Changes to the legal profession have to be addressed, and its direction reconsidered.

What is wrong with the legal profession? So many young lawyers seem unhappy or not satisfied.

Samuel C. Stretton.

There is nothing wrong with the legal profession, the problem is the way modern law is practiced. The legal profession is a noble calling allowing lawyers to help and serve people. The legal profession allows lawyers to ensure fairness, to ensure democracy works and to help people resolve disagreements.

The practice of law leaves a lot to be desired. The actual practice has evolved from being a learned profession where advice and representation was provided to a profession where there is almost constant deadlines and overwhelming communication. Further, it's a profession where clients expect perfection and have no loyalty or respect for their attorneys. Clients also expect lawyers to be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week—and get upset if they aren't. If a lawyer goes on vacation, they are expected to spend three, four or five hours a day constantly communicating with their clients.

The practice of law is one where most people don't have the funds to pay the lawyers. Lawyers are on payment plans with their clients and the payment plans are usually not fulfilled. There is an overabundance of lawyers, making it difficult to get new business. It also seems like many lawyers have no qualms about stealing someone else's client. The old professional courtesies have disappeared in the practice of law.

Courtesies are not shown like they used to. Opposing counsel will go out of their way to accuse opposing counsel of misconduct and incompetence. Judges, at times, place impossible demands upon lawyers. Further, many judges have no problem embarrassing a lawyer in front of their client.

Many lawyers cannot do any substantive work during the daytime either because they are on trial or because they are constantly communicating. As a result, many lawyers have to work late in the evening or on weekends, which obviously undermines a good strong family life and relationships.

The pay for lawyers, except for big firms, is dismal. Lawyers get paid less than a first-year starting teacher. As a result, many lawyers are depressed and stressed. Some turn to drugs or alcohol or over-medicate themselves to deal with these issues, and that results in bad judgment and bad decisions. Clearly, it's understood why at least some law schools have noted that 30% or 40% of their graduates are very dissatisfied with the legal profession three or four years after they left law school.

Despite that, the Rules of Professional Conduct hold lawyers to an extremely high and difficult standard, which assumes that they are all making plenty of money, don't have to be overextended, have reasonable clients and adequate staff. Many lawyers now don't have any staff. They do their own typing using computers.

The practice of law is a recipe for disaster and doesn't bold well in the long run for the legal profession. Very few lawyers, unless they are extremely dedicated to the profession, are going to want to practice for 30, 40 or 50 years when they are constantly running from one deadline to the other, overwhelmed with communications, and beset with extremely demanding, unreasonable and often discourteous clients.

It's a shame the way the practice of law has evolved because at one time, one could actually get work done during the daytime. One could focus on substantive issues without being constantly harassed by phone calls, text messages or emails or whatever other modern form of communication exists. Unless one was on trial all day, the work day could allow most of one's work to be completed. Lawyers often had weekend or even evenings to do nonlaw-related matters or family-related matters.

There have always been motions and deadlines, but there was more time to do so. Courts were more understanding. Opposing counsel was more understanding. People would actually try to mentor younger lawyers. Lawyers would help and give advice to other lawyers. They would often go to lunch with their opponents and discuss cases in a civil way.

Now law is all business. It's a profession in name only because one has to comply with the professional responsibility rules if one wants to continue to practice. The days of lawyers reading legal books, case law, history or philosophy books or great literature don't exist as they once did. No one has the time to do it or they are too exhausted. The cost of overhead has, unfortunately, gotten much higher. Computers haven't lowered overhead; they have just increased it.

Some things could be done to change the way law is now practiced. The modern idea that there has to be instantaneous response or communication should be changed. With a judge or opposing counsel there should be a four- or five-day window allowing lawyers to respond. This writer often comes back from court in the evening and has emails from 8 or 9 in the morning saying if we don't hear from you by noon, we will assume you agree. Obviously, that is ridiculous. The extreme expense of modern civil litigation has to change. Most firms are not in a position to litigate because they don't have the monies for the experts or the monies for the electronic discovery, etc. Litigation, therefore, more and more, is for big firms or firms that have raised significant funds over the years. Most solo practitioners are not in a position to do that and that problem is occurring more and more.

Modern advertising where particularly wealthy firms spend a large amount of money siphons away business from many lawyers. The old way of getting business by being active in the community, serving on community organizations, being the committeeperson and doing a good legal job no longer works and there is no incentive to do that. Good advertisements will get the business, even though many of the lawyers have little experience.

In this time of transition in the legal world, there has to be a reevaluation of how law is practiced. Overhead and expenses are too high and the demands and constant communication are too overwhelming. A big firm could have associates and others perhaps handle that, but for most lawyers who work for themselves, it falls on their shoulders. It's an impossible burden, at least, for an extended period of time.

Perhaps the Rules of Professional Conduct have to be changed to not require every client's communication be responded to immediately (Rule 1.4). Some of the diligent standards of Rule 1.3 and other provisions have to be rethought. Perhaps allowing lawyers to withdraw more easily because clients aren't paying, have to be reconsidered.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has an obligation to lead the legal profession. The future is uncertain as to what it was like to be a lawyer 20 or 30 years ago. There are many issues. But the most basic issue of all, the lack of satisfaction and lack of fulfillment now of being a lawyer, have to be considered. In this modern world of practicing, it is very difficult to find such personal satisfaction. As a result, many good people are going to leave the legal profession or treat it as a business and act accordingly. Once the professionalism is undermined the important and sacred role of the legal profession in this democratic society will be lost. The privilege of self-regulation will be undermined. The independence of the legal profession will be lost. Obviously, that is something no one wants. The modern way of practicing law has been too onerous even for the extreme workaholic. James Boswell had a famous quote about practicing law that might be relevant today. He said this in the context of why he did not want to be a lawyer. “I considered that I would at once embark myself for all my life in a labyrinth of care, and that my mind would be harassed with vexation.”

