Implementing New York City’s Universal Access to Counsel Program: Lessons for Other Jurisdictions

This Policy Brief gives a brief summary of the history of advocacy efforts to establish a “right to counsel” in eviction cases, which led up to the city’s UAC legislation. It provides an overview of the Furman Center’s observations of the first year of the program roll-out and suggests how the city’s experience might help other jurisdictions shape the design and implementation of their programs. Recognizing that every jurisdiction differs, and the importance of local context to understanding and learning from another jurisdiction’s experiences, Section II of the paper details the context in which the city’s UAC was designed. Section III then describes how the city has implemented UAC. Finally, Section IV discusses what can be learned from the city’s experience implementing the program, and highlights issues that other
jurisdictions need to consider in implementing a universal or expanded access to counsel program.

New York City’s UAC has generated substantial interest as other jurisdictions across the U.S. consider or implement similar programs. In June 2018, San Francisco voters approved a ballot initiative requiring the city to establish, fund, and run a program to provide legal representation to all tenants facing eviction regardless of income. The Los Angeles City Council approved a motion in August 2018 instructing the housing department to develop recommendations for a new eviction defense bill or program.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Washington, D.C.; and Newark, New Jersey, as well as other cities throughout the country, have increased funding for legal assistance to tenants and are now implementing or considering expansions in their programs. Recognizing the national interest in expanded access to counsel for tenants in eviction cases and the groundbreaking nature of New York City’s UAC, the NYU Furman Center has spent the past year observing the implementation of the program.

We visited Housing Court facilities across the city, watched how UAC is working, and observed how it is changing practices in those courts. We spoke with members of the judiciary, representatives from legal services providers participating in the UAC program, members of the landlords’ bar, tenant organizers, and other tenant advocates about the challenges and opportunities that implementing the program has posed. To better understand the challenges tenants face and their views about the need for counsel, we interviewed more than 100 tenants, most of whom appeared in Housing Court without counsel and did not live in the zip codes currently covered by the UAC program.