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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT