Paying attorneys to move to rural areas

April 17, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The American Bar Association called on federal, state and local governments to do something about the decline in the number of lawyers practicing in rural areas. South Dakota has decided to pay attorneys to relocate to its state’s rural areas.

The state is the first to reimburse people for their law school tuition in order to entice recent grads to consider rural locales over urban ones. The legislation signed by Gov. Dennis Daugaard last month creates a four-year pilot program for counties with a population of 10,000 or less. Those counties will have to pay 35 percent of an incentive payment to the attorneys; the state bar will pay 15 percent, with the state paying the remaining amounts. The incentive payment is equal to 90 percent of the resident tuition for the University of South Dakota School of Law. According to the law school's website, a first-year student enrolled for the 2012-2013 school year will pay $13,288 in tuition and fees if he or she is a resident.

Attorneys who participate must practice law on a full-time basis in the eligible county for five years; the payment will also be distributed over the five-year period. It begins July 1. The program will accept no more than 16 for the time being.

The state appropriated from its general fund $475,000 to the Unified Judicial System to cover the payments.

Leaving before the five-year period ends will require the attorney to repay all sums received. Not doing so is grounds for discipline, according to the legislation.

According to the New York Times, nearly one in four Americans live in rural areas, but only two percent of the country’s small law firms are in these less-dense areas. In South Dakota, 65 percent of attorneys are in just four counties.

This is not a problem unique to South Dakota. Rural parts of Indiana also face a dearth of available attorneys, especially for pro bono work. Charles Dunlap, executive director of the Indiana Bar Foundation, called the situation here a “crisis.”

At a time when many recent law school graduates are struggling to find employment in the legal field, this type of legislation could be very attractive – a virtually guaranteed job for five years and a portion of your student loans are paid back. But, if you are a 26-year-old fresh out of school, do you want to move to a place where the population is small, entertainment and nightlife options may be limited, and you likely won’t know anyone?

Firms in smaller cities here have noted they have a hard time attracting and keeping women and minority attorneys because many young lawyers want to work in larger metropolitan areas.

What do you think about the South Dakota initiative? Should Indiana take a look at funding a similar program? Who should be responsible for funding it and where would the money come from?
 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Ageism: Implied or Expressed?
    "Firms in smaller cities here have noted they have a hard time attracting and keeping women and minority attorneys because many young lawyers want to work in larger metropolitan areas." This statement presumes that only "women and minority attorneys" are all "young lawyers." Are these law firms in smaller cities only interested in recruiting young lawyers? Clearly, ageism is implied if not expressed in this conclusion.
  • imminent crisis! sound the klaxon
    I guess the rural folk will have to suffer with old white guy lawyers. I wonder if they will ever survive. ! What will they ever do.

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
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT