Law School Consortium Project

How to Extend Legal Education to Support Solo and Small-Firm Practitioners and Increase Access to Justice to Low and Moderate-Income Individuals and Communities

Acknowledgements

The Law School Consortium Project and this guidebook were made possible by a grant from the Program on Law & Society at the Open Society Institute. I am grateful to the dedication and effort of the individuals from the law schools that created the original practitioner network models as well as to the practitioners who participate in these networks. Their work provided the basis of the learning set forth in this guidebook and without them this Project would not have succeeded.

The following individuals provided the creativity from which came the concepts that formed the foundation of and vision for the Project:

Barbara Aldave, Professor and Director of Law and Entrepreneurship Center, University of Oregon School of Law (former Dean of St. Mary’s University School of Law); Clinton Bamberger, Professor Emeritus, University of Maryland School of Law; Sue Bryant, Dean of Academic Affairs, City University of New York School of Law; Clare Dalton, Professor, Northeastern University Law School; Don Gifford, Professor (former Dean), University of Maryland School of Law; Kristen Booth Glen, Dean, City University of New York School of Law; David Hall, Provost, Northeastern University (former Dean of Northeastern Law School); Michel Milleman, Professor, University of Maryland School of Law; and James Rowan, Professor and Director of Clinical Education, Northeastern University School of Law.

The following project directors served as the pioneers who provided the energy and courage to implement these networks and the leadership necessary to make them succeed:

Pualani Enos, Northeastern University School of Law DV Project; Ken Forde, Northeastern University School of Law ED Project; Denis Murphy, University of Maryland School of Law; and Fred Rooney, City University of New York School of Law.

All of the networks were supported by other individuals including: Greta Boeringer, Brenda Bratton Blom, Grace Colson, William “Dew” Dewberry, Lois Kanter, Miguel Negron, Jan Stockley, Marcus Succes, and Dennis Wright.

I also appreciate the many people who have helped me with comments, critique, and moral support including: Rick Abel, Vanessa Andris, Martha Bergmark, Jeanne Charn, Tanya Coke, Roger Conner, Ayn Crawley, Stacey Cumberbatch, Renaye Cuyler, Bob Dinerstein, Jon Dubin, Bryant Garth, James Head, Michael Hertz, Raquiba LaBrie, Gerry Lopez, David Luban, Antonio Maciel, Tanya Neiman, Dean Rivkin, Catherine Samuels, Suellyn Scarnecchia, Jeff Selbin, Louise Trubek, Stephanie Wildman, David Wilkins, Stephen Wizner, Peter Wright, and Richard Zorza.

Contact Information
Lovely A. Dhillon
Executive Director
Law School Consortium Project
Email: ldhillon@lawschoolconsortium.net
Web site: http://www.lawschoolconsortium.net

A Description of The Law School Consortium Project[1]

In 1997, after many months of collaboration and funding from the Open Society Institute’s Program on Law & Society, four law schools launched the Law School Consortium Project. It was conceived as an experiment to design, evaluate, and promote programs that extend the educational and professionalism missions of law schools beyond graduation to include training, mentoring, and other support to solo and small-firm lawyers to enable them to develop economically viable and professionally satisfying practices. By supporting this segment of the legal profession, the Project ultimately seeks to increase the availability of quality legal services for low and moderate-income individuals and communities.

The Project’s founding members, the City University of New York School of Law, the University of Maryland Law School, Northeastern University School of Law, and St. Mary’s University School of Law[ 2], felt the Project would address a number of important concerns:

access to quality “low bono” (affordable) legal services for low and moderate-income individuals and communities;
the dearth of guidance and services provided to solo and small-firm lawyers to help them provide quality legal services and successfully handle the ethical and practice dilemmas they face in practice; and
the large number of law school graduates who enter law schools with aspirations of working for the public interest, but, upon graduation, find themselves debt-ridden or unable to obtain one of the scarce positions available with public service organizations.

The Project has demonstrated that by supporting solo and small-firm practitioners who share a desire to provide affordable legal assistance, law schools enable them to have satisfying and economically viable careers while serving the needs of low and moderate-income individuals and communities. And, in supporting these practitioners, law schools are able to expand the field of public interest practice. This not only provides their students with employment options that enable them to develop public interest practices that serve underrepresented individuals and communities, but also allows the students to engage in work about which they care deeply.

