Should lawyers be expected to do pro bono work?

Having read a thirty page monstrosity on this topic elsewhere, I'm curious to see a slightly more reasoned discussion of it.

In the United States lawyers are recommended by the American Bar Association ethical rules to contribute at least fifty hours of pro bono service per year. Whether or not individual attorneys should feel obligated to follow this recommendation, why should they (or why should they not) be recommended to do this in the first place?

On a related note, law firms are ranked in part by their pro bono participation and this information is passed on to law students. Is a law firm with low pro bono participation likely to attract the best law students? What about one with high pro bono participation? Does it matter either way?

In general lawyers have a collectively poor reputation in this country. It is actually common sense for the group as a whole to try and repair some of their reputation by building good will through Pro Bono work.

On the other side of the picture is many lawyers act like parasites sucking the lifeblood from the economy and the least they could do is give a measly 50 hours of Pro-Bono work back.

From what I understand, the majority of large law firms in the US don't make their pro-bono quotas. So while it may be recommended, ignoring that recommendation obviously isn't hurting them any. At least as far as their financial success goes. As for injuries to their reputations, I agree with Jim that more pro-bono work could go a long way towards improving them.

For the sake of equality and keeping the legal system working as it should work instead of simply running along smoothly on wheels greased with money, they should be expected to do pro-bono work. Because our entire society is built upon interpretations of the law, it's reasonable for those practicing law to donate about the equivalent of one business week out of a year.

There's a thread with almost the identical title that Fenris started on the Giraffe Boards. It's not necessarily a more reasoned discussion, but there are more viewpoints on your topic, so I thought you might be interested.

Should lawyers be expected (or required) to do Pro Bono work?

Heffalump, you could always post your views on here as well and see if you get a different set of answers.

As to the OP, I think forcing lawyers to do pro-bono work is a good idea. It prevents them becoming too stale or fixed in a specific area and ensures they are given exposure to the wider world.

It's easy to only work on big expensive cases and rake in a lot of money, but getting a sense of perspective about the effect law has on everyone is a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CatInASuit

...getting a sense of perspective about the effect law has on everyone is a good thing.

---

This. A good lawyer is trying to do his best to see that the law is carried out in a fair way. A very good way to encourage them to keep thinking like that and not just think about getting the richest clients is to have them take some time out every year and do something that has nothing to do with lining their pockets.

Would it be better to make them do X hours per year, or force them to work a week doing pro-bono work. Actually be forced to take a couple of days out, two or three times a year. A lot of companies do charity work like this, so why should they not be any different.

Should they be fined as well if they don't cover their number of hours.

I think making them do X hours per year is the best way to handle it. One solid week wouldn't work since a lawyer is rarely working on a single case every hour of the day for a week. It'll drag out much longer than that in little bursts here and there, and once they take a pro-bono case they have to see it through.