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.

Write Your Name into the Law School’s History

I previously expressed my hope that many will join us at the Law Alumni Awards ceremony, which will occur this Thursday, April 23, 5:30 p.m., at the Alumni Memorial Union. I write again so that I may add that there will be a unique opportunity, before the reception, for anyone interested to place his or her name on Eckstein Hall. That may seem a little odd, for Eckstein Hall is rising several blocks away from the AMU. But we will have available on April 23 outside the AMU the final steel beam that will be placed in Eckstein Hall some weeks from now—and plenty of permanent markers with which folks can sign it. So, whether you are coming to the awards ceremony or not, feel free this Thursday to write your name into the future of Marquette University Law School. The beam will be available under a tent in Parking Lot A (corner of 16th and Wells) from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m.

Continue ReadingWrite Your Name into the Law School’s History

New Issue of Marquette Law Review

I am delighted to report that the spring issue of the Marquette Law Review is now available on-line.  Here are the contents of volume 92, issue 3:

ESSAY

“IDEOLOGY IN” OR “CULTURAL COGNITION OF” JUDGING: WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?
Dan M. Kahan

ARTICLES

A MATTER OF TRUST: SHOULD NO-RELIANCE CLAUSES BAR CLAIMS FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT OF CONTRACT?
Allen Blair

THE DILEMMA OF THE VENGEFUL CLIENT: A PRESCRIPTIVE FRAMEWORK FOR COOLING THE FLAMES OF ANGER
Robin Wellford Slocum

MAKING SENSE OF SCHAUMBURG: SEEKING COHERENCE IN FIRST AMENDMENT CHARITABLE SOLICITATION LAW
John D. Inazu

COMMENTS

WORKSITE RAIDS AND IMMIGRATION NORMS: A “STICKY” PROBLEM
Benjamin Crouse

SAME-SEX DIVORCE AND WISCONSIN COURTS: IMPERFECT HARMONY?
Louis Thorson

Continue ReadingNew Issue of Marquette Law Review