• About
    • About This Site
    • Collaboration & Funding
    • People & Contact
    • Copyright & Terms of Use
    • About NLADA
  • Make It Better
    • Provide Feedback
    • Report Broken Links
    • Donate
  • Browse
    • Creators/Authors
    • Sources/Publishers
    • Formats
    • Collections
    • Publication Types
  • Resources For
    • Researchers and Academics
    • Policymakers and Funders
    • Legal Aid Practitioners
    • News Media
  • Search & Filter

LegalAidResearch.org

LegalAidResearch.org
http://legalaidresearch.org/?p=1684

Research & Evidence for Civil Legal Aid

NLADA logo faded
  • Case Types (LSC)
    • Consumer/Finance
    • Education
    • Employment
    • Family
    • Juvenile
    • Health
    • Housing
    • Income Maintenance
    • Individual Rights
    • Miscellaneous
  • Who Served
    • Children & Juvenile
    • HIV/AIDS
    • Homeless
    • Immigrants
    • Inmates & Former Inmates
    • Migrants
    • Minorities
    • Seniors
    • Veterans
    • Women
  • How Provided
    • Courts
    • Delivery Systems
    • Hotlines
    • Judicare
    • Law School Clinics
    • Legal Aid Attorneys
    • Libraries
    • Mediation
    • Pro Bono
    • Self-Help
    • Unbundling
  • Practice Areas
    • Consumer
    • Domestic Violence
    • Elderlaw
    • Family
    • Health
    • Housing
    • Reentry
    • Veterans
  • Topics
  • Geography
    • Geography US
    • Geo World
Home / Publications / The Impact of Legal Counsel on Outcomes for Poor Tenants in New York City’s Housing Court: Results of a Randomized Experiment

The Impact of Legal Counsel on Outcomes for Poor Tenants in New York City’s Housing Court: Results of a Randomized Experiment

Martin Frankel, Carroll Seron, Gregg Van Ryzin, Jean Frankel
Law & Society Review, Wiley Publishing
January 1, 2001

Tenants with pro bono representation from the program did significantly better than tenants that did not have representation. Representation did not significantly impair the court system’s efficiency.


ABSTRACT

0
0
0
0

35 Law & Soc’y Rev. 419

Summary

The article reports on a randomized experiment studying what impact a program providing legal representation to low-income tenants had on eviction proceedings. The experiment found that tenants with representation from the program did significantly better than tenants that did not have representation. The experiment also found that representation did not significantly impair the court system’s efficiency.

Background

The Legal Aid Society Community Law Offices in the Society’s Volunteer Division (referred to here as the CLO) is a project that enlists the services of pro bono attorneys from New York law firms to support low-income tenants. The CLO staff train the volunteer attorneys in basic housing law and assist them in developing a plan of action for each case. The program focuses on cases that may lead to eviction and where the program believes representation will be most useful.

The CLO conducted an experiment to answer two empirical questions asked as a condition for funding:

  1. Does the provision for legal counsel affect outcomes for low-income tenants in Housing Court, including final judgment, warrants of eviction, and stipulations requiring rent abatement or repairs to the property?
  2. Does the provision of legal counsel for low-income tenants produce delays and other inefficiencies for the Court, including a lengthening of the average time required by the Court to dispose of a case and an increase in the number of motions filed?

Method
The experiment, a simple randomized study with a post-test only, had a treatment group of legal aid-eligible tenants receiving legal counsel and a control group that did not.

Participants in the experiment were recruited from tenants waiting in line at the Manhattan Housing Court, all responding to non-payment of rent petitions. Individuals that indicated that they were interested in representation and met the economic criteria were invited to meet with an attorney. The CLO attorney confirmed that the client faced eviction and decided whether the client would receive representation from an attorney, advice from an attorney, or assistance from a paralegal.

Before the client received any assistance, a research assistant would provide the intake attorney with a numbered envelope with instructions assigning the client to either the “treatment” or “control” group. If the client was placed in the “treatment” group, the intake attorney assigned the case to a volunteer attorney. If the client was placed in the “control” group, the intake attorney informed them it was not possible to provide legal representation and returned the client to their original place in line. 134 clients in the treatment group and 134 clients in the control group were selected for study.

