This reality is not new, of course. And recognizing it isn't new either. In 1956, the News & Observer in Raleigh, North Carolina published a series of articles that looked at the income of lawyers and why it had not kept pace with other professions. The central thesis was that lawyers should charge more to accommodate their overhead expenses, and readers were cautioned against lawyers who cut their fees to get their business.
A screenshot of the relevant section from the November 20, 1956 article is shown below:
.
The article ignored that incomes in rural North Carolina are appreciably lower than its urban centers, a reality that was even more true in 1956 than it is today. If a lawyer raises his rates too high, he may find himself without the ability to get clients.
But by ignoring this point, the author accidentally made a really good point: Rural lawyers have to charge less, all while not having appreciably lower overhead expenses. A smaller percentage of what they charge the client ends up in their pocket and thus ends up back in their communities. Simply telling lawyers to raise their fees is not adequate; more must be done to make practicing in rural communities not only financially appealing but feasible.
This article is a good reminder of how long these issues have persisted.
4 comments:
Reading the newspaper clip was really interesting! It reminded me quite a bit of the NYT articles we read the previous week about the judiciary in remote parts of the country. I'm curious as to what you think the solution is — should firms sponsor attorneys to go practice for a period of time in rural areas? Is there a more permanent option? Or other ways you think we can address the pay gap?
One question that often arises when discussing legal deserts is how to attract more lawyers to rural areas. You mention that lawyers with established practices in rural areas are usually cautious about expanding their practice or hiring other attorneys, not wanting to raise their overhead costs. This caution might also have roots in a general distrust of outsiders.
Rural people generally have the stigma of being "cold" and "unwelcoming" to outsiders and those with additional schooling. Thus, attorneys hoping to break into a rural market are distrusted because they are not from the area and have a higher education level than most in the community. This serves as an additional double barrier for attorneys working in rural areas.
Additionally, even if a new rural law attorney can overcome these barriers in time, many cannot wait and support their overhead fees while these barriers are broken. This, coupled with rural residents not being able to afford high fees, creates impossible circumstances.
The solution to this issue is money--subsidizing the costs for new attorneys to practice in rural areas. Ironically, money is one of the few things rural areas have in short supply, which takes us back to square one.
That's an interesting question! It's a very difficult problem to solve. You can approach it from a couple of angles. First (and probably the easiest), you could simply work to reduce overhead costs. A good way to do this is through creating incubator spaces where lawyers can co-work, which would allow them to save on rent and possibly even share subscriptions and books. Finding the funds to support this would probably be the biggest barrier though.
You could also reduce costs to the individual lawyer by solving the student debt problem. The state or federal government could establish a program that provides scholarships to folks who intend to practice in a rural space for X number of years. If you finish your tenure, you're all good. If you don't, then it converts to a student loan, and you have to pay back the cost of your education (prorated for the amount of time you spent in that community). The hope is that spending a number of years in a rural community would lead to the development of ties and bonds that keep them there indefinitely. The current political climate makes this difficult on the federal level but it's not inconceivable that a state government could take it up.
The other way of approaching this is to simply find ways to increase a lawyer's income. The idea of a firm sponsoring a lawyer is interesting, though I am skeptical of anything that is temporary in nature and worry that firms might see rural communities as a training ground for their lawyers, which would just mean that rural communities would get a consistent churn of inexperienced lawyers.
I think the most straightforward way to do this is through a government subsidy or tax credit. The way to address it long term however is to acknowledge that the root of the problem is systemic neglect. The federal government should pass a big funding bill that addresses the infrastructure, housing, education, and other needs that rural communities have long had neglected. Generally speaking, if you raise the amount of money in a community, you raise the amount of money that people can afford to pay. This is most challenging option however, not just because of the current political climate but also because there is so much neglect in rural communities that figuring out where and how to address it is a daunting task in and of itself.
Hope this helps!
Thanks for your comment! There are a couple of issues at play when it comes to law firm expansion. I would argue that the most pressing is simply finances. As you mentioned, rural areas often do not have a lot of money in the community. Hiring someone new is expensive and requires being confident that you'll have enough work to sustain them going forward.
I do think that the social aspect is particularly challenging too. Every rural area is different and there are some that are incredibly welcoming while others take more work. I once lived in rural Maine, which is not known for welcoming outsiders, and I was able to meet people and be accepted by the community. Most people warm up to you if you show that you actually want to be part of their community and contribute.
But you can't escape demographics. Rural areas are typically older than the general population, which reduces social opportunities. There was a good episode of "Brave Little State," a podcast from Vermont Public that looks at issues in Vermont, where a younger person was looking to move to the state and the podcast hosts helped him calculate the number of potential dating partners he would have. The number wasn't especially encouraging.
The social issue isn't insurmountable though. If a state bar wanted to, they could set up networking events, regular social outings, and things of that nature to bring people together. Things like Zoom (in areas with good broadband) also make it easier to gather with like-minded people virtually. State Bars could create mentorship programs where local lawyers work to integrate new lawyers in the community.
But yeah, it comes down to money. At the end of the day, this is a problem created by systemic neglect. The brain drain that drives the demographic challenges in rural areas is caused by a lack of investment in education and economic development. Digging out of that hole is going to take a lot of money.
Post a Comment