ILNews

Bodensteiner: Too many lawyers? The problem may be one of ‘allocation’

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

ivan Bodensteiner DeanSince I am currently serving as the interim dean of the Valparaiso University Law School, you may discount everything I say about this topic because you assume law schools have a vested interest in arguing against the generally accepted wisdom that there are, in fact, too many lawyers in the United States. This generally accepted wisdom may be accurate, but I think we should at least test it a bit.

Whether there are too many lawyers in this country depends on what we expect from our system of “justice.” We recently completed a week of orientation for more than 200 students who began their first year of law school Aug. 19. As part of the orientation, we talked to them about what it means to be a lawyer, including the importance of representing individuals whose cause is not popular and representing individuals who lack the resources to pay for representation.

Let’s assume for the moment that the legal profession is serious about the lofty principles it promotes, such as “equal justice” and “justice for all,” then ask whether we have enough lawyers to achieve those goals. No doubt the recent dip in the economy has made it difficult for many lawyers to succeed financially. But, is that because we have too many lawyers? Or, is it because we tolerate a system of “justice” that requires people to pay to participate equally? Maybe we have the proper number of lawyers, or even too few, but we do not allocate them effectively.

As a general rule, in our society your resources determine your access to goods and services. Should that rule prevail when the “good” or “service” is access to justice? If not, then we as part of the key profession need to improve the system. Further, I believe we need to improve access to the profession itself because the system loses credibility when the key players do not reflect the demographics of society. Many have commented on the recently concluded Trayvon Martin trial. I have heard and read the comments of well-informed lawyers, black and white, suggesting that the jury verdict was proper in light of Florida law and the evidence presented at trial.

Of course, not all lawyers agree, but let’s assume for the moment that the assessment stated above is accurate – that is, a reasonable, unbiased jury could properly acquit the accused. Why, then, is the verdict so controversial, particularly among African-Americans? At least to some extent, I believe, the outrage and criticism can be traced to a general distrust of the criminal justice system, at least among those who are not adequately represented in the system. Perception is important, maybe even more important than reality. Would the perception be different if there had been several black jurors on the jury that acquitted the accused, or if there had been more black players in the system?

When I think about our criminal justice system, I am always reminded of Justice William Brennan’s dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun and John Paul Stevens, in McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987), the case that rejected an equal protection challenge to a capital sentence in Georgia. In challenging the implementation of the death penalty in Georgia, McClesky relied on the “Baldus study” showing a racial disparity in the imposition of the death penalty in Georgia. Justice Brennan stated:

“At some point in this case, Warren McCleskey doubtless asked his lawyer whether a jury was likely to sentence him to die. A candid reply to this question would have been disturbing. First, counsel would have to tell McCleskey that few of the details of the crime or of McCleskey’s past criminal conduct were more important than the fact that his victim was white. Furthermore, counsel would feel bound to tell McCleskey that defendants charged with killing white victims in Georgia are 4.3 times as likely to be sentenced to death as defendants charged with killing blacks. . . . Finally, the assessment would not be complete without the information that cases involving black defendants and white victims are more likely to result in a death sentence than cases featuring any other racial combination of defendant and victim. The story could be told in a variety of ways, but McCleskey could not fail to grasp its essential narrative line: there was a significant chance that race would play a prominent role in determining if he lived or died.” (citations omitted)

The Urban Institute recently published the results of a study by John K. Roman titled “Race, Justifiable Homicide, and Stand Your Ground Laws: Analysis of FBI Supplementary Homicide Report Data.” It states that “the rate of justifiable homicides is almost six times higher in case[s] with attributes that match the Martin case. Racial disparities are much larger, as white-on-black homicides have justifiable findings 33 percentage points more often than black-on-white homicides. Stand your Ground laws appear to exacerbate those differences, as cases overall are significantly more likely to be ruled justified in SYG states than in non-SYG states . . . .” Roman indicates that the study has limitations, but these findings are disturbing.

The American Bar Association has noted that there are not enough racial minorities in the profession. Former Justice Randall Shepherd recognized that years ago when he started the Indiana Conference for Legal Education Opportunity program, commonly knows as ICLEO. We will increase the number of racial minorities in the profession only by increasing their enrollment in law schools. A reduction in enrollment in law schools because there are too many lawyers will tend to lock in, at least for a period of time, the disproportionately low number of racial minorities in the profession. As I welcomed our incoming class of students during orientation, I was particularly pleased by the fact that more than 45 percent of them were from a group referred to as “underrepresented minorities.”

The burden of eliminating racial disparities in our criminal justice system cannot be placed on black attorneys. It is our problem. But, racial equality may be given a higher priority when racial minorities are better represented in the legal profession. If we change the job description of the profession to include universal access to legal representation, we may conclude we do not have too many lawyers.•

__________

Ivan Bodensteiner, a nationally recognized authority on constitutional law and civil rights, is the interim dean at Valparaiso University Law School. He has served as interim dean since March 2013.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT