The article, “Courts Offer Olive Branch on Pro Bono Rule” (NYLJ, May 29) appropriately reports strong reservations by the bar on the issues of attorneys’ personal privacy, and on the “camel’s nose under the tent” concerns that the pro bono reporting rule may be “a possible prelude to mandatory pro bono beyond the courts’ voluntary, aspirational goal of 50 hours per attorney each year.”
Of no lesser concern to a significant number of lawyers is the question of how “pro bono” is to be defined.
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
