Public interest law: The movement at midlife

Stanford Law Review

Volumn 60, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 2027-2084

  Rhode, Deborah L ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 49349091599     PISSN: 00389765     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (286)

1. Martin Luther King, Jr., Response to Award of American Liberties Medallion at the 58th Annual Meeting of the American Jewish Committee (May 20, 1965) (quoting unidentified preacher), available at http://www.ajc.org/ site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=ijITI2PHKoG&b=843719&ct=1052923.
2. The most comprehensive recent effort to construct a data set is detailed in Laura Beth Nielsen & Catherine R. Albiston, The Organization of Public Interest Practice: 1975-2004, 84 N.C. L. REV. 1591 (2006).
3. It estimated that about 1000 organizations fit its definition, adapted from an earlier landmark study by Weisbrod, Handler, and Komesar: nonprofit organizations that "employ at least one lawyer at least part time, and whose activities (1) seek to produce significant benefits for those who are external to the organization's participants, and (2) involve at least one adjudicatory strategy." Id. at 1601. For Weisbrod, Handler, and Komesar's definition, see Joel F. Handler, Betsy Ginsberg & Arthur Snow, The Public Interest Law Industry, in PUBLIC INTEREST LAW: AN ECONOMIC AND INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS, in PUBLIC INTEREST LAW: AN ECONOMIC AND INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS 42, 42 (Burton A. Weisbrod et al. eds., 1978);
4. Burton A. Weisbrod, Conceptual Perspective on the Public Interest: An Economic Analysis, in PUBLIC INTEREST LAW: AN ECONOMIC AND INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS, supra, at 4, 22.
5. Nielsen and Albiston's study surveyed 221 organizations fitting that description. Nielsen & Albiston, supra, at 1605. Because the vast majority of the sample involved direct service providers, it did not focus on the most influential public interest legal organizations. Indeed, restrictions by the Legal Services Corporation severely limit the ability of federally-funded direct service providers to engage in impact litigation and public policy work. See infra note 43. So too, the data available on conservative organizations does not identify those that are most influential. For a survey of such organizations, see John P. Heinz, Ann Southworth & Anthony Paik, Lawyers for Conservative Causes: Clients, Ideology, and Social Distance, 37 LAW & SOC'Y REV. 5 (2003).
6. A widely cited definition includes "non profit tax-exempt organizations that devote a large share of their programs to providing legal representation to otherwise unrepresented interests in court or administrative agency proceedings involving questions of important public policy." COUNCIL FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LAW IN AMERICA, BALANCING THE SCALES OF JUSTICE 81 (1976);
7. see NAN ARON, LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL: PUBLIC INTEREST LAW IN THE 1980s AND BEYOND 3-5 (1989) (citing the Council's definition).
8. That definition might exclude conservative or "freedom-based" organizations that represented interests already being advanced by corporate funders. DEBORAH L. RHODE & DAVID LUBAN, LEGAL ETHICS 849 (4th ed. 2004). For Nielsen and Albiston's definition, which requires some focus on adjudication, see Nielsen & Albiston, supra note 2, at 1601-02. Contributors to the classic Weisbrod study also defined public interest legal organizations to include those representing unrepresented interests and employing adjudication. See Weisbrod, supra note 2, at 22.
9. 1 STACY M. DEBROFF ET AL., SERVING THE PUBLIC: A JOB SEARCH GUIDE (17th ed. 2006-07).
10. Those groups were the Alliance Legal Foundation, NARAL Pro-Choice America, the Southeastern Legal Foundation, and the Whitman -Walker Clinic.
11. The assistant to the president of the Washington Legal Foundation explained that "we don't do surveys." Telephone Interview with Liz Foley, Assistant to the President, Wash. Legal Found., in Washington, D.C. (Aug. 22, 2007). The president of the Center for Individual Rights acknowledged that although the proposed interview identified "good questions that deserve thoughtful answers," he did not have time to supply them. Nor did he respond to requests that he designate someone else in the organization to respond. E-mail from Terrence Pell, President, Center for Individual Rights, to author (Aug. 22, 2007) (on file with author).
12. The total is greater than fifty because some groups fell in multiple categories. For example, all the Asian American and Latino Hispanic groups worked on immigrants' rights, as did one of the poverty groups.
13. For further details on size, see infra text accompanying note 15 and Table 1.
14. The exceptions predating the 1960s were the Sierra Club (1892), the Legal Aid Society of San Francisco (1916), the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (1940), and the national and Northern California ACLU (1920, 1934). Those founded in the 1990s were the Electronic Frontier Foundation (1990), the Center for Democracy and Technology (1995), and the Center for Equal Opportunity (1995). See Appendix II.
15. Handler, Ginsberg & Snow, supra note 2.
16. Nielsen & Albiston, supra note 2, at 1605.
17. Davison, Lambda Legal.
18. Dempsey, Center for Democracy and Technology; Gates, Children's Defense Fund; Wilber, Legal Services for Children; O'Toole, National Center for Youth Law.
19. Newhouse, New England Legal Foundation. For similar views, see Kaufman, Atlantic Legal Foundation; Clegg, Center for Equal Opportunity; Casey, Christian Legal Society; Rushford, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation; Pendley, Mountain States Legal Foundation; Revett, Pacific Legal Foundation.
20. See Handler et al., supra note 2, at 56 tbl.4.6. The updated dollars come from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, http:data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl.
21. Data on 1975 comes from Handler et al., supra note 2, at 51 tbl.4.2, reprinted in Nielsen & Albiston, supra note 2, at 1607. Data on 2007 come from my sample.
22. Due to rounding, totals may not equal 100%.
23. Pope, Sierra Club.
24. Parker, Earth Justice; Krupp, Environmental Defense Fund; Beinecke, Natural Resources Defense Council; Pope, Sierra Club; see also Posting of Carl Pope, Environmentalism Is So Not Dead!, to Gristmill, http://gristmill.grist.Org/story/2007/9/18/121443/712 (Sept. 18, 2007, 3:42 PM) ("For a hundred years, those who called themselves first conservationists and then environmentalists defined their task as being to constrain, and clean up after, an existing industrial order. For the next hundred years, our task is to shape, design, and accelerate the arrival of a new, sustainable economic order.").
