First, they estimate that there are 15,000 lawyers from the last graduating class who are doing work that doesn't require a law degree that could be helping low-income clients. Assuming that 15,000 is could afford to work for free for a long period of time, the Times fails to consider how many of those 15,000 had no intention of practicing and aren't looking for a job that required a law degree (however that is defined) and are happy to use the skills they picked up in law school in the corporate world doing other work? For example, my employer paid for my law degree (a long time ago when tuition was much less) with the assumption that I would use my law degree for them not as a licensed attorney, which I am, but for related work. Not everyone goes to law school with plans to represent individuals in day to day court activities. Many of us always planned to work in the business world using our law degree in some capacity that may not even require us to be a licensed attorney.
Second, while I was probably more knowledgeable of criminal procedure laws back when I graduated, there was no way I would have been qualified to represent, without assistance from a more experienced attorney, a defendant appropriately. While I may have known the laws, I did not know proper procedures and what to do or who to call to accomplish what needed to be accomplished. Those are skills gained by experience outside the class.
Third, the Times is correct when they say a loan forgiveness program is essential to counter the lower pay a public interest attorney earns. My wife, was a public interest attorney for a few years, if she wasn't living with me she would have had to live with her mother on her salary. With today's higher tuition that would be more true today.
Finally, as to pro bono, the work I am currently engaged in (transactional work) probably wouldn't apply to those who would need help. Again, while I know the law, I probably don't know the right laws and would be lost in the courthouse and would do more harm then good. Pro bono work that I have done in the past has been more along the lines of helping a non-profit create a database of laws, part of my skills set. My court advocacy skills are quite rusty now (use it or lose it).
There seems to be an assumption that just because an attorney is licensed to practice law that they can just take on any case. That is not true. If for example, the judge at my local courthouse called me in to represent a criminal defendant, I could do more harm then good as I have not looked at criminal law since I was in law school. I don't know the current law and, while I could research it and get myself up to date, my knowledge of what to file and when to file is also out of date. Aside from jury duty, I haven't been in court since law school.
Well paid (or at least paid enough for a middle class living and loan forgiveness) public assistance attorneys, who specialize in this law and with an appropriate case load, is the way to go if you want justice. You just can't pull any old attorney off the street, tell an indigent client he/she is now represented and leave satisfied that justice will be done. My work is transactional, corporate at that, so while I really wouldn't mind helping an individual, and have even applied to a local legal aid society (they had plenty of younger attorneys who could work more hours and were more up to date on the issues regarding their clients needs) I would at this point in my career do more harm then good.
Even if, as part of pro bono requirements, I was required to take domestic relations or criminal law classes, as a lawyer who is not in the courtroom on a regular basis, that might give me just enough knowledge to be dangerous -- knowledge of the law and court procedures, but not enough knowledge to know how to properly negotiate and get my client justice. Three years in prison for car theft with your buddy? Sounds good to me, but an experienced attorney in this area might know to take other considerations into account (first time offender, didn't know the buddy had stolen the car) and argue that the proper penalty is probation. Same for a different fact pattern in family court with child custody or abuse. Proper advocacy is not something you can do once every few years, like any skill if you don't use it, you lose it.
I don't know what the solution is. It is unjust that the poor can not afford justice, but that has been the way it has been for many years. Legal Aid programs are constantly underfunded and society shows no interest in reversing that (aka higher taxes). Defendants like DSK can afford the attorny who will get him justice but there are plenty of DSKs without that access.
And pro bono alone is not the answer. There are many attorneys like me, not knowledge in areas of law that could help low income clients. But those who are knowledgeable in those areas make far less money and may be fighting for every dime in these low cost/high volume cases (and I am far from wealthy myself, I make less then many people with just a BA but work in the financial field -- can we please kill the myth that all attorneys make $160k, that is the case only for a relative few). It is unfair to place entire burden on the general sole practitioner who could help pro bono clients but make little money and can't afford to sacrifice. And to force young attorneys who are just trying to keep a roof over their heads and loan payments current seems equally unfair.
No comments:
Post a Comment