Ameliorating the rural attorney shortage by amending the federal Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program

Rural communities throughout the United States are experiencing an acute legal crisis: they aren’t home to enough lawyers. One report estimates that only “2% of small law practices in the United States are located in rural places, even though less than one-fifth of the nation’s population lives in rural locales.” 

The consequences of this phenomenon are tangible. Studies indicate that rural Americans living in legal deserts are more likely to be afflicted by a myriad of issues such as a lack of access to health care, housing insecurity, and substance abuse. These consequences are further compounded by the fact that attorney deserts exist more commonly in high poverty areas. 

So what is the primary cause of rural legal deserts? 

Some reports have cited “social isolation” and a “lack of racial/cultural diversity” as driving forces behind the problem, while others have speculated that “[t]ransportation and associated costs are a burden to those living in rural areas.” These factors, and a number of others, certainly play a role perpetuating the rural attorney shortage. However, the problem is more aptly explained by one looking at one factor: money. 

Rural legal deserts, to a great extent, can be understood as a function of the price of law school and the concentration of job opportunities in metropolitan markets. A study conducted by the Education Data Initiative found that “[t]he average law school graduate owes $130,000 in student loan debts” and that “71% of law school students graduate in debt.” The cost of attending law school, in turn, incentivizes junior lawyers to pursue employment opportunities that will give them the best chance to pay back their loans in a reasonable amount of time. 

One way of doing so is securing employment with a large firm offering high first year attorney salaries. Another common route is working in the public sector which then allows debt laden graduates to take advantage of loan forgiveness programs. 

These paths lead to careers that differ greatly in a number of respects. However, they share one characteristic highly relevant to the subject of rural legal deserts. That is, the overwhelming number of job opportunities with both large private firms and government agencies are in centralized metropolitan areas. As a result, most lawyers find themselves establishing roots in urban communities, thereby decreasing the likelihood that they will ever pursue a career in a rural America. 

So what can be done to address the issue? 

The California Commission on Access to Justice (the “Commission”) has proffered a number of state level solutions to alleviate the problem. These solutions include having law schools expand the scope of their loan forgiveness programs (which are typically reserved for those going into public interest work) to include graduates going into private practice in an underserved community. 

While this state-by-state, school-by-school solution would help, it would leave gaps. As noted by the American Bar Association, less than half of the states have their own statewide loan repayment assistance programs. Rather, the national breadth of the issue and the existence of federal loan forgiveness legislation, when considered together, seem to suggest that the best approach to the problem is a federal approach. 

Rather than having law schools expand the scope of their loan forgiveness programs, a more cohesive solution would be to amend the federal Public Service Loan Forgiveness (“PSLF”) Program, so that first-year attorneys going to work for a private firm located within a rural legal desert would be eligible for debt relief. 

Currently, only those working for U.S.-based government organizations and certain not-for-profit organizations qualify for the PSLF Program. However, in light of the program's underlying purpose -- "to encourage individuals to enter and continue in full-time public service" -- the argument for expanding the statutes employer eligibility carries significant weight. 

Like attorneys performing government services or working for non-profits, private attorneys working out of rural legal deserts perform an important public service.  As noted by UC Davis Law Professor Lisa Pruitt, rural attorneys work with communities suffering "disproportionately from poverty, poor health outcomes, the opioid epidemic, educational deficits, and environmental degradation, among other challenges." 

The argument for expanding the PSLF Program's employer eligibility requirement is further bolstered by the fact the many, if not most, private rural attorneys are paid at similar, or lower, rates than a number of government attorneys. For instance, a district attorney working in San Jose, CA, has an average salary of $127, 518. In contrast, at least one rural legal practice report has found that "[t]he prevalence of indigent clients [in rural communities] contributes to the financial stress that many rural attorneys experience." So, it would not be far fetched to assume that most private rural attorneys make substantially less than other government positions that qualify for the PSLF Program. 

In sum, there exists little basis for excluding private rural attorneys from the PSLF Program. These attorneys offer invaluable services to an often overlooked, highly vulnerable segment of the American population. While amending the PSLF Program might not solve the issue entirely, it may go a long way in helping.