addition:

¯ Attach for each key staff position a resume and/or description of the qualifications thatwill be required. In addition, provide a statement certifying that the proposed key staffwill be available for the duration of the project.

b. Organizational Capability

Demonstrate the proposer’s organizational (i.e., programmatic, managerial and financial)capability to provide the work described in Sections II and HI. Specifically address thefollowing:

. Proposed managerial hierarchy,¯ Provide a summary statement of the organization’s current annual gross revenue, revenue

sources, types of service(s) provided, and numbers of clients served overall and by programOn an annual basis,

o Any proposed funding (other than funding to be provided pursuant to the contract to beawarded from this RFP) that will support the proposed services,

¯ Ability to coordinate the tasks of social workers, investigators, and intake staff with attorneystaff,

¯ Ability to develop and maintain an appropriate database and an electronic system for trackingcases, attorney appearances, investigation assignments, and,

¯ In the case that the proposer h~s submitted multiple proposals (i.e., is proposing to servemore than one jurisdiction covered by this RFP), indicate each jurisdiction for which theproposer has submitted a complete and separate proposal and demonstrate both theproposer’s capacity and administrative capability to simultaneously provide effective servicesto all of the jurisdictions being proposed.

In addition:

¯ Attach a chart showing where, or an explanation of how, the proposed services will fit intothe proposer’s organization and,

¯ Attach the most recent audit report or certified financial statement or a statement as to whyno report or statement is available.

c. Proposed Approach

Describe in detail how the proposer will provide the work described in Sections II and I1/of thisRFP and demonstrate that the proposer’s proposed approach will fulfill the Agency’s goals andobjectives. Specifically address the following:

¯ Demonstrate the proposer’s capacity to handle the relevant estimated annual caseload andto provide the required services for that caseload as set forth in Section [I C.

~ Demonstrate how the proposer will assign lawyers to incoming cases.* Demonstrate how the proposer will ensure the adequacy of staffing for arraignment shifts

in order to meet the relevant prescribed caseload set forth in Section II C.

12

Demonstrate how the proposer will ensure that other necessary services such as ATI, drugtreatment, mental health services and the like, will be made available to clients.Demonstrate the effectiveness ofproposer’s program model and describe the proposersprogram model including:

Arraignment Intake (felony and misdemeanor intake)Percent of cases disposed at arraignmentNumber and typ~ of dispositions¯ Guilty Pleas¯ ACD’s¯ Trials¯ Extraditions

’ ¯ VOP-Resolved¯ Resenteneed & SORA¯ Bench Warrant¯ Provider Relieved

Average caseload per attorney (felony and misdemeanor) for both supervisors and staffattorneys

Cases relieved after arraignmentNumber of video conferences heldNew assignments post arraigamentAverage life of felonies/misdemeanorsAverage number of appearances on a caseAverage number of adjournments on a caseAverage number of client visits on a ease

~ Demonstrate the proposer’s capacity to serve non-English speaking clients.¯ Describe proposer’s plan for start-up (if necessary) and accomplishing administrative and

management tasks.¯ Demonstrate the proposer’s capability to provide the City with detailed data concerning

caseloads, service levels and outcomes for each of the tasks and types of services included in thissection.

¯ Demonstrate the proposer’s electronic database system or vision of an electronic database systemthat may be quickly implemented upon receipt of a contract award.

¯ If the proposer is not currently providing the level of service being proposed for, provide a workplan that lists the essential start-up and administrative and management tasks to be undertaken inthe proposed program and provide an anticipated timetable describing start and end dates foreach activity associated with proposed program start-up.

¯ If a proposer is seeking to provide representation in a catchment area, less than an entire county,the proposer should demonstrate in detail how it will effectively address the uniquecharacteristics or factors (if any) endemic to the county being proposed.

tithe proposer is interested in providing representation in conflict cases, identify the number ofthese.types of cases in your proposal ~ Proposals for representation in conflict caseswill only be considered in conjunction with a proposal for a trial-level caseload within a countyor catchment area. The City will not award a contract to proposers seeking to providerepresentation for conflict cases only.

13

The Agency’s assumptions regarding contractor approach represent what the Agency believes tobe most likely to achieve its goals and objectives. However, proposers are encouraged to proposean approach that they believe will most likely achieve the Agency’s goals and objectives.Proposers may also propose more than one approach. However, if an alternative approach affectsother areas of the proposal such as experience, organizational capability or price, that alternativeapproach should be submitted as a complete and separate proposal providing all the informationspecified in Section IV of this RFP.

3. Price Proposal

Proposers are encouraged to propose innovative payment structures. The Agency reserves theright to select any payment structure that is in the City’s best interest. If a proposer is interestedin providing representation in conflict eases, provide a Price Proposal Form (Attachment B2)including such cases. For the purposes of comparison, proposers should submit a Price Proposalthat meets the standards prescribed below.

The Price Proposal should include each of the following for providing the work described inSection 1~ of this RFP:

¯ A proposed line item budget accompanied by narrative to justify each line item, for years1 and 2 of contractor’s operation in the format prescribed in the Price Proposal formattached as Attachment B2.

¯ A proposed line item budget accompanied by narrative to justify each line item, for years1 and 2 of contractor’s operation for conflict cases in the format prescribed in the PriceProposal form attached as Attachment B2.

4. Acknowledllment of Addenda

The Acknowledgment of Addenda form (Attachment C) serves as the proposer’sacknowledgment of the receipt of addenda to this RFP which may have been issued by theAgency prior to the Proposal Due Date and Time, as set forth in Section I C, above. Theproposer should complete this form as instructed on the form.

