by Kristen Pavón

With law firms cutting back on the size of their incoming associate classes and a new article from the National Law Journal that, with brutal numbers, details drastic reductions in federal entry-level attorney hiring, we are scratching our heads and wondering — where will all the new attorneys go?

Federal honors programs are a great way for new law grads to really sink their teeth into substantive legal work and even gain some expertise in an area. The federal government offers flexibility, mentoring and a variety of opportunities.

For honors lawyers who decide to jump into private practice, opportunities abound, said legal recruiter Cynthia Sitcov of Washington’s Sitcov Director. ‘Coming from an honors program, especially DOJ, is an excellent credential to have,’ she said. Firms appreciate ‘the insider perspective, the training and the fact that you have to be really good to get an honors program job in the first place.’

Here are the Department of Justice honors program stats. Let me warn you, the numbers are not pretty.

Dep’t of Justice (the largest employer of lawyers in the nation)

• 2010: Hired 211 honors attorneys
• 2011: Hired 165 honors attorneys (Almost a 22% decrease)
• 2012: Will hire between 70-80 honors attorneys (Almost a 58% decrease from 2011, and a 67% decrease from 2010!)

Many federal agencies are following suit, including the Internal Revenue Service, Office of Chief Counsel (will only hire from those who worked for the agency over the summer) and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (their program is  on hold completely).

There is a glimmer of hope however. A few agencies are hosting new or reinstated honors programs — the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Department of Energy, and the Federal Communications Commission.

In addition to hiring cuts, fiercer competition is  to blame for making the path to a federal job tougher.

Statistics from the [University of Arizona] Honor handbook gives a sense of just how competitive the hiring process has become. In 2010, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, for example, hired six new lawyers our of 2,000 applicant; the Department of Urban Development and Housing selected 25 out of 1,100; and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission picked five out of 1,400.

So where do soon-to-be law grads go from here?

In addition to thinking outside the box in terms of legal careers, it’s more important than ever that law students know what employers are looking for — especially when applying for a government job because their hiring practices are less predictable than those of law firms.

Here are a few landing-the-job tips from the head of the Bureau of Competition at the Federal Trade Commission and the director of DOJ’s Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management.

• A demonstrated interest in the agency’s area of law
• A commitment to public service
• Enthusiasm
• A foreign language is a plus
• Internships or other experience in the agency’s area of law

Interestingly, law school rankings are not so important — at least to the DOJ.

So, really — Where will all the new attorneys go?

By: Steve Grumm

Greetings, dear readers.  We’ll get to the news bulletin after we deal with the make-it-or-break-it contest tonight between the Glorious Philadelphia Phillies Baseball Franchise and the nefarious Cardinals of St. Louis.  I’m not prone to hyperbole, but this is Luke against Darth, Holmes against Moriarty, and Chief Brody against Jaws all rolled into one.  Turns out I am prone to hyperbole.  Game 5 takes place this evening.  I trust that all of our regular readers (all four of you) will don Phillies regalia and wave the rally towels in a show of solidarity with your author.  Go Phils!

What’s new in the public interest world this week?  The towering announcement, of course, came right from us, when we congratulated the law-student winner of the 2011 PSLawNet Pro Bono Publico Award.  Also this week: a protracted union battle involving LA County prosecutors; an NY judge ponders an AmeriCorps-like program for recent law grads to represent indigent clients; a Civil Gideon in the Badger State(?); funding cuts threaten prosecutors and defenders in The OC; defenders in Riverside County are faring a little better; Montana’s new(ish) indigent defense program is searching for a new head honcho; and a look at the need for legal services among the increasing numbers of poor people in New York.

• 10.7.11 – a development in a nasty, ongoing battle between unionized Los Angeles County prosecutors and the local district attorney.  From the Contra Costa Times: “The union representing Los Angeles County prosecutors took a big round this week in its battle with District Attorney Steve Cooley, with a tentative settlement granting it a permanent injunction and $575,000 in penalties. The deal calls for the county to pay $125,000 to the Association for Deputy District Attorneys and $450,000 to Deputy District Attorney Marc Debbaudt, who had alleged retaliation for his union activities. The settlement, still subject to Board of Supervisors’ approval, also made permanent a temporary court injunction ordering Cooley to refrain from harassing or intimidating ADDA members based on their union membership. Cooley and the ADDA have been at odds since the union was formed three years ago, resulting in numerous administrative and legal battles.”  I am a friend of organized labor. But, man, a union full of lawyers can’t be easy to deal with.

• 10.5.11 – an AmeriCorps-like program for recently graduated civil legal services attorneys(?).  The Albany Times-Union reports that one New York jurist is thinking outside the box about how to narrow a widening justice gap in light of large numbers of un- or underemployed law grads.  Judge Michael Coccoma offered, “…'[W]hen I hear that an increasing number of recent law school students are unable to find jobs, I ask myself, why can’t we develop funding streams and programs which would provide an opportunity for these attorneys, who are eager to put their skills to work in a public-service program, providing legal services for the poor?’.  Coccoma suggested that in exchange for a two- or three-year commitment in that type of program, the new lawyers could receive a reduction in their student loan. He compared it to AmeriCorps programs which enables college graduates entering health care fields to get assistance with their tuition.”  My reaction to such a proposal is mixed. 

• 10.5.11 – the cheeseheads ponder a civil Gideon.  From the State Bar of Wisconsin: “The Wisconsin Supreme Court held a public hearing on a rules petition that would create a right to publicly funded counsel for indigent litigants in certain civil cases.  The court took no immediate action following the public hearing yesterday (Oct. 4), but may take the petition up again on Oct. 17 at a previously scheduled open administrative conference.  The concept advanced by the petition…would provide that in certain civil actions, an indigent litigant would have an attorney appointed at public expense when needed to protect the litigant’s rights to ‘basic human needs, including sustenance, shelter, clothing, heat, medical care, safety and child custody and placement.’ The petition was filed in September 2010 by attorney John F. Ebbott, the executive director of Legal Action of Wisconsin (LAW). Ebbott presented the petition to the court at the public hearing, supported by many other professionals in the legal aid community. 

• 10.5.11 – in California, funding cuts threaten Orange County prosecutors and public defenders.  The Voice of Orange County reports that the district attorney (along with the sheriff) pressed the county board of supervisors not to go through with cuts.  A day before the Orange County Register covered the impact of cuts on the public defense program: “The County of Orange will be forced to pay for private attorneys to represent indigent defendants after the Board of Supervisors agreed to make $29.5 million in emergency budget cuts Tuesday, including laying off seven public defenders. The public defender says the cuts will cripple its ability to perform its constitutionally mandated duties.”   

• 10.4.11 – the Riverside County PD’s office is faring better than its OC counterpart.  As we noted in the Bulletin a couple of weeks ago, the Riverside County public defender’s office was trying to get legislators to cancel a 5% budget cut.  Success!  From the Valley News:  “Riverside County Public Defender Gary Windom’s request for an additional $1.4 million to close a gap in his budget and keep current positions filled was approved today by the Board of Supervisors.  Without comment, the board voted 4-0 … to make the appropriation, without which an investigator position and 18 clerical and technical jobs would have been in jeopardy. In June, Windom told the board that a 5 percent cut in general fund appropriations for the Office of the Public Defender would strain the agency’s resources and lead to delays in moving cases through the courts.”

• 10.3.11 – help wanted in the Treasure State!  Montana is running a nationwide search for a new chief public defender.  From the Billings Gazette: “The four-year-old system provides legal representation to people accused of crimes who can’t afford attorneys. Its first chief, Randi Hood, resigned four weeks ago, saying she wanted to leave her administrative post and continue work in the courtroom as a public defender. Montana overhauled its system for defending the poor in court in response to a lawsuit by the ACLU, which alleged that the old system run by the counties provided unequal treatment for indigent defendants across the state. The system has a $23 million budget this year and about 200 full-time positions. Its headquarters are in Butte.”

• 9.30.11 – a short WNYC article highlights the need to bolster funding for legal services funding at a time when more and more New Yorkers are eligible for, and in need of, legal services.  It references chief judge Jonathan Lippman’s present and past efforts to shore up funding in hard times.  (The article botches a statement about how, on the federal level, Senate and House appropriations committees have both recommended 2 budget cuts to the Legal Services Corporation.  In fact the House committee wants to axe 26% of LSC’s congressional funding.)

by Kristen Pavón

The Guardian published a thought-provoking article asking what people really mean by “access to justice” in light of the proposed 60% budget cut for the U.K.’s publicly funded law.

The author, Job Robins, asks whether “access to justice” is a noble aspiration or a load of meaningless tosh. He went straight to leading lawyers, thinkers and campaigners for answers.

Ultimately, he found that the definition of access to justice has changed since the 1970s.

In the 1970s, [Italian jurist Mauro] Cappelletti directed a research project funded by the Ford Foundation on “access to justice in modern societies” and which led to a four-volume series (called, you guessed it, Access to Justice). Cappelletti once said: “The right of effective ‘access to justice’ has emerged with the new social rights. Indeed, it is of paramount importance … Effective access to justice can be seen as the most basic requirement, the most basic human right, of a system which purports to guarantee legal rights.”

However, James Sandbach, the social policy officer for Citizens Advice Bureau, told Robins that the “prevailing philosophy is one of self-help and personal responsibility” rather than representing low-income individuals through legal aid. This philosophy would help explain the types of legal aid reforms currently being proposed in the U.K.

The main theme Robins seems to have found among the responses he received is that although legal redress is of paramount importance, legal advice is never at the top of the public’s priorities. It’s only important when you’re already in trouble and your rights are in jeopardy.

Read the whole article here.

Interesting. Do we, in the U.S., have a more unified understanding of what we mean by “access to justice”? Thoughts?

By: Steve Grumm

The Albany Times-Union reports on one jurist thinking outside the box about addressing the justice gap:

That was the recommendation of one of New York’s top judges Monday in his testimony to the Task Force to Expand Access to Civil Legal Services, which was formed to address the issue. Michael Coccoma, the deputy administrative chief judge for counties outside New York City, suggested the panel consider the graduates as he urged “new ideas” during a hearing at the Court of Appeals.

“For example, when I hear that an increasing number of recent law school students are unable to find jobs, I ask myself, why can’t we develop funding streams and programs which would provide an opportunity for these attorneys, who are eager to put their skills to work in a public-service program, providing legal services for the poor?” Coccoma asked.

Coccoma suggested that in exchange for a two- or three-year commitment in that type of program, the new lawyers could receive a reduction in their student loan. He compared it to AmeriCorps programs which enables college graduates entering health care fields to get assistance with their tuition.

Hmmm.  I have profoundly mixed feelings on this issue.  On the one hand, it’s undeniable that there are signficant numbers of un- or underemployed law grads.  And there is certainly a need for more advocates for low-income people with legal problems.  But, civil legal services lawyers are already the lowest paid public interest lawyers.  The problem of low salaries has plagued legal services organizations for years.  I can appreciate how a program structured like AmeriCorps or Teach for America would be term-limited.  Thus you’re not dealing with the same problem of underpaying permanent employees.  Still, it gives me pause.

by Kristen Pavón

At a rules hearing in Wisconsin, more than two dozen legal professionals told the Supreme Court that they support a rule change requiring circuit court judges to appoint lawyers in some civil cases in which basic human needs were at stake.

This suggestion comes after the realization that pro se programs and legal aid organizations are just not enough.

Opposition to the idea is rooted in its unknown costs.

“The costs are unknown and could be huge,” said David Callender of the Wisconsin Counties Association. “The argument is always that it saves money on the back end. But we just don’t know.”

People have dubbed the idea — Civil Gideon — after the landmark case Gideon v. Wainwright, which established a poor defendant’s right to a free lawyer in a criminal cases.

There is still a lot of skepticism about how the program would work and if it would be worthwhile.

Get more details here.

My guess is that it would work the same way the public defender program does. Some states have tried similar programs. Do you know more about these programs?

What do you think about Civil Gideon? A workable solution?

by Kristen Pavón

I’ve been a bit quiet on the Internets today, and here’s why!

Fortune’s Most Powerful WomenVirtual Summit 2011 (you can still register) is going on today and tomorrow, and there are lots of great interviews and sessions with incredible women leaders.

I listened in on a session called “Your Network for Social Good” with Gerri Elliott, Executive Vice President and Chief Sales Officer of Juniper; Cheryl Fields Tyler, board member for Not for Sale; and Alyse Nelson, co-founder, president and CEO of Vital Voices Global Partnership.

The panelists focused on how technology can further non-profits’ missions and take their efforts to another level.

Here are a few of my notes from the program:

1. The online social network has become important for businesses in general but the person-to-person network is still important and should not be neglected.

2. Technology has allowed non-profits to give the community tools for education (the example that was given was Not for Sale’s online SlaveryMap that shows users where in the world reports of trafficking have occurred).

3. Technology and social media have created a global network that enables users to learn best practices from other users across the world.

4. Non-profits are just beginning to scratch the surface in terms integrating technology into their goals and missions.

How are legal-related non-profits using technology? I want to know!

by Kristen Pavón

Another great legal aid program bites the dust.

The Florida Bar Foundation is the only statewide organization in Florida that provides funding for legal aid (and does so without strings) and promotes improvements in addressing the civil legal needs of the poor.

The FBF has already suspended funding for the Florida Law School Civil Clinics and Florida Public Service Fellows programs. Now, the Foundation’s Legal Aid Summer Fellowship program is also being suspended. The good people at the FBF expect that funding for the Summer Fellowship program will be suspended for several years, possibly.

This is a sad day for civil legal aid in Florida. I was a Legal Aid Summer Fellow in 2010 and the amount of legal work fellows accomplish in ten weeks is incredible. In ten weeks, I was able to meet and interview with more than 60 clients, offer advice to almost all of them, and draft over 20 legal documents for pending litigation. And that was just me. The other 39 fellows did the same, if not more, I’m sure.

Let’s do a bit of math, shall we? In theory, the 2010 summer fellows funded by the FBF helped 2,400 clients and wrote 800 legal documents. That’s a big hit for legal aid organizations in Florida.

The benefits that the fellows received from the program are immeasurable. Fellows were able to build relationships with attorneys, save some money (the pay is $5,000 for rising 2Ls and $7,000 for rising 3Ls — paid for my Barbri course!), learn the ropes and do some really satisfying work.

I hope the program comes back sooner than later.

The Foundation’s main source of support comes from the Interest on Trust Accounts (IOTA) Program. However, Foundation grants also are supported by gifts from Florida attorneys, law firms, corporations, foundations and other individuals.

by Kristen Pavón

To commemorate the 50th anniversary of integration in Memphis City schools, WMC-TV ran a story about the beginning of desegregation in Memphis. It profiles Rev. Samuel Billy Kyles, whose daughter was one of the thirteen children who became known as the Memphis 13.

Kyles was the head of the NAACP’s Education Committee in 1961 and was part of the bold plan to begin desegregation at city schools with 13 first graders.

“In my own case, my daughter was five years old, and I had to give some thought to putting a five-year-old in that position,” said Kyles.  “But we said, well, it’s got to be done.  If if has to be done, we will do it.”

Kyles’ daughter and 12 other children became known as the Memphis 13.  While Kyles has marched with Martin Luther King, Jr. and been involved in the fight for civil rights his whole life, he was stunned by the intense anger of people who did not want white and black children to attend school together.

Kyles said police had to surround his daughter’s school to keep mobs away, but even some police ordered to protect them hurled racial insults.

Kyles said the courage those 13 first graders and their parents showed is something people of all races should be proud of.

Interesting perspective. Read the entire story here.

By: Steve Grumm

Catch SCOTUS fever!  The Atlantic’s got “A Constitutional-Law Nerd’s Take on Upcoming Supreme Court Cases.”  The Washington Post’s Interweb site has some great SCOTUS content up as well, including coverage of the fact that retired justice John Paul Stevens – who is one sharp-witted nonagenarien – is as active off the bench as he was on it.

by Kristen Pavón

In a pretty well-coordinated and large-scale human rights movement, thousands of inmates are continuing a hunger strike in an effort to bring about policy changes in the California prisons.

The strikers are accusing officials of not following through on earlier promises to overhaul policies governing the Security Housing Units, where some prisoners, including several strike leaders, have spent decades locked in windowless cells.

Corrections officials say prisoners housed in the units are dangerous gang leaders who need to be segregated from the general prison population for security reasons. Officials also say they are moving forward with significant policy changes that were discussed with Pelican Bay inmates during the last hunger strike, which ended July 20.

A separate department memo also distributed to inmates today outlined the new policies being developed by senior corrections staff, including “increased privileges based upon disciplinary free behavior, a step down process for SHU (Security Housing Unit) inmates, and a system that better defines and weighs necessary points in the (gang) validation process.” The memo warned that work on the new policies “may be delayed by large-scale inmate disturbances or other emergency circumstances.”

Prisoners’ rights advocates, Marilyn McMahon, executive director of California Prison Focus, and Carol Strickman of Legal Services for Prisoners With Children are under investigation by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for allegations of misconduct and unspecified security threats.

[They] have been banned from state institutions until the investigation is resolved, according to temporary exclusion orders signed by Corrections Undersecretary Scott Kernan on Sept. 29.

The investigation will determine whether the attorneys “violated the laws and policies governing the safe operations of institutions within the CDCR,” the order states.

There is concern among prisoners’ rights advocates that the hunger strike will cost the inmates their lives or serious injuries because neither side seems open to compromising.

Read the whole story and updates at California Watch or HuffPost.

Thoughts?