¹ Salant, E., “Rich and Poor in the Eyes of the Law” (1961) 17 HaPraklit 313.Google Scholar

² Unfortunately no official statistics seem to exist as to the number of cases dealt with by these offices and what proportion of the total need these cases represent. It has been estimated by the Director of the Tel-Aviv office that at present approximately 1,500 cases are processed in that office every year. (Interview with Ephraim Salant, December 23, 1973).

³ Report of the Prime Minister's Committee on Socially Deprived Youth (Jerusalem, 1972).

⁴ See generally Salzberger, and Shnit, , “Social Welfare Legislation in Israel” (1973) 8 Is.L.R. 550.Google Scholar

⁵ Brownell, , Legal Aid in the United States (1951) 3.Google Scholar

⁶ See the excellent discussion in two articles which were seminal in the development of the “new wave” of legal services institutions in the U.S.: Carlin, and Howard, , “Legal Representation and Class Justice” (1965) 12 U.C.L.A.L.R. 381Google Scholar; Cahn, and Cahn, , “The War on Poverty: A Civilian Perspective” (1964) 73 Yale L.J. 1317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷ The neighbourhood law office concept is examined in detail in Note, “Neighbourhood Law Offices: The New Wave in Legal Services for the Poor” (1967) 80 Harv. L.R. 805. And see Johnson, E., “The O.E.O. Legal Services Program” (1968) 14 Cath. L.R. 98.Google Scholar

⁸ The demand in the United States for poverty lawyers is now so great that courses are offered in many law schools on “law and poverty”, and many law students participate in field clinics for which they receive course credit.

⁹ The United States has probably acquired the widest experience in this area. Beginning in 1876 with the establishment of the New York Legal Aid Society, legal aid has grown to a point that in 1969 there were 645 legal aid agencies which served 1,024,492 clients. Approximately half of these cases were handled by 400 new legal services units established since 1964. The 1969 national budget for legal aid amounted to $ 55,000,000: Voorhees, T., “Legal Aid: Past, Present and Future” (1970) 56 A.B.A.J. 765, 767.Google Scholar

¹⁰ At present there are nine full-time professional staff employed in the three legal aid bureaux (Interview with Ephraim Salant). Since January, 1973 a small pilot project has been in existence at the Ramle Office of Social Welfare where two attorneys and several law students from the Bar Ilan University Law Faculty give advice and provide direct representation to poor persons referred by a welfare worker. Sponsored jointly by the Ministry of Justice, Bar Ilan University and the City of Ramie, the project, while still in its developing stages, is an example of a programme based on comprehensive legal service rather than case by case referral. The Ramie office is not, however, recognized as an official legal aid bureau by the Ministry. In addition free legal assistance may be provided to welfare recipients who in the opinion of the legal adviser to the Ministry of Welfare require representation, usually in custody or guardianship cases. Accused persons subject to the jurisdiction of the Military Justice Law, 1955 (9 L.S.I. 184) are also, as a rule, provided with free legal aid by the Israel Defence Forces. Recently, a national programme to advise and assist newly demobilized reservists with their legal affairs has been instituted by the I.D.F. There are other voluntary organizations which have undertaken in the past to provide legal assistance to members of the general public, These include the various consumer's organizations, Wizo and the Histadrut, which provides lawyers for its members in proceedings before the Labour Courts. Finally, the Commissioner of Public Complaints (Ombudsman), a branch of the Office of the State Comptroller, processes thousands of complaints from the public each year. According to the 2nd Annual Report, 10,212 complaints were received and dealt with in some form in 1973; Jerusalem Post, Jan. 24, 1974, p. 7, col. 5.

¹¹ According to a directive of the Attorney General of April 1, 1969, the scope of legal aid was to consist of the following: (1) matters of personal status; (2) limited matters regarding housing (e.g., eviction, rents); (3) claims for sums not exceeding IL 3,000 and execution of judgments; (4) defence against monetary claims without limit; (5) claims for National Insurance and related benefits under law, including appeals and habeas corpus applications to the High Court of Justice.

¹² See sec. 13, Criminal Procedure Law, 1965, (19 L.S.I. 158). Until the enactment of this provision, assignment of counsel by the State was governed by the Poor Prisoners Welfare Ordinance of 1926.

¹³ (1910) H.H. no. 907 p. 21.

¹⁴ There are a few differences but none of substance between the Bill and the Law.

¹⁵ (1973) K.T. no. 3062, p. 2048.

¹⁶ This is the basic test laid down in sec. 19 of the “Official Guidelines” for Legal Services of the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity.

¹⁷ Whereas in England professional ethics prohibit contingent fee arrangements, in Israel (and the United States) such arrangements are commonplace and widely accepted, particularly in tort claims, cf. sec. 84(b), Chamber of Advocates Law, 1961 (15 L.S.I. 209).

¹⁸ The general principles are set out in the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949, as amended by the Legal Aid Act, 1960 and the regulations made thereunder.

¹⁹ Regarding Germany, see Marsh, , “Legal Aid and the Rule of Law: A Comparative Outline of the Problem” (1960) Jour. Int. Comm. Jur. 95, 108Google Scholar; and see Klaussner, and Riegert, , “Legal Assistance in the Federal Republic of Germany” (1971) 20 Buffalo L.R. 583.Google Scholar

²⁰ Legal Aid in Japan is provided by the Japan Legal Aid Association in cooperation with the Japanese Federation of Bar Associations. According to one recent study, 18% of all legal aid recipients in 1968 had incomes high enough to qualify as people of moderate means. About 61% of all free assistance is repaid: Lee, R.E., “The Availability of Legal Services to Poor People and to People of Limited Means in Foreign Systems (Japan)” (1972) 6 International Lawyer 128, 146–155.Google Scholar

²¹ See supra n. 7.

²² Reg. 2. Moreover, likely contributions of family members are also considered part of the family income for this purpose, except, wisely, in cases of “personal status” where there is the possibility of litigation between family members.

²³ Regs. 2 (b) and (c).

²⁴ See Regs. 5 (3) (5). Also questionable is apparent duplication of the right to receive assistance in matters within the jurisdiction of the Labour Courts (supra n. 10): Reg. 5(4).

²⁵ The question of exemption (at present: postponement) of court fees is dealt with in a similar fashion in proceedings “in forma pauperis” as provided for in r. 19 et seq. of the 1953 Court Fees Rules. It has been argued that because a generous grant of “legal aid” may encourage frivolous or at least inconsiderate claims, the prospect of having to pay the expense of litigation is often a desirable brake that calms down rash tempers, cf. Grunzweig, = Ginossar, , L'Assistance Judiciaire (Bruxelles, 1929) 3.Google Scholar

²⁶ Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949, First Schedule, Part II, as amended. Under the English system, legal aid is granted to any eligible applicant in all civil matters except the following (most prominent) cases: defamation, breach of promise, loss of services of a spouse or wilful interference with the marriage of another.

²⁷ Sec. 8 specifically states that the Law shall not interfere with the power of the Court to appoint counsel pursuant to provisions pertaining thereto in secs. 13, 18 and 19 of the Criminal Procedure Law, 1965 (19 L.S.I. 158).

²⁸ Ibid., sec. 13 (b) (19 L.S.I. 160).

²⁹ See Youth (Trial, Punishment and Treatment) Law, 1971 sec. 18 (25 L.S.I. 131). At present the Law covers all youth between the ages of 9 and 16 (for males) or 18 (for females) who are accused of crimes; all are made subject to (he jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court except in cases of murder, rape, robbery or national security. Minors under the age of 9 years are deemed not criminally responsible for any act or omission by virtue of the Criminal Code Ordinance of 1936. It is noteworthy that nothing in the Law prohibits a juvenile offender or his parents from seeking representation by defence counsel if they can afford to do so. Apparently this privilege is rarely exercised: Reifen, , The Juvenile Court in a Changing Society Weidenfeld and Nicolson, Jerusalem, 1972) 87.Google Scholar

³⁰ See Youth (Care and Provision Law) 1960, sec. 3 (14 L.S.I. 44).

³¹ Reifen, op. cit. supra n. 29 at p. 152.

³² 9 L.S.I. 132. See also Levy, Y., “The Treatment of Mentally-Sick Offenders: A Comparative Analysis of Israel Law” (1966) 1 Is.L.R. 320 and 421.Google Scholar

³³ This concept reflects the idea of the State as parens patriae. For instance, Judge Reifen, op. cit., pp. 93–94, argues that in certain cases the presence of defence counsel is actually counter-therapeutic and essentially detrimental to the real purpose of juvenile proceedings: treatment and rehabilitation of the minor. On the other hand, in “The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society”, Report by the Presisident's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice (1967) 85, the opposite conclusion was reached. See also note, “Juvenile Delinquents; The Police, State Courts and Individualized Justice” (1966) 79 Harv. L.R. 775; Wheeler, and Cottrell, , Juvenile Deliquency: Its Prevention and Control (Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 1966) 33.Google Scholar

³⁴ In one recent study of arrest and bail procedures in the Tel-Aviv Magistrates' Court, conducted between February and April of 1972, it was revealed that “of 2,229 suspects, only 14.49% (323 instances) were represented by counsel; approximately 80% of those as to whom the police made application for confinement were not represented by counsel, and approximately 90% of those whom the police agreed to release on bail were also not represented”. As to the nature of the hearings provided, “…a hearing in which the suspect is represented by counsel takes four or more times as long as a hearing without defence counsel. Without a defence attorney the hearing generally takes only two minutes”. Further, judges observed did “not appoint counsel for a single suspect, including a mute and a tourist who did not understand Hebrew. Even those suspected of serious offences and indigent suspects did not have counsel appointed”. Libai, et al., “Arrest and Bail Procedures in the Magistrates' Courts” (English Summary) (1973) 3 Iyunei Mishpat 516, 666.Google Scholar In defence of the government, investigators point out that it has recently been proposed to authorize the Magistrates' Courts to appoint counsel, in certain cases, for suspects prior to presentment of the information. A proposal to establish legal aid offices proximate to the place where suspects are detained is seen as a partial solution to the problem by the authors. See further Harnon, E., “Legal Aid for Accused and Suspect” (1973) 4 Mishpatim 567Google Scholar, especially his recommendations at pp. 580–4.

³⁵ Sixth Amendment, U.S. Constitution.

³⁶ By way of illustration, Palko v. Connecticut 302 U.S. 319, 585 S. Ct. 149 (1937); Betts v. Brady 316 U.S. 455, 62 S. Ct. 1252 (1942) (overruled at 372 U.S. 335, (1963)).

³⁷ The Court held: “…reason and reflection require us to recognize that in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person hauled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him. Governments, both State and Federal, quite properly spend vast sums of money to establish machinery to try defendants accused of crime. Lawyers to prosecute are everywhere deemed essential to protect the public's interest in an orderly society. Similarly, there are few defendants charged with crime, few indeed, who fail to hire the best lawyers they can get to prepare and present their defense. That government hires lawyers to prosecute and defendants who have the money hire lawyers to defend are the strongest indications of the widespread belief that lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries. The right to counsel of one charged with crime may not be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries, but it is in ours. From the very beginning, our state and national Constitutions and laws have laid great emphasis on procedural and substantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law. This noble ideal cannot be realized if the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him”. 372 U.S. 335, 344; 83 S.Ct. 792, 796–797 (1963).

³⁸ The Unrepresented Defendant in the Magistrates' Courts, (London, Stevens and sons, 1971).

³⁹ Report by the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, op. cit. supra n. 33 at pp. 86–7.

⁴⁰ 387 U.S. 1, 87 S. Gt. 1428 (1967).

⁴¹ See, e.g., the recently enacted District of Columbia Hospitalizaron of the Mentally Ill Act, D.C. Code cl. 21, section 7 (19) (1966). See also: Mental Illness and Due Process, a Report of the Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York (1962); Arenš, , “Due Process and the Rights of the Mentally Ill” (1964) 13 Cath. L.R. 37.Google Scholar

⁴² An excellent discussion of these shortcomings is contained in Note, op. cit. supra n. 7 at pp. 806–809.

⁴³ The requirement of “maximum feasible participation” by the poor was a hallmark of the Community Action Program out of which Federally-funded legal services originated. Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2782 (a) (3) Supp. I., 1965.

⁴⁴ In re: CALS. Inc., 26 App. Div. 2nd 354, 274 N. Y. S. 2nd 779. See Allison, J. L., “Incorporation of a Legal Aid Society in Illinois” (1966) 59 Ill. B.J. 590.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Note, “Legal Services Corporation: Curtailing Political Interference” (1971) 81 Yale LJ. 231; Hannon, , “Murphy Amendments and the Response of the Bar: An Accurate Test of Political Strength” (1970) 28 NLADA Briefcase 163.Google ScholarJohnson, E., “Refutation and Endorsement: A Reaction to Hannon's Analysis of the Murphy Amendment and the Bar” (1970) 29 NLADA Briefcase 37.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ See: Kantor, M., “National Legal Services Corporation” (1971) 30 NLADA Briefcase 7Google Scholar; Pious, R., “Congress, the Organized Bar and the Legal Services Program” (1972) Wis.L.R. 418.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ For England, see Boskey, J. E., “The Availability of Legal Services to Poor People and People of Limited Means in Foreign Systems (England and Wales)” (1972) 6 International Lawyer 129–132.Google Scholar And see Parker, , “The Development of Legal Aid in England Since 1949” (1962) 48 A.B.A.J. 1029.Google Scholar For France, see Marsh, “Legal Aid and the Rule of Law: A Comparative Outline of the Problem” (supra cn. 19). For Japan, see supra n. 20; For the Netherlands, Heemstra, F.J.J. van, “The Availability of Legal Services to Poor People and People of Limited Means in Foreign Systems (the Netherlands)” (1972) 6 International Lawyer 160–162.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ In this connection the system of “Judicare” adopted by the State of Wisconsin has stimulated much discussion. Basically the scheme involves the issuance of legal insurance to poor persons living in rural and isolated localities. See e.g. Preloznik, S., “Wisconsin Judicare” (1967) 25 NLADA Briefcase 9Google Scholar; Widiss, A.I., “Legal Asistance for the Rural Poor: An Iowa Study” (1970) 45 Iowa L.R. 100Google Scholar; Note, Harv. L.R. op. cit. supra n. 7 at pp. 848–50.

⁴⁹ The last clause presumably refers to articled clerks.