Rachel Rintelmann, Staff Attorney

In 2007, the Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia began representing low-income tenants through the Court-Based Legal Services Project, funded in large part by the D.C. Bar Pro Bono Program and based in the Landlord-Tenant Branch of D.C. Superior Court.  Today, Legal Aid partners with Bread for the City to ensure that attorneys are available Monday through Friday to provide same-day representation to low-income tenants facing eviction.

On any given day, Project attorneys are prepared to handle a wide range of cases. Often, attorneys will assist tenants in court for their initial appearance, counseling them as to their legal rights, and assisting them in filing answers, seeking continuances, setting trial dates, requesting necessary repairs to their homes, and/or negotiating with their landlords. Sometimes, tenants seek assistance with more complex matters, such as requesting a temporary restraining order to force the landlord to make emergency repairs, or filing a motion to stop an eviction scheduled to take place within 24 hours.  

On some occasions, we meet with tenants on the day that their case is scheduled for trial. This was the case last week when Legal Aid attorney David Steib met with a tenant who was living in a foreclosed property.  Not only did David help the tenant negotiate for a 60% reduction in the amount of money the bank claimed was owed, he also ensured that the tenant would not be evicted and would continue to have a roof over her head for the foreseeable future. 

Cases referred to this Project often require quick thinking and research. In October, Legal Aid attorney Celine Janelle met with a tenant who was scheduled to be evicted at 2 pm that day, despite the fact that he had never received notice of an eviction case. Celine later discovered that the eviction had actually taken place several hours early, while the tenant was in Court waiting to be heard. Rather than giving up because it was too late to stop the eviction, Celine spent an hour and a half researching, drafting and arguing a somewhat atypical motion. Thanks to Celine’s efforts, the Judge ordered that the tenant, and his belongings, be restored to his home immediately. 

Even in cases without complex questions of law, Project attorneys often lend a helpful hand. 

A Spanish-speaking tenant came to the Project for help after her landlord’s attorney refused to consider evidence that she had paid all of her rent. Instead, the landlord’s attorney bullied and threatened the tenant, telling her she would be thrown out of her home within the week. Legal Aid attorney Maggie Donahue stepped in to explain the tenant’s rights, and the landlord’s attorney immediately dismissed the case with prejudice. As an additional benefit, Maggie was able to counsel the tenant in her native language. 

In addition to same-day representation, Project attorneys also provide ongoing representation for clients who need help beyond that day in court.  Often that representation is provided directly by Legal Aid attorneys, but in 2011, we also placed 30 cases with pro bono counsel, mostly through our own pro bono program.

So far in 2011, Legal Aid has handled 319 new cases through the Project, benefitting 819 people. In those cases alone, we have helped to gain over $250,000 in financial benefits for our clients.  Approximately two-thirds of these clients were from Wards 5, 7, or 8 — all areas with high concentrations of poverty. 

A 2008 D.C. Access to Justice Commission report showed that while over 90 percent of landlords in eviction cases are represented by counsel, only 3 percent of tenants have attorneys. The Project was created to help address this massive inequity, and four years later, the Project continues to make a dent in this imbalance. Legal Aid and Bread for the City attorneys have represented nearly 3,000 individuals or families through the Project since 2007. 

As affordable housing in the District becomes more and more difficult to find, low-income tenants find themselves at an increasing risk of homelessness.  Even those tenants with steady housing may find that affordable housing is substandard, and sometimes downright hazardous. Our presence in the courthouse increases our ability to monitor these and other emerging issues, and to engage in ongoing discussions about how to meaningfully address the challenges that our clients face every day. 

David Steib, Staff Attorney

We are delighted to announce that the Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia was recently awarded a Flom Incubator Grant to help realize the goal of providing specialized representation to tenants with difficult claims in the Housing Conditions Calendar at DC Superior Court. Legal Aid is one of eighteen organizations nationwide to be awarded a Flom Incubator Grant by the Skadden Fellowship Foundation in July 2011.  The Grants are made possible by a generous testamentary bequest of Mr. Joe Flom, the founding trustee of the Skadden Fellowship Foundation, as well as significant donations in Mr. Flom’s memory by Skadden partners and others in the legal community.

