Article by Judith L. Maute
Few issues of professional regulation arouse such passionate debate as lawyers' ethical duty to provide pro bono legal services. In the last twenty years, prominent academic commentators have both advocated and opposed a mandatory service rule. This Article examines the changing conceptions of lawyers' pro bono responsibilities. Part II briefly considers the noblesse oblige tradition of ancient Rome, reflected in the medieval European oaths of office, and in colonial America. Part III examines in detail the history of American lawyers' professional regulation relating to pro bono expectations. In light of the historical developments, Part IV reconsiders the changing professional paradigm using the concept of law as a vocational calling. Building on the concept of vocation, and the historical progression in legal regulation, I suggest a shift in focus to external, measurable standards. Specifically, I propose that states consider two additional changes to their statements of pro bono responsibilities. First, I propose a requirement of annual reporting as a formalized mechanism for individual lawyers to evaluate the current extent of their service. As a subset to this requirement, states should provide lawyers with an easy and efficient method to volunteer future services, participate in lawyer referral systems, or alternatively satisfy their responsibility. Second, states should consider financial support and pooling arrangements as coequal alternatives to direct service. Because not all lawyers are inclined or competent to provide direct services for the poor, the ethics rules should fully respect alternative means of satisfaction, rather than dismissing them as morally repugnant.
About the Author
Judith L. Maute. Professor, University of Oklahoma College of Law. J.D. 1978, University of Pittsburgh; LL.M. 1982, Yale University.
Citation
77 Tul. L. Rev. 91 (2002)