Deans Getches and Trujillo went down to the State Capital last week to advocate for a proposed bill that would institutionalize the Loan Repayment Assistance Plan (LRAP). Basically, LRAP subsidizes recent law students who go into "public interest work" by helping them out with their student loans. The 3Ls are considering donating funds for the class gift.
What are people's thoughts on LRAP? I've heard some stories of mismanagement, and it seems that it is somewhat skewed towards people who go into the Public Defender's Office (as opposed to some D.A.'s office).
10 comments:
As long as it is balanced between DA and PD offices (and of course the other public service fields), I think the program is laudable. I for one love the idea of the class gift going to a program that should help lessen the burden for my classmates.
While noble in spirit, LRAP supports a narrow segment of the law school that choses a career in public interest law, and diverts much-needed money from projects with a greater impact on the law school.
You can argue the finer points of helping the indigent navigate the legal system, but trying to link LRAP with keeping the innocent out of jail is a little tenuous at best. What you can't argue is that most of the people chosing a career in the PD's office will go there with or without the help of our tuition deposits.
Personally, I would rather see the money put towards funding salaries for professors so that we can reduce our reliance on adjuncts, and therein raise the stature of the school. Oh, wait, did the ABA ding us for using adjuncts? Why yes, they did...
My impression is that in general, the point of LRAP programs is to provide assistance to attorneys who provide direct legal services to the poor. In other words, to help attorneys who don't make much money because their clients can't pay them. That argument doesn't hold as much weight for me when your client is the government. I mean, I get that prosecutors aren't getting rich, but their client, the state, is not indigent and could pay them more if it chose to make it a priority. The whole DA/PD argument goes to the heart of why a law school should sponsor an LRAP program--is it only to subsidize grads who want to perform public service, or is it also to expand access to justice for the economically disadvantaged?
This bill would be a great start toward formalizing the program, but the next step will be getting it funded to an adequate level to provide meaningful assistance to all students engaged in qualifying employment. Student fundraisers and class gifts have gotten the LRAP off the ground, but for it to be meaningful and sustainable, it needs money! Hopefully this represents a commitment by the Dean's Office to take this next step as well.
Hakim, how much does endowing a new professor's seat goes for?
Dunno. But I bet we could cover a downpayment.
As I understand it, LRAP is supposed to support students who accumulated significant debt while in law school but still choose to pursue work in "public interest law." Based on the broad range of speakers we've had over the years, it appears that "public interest law" is practiced by PDs and civil rights lawyers, the counsel of not-for-profit organizations, as well as city and county attorneys and DAs. If it is LRAP's charter to truly to support "public interest law," then one would expect their gifts to reach the full scope of the practice, without regard to the client base ultimately served.
However, their webpage (http://www.colorado.edu/law/LRAP/) expressly states that where a candidate "lawyer works directly on behalf of economically disadvantaged clients...", that candidate's application will be favored over the application of a new PD or DA. Based on the fine print, Anon's comment is spot-on: LRAP money is targeted toward lawyers who act directly on behalf of economically disadvantaged clients; PD/DA candidates are both less desired as recipients according to LRAP's charter.
I agree with HS that LRAP is a noble effort with legitimate benefits to our community. But I'd like to see a little more transparency, and a little broader benefit to the law school, before I hand over my gift to them for distribution. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see much opportunity for generating endowment revenue for the law school as a whole through LRAP. I'm open to the argument that funding LRAP through class gifts benefits the law school as a whole (which is my understanding of the purpose of a class gift), but I haven't yet heard it clearly articulated.
This discussion is timely because next week there will be an information session about LRAP. It will be in room 207 at 12:00 and pizza will be provided. Dean Trujillo will present a PowerPoint that outlines the importance of the program. He will also be able to answer questions about eligibility and the application process. I would encourage anyone with questions about the program or how to apply to attend.
Public Interest Work for LRAP is defined on the website as work in one of three categories: “(1) the lawyer works directly on behalf of economically disadvantaged clients, for or under the direction of an organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the IRC …; (2) the lawyer works for an organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the IRC and is exempt from tax under Section 501(c), provided that the employer cannot be the School of Law, nor can the services be performed for the School of Law; or (3) the lawyer works for a national, state, or local government agency.” I do not think there is any favoritism in favor of the PD over the DA. This would be a good question to ask Dean Trujillo at the information session next Tuesday.
The Deans office supports this program and is working on fundraising for LRAP.
As for the benefit to the law school, there are many arguments in favor of an LRAP program at CU Law. It encourages prospective students to attend CU over other schools with no LRAP programs. It helps boost our rankings. Equal Justice Works lists 100 Law schools with LRAP programs (http://www.equaljusticeworks.org/finance/index.php?view=detail&id=22322) and the ABA has released a report on the importance of LRAP programs (http://www.abanet.org/legalservices/downloads/lrap/lrapfinalreport.pdf).
If you have questions about LRAP or would like to learn more about the program please attend the information session next Tuesday.
I'm a recent CU Law grad. I work for the Public Defender.
I chose to attend CU Law despite its lack of an LRAP program. Just about every prestigious law school has one. I viewed CU Law's lack of an LRAP program as a sign that it was out of the loop. By adopting an LRAP program, CU will stand only to gain more prestige and better students.
Also, keep in mind that PDs, DAs, and other CU Law grads working in public interest jobs make somewhere around one-fourth to half the income that grads in private practice will earn. So the need is certainly there, and any perceived financial loss to the rest of the law students is illusory.
Finally, I hope that the students at CU Law will consider the values that an LRAP program represents. It is one thing to measure such a program's worth by what it may take away from any one law student. It is quite another to measure it by what it can give back to others - especially those who can be categorized only by what resources they lack.
Dave & X, thanks for the info on LRAP programs in both a local and global context. That was exactly the kind of illumination I was hoping to elicit. You might consider amending your messgae to the masses to highlight these benefits. The proponents of LRAP that I've heard speak seem to be preaching to the choir a lot -- you might need to develop a strategy for reaching the members of your audience (in this case, the Class of 2007) who aren't particularly motivated by your core message. Your comments on how the program helps CU Law's status and ranking is precisely on point for this.
Even if you don't buy that people make the decision about where to work based on the availability of LRAP funding, potential law students definitely factor that into decisions about where to go to school.
Like Dave, I chose to come here despite the lack of an LRAP. The other school I was looking at had a well-established program, but at that time CU's relatively lower tuition still made it a better bet to come here. (They might have forgiven some of my loans, but I would have had to take more loans to go there.) I don't necessarily think that CU can brag about its low tuition the way it could three or four years ago, so that calculus is different now. Students who are interested in public service look at LRAPs when choosing a school. By being out of step with other law schools on this, CU risks losing that segment of potential students. Maybe you don't see that as a loss, but I think it would be unfortunate.
(I don't mean to downplay the hard work students have put in establishing our fledgling LRAP. But it needs financing beyond what student fundraisers can bring in.)
And finally, this is off topic, but HS, I'm kind of hoping you don't actually think that public defenders are only there to keep the innocent out of jail. The guilty are also entitled to zealous advocacy and fair trials. (Getting off my high horse now.)
Post a Comment