Defining "Public Interest Law"

Before discussing the means for revitalizing public interest law at Georgetown, we must first define public interest law itself. While a concrete definition of the term is elusive, public interest does have some defining characteristics.

First, it is legally related work which seeks to provide representation to groups and interests that might otherwise lack meaningful representation in the legal system. Second, it is often concerned with effecting political and social change. Finally, it involves an element of public-spirited service, which usually entails financial sacrifice.

EJF endorses a broad definition of public interest law which encompasses a diverse range of public interest careers. While it is impossible to list all of the categories which fit the definition, the list includes legal services providers, criminal defenders and prosecutors, civil rights lawyers, environmental advocates, government attorneys, judicial clerks, private public interest lawyers, and lobbyists.

Although defining the parameters of public interest seems like an academic exercise, the definition determines who will receive summer fellowships, loan repayment assistance, faculty advisors, career resources, and more. Consequently, definitions which exclude particular areas of practice effectively discourage students from that type of work.

By defining public interest narrowly, it is possible to exclude certain types of practitioners from the benefits of Georgetown's public interest programs. For example, the LRAP program's narrow definition makes prosecutors and government attorneys ineligible for loan repayment assistance, although they serve the public and are paid little more than legal services attorneys.

EJF urges the University not to implement programs which define public interest narrowly, thus expressing a preference for one type of public service over another. Where limited resources make full support of all types of public interest work impossible, EJF recommends that the burden be shared equally by all public interest practitioners, rather than shouldered completely by certain types of practitioners. This principle of equal treatment of all types of public interest work should be followed in each of the public interest programs addressed in this report.