I admire the concept, and think it could theoretically fill a crucial niche as a general legal aid provider. By creating what seems to be an open access/need group, it would allow people in need of advice to find enthusiastic and intellectually curious practitioners to help solve various issues. It tangentially shares a lot in common with the Wiki concept, because as SPIO cases increased, so would the knowledge and expertise of those running it.

The problems though are manifold, especially with regards to our inability to actually give legal advice (something Michael brought up). The organization would need to get veteran lawyers to actually run the program, which would be a tough sell given the indefinite nature of the funding. Furthermore, while I'm sure eventually student participation could be kept at a consistent level, I would imagine that those students would move on to other professional opportunities. This could be for financial reasons, or to specialize in a public interest field that they feel drawn to. This brings up another issue, which is something Jonathan mentioned, and that is that there are already an incredible amount of specialists that would cover the work done by SPIO. Unless SPIO acted as sort of a clearing house and directory for issues (not something I think you intended), what incentive would someone have to work with SPIO instead of an established group? This is not to condemn your idea, I just think there are practical difficulties. Despite these though, I really think this could be a fantastic way of giving law students a broad array of public service experience, and would love to hear responses to the difficulties proposed.

On the subject Jon also brought up, regarding firms sending people to PI jobs, I think this is a fantastic development quite frankly. Clearly there will be problems with turnover, but it seems that the public interest domain can never have enough good legal minds.

-- AaronShepard - 23 Mar 2009