Editor's Column
Written by Jason T. Vail
I have come to discover, through my conversations with young lawyer friends, that we all, on occasion, ask ourselves the following question: "Why did I become a lawyer?"
It is not necessarily surprising that we would find ourselves facing this question at least once in our careers. The years of schooling and the high cost of education required to join this profession place us in a position where we are almost compelled to continue in the roles we find ourselves in, regardless of our misgivings; given all that we have invested to get to this point, setting everything aside and making a dramatic career change now is almost unimaginable.
Of course, we all come to this vocation from a variety of paths. We arrive at law school with different backgrounds and different motivations. Some of us have always known we wanted to practice law and cannot remember a time when we wanted to do anything else; others of us are not so certain, having had little previous experience or contact with the legal system. As a diverse group, we all come together to share that uniquely excruciating experience known as law school, and it is the one thing that ties us all together in this profession. No matter where or how long ago we obtained our legal educations, we are all able to relate to one another with "war stories" about our time in law school, particularly the 1L year. But while we come together to share the unifying experience of law school, we soon graduate and find ourselves scattered across the country and around the globe to pursue our own courses through the legal profession. Nevertheless, the large majority of us will opt to become practicing attorneys: in firms, in government, as solo practitioners, as in-house counsel, or in clerkships.
Still, there are a few who don't quite fit this mold, which is the focus of this issue of De Novo. Three young lawyers have written articles about their choices of somewhat out-of-the-ordinary legal careers. Paul Marvy writes about how he left his practice as a public defender to coordinate a group that is seeking to expand the right to counsel for indigent litigants in civil proceedings. Keri Jo Smith explains how she went from law school to running a volunteer lawyer program in a rural eastern Washington county. Finally, Aaron Riensche presents a story about how, after law school, he went on to pursue what many of us find unimaginable: more law school.
Also highlighted in this issue are the recipients of the first Loan Repayment Assistance Program ("LRAP") awards. These attorneys have also chosen somewhat unusual career paths: Instead of prioritizing pecuniary gain, they have opted to practice law for the public good. Their diverse and important work is both impressive and inspiring.
This De Novo also continues the ethics-related theme from the last issue with a column by Associate Editor Shelley Ajax on upcoming changes to the RPCs. We hope to continue highlighting ethics issues and the impending changes to the RPCs with this recurring column by Ms. Ajax.
Finally, I encourage you to read President Noah Davis and President-Elect John Brangwin's article on the WYLD Board of Trustees' position on the proposed Legal Technician Rule. This proposed rule, which seeks to authorize and regulate certain qualified non-attorneys to perform routine legal tasks, represents a serious effort to expand access to affordable legal services by middle- to low-income citizens. While this state's network of civil legal aid programs provides legal help to thousands of clients every year, a deficiency of resources dictates that direct legal assistance be typically reserved for the poorest of the poor with the highest of "priority" cases. Thousands more, living above the poverty line but still struggling, and with what would be considered "low priority" legal needs (agreed dissolution or no-asset Chapter 7 bankruptcy are just two examples), are left with an impossible choice between no legal help and paying unaffordable attorney fees. The Legal Technician Rule was designed to provide an alternative source of legal assistance for those who fall in the gap between those poor enough to receive pro bono services and those who are affluent enough to afford an attorney. The rejection of this rule by the WYLD Board of Trustees, and the subsequent rejection by the WSBA Board of Governors, does not mean that the legal needs targeted by the proposed rule have disappeared. Rather, as Mr. Davis and Mr. Brangwin explain, the WYLD is in a position to take a leadership role in addressing these legal needs through alternative programs, and De Novo will continue to provide you information about the efforts undertaken in this regard, and, of particular importance, how you can help.
As always, I invite you to continue sharing your ideas and opinions with the De Novo readership through your submissions. My hope is that you find the following stories of these young lawyers, as well as the discussion of the best ways to address significant legal needs of low-income people in this state, to be thought-provoking and inspiring. Perhaps you may even gain a different perspective on the answer to your own occasional questioning of why you entered this profession in the first place.
Jason T. Vail is Editor of De Novo and a staff attorney with the Seattle office of Northwest Justice Project. He can be reached at 206-464-1519 or jasonv@nwjustice.org. All opinions are solely his own and not those of the WYLD, the Bar Association, or De Novo.
