By Tom Lininger[*]
[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.