In class, we frequently discussed the idea of the modern lawyer’s social responsibility. Relevantly, the New York Times reported on May 1st that, starting next year, the New York State Bar will require new applicants to complete 50 hours of pro bono work. This paper will argue, using my spring break pro bono experience at the Record Clearance Project at San Jose State as background, that this pro bono requirement will contribute to legal expertise in ways very similar to the traditional lecture method.

Before practicing law in the United States, an attorney must be licensed by his state Bar association. Two obstacles traditionally preclude licensing. First, the new attorney generally must have completed a three year degree at an accredited law school. Second, the new attorney must pass a written examination. Consumer protection ostensibly justifies this licensing regime. Clients who employ Bar-licensed attorneys are theoretically ensured that their attorneys are at least minimally qualified to advise on legal issues within their state.

It would be beyond the scope of this paper to argue whether consumer protection is sufficient justification for the current licensing regime. Instead, accepting as given that consumer protection is sufficient justification, the question of the appropriateness of the additional New York pro bono requirement becomes whether the requirement will improve the legal aptitude of new practitioners. From the perspective of a student who has completed a year of both traditional schooling and forty hours of pro bono work (I argue from this perspective because this is the area where my insight may add value), I can safely assert that my pro bono work contributed to my legal expertise in different but similar ways to traditional lecture. If consumers would be better protected by attorneys who have (1) a greater breadth of practicing experience, (2) interacted with legal customers prior to finishing their legal education, and (3) networking contacts from other areas of the legal community, then the pro bono requirement can be justified under the same consumer protection theory as the other Bar requirements are justified.

The week that I spent writing expungement petitions in conjunction with the Record Clearance Project (RCP) at San Jose State University offered me a practicing experience that I likely would not have experienced elsewhere. While opponents of the new requirement would likely argue that nearly all attorneys voluntarily complete some degree of pro bono work, and that all pro bono work is largely the same, that argument would miss the fact that different pro bono work offers different experiences. It would be a vast oversimplification to suggest that, like most other pro bono projects, RCP benefits indigent criminal offenders. RCP offers a unique perspective because it allowed us to work with clients who had formerly interacted with the criminal system, successfully completed their sentences, and were now working to expunge their names. Most young attorneys likely have not worked with criminal clients who have successfully completed their sentences. Now having worked with several, I have faith in the potential for true rehabilitation for previous criminal offenders. Different pro bono projects offer different nuanced experiences, each of which contributes context to the student’s legal studies.

In addition to the unique aspects of its practice, RCP contributed to my education because it allowed me to interact with clients while I was still in my first year of law school. While many young attorneys will perform direct client services during their two summers of law school, I consider this opportunity so central to my legal education that I would consider my own education inferior had I not had client interaction so early on. Law students do not study in a vacuum. Their study habits are informed by the social reality around them. It is easy for a 1L at a privileged school to focus incessantly on the “unfair” aspects of law school (see my first draft). However, my interaction with indigent clients and, more importantly, their trust in me to do the job, radically changed my perspective in the classroom. Instead of trying to learn material for its own sake, I began to approach the casebooks as a source of power that I could eventually use to benefit others. The previously abstract idea of stigmatization from criminal conviction became clear and practical. As a prospective client, I would hope that my attorney had early experiences with clients so that she approached her legal education having been informed of its practical importance.

Finally, RCP contributed to my legal education by offering me a legal contact outside of my law school. While mentorship opportunities are abundant at Columbia, students are expected to seek them proactively. While this feat is by no means impossible, time allocation influences the decision and the student chooses whether to forgo other opportunities in order to work closely with a mentor. Pro bono work, because it necessitates supervision by a licensed attorney, requires the student to interact closely with an established attorney. My close interaction with my supervisor has offered me a close legal contact which has already proven valuable in my legal education. I am substantially more comfortable with close scrutiny of my writing and my legal work generally, which made me much more comfortable in the classroom after I finished working with RCP.

This paper is not intended to be a policy argument suggesting that New York’s new 50 hour pro bono requirement is desirable legislation. I argue only that, if we accept consumer protection as a legitimate goal of the legal licensing regime, then pro bono work likely contributes to consumer protection (via attorney qualification) in much the same way that traditional lecture does. The three central benefits of my RCP experience likely apply generally to pro bono work, and they almost certainly helped to improve the quality of my legal scholarship.

This is a confusing argument. The requirement supposedly under discussion is for pro bono work. Your arguments have nothing to do with whether the work was compensated, but rather that you have engaged in working with clients during the earliest phase of law school, under supervision. The requirement is supposedly intended to deal, not with the educational needs of law students, but with the problem of underserved communities needing lawyers. On that, your essay is silent.

Nor do you point out, which one might have expected, that the New York requirement has no effect on you at all, because Columbia already requires you to perform 100 hours of pro bono legal service, under supervision, before graduation. You are therefore arguing, with great solemnity but not much novelty, that there is educational value in what we require more of.

Your first graf says that the educational effect of required pro bono work "will contribute to legal expertise in ways very similar to the traditional lecture method." In graf three, you "safely assert that my pro bono work contributed to my legal expertise in different but similar ways to traditional lecture," but you don't show either differences or similarities, or explain why differences cropped up between the grafs.

I don't understand this in graf four:

It would be a vast oversimplification to suggest that, like most other pro bono projects, RCP benefits indigent criminal offenders. RCP offers a unique perspective because it allowed us to work with clients who had formerly interacted with the criminal system, successfully completed their sentences, and were now working to expunge their names. Most young attorneys likely have not worked with criminal clients who have successfully completed their sentences.

So what? I don't understand why the "vast oversimplification," even comes up: who said something about indigent criminal defendants? Most pro bono work is done for people who can't get lawyers, and in the US, indigent criminal defendants are provided lawyers at public expense. Why is the difference "vast" between working with criminal offenders and working on purging the records of ex-offenders? Why is filling in these particular forms for people "a unique perspective"?

I am mystified by the comment that "as a prospective client, I would hope that my attorney had early experiences with clients so that she approached her legal education having been informed of its practical importance." Grammar aside, why the hell would you be thinking about your lawyer's first year in law school, which has no relevance at all to you, rather than your lawyer's subsequent experience and present fitness for the work you need done? Do you really think that the "practical importance" of client service escapes the working lawyer unless she did some form-filling for clients in her first year?

Essentially, this feels to me like the pro bono activities report you filed when you got back from spring vacation, with a paragraph at the top saying you're going to talk about it in relation to something in the news, and a conclusion saying you're not going to discuss the issues raised by the news.

This is not a revision of your first essay, but rather a complete substitution. So no self-editing has yet occurred. This draft feels, as the first did, like a beginning requiring much work until ready. The first decision is whether this about what you did on spring vacation, about requiring pro bono service of law students rather than providing civil legal assistance to the poor, or about why live-client representation is educationally valuable for first-year students. You can't make all three work in 1,000 words.

The first path, which the current draft primarily treads, can be successful if you toss out the "activities report" bureaucratic language and the uncritical tone. Is your activity beneficial because there is an actual client, in some way that a simulation would not be equally beneficial? Is it the editing under supervision that is good for you, or some other aspect of the workflow? Are you better off doing the extremely limited work your actual development so far prepares you to do, with live clients your mistakes may injure, or simulating more sophisticated work under the supervision of teachers who can help you in a setting where there's no actual client, whose interests professional ethics require them to put before the educational value of your experience?

The second path requires you to ask why we don't give the poor real lawyers, rather than law students, to serve their needs, and whether requiring law students to perform pro bono service is really a way of letting real lawyers off the hook.

The third path requires you to explain why doing something before you're ready to do it is better than getting ready to do it, or why (on Deweyite grounds, for example) there's no distinction between doing something and learning effectively how to do it. I believe strongly that people should be taught in law school how to be lawyers when they leave. I don't believe, equally strongly, that having them represent clients in their first year contributes at all to that exercise. So I'd like to read a careful, thoughtful, powerful argument about why my second belief is hampering my first.

---

You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:

• #Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, AlexBuonocore
• #Set DENYTOPICVIEW = TWikiGuest

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list.