New York law school officials dubious about impact of state pro bono rule
New Yorks new mandatory pro bono requirement may not pack as big of a punch as intended, law school officials in the state say.
October 16, 2012 at 06:01 AM
7 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
New York's new mandatory pro bono requirement may not pack as big of a punch as intended, law school officials in the state say.
In May, New York Court of Appeals Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman announced that beginning in 2013, New York would become the first state to require bar applicants to complete mandatory pro bono service. Under the rule, prospective lawyers must complete 50 hours of uncompensated legal work. The rule aims to bridge the so-called “justice gap” by increasing legal representation for the poor by 500,000 hours, according to Lippman.
Although law school officials in the state applaud the endeavor, they aren't so certain that the new pro bono requirement will help the poor as Lippman envisioned. That's because when Lippman announced the rule, school officials voiced concern about how they would expand their existing programs on limited budgets. So Lippman opted to broadly define what counts as pro bono work. Under the rule, pro bono service includes clerkships, government internships and other projects—some of them paid—that don't necessarily help the low-income population.
“We had a choice to say that only the most narrow definition of service to the poor would count, and we felt that left out a whole area of public service,” Lippman told Thomson Reuters. “And we didn't want to make it so difficult” for schools, students and legal service providers to implement.
What's more, many law schools in the state already meet or exceed the requirements outlined in the new rule. For instance, CUNY Queens Law School requires all graduates to complete at least one clinic, which can add up to 500 hours of work. And at Cornell Law School, all but 14 of the 192 students who graduated this year would have qualified under the new rule.
Matthew Diller, the dean of Cardozo Law School in Manhattan, says the new rule will ultimately impact the culture of the bar down the road, but “pro bono work by law students is not by itself going to solve the underlying problem of access to counsel.”
Read Thomson Reuters for more information about how New York law schools are tweaking their programs to meet the new pro bono requirement.
For more recent law school news, read:
In May,
Although law school officials in the state applaud the endeavor, they aren't so certain that the new pro bono requirement will help the poor as Lippman envisioned. That's because when Lippman announced the rule, school officials voiced concern about how they would expand their existing programs on limited budgets. So Lippman opted to broadly define what counts as pro bono work. Under the rule, pro bono service includes clerkships, government internships and other projects—some of them paid—that don't necessarily help the low-income population.
“We had a choice to say that only the most narrow definition of service to the poor would count, and we felt that left out a whole area of public service,” Lippman told Thomson Reuters. “And we didn't want to make it so difficult” for schools, students and legal service providers to implement.
What's more, many law schools in the state already meet or exceed the requirements outlined in the new rule. For instance, CUNY Queens Law School requires all graduates to complete at least one clinic, which can add up to 500 hours of work. And at
Matthew Diller, the dean of Cardozo Law School in Manhattan, says the new rule will ultimately impact the culture of the bar down the road, but “pro bono work by law students is not by itself going to solve the underlying problem of access to counsel.”
Read Thomson Reuters for more information about how
For more recent law school news, read:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBeyond the Title: Developing a Personal Brand as General Counsel
Step 1 for Successful Negotiators: Believe in Yourself
Deluge of Trump-Leery Government Lawyers Join Job Market, Setting Up Free-for-All for Law Firm, In-House Openings
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250