A WIN-WIN ARRANGEMENT—
The Courthouse Landlord/Tenant Project
Claire Cooper
ally C. concedes she owes the landlord $1,100, but
she says the landlord “owes me, too”—for the rats and
other hazards that made part of her Bayview-Hunters
Point apartment unlivable. The landlord says the unpaid
rent totals $7,700.
S
volunteer lawyers along with an EDC staff attorney,
every week of the year, typically for twenty to thirty
eviction cases. It is partly funded by the Five Bridges Foundation and the San Francisco Mayor’s Office of Community Development.
In San Francisco, whenever an unlawful detainer defendant
demands a jury trial, the case automatically goes on
a settlement conference calendar. In the past, tenants showing up at these settlement conferences, almost always without representation, would get hammered into signing
bad agreements.
A tenant now has “the eyes of an attorney to say, ‘this case
is defensible,’ ” says Carolyn Gold, an attorney and the
VLSP project’s director. And while the tenant doesn’t necessarily keep the apartment, he or she usually leaves the
courthouse with a better settlement deal—perhaps less
money to pay, as in Sally C.’s case, or more time to move,
social service referrals, or the promise of a sizable check
from the landlord.
That situation changed dramatically, however, once the
Courthouse Landlord/Tenant Project of The Bar Association of San Francisco’s Volunteer Legal Services Program
(VLSP) with its partner the Eviction Defense Collaborative (EDC) entered the picture in 2006. The limited representation project dispatches and supervises ten trained
20 SUMMER 2008
Participants on all sides say it’s a win-win arrangement.
Nils Rosenquest, of Rosenquest & Associates, who has seen
the program from the perspective of a pro tem judge, ten-
ant’s lawyer, and landlord’s lawyer, says landlords have “less
of an opportunity to take advantage of pure ignorance.”
Tenants, meanwhile, get a dose of reality about their duty
to pay rent and the landlord’s right to collect it, even when
there’s a problem with the apartment.
The lawyers also benefit. Besides reaping the considerable
psychic rewards of improving their clients’ lives immediately, they gain valuable experience negotiating settlements
under expert supervision.
The project is “great for me,” says third-year Morrison &
Foerster associate Jessica Lippmann, an environmental
lawyer. “I’m doing settlement conferences. I’m sometimes
in front of the judge. I’m learning tons.”
Solo practitioner Betsy Johnsen, a disability law specialist, says she likes working with VLSP because it provides
backup during negotiation and training beforehand
and because it provides a social worker to help clients
find resources.
Erin Rothfuss, a real estate partner at Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher, says this project is an ideal pro bono opportunity for people in real estate or corporate law. Gibson
Dunn periodically sends four to seven partners and associates to staff the project for an afternoon.
Other firms that take a day once a month or every other
month include Hanson Bridgett; Morgan, Lewis & Bockius; Nixon Peabody; McKenna Long & Aldridge;
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe; Shook,
Hardy & Bacon; and Morrison & Foerster, where, for the second year, pro
bono partner Kathi Pugh is introducing the firm’s summer associates to the
program. Participation “makes their
degree and their being a lawyer
much more meaningful,” Pugh
says. “The firm believes it’s very
important to get them started off
on the right foot.”
Four more firms—Duane
Morris, Seyfarth Shaw,
Dechert, and Latham &
Watkins—frequently send volunteers. Heller Ehrman and Shep-
pard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton recently signed up for
training. Three corporate legal departments—from Pacific
Gas and Electric, Bank of America, and HewlettPackard—also have participated.
Apart from the widespread acclaim with which the project has been received, there is an objective measure of its
success—the 25 percent reduction in the number of stays
sought by clients after signing settlement agreements, according to Miguel Wooding, executive director of EDC.
Represented tenants are more likely to understand the
agreements and fulfill their responsibilities.
The limited representation project
dispatches and supervises ten
trained volunteer lawyers along
with an EDC staff attorney, every
week of the year, typically for
twenty to thirty eviction cases.