25. Dempsey, Center for Democracy and Technology; Ross, Human Rights Watch; Beinecke, Natural Resources Defense Council.
26. Fujioka, Asian Law Caucus; Casey, Christian Legal Society.
27. See infra text accompanying note 43.
28. Shauffer, Youth Law Center.
29. Rodgers, Legal Momentum; accord Greenberger, National Women's Law Center.
30. Crosby, ACLU; Trasvina, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund.
31. Ross, Human Rights Watch.
32. Bernstein, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law.
33. Bernstein, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law.
34. Bernstein, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law.
35. Stevenson, Equal Justice Initiative; accord Bright, Southern Center for Human Rights.
36. See Greenberger, National Women's Law Center; Wolfman, Public Advocates; Corey S. Shdaimah, Intersecting Identities: Cause Lawyers as Legal Professionals and Social Movement Actors, in CAUSE LAWYERS AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS 220, 228-29 (Austin Sarat & Stuart A. Scheingold eds., 2006) (quoting poverty lawyers as trying to "maintain more than expand" and "fight back even worse changes").
37. See DOUG MCADAM, POLITICAL PROCESS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF BLACK INSURGENCY, 1930-1970 (1982);
38. SIDNEY TARROW, POWER IN MOVEMENT: SOCIAL MOVEMENTS AND CONTENTIOUS POLITICS (2d ed. 1998);
39. Hanspeter Kriesi, Political Context and Opportunity, in THE BLACKWELL COMPANION TO SOCIAL MOVEMENTS 67 (David A. Snow, Sarah A. Soule & Hanspeter Kriesi eds., 2004).
40. Michael McCann & Jeffrey Dudas, Retrenchment . . . and Resurgence? Mapping the Changing Context of Movement Lawyering in the United States, in CAUSE LAWYERS AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS, supra note 31, at 37.
41. Clegg, Center for Equal Opportunity; Casey, Christian Legal Society; Rushford, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation; Pendley, Mountain States Legal Foundation.
42. Shaw, NAACP.
43. Romero, ACLU.
44. The quote is from Brian Wolfman of Public Citizen, concerning consumer interests. For similar views on civil rights and civil liberties, see Shaw, NAACP; Romero, ACLU; Crosby, ACLU of Northern California; Fung, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund; Kwoh, Asian Pacific American Legal Center; Bernstein, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law; Olshansky, Center for Constitutional Rights; Arnwine, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights; Graff, Legal Aid Society of San Francisco, Employment Law Center; Rothenberg, New York Lawyers for the Public Interest. Conservatism on criminal justice and prisoners' rights was noted by Stevenson of the Equal Justice Center, and Bright of the Southern Center. For concerns on issues relating to youth, see Stotland, Education Law Project; Shauffer, Youth Law Center; and on welfare, see Bowman, Shriver National Center on Poverty; Rothschild, Western Center on Law and Poverty.
45. Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep't of Health and Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001); Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (1992); see David S. Udell & Rebekah Diller, Access to the Courts: An Essay for the Georgetown University Law Center Conference on the Independence of the Courts, 95 GEO. L.J. 1127, 1134-35 (2007) (describing restrictive state and federal decisions).
46. Needleman, Brooklyn Legal Services; Padilla, California Rural Legal Assistance; Paradise, Disability Rights Advocates.
47. Bernstein, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law; Gates, Children's Defense Fund.
48. Romero, ACLU; Olshansky, Center for Constitutional Rights; accord Davison, LAMDA.
49. Gaziano, Heritage Foundation.
50. Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996, 16 U.S.C. § 4601-6a (2000).
51. Id.
52. Virtually all the leaders of groups working on poverty issues criticized these restrictions. For similar views, see DEBORAH L. RHODE, ACCESS TO JUSTICE 105-06 (2004), and sources cited therein.
53. Bright, Southern Center for Human Rights (referring to Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3625 (2000)); see Brian J. Ostrom et al., Congress, Courts and Corrections: An Empirical Perspective on the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 78 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1525, 1525-26 (2003) (noting the 40% decline in prison litigation in the four years following enactment of the Prison Litigation Reform Act); Udell & Diller, supra note 38, at 1151 (noting that the attorneys' fee provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, together with bans on prisoner cases by federally-funded legal services organizations, has "made it impossible for most prisoners to find legal representation").
54. Rodgers, Legal Momentum; Shaw, NAACP; Greenberger, National Women's Law Center.
55. Greenberger, National Women's Law Center; accord Herrera, Equal Rights Advocates; Rogers, Legal Momentum; Frye, National Partnership for Women and Families. 49. Rogers, Legal Momentum, accord Romero, ACLU; Fujioka, Asian Law Caucus; Kwoh, Asian Pacific American Legal Center; Herrera, Equal Rights Advocates; Arnwine, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights.
56. Olshansky, Center for Constitutional Rights. Other leaders similarly noted how fallout from 9/11 had defined the agenda on privacy issues. Romero, ACLU; Dempsey, Center for Democracy and Technology.
57. Leaders pointed to multiple examples, including recent U.S. Supreme Court victories on environmental issues, state supreme court decisions on gay marriage, and California state court decisions on health law. Kendell, National Center for Lesbian Rights; Beinecke, Natural Resources Defense Council; Rothschild, Western Center on Law and Poverty.
58. Crosby, ACLU of Northern California (crediting phrase to Ira Glasser).
59. Pendley, Mountain States Legal Foundation.
60. Rushford, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.
61. Pendley, Mountain States Legal Foundation.
62. Stevenson, Equal Justice Initiative; Bright, Southern Center for Human Rights.
63. Bernstein, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law; Paradise, Disability Rights Advocates.
64. Romero, ACLU; Kaufman, Atlantic Legal Foundation; Clegg, Center for Equal Opportunity; Gates, Children's Defense Fund; Casey, Christian Legal Society; Pendley, Mountain States Legal Foundation; Revett, Pacific Legal Foundation; Bowman, Shriver National Center on Poverty.
65. Rushford, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation; O'Toole, National Center for Youth Law; Wolfman, Public Citizen.
66. Stotland, Education Law Project; Frye, National Partnership for Women and Families; Greenberger, National Women's Law Center.
67. Parker, Earth Justice; Krupp, Environmental Defense Fund; Shaw, NAACP; Greenberger, National Women's Law Center.
68. JOEL HANDLER, SOCIAL MOVEMENTS AND THE LEGAL SYSTEM: A THEORY OF LAW REFORM AND SOCIAL CHANGE 210 (1978);
69. MICHAEL W. MCCANN, RIGHTS AT WORK: PAY EQUITY REFORM AND THE POLITICS OF LEGAL MOBILIZATION 89-90, 171-76 (1994);
70. Sandra R. Levitsky, To Lead with Law; Reassessing the Influence of Legal Advocacy Organizations in Social Movements, in CAUSE LAWYERS AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS, supra note 31, at 145, 147; Ann Southworth, Lawyers and the "Myth of Rights " in Civil Rights and Poverty Practice, 8 B.U. PUB. INT. L.J. 469, 493 (1999).
