Pro bono has long been at best a secondary consideration for in-house lawyers. When the Law Society's rules preventing in-house lawyers from acting for anyone other than their employer were lifted in 1998, corporate counsel finally became able to give pro bono advice but, eight years on, only a handful of in-house teams have taken up the challenge.

Given that pro bono work cannot be claimed by in-house lawyers as billable hours, it is understandable that many corporate practitioners say that they cannot find the time and would not want to put other members of their often over-stretched departments under pressure.

The debate about what – if any – commitments and policies on pro bono corporate counsel should accept can also spark strong feeling from those who resent the feeling of being rail-roaded into taking on pro bono work.

As Shell general counsel of M&A Richard Wiseman says: "To say that people should participate in pro bono work on top of their hours is an intrusion."

But not all general counsel feel the same. LawWorks, the UK's main pro bono body, has just secured what it believes is a breakthrough after persuading a group of major companies to join its ranks.

Companies signing up for the first time are Goldman Sachs, Legal & General, Aviva, Transport for London, npower and Akzo Nobel. The new members join existing LawWorks supporters Vodafone, Sony Ericsson and Lloyd's of London.

Membership commits in-house teams to 10-12 sessions throughout the year offering legal advice arranged by Law-Works. The body also runs a system in which in-house lawyers can sign up to answer simple questions online, enabling them to dabble in pro bono without dedicating sizeable chunks of their schedule to the scheme.

For some this represents a considerable development in a country that has, in contrast with the US, had an ambivalent attitude to the concept of lawyers providing legal advice for free. And if nothing else, evidence that corporate counsel are getting on board with pro bono sends a message about how much further up the agenda the issue has moved among commercial lawyers in the UK.

However, given the relatively small size of in-house teams compared to large private practices, the real impact that in-house lawyers can make on the pro bono culture in the UK lies less in what they can do, but what they can get others to do. Could it fall to general counsel to pave the way to a more proactive pro bono culture?

US general counsel have long utilised their position to stipulate certain pro bono demands along with hourly fees when appointing external counsel.

In contrast, their UK counterparts have yet to take up the baton, with many corporate counsel arguing that their purchasing power as legal service consumers does not extend beyond the will of the shareholders they are answerable to.

Anthony Armitage, head of the In-House Lawyers Association, comments:

"For most general counsel, the bottom line is their budget and their cost. It would be ideal to have ethically-sound lawyers on the panel, but the private sector is driven by cost and relationships – firms tend to be on the panel regardless of their ethical standing."

This school of thought may still be prevalent, but nonetheless, some corporate counsel feel they do have a larger part to play in making pro bono a more central concern for their advisers.

Bryan Hall, general counsel at ntl and a former partner at New York law firm Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson, notes the difference in culture across the Atlantic. He says: "In the US there is a greater degree of philanthropy than in Europe and this translates to law firms. Associates have pro bono marketed to them and it is a key consideration when it comes to choosing which firm they want to work at."

If law firms can use pro bono activity to market themselves to potential employees, can they not do the same to prospective clients? Jonathan Pearl, general counsel at Sony Ericsson, argues that law firms which put pro bono to the fore attract more well-rounded individuals.

"Pro bono may not involve the huge numbers that major deals do, but the issues are incredibly important. A thousand pounds here or there can be a matter of life or death to a charity. Doing pro bono grounds you and is incredibly fulfilling – you do not get that sort of instant gratification in your day-to-day work."

Such considerations could arguably prove a valuable spur to in-house teams looking to offer more career fulfilment to talented lawyers.

However, Pearl also concedes that as clients, in-house lawyers do not always feel that they have the purchasing clout to promote pro bono to the same level as fees and hours as a consideration when it comes to panel reviews.

"As in-house lawyers we have much less leverage with our employers, but companies are becoming more aware of the importance of pro bono work and are starting to support it," he comments.

But while general counsel still show a reluctance to use their purchasing power to encourage law firms to do pro bono, there is no reason why clients should not add a demonstrable commitment to the sector as an additional pitch requirement.

There is nothing to stop general counsel choosing to work with advisers who can meet expectations on cost and quality while also showing a measurable pro bono commitment.

Anecdotal evidence from City firms is that such considerations – while virtually unheard of five years ago – are increasingly becoming a reality, and law firms have been quick to take note.

It should also be noted that this use of criteria outside of strictly legal and cost issues by clients has already become established in the US.

As Shell's Wiseman comments: "The US is 20 years ahead of us. It is like the issue of diversity, which we have become committed to now and which affects our choice when we look at bringing in out-side counsel."

Talkback: Should clients press law firms to disclose their pro bono policies?