“Pro Bono Publico” means “for the public good” and in our age the phrase is used to describe work attorneys perform for free. The phrase is Latin, not as an attempt to put on airs, but because the concept of Pro Bono Publico dates to the Roman Republic, when citizens of wealth and standing were expected to expend some of their time and influence on behalf of the poor.
A few weeks ago, the New York Times reported law firms across the country are cutting back on pro bono services, for several reasons. First, lawyers are up to their ears in work already. The throbbing American economy has lawyers working overtime for paying customers. None of those young associates eager to make partner wants to report that while his peers were closing a multi-million dollar real estate deal, he spent a week helping a family of welfare recipients fight their landlord.
Second, law firms blame the Internet, everyone’s excuse for everything. To keep law school graduates from being lured away by Internet start-ups, law firms have had to raise starting salaries for new lawyers. Higher salaries for new lawyers means higher salaries all the way up the line and the money has to come from somewhere. You can bet the senior partners aren’t going to take a shot to the wallet. Not when business is booming.
So pro bono suffers. I have direct experience of the phenomenon. A year ago, I was trying to organize a tiny piece of legal research for a non-profit organization. Nothing controversial, no open-ended commitments. Maybe five or six hours of research through legal databases. It took me four months of negotiation with three different firms to find an attorney willing to take on the task “for the public good” and I’m a relatively well-connected guy with an inoffensive project.
Now consider the decline in pro bono representation from the point of view of the poor person. Once upon a time, there was an entity known as the Legal Services Corporation, a publicly-funded institution which helped secure legal representation for poor people. Most Legal Services work involved things like landlord disputes, worker’s compensation claims, finding attorneys for the poor and crazy. People who are poor and crazy have the same rights in America as anyone else, but finding a lawyer to help a poor, crazy person defend those rights is another story.
Right after he was inaugurated in 1981, Ronald Reagan – who always sided with the rich and crazy – tried to destroy the Legal Services Corporation. While he failed to destroy it, he did manage to wound it severely. Legal Services was further wounded in 1996, when Congress forbade the use of any public funds in Legal Services cases involving abortion, illegal immigration, welfare revision or class action lawsuits.
Candidate George Bush, like his father before him, believes in smaller government. He thinks private, charitable entities should step in to provide for the poor, instead of relying on the government to solve your problems; the “thousand points of light” theory. But now, both private and public means of finding an attorney for a poor person are at their lowest point in decades.
Should this state of affairs bother you? It bothers me. If there is no reliable access to the courts for poor people, then that class of people exist in a state of lawlessness, susceptible to abuse and exploitation by anyone who chooses to do so, whether it be a landlord, an employer or a roving band of street thugs.
Maybe that won’t affect you, but when we start opening up groups of people to exploitation, how long will it be before we get to your group?
For the Public Good
“Pro Bono Publico” means “for the public good” and in our age the phrase is used to describe work attorneys perform for free. The phrase is Latin, not as an attempt to put on airs, but because the concept of Pro Bono Publico dates to the Roman Republic, when citizens of wealth and standing were expected to expend some of their time and influence on behalf of the poor.
A few weeks ago, the New York Times reported law firms across the country are cutting back on pro bono services, for several reasons. First, lawyers are up to their ears in work already. The throbbing American economy has lawyers working overtime for paying customers. None of those young associates eager to make partner wants to report that while his peers were closing a multi-million dollar real estate deal, he spent a week helping a family of welfare recipients fight their landlord.
Second, law firms blame the Internet, everyone’s excuse for everything. To keep law school graduates from being lured away by Internet start-ups, law firms have had to raise starting salaries for new lawyers. Higher salaries for new lawyers means higher salaries all the way up the line and the money has to come from somewhere. You can bet the senior partners aren’t going to take a shot to the wallet. Not when business is booming.
So pro bono suffers. I have direct experience of the phenomenon. A year ago, I was trying to organize a tiny piece of legal research for a non-profit organization. Nothing controversial, no open-ended commitments. Maybe five or six hours of research through legal databases. It took me four months of negotiation with three different firms to find an attorney willing to take on the task “for the public good” and I’m a relatively well-connected guy with an inoffensive project.
Now consider the decline in pro bono representation from the point of view of the poor person. Once upon a time, there was an entity known as the Legal Services Corporation, a publicly-funded institution which helped secure legal representation for poor people. Most Legal Services work involved things like landlord disputes, worker’s compensation claims, finding attorneys for the poor and crazy. People who are poor and crazy have the same rights in America as anyone else, but finding a lawyer to help a poor, crazy person defend those rights is another story.
Right after he was inaugurated in 1981, Ronald Reagan – who always sided with the rich and crazy – tried to destroy the Legal Services Corporation. While he failed to destroy it, he did manage to wound it severely. Legal Services was further wounded in 1996, when Congress forbade the use of any public funds in Legal Services cases involving abortion, illegal immigration, welfare revision or class action lawsuits.
Candidate George Bush, like his father before him, believes in smaller government. He thinks private, charitable entities should step in to provide for the poor, instead of relying on the government to solve your problems; the “thousand points of light” theory. But now, both private and public means of finding an attorney for a poor person are at their lowest point in decades.
Should this state of affairs bother you? It bothers me. If there is no reliable access to the courts for poor people, then that class of people exist in a state of lawlessness, susceptible to abuse and exploitation by anyone who chooses to do so, whether it be a landlord, an employer or a roving band of street thugs.
Maybe that won’t affect you, but when we start opening up groups of people to exploitation, how long will it be before we get to your group?