Not all clients in the treatment group needed or received in-court representation.

Outcome Data and Measures
The study focused on five variables to assess the impact the program had on substantive legal outcomes:

  1. Whether the tenant defaulted or failed to appear in court;
  2. Whether a judgment was made for or against a tenant;
  3. Whether a warrant for eviction was ordered;
  4. Whether a stipulation requiring repairs was entered; and
  5. Whether a stipulation requiring rent abatement was entered.

Four variables were also considered to assess the impact the program had on efficiency:

  1. The number of court appearances the case required;
  2. The number of days required to dispose of the case, from initial answer to final disposition;
  3. The number of motions filed in the case; and
  4. The number of post-judgment motions filed.

Findings
On all five measures of substantive impact, the treatment group experienced superior outcomes than the control group. Of particular note, 28% of the control cases defaulted or failed to appear in court compared to 16% of the treatment cases. Judgments were issued against 52% of the control cases compared to 32% issued against treatment cases. Similar differences favored the treatment group regarding warrants for eviction and the stipulation for rent abatement and repairs percentages.

The study also found that lawyers did not create inefficiencies in the court system. Treatment cases did spend more time on the docket but did not generate significantly more court appearances or motions. Treatment cases were also 16% less likely to have post-judgment motions filed, which are particularly burdensome as they require the Court to reopen cases that were believed to have been resolved.



PUBLICATION DETAILS

Format: Research
Publication Type: Journal Article
Geographic coverage, US: New York, URBAN
Topics: Randomized Research
Case type: Private Landlord-Tenant
Practice Area: Housing
How Provided: Courts, Pro Bono, Self-Help
Permalink URL of this page: http://legalaidresearch.org/?p=1684

LINKS TO RESOURCES

NCJRS abstract
Collections: Legacy (was on old site)
Site Editing Notes:

Pub date is 2001, but not Jan 1. Need find exact date.

Other Content of Interest

How Effective Are Limited Legal Assistance Programs? A Randomized Experiment in a Massachusetts Housing Court
D. James Greiner , Cassandra Wolos Pattanayak , Jonathan Hennessy
March 12, 2012

Research in Progress: Does Mediation of Inmate Civil Rights Complaints Work? A Randomized Study
D. James Greiner

Service Delivery, Resource Allocation, and Access to Justice: Greiner and Pattanayak and the Research Imperative
Jeffrey Selbin , Jeanne Charn , Anthony Alfieri , Stephen Wizner
July 1, 2012

The Effect of Offers of Law Student Representation in Social Security Disability Proceedings: A Randomized Study
D. James Greiner , Cassandra Wolos Pattanayak

The Importance of Representation in Eviction Cases and Homelessness Prevention
March 1, 2012

The Greiner Studies: Randomized Investigation of Legal Aid
Steven Eppler-Epstein
May 1, 2012

Research in Progress: The Effect of Offers of Pro Bono Representation in Divorce: A Randomized Study (2013)
D. James Greiner , Cassandra Wolos Pattanayak

About

About This Site
Collaboration & Funding
People & Contact
Copyright & Terms
About NLADA
Blog

Get Involved

Report Broken Links
Provide Feedback
Donate

Subjects

Case Types (LSC)
Practice Areas
Who Served
How Provided
Topics
Geo US States
Geo World

Browse

Creators/Authors
Sources/Publishers
Collections
Formats
Publication Types
Recently Added
Hot Topics

Audiences/Tracks

Researchers & Academics
Legal Aid Practitioners
Policymakers & Funders
News Media
Maps & Geography

Contact

National Legal Aid & Defender Association
1901 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20006
[email protected]
Tel: 202-452-0620

© 2014-2017 National Legal Aid & Defender Association, licensed under Creative Commons CC BY-NC 3.0 US.
Copyrights of all works indexed on this site remain the property of their respective holders. | Copyright & Terms of Use | Privacy Policy