In America You Can’t Buy Justice. But You Can Rent It.

In our final Law Governing Lawyers class, we had an extended discussion of proposed ABA rules strongly encouraging—if not requiring—minimumpro bono work by members of the bar (or law school students). What prompted this was our reading on the unmet need for legal services.  Among the indigent, those seeking immigration or asylum, and the mentally ill, legal services are virtually unobtainable. 

This is especially true for civil actions; at least in criminal actions an attorney can be appointed for an indigent client.  Civil representation for disadvantaged clients, in contrast, is often unaffordable.  When they can afford it, the lawyer is usually one whose entire client base is barely able to afford any fee.  Such attorneys mean well but be struggling with humongous case loads and limited resources.  My basic legal processes are infeasible for them, especially a thorough investigation or discovery.  While trying to help so many in need, they may be unable to provide any client with truly competent or adequate representation. 

Legal clinics (such as our own venerable Marquette Volunteer Legal Clinic) try to fill the gap, but often such clinics can only offer advice and direction.  They cannot or do not provide representation.

Against this backdrop, the ABA House of Delegates has considered and rejected changes to Model Rule 6.1 that would require lawyers to provide at least 50 hours of pro bono work per year, with a relatively cheap hourly buy-out.  There are of course, always mechanistic complaints: how would compliance be recorded? how would the requirement be enforced? what would the penalty be?  These can be worked out.

The real problem seems to be other complaints that are more philosophical.  What can a lawyer accomplish in 50 hours per year?  Would forced-labor representation be substandard?  Shouldn’t lawyers be able to avoid practicing in skill-areas they don’t want to practice in?  And why are we picking on lawyers?  Do doctors or plumbers have to do pro bono work?

Continue ReadingIn America You Can’t Buy Justice. But You Can Rent It.

U.S. News Rankings

According to versions of the 2010 U.S. News and World Report Law School rankings reported on various blogs this morning, Marquette’s overall ranking has risen from 95th to 87th among the 184 ABA accredited law schools.  Furthermore, its peer rating by law professors increased from 2.3 to 2.4 (out of a possible score of 5.0).  Although the reliance of the applicant pool on these rankings is much deplored within the legal academy, there is no doubt that it is better to be going up in the rankings rather than down.

The overall ranking of “tied for 87th” places Marquette in exactly the same spot in the rankings as its two Catholic peers to the South, DePaul and Loyola of Chicago. Also tied for spots 87 through 93 are Rutgers-Newark, IU-Indianapolis, South Carollina, and St. John’s.  For all practical purposes, Marquette remains squarely in the middle of the ratings.  Although the peer rating rose from 2.3 to 2.4 the median for peer ratings also rose from 2.3 to 2.4.

Continue ReadingU.S. News Rankings

Congratulations to the Winners of the Jenkins Competition

The finale of this year’s Jenkins Moot Court Competition took place this evening, in the spectacular ceremonial courtroom of the Federal Courthouse.

Each of the four competitors who advanced from the semifinals, Alyssa Dowse and Timothy Sheehey, and Jessica Farley and Brent Simerson, gave a terrific performance.  The panel of judges (Judge Lynn S. Adelman presiding in his own courtroom; Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Patience D. Roggensack; and North Carolina Court of Appeals Judge and Marquette alum James Wynn Jr.) was active in its questioning of both teams, but the advocates stood their ground at every turn.  I would have had a very difficult time ranking the competitors, were I on that panel.

After the arguments were complete and the scores were calculated, the winners were the Petitioners, Alyssa Dowse and Timothy Sheehey.  At the reception afterwards, in addition to recognizing the first- and second-place teams, Dean Kearney announced the other two prizes in the competition.  This year’s Ramon A. Klitzke Prize for Best Oral Advocate went to Alyssa Dowse.  Finally, the Franz Eschweiler Award for Best Brief was shared by teammates Joseph Brydges and Timothy Hassel.

Congratulations to the first-place and second-place teams, the Best Oral Advocate, and the team that wrote the Best Brief.  Indeed, congratulations to all of the students who had the honor of participating in Jenkins. And many thanks to the moot court board and executive board members and the faculty, staff, and alumni of the law school who helped with the competition.  As the Dean noted at the reception, it was especially gratifying to see so many alums of the moot court program at the argument this evening.

Continue ReadingCongratulations to the Winners of the Jenkins Competition
Newer Posts
Older Posts