71. Kwoh, Asian Pacific American Legal Center; Steele, Electronic Frontier Foundation; Graff, Legal Aid Society of San Francisco, Employment Law Center; O'Toole, National Center for Youth Law; Beinecke, Natural Resources Defense Council; Shauffer, Youth Law Center.
72. Davison, Lambda Legal; Kendall, National Center for Lesbian Rights; Wolfman, Public Citizen.
73. Dunkerton, Community Law Center; Bowman, Shriver National Center on Poverty; Rothschild, Western Center on Law and Poverty.
74. Kamin, Bet Tzedec; Olshansky, Center for Constitutional Rights; Casey, Christian Legal Society; Ross, Human Rights Watch; Wilbur, Legal Services for Children; Perales, Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.
75. Needleman, Brooklyn Legal Services.
76. Fujioka, Asian Law Caucus.
77. Stevenson, Equal Justice Initiative; Bright, Southern Center for Human Rights.
78. Ross, Human Rights Watch.
79. Arnwine, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights (referring to well-heeled opposition).
80. That view is common among conservative public interest advocates. See Lee Edwards, The First Thirty Years, in BRINGING JUSTICE TO THE PEOPLE 11 (Lee Edwards ed., 2004); Mark R. Levin, Following the Money, in BRINGING JUSTICE TO THE PEOPLE, supra, at 165, 167.
81. GERALD P. LÓPEZ, REBELLIOUS LAWYERING: ONE CHICANO'S VISION OF PROGRESSIVE LAW PRACTICE (1992); Lynn Jones, The Haves Come Out Ahead: How Cause Lawyers Frame the Legal System for Minorities, in CAUSE LAWYERS AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS, supra note 31, at 182, 183;
82. Michael McCann & Helena Silverstein, Rethinking Law's "Allurements": A Relational Analysis of Social Movement Lawyers in the United States, in CAUSE LAWYERING: POLITICAL COMMITMENTS AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES 261, 262-64 (Austin Sarat & Stuart Scheingold eds., 1998) (discussing the critique and arguing for a more context-specific analysis).
83. Olshansky, Center for Constitutional Rights; accord Trasvina, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund; O'Toole, National Center for Youth Law; Rothenberg, New York Lawyers for the Public Interest; Shauffer, Youth Law Center.
84. GERALD N. ROSENBERG, THE HOLLOW HOPE: CAN COURTS BRING ABOUT SOCIAL CHANGE? (1991);
85. ROSS SANDLER & DAVID SCHOENBROD, DEMOCRACY BY DECREE: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN COURTS RUN GOVERNMENT (2003);
86. Kenneth Lee, Where Legal Activists Come From, AM. ENTERPRISE, June 2001, at 50.
87. STUART A. SCHEINGOLD, THE POLITICS OF RIGHTS, at xxiv (2004);
88. Steve Bachmann, Lawyers, Law, and Social Change, 13 N.Y.U. REV. L. & SOC. CHANGE 1, 3 (1984);
89. Kevin R. Den Dulk, In Legal Culture, but Not of It: The Role of Cause Lawyers in Evangelical Legal Mobilization, in CAUSE LAWYERS AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS, supra note 31, at 197, 199-200; Robert L. Rabin, Lawyers for Social Change: Perspectives on Public Interest Law, 28 STAN. L. REV. 207, 243 (1976);
90. Comment, The New Public Interest Lawyers, 79 YALE L.J. 1069, 1077 (1970) (quoting Gary Bellow).
91. Fujioka, Asian Law Caucus (movement); Gates, Children's Defense Fund (policy); Rothenberg, New York Lawyers for the Public Interest (attitudes).
92. Parker, Earth Justice; Rothschild, Western Center on Law and Poverty (citing examples of courthouse victories that produced backlash and reversal). For other examples, see sources cited in Southworth, supra note 62, at 510, and sources cited supra notes 73 and 76.
93. ARON, supra note 3, at 90 (quoting Nader).
94. For discussion of lobbying restrictions and other institutional constraints that push lawyers to litigate, see Southworth, supra note 62, at 508.
95. Charles F. Sabel & William H. Simon, Destabilization Rights: How Public Law Litigation Succeeds, 117 HARV. L. REV. 1015 (2004).
96. For the importance of framing, see JENNIFER GORDON, SUBURBAN SWEATSHOPS: THE FIGHT FOR IMMIGRANT RIGHTS 171 (2005);
97. Robert D. Benford & David A. Snow, Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment, 26 ANN. REV. SOC. 611, 615-16 (2000);
98. Bernd Simon, Individuals Groups and Social Change: On The Relationship Between Individual and Collective Self-Interpretation and Collective Action, in INTERGROUP COGNITION AND INTERGROUP BEHAVIOR 257, 260-61 (Constantine Sedikides, John Schopler & Chester A. Insko eds., 1998).
99. For the experience of unjust treatment as a basis for collective identity, see Scott A. Hunt, Robert D. Benford & David A. Snow, Identity Fields: Framing Processes and the Social Construction of Movement Identities, in NEW SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: FROM IDEOLOGY TO IDENTITY 185 (Enrique Laraña, Hank Johnston & Joseph R. Gusfield eds., 1994).
100. Southworth, supra note 62 at, and infra text accompanying notes 84-92.
101. Kendell, National Center for Lesbian Rights.
102. Fung, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund.
103. Gates, Children's Defense Fund; O'Toole, National Center for Youth Law.
104. Fung, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund; Fujioki, Asian Law Caucus; Kwoh, Asian Pacific American Legal Center; Trasvina, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund; Perales, Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. For some leaders, death threats were not uncommon. Perales, Puerto Rican Legal Fund.
105. Stevenson, Equal Justice Initiative.
106. Herrera, Equal Rights Advocate. See supra text accompanying note 48.
107. Newhouse, New England Legal Foundation; accord Revett, Pacific Legal Foundation.
108. Dempsey, Center for Democracy and Technology; Steele, Electronic Frontier Foundation.
109. Romero, ACLU; accord Fung, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund; Olshansky, Center for Constitutional Rights.
