You’ve probably read the New York Times’ editorial about law schools, “Legal Education Reform,” in the Friday edition. It’s unimpressive, but to spare us both I’ll limit myself to one point.
After citing the economy, student loans, lawsuits, and irked Senators, it adds:
Yet, at the same time, more and more Americans find that they cannot afford any kind of legal help. Addressing these issues requires changing legal education and how the profession sees its responsibility to serve the public interest as well as clients … [S]ome law schools are trying to align what and how they teach to what legal practice now entails and what individuals and institutions need — like many more lawyers who can serve as advocates for the poor and middle class.
In other words, the Times is blaming law schools for failing to mint lawyers willing to affordably resolve poor people’s legal problems, which I suppose implies that they’re rejecting applicants who want to serve the poor in favor of greedy millenials who believe Congress/society/the Fed has some kind of responsibility to ensure full employment and widespread prosperity, and those public interest law society-types are all lying on their applications.
Maybe the problem with poor people unable to afford legal services is that they’re poor? Law schools are in need of reform, but the corps of attorneys specially trained to serve the needs of the poor envisioned by the Times isn’t going to work if they’ll be begging for cases and alms outside courthouses.