| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Law Firms Must Restructure their Pro Bono Practice | >
> | Alternate Paths for Recent Graduates | | | -- By DanielAdewunmi - 06 Apr 2023 | |
<
< | Each and every public interest-minded law student is very familiar with the structure of pro bono practices at BigLaw firms. Each firm markets pro bono as a part of their culture, a serious objective, and an initiative to which they are committed to furthering. However, the realities of BigLaw firms and their work experience is not lost on their associates or on interested law students. | >
> | In my previous draft of this essay, I wrote about conversations with George Kendall. The central message was that law firms need to restructure their pro bono practices to better resemble the practice at Squire Patton Boggs. My thinking behind this sentiment was that firms would be better able to achieve substantial change in a certain area without additional research expenditure. Additionally, the theory was that this would result in increased training opportunities for junior associates and positive marketing for the firms as advocates for social change. | | | | |
<
< | BigLaw associates are given billable hour targets that are hugely prohibitive to seeking out true impact in any one pro bono area. I have found through conversations with associates that especially at the junior level, pro bono investment, while possible, is not the priority simply due to the demands and rigor of the workload. As a result, associates are able to commit to pro bono sparingly, in amounts that may increase as they become more senior, on one-off projects that typically concern immigration or other disputes affecting small parties. | >
> | However, throughout the draft, I failed to consider the ultimate motivations of these Biglaw firms, profit. These are corporations and companies that may have some social and societal interests alongside their business interests, but ultimately their missions are to serve their clients in a way that maximizes their resources and increases their bottom line. Thus, the current structure of their pro bono practices may be more beneficial as associates are motivated to pursue these pro bono projects based on their own value system or their own desires for advancement and self-promotion. | | | | |
<
< | These firms do often have larger pro bono projects that they are eager to market towards prospective junior associates, sharing their success in higher-investment, public interest endeavors. However, the opportunity to work on these projects for any meaningful amount of time remains uncommon for most associates, and the ability to pursue additional work to further the public interest after the completion of said project is often lacking. | >
> | Thus, in my second iteration of this draft, I have decided to shift the focus. Rather than centering on ways that Biglaw firms can modify their pro bono practices, I have decided to look more intently at the practices in George Kendall’s firm and the opportunities for JD Candidates at Columbia Law School to pursue such paths. Essentially, the focus is now on the feasibility of obtaining private public interest and plaintiff-side firm positions. | | | | |
<
< | The cold reality of these firms is that they are for-profit firms that operate by servicing large, paying clients. Thus, associates are expected to work for the betterment of these paying clients, pursuing public interest opportunities on a sparing basis. | >
> | As a Columbia Law Student, legal career options are presented in a rather binary fashion. The options are carefully laid out and quite limited in scope. Students are able to pursue careers as junior associates at Biglaw firms, valuing the infrastructure provided along with the earning potential yet sacrificing their intellectual interests or values as well as committing to a complete lack of control over their time and priorities. Alternatively, students are able to pursue a career in the public interest sector choosing their morality or intellectual interests yet sacrificing significant financial potential and security. | | | | |
>
> | However, I have found that Columbia Law School is omitting potential career options by presenting the possibilities in this way. Private public interest firms and plaintiff-side firms are opportunities that would seriously interest a large community of students at Columbia Law School. Yet it remains an avenue sparingly mentioned by professors and career advisors alike. In fact, everything that I have learned about private public interest firms and plaintiff-side firms has been through utilizing the public resources of other law schools, mainly Harvard. | | | | |
<
< | Conversations with George Kendall | >
> | I have been trying to theorize as to the reasons behind these omissions. In speaking to my peers, they have brought up the competitive nature of obtaining these positions, and the manner in which many of the attorneys in these positions are deeper into their careers. However, the competitive nature of clerkships has not been a deterrent in Columbia advertising the positions and aiding students in obtaining these clerkships. Additionally, although in-house positions are commonplace as lateral transitions for associates deeper in their careers, we as law students are informed of their viability and the nature of the work quite often. | | | | |
<
