Encouraging the Development of Low Bono Law Practices

For decades, the discussion about access to justice has primarily focused on the ability of low–income individuals to obtain free representation by lawyers. Lawyer representation is the “gold star” of the legal profession and advocates of legal services for the poor have fought difficult battles to ensure the most disadvantaged in our country have access to these professionals. As a result, legal aid programs and pro bono services that assist the most economically disadvantaged in our country are now common in our legal service delivery system. Despite those important efforts, only 50% of those eligible for free legal services actually receive them. Traditional access to justice platforms, while critical for offering legal assistance to a segment of the poor, have not been funded at levels that allow them to serve all those who need and qualify for their services. In lieu of lawyers, members of the legal profession have created self–help tools and substitutes for attorneys in the form of general advice hotlines, online document automation programs, and self–help law centers. If the profession correlates justice with lawyer representation, then the majority of average income Americans and a significant segment of the poor, are without it. In 2011 the United States ranked 50th out of 66 developed nations in providing accessibility to its civil justice system to its citizens. In order to address the unmet legal needs of individuals in our country, the legal profession must advance an affordable legal services agenda that includes lawyers who provide competent legal services at reduced or “low bono” rates. Increased funding to help the poor and efforts to provide greater accessibility through the use of technology are efforts that can help bridge our justice gap. However, such efforts are limited in their scope. To make additional gains into providing more access to law, we need to devote attention to a segment of our society that currently receives no support and can potentially also benefit the near poor who go in and out of poverty. According to the research of an expert on U.S. poverty, “nearly 40 percent of Americans between the ages of 25 and 60 will experience at least one year below the official poverty line during that period and 54 percent will spend a year in poverty or near poverty (below 150 percent of the poverty line).” These figures reveal that a larger segment of the population requires a legal system that understands the fluidity of poverty and their financial instability. A lower–cost legal service delivery system must exist for those priced out of free services who need lawyers to get them back into a more stable financial reality. Law practices that offer services at low bono rates offer a lawyer alternative to the more than 81.4 million households that earned less than the median income of $51,017 in 2012. Many of these individuals make less than$25 per hour but make too much to qualify for free legal services. Like the poor, Americans of average means need lawyers to advise them about legal issues that arise in their everyday lives but many of them cannot afford lawyers who charge hourly rates that exceed $300 per hour. This chapter explores the need to build the framework that encourages the development of low bono law practices. Part I helps us understand low bono and why it is a necessary component of a broader legal service delivery system. Part II discusses the challenges that lawyers face in building and maintaining low bono practices. It addresses the financial challenges of running low bono practices and identifies the necessary components for developing viable low bono business plans. Part III outlines the framework the legal profession can and should build to support low bono law practices. It addresses the assumption that an affordable legal fee necessitates a lower quality service. It calls law schools, bar associations and courts to devote resources to build the necessary infrastructure for the delivery of legal services to average means Americans. The chapter concludes with a brief reflection of why lawyers may choose to build a career as a low bono lawyer

Incubating Community Law Practices: Post-Graduate Models for Lawyer Training & Access to Law

While the greatest number of lawyers practice in solo and small firms, law schools do not devote sufficient resources to preparing law students for the opportunities and challenges that these types of law firms present. The recent economic recession has highlighted the need to better train lawyers to launch law practices right out of law school. However, experienced lawyers, law professors and state bar policy makers worry that individuals who start their own practices are not sufficiently trained to practice and could irreparably harm a client. Many new lawyers share that concern but also worry about the financial instability that comes with starting a business. A handful of U.S. law schools and bar associations are addressing the need for new lawyer training as an opportunity to also build legal service delivery models that address the needs of low and modest income individuals who need lawyers. Law schools have launched post-graduate programs that ask lawyer participants to provide free and reduced rate legal services to underserved populations in exchange for subject matter training and support for their law businesses during their start-up phase. This article describes post-graduate incubator programs, specifically lawyer incubators, that promote access to justice and offers recommendations for best practices in designing such programs