The Project is premised on the belief that helping solo and small-firm practitioners to survive and provide high quality legal services is vital because of the crucial role they play in the provision of legal services. In light of the limited funding for, and restrictions on, legal services organizations and the decline in pro bono participation by large law firm attorneys[3], solo and small-firm practitioners are essential sources of legal services to low and moderate-income individuals and communities. ABA studies[4]have documented that 75% of low-income persons who utilize the services of a lawyer receive assistance from members of the private bar rather than from legal services organizations. And, the studies report that 80% of the legal needs of low-income persons remain unmet. The founding member schools felt building networks among typically isolated solo and small-firm practitioners can serve to connect individuals with each other and with resources and services and thereby:

aid them in their professional development and the success of their practices; and
enable them to provide quality legal services to individuals and communities who otherwise have no access to such services.

They concluded that these “practitioner networks” should be created by law schools because they are, by virtue of their expertise and resources, well suited to:

build networks of solo and small-firm practitioners who can learn from and support each other;
contribute ongoing training/education needed by recent graduates to provide quality legal services;
provide practitioners with mentoring in substantive law;
modify curricula based on their experiences with these solo and small-firm practitioners to better prepare the large number of law graduates who ultimately enter solo and small-firm practices; and
educate students and graduates on innovative legal services practices.

The results of this experiment demonstrate that the concept of establishing and maintaining law school-supported networks of solo and small-firm practitioners is both valuable and viable. As outlined in more detail below, the creation of these networks has resulted in models of law practice that have significant positive impact on solo and small-firm practitioners and access to legal services for low and moderate-income individuals and communities. In turn, these networks also benefit the participating law schools in that they:

expose students at participating law schools to valuable role models, an understanding of performing public service work in a private practice setting, access to valuable internship and other practice opportunities to which they might not otherwise be exposed, and entrée into an established community of practitioners upon graduation; and
provide faculty at participating law schools with important data about the realities of law practice, the needs of their graduates, current trends in the legal profession, especially the impact of technology, and law practice management, all of which can be incorporated into their law school's curriculum and faculty scholarship.

As we face the ever-increasing gap between those who can afford legal services and those who cannot, it is vital that we find ways to expand the legal services delivery system in new and innovative ways beyond attempting to increase the number of attorneys who provide pro bono services. The development of a large number of similar practitioner networks across the nation could result in a significant increase in:

the number of solo and small-firm practitioners who receive necessary mentoring and support; and
access to justice for low and moderate-income individuals and communities.

Creating and supporting these practitioner networks and participating in the Law School Consortium Project is a way for law schools to simultaneously provide support to an important alumni constituency, increase the professionalism and quality of legal services provided by solo and small-firm practitioners, revitalize the profession, and play an important role in increasing access to justice for low and moderate-income individuals and communities.

Description of the Practitioner Network Models

Each of the participating law schools experimented with a different model to be able to create a menu of “best practices” that could be replicated at other law schools. The following is a description of each of the models.

The CUNY network includes approximately 100 graduates from small or solo practice or community-based not-for-profit organizations. Members participate in one or more of four Practice Groups[5] which each has a particular focus:

The Family Law Practice Group: This group seeks to meet the large unmet legal need in the area of domestic relations
The Immigration Law Practice Group: This group consists of attorneys practicing immigration law.
The General Practice Group: This group includes attorneys who practice in a variety of substantive areas.
The General Practice II Group: This group focuses on recent graduates and experienced practitioners from large law firms or public interest organizations who are interested in opening their own private practices.

The specialty areas in which network members practice include: family, domestic violence, immigration, elder, personal injury, criminal, real estate, labor, and employment law. Practice Groups meet every two to three weeks at locations in Manhattan and Queens.

Services and Resources Provided:The services and resources provided by CUNY are as follows:

networking and peer technical assistance;
reduced rates for online legal research services;
legal research;
access to a listserv;
professional skills development seminars;
a mentoring program
technology training; and
a summer intern program.

According to the Project Director, as a result of their involvement in the CUNY network, members are better able to:

use computers and legal software;
handle their timekeeping and billing
> market their practices;
conduct legal research;
conduct internet research;
delegate research assignments;
use email for personal and professional communication;
stay abreast of changes in the law;
run a law office; and
rely on colleagues for assistance.