B. Proposal Package Contents {"Checklist")

The Proposal Package should contain the following materials. .P.roposers should utilize this section as a"checklist" to assure completeness, prior to submitting the~ proposal to the Agency:

1. A sealed inner envelope labeled "Program Proposal," containing one ~ set and 5 duplicate sets ofthe documents listed below in the following order:

¯ Proposal Cover Letter Form (Attachment A)¯ Program Proposal

14

.Printed on pap~.~" containing 30~.,~ post.consumer materi~l

. Narrative¯ Five (5) References for the Proposer¯ Resumes and/or Description of Qualifications for Key Staff Positions¯ Organizational Chart. Most recent audit report or certified financial statement or statement as to why no report or

statement is available.¯ Acknowledgment of Addenda Form (Attachment C)

A sealed inner envelope labeled "Price Proposal," containing one ~ set and five (5) duplica.te setsof the documents listed below in the following order:

¯ Budget narrative (Refer to Attachment B 1 for instructions)¯ Completed Price Proposal form (Attachment B2 for trial-level and conflict caseloads)

A third sealed inner envelope labeled "Doing Business Data Form" containing an original, completedDoing Business Data Form (Attachment D1).

A sealed outer envelope, enclosing the three sealed inner envelopes. The sealed outer envelope shouldhave two labels containing:

¯ The proposer’s name and address, the Title and PIN # of this RFP and the name andtelephone number of the Proposer’s Contact Person.

¯ The name, rifle and address of the Authorized Agency Contact Person.

SECTION V - PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD PROCEDURES

A. Evaluation Procedures.

All proposals accepted by the agency will be reviewed to determine whether they are re~vonsive or non-responsive to the requisites of the RFP. Proposals that are determined by the agency to be non-responsive willbe rejected. The agency’s Evaluation Committee will evaluate and rate all remaining proposals based on theEvaluation Criteria set forth below. Proposals to provide services for a particular county will compete againstother proposals submitted for that jurisdiction. The Agency reserves the right to conduct site visits and/orinterviews and/or to request that proposers make presentations and/or demonstrations, as the Agency deemsapplicable and appropriate. Although discussions may be conducted with proposers submitting acceptableproposals, the Agency reserves the fight to award contracts on the basis of initial proposals received, withoutdiscussions; therefore, the proposer’s initial proposal are expected to contain its best programmatic technicaland price terms.

B. Evaluation Criteria

- Demonstrated quantity and quality of successful relevant experience¯ Demonstrated level of organizational capability¯ Quality of proposed approach

4O%10%50%

~tt~ Primtat on paper comaining 30% post.eonsurnt~ nmt cria!

15

C. Basis for Contract Award

Awards will be made to the highest technically-rated proposers, consistent with the agency’s need forprogrammatic and geographic distribution, including the City’s interest in having multiplo providers in Bronx,Kings (Brooklyn), New York and Queens counties, subject to the determination, in each ease, that the price isfair and reasonable. Additionally, when issuing awards, the City will consider:

¯ whether the proposer seeks to provide specialized services to a particular catchment area and fulfillneeds endemic to a specific population,

¯ whether the proposer seeks to handle conflict cases,Note: Proposals for representation in conflict cases will only be considered in conjunction with aproposal for trial-level services within a county or catchment area. The City will not award acontract to proposers seeking to provide representation for conflict cases only.

¯ economies of scale for proposers who propose greater/higher trial level caseloads and when making afair and reasonable detemaination of cost,

¯ the levels of attorney staffwho are felony or appeals certified, as appropriate, for 18-B work in thejurisdiction in the work would be done or have sufficient criminal defense experience to qualify forsuch certification.

The City reserves the right to determine, based on the proposer’s demonstrated organizational capability and thebest interests of the City, how many and for which proposed jurisdictions and at what level of services a contractwill be awarded, as well as the dollar value of each such contract. A separate and complete proposal must besubmitted for each county proposed or catchment area proposed. Each county will be considered a separatecompetition; therefore, proposals for each county will be compared. Proposals within a county will be comparedwith one another. All catchment areas will be considered a competition; therefore, proposals for catchmentareas, despite the county in which they are proposed, will be compared with one another. CJC will awardcontracts based upon the need, programmatic and geographic distribution. Contract award shall be subject tothe timely completion of contract negotiations between CJC and selected proposers as well as a positiveresponsibility determination. Negotiations may include capacity reductions or increases as compared to theproposed capacity (all competitions).

16

~1~4~ Printed on paper containing ~0% lmst,-cor~surner material

SECTION V! - GENERAL INFOPd~TION TO PROPOSER.~

B. ~ XhisRequ~tf~an~tImre~d~gc~mmctaw~rd(s~’~any~un~s~thc~wis~t~j~t~a~li~v~f NewYork Star= Law, th~ New York City Administ=-~¢ Code, New Yod~ City Crater and N~m Yo~k City Procorcmem Policy Boazd (PPB) Pules. A co~y of the: PPBRules may be obtained by contacting the PPB at (212) 788-7820.

O. Contract Award.. Contract award is subject to each of the following applicable cowJitions and any others thin may apply:. New York City Fair Share: C~taia: NewYork City MaoBrid~ Principh:s Law; mxbmissiou by th~ pmt~scr of the requisite New Yolk City Depaxtment of Business SetwicesiDiviskm of LaborEmployment Retx~t and cettffication by that oflic~, s~bmission by the prcgoser of the requisite VENDEX Questionnaires/Az~t’idavits of No Change and teviwx" of theinformation contained thrown by t~ New York City Dcpmtm~t or hvtsfigatkm; all otl~r require0 ov*rsight approvals; ~ppl~ble provisions of f~t~d. ~ andtotal taws anti executive orders requiring affirmative w.xioo amt equal ¢mptoymcm oppommity; and S~ctltm 6-108. ! of" the New York City Admiaisumivefeinting to the Local ~ Ent~’isc* program a.~ ~ implcm~mmrion rulc~.

