According to Mr. Scherer, only an institutional provider such as his group or the Legal Aid Society can provide an array of legal services necessary for families in trouble, including housing, custody, domestic violence and Supplemental Security Income. But not everyone agreed that the creation of one body to take over cases from 18-B lawyers would solve the problem. He argued, as did Benjamin B. Berlin, a family law practitioner, that if the 18-B system were preserved and strengthened, there would be less bureaucracy, and a wider array of attorneys would be drawn to represent poor clients. On the other hand, in appellate practice, an institutional provider delivers the best services to clients, argued Robert S. Dean, director for Center for Appellate Litigation. Even if 18-B rates were raised, he said, institutional appellate defenders like his own and the Office of Appellate Defender would still provide superior services to indigent clients.
Appellate practice is a very narrow specialty that requires specific expertise.
Most participants agreed that creating a permanent oversight committee was a good idea, but many stressed that the committee's role should be the oversight not only of assigned counsel, but also of the whole criminal defense and family law system. One participant claimed that the work of attorneys for the poor is constantly scrutinized and evaluated, while the work of attorneys for the middle class or the rich is not. And some said that 18-B attorneys are already regulated by many different institutions, including Family Court judges and the Appellate Divisions. Yet those attorneys that welcomed the idea of an independent oversight committee stressed that for the committee to be effective, it had to include representatives of the poor, criminal defense attorneys and lawyers in appellate practice. They implored the panel not to appoint a committee that did not understand the areas of law it was scrutinizing.