LilMtnCbn
06-25-2003, 05:12 AM
http://www.nj.com/statehouse/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1056522997291980.xml
At Children's Rights, accent is on advocacy
But nonprofit defends its big legal fees in settlements nationwide
Wednesday, June 25, 2003
BY ROBERT SCHWANEBERG
Star-Ledger Staff
Children's Rights Inc., the Manhattan-based advocacy group whose lawsuit to
force New Jersey to improve its beleaguered Division of Youth and Family
Services was settled yesterday, has brought similar lawsuits in nine other
states and the District of Columbia.
From Connecticut to New Mexico, it has negotiated consent decrees forcing child
welfare agencies to speed up adoptions, hire more caseworkers, improve
screening of foster parents and protect children from abuse and neglect. Almost
always, there is a provision for court-appointed monitors to hold the agencies'
feet to the fire.
It is generally regarded as one of the most aggressive, and effective,
advocates for children whom the rest of the world has forgotten.
Cecilia Zalkind, executive director of the Association for Children of New
Jersey, said Children's Rights has "called attention to problems in child
welfare systems across the country. In some of their litigation, they have been
very successful in bringing resources to systems that have been woefully
underfunded."
Of 12 cases the group has brought around the country, so far 10 have resulted
in settlements or consent decrees requiring improvements in children's
services.
The executive director of Children's Rights Inc., Marcia Robinson Lowry, has
been going to court on behalf of children since 1973, when she ran the
Children's Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union.
In 1995, she split it off into a separate organization, which now has 10
lawyers and 13 support staffers. Frank Askin, founder of the constitutional
litigation clinic at Rutgers School of Law in Newark and general counsel to the
ACLU, described it as an amicable parting of the ways.
"They had a very narrow focus and were raising a lot of issues that were beyond
the scope and focus of the ACLU," Askin said.
Asked why, after three decades, she is still fighting the same kinds of court
battles, Lowry replied, "Because I have to."
"How can anybody look at what happens to children and not do everything they
can to make it better?" she asked. "How can you walk away from that?"
But the organization's willingness to take government agencies to court -- and
to collect big lawyers' fees in the process -- also has brought it controversy.
In the end, when the settlement papers are signed, Children's Rights generally
presents the state or city it has just sued with a legal bill running into the
millions.
Yesterday was no exception. New Jersey's settlement requires the state to pay
Children's Rights Inc. legal fees of $1.65 million for its four years of work
on the case, plus $86,000 for its out-of-pocket expenses.
Lowenstein Sandler, the Roseland law firm that joined Children's Rights as
co-counsel in bringing the case, agreed to waive its legal fee of $1 million on
the condition that money is used to hire more DYFS caseworkers.
But Lowry said Children's Rights needs to collect its $1.65 million in order to
monitor New Jersey's compliance with the consent decree and to bring other
cases.
"We will use it to support our organization," Lowry said. "That's the only
source of funding we have for four years of work. That's what keeps us going."
"There is no other way to do this work," Lowry said. "I don't have a trust
fund, and no one on my staff has a trust fund."
Lowry said her group could have demanded $2.4 million for the 13,000 hours of
work it put into the New Jersey case, much of it spent responding to motions
filed by the state's private outside defense firm, Wolf, Block, Schorr and
Solis-Cohen of Philadelphia. The state has paid Wolf, Block $1.3 million as of
the end of March and still has bills outstanding, according to DYFS spokesman
Joe Delmar.
Lowry faced criticism when Children's Rights billed New York City $7.8 million
and the District of Columbia $2.3 million after settling cases against them.
She said yesterday it never got those amounts, but settled for roughly half.
Lowry said her group's attorneys and other staff are paid at rates "lower than
other public interest organizations in New York."
Askin said Children's Rights is entitled to its fee.
"They've done good work," Askin said. "This is how they support themselves.
They basically fund their work by the legal fees they collect, which I think is
perfectly appropriate."
"Nobody's getting rich off this," Askin added. "Marcia Lowry's had a very deep
commitment to these issues for many years."
Paul Rosenzweig, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said he could not
comment on the specifics of Children's Rights' legal fee. But in general, he
said, the federal civil rights laws that allow private parties to bring
lawsuits the government would not -- and collect fees when they win -- are
"problematic."
"It's a formula for an infinite number of civil rights suits -- many of which
are meritless," Rosenzweig said. "It's another part of the litigation
explosion."
At Children's Rights, accent is on advocacy
But nonprofit defends its big legal fees in settlements nationwide
Wednesday, June 25, 2003
BY ROBERT SCHWANEBERG
Star-Ledger Staff
Children's Rights Inc., the Manhattan-based advocacy group whose lawsuit to
force New Jersey to improve its beleaguered Division of Youth and Family
Services was settled yesterday, has brought similar lawsuits in nine other
states and the District of Columbia.
From Connecticut to New Mexico, it has negotiated consent decrees forcing child
welfare agencies to speed up adoptions, hire more caseworkers, improve
screening of foster parents and protect children from abuse and neglect. Almost
always, there is a provision for court-appointed monitors to hold the agencies'
feet to the fire.
It is generally regarded as one of the most aggressive, and effective,
advocates for children whom the rest of the world has forgotten.
Cecilia Zalkind, executive director of the Association for Children of New
Jersey, said Children's Rights has "called attention to problems in child
welfare systems across the country. In some of their litigation, they have been
very successful in bringing resources to systems that have been woefully
underfunded."
Of 12 cases the group has brought around the country, so far 10 have resulted
in settlements or consent decrees requiring improvements in children's
services.
The executive director of Children's Rights Inc., Marcia Robinson Lowry, has
been going to court on behalf of children since 1973, when she ran the
Children's Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union.
In 1995, she split it off into a separate organization, which now has 10
lawyers and 13 support staffers. Frank Askin, founder of the constitutional
litigation clinic at Rutgers School of Law in Newark and general counsel to the
ACLU, described it as an amicable parting of the ways.
"They had a very narrow focus and were raising a lot of issues that were beyond
the scope and focus of the ACLU," Askin said.
Asked why, after three decades, she is still fighting the same kinds of court
battles, Lowry replied, "Because I have to."
"How can anybody look at what happens to children and not do everything they
can to make it better?" she asked. "How can you walk away from that?"
But the organization's willingness to take government agencies to court -- and
to collect big lawyers' fees in the process -- also has brought it controversy.
In the end, when the settlement papers are signed, Children's Rights generally
presents the state or city it has just sued with a legal bill running into the
millions.
Yesterday was no exception. New Jersey's settlement requires the state to pay
Children's Rights Inc. legal fees of $1.65 million for its four years of work
on the case, plus $86,000 for its out-of-pocket expenses.
Lowenstein Sandler, the Roseland law firm that joined Children's Rights as
co-counsel in bringing the case, agreed to waive its legal fee of $1 million on
the condition that money is used to hire more DYFS caseworkers.
But Lowry said Children's Rights needs to collect its $1.65 million in order to
monitor New Jersey's compliance with the consent decree and to bring other
cases.
"We will use it to support our organization," Lowry said. "That's the only
source of funding we have for four years of work. That's what keeps us going."
"There is no other way to do this work," Lowry said. "I don't have a trust
fund, and no one on my staff has a trust fund."
Lowry said her group could have demanded $2.4 million for the 13,000 hours of
work it put into the New Jersey case, much of it spent responding to motions
filed by the state's private outside defense firm, Wolf, Block, Schorr and
Solis-Cohen of Philadelphia. The state has paid Wolf, Block $1.3 million as of
the end of March and still has bills outstanding, according to DYFS spokesman
Joe Delmar.
Lowry faced criticism when Children's Rights billed New York City $7.8 million
and the District of Columbia $2.3 million after settling cases against them.
She said yesterday it never got those amounts, but settled for roughly half.
Lowry said her group's attorneys and other staff are paid at rates "lower than
other public interest organizations in New York."
Askin said Children's Rights is entitled to its fee.
"They've done good work," Askin said. "This is how they support themselves.
They basically fund their work by the legal fees they collect, which I think is
perfectly appropriate."
"Nobody's getting rich off this," Askin added. "Marcia Lowry's had a very deep
commitment to these issues for many years."
Paul Rosenzweig, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said he could not
comment on the specifics of Children's Rights' legal fee. But in general, he
said, the federal civil rights laws that allow private parties to bring
lawsuits the government would not -- and collect fees when they win -- are
"problematic."
"It's a formula for an infinite number of civil rights suits -- many of which
are meritless," Rosenzweig said. "It's another part of the litigation
explosion."