IL Pto~o~r And;t! P3~ht~. Furs.tam to New York City’s Prooarcm~t Policy Board P.ulcs, proposers have the tight to appeal Ag¢ocy no~t~sponslvtmessd~otxs and Ager~y rmn--rcspot~t~lity d¢tetminatlons a~t to pmtes~ an Agency’s dete=mlnafion regarding the soficltation or award of a contract.

F. M~ltl-Yetr Coatraa.~. Multi-year c.ontra¢ts are subject to modifie~xtio~ or canedlatiott if a~quate fimds a~ r,~ appmprlat~d m the Agency to suppo~continuation of ~� in any City fiscal year succtmding the fnm rise.a/year and/or if the contractor’s pcrfmmanc~ is not satlsfaclmy. The Agency will notify theon.tractor as soon as is practicable that the fimds am, or ar~ not. available for the continualio~ of the multi-year contract for each sur.coeding City 5seal y~a2r. In theewmt of cane.~llatiotL the eotttractor will b~ t~imbcrsod for flm~c costs, if any, which am s~ provided [or in the rxmtr’.mL

G. Fronmt Pt=vment P0liev. Pu~’uam to the New York City’s Mut~oat Policy Board Rules, it is the policy ofthe City to proc~ contract paym*mts effic~tmfly

H. PHc~s Irrevocable. Prices proposed by tl~ propos~-slml] Ix: irrcvecablc until coutr~t award, unless the prcvosal is wi~wn. Propt~ may cady bewithdrawn by submining a writtm requ~ to the Agency ptio¢ to contra~t awm-d but aft~ Ihe ~pirafion of 90 days at~¢r the olx~ng or’proposals. This shah not limitthe discrd, ion of the Agency to rtquest proposo~ to revise propos~I IXiCeS through the submission of best and Fma~ offers and/or the condtmt of negotiations.

L Conf~mtD, L l~ronrittarv Inf~rnmtlon or Trtde Sends. Ptopose~ should give specific attmtion to the id~mtificatiou of those po~dons of their proposals thatthey det:m to be confidexRiaL prop~etmy infoonation or Irade sorm~ and provide any justificatlon of why such materials, upon request, should not 13� di~losed by theCity. Such informatio~ must be easily separable from the non-confidential sectin~s of’the proposal. AB information rto~ so identified may Im dL~losed by the City.

J. ~ Pott~onentent/Cance~tatip~ The Ag~m~y res¢~,*s the right to po~pone or canc~ this RFP, in whole or in pm’L and to rejc¢! all proposals,

K. Protract Cottt. Proposes will not be ~-imbmsed for any r~ts it~umat to ptx:pare proposals.

Charter Sec~oa 312fa) Certification.

The Agency has detcrmint~d that the cemtract(s) to be awardod through this R~uest for Proposals will not directly result in the; dlsphaccanc~t of any N~v York City

Message from the New York Ci~ Vendor Enrollment Centfr~Get on mailing lists for New York City contract oppormnitles!

Submit a NYC-FMS Vendor/Ipplication. Call 212/857-1680

~a14~’ Prmled ~m pnper cc.’nmining 30% posl-consumer materml17

ATTACHMENT APROPOSAL COVER LETTER

RFP TITLE: REQUF~T FOR PROPOSALS for ENDIGENT CRIMINAL DEFENSE SERVICESPIN # 00210DMPS413

Name:

Address:

Employer Identification #:

Pr0Poser’s Contact Person:

Name:

Title:

Telephone #:

Competition Proposed

County-wide (select one)~ Competition 1: Kings County (Brooklyn)C Competition 2: Bronx Countyra. Competition 3: New York County (Manhattan)C Competition 4: Queens County~ Competition 5: Richmond County (Staten Island)

Does proposal include conflict cases? U YES 0 NONote: The City ’~’ill not award a contract to proposers seeking to provide representation for conflict cases only.

Catchment AreasCompetition 6: New York County (Manhattan), Bronx County, K.Jags County (Brooklyn), Queens

County and Richmond County (Staten Island) catchment areas

Proposed Catchment Area:

Does proposal include conflict cases? [] YES E~ NONote: The City will not award a contract to proposers seeking to provide representation for conflict cases only.

Proposer’s Authorized Representative:

Name:

Title:

Signature:

Date:

Prin:ed on paper containing 30"/. post--conxumer matetlal

EXHIBIT D

THE CITY OF NEW YORK

OFFICE OF THE MAYORNEW YOF~K, N.Y. 10007

EXECUTIVE ORDER No. 132

March 2, 2010

INDIGENT DEFENSE PLAN FOR THE CI~l~r OF NEW YORK

WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Article 18-B of the County Law § 722(’!18-B"), the City of New York (’~the City") is required to providec0unsel.to personscharged witha crime or who are entitled to counsel pursuant to Family Court Act §§ 262or 1120, Correction Law article 6-C or Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act § 407, and whoare financially unable to obtain counsel within the meaning of County Law § 722; and

WHEREAS, it is imperative for the City to set out a plan for representation ofsuch persons pursuant to the above statutory provisions; and

WHEREAS, it is necessary that the Executive Order setting forth, suoh plan beconsistent in all respects with the rules of the Office of the Mayor accomplishing:thesame.purpose,

NOW, THEREFORE; by virttm of the power veSted:in me as Mayor 0fthe City ofNew York, it:is hereby ordered:

§ 1. Repeal of Executive Orders. Executive Order No. ] 18 of 2008, entitled "IndigentDefense Plan for:the City of New York," is hereby repealed. Further, Executive OrderNo. 178 Of 1965, entitled "Furnishing Counsel to Indigent Criminal Defendants Withinthe City of New York," is hereby repealed. Criminal Defense Panels created under the.authority of Executive Order 178 6f 1965 shall continue to exist-and shall beadministered in accordance with the roles of the Appellate Division, First and SecondJudicial Departments.