The project owes its existence to the joint efforts of
EDC and VLSP in convincing San Francisco Superior
Court to allow limited-scope representation of unlawful
detainer defendants. Except in rare instances when a
lawyer opts to take a case to trial, representation starts
and ends with the settlement conference. But conferences
go on for hours on end.
Sally C.’s settlement conference is one of
ten set for a Wednesday afternoon in
early April. Her first stop is an EDC orientation workshop. At the same time,
Gold, a four-lawyer team from Morrison & Foerster, and solo practitioner
Heather Zona are at work over a
box lunch in a room nearby.
They’re reviewing case files, considering possible defenses and
determining what additional information must be obtained
during the client interviews
that will follow. Tenants and
lawyers then pair off and
confer for ten or fifteen minutes.
THE BAR ASSOCIATION OF SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO ATTORNEY 21
Sally C. will be represented
by Jordan Hinkes, a firstyear MoFo associate and a
newcomer to the project.
Sally C. has a tangled story
that Hinkes boils down to a
few key facts. Since losing a
paid job at her church, she
can no longer afford the
$1,100 a month apartment.
She already has moved out
and returned the key. But
disagreements remain over
the date she vacated the
apartment and the rent still
owed. Her financial records are incomplete.
One major factor breaks in Sally C.’s favor: because she
has moved out, the landlord has no right to an expedited
trial, as she would if the case were a properly filed eviction
matter. Gold advises Hinkes to attempt a settlement anyway, to persuade the landlord that waiting for trial would
be pointless.
As Sally C. and the landlord sit fifteen feet apart in the second-floor corridor of the courthouse, Hinkes walks back
and forth between them for four hours. Similar groupings
of tenants with lawyers or landlords with lawyers dot the
second- and third-floor hallways. Gold is in perpetual motion, checking progress in one case, advising a lawyer in
another, sometimes stepping into negotiations.
Sally C.’s landlord lowers her demand to $5,500. Sally C.
continues to balk. Hinkes asks whether she would be willing to offer $1,650. “I’m just saying, a way to compromise
is to offer them a little more money,” he tells her. She
agrees. The landlord makes a counteroffer—$2,200,
payable “sometime soon.” Sally C. says all she can pay is
$200 a month. The landlord raises her demand back to
$5,500, and Hinkes tells Sally C., “It’s just not going to
happen today.”
But it does happen. At 4:40 p.m., both sides agree on
$3,300 and a sixteen-month payment schedule. They sign
the agreement at 5:20 p.m., with Gold suggesting language
up to the last moment to clarify a default provision.
22 SUMMER 2008
Sally C. rates the project
“excellent.” “I’m just tired
of being taken advantage
of,” she says.
Hinkes calls the experience
“definitely worthwhile” but
says he has “lots more
to learn.”
His opposing counsel,
Francisco Gutierrez, with
MC Hall & Associates, also
appreciates the project. “It
helps tenants, and it helps
[the landlord’s attorney] to have an advocate to talk to,”
rather than dealing with an emotional tenant who doesn’t
understand the law, he says. He, too, has participated in
the project as a volunteer on the tenants’ side.
Most of the tenants that April day fare relatively well.
Adrian H., a jeweler who lost his job, is being asked to pay
his landlord $4,140.90 and to vacate immediately the
apartment he’s lived in for many years. MoFo’s Lippmann
says it’s the landlord who should pay Adrian H. to vacate
the rent-controlled apartment, which will be decontrolled
once he leaves.
Social worker Rachel Laubert of VLSP’s Homeless Advocacy Project arrives and advises Adrian H. about available
social services. During this afternoon Laubert talks to
about half the tenants in the courthouse.
Adrian H.’s landlord offers $2,000, then $2,500 with an
immediate move-out. All finally agree on $2,500 with a
thirty-day move-out.
Adrian H.’s interpreter, a family friend, comments, “They
did more than he expected. They’re very thorough, very
good. The entire program was.”
Claire Cooper, former Sacramento Bee legal affairs writer,
is a Bay Area freelance writer. She can be reached at
[email protected].