<p>Actually, common sense suggests the opposite: if an area can’t support a single lawyer, then there’s not enough business in that area and it isn’t underserved. If an area thought it was underserved, it would find the funds to pay a lawyer. But these areas won’t, which is one of the many dirty little secrets of the practice of law: nobody wants to pay for a lawyer.
But let’s look at the articles: the ATL piece supports my argument-if you pay a lawyer, s/he’ll stick around. The NPR piece conveniently lumps “doctors and lawyers” together, even though the professions aren’t even vaguely similar-nor are the current job prospects in each. But the NYT piece is the most amusing: it quotes many decrying the lack of lawyers in certain areas, but doesn’t quote a single bit of evidence that anyone’s underserved. Rather, it notes that certain geographic areas don’t have lawyers-but how many people live in these areas? Do they want to pay a lawyer? You’ll note that the octogenarian lawyer doesn’t have an-or any-associate(s), and didn’t sell/give his practice to anyone. This strongly suggests that there isn’t enough business to support a lawyer. There are enough lawyers looking for work that if he had a sufficient book he’d easily find someone to take over his practice. The article strongly suggests that even after decades of practicing, he’s got no business to pass on to anyone.
These areas aren’t underserved; they just don’t want to pay for having a lawyer around. As the ATL piece points out, it’s the lack of enough business to support themselves and a family that’s keeping lawyers out of remote rural areas.</p>