The number and quality of prosecutors and public defenders in the country have a direct bearing upon the administration of justice and the rule of law.  But the existent compensation structure does less than justice to the prosecutors and defenders who toil to uphold that rule.  The gross disparity between the salaries of lawyers in public and private service steers law graduates away from public service everyday.  It’s not that they avoid public service out of greed.  Most often, the economic burdens that rest on the shoulders of the young law graduates dictate their choice.  And more heavy than any other is the burden of educational loan.

Reports show that over 80 percent of law students incur loans to meet their ever-rising educational costs.  According to the American Bar Association, law students graduating from private schools in 2005 had an average cumulative debt of $78,763, while for those graduating from public schools, this figure stood at $51,056.  But it doesn’t end there, for as found by National Center for Education Statistics, at least two thirds of these students also carry over unpaid debt from their undergraduate studies.  So, the real burden of educational loan upon an average law graduate is much higher than what these cited figures show.  Thus, it is the compensation structure of a job that decides entry level options for law graduates.

In a survey on compensation structures offered by different service options for law students, the National Association for Law Placement (NALP) found some interesting facts that highlight the disparity between public and private service as of 2005:

•    Median entry level salary for public defenders was $43,000
•    Median entry level salary for state prosecuting attorneys was $46,000
•    Median entry level salary for private law firms was $100,000

No wonder then, that in a recent national survey of law students conducted jointly by the NALP and Partnership for Public Service, 66 percent of the respondents opined that law school debt made public service an inconsiderable option.  The implications for our legal system are far reaching.

While considering S 442, the latest avatar of the PDI Act, the Committee on the Judiciary commented on its April 10 report:
“When prosecutor and public defender offices cannot attract new lawyers or keep experienced ones, their ability to protect the public is compromised.  Such offices may find themselves unable to take on new cases due to staff shortages, and existing staff may be forced to handle unmanageable workloads.  Cases may suffer from lengthy and unnecessary delays, and some cases may be mishandled by inexperienced or overworked attorneys.  As a result, innocent people may sit in jail, and criminals may go free.”
Remove every “may” from that comment and you get the real situation.

According to a report published by the U.S. Department of Justice in July 2006, at least 24 percent of state and local prosecutor offices faced problems in recruiting new attorneys while 35 percent faced problems in retaining attorneys.  Where the prosecutor offices were large, almost 60 percent of them had problems with attorney retention.  In a 2002 survey made by Equal Justice Works and the National Legal Aid & Defender Association, it was found that over 60 percent of state and local public defender offices were in difficulty over attorney recruitment and retention.  So, to infer from the April 10 report of the Committee on Judiciary, the ability of our legal system to protect the public has already been compromised.

The Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act intended to remedy the situation by making public service an affordable option to entry-level law students.  The legislation intended to establish a program of student loan repayment within the Department of Justice.  The program is meant for attorneys who consent to serve for three years as state or local criminal prosecutors, or in the posts of public defenders at state, local, or federal levels.  Subject to a maximum aggregate value of $60,000, the Act authorized the Attorney General to make incentive payments up to $10,000 a year directly to the educational lender on behalf of the service holder.  The PDI Act, if it ever became law, would have done wonders for our legal system, but it has a history of being shelved; and history repeats itself.

The Act was first introduced in the 108th Congress on May 21, 2003.  It was then called the Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2003 (S. 1091).  The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, sat on the bill and proceeded to forget its existence.  On November 17, 2005, the bill, cosponsored by 19 senators, was again introduced as the Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2005 (S. 2039).  The Committee on the Judiciary reported favorably on the bill by voice vote on May 25, 2006, and placed the bill on the Senate legislative calendar.  The Senate sat on the bill and forgot all about it.  In its latest version as the John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2007, the bill was introduced on January 31, 2007 with 17 Senate cosponsors.  The Senate Committee on the Judiciary approved the bill, now S.442 in presence of a quorum on March 1, 2007 introducing some amendments.  It’s the month of May now, but the Congress still hasn’t found time to consider this landmark bill and turn it into law.  We can only pray that the progress of the bill doesn’t repeat its history.