At the just concluded Law & Society meeting in Montreal, there was an interesting panel on pro bono work. Lots of empirical studies are being done and much (but not all) of the focus is on pro bono by big firms.
Leslie Levin, of UConn, presented on “Low Bono,” which a term of art among some solos and small firm lawyers who provide some legal work for greatly reduced rates to low income clients. Leslie pointed out that under the Model Rules, “low bono” isn’t considered pro bono, even though generous, high-quality legal work is being donated to people who can’t afford lawyers. (Should we amend the rules to acknowledge that work?)
Steven Boutcher of UC-Irvine shared his early results in a statistical study of the rate, scope, and organization of big firm pro bono work. Rebecca Sandefur of Stanford explored how economic downturns might affect the amount of biglaw pro bono efforts. Robert Granfield, of SUNY-Buffalo, who along with Scott Cummings of UCLA is a pioneer in the field, examined the affect of gender, race, and workplace context in the provision of pro bono. Cynthia Williams, of Osgood Hall (York University), explored the role of transactional lawyers in facilitating their corporate clients’ compliance with protocols of corporate social responsibility.
One of the recurring themes was the degree to which big firms now compete for prestige and students by having elaborate pro bono programs—and the lingering fear that some of that competition may be just for show. Still, when you tally up the amount of pro bono done by the big firms—an issue Sandefur addressed—it’s not at all trivial. Another theme that came up, but that I would have liked to debate at length, is the extent to which financial contributions and fund raising should be acceptable forms of pro bono. Suppose a corporate partner decides he's just not good at direct services but is quite good at seeking capital contributions that could fund two public interest lawyers -- lawyers who really know how to do direct services work. Is that pro bono?
Comments