Reporting of Pro Bono Service

    Overview of State Pro Bono Reporting Policies

    strategies for emphasizing pro bono responsibility and gathering data

    States That Allow Pro Bono Representation by Corporate In-House Counsel (from Corporate Pro Bono and the Pro Bono Institute)

    Arguments For and Against Pro Bono Reporting

    Mandatory: For

    Mandatory: Against

    Voluntary: For

    Voluntary: Against

     

    In Favor of Mandatory Pro Bono Reporting

    • Simple mechanism for attempting to increase delivery of legal services to poor (e.g. actual increase in Florida) and level of service to community
    • Effective mechanism for collecting reliable, accurate, consistent data to evaluate delivery of pro bono legal services to the poor
    • Provides data essential for design of successful programs
    • Can increase monetary contributions
    • Creates positive peer pressure
    • Promotes increased access to justice/courts
    • Allows judiciary opportunity to safeguard constitution and individuals' rights to challenge government conduct
    • Promotes involvement in pro bono
    • Promises high rates of reporting
    • Data can send message to non-legal community about their responsibility to fund legal services for poor
    • Enables recognition of contributing lawyers
    • Can be inexpensive
    • Facilitates engendering confidence in the bar
    • Can make demographics collectible
    • Data can be used to enhance image of lawyers
    • Encourages fulfillment of professional responsibility
    • Can raise consciousness about professional responsibility
    • Can raise awareness of need for free or reduced fee legal services
    • Can raise awareness of opportunities for pro bono involvement
    • Can obviate mandatory pro bono service controversy
    Back to Top

    In Favor of Voluntary Pro Bono Reporting

    • Not a burden on attorneys because optional
    • No threat to constitutional rights
    • No need to focus energies on discipline
    • Easy to implement
    • Can collect data
    • Data can send message to non-legal community about their responsibility to fund legal services for poor
    • Enables recognition of contributing lawyers
    • Can be inexpensive
    • Facilitates engendering confidence in the bar
    • Can make demographics collectible
    • Data can be used to enhance image of lawyers
    • Can raise consciousness about professional responsibility
    • Can raise awareness of need for free or reduced fee legal services
    • Can raise awareness of opportunities for pro bono involvement
    • Can increase monetary contributions
    Back to Top

    Against Mandatory Pro Bono Reporting

    • Violates constitutional right to privacy because publicizes private acts of charity and divulges names of recipients
    • Violates of right to be free from involuntary servitude
    • A step toward mandatory pro bono
    • Invites political opposition
    • Difficult to find support
    • Unnecessary
    • Counterproductive to goal of increasing delivery of direct legal services to the poor
    • Administrative costs involved in collecting and processing information, as well as in taking disciplinary action or imposing sanctions
    • Negative peer pressure
    • Onerous responsibility for attorneys
    • Public and press can use information to criticize the bar
    • For legislature, not judiciary to decide (not judiciary's role to encourage charitable activities)
    • Does not serve public interest
    • Difficult to determine what type of discipline is appropriate
    • Unnecessary
    • True motive: to persuade or shame lawyers into doing pro bono work
    • Judicial aspirants could be affected by information provided in past years
    • Burdens state with need to devise collection methods and penalties for noncompliance with the rule
    • Financial burden on state
    • Pro bono can become a negative rather than positive concept if bar members express opposition
    Back to Top   

    Against Voluntary Pro Bono Reporting

    • Promotes low response rate
    • Collects insufficient data to draw statistically valid conclusions
    • If separate forms, may get lost or discarded
    • Trying to track activity may be burdensome due to low response rate
    • Some activities not recognized or promoted (e.g. legal services rendered in rural communities or non-legal community service activities)
    • If form not on dues statement, complete analysis of collected data impossible because inclusion of personal information optional
    • Ineffective
    • May not encourage or promote fulfillment of professional responsibility to provide access to justice
    • May not raise consciousness about pro bono or professional responsibility


     

    Back to Top