The ABA's Model Rule 6.1 of the Rules of Professional Responsibility urges attorneys to strive to donate a minimum of 50 hours of pro bono service to community members. States have adopted similar measures.
There has been substantial argument over the necessity of this rule, and it's effect on small firm and solo practitioners. Some bloggers have commented that pro bono service could inevitably lead to your demise as a solo or small firm practitioner (see here and here). More especially, mandatory pro bono service arguably has a greater impact on the solo or small practitioner because those individuals have more flexibility to make decisions to render pro bono service. I think this is certainly true.
An "aspirational" rule can harm the solo or small firm attorney because the attorney already discounts fees or in some cases, provides services at no charge. In my practice, I find that there is a high percentage of tasks wherein the client receives discounted or pro bono service. Moreover, I'm actively involved in the Oklahoma Lawyers for Children program, which assigns lawyers to represent deprived children in state court. In fact, I currently offered legal representation to an individual if they'd agree to cover court costs and other fees.
Thankfully, Oklahoma has a rather robust rule regarding pro bono service. The rule does not mandate any hourly requirements. Rather, the rule encourages the attorney to offer reduced fee or free legal services, improve the community through unpaid service, and financially support legal aid-type organizations.
I like Oklahoma's rule because I think it puts reasonable demands on attorneys for providing service according to their means and abilities.
I'd like to hear your views on the issue, so please comment below.
There has been substantial argument over the necessity of this rule, and it's effect on small firm and solo practitioners. Some bloggers have commented that pro bono service could inevitably lead to your demise as a solo or small firm practitioner (see here and here). More especially, mandatory pro bono service arguably has a greater impact on the solo or small practitioner because those individuals have more flexibility to make decisions to render pro bono service. I think this is certainly true.
An "aspirational" rule can harm the solo or small firm attorney because the attorney already discounts fees or in some cases, provides services at no charge. In my practice, I find that there is a high percentage of tasks wherein the client receives discounted or pro bono service. Moreover, I'm actively involved in the Oklahoma Lawyers for Children program, which assigns lawyers to represent deprived children in state court. In fact, I currently offered legal representation to an individual if they'd agree to cover court costs and other fees.
Thankfully, Oklahoma has a rather robust rule regarding pro bono service. The rule does not mandate any hourly requirements. Rather, the rule encourages the attorney to offer reduced fee or free legal services, improve the community through unpaid service, and financially support legal aid-type organizations.
I like Oklahoma's rule because I think it puts reasonable demands on attorneys for providing service according to their means and abilities.
I'd like to hear your views on the issue, so please comment below.
No comments:
Post a Comment