FAQ about Right to Attorney in Eviction Court

I support ensuring right to attorney in Rice County Eviction Court. After voicing my support for this program in a livestream, I received some pushback and comments asking for clarification. For those not on Facebook, I thought I would compile some of my responses here. Please reach out with any questions or comments— I want to hear your perspective.

Q: How would guaranteed representation be funded? Would the landlord also be guaranteed representation? Are tax dollars required for this idea?

A: Great questions!

Right to attorney in eviction court is based on the same idea as right to attorney in criminal court. It may be that someone getting evicted has broken their side of the contract; but until this is proven in a court of law, it should be treated like any other allegation of unlawful conduct: innocent until proven guilty.

Evictions are sometimes retaliatory measures for reporting health or safety concerns, for example. In some cases, evictions are made with discriminatory intent. Studies have shown that when municipalities adopt right to attorney, evictions sharply decline, indicating that when people can defend themselves their rights are better protected and their contract is fairly upheld.

In the courtroom, both sides should have the ability to fairly argue their case. It’s a sad but simple fact that landlords often have the means to buy legal representation and tenants rarely do, making it difficult to defend yourself against an improper eviction. Landlords have to initiate to take things to court, which means they would already have representation. Right to attorney simply levels the playing field to reduce improper and illegal evictions. Should a landlord have a legitimate case, their eviction would still go forward.

By reducing improper and illegal evictions, local governments actually reduce overall public costs. When people are housed, they put less strain on social services, foster care, and healthcare. Put simply, the County would save more money than it would spend—reducing the burden on the budget and on the taxpayer.

—

Yes, the program would be part of the County budget—no, it would not increase costs for taxpayers. For the reasons I stated above, the County would save money in the end. The program would lead to reduced costs for taxpayers. When programs like this have been enacted in other places, it has reduced overall budget expenses for those places.

And to clarify—all evictions are already required by law to go to eviction court. That is the law already. Landlords currently pay their way through the existing eviction court system and working class people do not. More than 80% of landlords already have legal representation in eviction court while only 3% of tenants do, according to the most recent data.

The program would also be incentive for the landlord to work things out with a tenant rather than move to evict, which - - again - - reduces the likelihood that the tenant will be reliant on County social services. Part of the goal is that the system of right to attorney in eviction court reduces the number of cases in eviction court. Again, this is a cost saving measure for the County and taxpayers. It’s also the right thing to do, for the same reasons that we all have the right to attorney in criminal court.

Q: Have you spoken to District 3 landlords about Right to Attorney? Do they support the program? Won’t this negatively affect them?

A: I know many landlords well and count some as good friends-- some are even family.

Right to attorney would not have a negative impact on landlords who are upholding their agreements and have legitimate grievances to go to eviction court. For them, the process would remain the same as it currently is. The only change in the experience would be that of the renter.

The data on reduced costs and reduced evictions I’m referencing in my other comments comes from cities that have begun right to attorney in eviction court programs and seen major success, including Cleveland, Louisville, and New York City among others.

For one example of current data in eviction court, a study of eviction court in Nashville from Vanderbilt University found that from 2016-2021, landlords had an attorney in 99.8% of cases, but renters had an attorney in only 0.37% of cases. These are the patterns across every study I have seen from municipalities across the country.

Anecdotal exceptions exist, to be sure, but that does not change the data.

Right to attorney in eviction court is not a radical idea. It makes the eviction process fairer, saves taxpayers money, and provides greater stability for working people and their families. The fact that it hasn't had a negative impact is probably why there's such little news coverage of the program-- it simply works well.

For the rest of this campaign, I’ll be hosting regular livestreams on my Facebook page and starting in September I’ll be having weekly public meetings. I’ll be devoting an entire public meeting to coming together and discussing different strategies for addressing Rice County’s housing problems. I'd love for landlords, renters, homeowners, and everyone in between to attend and take part. I want to hear from them.

If you’re interested in attending and being part of that conversation, I’d be happy to follow up with you and let you know when I have a date and place confirmed.

I don’t just want people who agree with me to show up—I want to work together to figure out the best steps for the county. I truly do appreciate you engaging on this issue.

I really appreciate your insightful questions and kindness. I’m enjoying this discussion—it’s fun to talk about Faribault!

I think this is a good time to explain how I imagine my decision-making process working as Commissioner. You bring up some excellent points about comparing local and national data. I haven't seen local data nor have I hears landlord's position on this proposal.

My first step to consider this proposal as a Commissioner would be to do exactly what you suggest. I’m interested in this issue because those nationwide trends concern me, but I agree with you—step one would be to see what kind of local information is actually available. Is there a broad disadvantage in eviction court in Rice County? To investigate that question I would work with County officials, landlords, and renters to get detailed information on what the lay of the land is. Now, this investigative process wouldn’t be just for my eyes only. Part of my vision for the Board is increased transparency. Transparency means keeping people in the loop—so as commissioner I will be writing weekly updates and posting them here on Facebook and on my website. So I will keep the community in the loop every step of the way as those numbers come together and we find out what the landscape is like for landlords and renters in local eviction court. I’m going to regularly host public meetings as Commissioner, too, so when we have answers to those questions I’ll be inviting the community to meet with me and discuss. Again—the national trends concern me, and based on those trends I’m interested in the benefits that right to attorney could potentially provide for the County, but my ultimate advice to the rest of the Board will be based on continued discussion with you and the rest of the community, and it will be based on the most relevant and up-to-date information we can get.