New York City Pro Bono Training Calendar
New York State Pro Bono Opportunities Guide

Bar Group Expands Pro Bono Definition

New York Lawyer
April 5, 2005

By John Caher
New York Law Journal

ALBANY — The New York State Bar Association voted on Saturday to expand the scope of activities covered under the "pro bono publico" umbrella. The action came as part of an effort to give attorneys credit for the wide range of public services they perform — and out of fear that court administrators may someday force lawyers to devote a particular number of hours to pro bono service or at least report their efforts.

At Saturday's meeting of the House of Delegates, the policy-making body of the state bar, officials repeatedly cited concern that mandatory pro bono or even mandatory reporting of pro bono activities would adversely affect attorneys whose areas of expertise and interest do not lend themselves to the needs of traditional pro bono clients.

Along with supporting a definition of pro bono that includes providing legal services to the poor, the House of Delegates voted to include service to individuals, civic groups or government agencies "seeking to secure or protect civil rights, civil liberties or public rights, or to meet the basic needs of individuals of limited means . . . where payment of standard legal fees would significantly deplete the recipient's economic resources;" participation in "activities for improving the law or the legal system;" and financial contributions to "groups or organizations whose principal purpose is to address the legal needs of individuals of limited means, and of not-for-profit organizations."

The resolution is rooted in the appointment a year ago of a working group assigned the task of broadening the traditional definition of pro bono. Led by former President A. Thomas Levin of Meyer Suozzi English & Klein in Mineola, the working group drafted the definition that was adopted after a short debate. Although there is no indication of imminent mandatory pro bono, there is serious consideration of a proposal that would require attorneys to annually report their pro bono hours. Under a court administration aspirational standard, attorneys are expected to devote 20 hours of service annually to the poor.

Opponents of expanding the definition, including Scott M. Karson, a partner at Melville-based Lamb & Barnosky and president of the Suffolk County Bar Association, argued that a broader definition would hinder the needs of legal services groups that rely on pro bono attorneys. Mr. Karson opposed any "dilution" in the current standard. He said the proposal created an "unacceptable risk that lawyers will be diverted from that which is at the core" of the pro bono obligation.

Michael Miller, a solo practitioner and past president of the New York County Lawyers' Association, said, "there are many ways to do good" other than by providing direct services to the poor. He said the state bar and the Office of Court Administration should recognize the broad range of services lawyers can and do provide for the public good. Mr. Miller noted that he devoted six weeks to providing legal services after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and served as an elections observer in a war zone — and neither activity fit within the current pro bono structure.

"It is not fair that the definition of pro bono should be restricted as it is," Mr. Miller said.

Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey S. Sunshine of Brooklyn, however, predicted that an expanded definition would make his task of finding volunteer lawyers for poor clients more difficult.

"I think by expanding the definition we will be making the struggle I have every day even harder," he said.