110. Kwoh, Asian Pacific American Legal Center; accord Bernstein, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law; Olshansky, Center for Constitutional Rights; Herrera, Equal Rights Advocate; Graff, Legal Services Foundation of San Francisco, Employment Law Center; Frye, National Partnership for Women and Families.
111. Olshansky, Center for Constitutional Rights; Arnwine, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights.
112. Cohen, Immigrant Legal Resources Center.
113. Crosby, ACLU of Northern California; Rogers, Legal Momentum; Rothenberg, New York Lawyers for the Public Interest.
114. Kaufman, Atlantic Legal Foundation. For criticisms of liberal public interest lawyers' elitism and radical agenda, see Edwards, supra note 72, at 6, 8.
115. Those who emphasized strategic thinking included Fung, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund; Olshansky, Center for Constitutional Rights; Parker, Earth Justice; and Gaziano, Heritage Foundation. Those who stressed the importance of multiple strategies included Paradise, Disability Rights Advocates; Stotland, Education Law Project; Stevenson, Equal Justice Initiative; Herrera, Equal Rights Advocates; Rothenberg, New York Lawyers for the Public Interest; and Bright, Southern Center for Human Rights.
116. Parker, Earth Justice; Stevenson, Equal Justice Initiative.
117. Fung, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund; Olshansky, Center for Constitutional Rights; Gaziano, Heritage Foundation.
118. Parker, Earth Justice (expressing the need to consider what it will take to achieve significant impact in a particular area); Stevenson, Equal Justice Initiative (expressing the need to identify institutional vulnerability); Gaziano, Heritage Foundation (expressing the need to select clients and causes to serve long term ends); Shauffer, Youth Law Center (expressing the need to look for opportunities for systemic change).
119. Romero, ACLU (noting that there is value in making historical record even if they lose the case); Pope, Sierra Club (noting that there is value in taking cases where delay will be financially disastrous and forcing a shift to a more environmentally responsive approach).
120. Olshansky, Center for Constitutional Rights (explaining that litigation can cause resources to be "spread too thin."); Herrera, Equal Rights Advocate; Studley, Public Advocates (describing a "scattergun" approach); Wolfman, Public Citizen; Rothschild, Western Center on Law and Poverty; Shauffer, Youth Law Center ("credible threat").
121. Needleman, Brooklyn Legal Services.
122. The source of the 1975 data is Weisbrod, supra note 2, at 55 tbl.4.5, reprinted in Nielsen & Albiston, supra note 2, at 1611. The data are not entirely comparable because the 1975 survey asked about total effort, including internal administration, included only organizations that used adjudication, and did not specify as many activities. Unlike the earlier survey, the 2007 study asked only about programmatic, not administrative, activities, included separate categories for political mobilization and research and reports, and considered administrative/regulatory as part of the category for legislation. Table 2 above includes research and reports as part of the category of "outreach," the term specified in 1975. In the 2007 study, legal work is defined as direct services or impact/test case litigation.
123. Only one group reported doing more than 4% of its work outside the categories; the Environmental Defense Fund spends 25% of its time on "partnerships with companies." Survey Result: Krupp, Environmental Defense Fund.
124. Fujioka, Asian Law Caucus; Needleman, Brooklyn Legal Services; Dunkerton, Community Law Center; Ross, Human Rights Watch; Studley, Public Advocates.
125. Arnwine, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights.
126. For sister organizations, see Rogers, Legal Momentum; Greenberger, National Women's Law Center; and infra text following note 182. For industry groups, see Gaziano, Heritage Foundation; Newhouse, New England Legal Foundation; and infra text accompanying note 183.
127. Gates, Children's Defense Fund; Kendell, National Center for Lesbian Rights; Beneicke, Natural Resources Defense Council; see also STEPHEN TELLES, THE RISE OF THE CONSERVATIVE LEGAL MOVEMENT 244 (2007).
128. Clegg, Center for Equal Opportunity; Paradise, Disability Rights Advocates; Krupp, Environmental Defense Fund; Gaziano, Heritage Foundation; Ross, Human Rights Watch; Beneicke, Natural Resources Defense Council.
129. The ACLU had formal processes every two years involving retreats, reports, subcommittees, and staff from all offices. Crosby, ACLU of Northern California. The Brooklyn Legal Services office has an annual review that includes a demographic analysis of the community and its needs and a questionnaire response from community members. Needleman, Brooklyn Legal Services. The Sierra Club convenes its members about every four or five years to identify concerns and engages in more formal staff-driven planning in the intervening years. Pope, Sierra Club.
130. Arnwine, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights.
131. Current federal regulations require recipients of federal funds to: include an effective appraisal of the needs of eligible clients in the geographic area served by the recipient, and their relative importance, based on information received from potential or current eligible clients that is solicited in a manner reasonably calculated to obtain the views of all significant segments of the client population. The appraisal must also include and be based on information from the recipient's employees, governing body members, the private bar, and other interested persons. The appraisal should address the need for outreach, training of the recipient's employees, and support services.
132. C.F.R. § 1620.3 (2008).
133. Newhouse, New England Legal Foundation (explaining that it consults business advisory groups in each state in the region); Rothschild, Western Center on Law and Poverty (explaining that it consults local providers).
134. Crosby, ACLU of Northern California.
135. Romero, ACLU; accord Fung, Asian Law Caucus; Kaufman, Atlantic Legal Foundation; Kamin, Bet Tzdek; Parker, Earth Justice; Herrera, Equal Rights Advocates; Rogers, Legal Momentum; O'Toole, National Center for Youth Law; Beneicke, Natural Resources Defense Council; Bowman, Shriver National Center on Poverty.
136. Davison, Lambda Legal.
137. Casey, Christian Legal Services; accord Revett, Pacific Legal Foundation.
138. Olshansky, Center for Constitutional Rights; Perales, Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. Stotland of the Education Law Project also reported serious staff cuts when government funds dried up.
139. Cohen, Immigrant Legal Resource Center.
140. Krupp, Environmental Defense Fund (explaining that the Fund works on problems that are fundable); Beneicke, Natural Resources Defense Council (explaining that membership provided flexibility).
141. Needleman, Brooklyn Legal Services.
142. Kaufman, Atlantic Legal Foundation; Clegg, Center for Equal Opportunity; Steele, Electronic Frontier Foundation.
143. Bright, Southern Center for Human Rights.
144. Parker, Earth Justice. So, for example, the Pacific Northwest office focused on salmon and old growth forests, while the Alaska office emphasized preservation of the national forest and oil and energy issues.
