"Public Interest" Law Firm?

Jennifer Reisch, recently identified as the woman who accused Boalt Hall Dean John Dwyer of sexual harassment, was described in some press reports as working for a "public interest law firm".

Her employer is Public Advocates, Inc., which calls itself a "public interest law firm", with a mission to

challenge and overcome the persistent, underlying causes and effects of poverty and discrimination against immigrants, people of color and the poor of California

But do their activities actually serve a widely-held perception of the "public interest"? And if not, why should the press help perpetuate the false notion that it is the "public" they are serving?

Some of Public Advocates' activities may indeed perform valuable services for poor people who might not otherwise be able to afford representation (although I think a lot of people might question how many "immigrants" and "people of color" are actually poor and disadvantaged, and/or likely to benefit from Public Advocate's lawsuits). And how well do any of these cases really serve the public?

Challenging the state CBEST teachers exam, with the goal of lowering standards in order to force the state to hire more teachers of specific ethnic backgrounds. This would seem to be in the interest of underqualified aspiring teachers, not in the interest of the public. (The CBEST exam doesn't look all that hard, by the way. How many members of the public would want their kids to be taught by people who get a low score on this test?)

Challenging the decision of the people of California by trying to overturn Prop. 227 and restore bilingual education. Who is in a better position to define "public interest", voters, or these guys?

Fighting to secure public healthcare services for illegal aliens, at the expense, apparently, of members of the public who have a legal right to live in California and also require public health services.

Forcing telephone companies to pay millions of dollars in contributions to unaccountable ethnicity-based charitable organizations. Such contributions ultimately come out of the pockets of ratepayers, i.e. the general public.

Clearly, much of Public Advocates' efforts are spent advancing a narrow political agenda, and not serving any widely held perception of the "public interest". Perhaps a more accurate description would be "political advocacy law firm".

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 15, 2002 03:33 PM