he needs to open his own office,i live in south GA. around here attorneys work out of their homes.and do well.you should see their homes,real nice.all they do here is put a listing in the yellow pages.or he could get a few attorneys together and start their own firm.good luck,and tell him to hang in there.
The Jim Crow Laws were the law, so they determined what was legal. (Laws are not illegal or legal, but they may or may not be constitutional or get overruled by newer/higher laws.) The Jim Crow laws were ruled to be constitutional in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) , which said that separate but equal facilities still abided by the fourteenth amendment of equal protection and treatment for all citizens under the law. People assumed that there was no harm in segregation if the facilities were equal (which they weren't, but play along for a minute). However, Brown v. Board of Education (1954) overturned this justification of constitutionality. Now the court ruled that segregation inherently causes inequality because in the very act of separating, it is implied that there is something different between the groups, ergo one is inferior. But the Supreme Court does not have the power to change how laws are enforced, and it was not until Congress' Civil Rights legislation in the sixties that the federal government forced the Southern governments to end segregation and the Jim Crow laws.
So to answer your question, the Jim Crow laws were considered constitutional ("legal" as you put it) because the justice system, the yardstick for determining what is right and wrong, is comprised of humans, which are imperfect beings. The fickle humans in 1896 thought Jim Crow laws were okay, so Jim Crow laws were constitutional. As far as a general moral ruling of the Jim Crow laws as we understand morality today, the Jim Crows laws flout the rights of humanity and were never "legal" by these "laws."