145. Gates, Children's Defense Fund.
146. Krupp, Environmental Defense Fund.
147. Rogers, Legal Momentum; accord Kendell, National Center for Lesbian Rights.
148. Rothenberg, New York Lawyers for the Public Interest.
149. Pendley, Mountain States Legal Foundation.
150. Davison, Lambda Legal; Bouman, Shriver National Center on Poverty; accord Crosby, ACLU of Northern California (noting that litigation more expensive); Herrera, Equal Rights Advocates (noting that litigation is more expensive); Rodgers, Legal Momentum ("There's no cushion."); Trasvina, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (noting that the size of community is growing); Rothschild, Western Center on Law and Poverty ("We're seeing more and more people with more complex issues.").
151. Romero, ACLU.
152. Crosby, ACLU of Northern California; accord Newhouse, New England Legal Foundation; Shauffer, Youth Law Center.
153. Herrera, Equal Rights Advocate.
154. The unwillingness to provide general support was cited by Fung, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund; Herrera, Equal Rights Advocate; Arnwine, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights. The reluctance to fund litigation was also noted by Kwoh, Asian Pacific American Legal Center; Olshansky, Center for Constitutional Rights; Parker, Earth Justice; Arnwine, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights; Graff, Legal Aid Society of San Francisco, Employment Law Center; Rogers, Legal Momentum; Wilbur, Legal Services for Children; Davison, Lambda Legal; Frye, National Partnership for Women and Families; Studley, Public Advocates; and Shauffer, Youth Law Center.
155. Wilbur, Legal Services for Children.
156. The lack of expertise was noted by Parker, Earth Justice; and Cohen, Immigrant Legal Resource Center.
157. Shaw, NAACP ("newer hotter issues"); accord Bernstein, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law; Gates, Children's Defense Fund ("measurable outcomes"); Arnwine, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights (discussing novelty).
158. Arnwine, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights; see also Perales, Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (noting that newer foundations were less likely to support civil rights work).
159. See Bruce Sievers, Philanthropy's Blindspots, in JUST MONEY: A CRITIQUE OF CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN PHILANTHROPY 131-33 (H. Peter Karoff ed., 2004).
160. See Paul Brest, Strategic Philanthropy and Its Malcontents, in MORAL LEADERSHIP: THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF POWER, JUDGMENT, AND POLICY 229, 230-31, 243 (Deborah L. Rhode ed., 2006).
161. PETER FRUMKIN, STRATEGIC GIVING: THE ART AND SCIENCE OF PHILANTHROPY 333-35 (2006).
162. Restrictive legal services conditions were cited by O'Toole, National Center for Youth Law; Bouman, Shriver National Center on Poverty. See also sources cited supra note 43. Those discussing other cutbacks in government funds included Kamin, Bet Tzedek; and Stotland, Education Law Project.
163. Pendley, Mountain States Legal Foundation; Fujioka, Asian Law Caucus; Revett, Pacific Legal Foundation; Rothschild, Western Center on Law and Poverty.
164. See, e.g., Gina Lobaco, Going Hollywood: L.A.-Style Fund-Raising Supports Legal Services That the Feds Won't, CAL. LAW., May 2007, at 24-25, 63 (describing events and their inability to generate significant funds in small communities).
165. The leader of Atlantic Legal Foundation, Martin Kaufman, indicated that he spent "little" time fundraising. This was coded as 10%, which was the lowest percentage reported by any group that responded to the question.
166. "Too much" was the description of a leader who devoted 20%, Fung, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, as well as one who devoted 50%, Arnwine, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, and one who devoted 65%, Bernstein, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law. "Not enough" came from individuals who devoted 15%, Bright, Southern Center for Human Rights, 40%, Trasvina, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and 50%, O'Toole, National Center for Youth Law. To Shaw, director of the NAACP, fundraising was "more than I'd like and not enough."
167. Cohen, Immigrant Legal Resource Center.
168. Clegg, Center for Equal Opportunity.
169. Rogers, Legal Momentum.
170. Shaw, NAACP; Pope, Sierra Club.
171. NALP, 2006 PUBLIC SECTOR & PUBLIC INTEREST ATTORNEY SALARY REPORT 16-20 (2006). Where leaders indicated that their organizations pay two different salaries depending on experience, the salaries were averaged.
172. Fujioka, Asian Law Caucus (citing competition); Olshansky, Center for Constitutional Rights (New York); Parker, Earth Justice (Honolulu, San Francisco); Pope, Sierra Club (San Francisco Bay Area). For salary wars among New York public interest and public sector organizations, see Hilary Potkewitz, Public Lawyer Pay Wars, CRAIN'S N.Y. BUS., Mar. 12, 2007, at 2.
173. Crosby, ACLU of Northern California; Parker, Earth Justice; Kendell, National Center for Lesbian Rights; Shauffer, Youth Law Center; see also Sandhya Bathija, Loans Not Filling Public Service Gap, NAT'L LAW J., Nov. 13, 2006, at 1, 26 (quoting Jonathan Smith, director of the Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia, regarding the difficulty of finding lawyers who themselves grew up in poverty).
174. Dempsey, Center for Democracy and Technology; accord Perales, Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.
175. Kwoh, Asian Pacific American Legal Center ("25-30 applicants for every slot"); Studley, Public Advocates (explaining that there are one hundred candidates for every fellowship and describing applicants as "dazzling"); Wolfman, Public Citizen (describing applicants as "great").
176. Bouman, Shriver National Center on Poverty ("immensely attractive"); accord Paradise, Disability Rights Advocates ("People want to work for a good cause."); Steele, Electronic Frontier Foundation (describing decent hours, benefits, and collaborative decision making); Cohen, Immigrant Legal Resource Center.
177. Stevenson, Equal Justice Initiative (noting that Montgomery was a "difficult place to live for progressive public interest lawyers"); see also Bathija, supra note 155, at 20 (discussing unattractive locations).
178. Crosby, ACLU of Northern California; accord Shaw, NAACP ("People don't leave."); Studley, Public Advocates ("Everyone wants to stay.").
179. Studley, Public Advocates; Wolfman, Public Citizen.
180. Greenberger, National Women's Law Center; accord O'Toole, National Center for Youth Law (noting that more of their top applicants came from "backgrounds of means"); Studley, Public Advocates (noting the difficulty for lawyers with debts unless they had income through a partner).
