ASSOCIATION FOCUS
RAISING THE BAR ON PRO BONO WORK
A WASHINGTON, D.C.-BASED NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION, PRO BONO INSTITUTE IS DRIVEN BY SERVICE. T e organization thrives on helping law fi rms assist low-income and disadvantaged groups secure the legal assistance they cannot aff ord. Founded in 1996, PBI works with law fi rms, in-house
corporate legal departments, and public interest organiza- tions across the nation to develop strategies that allow legal entities to provide free legal services on a large scale. Since its inception, PBI has seen the number of pro bono
42
hours clocked by large law fi rms across the nation triple in number. PBI’s push to convince fi rms to prioritize pro bono hours and enhance pro bono program development spurred much of that growth, PBI offi cials say. PBI President and
CEO Esther Lardent founded the organiza- tion with a simple goal: Leverage the volun- teer power of a large group of
help as many people as possible. As the former direc- of the Volunteer
tor
Lawyers Project of the Boston Bar Association, one of the nation’s fi rst
organized pro
in other parts of the country that were pretty much doing nothing,” Lardent explains. A severe barrier to pro bono success, Lardent says,
can be company culture. Pro bono success is contingent upon whether or not the entire fi rm truly values pro bono work. “Pro bono needs to be institutionally supported from
the top down. It cannot be the sole responsibility of indi- vidual lawyers,” says Lardent. “Pro bono should be an institutional priority.” A clear pro bono strategy and layers of support and train-
ing also contribute to pro bono success. Data show that the absence of either could be a recipe for failure. Findings from a 2009 report published by the American
lawyers and
CHANCES TO GET INTO COURT. IT CAN GIVE THEM THE LITIGATION EXPERIENCE
“PRO BONO AS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT CAN REALLY ADVANCE YOUNG LAWYERS WHO DON’T GET MANY
bono programs, Lardent understood that most lawyers have an authentic desire to serve the underserved. Until the mid 1990s, most pro bono cases focused on bar
associations and individual law fi rms. In that time, most pro bono programs established by fi rms were decentralized. T ere was also a large disparity between fi rms in pro bono output, Lardent says, noting there was no industry standard for pro bono success. “You had fi rms in D.C. that were spending enormous amounts of time in pro bono, and then you had other fi rms
DIVERSITY & THE BAR® MARCH/APRIL 2012
THEY NEED.” — ESTHER LARDENT
Bar Association listed the lack of time as the primary reason for not providing pro bono service. T e fi ndings also
indicate that the employer’s attitude toward pro bono activity seems to have a signifi cant impact on attorney willingness to do pro bono. More than 70 percent of attorneys who provided pro bono work were signifi cantly more likely to indicate that their employers encouraged pro bono
service than the 30 percent of non-providers. Typically, a fi rm’s pro bono committee is charged with
ensuring that a pro bono program thrives. At large law fi rms, increasingly, there is one full-time person charged with implementing the program on a day-to-day basis. In 1995, the industry was challenged to do better. One
year before PBI became a nonprofi t organization, the Law Firm Pro Bono Project worked with the American Bar Association to launch the Law Firm Pro Bono Challenge®.
MCCA.COM
BY MICHELLE J. NEALY
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52