{"id":3548,"date":"2004-01-17T14:27:48","date_gmt":"2004-01-17T18:27:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2004\/01\/17\/nys-disappointing-pro-bono-re"},"modified":"2011-08-05T15:00:31","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T19:00:31","slug":"nys-disappointing-pro-bono-report","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2004\/01\/17\/nys-disappointing-pro-bono-report\/","title":{"rendered":"NY&#8217;s Disappointing Pro Bono Report"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\"><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\" \/><\/font><\/p>\n<p><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\"><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\">New York lawyers provided less <em>pro bono<\/em> service for the poor in 2002 than they had when last surveyed\u00a0five years ago, despite promises by the bar\u00a0of increased voluntary efforts in order to avoid mandatory <em>pro bono<\/em>\u00a0requirements.\u00a0\u00a0 The administrative judge whose office released\u00a0<\/font><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.nycourts.gov\/reports\/probono\/\">The Future of Pro Bono in New York<\/a><\/font>,<font face=\"Arial\"><font size=\"2\">\u00a0on January 15, 2004, said she was &#8220;disappointed&#8221; with the survey results (see, <em>New York Law Journal<\/em>, &#8220;<\/font><a href=\"http:\/\/www.nylawyer.com\/news\/04\/01\/011604c.html\"><font size=\"2\">NY Lawyers Doing Less Pro Bono Work<\/font><\/a><font size=\"2\">,&#8221; by Daniel Wise, 01-16-2004).<\/font><\/font><font size=\"2\"> <\/font><\/font><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\"><\/p>\n<div><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\">I concur in Judge Newton&#8217;s disappointment in the Bar, but I must add that the judiciary&#8217;s <em>recommendations<\/em> for meeting the legal needs of the State&#8217;s poor in the future are <em>even more disappointing<\/em>.\u00a0 The Report not only <strong>rejects using self-help<\/strong> tools as a meaningful part of the solution to the access crisis,\u00a0it also\u00a0rejects any significant role in the near future (if ever) for <strong>unbundling<\/strong>.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The full report, which includes survey results and details, a separate volume of recommendations, and many appendices, can be accessed <\/font><a href=\"http:\/\/www.courts.state.ny.us\/reports\/probono\/index.shtml\"><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\">here<\/font><\/a><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\">.\u00a0 The Court Administration\u00a0press release\u00a0(Jan. 15, 2004) is <\/font><a href=\"http:\/\/www.courts.state.ny.us\/press\/pr2004_15.shtml\"><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\">here<\/font><\/a><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\">.\u00a0 <\/font><\/div>\n<div><font face=\"Arial\"><font size=\"2\">The Report <em>does<\/em> say all the right things about needing to make civil justice available to the poor, not merely to people of means, and about the Bar&#8217;s obligation to serve the legal needs of the poor.\u00a0 It\u00a0cites an NYSBA study which estimates that there are annually\u00a0&#8220;a total of <font face=\"Arial\">approximately 2.5 million legal problems for which no lawyer is available&#8221; to poor households in New York.\u00a0 The Report then estimates that it would <strong>take ten million additional\u00a0<em>pro bono<\/em> hours to meet those needs<\/strong>.<\/font>\u00a0\u00a0 After a<font face=\"Arial\">dmitting that public funds are not available to provide lawyers for the poor, the Report asks &#8220;Who will provide these additional millions of hours of attorney time?&#8221; and then looks for ways to increase <em>pro bono<\/em>\u00a0services.\u00a0\u00a0<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/div>\n<ul>\n<li><font face=\"Arial\"><font size=\"2\">There are 117,620 &#8220;eligible&#8221; attorneys (Bar members, active <em>and<\/em> retired,\u00a0with their primary office in the State).\u00a0 \u00a0To provide the extra 10,000,000 hours of lawyer time, the average attorney would have to do <strong>85 hours per year of additonal <em>pro bono<\/em> service<\/strong>.\u00a0 Using the Survey&#8217;s own numbers (disputed below), the average NY lawyer did about 19 hours of <em>pro bono<\/em> work in 2002.