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 was wondering about the 6 million put aside for common attorney fees?does that mean that if you are a plaintiff your attorney fees will be partially covered?

  2. My situation was hopeless me and my husband was on the verge of divorce. I was in a awful state and felt that I was not able to cope with life any longer. I found out about this great spell caster drlawrencespelltemple@hotmail.com and tried him. Well, he did return and now we are doing well again, more than ever before. Thank you so much Drlawrencespelltemple@hotmail.comi will forever be grateful to you Drlawrencespelltemple@hotmail.com

  3. I expressed my thought in the title, long as it was. I am shocked that there is ever immunity from accountability for ANY Government agency. That appears to violate every principle in the US Constitution, which exists to limit Government power and to ensure Government accountability. I don't know how many cases of legitimate child abuse exist, but in the few cases in which I knew the people involved, in every example an anonymous caller used DCS as their personal weapon to strike at innocent people over trivial disagreements that had no connection with any facts. Given that the system is vulnerable to abuse, and given the extreme harm any action by DCS causes to families, I would assume any degree of failure to comply with the smallest infraction of personal rights would result in mandatory review. Even one day of parent-child separation in the absence of reasonable cause for a felony arrest should result in severe penalties to those involved in the action. It appears to me, that like all bureaucracies, DCS is prone to interpret every case as legitimate. This is not an accusation against DCS. It is a statement about the nature of bureaucracies, and the need for ADDED scrutiny of all bureaucratic actions. Frankly, I question the constitutionality of bureaucracies in general, because their power is delegated, and therefore unaccountable. No Government action can be unaccountable if we want to avoid its eventual degeneration into irrelevance and lawlessness, and the law of the jungle. Our Constitution is the source of all Government power, and it is the contract that legitimizes all Government power. To the extent that its various protections against intrusion are set aside, so is the power afforded by that contract. Eventually overstepping the limits of power eliminates that power, as a law of nature. Even total tyranny eventually crumbles to nothing.

  4. Being dedicated to a genre keeps it alive until the masses catch up to the "trend." Kent and Bill are keepin' it LIVE!! Thank you gentlemen..you know your JAZZ.

  5. Hemp has very little THC which is needed to kill cancer cells! Growing cannabis plants for THC inside a hemp field will not work...where is the fear? From not really knowing about Cannabis and Hemp or just not listening to the people teaching you through testimonies and packets of info over the last few years! Wake up Hoosier law makers!

ADVERTISEMENT