Of course, in Boswell's time, the pace was much slower, the cases were far more limited and the communication dealt with either a letter or meeting with someone. But, for modern lawyers, their life really has become a “labyrinth of care” and they are constantly “harassed with vexation.” That's not a recipe to encourage people to continue to practice law. On the contrary, such a life starts to sound a doomsday bell of the legal profession if that's what it is coming down to. The main cause of this is modern technology with its instantaneous communication. The changes to the legal profession have to be addressed, and its direction reconsidered. The fact that artificial intelligence is now being considered as a major part of the future practice of law demonstrates how far the legal profession has departed from its original goals and purposes.

The programs of the current Philadelphia DA have hurt the legal profession.

What are the effects on the legal profession of the many changes in criminal prosecution in Philadelphia County?

From the legal profession standpoint, the changes have been very difficult. Although the abolishment of cash bail may have a good effect on allowing people to be released and avoid the discrimination between the rich and the poor, it has had a very difficult effect on lawyers. Many lawyers received their fee from the assignment of the bail piece. If that is no longer available, it becomes extremely difficult for many small firm and criminal practitioners to get paid.

Further, there are far less prosecutions or cases going to trial now. As a result, courtrooms have been closed in Philadelphia due to lack of business. The prison population has dropped dramatically. Whatever effect that might have on society, it has a very bad effect on lawyers whose business involved representing criminal defendants. Business is slowly drying up with the resulting undermining of law firms. The lack of cases will cause firms to go under and lawyers not being able to make a living. From a trade standpoint, these changes and policies are disastrous. The question is, are they effective and better off for society? The question appears to be they are not, although the changes sound good in theory.

The lack of more prosecutions doesn't mean crime has dropped. Philadelphia streets are filled with crime and, in fact, crime is rising. Getting probation doesn't mean that everyone has reformed and changed. In fact, probation is a good tool to assist people in doing what they have to do to avoid drug addiction and avoid other arrests. Philadelphia is a city plagued with drug possession and drug use and plagued also with guns. Failure to prosecute and get serious convictions with lengthy jail time undermines the ability of Philadelphia law-abiding citizens to live a normal life.

A good example will show the problems when someone selling drugs is arrested and placed in jail, there is no lack of people to replace them on the particular corner in the city of Philadelphia where drugs are sold. The person in jail creates a vacancy and someone else selling drugs steps up and fills that vacancy. If the first person is then shortly released from jail or not prosecuted or not given an appropriate sentence, that person comes back. What they do is, of course, natural. They go back to their corner to resume their drug selling. But someone new is on the corner now. That person refuses to vacate. The next step, of course, is to kill them. About half or more of all murders in Philadelphia seem to be arising from that type of issue. All of this is directly related to the district attorney's present policies.

In a perfect world perhaps some of the ideas that Philadelphia's current DA has might make sense. But the world is imperfect. Unless, and until, society is willing to pay serious money for long-term inpatient drug treatment and care and unless society is willing to pay for long-term transitional housing or unless society is willing to provide meaningful jobs or at least jobs that pay more than minimum wage to persons returning from prison, there is no way to break the cycle of criminality, addiction and more criminality. The programs of the current DA are based on a myth that the above programs really exist when the don't. For most people with felonies, there is no real economic opportunities out there. They are not going to be hired and if they are it will be an extremely low-paying job. Most people who are out there have no choice but to go return to their old neighborhoods, without a job. As a result, they resume drug use, drug addiction, drug sales and other forms of criminality. The myth is that there is real help for those persons when they return to the streets of Philadelphia. The money is not available to support the programs, jobs and help the people in need. There is no such help. There are some programs that help persons get jobs, but they only help a small minority. Many persons cannot afford the drug programs and need long-term inpatient programs that really work. Most of the programs don't. They also need a place to go away from their neighborhood where they can live and most have no set place to go.

Therefore, Philadelphia is in a cycle and nothing good is going to come out of it in terms of the current philosophy of criminal prosecution. To change the world or to change an institution like the District Attorney's Office is not done overnight just because someone wants to do it. It's a long-involved process of getting funds from the legislature and the private sector to really create long-standing programs,  create real jobs and places where people can live transitionally. If one thinks halfway houses fit that then they've never been in there.

Progressive rhetoric aside, the current philosophic approach is going to create many problems in Philadelphia and will take years to repair. Further, many police officers have been unfairly tarnished by an extensive no-call list. That concept is ill-thought through. But also, it is a recipe for destroying the careers of officers without providing them any due process.

The problem is by the time this all sorts itself out, there are not going to be any lawyers left to try these cases with the experience. The Philadelphia based court-appointed system, although paying some more money, is still a disgrace and does not even approach the legacy of Gideon.

Therefore, the impact of the present programs of the current Philadelphia district attorney have severely hurt the legal profession. But, in the long run, society and safety will also be ill impacted.

Chester County lawyer Samuel C. Stretton has practiced in the area of legal and judicial ethics for more than 35 years. He welcomes questions and comments from readers. If you have a question, call Stretton directly at 610-696-4243 or write to him at 301 S. High St. P.O. Box 3231, West Chester, Pennsylvania, 19381.