I read with dismay the recent New Jersey Law Journal editorial entitled “Pro Bono Service Should Be Mandatory” (228 N.J.L.J. 2974, Nov. 21, 2022). Pro bono service should only be rendered voluntarily, and only in matters in which the attorney is sufficiently interested and competent to ensure that pro bono work is practically effective for the client. Competence is important in all types of attorney representation, but it is most critical where an indigent person with the inability to choose and pay for counsel faces imprisonment or other “consequences of magnitude.”

The current institutionalized Madden system of forced attorney labor ignores the specific needs of indigent clients, as well as the professional qualifications, work schedules, and personal inclinations of attorneys who are appointed to represent them. As such, it demeans and disserves all parties. “Non-exempt” attorneys are wrongly presumed to be fungible as to their qualifications and abilities, and indigent defendants are wrongly presumed to be fungible as to their needs.

This content has been archived.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

Why am I seeing this?

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]