Requires counties and/or cities to establish a plan for providing legal counsel to persons who are defendants or respondents in eviction, ejectment and foreclosure proceedings and who are financially unable to obtain counsel; defines eligible person as one whose gross individual income is not in excess of one hundred twenty-five percent of the federal income official poverty line; requires the state to match dollar for dollar the amount counties appropriate for their plans.
This bill would require each county, and each city that wholly contains a county, to establish a plan for providing legal counsel to eligible people who are defendants or respondents in eviction, ejectment, and foreclosure proceedings and who cannot afford counsel. The bill defines eligible persons as certain occupants or owners of residential property whose gross individual income does not exceed 125 percent of the federal poverty line. Covered proceedings include nonpayment and holdover eviction cases, ejectment actions, and foreclosure matters.
The required representation plan could be carried out through a public defender, a bar association rotation system, an office of conflict defender, or a combination of those approaches. The bill also requires access to necessary investigative, expert, and other support services, sets compensation rates and reimbursement rules for assigned counsel, and allows courts to authorize additional services and, in extraordinary circumstances, higher payments. It further requires annual reporting by providers and local governments on expenditures and funding sources.
The bill would amend the County Law by creating a new Article 18-C and by expanding the duties of public defenders under Section 717 to include representation of eligible persons in covered housing and foreclosure proceedings. It would impose a new local obligation on counties and certain cities to maintain a legal representation system for low-income respondents and defendants, while also requiring the state to match dollar-for-dollar the local funds appropriated for these services. The measure would affect county governments, city governments in counties wholly contained within a city, public defenders, conflict defenders, bar association administrator programs, private legal aid providers, and appointed counsel.
The available context shows no recorded committee debate or vote history, so there is no documented opposition or support in the provided materials. Based on the bill’s structure and caption, it appears to be a tenant- and homeowner-protection measure aimed at expanding access to counsel in high-stakes housing and foreclosure cases. The absence of votes or transcripts means sentiment cannot be measured from legislative action in the provided record.
The main policy issues likely to arise from this bill are funding, administration, and scope. Counties and cities would be responsible for creating and operating representation plans, while the state would be required to match local spending, which could prompt concern about fiscal impact and implementation burdens. Another possible point of contention is eligibility, since the bill limits coverage to people at or below 125 percent of the federal poverty line and to specified categories of occupants and owners, which may be viewed as either appropriately targeted or too narrow depending on the perspective. No specific objections or amendments are reflected in the provided transcripts or votes.