More harm than good?

RH:

We felt your article showed a level of misunderstanding about what the National Pro Bono Centre is about, and in fact you said yourself you were not 'exactly sure' what it does. Would it help if I gave you a quick summary of its history and purpose? Are there ways in which we can help you to understand the function of the centre?

RC:

I would be extremely interested in knowing what the Pro Bono Centre 'does' '“ who it helps, the numbers of clients and how much it all costs.

RH:

The purpose of the centre is the provision of a hub for existing (and new) pro bono charities. As such, its direct impact is the housing, support and bringing together of those charities, improving the efficiency of pro bono legal services both for lawyers and for members of the public.

RC:

Sorry, I am none the wiser! You have given me no hard facts to go on.Indeed this wooliness is a bit like pro bono work in general. Nobody knows who is doing it, how much it costs and ultimately what benefits it provides. There are two very real problems with pro bono: (a) should it remain voluntary or should it be mandatory? (b) Is it just a smokescreen whereby the professions are being shunted into doing work for nothing as the legal aid budget gets ripped apart?

As Geoffrey Bindman so aptly commented: 'In the present dire state of legal aid, pro bono is like donating deck chairs to the sinking Titanic.'

RH:

Pro bono is not mandatory and we do not believe it should be '“ it is not and can never be a substitute for legal aid. While we are hugely proud of the level of assistance our members are able to provide, the briefest consideration of the statistics of pro bono and legal aid make this very clear.

On the other hand, lawyers have been giving their time for pro bono purposes for centuries; we believe it is an inherent part of the operation of the profession. We also believe that all parts of the profession should be working together.

Our partnership with the legal aid sector is crucial to us and we are only too aware of how much damage to the pro bono sector will arise as a result of the proposed legal aid reforms, against which we have spoken vociferously.

RC:

Why call it pro bono? Nobody knows what the expression means. I asked three people on the tube recently what they thought it meant. One thought it was a band, another a sports drink and the third did not have a clue. Why do you persist with this outdated and confusing jargon?

How about the Free Legal Advice Centre? Us lawyers who are old enough to have studied Latin know that the expression is short for pro bono publico, 'for the common good', but it is not. Firms dip into pro bono to salve their consciences.

RH:

Speaking as a lawyer who is also old enough to have studied Latin, I don't disagree with some of what you say but I'm afraid I am a lawyer not a communications expert so we might have a more helpful conversation about the work itself. Do firms salve their consciences? I think pro bono is undertaken for a range of reasons, and I don't tend to look behind the very welcome donation of time.

RC:

Firms know that charging £800 per hour for legal advice is pretty shabby, and think 'hey, let's do an hour or two of free legal advice'.

Some firms call pro bono just about anything they want to. A quite well known firm teaches English to kids in a local school and describes that as pro bono! The whole system is unregulated and whimsical.

RH:

I am not sure I agree that the system is unregulated '“ pro bono is delivered (under the profession's Pro Bono Protocol) on the same basis as fee-paid work.

Lawyers believe it is important to give back to the community, to make a difference; many tell us they find the work hugely rewarding and satisfying, others acknowledge that it is developmental in an age when private sector lawyers, in particular, are becoming increasingly narrow in their area of speciality. And I think it's important not to focus on a City lawyer 'doing an hour or two' of pro bono work. Not all pro bono is undertaken by those on large salaries. Some of our members are responsible for quite extraordinary commitment in terms of attendance at clinics week after week, month after month, year after year.

RC:

What needs to happen is that firms are obliged to pay a levy based on turnover into a fund. Persisting with this voluntary nonsense is just wrong. We are talking here about access to justice and I for one am sick of 'the Big Society' where lawyers who want to do good just help a couple of clients for free.

RH:

Belief in the importance of access to justice is common to both you and me, and belief in legal aid as a vital component of the welfare state. But pro bono is older than legal aid and, no matter how generously funded, legal aid will always leave unmet need.

Should lawyers turn away from that, or should we (like many other professions) support charitable professional endeavour on a complementary basis?

Political jargon does not detract from the plethora of coordinated professional giving back which has grown incrementally the last few years and where the legal profession has always been proud to lead.

RC:

I really have to go as clients are queuing up in reception and they all need rather a lot doing for them. My final observation is that I believe pro bono is a distraction from access to justice. I also think it is being used by the government to manipulate lawyers while at the same time taking away funding from legal aid.

Let's not be taken in by the argument that pro bono is for the common good. It is not. It is there for the few that can access it. And I believe it is very few indeed.

RH:

I agree entirely that pro bono only supports a tiny proportion of those in need '“ and that this proportion will sadly only decrease. That is more of a challenge for us, in many ways.