Under the MRPC, lawyers should aspire to complete 50 hours of pro bono work. In Florida, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that lawyers should aspire to 20 hours or $350 in contributions. As these are aspirational standards, they are not mandatory and is not meant to send lawyers into involuntary service. Is this the right take?
Some argue that it is a lawyers duty to preform this volunteer work and to give back to their community. The drafters of the model rules stated that every lawyer has a professional responsibility to provide legal services to those that don't pay. I agree with this. However, I think that if there were punishments for not completing a compulsory service, it would take away the meaning behind the pro bono work. It also would force attorneys into compulsory services that could go against constitutional freedoms. Lawyers could also begin to lose the excitement and purpose behind the pro bono service because they feel as though they are forced into it.
I think that a possible solution would be for state bar associations to raise the hours of aspirational pro bono service. This would make attorneys feel like they should give free services more, while avoiding imposing mandatory service.
One problem is the imbalance between the aspirational number of pro bono hours and the alternative dollar contribution. As we saw from the Florida Bar economics survey, $350 is close to the median hourly rate for lawyers. The suggested $350 contribution equals 1 hour, not 20. Should the requested contribution be substantially higher, say $2,000, with that money used to fund indigent legal services? Otherwise, there is no incentive to do 20 hours of pro bono work if you can meet the aspirational commitment simply by paying 1 hour's worth of billable time.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of setting aspirational rather than mandatory standards for pro bono work is interesting. It acknowledges the significance of community service without coercing lawyers into involuntary commitments. I like the idea of raising the aspirational hours, nudging lawyers to give back more without making it a must-do. It strikes a chord, fostering a spirit of giving while respecting individual choices. Maybe offering incentives could sweeten the deal further, amplifying the positive impact.
ReplyDelete