University of Maryland School of Law Model

The Maryland University School of Law model’s efforts actually started prior to the conception of the Law School Consortium Project. A core group of five solo practitioners had been regularly meeting with two former directors of the Law School Clinical Law Program to explore how a network of affiliated solo practitioners might come together to “do good while doing well.” The project became a reality when Civil Justice, Inc. was created, (it was developed as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation), its board of directors selected, and the Project Director hired. Unlike the CUNY and Northeastern models, the Maryland model was developed as a Demonstration Law Office in conjunction with a network of practitioners. And, unlike the other models, the Maryland model is housed outside of the Law School.

In addition to the core group of practitioners, faculty members from the Economic, Housing, and Community Development Clinic recruited five additional network members. These members are not private practitioners, but are affiliated with local community organizations. Their involvement in the project serves as a tremendous positive influence in terms of bringing neighborhood issues forward and in serving as a source of referrals to network members.

The network grew slowly at first but word-of-mouth referrals led to its growth. Its current size is about 40 attorneys. In the early stages of the network, participants engaged in a dialogue leading to the adoption of a mission statement that calls for a commitment to increasing access to justice to low and moderate-income individuals. Members are expected to commit to this mission statement and are expected to have email and Internet access and to check their email on a daily basis.

The specialty areas in which network members practice include: consumer, wills and estate planning, family, real estate, personal injury, lemon law and auto fraud, products liability, worker’s compensation, administrative law, elder, and alternative dispute resolution.

Maryland schedules meetings once a month. Meeting locations vary as the membership spans a large geographic area. Meetings usually involve substantive law presentations or practice tip discussions. Members in the southern part of the state hold meetings regularly on their own in addition to the official monthly meetings.

Services and Resources Provided:The services and resources provided by Maryland are as follows:

networking and peer technical assistance;
mentoring;
practice management assistance;
substantive law training;
access to a listserv;
reduced price legal products and services;[6]
a client referral service;
marketing services and opportunities[7]; and
mediation training.[8]

As a means to generate income to support the continuation of the attorney network, project members voted to institute membership fees. The annual fee schedule is $0 for lawyers in the first year of their own private practice, $100 for the second and third years in private practice, and $300 thereafter. In addition, the Project Director and members are exploring the possibility that the network could become financially self-sustaining by acting as a Lawyer Referral Service and charging a fee for service and a percentage of fees earned on cases referred to network members. The Project Director and members are also looking into the possibility of the project becoming a bundler and reseller of services at discounted rates. By purchasing services in bulk on behalf of its members and reselling them with the addition of a small fee, the project could bring in additional income, while nonetheless providing network members with discounted services.

According to the Project Director, as a result of their participation in the network, participants identified the following elements as essential to establishing economic viability:

the need to narrow their practice to focus on specific practice areas, understanding that they cannot be all things to all clients; the day of the jack-of-all-trades lawyer is gone [9];
the need to say “no” to cases that are outside their expertise or are too big to handle; and
the benefit of networking with other lawyers to help build their practices.

One faculty member commented on the fact that for some network members, participation in the network helps to clarify, strengthen, and confirm their career goals.

The Northeastern University School of Law Domestic Violence and Economic Development Models

The Northeastern Economic Development and Domestic Violence models, the interdisciplinary models, were structured so as to examine how solo and small-firm lawyers can sustain economically viable practices which promote community economic development and prevent family violence by working with non-legal community organizations and other institutions. Northeastern Law School was well situated to create these interdisciplinary, specialized models in light of the fact that there were two interdisciplinary institutes already in existence at that institution – the Domestic Violence Institute and the Urban Law & Public Policy Institute.

Northeastern University School of Law Domestic Violence Model

The Northeastern University School of Law Domestic Violence (DV) Model was designed as a collaborative effort between the Northeastern Domestic Violence Institute (DV Institute) and the Women’s Bar Association to create a resource and support network for family law attorneys doing domestic violence work. This work fills the ever-growing need for specialized services to low and moderate-income domestic violence survivors. The primary goal of this project was education - training practitioners to take on domestic violence cases and thereby lessening the burden on the few practitioners currently handing those cases.

The DV Institute and the Women's Bar Association created an Advisory Board for the project that consisted of members of both organizations as well as domestic violence family law specialists from legal services organizations and from solo and small-firm practices.

