We need both right to counsel as well as eviction reform. As someone who has observing eviction cases and has gone through hundreds of eviction court records, having an attorney buys you more time - but because the laws are so heavily weighed in favor of the landlord, the likelihood of a tenant staying in the rental is incredibly small. Compared to other states, we are downright draconian in how we approach evictions. A dollar late on rent? Well, the sheriff can be at your door in three weeks.

For the right to counsel, it wouldn't even be that difficult for Seattle to implement. How did NYC get right to counsel for eviction cases? They funded legal services. That's it. They didn't do anything more complicated than that - and it would take a fraction of the resources for the city to fully staff existing legal service organizations. Probably need to hire less than 10 attorneys.

OK, how about a trade. Remove Seattle's "Just Cause Eviction Statutes" in exchange for increased legal representation for renters.

This is not as disastrous as it first appears. In the majority, perhaps great majority, of eviction cases the tenant doesn't show up. When that happens there is no lawyer because there's no client to defend. HJP will represent any tenant who appears in court. There may be bad reasons why tenants don't show up, including the assumption that they won't have a lawyer. Even those who show up often, maybe usually, don't have a defense under the law. Change that law to provide more rights to tenants.

@1, well, the 6th Amendment says "In all criminal prosecutions..." So when did an eviction for not paying rent, trashing your apartment, selling drugs from your apartment, breaking terms of a lease, etc. become a criminal offence?

As to the 7th Amendment, If a Landlord sues for "Back Rent Owed", A Civil Trial By Jury can be ordered. But most Landlords and Property Management groups just want the person(s) out.

But, for a general eviction there is no right to an Attorney. If it goes to "Housing Court", maybe. But it's not Trial By Jury as prescribed in the Constitution. It's usually just a Hearing Officer.

If a person is being evicted, it's most likely For Cause. While the power of eviction is abused. It's up to the renter to take legal action of some kind. In those kinds of cases. The City should provide Counsel if the matter goes to trial. Or, if so ordered by the Civil Hearing Officer/Judge.

Also, if it was a Constitutional Requirement. Seattle would've did it long ago.

PS: AFAIK Gideon doesn't apply to Civil cases. But, I could be wrong.

@4 while HJP will represent tenants who show up - the problem is that there is a difference between a staff attorney who does landlord-tenant law every day and a volunteer attorney who comes in sporadically. While that volunteer will have guidance from a staff attorney, it still would be a better system to have full-time staff attorneys who do this area of law every day, all day.

I do though agree that we need better defenses and overall eviction reform as well. I also think there needs to be investment in tenant outreach so that people even know what to do if they face eviction (how many people know that HJP exists?)

We already have a major shortage of Public Defenders for criminal cases. Where are all these lawyers supposed to come from?

Member of the Evil Landlord Class here: I will let the (bad) tenants here in on a not-so-secret. An eviction is a very, very expensive and time consuming procedure for the landlord. It is only undertaken as a last resort. If you have a tenant who won't go away with reasonable persuasion, the next step is to get a big stack of $100 bills and start counting them off until the tenant agrees to leave. The clever bad tenant can usually negotiate an "All is forgiven and I won't go after you for what you owe or bad-mouth you to the next landlord just go away agreement". Really. Secret 2: The landlord can count off twenty or thirty or forty of those crisp one-hundreds and it will still be way less expensive than an eviction. Secret 3: Nobody is ever evicted fro $49. Not ever.
Renting residential real estate is not a big money maker on an immediate cash flow basis. The returns are longer term. So one bad tenant can really do you some short term damage. The main goal in screening a potential new tenant is to reduce your risk. If the city makes it more difficult to have a bad tenant go away, the risk rises. The adjustment to this increased risk is to be less willing to take a chance on someone who seems pretty OK, but has less that perfect screening. Instead you go with someone who has a daddy wealthy enough to and willing to co-sign. Is this really what we want to see?

And do we really look to San Francisco for a good example of a local government properly administering the residential rental market regulations?

@2 "The laws are so heavily weighted in favor of the landlord." OMG you've got to be kidding. Not in Seattle, xochitl73. Nice try. You know better than that.

Oh, and "a dollar late"? It's either a DAY late or a dollar SHORT. If you pay that dollar by the 3 day notice to pay or vacate, no problem, no eviction. Ya wanna make landlords accept rent on payment plans that they have to finance like a fucking interest free loan? How far into the hole does a landlord have to go with a deadbeat tenant before you're satisfied that they just can't afford the rent?

I'm sure the city council will eat that shit all up and turn it into the next unconstitutional "Landlords Are Evil" ordinance. Right after Kshama Sawant passes her Rent Control, uh I mean "Tenant Relocation Assistance" bill that forces a landlord to PAY that deadbeat to leave.

From the article: "In court, having a lawyer can mean the difference between getting evicted or holding on to your home." Correction: THE LANDLORD'S PROPERTY. Not "yours". You live on someone else's property. Pay your rent on time, take care of the place, and abide by your lease, don't be an asshole. WTF is so hard about that?

And as to the whole idea of a right to an attorney for civil cases, that's bullshit. The right to have counsel paid for you is only for INDIGENT defendants of CRIMINAL cases. The 6th amendment explicitly says "criminal". NOT "civil" cases.