Public Policy

What Is Right to Counsel-Detroit?

Right to Counsel is a national movement that recognizes the need to provide legal representation to low-income persons in eviction cases. The right to an attorney is required for criminal matters, but not if a person is faced with eviction and becoming homeless. A Right to Counsel provides housing stability, mitigates housing displacement, furthers the interest of justice, and protects our most vulnerable citizens such as the elderly, poor, and children. The Right to Counsel Initiative in Detroit will bridge the justice gap by providing legal representation to low-income persons facing eviction in Detroit.

The Need for a Right to Counsel in Detroit

Approximately 30,000 eviction cases were filed in 36the District Court in 2017. Only 4.4% of tenants were represented compared to 83% of landlords who were represented.

Detroit is in an eviction crisis with more eviction filings proportionally than New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, and the entire State of New Jersey.

Benefits of a Right to Counsel in Detroit

 The economic and social benefits of providing an eviction right to counsel in Detroit include, but are not limited to:

• Reduced blight as more homes remain legally occupied

• Reduced costs incurred by the city of Detroit for homeless outreach

• Reduced emergency shelter costs

• Reduced rapid re-housing costs and emergency rental assistance

• Reduced policing costs related to squatting and criminalizing homelessness

• Reduced costs associated with education instability and employment instability

• Reduced costs associated with physical and mental health care emergency services

• Reduced outmigration/ families moving from Detroit due to lack of affordable and safe housing

• Increased stability for families, schools, and neighborhoods. “When you stabilize a family, you stabilize a school, not to mention the whole community”. Atlanta Volunteer Lawyers Foundation

A Right to Counsel Works!

• In Philadelphia, 78% of tenants were disruptively displaced without a lawyer. With a lawyer, only 5% of tenants were disruptively displaced.

• In New York City, 84% of households represented in court by lawyers were able to remain in their homes, not only saving thousands of tenancies, but also promoting the preservation of affordable housing and neighborhood stability; the eviction rate dropped by 14 percent in 2018, and has fallen 37 percent since 2014.

• In Minnesota, Tenants who were represented by legal aid negotiated agreements to stay in the property 240% more often than tenants not represented. Tenants successfully negotiated an agreement to move and avoid eviction judgment 745% more often than 2017 tenants not represented by legal aid. 

A Right to Counsel saves public money by reducing evictions

• Tenants facing eviction are more likely to retain possession of their homes if they are represented. A substantial proportion of the tenants receiving representation avoid homelessness, saving thousands or tens of thousands of public dollars in shelter costs for each eviction averted.

• Civil legal aid saved $116 million in shelter costs in 2009-2010 in New York State alone.

• A study by Stout for the Philadelphia Bar Association found that an investment of $3.5 M in eviction representation would save the city $45.2M in shelter costs, health care costs and mental health costs – a return on investment of $12 for every $1 of investment in Right to Counsel. 

  
  Learn more about Right to Counsel campaigns across the nation. We are proud to participate in the National Coalition for a Civil Right To Counsel. Learn more here

Water Affordability

Michigan Legal Services filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of residents of Highland Park. We reached a successful settlement resulting in the provision of income-based water affordability plans for all residents! Highlights of this historic settlement include: 

• The Establishment an administrative process that will cover the procedures and rules for providing service, methods for challenging billings, credit disputes, denial of service, shut-offs, costs and quality of service and collection practices. These procedures include a grievance and hearing process with the water department. The process for terminating service includes notice requirements, opportunities for hearings and protection for vulnerable populations (including persons with medical issues, the elderly, households with minor children and low-income households). The protections include reasonable income-based payment plans to address arrearages.

• Customers demonstrating an inability to pay the outstanding bill are eligible to enter into a reasonable income-based payment plan agreement with the Water Department which requires payment of the current monthly bill as well as the monthly payment plan amount which is based on a reasonable percentage of monthly income, not to exceed 5% of monthly income. 

• Reasonable income-based payment plans shall also be available to vulnerable households with children under the age of 6, seniors 65 years old or older, or persons with disabilities or medical issues which would be exacerbated by a water shut-off.

• For all bills covering periods from the date of new meter installation in 2016 to the present, low income class members with proofs of incomes at or below 200% of the federal poverty level shall be offered reasonable payment plans. These plans will provide for monthly payments that are reasonable and do not exceed 5% of household income for the combined cost of the arrears and bills for current usage.

The Lawsuit was brought by the Highland Park Human Rights Organization and by seven individuals who are city of Highland Park residential water customers. They sued for themselves and on behalf of approximately 2030 residential water customers in the city of Highland Park.

In the Lawsuit, we sought to stop Highland Park’s water debt collection activities, including threatened and actual terminations of water service, for certain residential customers, because it could not establish an accurate basis for its billings. Yet,  residentes were receiving shut-off notices from the city without any and bills ranging from several hundred to several thousand dollars for which payment was demanded under threat of termination of service.