§ 2. Definitions.

Assigned Counsel Panels. Panels of private attorneys certified.by the AppellateDivision, First and Second Judicial Departments, to represent indigent persons forpurposes of Article 18-B of the County Law.

Criminal Defense Panels. The Assigned Counsel Panels administered by theOffice of the Mayor, Office of the Assigned Counsel Plan ("ACP"), in accordancewith the rules of the Appellate Division, First and Second Judicial Departments.Attorneys on the Criminal Defense Panels represent indigent defendants incriminal matters as defined in section 722-a of the County Law, as set forth

below.

Family Law Panels. Assigned Counsel Panels administered by the AppellateDivision, First and Second Judicial Departments, in accordance with the rules ofthose courts. Attorneys on the Family Law Panels represent indigent persohs inthe Appellate Division, First and Second Judicial Departments, and in theSupreme Court, the Surrogate’s Court and the Family Court within thoseDepartments, in proeeedlngs under sections 262 or 1120 of the Family Court Actand seetlon 407 of the Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act.

Indigent Defense Organization Oversight Committee. Committees established bythe Appellate Division, First and Second Judicial Departments, that monitorCriminal Defense Providers.

lndigent Person. Any person who is entitled to be represented by counselpursuant to section 722 of the County Law and who is financially unable to obtaincounsel, as defined in the Eligibility Guidelines for the Appellate Division, Firstand Second Judicial Departments.

Office of the Assigned Counsel Plan. The Office of the Assigned Counsel Plan(the "OACP"), established pursuant to subdivision (3) of section 722 of theCounty Law, is responsible for management of the City’s Criminal DefensePanels. The OACP is overseen by two Administrators in consultation with, thePresiding Justices of the First and Second Judicial Departments. The City’sCriminal Justice Coordinator (the "CJC") appoints a Director responsible foroverseeing the processing and payment of vouchers for work performed pursuantto the assigned counsel plan.

Provider. A private legal services organization selected by the Criminal JusticeCoordinator ("CJC") in accordance with section three of this Order to representindigent persons.

§ 3. Competitive Procurement Process. The Office of the Criminal Justice Coordinator("CJC") shall select Providers through a competitive procurement process in accordancewith the rules of the Procurement Policy Board. These Providers, along with attbrneys ’ "appointed from appropriate Assigned Counsel Panels of the First and Second JudicialDepartments, will provide indigent legal services as described below.

Indigent Defense Organization Oversight Committees, as established by the First andSecond Judicial Departments shall monitor the Providers.

§ 4. Criminal Matters. In classification proceedings under Article 6-C of the CorrectionLaw and in any other criminal matters in which an indigent person is entitled to counselpursuant to Article 18-B of the County Law, CJC shall select Providers in each of theCity’s five counties to provide representation at the trial level. In appellate matters inwhich an indigent person is entitled to counsel pursuant to Article 18-B of the CountyLaw, C.rC shall select providers in each of the First and Second Judicial Departments toprovide representation in such matters. Providers shall be assigned by the court at thetrial and appellate levels. In any case where, due to conflict of interest or other

appropriate mason, Providers decline or are unable to represent an indigent person at thetrial or on appeal in a criminal matter, counsel shall be furnished by attorneys assigned bythe ACP from the appropriate Criminal Defense Panel of the Appellate Division, First orSecond ~rudicial Department or by alternate providers selected by the CJC through theCity’s procurement process.

§ 5. Family Law Matters. Indigent persons who are parties in proceedings brought undersections 262 or 1120 of the Family Court Act or section 407 oft_he Surrogate’s CourtProcedure Act shall be represented by attorneys selected by the First and Second JudicialDepartments from the Family Law Panels of the Appellate Division, First or SecondJudicial Department, and Providers selected by CJC. Attorneys shall be assigned by thecourt.,§ 6. Investigative, Expert, and Other Services in Matters handled by 18-B Attorneys.The authorization to attorneys appointed to represent indigent persons to obtain necessaryinvestigative, expert, or other services and the determination of the amount of reasonablecompensation therefore shall be made pursuant to section 722-e of the County Law by thecourt in which the matter is pending.

(a) Expert and Ancillary Services Roster (EASR). The OACP shall compile andadminister an Expert and Ancillary Services Roster consisting of the names ofinvestigators, experts and other professionals who have indicated their availability toprovide services to attorneys who represent indigent persons in criminal matters pursuantto this chapter, together with the curriculum vitae of such persons. The OACP shall makethat roster available on a regular basis to panel members who re~resent indigent personspursuant to Article 18-B of the County Law. Persons desiring to be included in theEASR shall apply to the OACP and the outcome of that application shall be subject to abackground review which may consist, inter alia, era criminal background check,verification of credentials, and verification of educational and professional attainments.The Ancillary Services Roster shall be provided simply as an informational service tocourts and panel members; inclusion of a name on the roster shall not be construed as anendorsement by the OACP of the qualifications or competence of persons so named andshall not be cited by any person as such an endorsement.

