Editors of the Harvard Law Review responded yesterday to Ralph Nader's charges that the publication is a "useless application of legal talent" and should be abolished as a student-run organization.

Nader made the criticisms at a speech Saturday night at the Law School in which he said that the 2500 hours of students' time per week that is spent on the Law Review could be better employed to serve social needs through public legal assistance.

David L. Engel '67, president-elect of the Review, and William C. Powers Jr., treasurer and managing editor-designate, both said yesterday that although they agree with much of what Nader said, the Review still serves a socially beneficial function.

"There are potentially much more important things to be done socially than putting out a law review." Powers said. "However, it's not clear to me that the Law Review cannot contribute in a significant way to the solution of social problems."

Engel said that there have been numerous articles in the Review concerned with social issues. He said that because the Review is read and respected in legal circles, it provides "an opportunity for somebody reasonably young to have the ear of somebody in a position of power."

Jonathan B. Marks '66, the current president of the Review, concurred, saying, "Law reviews ought to be able to focus on the kind of issues that public-interest lawyers are focusing on."

Marks said that the Review should "move as much as possible towards finding what the law review equivalent of public-interest lawyering is."

He said that in the future he hoped the Review would be able to get publicity for some of its socially-oriented writing and thus gain greater leverage for effecting legal reforms.

He said that the Review also hopes to solicit ideas for articles on issues of social concern from public-interest law firms.

Engel said that he doubted that a faculty-run law review--as Nader had suggested-would be as sensitive to social issues as the present one.

As now structured, the Review is manned by a 60-student staff, chosen principally by academic achievement. The Review is independent of faculty control, but has frequent contributions from the faculty.

Engel said that the Review also served as an excellent method of training lawyers. "There is a real function of intellectual training here," he said.

"I take somewhat seriously the nation that very, very skilled practitioners and judges help the legal system work more efficiently." Engel added. "And an efficient system is necessary for social reform."

Both Engel and Powers said that they thought that the time students put in on the Review would not be spent elsewhere if the Review were abolished.

"I don't think the students on the Law Review would spend as much of their time working for Legal Aid or other similar things," Powers said. "There are certain rewards that people on the Law Review get and that's why they put in so much time."

Powers maintained, however, that the primary motivation is not financial, as Nader had claimed. "The idea that the Law Review is a monolithic group of people headed toward Wall Street is simply not the fact," he said.

He said that most Law Reviewers are concerned mostly with prestige and achievement, and that most aspire towards membership on a law faculty or a judgeship or political position.

Powers said that most people on the Review are confident of their earning power and not likely to exert themselves primarily for pay