By Tom Lininger[*]

[download pdf]      

[Editor's Note:  This piece is the third part of a dialogue between Lininger and Samuel Bagenstos.  Bagenstos's previous post is here; it was a response to Lininger's article, From Park Place to Community Chest: Rethinking Lawyers' Monopoly, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2007), 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 155 (2007) (link).]          

My hat is off to Professor Sam Bagenstos.   Not only has he made a number of incisive points in his reply to my essay, but his record as a civil rights attorney provides a superlative model of public-spirited lawyering.   Unfortunately, most attorneys lack Professor Bagenstos's motivation to advocate for the public good.   Given this reluctance, a system that relies primarily on lawyers' voluntary choices will continue to underserve the legal needs of the poor.   The status quo simply isn't working.

By Samuel R. Bagenstos[*]

[download pdf]      

[Editor's Note:  This piece is a response to Tom Lininger's article From Park Place to Community Chest: Rethinking Lawyers' Monopoly, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2007), 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 155 (2007) (link).]          

Not to put too fine a point on it:  Professor Lininger[1]  thinks Professor Rhode[2]  wimps out.  Her "heart is in the right place," but she too readily draws back from proposing mandatory pro bono service.[3]  In this brief response, I want to up the ante.  If Professor Lininger thinks Professor Rhode is a wimp, I think they're both hopeless goo-goos.[4]  We currently have a system of civil rights enforcement that harnesses the profit motive of plaintiffs' attorneys to encourage the prosecution of violations of civil rights laws.  That system may seem crass and disreputable to those who believe that lawyers should bring civil rights actions out of the goodness of their hearts (perhaps while singing "Kumbaya" or, for those of a more lefty persuasion, "If I Had a Hammer").  But it's the best system of civil rights enforcement we've found.

By Tom Lininger

Editor’s Note:  This week we deviate from our standard Colloquy Essays and Posts format to publish a special feature, a Review Essay forthcoming in the Northwestern University Law Review.   In this Essay, Professor Tom Lininger reviews Pro Bono in Principle and in Practice:   Public Service and the Professions by Deborah L. Rhode, and pleads to the legal community to exceed Prof. Rhode's rather modest suggestions for curing our current pro bono crisis.   He suggests several courses of action aimed at mitigating our current dearth—indisputable whether measured against other professions or other nations—of altruistic legal representation, including greater focus in law schools and a mandatory minimum hours of pro bono commitment by members of state bars.

Download the PDF here.