Current Issue

Volume 6, Issue 2

We have most recently  published Volume 6, Issue 2. Please note the following contributions:

ARTICLES:

When Something Is Not Quite Right: Considerations for Advising a Client to Seek Mental Health Treatment

 by Carol M. Suzuki

This article explores the important role that lawyers are afforded in evaluating the mental health concerns of clients.  The article advocates that, where a lawyer has concerns about the mental, cognitive, or emotional health of a client, the lawyer should counsel the client to consider seeking appropriate mental health treatment.  While acknowledging that counseling a client to seek mental health treatment is not an intuitive aspect of providing legal services, the article argues that humanitarian concerns, as well as the Model Rules of Professional Responsibility allow, and in some situations perhaps require, a lawyer to consider providing such a referral. The article continues with a discussion of how mental health evaluation and treatment affect legal representation; how race, culture, and ethnicity affect mental health services; and the concerns that clients may face in paying for mental health services.  The article concludes with advice for lawyers on how to broach the topic of mental health services, taking into consideration all relevant factors.

 Warth  Redux: The Making of Warth v. Seldin

by Brian G. Gilmore

This article examines the holding in the archetypal case on standing, Warth v. Seldin, through the lens of racial and economic discrimination.  In Warth, five sets of plaintiffs brought a claim challenging the city of Penfield’s zoning ordinances that prevented the construction of low and moderate-income housing in the area.  The plaintiffs included low income, African-American and Puerto Rican residents of a nearby city who sought low income housing options in Penfield, taxpayers in the neighboring city, and a non-profit organization dedicated to combating discrimination in housing.  The U.S. Supreme Court held that none of the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the constitutionality of the city’s zoning practices and in doing so avoided the substantive issue of housing discrimination.  The article contextualizes the racial and economic issues involved in Warth by discussing the socio-political climate that existed when the decision was made.  The article questions whether Justice Lewis F. Powell, author of the majority opinion, was influenced by his upbringing in racially segregated Richmond, Virginia.  It highlights Powell’s failure to integrate schools during his tenure as chairman on the Richmond School Board post-Brown v. Board of Education, as well as his strong opinions supporting free enterprise despite the disparities in wealth that system creates.  In addition, this article analyzes Powell’s papers on the Warth opinion and the behind the scenes deliberations of the case’s issues.  It uses Powell’s own notes to explain how the Court came to the decision in Warth and criticizes Powell and the Court for failing to acknowledge the racial and economic issues pervading the case.

This article discusses the issues facing formerly incarcerated individuals upon reentry from prison into their communities, focusing primarily on the unique challenges faced by African-American males.  The article first highlights the strong correlation between incarceration and race:  People of color make up a disproportionate percentage of the U.S. prison population, are more likely to receive harsh prison sentences, and are less likely to be found eligible for parole.  The article focuses specifically on the challenges facing African-American males as they exit prison and attempt to reenter a society where they will face institutional racism in multiple forms and on multiple levels.  A myriad of statistics demonstrates the heightened burden that African-American males bear in searching for employment, accessing government assistance and support, participating in the political process, and escaping the cycle of incarceration.  In conclusion, the article proposes a diverse range of solutions to address the unique needs of African-American ex-offenders as they struggle to combat structural racism.  The article analyzes innovative reentry strategies, including provision of educational opportunities, increased access to health care and substance abuse treatment, and culturally appropriate job training programs.

NOTES:

Mean Streets: Violence Against the Homeless and the Makings of a Hate Crime

By Raegan Joern

In 1999 the National Coalition for the Homeless began to document incidents of hate crime and violence against homeless people in an annual report.  The statistics and stories in these reports demonstrate a disturbing rise in violent attacks and murders of homeless people across the country.  This note argues that these attacks, whereby the perpetrator targets the victim because he or she is homeless, meet the legal definition for a bias motivated or hate crime.  Bias motivated crimes against the homeless are bred in a social context that devalues homeless people’s lives and pinpoints them as appropriate targets for violence.  This note advocates for amending state hate crime law to include homeless status as a protected characteristic.  Amending legislation is an appropriate and necessary means of increasing legal protection for homeless people, raising social consciousness, and addressing the harms caused by bias motivated crime.

 San Francisco Public Housing as an Avenue for Empowerment: The Case for Spirited Compliance with Tenant Participation Requirements

          By Nicole Schmidt

This note examines the spirit and letter of statutes aimed at improving the state of public housing in America, focusing on the realities of the San Francisco Housing Authority’s jurisdiction.  The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 devolved responsibility for public housing administration to local housing authorities and in turn required that each jurisdiction submit an Annual Plan detailing all aspects of the local housing programs.  In addition, the Act required that Resident Advisory Boards be established to gather information and concerns from tenants and present them to local authorities for consideration and comment. The vague language of the Act, including that resident advisory boards be given “reasonable accommodations”, has allowed local housing authorities, and the San Francisco Housing Authority in particular, to often bypass the spirit of the law in favor of more efficient and cost effective methods which ultimately serve to deprive tenants of the chance at meaningful participation. Primarily based on practical interactions with local public housing tenants, the note outlines the main problems with San Francisco’s public housing as well as the primary obstacles tenants face in dealing with housing concerns.  The note argues that administration of a successful public housing program must necessarily include a truly independent Resident Advisory Board with the resources and capacity to gather information and ideas from a wide variety of residents coupled with a receptive and responsive housing authority.