Chambliss: Rural Legal Markets
In Rural Legal Markets, Elizabeth Chambliss (University of South Carolina School of Law) explores the realities of the current legal market of private practice in rural South Carolina. Using a mixed-methods study of private practitioners, Chambliss examines the economic and professional structures that shape rural legal markets, identifies the ingredients of sustainable rural practice, and discusses incentives for rural practitioners to engage in pro bono and low-bono services.
Chambliss describes the growing concern about rural “legal deserts” and efforts in many states to implement incentive programs designed to encourage law school graduates to establish practices in underserved rural areas. These programs often describe rural practitioners as accessible generalists who serve the public through pro bono, low bono, and community service. However, the author explains, little empirical research exists regarding rural legal markets or the role of rural private practitioners in serving low-income clients and communities.
Chambliss analyzes the economics, demographics, and structure of rural legal practice in South Carolina using state bar membership data, a census of law firms, law firm website analysis, and interviews with thirty rural practitioners. She identifies four significant findings regarding the sustainability of rural legal practice. First, rural practitioners play a limited role in serving low-income clients, as less than twenty-five percent of South Carolina’s rural practitioners work in the state’s poorest rural counties. Second, Chambliss challenges the perception that successful rural lawyers are broad generalists. Most lawyers begin with a diverse practice but often specialize to increase income and reduce liability exposure as they progress through their career. Third, periodic local personal injury cases have become less viable as a means of subsidizing less profitable work. Finally, family and local community ties are important factors in attracting and sustaining rural practitioners, raising concerns regarding the scalability of recruiting lawyers without existing local connections.
Ultimately, Chambliss concludes that due to the nature of rural legal markets, the mismatch between the distribution of civil legal needs and the availability of legal services in rural counties may be addressed through means beyond, or in addition to, recruiting law graduates to rural practice. She recommends targeted subsidies based on demonstrated legal need and considering alternative methods of expanding access to legal assistance in underserved rural communities.