181. Padilla, California Rural Legal Assistance; Paradise, Disability Rights Advocates.
182. See ABA COMM'N ON LOAN REPAYMENT & FORGIVENESS, LIFTING THE BURDEN: LAW STUDENT DEBT AS A BARRIER TO PUBLIC SERVICE (2003); EQUAL JUSTICE WORKS ET AL., FROM PAPER CHASE TO MONEY CHASE: LAW SCHOOL DEBT DIVERTS ROAD TO PUBLIC SERVICE (2002).
183. See David L. Chambers, The Burdens of Educational Loans: The Impacts of Debt on Job Choice and Standards of Living for Students at Nine American Law Schools, 42 J. LEGAL EDUC. 187 (1992);
184. Lewis A. Kornhauser & Richard L. Revesz, Legal Education and Entry into the Legal Profession: The Role of Race, Gender, and Educational Debt, 70 N.Y.U. L. REV. 829 (1995);
185. Christa McGill, Educational Debt and Law Student Failure to Enter Public Service Careers: Bringing Empirical Data to Bear, 31 L. & SOC. INQUIRY 677 (2006). The only study finding that debt had a significant impact on entry into public interest jobs, EQUAL JUSTICE WORKS ET AL., supra note 164, had significant methodological limitations, including a 4% response rate. See McGill, supra note 165, at 679-80. However, as Scott Cummings has noted, most data finding a more limited impact were collected before the recent escalation in debt levels. E-mail from Scott Cummings, Professor of Law, UCLA Law School, to author (Jan. 25, 2008) (on file with author).
186. EQUAL JUSTICE WORKS, FINANCING THE FUTURE: RESPONSES TO THE RISING DEBT OF LAW STUDENTS 6-7 (2d ed. 2006).
187. Since that survey, a number of schools have expanded their programs. See Jonathan D. Glater, Harvard Law, Hoping Students Will Consider Public Service, Offers Tuition Break, N.Y. TIMES, March 18, 2008, at A14.
188. EQUAL JUSTICE WORKS, supra note 168, at 10.
189. Id. at 24.
190. Nancy H. Rogers, Preserving the Route to Public Service Careers, AALS NEWSL., Apr. 2007, at 2 (quoting Kurt Schmoke). For example, twenty-four law school loan forgiveness programs limit their benefits to five years or less, and nineteen limit them to between six and ten years. About half have salary caps below $45,000. EQUAL JUSTICE WORKS, supra note 166, at 13-14.
191. See Erica Field, Educational Debt Burden and Career Choice: Evidence from a Financial Aid Experiment at NYU Law School, (Princeton Univ. Indus. Relations Section, Working Paper No. 469, 2002), available at http://harris.princeton.edu/pubs/pdfs/469.pdf.
192. NALP FOUND, FOR LAW CAREER RESEARCH & EDUC. & AMER. BAR FOUND., AFTER THE JD: FIRST RESULTS OF A NATIONAL STUDY OF LEGAL CAREERS 72 (2004).
193. College Cost Reduction and Access Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1001 (2000). For discussion, see Philip G. Schrag, Federal Student Loan Repayment Assistance for Public Interest Lawyers and Other Employees of Governments and Nonprofit Organizations, 36 HOFSTRA L. REV. 27 (2007).
194. See EQUAL JUSTICE WORKS, supra note 166, at 17-19.
195. Non-litigating organizations included the Children's Defense Fund, the Heritage Foundation, and Human Rights Watch. The Environmental Defense Fund and Sierra Club relied on their own members.
196. Fung, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund; Graff, Legal Aid Foundation of San Francisco, Employment Law Center.
197. Rodgers, Legal Momentum; accord Fung, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund; Clegg, Center for Equal Opportunity; Casey, Christian Legal Society; Paradise, Disability Rights Advocates; Steele, Electronic Frontier Foundation; Revett, Pacific Legal Foundation.
198. Wolfman, Public Citizen; accord Arnwine, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights.
199. Kaufman, Atlantic Legal Foundation; Rushford, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation; Davison, Lambda Legal; Pendley, Mountain States Legal Foundation; Trasvina, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund; Beinecke, Natural Resources Defense Council.
200. Wolfman, Public Citizen.
201. Shauffer, Youth Law Center.
202. ABA Model Rule 7.3(a) prohibits direct contact with prospective clients if a "significant motive" for the contact is the lawyer's "pecuniary gain." MODEL RULES OF PROF'L CONDUCT 7.3(A) (1983). The only Supreme Court case on point held that the bar's prohibitions on solicitation could not be constitutionally applied to direct client contacts by a cooperating ACLU attorney where that attorney would not be entitled to any fee recovery. See In re Primus, 436 U.S. 412 (1978). The Court specifically reserved the issue of whether a different policy on attorneys' fees would have altered the result. Id. at 431 n.24.
203. For a sample, see Anthony V. Alfieri, Practicing Community, 107 HARV. L. REV. 1747 (1994) (book review);
204. Alan Houseman, Civil Legal Assistance for Low-Income Persons: Looking Back and Looking Forward, 29 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 1213 (2002);
205. Shauna I. Marshall, Mission Impossible?: Ethical Community Lawyering, 7 CLINICAL L. REV. 147 (2001);
206. William P. Quigley, Reflections of Community Organizers: Lawyering for Empowerment of Community Organizations, 21 OHIO N.U. L. REV. 455 (1995);
207. Paul R. Tremblay, Toward a Community-Based Ethic for Legal Services Practice, 37 UCLA L. REV. 1101 (1990).
208. Newhouse, New England Legal Foundation; accord Kaufman, Atlantic Legal Foundation; Revett, Pacific Legal Foundation.
209. Dempsey, Center for Democracy and Technology; Steele, Electronic Frontier Foundation.
210. Shauffer, Youth Law Center.
211. Davison, Lambda Legal.
212. Trasvina, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund.
213. Pope, Sierra Club. Conservative groups have employed the same strategy to break down stereotypes that they represent only rich business interests. See TELLES, supra note 110, at 245.
214. Shaw, NAACP.
215. Trasvina, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund.
216. Paradise, Disability Rights Advocates.
217. Kamin, Bet Tzedek; Casey, Christian Legal Society. For the importance of collaborative relationships in developing holistic services, see DEBORAH L. RHODE, ACCESS TO JUSTICE 118-19 (2004) and sources cited therein.
