Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/9242

Bill Overview

Title: Legal Aid for Americans Act of 2022

Description: This bill establishes a pro bono service requirement for law school graduates who borrow federal student loans for their graduate legal education. Specifically, such a borrower must agree to perform pro bono legal work for not fewer than 50 hours per year for three years after the borrower obtains a license to practice law in a state (or for three years after completing the program of study, for borrowers who already had a license to practice when they received the loan). The bill exempts certain individuals from this requirement, including a borrower who is employed in a public service job.

Sponsors: Rep. Burchett, Tim [R-TN-2]

Target Audience

Population: Law school graduates with federal student loans

Estimated Size: 75000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Corporate Lawyer (Chicago, IL)

Age: 30 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I think the pro bono requirement is a great initiative to give back to the community.
  • It's going to be challenging to fit 50 hours into my busy work schedule, but I see it as an opportunity.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 8
Year 2 7 9
Year 3 8 9
Year 5 9 9
Year 10 9 9
Year 20 8 9

Public Defender (New York, NY)

Age: 28 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I am exempt from the requirement due to my job, so it doesn't impact me directly.
  • I support the policy as it can help ease the access to justice for many.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 6 6
Year 20 5 5

Solo Practitioner (Austin, TX)

Age: 35 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The pro bono work is a nice gesture, but I feel overburdened already.
  • It's likely to cut into my time to acquire private clients.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 7
Year 2 6 7
Year 3 5 8
Year 5 7 8
Year 10 8 8
Year 20 7 7

Litigation Associate (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 26 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm worried about how to manage the pro bono hours with the demanding hours at my firm.
  • I hope this experience will enrich my skills, but it feels like added pressure right now.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 5
Year 2 5 6
Year 3 6 6
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 8 8
Year 20 7 7

Legal Aid Attorney (Rural Georgia)

Age: 40 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 9

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • While I am exempt, the policy will help channel more legal support to areas like mine.
  • It won't affect my work directly, but I hope it alleviates some of the workload in deep rural areas.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 9 9
Year 2 9 9
Year 3 9 9
Year 5 9 9
Year 10 8 8
Year 20 7 7

Technology Law Consultant (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 29 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I appreciate the intent of the policy, but planning for 50 hours is not straightforward.
  • Anyone in the private sector should be compensated or allowed more flexibility.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 6
Year 2 6 7
Year 3 6 7
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 8 8
Year 20 8 8

Field Assistant in Law Firm (Miami, FL)

Age: 48 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I opted for non-legal work after law school, so the policy doesn't affect me.
  • I see it more as a way to involve more people in community legal services.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 6 6
Year 10 5 5
Year 20 4 4

Environmental Law Attorney (Cleveland, OH)

Age: 32 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The pro bono requirement should be implemented with flexibility in mind, especially for niche fields.
  • It could play positively or impede my professional practice. Balanced execution is key.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 6 7
Year 3 7 8
Year 5 8 8
Year 10 9 9
Year 20 8 8

Law Professor (Seattle, WA)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy adds new dimensions to legal education and post-graduation plans. It will redefine law school objectives.
  • As a professor, I don’t participate but guide students to engage responsibly.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 8 8
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 6 6
Year 20 6 6

Intellectual Property Lawyer (Boston, MA)

Age: 27 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The requirement is going to be tough with my schedule, but it could be fulfilling.
  • I believe in supporting those with less access to legal services, even if it affects my personal time.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 8
Year 5 8 8
Year 10 8 8
Year 20 8 8

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)

Year 2: $4500000 (Low: $2500000, High: $6500000)

Year 3: $4000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $6000000)

Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Key Considerations