Further, the move states that the individuals receiving money from the “18-B” program in exchange for legal services will now have to provide more social services to their clients- including social work, paralegal work and investigators on their cases, a move that would drastically impact the services provided by the solo pracitioner attorneys who represent the city’s poor in criminal matters.

By shifting away form 18-B attorneys, the city will shift a greater proportion of its cases towards organizations like the Legal Aid society.  The legal aid society is by and large composed of younger, less experienced attorneys starting off their careers.  18-B Attorneys, or those in solo practices, are often much more experience with their cases and have lesser caseload than the socieities.  By shifting cases to these younger attorneys, the legal rights of the city’s poor will quickly erode as they are not given less experienced attorneys who have less time to work on their cases.

This is an incredibly naive move on the part of the City, cutting the city’s costs for legal expenses, while weakening the rights of those individuals that can least afford it. It is unfair to the Legal Aid society, in that it ties its financial well being with the City’s funding, causing a massive conflict of interest, while undermining the solo practitioner’s who partcipate in the 18-B program by pulling the carpet out from under them.

As an active and ardent supporter of the 18-B program, I am deeply opposed to this plan for indigent representation; I let Mayor Bloomberg know this at the forum held at City Hall on March 11 to discuss these issues.  I urge you all to stand up for the rights of the City’s poor and help continue the outstanding, professional representation provided by these individuals.

This week New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has thrown his weight against having the trials in New York City, stating that the trials are “going to cost an awful lot of money and disturb an awful lot of people,” and has suggested using alternate sites for the upcoming trials.

Debate has raged since the announcement of the decision to try these individuals in open, Federal Court instead of a military tribunal, and has drawn many local New York residents into the debate over whether they would like both the attention, and potential security threats that would come with the trials.

On one hand, the trial would showcase the open trials that are the cornerstone of the American justice system, but would also pose a relative threat to those involved with providing the security, given the high profile nature of both the defendants, and the trial itself.

What do you feel about the upcoming trials?  Will this be an opportunity for the American justice system to be an example to the world? Or is this an unnecessary risk of the people of New York?