Too many lawyers

I have been an active solo practitioner in California for the last 10 years and, in my view, the whole field is a huge mess. The morale of the sole practitioners and small firms has never been lower. Much of what solo practitioners do has been supplanted by the prevalence of legal self-help books, software and Internet self-help guides.

The practice has been even more diluted by: 1. competition from runners and cappers in the personal injury field; 2. in the immigration field by competition from non-lawyers and paralegals and by legislation that restricts the filing for worker-based permanent residency petitions; 3. in the bankruptcy field by recent legislation that has drastically been made more difficult and complex, as well as increased liability for attorneys, conditions for filing bankruptcy; and 4. the recent increase in dollar limits for small claims actions up to $7,500. On top of all this, at least in the fields where solos and small firms practice, we have too many attorneys competing for the same clients, leading to lower income and consequently lower morale. Naturally, attorneys with lower morale and lower income are more likely to engage in unethical behavior.

Even if it can be argued that non-ABA schools do not make up a substantial portion of the bar, they do decrease the overall quality of the bar and therefore affect the public perception of the bar. You would not believe how many times I have heard people in Los Angeles say that attorneys are “a dime a dozen.”

Michael K. Lee
Bethesda, Md.

A personal perspective

I did not attend an ABA- or even state-accredited law school. It was not because I wasn’t offered admission; it was because as a wife and mother of two small children, I simply couldn’t afford it. My desire to practice law was great enough for me to seek out alternatives I could financially afford, and so I chose to pursue my dream via a correspondence school. It is not something I would recommend to most, as it was by no means a simple task, but it did provide me with the education I needed to qualify to sit for the bar.

Fifty-six percent of first-time test-takers passed the bar in February 1989, and I was among them. The bar examiners who reviewed my tests had no idea who I was or what school I attended and passed me based upon my knowledge and demonstrated ability, not my law school credentials. And that is how it should be.

I agree that there are bogus law schools out there that prey on the dreams of the unwary, but I disagree that only those who attend accredited law schools should be granted the right to take and pass the bar exam. It is a test, and little more.

After many years of criminal practice in the courts, I’ve concluded that the bar exam does not in any way equate with, much less predict, a person’s actual ability to be a good or effective advocate for a client or cause. That comes from something inside that you simply can’t effectively test for. 

Leslie Povalitis
Visalia

Condescending attitude

As a graduate of a non-accredited law school and California bar member, I submit that many who seek a career transition in a dynamic post-industrial economy can and often do benefit from the opportunities presented by the study of law at institutions not accredited by the American Bar Association. This is especially true for those who reside in more remote areas of the state and/or are employed full-time.

Moreover, the public’s interest may also be served by the admission of older attorneys that have broader experience than student refugees from academia. Sen. Joe Dunn, although understandably concerned about the overall quality of legal instruction, presents a subtly elitist impression by his “why should California be different?” condescension. The state’s demographic and economic diversity warrants educational flexibility that should be embraced, not threatened.

Gerhard W. Thielman
Fredericksburg, Va.

American dream

Unaccredited and correspondence law schools allow some of us opportunities that we would not otherwise have. It’s not easy to work full time and attend law school at night. Graduates of those schools have to take and pass the same bar exam as any ABA school graduate. And that’s only the beginning of the battle.

Many of us start our careers as solo practitioners because there is no other viable choice. If we manage to become successful attorneys without the benefit of mentoring, coaching, sponsorship or shielding, then – and only then – can we apply for “conventional” jobs with any real hope of an offer.

In spite of all that – or perhaps because of it – unaccredited and correspondence law schools typify the American dream. It’s not a matter of entitlement. It’s a matter of opportunity.

Betty Rome
Culver City

Not California’s American

To my dismay, the first unaccredited law school listed in your law school article (April) is “American.” Being a graduate of American University, Washington College of Law in Washington, D.C., I was taken aback that you listed “American” as unaccredited without bothering to distinguish between the ABA-approved one in Washington, D.C., and the California school. 

I hope you will clear up this confusion.It is hard enough to get a California job graduating from a regional school; we do not need further confusion and clueless employers inquiring, “Is that school ABA-approved?”

Quoc Vuong
Long Beach

• Editor’ note: The unaccredited school in question is American College of Law in Anaheim.

