Volition and Voltaire: A Response to Professor Bagenstos

By Tom Lininger[*]

[download pdf]      

[Editor's Note:  This piece is the third part of a dialogue between Lininger and Samuel Bagenstos.  Bagenstos's previous post is here; it was a response to Lininger's article, From Park Place to Community Chest: Rethinking Lawyers' Monopoly, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2007), 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 155 (2007) (link).]          

My hat is off to Professor Sam Bagenstos.   Not only has he made a number of incisive points in his reply to my essay, but his record as a civil rights attorney provides a superlative model of public-spirited lawyering.   Unfortunately, most attorneys lack Professor Bagenstos's motivation to advocate for the public good.   Given this reluctance, a system that relies primarily on lawyers' voluntary choices will continue to underserve the legal needs of the poor.   The status quo simply isn't working.

From Park Place to Community Chest: Rethinking Lawyers' Monopoly

By Tom Lininger

Editor’s Note:  This week we deviate from our standard Colloquy Essays and Posts format to publish a special feature, a Review Essay forthcoming in the Northwestern University Law Review.   In this Essay, Professor Tom Lininger reviews Pro Bono in Principle and in Practice:   Public Service and the Professions by Deborah L. Rhode, and pleads to the legal community to exceed Prof. Rhode's rather modest suggestions for curing our current pro bono crisis.   He suggests several courses of action aimed at mitigating our current dearth—indisputable whether measured against other professions or other nations—of altruistic legal representation, including greater focus in law schools and a mandatory minimum hours of pro bono commitment by members of state bars.

Download the PDF here.