Judge attacks pro bono work

October 23, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Update: The Wall Street Journal Law Blog has an entry today with excerpts of the 2nd Circuit Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs' speech regarding pro bono work. The chief judge defends his speech, saying the National Law Journal article "grossly misstates" what the judge said and thinks. A link to the full text of the speech can also be found at the WSJ law blog.

 I'm glad the chief judge's statements seem to have been miscontrued or taken out of context, because I couldn't fathom how a person in his position in the legal community could speak so negatively about pro bono work.  

When I think of the pro bono work attorneys do, the words “anti-social” and “self-serving” don’t come to mind. But that’s how the chief judge of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals described pro bono work.

Many of Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs’ comments have been posted online, easily found by searching his name plus “pro bono.” Some other highlights from the chief judge’s speech in New York earlier this month include his belief that pro bono work is being used as a tool by law firms to recruit, and non-profits use it to further a political agenda.

When I heard the “self-serving” comment, it made me think back to an episode of “Friends” in which two of the characters were debating whether there are any selfless good deeds. The argument can be made that doing pro bono work, or any volunteer work, can make those volunteering feel good that they are making a difference in their community or others’ lives. A lot of people enjoy helping others, not to further their own agenda, but because they like to see the results of their volunteer work – whether it’s a client winning their case or being treated fairly, or seeing a house built for a previously homeless family. But to call it “self-serving” is a stretch.

I know attorneys are encouraged by their firms do perform pro bono work, but many lawyers would do it without firm encouragement. Some even want to do more but those tricky billable hours keep getting in the way.

What I don’t understand is why someone in the chief judge’s position, a person who is influential in his legal community, would come out and denigrate pro bono work. He’s entitled to his opinion, and I’m sure there are others out there who feel similar to him, but to come out and say it in the way he did could have a negative impact on the legal community’s impression of pro bono work.

Lawyers fresh out of law school may hear his comments and believe pro bono work isn’t as important as firms or other attorneys say it is. Attorneys doing pro bono work now may feel attacked or underappreciated for their work, and in a worse-case scenario just stop volunteering.

No one should be made to feel like they have to volunteer, but attorneys learn either in school, through their firm, or other attorneys that pro bono work is important for their communities. There are many people out there who need help because they have been wrongfully convicted, a victim of domestic violence, or their home is being taken away and they don’t understand why. Those who are able to devote time to pro bono work should be able to do so without the “anti-social” and “self-serving” comments hanging over them.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT