Firm News
Settlement Begins Historic Reformation of Public Defense in New York State
March 11, 2015
SRZ and the New York Civil Liberties Union on Oct. 21, 2014 announced a historic settlement that overhauls public defense in five counties and lays the foundation for statewide reform of New York’s broken public defense system. The settlement agreement, which a state judge approved on March 11, 2015, was reached the day before the NYCLU and SRZ’s lawsuit, Hurrell-Harring v. New York, was set to begin trial after seven years of litigation. The lawsuit charged that New York State’s decision to abdicate responsibility for public defense to its counties resulted in a patchwork of often understaffed, poorly resourced and largely dysfunctional public defense systems where defendants were routinely arraigned without attorneys, urged to take plea bargains regardless of the facts of their cases, burdened by excessively high bail, and incarcerated for shockingly long periods for misdemeanors and petty crimes. The suit contended that by failing to provide poor defendants with adequate representation, New York State was violating the U.S. Constitution, the state constitution and the laws of New York. With the settlement, New York State acknowledged its constitutional responsibility to provide lawyers to poor defendants who have been forced to navigate the criminal justice system undefended and alone.
Former federal prosecutor and SRZ litigation partner Gary Stein and former Schulte pro bono special counsel Daniel L. Greenberg led the firm’s pro bono effort in the case. The team also included litigation associates Jason T. Mitchell and Noah N. Gillespie, as well as dozens of the firm’s lawyers and staff from every practice area over the past seven years.
To read the Schulte Roth & Zabel and New York Civil Liberties Union joint press release, click here.
Related Insights
Alerts
On June 28, 2024, the US Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would amend existing anti-money laundering/countering the financing of terrorism (“AML/CFT”) program[1] regulations to require that financial institutions establish, implement and maintain effective, risk-based and reasonably designed AML/CFT programs with certain minimum components, including a mandatory risk assessment process (hereinafter, “Proposed Rule”).[2] For purposes of the Proposed Rule, “financial institutions” include: banks; broker dealers; mutual funds; futures commission merchants (“FCMs”) and introducing brokers in commodities (“IB-Cs”); insurance companies; money services businesses (“MSBs”); casinos and card clubs; dealers in precious metals, precious stones or jewels; operators of credit card systems; loan or finance companies; and housing government sponsored enterprises.[3] In addition to establishing minimum risk assessment requirements for these AML/CFT programs, the Proposed Rule would require that financial institutions document each component of their AML/CFT programs and make this documentation available to FinCEN or its designee, which can include the appropriate agency to which FinCEN has delegated examination authority,[4] or the appropriate SRO.[5] The Proposed Rule would also require that these AML/CFT programs be approved and overseen by the financial institution’s board of directors or, if the financial institution does not have a board of directors, an equivalent governing body.
Alerts
On June 28, 2024, the US Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would amend existing anti-money laundering/countering the financing of terrorism (“AML/CFT”) program[1] regulations to require that financial institutions establish, implement and maintain effective, risk-based and reasonably designed AML/CFT programs with certain minimum components, including a mandatory risk assessment process (hereinafter, “Proposed Rule”).[2] For purposes of the Proposed Rule, “financial institutions” include: banks; broker dealers; mutual funds; futures commission merchants (“FCMs”) and introducing brokers in commodities (“IB-Cs”); insurance companies; money services businesses (“MSBs”); casinos and card clubs; dealers in precious metals, precious stones or jewels; operators of credit card systems; loan or finance companies; and housing government sponsored enterprises.[3] In addition to establishing minimum risk assessment requirements for these AML/CFT programs, the Proposed Rule would require that financial institutions document each component of their AML/CFT programs and make this documentation available to FinCEN or its designee, which can include the appropriate agency to which FinCEN has delegated examination authority,[4] or the appropriate SRO.[5] The Proposed Rule would also require that these AML/CFT programs be approved and overseen by the financial institution’s board of directors or, if the financial institution does not have a board of directors, an equivalent governing body.