The DV model was organized differently than the other models as it directly involves students as well as practitioners. Rather than being designed as an ongoing network of attorneys, it was designed as an actual law school seminar, offered for academic credit to six students each semester. The seminar met once a week for three hours for ten weeks. Participating students were upper level students with some domestic violence experience. The Project Director taught this seminar in conjunction with three senior domestic violence practitioners. Also included in the seminar were six junior practitioners who, although experienced in the family law area, had little or no experience with domestic violence cases. These practitioners were offered the seminar free in return for their willingness to take on a domestic violence case on a pro bono basis through the Women’s Bar Association Domestic Violence Family Law Pro Bono Panel. The senior practitioner faculty members served as mentors to the junior practitioners. In addition, these faculty members served as clinical placement supervisors to three of the participating students. These students were required to spend 16 hours each week working at their supervisor’s law office. And, at the end of the semester, these students were then required to spend their 11-week coop semester placed in that practitioner’s firm working a 40-hour week, paid for by Northeastern.

The course was designed to provide participants with an opportunity to network with practitioners with similar interests, share practice tips, and develop strategies for handling challenging issues. It was also developed with the goal that participants would learn how to engage in collaborative lawyering. In total, the seminar included 26 students, 22 junior practitioners, and 10 senior practitioners who served as faculty/mentors.

Seminar participants were required to commit to: (1) one Women’s Bar Association Family Law Pro Bono Panel case from beginning to end; (2) regularly attend and participate in the seminar (which included reading, as well as written and oral assignments); (3) building a private practice that would serve domestic violence victims for affordable fees; and (4) maintaining an email account and having a willingness to use technological resources offered.

The Northeastern DV model was successful in meeting its objectives. An intensive and valuable seminar was developed that led to the creation of a high quality domestic violence practice curriculum, which helps practitioners understand the complexities presented by domestic violence cases and provides them with a working knowledge of legal and non-legal community resources in this area. Although project staff found it challenging to attempt, simultaneously, to reach the three different audiences with which they were working – the senior practitioners, the junior practitioners, and the students – they were able to provide valuable service to each. In addition to educating the junior practitioners and law students, the seminar increased the knowledge of the senior practitioners who served as faculty-mentors as well. The curriculum developed by the project can serve as a standard of practice that should be incorporated into any effort to involve new attorneys in domestic violence work. The efforts of the project have led to a stronger sense of community among practitioners who currently work in the domestic violence area.

Services and Resources Provided: Practitioners who participated in the seminar received the following in the way of services and resources:

substantive law training;
mentoring;
intern assistance;
web-based resources and communication;
a mental health seminar;[10]
resource materials;[11]
technology assistance and training; and
business management training.

Northeastern University School of Law Economic Development Model

The Northeastern University School of Law Economic Development (ED) Model created a network of solo and small-firm practitioners working in the economic development area. The ED network provides its members with resources, support, knowledge about the community, and transactional law skills necessary to undertake economic development activities.

The ED network finds ways to link small businesses and nonprofit organizations with lawyers in the network. Many small businesses only contact a lawyer at a moment of crisis, not earlier when legal advice might have saved some future headaches. By helping these small businesses obtain legal assistance, members strive to help them succeed, grow, and thereby create jobs in their communities.

The ED network defined its target client community geographically, (limiting activity to the Boston area and one or two adjacent communities), ethnically, and by income, targeting those communities that are traditionally underserved. yes"> It focused on attorneys of color and women in its recruitment efforts because these practitioners were the ones serving or practicing within the targeted client communities. Twelve participants were selected so as to achieve an appropriate mix of practice areas, experience, client base, and geographic location. ftn3" href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title>[12] The specialty areas in which network members practice include: real estate and affordable housing development law. Network meetings are scheduled approximately twice a month.

Services and Resources Provided: Before commencing, project staff conducted focus groups with practitioners to determine the primary areas in which support was most needed. Based on this, it was decided to provide the following services and resources:

networking and peer technical assistance;
continuing legal education seminars and materials;
marketing and law practice management workshops:
technology assistance and training;
access to a small business database; [13]
assistance in developing relationships and connections;14 ]
access to a secure-access interactive web site;
information about nonprofit and small business legal audits;[15]
library access;
technology assistance and training; and
assistance with client development.[16]

The ED network’s members work to help small businesses and nonprofit organizations succeed in order to economically strengthen communities in which these organizations operate. Network members feel that their connection to the network and the Law School empowers them to take action that, in the absence of the network’s support and resources, they would not otherwise be able to take.

PART 1 2 3 4 5