Reflections of a Community Lawyer

In May 2002, I opened a law office in one of the most underserved communities in Los Angeles County. Many questioned the sanity of such a career path when evaluating my financial stability and the personal toll that such a career path can exact. Given that I graduated from some of the best universities in the country, my friends, family, and strangers were even more perplexed at my choice. I cannot say that my decision to build a law practice in Compton, California, has been easy. However, time and time again, I found myself rejecting more secure and prestigious job offers and continued in what some of my law school friends call “the more difficult route.” This article recounts my brief, unrefined, and continuing journey as a novice attorney. My story is not unique or new; however, the triumphs, challenges and defeats of community- based private practitioners serving individuals’ everyday legal needs are largely undocumented. By providing a personal account of my experiences as a solo practitioner, I hope to encourage others working with low-income and modest-means clients to share their experiences and demand more support from our law schools, our bar associations, and legal aid organizations to allow us to better serve our clients and sustain ourselves in the professio

Incubating Community Law Practices: Post-Graduate Models for Lawyer Training and Access to Law

While the greatest number of lawyers practice in solo and small firms, law schools do not devote sufficient resources to preparing law students for the opportunities and challenges that these types of law firms present. The recent economic recession has highlighted the need to better train lawyers to launch law practices right out of law school. However, experienced lawyers, law professors and state bar policy makers worry that individuals who start their own practices are not sufficiently trained to practice and could irreparably harm a client. Many new lawyers share that concern but also worry about the financial instability that comes with starting a business. A handful of U.S. law schools and bar associations are addressing the need for new lawyer training as an opportunity to also build legal service delivery models that address the needs of low and modest income individuals who need lawyers. Law schools have launched post-graduate programs that ask lawyer participants to provide free and reduced rate legal services to underserved populations in exchange for subject matter training and support for their law businesses during their start-up phase. This article describes post-graduate incubator programs, specifically lawyer incubators, that promote access to justice and offers recommendations for best practices in designing such programs

Educating Main Street Lawyers

Discussion about the value of a law degree has focused on the financial success of lawyers. Both defenders and critics of the existing legal education model largely ignore the implications that the cost of legal education and high lawyer fees have on access to justice. While a lawyer’s ability to make a decent living must be addressed when determining the value of a legal education, we fail to take into account the fact that there are millions of individuals in the U.S. who cannot find a lawyer to represent them when they need one. For advocates who believe that our legal system must provide alternatives other than pro bono and market-rate fee models, the current conversation about the future of legal education offers an opportunity to advance the case for an agenda that promotes affordable legal services to keep Main Street lawyers solvent and to expand access to justice for the masses. This article argues that the value of a legal education for most law school graduates can be enhanced by their ability to earn a decent living and also help to address the unmet legal needs of individuals who cannot afford the prevailing cost of legal representation. To determine whether a legal education is worth it, prospective lawyers must be better informed about where the majority of lawyers work, whom they represent and how they make a living. This picture may be a different reality than contemporary media portrayals of “successful lawyers” which primarily portray courtroom snapshots or law as practiced in the downtown offices of corporate America. For many lawyers, this reality will mean planning for the economic challenges posed by high educational debt and a market demand for affordable legal services on Main Street. Main Street lawyers primarily offer legal services to individuals or to community business interests versus corporate interests. They constitute the largest sector of the private bar and, as a result, are the lawyers most often responsible for ensuring access to justice for the majority of low and moderate- income individuals. Main Street lawyers earn lower salaries than their counterparts in large firms and experience greater financial instability than their peers in the government and public interest sectors. Main Street lawyers are primarily the products of less prestigious law schools. The conversation about the cost and value of legal education must take into account not just the economic viability of Main Street lawyers but also the clients they serve. Law school regulators must consider how to restructure legal education to permit Main Street lawyers to establish viable law practices that promote access to justice by providing affordable legal services. Part I offers a brief overview of legal services delivery to low- and moderate- income Americans. It challenges the dogma that there are too many lawyers by focusing on the needs of individual consumers. Part II discusses the financial woes of the legal profession as a market failure prompted by the monopoly of elite lawyers and the inflationary impact that their policies have on the rest of the profession. By acknowledging the existing framework where Main Street lawyers occupy the bottom rung, the legal profession can begin to identify more egalitarian approaches to legal education and legal service delivery. Part III encourages the American Bar Association (ABA) to depart from a “one- size fits-all” accreditation program to a model that encourages law schools to develop models that are more responsive to the needs of Main Street lawyers and non-elite client interests. The article concludes by affirming the importance of Main Street lawyers in delivering greater access to affordable legal services. Without such lawyers, the profession effectively concedes that only elite interests and the very poor are deserving of representation

