States have developed two different models of pro bono reporting systems: rules requiring attorneys to report their pro bono activity (mandatory pro bono reporting) and rules suggesting that attorneys volunteer such information (voluntary pro bono reporting).
Mandatory Pro Bono Reporting
Ten states currently require attorneys to report their pro bono hours. California will begin to require reporting in 2026.
California
AB 2505 Requires active licensees to report annually whether they have provided pro bono legal services through the My State Bar online profile. Reporting begins in 2026 but the bar will ask lawyers to voluntarily provide their 2024 pro bono totals in the 2025 fee billing cycle.
Florida
Rule 4-6.1 of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct
Florida implemented mandatory pro bono in 1993 and was the first state to do so. Hours are reported with annual membership dues.
Hawaii
Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 17(d)(1)(B).
Hawaii implemented mandatory pro bono reporting in 2007. Pro bono hours are reported in the annual attorney registration.
Illinois
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 756(f)
Illinois adopted the reporting requirement in 2006. Pro bono hours are reported with annual attorney registration.
Indiana
Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 6.7.
Mandatory reporting implemented in 2016. Pro bono hours are reported during the annual attorney registration.
Maryland
Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 19-503. Mandatory reporting began in 2002. Pro bono hours are reported annually with IOLTA compliance.
Minnesota
Minn. Sup. Ct. Lawyer. Registration R. 25
Adopted in 2022. Attorneys must report thir pro bono hours each year in their annual Lawyer Registration Statement.
Mississippi
Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 6.1(e). Adopted in 2005. Pro bono hours are reported in the annual membership fees statement.
Nevada
Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 6.1(b). Pro bono hours are reported annually as part of the annual membership fees statement.
New Mexico
New Mexico Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 24-108. Implemented in 2008. Pro bono hours are reported through annual membership renewal.
New York
22 NYCRR &118.1(e)(14). Pro bono hours are reported in the biennial registration process.
*Special note about New Jersey: The New Jersey Bar assigns legal work to attorneys, representing indigent litigants in cases where the legislature has made no provision for a public defender. Attorneys are required to annually report their compliance with pro bono requirements during the annual registration process. However, this is a separate and unique program and the Standing Committee does not consider it as fitting in our definition of mandatory pro bono reporting.
Reasons In Favor of Implementing Mandatory Pro Bono Reporting
- It is a simple mechanism for attempting to increase delivery of legal services to poor (e.g. actual increase in Florida) and level of service to community
- It is an effective mechanism for collecting reliable, accurate, consistent data to evaluate delivery of pro bono legal services to the poor
- It provides data essential for design of successful programs
- It may increase monetary contributions
- Reporting creates positive peer pressure
- It promotes increased access to justice/courts
- It promotes involvement in pro bono
- Requiring reporting promises high rates of reporting
- Data collected can send a message to non-legal community about their responsibility to fund legal services for poor
- It enables recognition of contributing lawyers
- It can be inexpensive
- It facilitates engendering confidence in the bar
- It may make demographics collectible
- The data can be used to enhance image of lawyers
- It encourages fulfillment of professional responsibility
- It may raise consciousness about the professional responsibility to provide pro bono legal services
- It may raise awareness of need for free or reduced fee legal services
- It may raise awareness of opportunities for pro bono involvement
- It may obviate mandatory pro bono service controversy
Reasons Against Implementing Mandatory Pro Bono Reporting
- Reporting violates constitutional right to privacy because publicizes private acts of charity and divulges names of recipients
- Reporting violates the right to be free from involuntary servitude
- Reporting is a step toward mandatory pro bono
- Implementing reporting invites political opposition to pro bono
- It may be difficult to find support
- It may be unnecessary
- It may be counterproductive to goal of increasing delivery of direct legal services to the poor
- The administrative costs involved in collecting and processing information, as well as in taking disciplinary action or imposing sanctions, may be prohibitive
- It may engender negative peer pressure
- It creates an onerous responsibility for attorneys
- The public and press can use the information to criticize the bar
- It is for the legislature, not the judiciary to decide (not judiciary's role to encourage charitable activities)
- Reporting does not serve the public interest
- It is difficult to determine what type of discipline is appropriate for failure to report
- The true motive is to persuade or shame lawyers into doing pro bono work
- Judicial aspirants could be affected by information provided in past years
- It burdens the state with the need to devise collection methods and penalties for noncompliance with the rule
- It imposes a financial burden on the state
- Pro bono can become a negative rather than positive concept if bar members express opposition