A few days ago, a reader sent me a link to a JD Underground thread and suggested that it would enlighten me as to how young lawyers were thinking. The thread began with a question,  Might start non-profit–what services to provide?

I’m thinking about opening a non profit and providing free/hugely discounted legal services so I can get the PSLF* and also gain some experience…What are some basic, easy to learn services that I can readily offer clients to build up volume? I’m thinking form-filing stuff at this point, but any advice would be appreciated.

There is certain virtue in this question, though it may not be obvious at first.  The person asking the question is thinking about alternatives to address his circumstances, most notably the crushing debt load. He (I assume it’s a “he”) is trying to do something rather than sitting on the couch eating Cheetos and pondering the misery of his choice to go to law school.  He’s trying.  He gets points for that.

The problem arises from that part of the question which seeks “some basic, easy to learn services.” Or to put it differently, what practice area of law requires no knowledge or skills?  Some of the responses include:

Bankruptcy seems like a good fit. Chapter 7 and 11. I don’t know tons about it but I think consumer 7s and 11s are fairly easy to learn.

…you’d be better off getting a job at legal aid.

tenants rights cases, restraining orders, small claims advice, non-complicated wills are a few things that spring to mind.

Help parents of special ed kids who have no choice but to put their kids into public schools. Special ed advocate, attend IEP meetings so the parents can’t get ambushed, etc.

To the credit of the forum, there are others who challenge the ease with which someone who “the only thing is I don’t really have any real skills” could perform these functions.  The problem is that the OP’s question has but one mission, to address the repayment of student loans.  Nowhere is there a suggestion of any desire to be a lawyer, to practice law, to practice any particular area of law. The only criteria is what is so easy that someone with no skills can do it.

There was recently a very troubling post at  the Puddle where Chris Bradley, an occasional lawyer when he isn’t writing marketing copy, instructs the groundlings that the only thing needed to successfully handle a deposition is to “show up.”  Jordan Rushie at  Philly Law Blog wrote about the need to actually have a clue when doing depositions.  Alex Craigie, At Counsel Table, ripped a broader swathe by noting that lawyers are not potted plants.  As for “just showing up,”

It’s not enough. Or nearly enough.

And in a footnote:

I mean no disrespect to monkeys, trained or otherwise.

If all lawyers need to do is just show up, then we may well have no raison d’être. And indeed, it may well be that in certain traditional lawyer roles, the “expertise” that might have been required 100 years ago has since been commoditized and minimized.  It may well be that some of our functions no longer require a lawyer and can be adequately handled by a non-lawyer, a paraprofessional, the hard-working but nice man who puts your trash in the back of his oddly-shaped truck. 

To the extent this is true, then it’s time we parse our functions and open the door to non-lawyers, or people with less expensive qualifications who are more than competent to satisfactorily handle the matter.  I’ve made  my suggestion as to what should be done, not that anybody cares.

But if the question asked at JD Underground is what practices areas of the law are best suited for a person who is without skills or a clue, the answer is clear: None.

Sure, there are time when a particular service ends up going smooth and easy, requiring little if any thought and filling in the blanks ends up being more than sufficient. But then there are also times when a well-placed bit of insight can turn sufficiency to excellence. More importantly, there are times when that insight can prevent what appears to be sufficient at superficial blush from turning into disaster.  That’s what distinguished a lawyer’s services from a form-filler.

The other question is whether there is any area of law, any niche at all, that this person gives a damn about.  Does it interest him? Does he feel he might make a difference and help people? Is there any tug, even the slightest, that draws him toward an area of law?

It’s understandable that a law student facing crushing debt must deal with the harsh reality of his poor choice, but that choice is made all the worse by what appears to a lack of purpose in entering the law in the first place.  If the only issue is what he can do that requires no skills, then why go to law school at all?  Because mommy assured you it was the a guaranteed path to middle class stability?  Because dad wanted you to be a “professional?” 

If there is no area of law that interests you, then get the hell out. You won’t be a good lawyer. You won’t be a happy person, spending your days doing something that holds no interest for you solely to put to use your expensive and poorly chosen education. Deny you ever went to law school so you can find a real job, and use the income to pay for your wayward youth.

But trying to find a niche in the law where no skills are needed only compounds disaster.  I agree with Craigie, that this reflect no “disrespect to monkeys, trained or otherwise.”  If you can’t be a real lawyer, don’t be a lawyer at all.

* PSLF stands for public service loan forgiveness.