Often the only access underprivileged communities have to legal
aid are public interest lawyers, who forgo the lucrative salaries
of the corporate world to effect legal and policy changes.
Yet in light of rising tuition costs and the low paying nature
of public interest jobs, potential public interest lawyers are
being forced to consider taking high-paying corporate law jobs.
In 1993, the UCLA School of Law began a loan repayment program
meant to help its own graduates pursue careers in public interest,
said Catherine Mayorkas, director of public interest programs.
Many faculty and students say UCLA’s law school is lagging
behind other schools with its loan repayment program, since
it’s not as generous as others.
“The existing program is underfunded and ranked fairly low
on the administration’s radar,” said Christian
Schreiber, a second-year law student.
Public interest lawyers work in a variety of fields ““ such
as immigration, housing and family law ““ all of which are
geared toward providing increased access to resources and equal
protection under the law.
The need for these lawyers is great since, “legal aid for
the poor is often a life-or-death issue,” said Nancy Mente,
founder of Uncommon Good, an organization aimed at helping the poor
gain access to adequate education, healthcare and legal
services.
Mente, who is also a public interest lawyer, worked on a case in
which she represented a family in downtown Los Angeles whose
children had died as a result of terrible housing conditions
perpetuated by slum-lords.
Despite the situation and the need for free legal aid, many
activists fear potential public interest lawyers will opt for
higher paying jobs to pay off increasingly higher education
loans.
Almost 87 percent of law students in 2002 took out loans to
finance their education, according to a report published by the
American Bar Association.
“We have really seen a disappearance of access to justice
because young people can’t afford to go into this line of
work,” Mente said.
In response, law schools across the nation have instituted loan
repayment programs ““ also called loan forgiveness programs
““ for students going into public interest in an attempt to
alleviate the burden of high tuition costs.
These programs provide financial aid to graduates in the form of
forgivable loans, which are cancelled if a student remains in
public interest for a number of years.
Forty-seven law schools had loan repayment programs in 2000, and
that number grew to 80 in 2003, according to a report which will be
released by Equal Justice Works, an organization helping graduates
pay off education loans.
“There has been a lot of development with the programs,
and we’re excited to see that growth,” said Mary
Mulvenon, program manager for research at Equal Justice Works.
Schreiber is part of a review committee which is looking at the
program, identifying its flaws and proposing changes to make it
more effective, he said.
The program, which largely fends for itself, relies on two
different avenues for its funds: student tuition and private
fund-raising.
“Right now, a small portion of the money comes from
allocations from tuition. But there’s no question that if we
want to make the program competitive with other schools we need to
encourage more fund-raising,” Mayorkas said.
Fund-raising for loan repayment programs is often difficult for
various reasons, including the fact donors don’t see the
right to legal aid as imperative, Mente said.
“The consensus among older people seems to be “˜I
sacrificed, but why don’t young people sacrifice’ …
(They) don’t realize how different the economic picture is
right now,” Mente said.
The severity of the economic situation students encounter once
they graduate, coupled with the lack of understanding as to what
public interest law is, have placed barriers to fund-raising,
activists say.
Lack of funds is not the only reason the loan repayment program
at the law school is not as strong as others.
The long, complicated application is riddled with complex
formulas and rules which hinder its popularity.
“The nature of the program tends to dissuade students from
even bothering,” Schreiber said.
The application makes a number of students ineligible for enough
assistance because of various ineligibility clauses and formulas
which take into account annual adjusted gross income and cost of
living factors, Mayorkas said.
Students say they hope the current review will make changes
enabling the application to be clearer, simpler and more
accessible. If the situation doesn’t change the public
interest field risks loosing a number of potential lawyers.
But the committee is faced with a fundamental challenge:
offering a little assistance to many students, or offering a lot of
assistance for a few students.
“Right now, we tend to agree that the former is the better
choice since it’s likely to have a profound influence,”
Schreiber said.
But regardless of how the loan repayment program at the law
school is changed, everyone agrees it needs more money.