(b) Application for Appointment of Investigator, Expert, or other ServiceProviders. Attorneys representing indigent persons pursuant to this chapter may seek theappointment of an investigator, expert or other service provider pursuant to section 722-cof the County Law, whether or not the name of such person appears on the EASR.Investigators, experts, or other ancillary service providers not listed on the EASR, will besubject to a background review prior to payment being processed for services.

§ 7. Payment Procedures and Submission of Vouchers in Criminal Matters Handled byAttorneys on Criminal Panels and Experts assigned to matters handled by 18B Attorneys.Attorneys on the Criminal Panels representing or who have represented indigent persoffspursuant to Article 18-B of the County Law and this chapter, and investigators, experts,and other persons providing or who have provided services in accordance with Article18-B of the County Law and this chapter shall apply to the court in which the

representation was furnished or services provided pursuant to sections 722-b and 722-o ofthe County Law to fix his or her reasonable compensation for such representation orservices. Applications shall be made on the appropriate voucher form or templatepromulgated by the OACP. Vouchers shall be signed by the judge presiding.or whopresided in the matter in which the attorney provided representation or the personprovided ancillary services, approving the amount for which payment is being sought bythe voucher, and shall he submitted to the OACP for review prior to payment by thecomptroller.

§ 8. This’ Order shall take effect immediately.

Michael R.Mayor

EXHIBIT E

THE CITY OF NEW YORKOFFICE OF THE MAYOR

OFFICE OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATORMUNICIPAL BUILDING~ ONE CENTRE STREET, TENTH FLOOR NORTH

NEW YORK, NY 10007(212) 788-6810 * FAX (212) 788-6847

JOHN FEINBLATTCriminal Justice Coordinator

VIA Email

February 8, 2010

Addendum:#1 t0:Request:for Proposals (RFP)Indigent :crirninal~ Defense :Representation.

PiN#::i002D~S413

This addendum to the Request for .Proposals for Indigent Criminal DefenseRepresentation is being issued to correct erroneous information provided in an email sent tosome potential proposers by Barbra Difiore dated 2/8/10. The information in this email, asoutlined below, was incorrect. Ms. Diflore is employed by the City, but she is recused fromhaving any participation, in this Request for Proposals process.

Statement: "There will be at least 2 institutional providers in each county who will provide bothprimary and conflict representation."Clarification: The City has not decided and the RFP does not state that.a definite number ofproviders will be selected f0r.each county. Instead the RFP states "The City expects to award atleast one contract in each of the five.counties/boroughs in the City, and is interested inmaintaining multiple providers in at least Bronx, Kings (Brooklyn)~ New York (Manhattan) andQueens counties, and anticipatesawarding multiple contracts in each of these four counties.Vendors are eligible to receive contract awards in multiple counties."

Statement:"Primary and conflict providers will staff the arraignment parts and other parts wherecasesare picked .up.. For example, LAS and BDS or QLA would staff arraignments on all shifts.One provider would be the "primary" on Monday, Wednesday, Friday and the other would be the"conflict" defender. On Tuesday and ThurSday, BDS or.QLA would be the "primary" and LASwould be the "conflict" defender.Clarification: The RFP does not use the terms "primary" or "conflict" nor does it refer to anycurrent indigent defense services provider by name or acronym. Until responses to the RFP arereceived and new contracts are negotiated, awarded and registered, the particular staffing ofservices at arraignments cannot be ascertained as yet. :

Statement: "There will be no Primary shifts for 18-B at all after this proposal goes into effect.Clarification: The RFP is soliciting proposals from all those who seek to provide services at thetrial level to indigent defendants. Those who seek to provide trial level services in non-conflictcases can also seek to provide services in "conflict cases." Conflict cases refers to cases in whichthe provider at arraignment has a conflict of interest and is thereby barred from representing thedefendant. There is no minimum or maximum amount of conflict cases that a proposer can bid forand there is no requirement that a proposer bid for any conflict cases. Thus, again, untilresponses to the RFP are received and new contracts are negotiated, awarded and registered, thestaffing of services at arraignments cannot be ascertained as yet.

Statement: "18B is eliminated from participation in indigent defense except for the followin~,categories: 1. Cases with more than 2 defendants; 2. Cases that are declined by both or allinstitutional providers; and 3. Homicide cases.Clarification: One example of one type of conflict case is one where there are multipledefendants. However, whether or not an attorney assigned to the 18-B panel will be assigned toan arraignment shift to handle conflict cases or to multiple defendant cases after arraignmentcannot be ascertained until responses to the RFP are received and new contracts are negotiated,awarded and registered. Homicide cases are not subject to the RFP.

Statement: "I am willing to meet with panel members to answer questions and to hear yourconcerns. I will keep you updated as I learn more about this.Clarification: The only authorized communications regarding this RFP will originate from theAuthorized Agency Contact at the Criminal Justice Coordinator’s Office, listed below.

If you have other questions regarding the RFP, please use the agency contact listed below.Additionally, proposers are encouraged to attend the pre-proposal conference on February 18~h.

Pre-proposal ConferenceDate: Thursday, February 18, 2010Time: 10:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.Place: 2 Washington Street, Room 1980

New York, NY 10007

Authorized Agency ContactMigdalia VelozCriminal Justice Coordinator’s OfficeOne Centre Street, Room 1012 NorthNew York, New York 10007Telephone #: (212) 676-4933Fax#: (212) [email protected]

Please respond to this emaii to acknowledge receipt.

