Thanks for the comment, Antonio! The proposed rule change only addresses pro bono representation, so I don’t think that it does anything really to solve the problem of access to justice, which, as you say, is indeed a big problem. The clients the rule change is meant to help already have a free lawyer. The question is whether paying their rent, say, goes too far in encouraging claims that would not otherwise be brought.

I do oppose it for all programs. The problems are the same both on the lawyer’s side and on the client’s side. On the client’s side, the risk is that the client will feel he or she is being paid to say things that will improve the chances of the case succeeding. That was very clear in the case I gave in my example, which was of course an extreme case, but I think the same dynamic would be at work here, though less starkly. On the lawyer’s side, the lawyer or law school may not be motivated by money (except of course in fee shifting cases—do you think law school clinics should be able to give gifts to client in those cases?), but clinics have agendas and the lawyers’ and students’ incentives can be distorted by the desire to carry out the agenda in the same way as a private practice lawyer’s incentives can be distorted. This isn’t a criticism of law school clinics—I’m a proud alumnus of one and think they often do great work.