Pro Bono Service Should be Mandatory
The court should mandate 50 hours of pro bono legal work a year. That is hardly too much to ask of the bar.
November 20, 2022 at 10:00 AM
2 minute read
American Bar Association Model Rule of Professional Conduct 6.1 states that "Every lawyer has a professional responsibility to provide legal services to those unable to pay. A lawyer should aspire to render at least (50) hours of pro bono publico legal services per year." The rule goes on to say that a substantial majority of the 50 hours should be provided to persons of limited means or charitable, religious, civic, community, governmental and educational organizations in matters that are designed primarily to address the needs of persons of limited means. New Jersey's RPC 6.1 is a watered-down version of the model rule. It provides that "Every lawyer has a professional responsibility to render public interest legal services." There is no aspirational number of hours and instead of referring to "voluntary pro bono publico service" like the model rule, it is addressed to the broader category of "public interest legal services." It also includes the amorphous "service in activities for improving the law, the legal system or the legal profession."
New Jersey does have the minimal pro bono requirement of accepting assignments when made under Madden v. Delran, 126 N.J. 59 (1992), typically violations of domestic restraining orders, municipal appeals and parole revocation hearings. Lawyers can satisfy their Madden obligation by performing at least 25 hours of pro bono legal services in the prior year through one or more of 133 approved referring agencies ranging from Legal Services of New Jersey to Pro Bono Partnership to the Veterans Consortium. This option encourages lawyers to perform pro bono in areas of their own expertise or passion.
This content has been archived.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
© 2025 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 AllAppreciating the Important Work the Middlesex County Civil Bar Panel Does
7 minute readWill 2025 Bring a Change to Lawyers' Mandatory Pro Bono Duties Under 'Madden'?
7 minute readUnfamiliar Territory: Lawsuit Calls Mandatory Pro Bono Assignments Unconstitutional
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 16-48. It’s Comp Time Again: How To Crush Your Comp Memo
- 2'Religious Discrimination'?: 4th Circuit Revives Challenge to Employer Vaccine Mandate
- 3Fight Over Amicus-Funding Disclosure Surfaces in Google Play Appeal
- 4The Power of Student Prior Knowledge in Legal Education
- 5Chicago Cubs' IP Claim to Continue Against Wrigley View Rooftop, Judge Rules
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