EXHIBIT F

THE CITY OF NEW,YORKOFFICE OF THE MAYOR

OFFICE OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATORMUNICIPAL BUILDING, ONE CENTRE STREET, TENTH FLOOR NORTH

NEW YORK. NY 10007(212) 788,6810 * FAX (212) 788-6847

JOHN FEINBLATTCriminal Justice Coordinatoi"

March 2, 2010

Addendum #2Request for PropOgMs

:Indigent Criminal Defense RepresentationPIN # 00210DMPS413

Introduction and General Information

This addendum to the Request for Proposals (RFP) for~Indigent CriminallDefense Representation is being issuedto disseminate information and address questions that the Mayo~-’s Office~ 0f.the Criminal Justice Coordinator(CJC) has received, inciuding thos~ :r~i~ed at the:pre-proposalconference held on February 18, 2010.

This RFP is designed to encourage competition and promote innovative programmatic approaches to indigentClient representation at the trial-level. At this time, CJC hasnot decided how many providers will be awardedcontracts in each county: All such.decisions will be finalized after responses to the RFP are received andnegotiations have concluded. Decisions about the staffing of arraignment parts and parole revocation parts.caseload sizes per provider and/or any other staffing pattern issues will likewise be finalized after responses tothe RFP are received and negotiations have concluded.

Moreover, CJC has not made any decisions regarding the types of providers that will be awarded contracts. TheRFP was not intended for a temporary placement agency. The RFP does not disqualify small organizations orsolo practitioners. To the extent :that any proposer is seeking to provide services that it is not currently providingunder contract to CJC, either in whole or in part; CJC encourages Such a proposer to adequately describe itsstart-up plan. If the proposing organization does not currently exisL the proposer must provide an appropriatestart-up plan that would enable the Organization to beg!nlproviding services on the .first day of the. start of.thenew contract. All proposals should, address the proposer’s program implementation plan (including the.requirement to staff designated arraignment parts) and set forth prop0ser’s organizational capability as detailedin the RFP. In addition, if any: proposer is interes~ed in subcontracting some Of the services detailed in the RFP,its proposal must clearly outline the proposer’s plan for such subcontracting.

Proposers are encouraged to propose for as many counties and catchment areas as they can organizationallymanage, however, separate and complete proposals must be submitted for each county or catchment areaproposed, and CJC reserves the right to award a proposer only a portion of what it has proposed for.

The due date under this RFP allows proposers a time frame of 6 weeks to prepare and submit their proposals,which is significantly longer than the minimum time period prescribed under City rules. CJC hereby declines toextend the due date further, as CJC is committed to have these contracts in place by January I, 2010 andanticipates a complex evaluation and negotiation process. While CJC does not have a set date by which theevaluation process will conclude and negotiations commence, CJC intends to have these contracts registered andto afford the new providers appropriate start-up time frames, in advance of the January 1st contract start date.

Contract Terms and Funding Information

As noted above, CJC anticipates that the contract start date will be January 1, 2011 and the contracts will runthrough June 30 2012. CJC intends to extend the current contracts from July 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010, inorder to complete the RFP process. Fiscal Year 1 of the new contracts will run from January 1,2011 to June 30,2011 and Fiscal Year 2 from July 1,2011 to June 30, 2012. For Fiscal Year 1, from January 1,201 t to June 30,2011, only a six-month budget is required on the price proposal. For Fiscal Year 2, from July 1,2011 to June 30,2012, a 12 month budget is required.

The total anticipated budget for this procurement citywide is $101,180,000, which is estimated to include $92.4million for indigent defense and $8.7 million for conflict cases. The $92.4 million detailed in the RFP does notinclude City Council supplements or contracts solely funded with City Council discretionary funds. Spending onindigent defense will be kept at current levels with no proposed cuts.

Payment and Budget

The anticipated payment structure for the contracts awarded as a result of this RFP will be based on a negotiatedbudget with selected providers, on a cost-reimbursement basis. The line item budget Attachment B1 is meant toset forth the minimum categories that proposers must include in the budget. Proposers are free to add categoriesto the budget or further breakdown the existing categories. Start-up costs is a separate category on the priceproposal (attachment B2) and should be used for one-time start up costs and related activities. A costreimbursement contract allows the City to remit payment to contractors based on a pre-deflned budget. Whensubmitting expenses for reimbursement, contractors are required to provide documentation to substantiateexpenses that are in line with the accepted budget.

Borough/Catchment Area

The RFP requires that each proposal be submitted for a county or a particular catchment area. "Catchment area"is defined as a geographical area within a county. The RFP does not permit proposers to define a particularpopulation with targeted needs to be considered as a "catchment area" proposal. If there is a particularpopulation with targeted needs to be serviced within a specified geographic area, a proposer may address theunique characteristics or factors endemic to that population within its proposal; however, the determining factorfor a "catchment area" proposal will be a clear definition of the geographical area within a county to be serviced.Each "catchment area" proposer must define the geographic area(s) covered by its proposal(s). CJC does nothave pre-defined catchment areas.

Parole Revocation

Proposals for Bronx County must include representation at all parole revocation hearings held on Riker’s Island.However, a proposer may not define the Riker’s Island parole revocation cases as its "catchment area."Proposers who wish to propose for any geographic catchment area in the Bronx, or for the entirety of BronxCounty, must also propose to provide representation for parole revocation hearings. Conversely, any proposal toprovide representation at parole revocation hearings must be accompanied by a proposal for trial-levelrepresentation in at least a portion (catchment area) of Bronx County. Except for confiict cases, the successfulBronx provider(s) must be willing to represent clients on all parole revocation hearings on Riker’s Island. If

CJC decides to award more than one contract to serve Bronx County, CJC reserves the right to determine whichprovider will be assigned the parole revocation hearings.