Getting Comfortable with Discomfort, Diversity & Repair

The topic of this year\u27s conference, diversity, pluralism, and repair, gives us so much to talk about, that for me, it was hard to know where we were to begin. Dean Angela Onwuachi-Willig focused on judicial appointments and the importance of a diverse bench for the legal profession, and in our society. She also discussed becoming comfortable with discomfort and I wanted to pick up on that thread. When I think about discomfort, I think about my own journey in the legal profession

Rethinking Private Attorney Involvement through a Low Bono Lens

Those who frequent our courthouses and work with low and moderate - income individuals have no illusions about the large gap between the rhetoric of justice and the present reality of our legal system. All over the country, courts are plagued by long dockets, slashed personnel, scarce resources, and self-represented individuals who are not literate in the law and represent themselves in complex legal proceedings or transactions out of necessity. If the accessibility of the legal system remains the top priority for ensuring justice, then perhaps we must consider forging new alliances, healing the political wounds of previous generations, and expanding the discourse of access to justice to include the provision of affordable legal services by the private bar. If teachers, firefighters, social workers, and government employees cannot afford to hire an attorney to protect their parental, economic, or civil rights, the legal profession has a problem that it is obligated to address under the profession’s norms of conduct. This Article attempts to shift the lens of the legal services discussion from a narrow focus on free legal services to one that is more inclusive and responsive to the needs of both the legal consumer and the major private provider of legal services in this country: The Main Street lawyer. Addressing the justice gap problem requires us to be critical of existing structures, processes, and players, and to be willing to consider that perhaps our current paradigm can benefit from agitation. The paradigm shift advocated in this Article does not intend to discredit the importance of federal government subsidies of legal aid to the poor. Such subsidies are critical to preserving justice for that population. However, it does seek to push the legal services community into a more diverse and inclusive discussion that incorporates the non-poor client community that needs affordable legal services and the attorneys who serve them. Both constituencies are critical political players in a national discourse on legal service delivery. A mixed-model legal services delivery program must give these groups a stake in order to successfully advance an agenda that also benefits the poor. The development of such an agenda requires greater focus on Main Street lawyers, reduced-fee models, client preferences, and the factors that drive the cost of legal services

Training Lawyer-Entrepreneurs

The Great Recession has caused many new attorneys to question their decisions to go to law school. The highly publicized decline in employment opportunities for lawyers has called into question the value of obtaining a law degree. The tightening of the economy has diminished the availability of entry-level jobs for law graduates across employment sectors. Large law firms are laying-off lawyers, bringing in smaller first year associate classes, hiring more contract and experienced lateral attorneys. Government entities and public interest organizations have suffered furloughs, and hiring freezes, and are relying more on volunteers than on new employees to get the work done. To complicate matters, the baby boomer generation of lawyers is retiring later and contributing to a lack of new job opportunities. As a result, a large number of recent law graduates are unemployed, under-employed, or are working in settings that do not require a bar license. James G. Leipold, executive director of the National Association for Law Placement (NALP), reported that members of the law school graduating classes of 2009 and 2010 have faced the worst entry-level legal employment market in 50 years and perhaps ever, and the market for the classes of 2011 and those that will follow is likely forever changed. The latest figures released by 198 of the 201 law schools accredited by the American Bar Association (ABA) confirm Leipold\u27s prediction. Only 55% of law students graduating in 2011 reported having full-time, long-term jobs requiring a law degree, at nine months after graduation. The change in the job market masks a long standing but rarely recognized reality. Law jobs, particularly for new attorneys, have never been abundant. Historically, most attorneys in the United States have created their own jobs by establishing solo and small law firms. The latest ABA market research indicates that about three-fourths of all attorneys work in private practice. Of those attorneys, almost half identify as solo practitioners and approximately 14% work in small law offices with five or less lawyers. ABA market research found that in 2005, only 16% of attorneys in private practice work in law firms of more than 100 attorneys. In fact, the number of lawyers in private practice working in law firms of more than 50 attorneys has never accounted for even one-fifth of the private bar. Attorney demographics confirm that the majority of lawyers in private practice are self-employed. Regardless of the large number of lawyers in solo practice, few law graduates enter the profession understanding the opportunities and challenges of starting their own law firms. The reality of self-employment has not been well-received by many new graduates. Fewer opportunities in the job market have spawned blogs, editorials, articles and letters from and about angry and greatly disappointed new lawyers who viewed law school as their ticket to a six-figure salary upon graduation, but instead found poor job prospects and student debt equivalent to a home mortgage. A group of law graduates initiated lawsuits against their law schools alleging, among other things, misrepresentation and fraud. Although the particular claims of the lawsuits vary, all of them accuse law schools of reporting exaggerated employment statistics in order to lure prospective students into law schools. As a result of the public dissatisfaction of recent law graduates and the high cost of legal education, the number of applications to ABA accredited law schools declined in 2011. In December 2012, the Law School Admissions Council reported an additional decline of 22%. The future of the legal profession is uncertain. Some predict that large law firms are unlikely to rebound to pre-recession hiring. It is also not anticipated that government, academic, and public interest sectors will represent more than a small fraction of available law jobs. The most consistent and largest employment sector for lawyers will continue to be solo practice. If the largest segment of our law students will eventually work for themselves, then law schools should provide direction about what it means to be a self-employed lawyer. Like their predecessors, the self-employed lawyer of the twenty-first century must learn how to think like a lawyer and find a niche within the business of law. However, to make a living in an increasingly complex and competitive legal market, self-employed lawyers must also become lawyer-entrepreneurs. This Article does not offer a comprehensive understanding of the study of entrepreneurship. Nor does it engage the discussion of the tension between professionalism standards and personal gain. Instead, this piece focuses on what law schools can do to help the thousands of self-employed lawyers who must embrace entrepreneurial models to survive in a competitive market. Part I of this Article considers how technology and the need for more affordable legal services require the transformation of solo attorneys into lawyer-entrepreneurs. It explores how technology and client preferences are impacting the practice of law for self-employed lawyers that address personal legal services. Part II summarizes the findings of several empirical studies that help us understand what it means to be a self-employed lawyer. It considers the challenges and opportunities of lawyers as entrepreneurs. Part III posits that Millennial generation lawyers are good candidates to become lawyer-entrepreneurs. It contemplates a future where Millennial lawyer-entrepreneurs, if properly supported, can exploit technology to increase access to justice and achieve their personal goals. Part IV documents a sample of existing and emerging efforts by law schools to train self-employed lawyers. This section focuses specifically on the emergence of networks supporting solo and small firm lawyers, attorney incubator programs and post-graduate residencies. Part V offers recommendations for law schools committed to advancing the training of lawyer-entrepreneurs. The perspective offered here is informed by my experience launching a solo practice in 2002, my involvement in a national conversation about the lack of affordable legal services, as a mentor to lawyers starting their law practices, and is supported by empirical research