Vol. 71, No. 4, April
1998
President's Perspective
If they won't come, we've failed
By Steven R. Sorenson
No one wants to come," wrote a Tomah-area lawyer, bemoaning the
difficulty in finding a law school graduate willing to practice in rural
Wisconsin. With graduation only weeks away, hundreds of new lawyers will
decide where to begin their careers. Why do so many new lawyers fight for
the few jobs in the large metropolitan areas, rather than accept the challenge
of practicing law in a small community?
The evolution of the legal practice in Wisconsin is similar to that of
other professions. The migration of lawyers to urban or suburban environments
continues, while fewer seek rural locations. The emphasis on consolidation
and practice concentration has led to more large or moderate-size
firms and fewer small, general practice arrangements. Even in Wisconsin's
moderate-size communities, satellite offices from major metropolitan-area
firms have increased versus the creation of small, general practice organizations.
|
The Tomah attorney listed the benefits of rural practice, including lawyers'
involvement in the community and the importance of lawyers to local school
systems, churches, Chambers of Commerce, and service clubs. The letter writer
also acknowledged these negative perceptions: Rural general practitioners
may not find the same academic or sophisticated challenges compared to those
of a large-firm practice; success measured in dollars only can be achieved
in a major metropolitan area; and there are few social and cultural opportunities
outside metropolitan Madison and Milwaukee.
Our global population and the corresponding emphasis on distance traveling
to buy services have significantly affected rural practices. As mentioned,
several metropolitan firms have opened satellite offices. Even more have
provided local telephone or 800 numbers that suggest a local presence. The
result in many communities has been the erosion of the rural practitioner's
market. The clients who once provided the income that allowed rural practitioners
to serve the less fortunate now, in many cases, have abandoned the local
firm for the larger, more metropolitan practice. Often, through indirect
solicitation and advertising, metropolitan firms have eroded the very base
that rural practitioners depend upon for their livelihoods. Only a very
few rural lawyers have been able to buck the trend by establishing relationships
with large local businesses or statewide affiliates.
Maybe this evolutionary process is fine, for why should anyone interfere
with the natural evolution of the economic system? Why should we care
about the frustrations of the retiring attorney in Tomah who cannot
find anyone to take over his practice? To answer these questions we need
only turn to our State Bar mission statement. The State Bar has pledged
to provide quality and accessible legal service to all individuals.
But the economic reality is that unless a rural practitioner can maintain
a base of wealthier business and professional clients, the rural practitioner
is not able to serve the needs of the less fortunate. Unless metropolitan
firms provide assistance to local practitioners, fewer quality lawyers
will opt to practice in rural America where they can help the
less privileged and the less mobile population.
This situation is not limited to rural America; it also exists in metropolitan
areas. Often, it involves neighborhoods or communities within the larger
metropolitan area. Lawyers may attempt to provide legal services in their
neighborhoods but end up only being able to serve the less fortunate because
wealthier business leaders and professionals have taken their business downtown,
or the larger personal injury cases are lost to the extensive advertising
of wealthier firms that skim the cream.
I will never forget that a leader in our legal community said his firm
could not afford to represent certain individuals because the firm's
overhead was too high to justify writing wills for middle-class laborers
or solving landlord/tenant disputes in college neighborhoods.
The more time I spend as president of this association the more I recognize
the dichotomy that exists in our organization, and the more committed I
become to rectify it. Our association needs to provide a forum for rural
attorneys and small, urban practitioners to share some of the wealth and
opportunity that once was available to them. The Solo and Small Firm Conference,
scheduled for La Crosse on April 29 to May 1, will address such topics.
It will assist these practitioners in recognizing and dealing with some
of the problems they face in their practices. It is a good start, since
it is local and inexpensive, but we need much more.
We need to restructure our dues system, the cost of our CLE programs,
the cost of our books and publications, and the cost of all other services
to recognize the inequities and the various financial abilities of our members.
We also need to deal fairly with the majority of our members when we examine
the budgetary expenditures of the Bar. We have a limited amount of funds
available, and if we are to be true to our mission statement and our members,
we need to first use those funds to support lawyers in their practice.
We cannot and we should not divert the precious resources of this organization
to solving global or societal problems. We need to use those resources to
make the practice of law viable in our communities and for our members and
their families. We need to recognize that a lawyer with disposable annual
income in excess of $100,000 needs far less consideration in the pricing
of Bar services than a lawyer whose disposable income is less than $30,000.
We need to recognize that those of us who are fortunate enough to have found
economic success need to give more, or at least a proportional amount of
our disposable income, back to the profession. It makes no sense to ask
new lawyers who depend upon guardian ad litem work to pay the same amount
for Bar services as senior practitioners who may spend as much on an evening
meal at a fine restaurant as they would for their annual Bar dues.
Personally, I have yet to figure out how to fairly construct such a program
within the State Bar of Wisconsin, but I recognize that it should be done.
I also recognize that there are many lawyers practicing in rural America
or in inner-city neighborhoods who are very successful and who are very
content with their practice. I know there are lawyers earning well into
six figures who are unhappy and who feel unfulfilled. The perception that
we need to support lawyers in different ways is a reality.
We need to ask why they just won't come, and what we can do about
it. Because if they don't come, then we as an association have not
fulfilled our mission and our duty.
|