< | I recently spoke with George Kendall, attorney at Squire, Patton, Boggs and leader of the Constitutional Rights in Life and Death Penalty Cases Externship at Columbia Law School. In that conversation, Mr. Kendall shared a new approach to pro bono work undertaken at his firm that may worth pursuing as an industry-wide transition. He shared that there is a small practice group within his firm who are responsible for pro bono work and do so full-time. | >
> | Thus, I consider the relative scarcity of private public interest firms and plaintiff-side firms when compared to other sectors in the legal industry. However, Columbia Law School is considered an elite institution for legal education. If there is an area within the legal industry that aligns with the interests and values of its student body, I would not anticipate scarcity of positions or competition to obtain them to be a substantial deterrent. Especially when peers of Columbia Law School are providing their students with resources designed to facilitate their employment in these spaces. | | | | |
<
< | There are various benefits to this approach. It centralizes pro bono work allowing the firm to pursue a specific area within the public interest rather than only allowing associates to invest in smaller disputes or issues. For example, rather than 80 percent of associates taking on individual immigration cases, which are hugely important on an individual level, this practice group is able to focus on larger systemic issues for a period of years, such as solitary confinement practices in the Southern States. In centralizing the work to a group of associates working full-time, the firm is able to affect a high-impact area of their choosing without actually changing their baseline hours commitment to pro bono in a significant manner.
An additional benefit would be the attraction and training of talented, public interest-minded associates. Finances remain the largest burden to entering public interest work for law students. The costs of attaining a legal education result in a loan amount that is often prohibitive when seeking to enter spaces serving those with less access to funds. However, should law firms restructure their pro bono practices in this manner, that would create opportunities for public interest-minded law students to enter these firms without the financial sacrifice necessary. They would then be privy to the legal training so coveted at these institutions and able to further the firms influence in the impact area of the firms choosing. Additionally, should they decide to transition out of public interest work, the firms would already have a relationship with them as their employers and can facilitate the transition into another practice area without losing their associates.
Essentially, law firms redeveloping their pro bono structures would remove the lukewarm commitment currently placed on pro bono and allow the firm to impact an area of legal controversy to a much greater extent. Additionally, these firms would become much more attractive landing spots for public interest-minded students and attorneys allowing the firms to employ the best and brightest from all areas. Furthermore, this transition would require no additional financial commitments from the firms as they are simply reallocating an hours commitment from the entirety of the firm and allowing a small group of associates to produce the pro bono labor full time.
I don't think this is an essay about law firm management. For a lobbying firm like Squire Patton, concentrating all the practice's pro bono time makes sense. Mr Kendall's distinguished history in building the particular practice he continues to run now from his partners' quarters speaks for itself. For other sorts of practices, as you describe, distributing pro bono work across the salaried work force in the rather profit-minded, self-promoting way they do it is much more beneficial to their partners than paying to run first-rank constitutional litigation out of their profits could ever be.
But conducting that analysis may not be your real interest. If it is, the way to improve the draft is to look more closely at the ways individual practices make their pro bono staffing decisions. As you see, most of the "information" published on that subject is propaganda for the recruitment function. But you can get some ideas, despite the natural reticence of the partnerships, which don't have to disclose any financial information.
I think, however, that your real interest is in the Kendall story, and that the premise of the essay can be adjusted better to accommodate what you want to say.
| >
> | Ultimately, I have come to have an interest in private public interest firms and plaintiff-side firms as a viable post-law school employment opportunity. Although the earning potential still pales in comparison to that at Biglaw firms, associates in these spaces still have access to increased earnings that would be more than sufficient as compared to potential public defender positions. Additionally, associates are able to benefit from an infrastructure that promotes their training and allows them to forego securing clients on their own without having to work on projects with which they may have a moral objection. These factors indicate the private public interest firms and plaintiff-side firms may be a desirable culture fit for many Columbia Law students, and I would implore the university to better enable its students to pursue these options. | | | |
|