218. O'Toole, Youth Law Center; accord Fujioka, Asian Law Caucus (describing expectation that caucus would provide direct services as well as represent organizations and serve as the "voice of the community" on all its concerns).
219. Bouman, Shriver National Center on Poverty.
220. Romero, ACLU; accord Studley, Public Advocates.
221. Greenberger, National Women's Law Center.
222. Kwoh, Asian Pacific American Legal Center; Kaufman, Atlantic Legal Foundation; Rodgers, Legal Momentum; Greenberger, National Women's Law Center.
223. Krupp, Environmental Defense Fund.
224. Beinecke, Natural Resources Defense Council.
225. Dempsey, Center for Democracy and Technology. Others stressed tension over when to compromise. Krupp, Environmental Defense Fund; Bouman, Shriver National Center on Poverty. For a case history on point, see Scott L. Cummings, Mobilization Lawyering: Community Economic Development in the Figueroa Corridor, in CAUSE LAWYERS AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS, supra note 31, at 302, 329.
226. For a general discussion, see Quigley, supra note 182. Such tensions can arise with activist groups in the environmental and gay rights movement, as well as in community law practice.
227. Romero, ACLU.
228. For internal divisions, see Dunkerton, Community Law Center; and Michael Diamond & Aaron O'Toole, Leaders, Followers, and Free Riders: The Community Lawyer's Dilemma When Representing Non-Democratic Client Organizations, 31 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 481 (2004).
229. Rodgers, Legal Momentum.
230. See Gerald P. López, Living and Lawyering Rebelliously, 73 FORDHAM L. REV. 2041 (2005);
231. Gerald P. López, Shaping Community Problem Solving Around Community Knowledge, 79 N.Y.U. L. REV. 59 (2004);
232. Ascanio Piomelli, The Democratic Roots of Collaborative Lawyering, 12 CLINICAL L. REV. 541 (2006);
233. Lucie White, "Democracy" in Development Practice: Essays on a Fugitive Theme, 64 TENN. L. REV. 1073 (1997).
234. Paradise, Disability Rights Advocates.
235. O'Toole, Youth Law Center.
236. Gates, Children's Defense Fund; Gaziano, Heritage Foundation; Shaw, NAACP.
237. Only 12% of leaders reported turf problems in grassroots collaborations and 3% in public or private sector collaborations. See supra text following note 193. Forty percent of leaders reported these problems in pro bono collaborations. See infra text following note 225.
238. Leaders who reported the problem included Bernstein, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law; Kamin, Bet Tzedek; Olshansky, Center for Constitutional Rights; Dunkerton, Community Law Center; Krupp, Environmental Defense Fund; Herrera, Equal Rights Advocates; Gaziano Heritage Foundation; Cohen, Immigrant Legal Resource Center; Shaw, NAACP; Frye, National Partnership for Women and Families; Beinecke, Natural Resources Defense Council; Trasvina, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund.
239. Peter Teague, quoted in MICHAEL SHELLENBERGER & TED NORDHAUS, THE DEATH OF ENVIRONMENTALEM 33 (2004).
240. Frye, National Partnership for Women and Families.
241. Pope, Sierra Club.
242. Leaders who noted such problems included Shaw, NAACP; Frye, National Partnership for Women and Families; Greenberger, National Women's Law Center; Studley, Public Advocates; Bouman, Shriver National Center on Poverty.
243. Pope, Sierra Club.
244. Rodgers, Legal Momentum; accord Dempsey Center for Democracy and Technology.
245. Krupp, Environmental Defense Fund; Pope, Sierra Club.
246. About 10% of leaders reported moderate or extensive difficulties in grassroots or government and private sector collaborations and about 15% reported such difficulties in pro bono collaboration. See supra text accompanying note 199and infra text accompanying note 236.
247. Fung, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (political climate); Gates, Children's Defense Fund (same page); Stotland, Education Law Project (different views). Tensions over compromises were noted by Crosby, ACLU; Dempsey, Center for Democracy and Technology; Shaw, NAACP. Those who mentioned difficulties in general included Krupp, Environmental Defense Fund; Paradise, Disability Rights Advocates; Beinecke, Natural Resources Defense Council; Wolfman, Public Citizen; Rothschild, Western Center on Law and Poverty.
248. Gaziano, Heritage Foundation.
249. Crosby, ACLU, Northern California (elbows); Wolfman, Public Citizen (little unpleasantness); Rothschild, Western Center on Poverty Law (personality clashes).
250. Pendley, Mountain States Legal Foundation; Revett, Pacific Legal Foundation; Wolfman, Public Citizen.
251. Gates, Children's Defense Fund; Ross, Human Rights Watch. Although some lawyers had experience with international law, they seldom had the kind of background in the local culture that Human Rights Watch required for the bulk of its work.
252. Leaders who affiliated pro bono counsel on all their large cases included Kwoh, Asian Pacific American Legal Center; Davison, Lambda Legal; Greenberger, National Women's Law Center; Shauffer, Youth Law Center. Leaders who used pro bono lawyers in three-quarters of cases included Kendell, National Center for Lesbian Rights; Perales, Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. Leaders who affiliated with pro bono counsel in at least half of their cases included Crosby, ACLU Northern California; Fung, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund; Paradise, Disability Rights Advocates; Shaw, NAACP. Others who indicated extensive use included Romero, ACLU; Kamin, Bet Tzedek; Survey Result: Rogers, Legal Momentum.
253. Perales, Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund; accord Greenberger, National Women's Law Center.
254. Arnwine, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights (wouldn't be listed or had public relations department); Greenberger, National Women's Law Center (limelight).
255. Shaw, NAACP.
256. Shaw, NAACP; accord Paradise, Disability Rights Advocates; Rodgers, Legal Momentum.
257. Romero, ACLU; Herrera, Equal Rights Advocates.
258. Crosby, ACLU, Northern California (gave opportunities away, even if moots required); Kwoh, Asian Pacific American Legal Center (lead counsel); Rothenberg, New York Lawyers for the Public Interest (gave lawyers opportunities).
259. Herrera, Equal Rights Advocates; Bouman, Shriver National Center on Poverty; accord Pope, Sierra Club (firm sometimes fail to grasp long term implications).
260. Romero, ACLU; Rushford, Criminal Justice Foundation; Rodgers, Legal Momentum; Trasvina, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund.
261. Stevenson, Equal Justice Initiative.
262. Kamin, Bet Tzedek. Other organizations did continuing legal education in areas where volunteers could provide adequate representation, such as school discipline cases. Stotland, Education Law Project.
