Lawyering for the middle class?

Shortly after I posted this morning's page one article, Two articles in today's Law Bulletin suggest structural flaw in the legal profession, I happened across this article on ABA Journal Law News Now, Underserved Middle Class Provides Opportunity for Recent Law Grads, Ex-US Attorney Says.

The article, by Debra Cassens Weiss, describes a National Law Journal article by former prosecutor and Miami lawyer Kendall Coffey. Quoting now from Weiss's article:

“The reality is that with prudent office economics, recent law graduates could earn decent compensation and launch successful practices, with the opportunity to continue to earn more,” Coffey writes. “Rather than work for a law firm at high rates, of which two thirds goes to the employer, new lawyers could charge much lower rates and keep the earnings for themselves. Rates of between $50 and $125 per hour would make new lawyers affordable to the middle class while providing the lawyers with enough income to succeed.”

More clinical training in law school and peer mentoring afterward would be necessary to accomplish this, according to Coffey.

It has been my observation, over the years, that big firms charge big hourly rates because they can (and, indeed, they must, in order to maintain both the levels of service that wealthy clients demand and the income expectations of very talented partners), while smaller firms and solos charge high hourly rates (though not as high as the big firms) because they so often run into collection difficulties: A client's willingness to pay the lawyer is often directly proportionate to the client's immediate peril. When the lawyer does his or her job well, reducing the imminent threat, clients too often forget where their checkbooks are located.

Whether setting up a new generation of lawyers with lower hourly rates would be greeted with enthusiasm by established practitioners (the mentors Mr. Coffey would like to see) is open to debate. (Established practitioners might see new lawyers with low hourly rates as a threat to bid down hourly rates generally.)

What is not debatable is that there is increasing recognition within the profession that some means must be found for the unemployed and underemployed members of our profession to deliver quality legal services to the swelling ranks of those who need our help but are unwilling to pay according to the traditional models.

I closed this morning's page one post with a throwaway -- that hourly rates, per se, are not the problem here.

Mr. Coffey does not persuade me otherwise. I think there are ways we can price our services that can make them affordable to more persons in need other than lowering hourly rates. I will return to this topic in future posts. But in the meantime, let the debate continue.