Legal Aid’s Flom Incubator Grant allows the Housing Law Unit to focus special attention on litigating cases in the Housing Conditions Calendar in which tenants suffer from bedbug infestations  and mold . The Grant enables Legal Aid to hire expert witnesses, where necessary, to document the problems of mold and bedbugs in our clients’ homes and to testify about them in court. The Grant also allows Legal Aid both to take more of these cases — with the goal of assisting additional tenants — and, eventually, to create helpful precedent that will be useful to tenants throughout the District. 

If you are a tenant struggling to obtain mold remediation or bedbug extermination from your landlord, or if you know such a tenant, please contact Julie Becker (jbecker@legalaiddc.org; (202) 661-5946) or David Steib (dsteib@legalaiddc.org; (202) 386-6675) for more information.

Beth Harrison, Supervising Attorney & Director, Court Based Legal Services Project

Legal Aid’s Housing Unit sometimes represents tenants living in subsidized housing who are facing eviction and/or the loss of their housing subsidy under the federal “one strike” policy.  Federal law prohibits tenants from engaging in criminal activity that disturbs others, including any violent or drug-related criminal activity, on or near a subsidized housing property.  The policy applies to misdemeanors as well as felonies, regardless of whether any criminal charges were ever pursued or won.  The tenant is responsible for not only her own actions but also the actions of her household members and guests, even if she is not personally involved in any activity, does not know about it, and could not have prevented it.  The policy is truly “one strike and you’re out”:  a tenant can be evicted and lose her housing subsidy, even if she personally is innocent and offers to bar the offender. 

As you might imagine, the one strike policy can have particularly harsh consequences for our clients.  To cite one common scenario, because a young adult son possesses marijuana on the property, his mother and the rest of the family can lose their apartment and their subsidy.  Since the waiting lists for subsidized housing in D.C. are measured in terms of years rather than months, the loss of a federal housing subsidy can be devastating for a low-income family. 

Last Sunday, the New York Times published an article examining the implementation of the one strike policy by the Chicago Housing Authority.  Among the findings it reported:  86 percent of cases from 2010 had nothing to do with the primary leaseholder; 76 percent of cases that year were misdemeanors; and in the majority of cases, the defendants were found not guilty, their cases were thrown out, or they were never prosecuted.  Legal Aid has observed similar trends in the application of the one strike policy in D.C.

Rosanne Avilés, Supervising Attorney -Housing

The D.C. Office of Human Rights recently released a proposal to amend Chapter 10 of Title 4 of the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations (DCMR).   The proposed amendments would address several important issues, including providing significant housing protections to victims of domestic violence.

One of the proposals would require housing providers to make efforts to provide safe housing to a victim of an intrafamily offense, including transferring the victim to alternative housing that is either managed or owned by the provider.  Such a proposal would greatly help victims of an intrafamily offense, particularly victims residing in certain federally-subsidized apartments.  Currently, victims of domestic violence living in federally-subsidized project-based Section 8 housing have very limited, if any, options for transferring to other subsidized housing when they need to leave their current housing in order to protect their safety.  Although a housing provider may own or manage multiple federally-subsidized project-based Section 8 properties, there is no law in place right now that requires it to transfer a victim of domestic violence from an apartment in one federally-subsidized property to another such property. This proposal would change that.

Late last month, Legal Aid submitted a comment letter to the D.C. Office of Human Rights supporting the proposed amendments.  In it, we expressed that we strongly support the amendment that will require housing providers, such as owners or managers of multiple project-based Section 8 properties, to transfer a victim of an intrafamily offense to alternative housing that is owned or managed by the provider when needed to provide safe housing to the victim.  This provision will allow victims of an intrafamily offense to retain their housing subsidy if they need to move from their current home for safety reasons. Thus, victims of an intrafamily offense would no longer need to choose between retaining affordable housing and living in safe housing.