263. Rothschild, Western Center on Law and Poverty.
264. Bright, Southern Center for Human Rights; accord Kaufman, Atlantic Legal Foundation (noting difficulties in relying on firms at "crunch time").
265. Fung, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund; Fujioka, Asian Law Caucus; Paradise, Disability Rights Advocates; O'Toole, National Center for Youth Law; Pope, Sierra Club. A growing number of law firms find that strategy effective as well. For examples, see Ben Hallman, Starting at the Top, AM. LAW., July 2007, at 92, 94.
266. Kamin, Bet Tzedek (noting lawyers' preference to handle cases themselves); Kendell, National Center for Lesbian Rights (noting need to train junior lawyers); Bouman, Shriver National Center on Poverty (noting work involved in developing cases). Other leaders who cited staff concerns included Steele, Electronic Frontier Foundation; Gaziano, Heritage Foundation; Wilber, Legal Services for Children; O'Toole, National Center for Youth Law; Frye, National Partnership for Women and Families; Perales, Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. See also supra text accompanying note 222, discussing lawyers' preferences.
267. Fujioka, Asian Law Caucus; Padilla, California Rural Legal Assistance.
268. Casey, Christian Legal Society; Paradise, Disability Rights Advocates; Steele, Electronic Frontier Foundation; Herrera, Equal Rights Advocate; Rothenberg, New York Lawyers for the Public Interest; Padilla, Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. Concerns include not just actual conflicts but positional or business conflicts. For a general discussion, see RHODE & LUBAN, supra note 3, at 589-92.
269. Graff, Legal Aid Foundation of San Francisco, Employment Law Center.
270. Stevenson, Equal Justice Initiative.
271. Kaufman, Atlantic Legal Foundation (noting that "Big Law Firms" seemed to favor work for indigents or criminal defendants); Clegg, Center for Equal Opportunity (noting that many firms were reluctant to be on the conservative side but that it was possible to tap into the Federalist Society); Rushford, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (noting that their causes were not popular with law firm pro bono programs but that support was likely to grow); see Vivia Chen, Rise of the Right, AM. LAW., July 2007, at 114-17 (noting some firms' resistance to conservative pro bono work, but other firms' increasing willingness to support such representation).
272. Fujioka, Asian Law Caucus; Needleman, Brooklyn Legal Services; Shauffer, Youth Law Center; see also Graff, Employment Law Center (cases involving injunctive relief and low wages unattractive to private lawyers).
273. See DEBORAH L. RHODE, PRO BONO IN PRINCIPLE AND IN PRACTICE 30-32 (2005);
274. New Approaches to Access to Legal Services: Research, Practice, and Policy, RESEARCHING LAW: AN ABF UPDATE, Summer 2005, at 1, 5-6.
275. The number of lawyers in their 50s and 60s will triple in the next two decades. See Michael Aneiro, Room to Improve, AM. LAW., July 2006, at 100, 103 (quoting Esther Lardent).
276. For examples of pro bono programs for retired attorneys, see In Focus: The Senior Lawyer Public Interest Project, WASH. LAW., Dec. 2006, at 30.
277. Ashby Jones, Law Firms Willing to Pay to Work for Nothing, WALL ST. J., June 19, 2007, at B1 (noting Lawyers Without Borders requires $7,500 and Lawyers for the Arts gives preferences).
278. Firms vary in their practices concerning fee awards; some donate the full amount, while others keep all or some of the recoveries to support their pro bono work. Carlyn Kolker, The Good Fight, AM. LAW., July, 2006, at 125-26;
279. Anat Rubin, Pro Bono Has "Benefits Beyond the Heart," L.A. DAILY J., May 18, 2006, at 1. Organizations may also be more willing to affiliate pro bono counsel whose practice is to donate fees. Studley, Public Advocates.
280. New Approaches to Access to Legal Services: Research, Practice, and Policy, supra note 245, at 7.
281. RHODE, supra note 245, at 19-20 (estimating that American lawyers' average pro bono contribution, broadly defined to include not just public interest organizations, was less than half an hour a week and half a dollar a day); Aneiro, supra note 246, at 100 (noting that only slightly over a third of attorneys at the 200 most profitable firms performed at least 20 hours of work); Aric Press, Drawing the Line, AM. LAW., July 2007, at 119 (defining what constitutes "pro bono").
282. For example, more courts or bar associations could require reporting of contributions. Only five states now have such requirements. See ABA State-by-State Pro Bono Service Rules, http://www.abanet.org/legalservices/ probono/stateethicsrules.html. For the value of such rules, see RHODE, supra note 245, at 167-69. Since Florida imposed such a requirement, the number of hours devoted to assisting the poor has grown by 160%, and financial contributions have grown by 243%. STANDING COMMITTEE ON PRO BONO LEGAL SERVICE, REPORT TO THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA, THE FLORIDA BAR, AND THE FLORIDA BAR FOUNDATION ON THE VOLUNTARY PRO BONO ATTORNEY PLAN (2006). For student efforts to increase information about pro bono contributions, see G.M. Filisko, Students Aim for BigLaw Change, ABA J., Dec. 2007, at 28; Building a Better Legal Profession, http://www.betterlegalprofession.org/; Posting of Peter Schmidt to the Chronicle of Higher Education News Blog, Advocates of Diversity Grasp for Ways to Drive Change in Legal Profession, http://chronicle.com/news/article/3519/ advocates-of-diversity-grasp-for-sticks-to-drive-change-in-legal-profession (Nov. 29, 2007).
283. Padilla, California Rural Legal Assistance. For examples of outreach efforts to underserved groups, see RHODE, supra note 192, at 118-19. For the need for greater monitoring of the quality of pro bono services, see RHODE, supra note 245, at 184-85. For Maryland's efforts to assess how well pro bono contributions address unmet needs, see Cynthia Dipasquale, Pro Bono Reporting Requirements Help Maryland Lawyers Measure Up, DAILY REC. (Baltimore), Feb. 16, 2007. For recommendations of what courts and bar associations should do, see ILLINOIS REPORT OF THE SPECIAL SUPREME COURT COMMITTEE ON PRO BONO LEGAL SERVICES 6 (Dec. 2003).
284. Oliver A. Houck, With Charity for All, 93 YALE L.J. 1415, 1441 (1984); accord ARON, supra note 3, at 6.
285. Comment, supra note 76.
286. Id. at 1130.