Santa Monica expands tenant representation program

03/12/2025 , California , Pilot , Housing - Evictions

In December 2019, the Santa Monica (California) City Council passed an ordinance stating the City’s intention to enact a right to counsel for tenants facing eviction.  The Santa Monica Daily Press has more.  Then, in April 2021, the City announced the creation of a right to counsel pilot program.

On March 12, 2025, the City of Santa Monica adopted a new Renter’s Protection Program, acting in part on the recommendations of a report by Fetterman and Dunn that was commissioned by the City.  Over the course of 12-18 months (as opposed to the 5 years recommended by the report), the City will expand its “Right to Counsel Program” to provide either full representation or limited legal services to tenants at 80% or below of area median income [NOTE: the city does not actually have an enacted law guaranteeing a right to counsel and does not guarantee full representation for all eligible tenants].  The program will also expand rental assistance.  According to the City’s press release, “The first year of the programs will be funded using $7 million in voter-approved Measure GS funds and $1 million from a one-time [state] Prohousing Incentive Program grant.”  The report found that 20% of Santa Monica renters are severely cost burdened.  The report also recommended that limited legal services be reserved for “when funding does not enable full-scope services”, and also suggested the City create a tenant advisory committee.

Notably, the report found that while city law requires landlords to file a copy of the eviction notice with the City Attorney’s Office, landlords failed to comply 83% of the time.


The NCCRC gave input to the consultants who wrote the report.
Appointment of Counsel: Yes
Qualified: Yes
? If "yes", the established right to counsel or discretionary appointment of counsel is limited in some way, including any of: the only authority is a lower/intermediate court decision or a city council, not a high court or state legislature; there has been a subsequent case that has cast doubt; a statute is ambiguous; or the right or discretionary appointment is not for all types of individuals or proceedings within that category.