We commend the D.C. Office of Human Rights for their efforts to provide greater housing protections to victims of an intrafamily offense and hope the proposed amendments to the DCMR will be implemented.

Chinh Le, Legal Director

On Monday, July 4^th, the National Law Journal ran an article  about the D.C. Superior Court’s Housing Conditions Calendar in which Legal Aid’s Housing Unit Supervising Attorney, Julie Becker, was quoted. This new housing conditions calendar, which began hearing disputes last spring, was established at the Court’s initiative, as a result of years of advocacy by Legal Aid and other stakeholders.

In 2008, following a series of articles in the Washington Post about the District’s failure to enforce the housing code, Julie and other advocates spearheaded efforts to persuade the D.C. Council to enact a law permitting tenants to bring repair claims in Landlord-Tenant Court. The effort sought an important change for D.C. residents; at the time, and for as far back as anyone could remember, tenants lacked any quick, inexpensive, or easy forum for resolving housing code complaints against their landlords.  The only meaningful way for a tenant to take legal action against the landlord regarding repairs was to withhold rent and be sued for eviction.  This was a risky strategy that put the tenant’s home immediately and unnecessarily at risk, especially if the conditions were dire and/or posed a serious threat to the tenant’s health or safety.

A consensus developed that this situation was unfair and unacceptable.  Ultimately, to its credit, the D.C. Superior Court took the effort upon itself, and in April 2010, the Housing Conditions Court opened for business.  Legal Aid, the Access to Justice Commission, and numerous other stakeholders, including landlords’ attorneys, worked with the Court to implement procedures for the new calendar.

Since then, Legal Aid has litigated numerous cases in that court.  Presiding Judge of the Civil Division Melvin Wright is to be commended for devoting countless hours to implementing the new calendar – and presiding over all of its cases.

Jen Ngai

Chief Operations Officer

Jodi Feldman, Director of Pro Bono and Intake

 This fall, we are pleased to welcome a new law firm – Crowell & Moring LLP – to Legal Aid’s Loaned Associate Program.  Crowell joins our longtime partners Arnold & Porter LLP, Skadden, Arps Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, and Steptoe & Johnson LLP, in “loaning” Legal Aid an associate to work full-time in our offices on a six-month rotation.   

Lucy Noyola, Crowel Loaned Associate

Crowell & Moring (C&M) inaugurated its program by selecting Lucy Noyola, a fourth-year associate, from a strong pool of C&M associates and counsel who expressed interest in the program.  Factors that were considered in the selection process included the attorney’s pro bono contributions, demonstrated commitment to the Firm, and career development potential.  Lucy’s pro bono work at the Firm includes assisting more than 40 low-income tenants in recovering their security deposits from an unscrupulous landlord and representing two low-income wage earners in litigation to obtain wages wrongfully withheld by their former employer. 

 C&M’s loaned associates will work in Legal Aid’s Housing Law Unit, helping tenants to defend eviction suits and secure their right to safe and well maintained housing.   In considering this area of focus, the Firm recognizes that such representation can often prevent an individual or family from becoming homeless and that the economic downturn has had a devastating impact on the need for and availability of legal services for low-income tenants.   According to C&M Public Service Partner Susan Hoffman, the Firm chose the Legal Aid Society for the rotation program, “because the quality of work, supervision and reputation of Legal Aid are outstanding.  The Firm has had a long pro bono history with Legal Aid, which we hope this program will continue and enhance.”

Julie Becker, Senior Staff Attorney

Last week, Legal Aid secured an important victory for tenants’ rights when the Court of Appeals decided Loney and Tenants of 710 Jefferson Street Opinion. The case involved a landlord’s effort to clear his building of low-income, mostly Latino residents based on a vague and unsupported claim that he planned to rehabilitate the property.

The case began in 2004, when Steve Loney bought the building at 710 Jefferson Street NW. Shortly after taking ownership, Loney began taking steps to clear the property of tenants. First, he filed largely baseless suits to evict them. Then, in an effort to intimidate the tenants – most of whom were immigrants with limited proficiency in English – he sent notices to everyone, stating that the Immigration and Naturalization Service would “soon be conducting interviews in the building.”

Loney’s next move was to file a petition for substantial rehabilitation with the D.C. government, seeking permission to renovate the building and raise the tenants’ rents to more than double their original amounts. D.C. law permits these rent increases if a landlord undertakes renovations so substantial that they will cost more than half of the value of the building, and if the renovations are “in the interest of the tenants.” But the tenants claimed that Loney’s plan did not come close to meeting this standard – and, after several years of agency litigation, the Court of Appeals agreed. The Court held that a landlord hoping to take advantage of the substantial rehabilitation law must show that each part of the proposal is in the tenants’ interest. This ruling is an important contribution to the law on rehabilitation and should give tenants an additional tool for fighting landlords’ petitions in the future.

The case also involved a claim for attorney’s fees, prosecuted on Legal Aid’s behalf by Jenner & Block. Because the tenants had prevailed before the agency, they were entitled to attorney’s fees. The Rental Housing Commission unilaterally reduced the fee award, on the ground that the hourly rate requested – the “Laffey Matrix” rate, which is routinely used for government and public interest attorneys – was too high. The Court ruled in our favor on this issue as well. Most importantly, it rejected the District’s claim that work before administrative agencies is automatically less “complex” than federal litigation and deserving of a lower fee rate.

For decades, there has been concern about the way that the United States measures poverty.   The current measure was developed in the 1960’s.   At the time, a family was considered poor if they had income below a line that was roughly equal to 50% of the median income.   Because of the way that the measure was calculated, as income and costs increased, the poverty line did not keep pace.   Under the current measure, a family must have a significantly lower income today as compared to the general population than when the measure was devised.

A family of four lives under the poverty line if they have income of less than $22,050.    There are many District families with incomes well above the poverty line who struggle to make ends meet.   The National Low Income Housing Coalition found that the average two bedroom apartment in the District costs nearly $20,000 per year.   Following the generally accepted affordability definition that housing should make up 30% of income, a District family would need to earn $60,000 per year, nearly three times the federal poverty measure.  

In 1995, the National Academy of Sciences developed an alternative poverty measure that more closely matches the actual costs that a family needs to meet in order to live.    The Census Bureau has collected data on the new measure and for several years has published it as a supplement to the official poverty data.   The Census is now seeking comments on the measure and how it should be applied. 

 Comments on the poverty measure are due Friday June 25, 2010.   See the public notice HERE. 

The impact of this docket is expected to be substantial.  More than 63,000 civil cases are filed each year in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.  More than two-thirds of those cases — in excess of 44,000 actions — are in the Landlord and Tenant Branch.   The Branch is a “landlord’s court.”  Tenants cannot initiate litigation. 

As a result, if a landlord seeks to evict a tenant, she or he need only complete a simple form and pay a small fee to bring a case.  By contrast, up until last week, a tenant who sought to enforce a landlord’s obligation under the housing code to maintain habitable premises had a much different experience.  She or he was required to file it in the civil division, pay a much higher fee, and contend with significantly more complex rules concerning the entry of injunctive relief.  These barriers were so high as to be wholly ineffective for all but a small number of tenants.

There is a crisis in decent affordable housing in the District.  Many low-income tenants are forced to live in decrepit and poorly maintained buildings with very little recourse.   The District’s code enforcement process is broken.  The lack of a remedy gave landlords a free hand to ignore maintenance for the most vulnerable tenants.  The Housing Conditions Docket will be an important tool for tenants and their advocates to protect their rights.