Whistleblower thoughts

I think the bar’s board of governors, especially James Penrod, and Assemblywoman Pavley are approaching the public lawyer as whistleblower question from the wrong direction (April). Of course whistleblowers should be protected, and any attempt to breach the attorney-client confidentiality wall should not only be viewed with skepticism, but should be subject to the most rigorous scrutiny. These interests do not necessarily conflict.

The question here is not whether a lawyer is obligated to protect her or his client’s interests. The proper focus of the debate is how to define “confidential communication.”

I propose that a fiduciary of the public trust cannot have a confidential communication with respect to the administration of his or her fiduciary duties. The fiduciary, acting on behalf of a principal, has and should have no expectation of privacy with respect to conduct of his or her official duties.

A lawyer who discloses (to a principal) misconduct by that agent is not, therefore, violating any duty to maintain confidentiality. The principle should apply equally to any agent in a fiduciary position, whether public, corporate or private.

See if the governor will sign that bill.

Ira Jacobowitz
Sacramento

Check the appropriate box

Instead of bashing or pre-judging paralegals, perhaps Allen Wilkinson (April letters) should be more concerned with the challenges he faces filling out simple Judicial Council forms. After practicing law for 27 years, he should be an expert on checking the boxes on the forms. The Judicial Council continuously updates them because attorneys are challenged to check the appropriate box. What’s next? Nolo Press or Judicial Council Forms for Dummies?

Paralegals are an intricate part of the legal profession. They are skilled in checking the appropriate boxes. Some paralegals should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Ray Robinson
Richmond

Attorneys should fill in

AOC Director Bill Vickrey correctly points out a critical shortage of judges (April). May I suggest another method of reducing the shortfall which does not involve any cost to the state.

California law permits the appointment of temporary judges. Thus, we are used to seeing commissioners or other bar members presiding over civil, domestic, traffic and small cases statewide.However, there is no prohibition to the parties agreeing to have any qualified lawyer act as a temporary judge.

Local courts should institute a procedure to promote the selection of a mutually agreeable attorney to act as a temporary judge as soon as a complaint and/or answer is filed. Cases could then be channeled to the temporary judge, leaving appointed judges with the more difficult cases.

Since most cases are resolved with very little actual court time, most proceedings could be conducted outside the courtroom environment, on a schedule amenable to the parties and the agreed temporary judge without the necessity of intervention of an elected judge or commissioner. If a trial was necessary, the court could provide courtroom space when needed.

A panel of lawyers organized by local bar associations, approved by the court and willing to participate as a service to their fellow practitioners, would seriously reduce the backlog and save the taxpayers the cost of additional judges.

Johnny Lucas
Los Angeles

Profile of our police state

It is not clear what is meant by the claim that Chief Justice George can take credit for “raising the profile of the judicial branch (May CBJ),” because the meaning of “profile” in that regard is ambiguous. If it means the judiciary is bigger than ever, in institutional size, then maybe its profile has been raised, and maybe the chief can take credit for that dubious distinction.  But if the meaning of profile is that the judiciary, in performing its intended constitutional function, is doing so more grandly than ever before, that is an utter falsehood.

Regardless of all else, the one doctrinal concept intended by the Framers to outstrip all others was that the default position in this Republic was to be with the individual and against government.  The essence of popular sovereignty is that government must be presumed to lose, because, as the Framers noted, government is inherently evil, and so in an individual vs. government matter, the government would have a high hurdle to leap to properly win.

The California courts, of which the chief is the titular head, have increasingly turned that fundamental and founding notion on its ear. In a jurisdiction where judicial candidates vie for “endorsed by law enforcement” on their campaign material; and where citizens stand in line like supplicants at the altar of King George-mania, prodded and poked and searched, to get into their own courthouses while armed cops breeze in and out at will; and where judges are chummy and chatty with the cops in court while glowering at regular folk, no citizen in his right mind believes the judges will presumptively rule against the cops and for the citizen.

We have become a police state, where “State-ism” masquerades as conservatism, and where judges consider themselves merely another spoke in the State-istic wheel to assist the device keep taut as it rolls over those in its way.

Nowhere in the article toasting the chief’s decade at the helm do we see any celebration that attention to the rights of individuals is an ascendant, or even valuable, feature of his stewardship or of our judiciary.

And it is not.

So, our judiciary does have a significant profile, but it is not one of courage nor of constitutional faithfulness.

Michael J. Kennedy
Palm Springs