Parole revocation hearings take place on Riker’s Island 5 days a week. The parole violation hearings referred toin the RFP for the selected Bronx County provider or providers refers to hearings held on Riker’s Island only.On average there are 30 arraignments, 25 final hearings and 5 preliminary hearings per day. There are 2arraignment parts and 5 court parts to handle this caseload. Cases pend on average for 38 days, which spansfrom the lodging of the warrant to completion of the case. Two-thirds of cases end in revocation of parole, one-third end with restoration or a combination of restoration with new conditions. The most common violations ofparole that lead to a revocation hearing are failing to report, positive drug test, missing curfew, and a newmisdemeanor or violation arrest.

The last RFP issued by the City for trial-level representation in 2001 did not include parole revocation hearingsseparately; therefore, no sample proposals for parole revocation hearing representation are available. Conflictrepresentation in parole revocation hearings are currently handled by 18-b attorneys. Until responses to the RFPare received and new contracts are negotiated and registered, CJC has not decided which provider will handleconflict representation in parole revocation hearings.

Current Contracts~rovider Data

For informational purposes, below is an overview of the current Mayoral funding levels for all of the currentproviders who are not solely funded by the Council as well as the distribution of cases among these providers:

The Legal Aid Society, serving all counties except Richmond County, is contracted to take in 88% ofthe cases in its assigned arraignment parts. In FY 2009 LAS had over 229,000 assignments, and .16%of its cases went to trial. LAS received $67,785,500 in Mayoral funding.

Brooklyn Defender Services’ contract goal is to handle 18,000 cases. In FY 2009, .35% of theBrooklyn Defender Services’ cases went to trial. It received $5,790,775 in Mayoral funding.

The Bronx Defenders’ contract goal is to handle t2,500 cases. In FY 2009, .52% of the BronxDefenders’ cases went to trial. It received $4,885,140 in Mayoral funding.

Queens Law Associates contract goal is to handle 15,000 cases. In FY 2009, .15% of the QLA caseswent to trial. QLA received $4,948,498 in Mayoral funding.

New York County Defender Services contract goal is to handle 16,000 cases. In FY 2009, .6% ofNYCDS’ cases went to trial. NYCDS received $6,260,139 in Mayoral funding.

Battiste, Aronowsky & Suchow--no set contract goal they are the sole provider in Richmond County.In FY 2009, BA & S had over 9,700 assignments, and .2% of the BA & S cases went to trial. BA & Sreceived $2,808,720 in Mayoral funding.

For comparison purposes, in FY 09, the City spent approximately $48.4 million on 18b for costsassociated with criminal cases, including attorney hours. Approximately 45 million dollars was spent onattorney hours. Citywide, approximately 14% of criminal cases were assigned to 18-B attorneys, with86% going to the institutional providers under the current contracts.

The current providers are paid on a cost reimbursement basis; there is no set cost per case. "[’he City does notkeep data on the cost per case of cases that go to trial. The total number of cases in FY09 that proceeded to trialwas 1,608.

Defining Representation and Program Models

In defining the terms of representation, page 4 of the RFP indicates that representation commences atarraignment or by order of the court and continues until there is a final resolution of the client’s case. Page 4 ofthe RFP also outlines what such representation must include. These requirements are intended to serve as theminimum threshold of services a proposer must provide in order to be eligible for consideration as a provider. Ifa proposer’s program model differs in that it provides additional services, such proposer should detail its modelin its proposal. Proposers may include additional services as part of their respective program models; a separateproposal is not necessary.

Charges in a criminal case can have a deleterious effect on clients’ status in other contexts, such as changes inimmigration status, eviction, loss of public benefits, etc. Each proposer should detail how its program model isable to address these issues - denominated as "collateral consequences services" - for their clients.

The intent of the RFP is not to include defense services for most homicides. For the small subset of homicidecases where a provider is assigned to a non-homicide case and, subsequent to the filing of the initial charges, thevictim dies from injuries allegedly sustained during the crime and homicide charges follow, if continuedrepresentation is in the best interests of the client, CJC does not intend to have the case re-assigned.

Conflict Cases Information and Clarification

Proposals for conflict cases (if applicable) should be discussed in the program proposal, (see section C at pages12-14). Proposers are encouraged to set forth how their respective organizations and staff will handle conflictcases along with trial-level caseloads. Furthermore, the price proposal should reflect the number of cases theproposer is seeking to handle, broken out by trial level and conflict case load (if applicable). The conflict casespercentages in the RFP (see page 5, section C) are a subset of the approximately 355,000 arraignments billed tothe City of New York in FY 2009.

Applicable Laws and Regulations Governing This RFP

Section 722 of the County Law provides in relevant part as follows:

The governing body of each county and the governing body of each city in which a county is whollycontained shall place in operation...a plan for providing counsel to persons charged with a crime orwho are [otherwise] entitled to counsel...[and] who are financially unable to obtain counsel. Each planshall also provide for investigative, expert and other services necessary for an adequate defense. Eachplan shall conform to one &the following:

Representation by a public defender appointedpursuant to county law article eighteen-A.

In criminal proceedings, representation by counselfurnished by a private legal aid bureau or societydesignated by the county or city, organized andoperating to give legal assistance and representation topersons charged with a crime within the city or countywho are financially unable to obtain counsel ....

3. Representation by counsel furnished pursuant to aplan of a bar association in each county or city in

o

which a county is wholly contained whereby theservices of private counsel are rotated and coordinatedby an administrator, and such administrator may becompensated for such service. Any plan of a barassociation must receive the approval of the stateadministrator before the plan is placed in operation.

Representation according to a plan containing acombination of any of the foregoing ....

In classification proceedings under article six-C of thecorrection law or from an appeal thereof,representation shall be accordin~ to a plan describedin subdivisions one, two, three ~ four of this section,(emphasis added)

As may be seen, section 722 provides four alternative means that may be chosen by a locality for theprovision of indigent legal services. One of those alternatives, set forth in subdivision three, is theadoption of a bar association plan for the rotation of legal services among private counsel. However,the City is in no way required, ha formulating its plan for indigent legal services, to conform to thealternative provided in subdivision three.

Th.e, .Cit~,’~ .current plan for indigent legal services, set forth .in Executive OrdeClNo. 132~ and in chapter|.~ of Title 4~,~of the Rules of the City of New York, conforms to subdivision tw6 oTsection 722, whichprovid~ for legal representation in criminal proceedings by "a private legal aid bui’eau or societydesignated by the [City]". This is entirely in accordance with the requirements of section 722. TheCity’s previous plan for the provision of indigent legal services, explicitly repealed by Executive OrderNo. 132, relied on services provided pursuant to the plan of a local bar association. That plan is nolonger in effect.

The RFP and addendum #1 and #2 are available online at www.nyc.gov/indigentdefenseRFP

VERIFICATIONS

SL~REME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKCOUNTY OF NEW YORK





- against -



Index No.:

VERIFICATION

State of New York

County of New York

James B. Kobak, Jr., being duly sworn deposes and says:

I am the President of Petitioner, the New York County Lawyers’ Association

("NYCLA’). I have reviewed the contents of the foregoing Complaint and Verified

Article 78 Petition. The information contained therein is true to my own knowledge

except to those matters stated to be alleged on information and belief, contained in

public records, or matters relating specifically to any of the Petitioners apart from

NYCLA, and, as to those matters, I believe the information to be true.

Sworn to me th~s~__ day of June 2010

Notary Public

Commission F.~plre$ Fetid. 1~, ~

Jr./






- against -

MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG, in his officialcapacity as Mayor of the City of New York, theCITY OF NEW YORK, and JOHNFE!NBLATT, in his official, capacity as theCriminal Justice Coordinator for the Office ofthe Mayor of the City of New York,


Index No.:

VERIFICATION

State of New York

County of Bronx

)))

SS.

Chris DiLorenzo, being duly sworn deposes and says:

I am the First Vice President and President Elect of Petitioner, the Bronx Bar

Association (the "Bronx Bar"). I have reviewed the contents of the foregoing

Complaint and Verified Article 78 Petition. The information contained therein is

true to my own knowledge except to those matters stated to be alleged on

information and belief, contained in public records, or matters relating specifically to

any of the Petitioners apart from the Bronx Bar, and, as to those matters, I believe the

information to be true.

Chris DiLorenzo

to me thisay of June 2010

Public

KENNETH R. RUSHNotary Public State of New York

No. 02RUSO77~L6~Commission Expires: _ _kf r’] r I

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NE~ YORKCOUNTY OF NEW YORK


THE NEW YORK COUNTY LAWYERS’ASSOCIATION, THE BRONX COUNTY BARASSOCIATION, THE BROOKLYN BARASSOCIATION, THE QUEENS COUNTYBAR ASSOCIATION, THE ~CHMONDCOUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION,



- against -



Index No.:

State of New York

VERIFICATION

County of Kings

Andrea Bonina, being duly sworn deposes and says:

I am the President of Petitioner, the Brooklyn Bar Association (the "Brooklyn

Bar"). I have reviewed the contents of the foregoing Complaint and Verified Article

78 Petition. The information contained therein is true to my own knowledge except

to those matters stated to be alleged on information and belief, contained in public

records, or matters relating specifically to any of the Petitioners apart from the

Brooklyn Bar, and, as to those matters, I believe the information to be true.

Sworn to me this~~ day of June 2010

Andrea Bonina

SUPREME COURT OF THE STA~ OF NEW YORKCOUNTY OF NEW YORK


THE NEW YORK COUNTY LAWYERS’ASSOCIATION, THE BRONX COUNTY BARASSOCIATION, THE BROOKLYN BARASSOCIATION, THE QUEENS COUNTYBAR ASSOCIATION, THE ~CHMONDCOUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION,



- against -



Index No.:

VERIFICATION

State of New York

County of Queens

)))

SS.

Chanwoo Lee, Esq., being duly sworn deposes and says:

I am the President of Petitioner, the Queens County Bar Association (the

"Queens Bar"). I have reviewed the contents of the foregoing Complaint and Verified

Article 78 Petition. The information contained therein is true to my own knowledge

except to those matters stated to be alleged on information and belief, contained in

public records, or matters relating specifically to any of the Petitioners apart from the

Queens Bar, and, as to those matters I believe the information to be true.

~darn to me thisy of June 2010

Chanwoo Lee






- against -


Defendm~ts-Respondents.

Index No.:

VERIFICATION

State of New York )

County of Richmond )

Jonathan Behrins, being duly sworn deposes and says:

I am the President of Petitioner, the Richmond County Bar Association (the

"Richmond Bar"). I have reviewed the contents of the foregoing Complaint and

Verified Article 78 Petition. The information contained therein is true to my own

knowledge except to those matters stated to be alleged on information and belief,

contained in public records, or matters relating specifically to any of the PetiUoners

apart from the Richmond Bar, and, as to those matters, I believe the information to

be ~rue.

Jonathan Behrins

Sworn to me this~_ day of June 2010

Public

JUUA A. ~;Notary Publlc, Store of v York

ID #01RI6107928Quollft~d in F~tehmond County

supreme court of the state of new york … · association of the bar of the city of new york (the...

Documents