<\/font><\/font><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<div><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\">Here are some of my reasons for disappointment\u00a0over the Report, and the NYS judiciary and Bar:<\/font><\/div>\n<div><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\"><\/p>\n<div><font size=\"2\"><font face=\"Arial\" \/><\/font><\/div>\n<div><font size=\"2\"><font face=\"Arial\">According to the Survey,\u00a0in 2002 only 46% of NY lawyers performed any &#8220;eligible&#8221;\u00a0<em>pro bono<\/em> work (professional services for poor persons or households, or for organizations that primarly serve those populations), and the average <em>pro\u00a0bono<\/em> lawyer did 41.3 hours of work.\u00a0 A mere 27 percent of New York attorneys fulfilled the goal of a minimum of 20 hours per year per lawyer.\u00a0 I fear that the numbers are worse than they appear:\u00a0 only a third of the &#8220;participating&#8221; random sample\u00a0of attorneys returned the survey forms.\u00a0 It seems likely that <\/font><font face=\"Arial\">those who actually\u00a0do <em>pro bono<\/em> work are more likely to complete the survey than those who do none, and some returns might have &#8220;soft&#8221; estimates of hours served &#8212; self-selected responses to the\u00a0survey and\u00a0self-reporting of numbers yield results that are far from scientific or reliable.\u00a0 <\/font><\/font><\/div>\n<ul>\n<li><font face=\"Arial\"><font size=\"2\">The OCA statisticians say in <\/font><a href=\"http:\/\/www.courts.state.ny.us\/reports\/probono\/proBono_Vol1_report.pdf\"><font size=\"2\">Vol. 1<\/font><\/a><font size=\"2\"> that the Survey used a large enough sample to be considered &#8220;highly accurate,&#8221; as compared to &#8220;what would be expected had the full population&#8221; of eligible NYS lawyers been <em>sent<\/em> survey forms &#8212; <em>not<\/em> as compared to having all those surveyed responding, much less as compared to having the full population actually responding.\u00a0 They do not purport to say that the resulting numbers accurately portray the actual amount of <em>pro bono<\/em> work performed.\u00a0 [Yes, the Survey result may <em>under<\/em>state the amount,\u00a0but that seems far less likely than overstating, due to the self-selecting nature of those returning the anonymous survery forms.]<\/font><\/font><\/li>\n<li><font face=\"Arial\"><font size=\"2\">Furthermore, as the <\/font><a href=\"http:\/\/www.nylawyer.com\/news\/04\/01\/011604c.html\"><font size=\"2\"><em>NYLJ<\/em> article<\/font><\/a><font size=\"2\"> notes, &#8220;The essentially flat level of participation occurred in a year in which there was heightened <em>pro bono<\/em> activity in New York City in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.&#8221;\u00a0 NYC lawyers received accolades for their generous <u>post-9\/11<\/u> <em>pro bono<\/em> services in 2002, but the statewide and City\u00a0hours still went down overall.<\/font><\/font><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<div><font face=\"Arial\"><font size=\"2\">In an effort to increase attorney participation in <em>pro bono<\/em> services, the Report makes practical recommendations (in <\/font><a href=\"http:\/\/www.courts.state.ny.us\/reports\/probono\/proBono_Vol2_report.pdf\"><font size=\"2\">Vol.2<\/font><\/a><font size=\"2\">) for better leadership by the judiciary, plus more local organization and training.\u00a0 It also emphasizes &#8220;educating&#8221; lawyers and law students about the need for and ethics of <em>pro bono<\/em>.\u00a0 In addition,\u00a0because many lawyers\u00a0complain they don&#8217;t have enough <em>incentives<\/em> to do any <em>pro bono <\/em>[editor stifles himself], the Report suggests some financial and ego\u00a0solutions for the lack of incentives: &#8220;Increase CLE credits for pro bono service; <font face=\"Arial\">Provide tax deduction for pro bono; <\/font><font face=\"Arial\">Provide loan forgiveness or NY tax credit; <\/font><font face=\"Arial\">Hold recognition ceremonies and media campaigns.&#8221;<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/div>\n<ul>\n<li><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\">In a bit of lawerly snake oil, the Report actually suggests\u00a0that one way to get the number of <em>pro <\/em>bono hours increased is to broaden the definition of eligible\u00a0<em>pro bono <\/em>work, including &#8220;Broaden[ing the] definition to include low- <em>and<\/em> middle-income individuals; Read[ing the] current definition more creatively.&#8221;\u00a0 The numbers might grow, but would such &#8220;solutions&#8221; help the poor?<\/font><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<div><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\">Clearly, the judicial administration of NYS and the organized bar know that traditional\u00a0methods of providing\u00a0<em>pro bono<\/em>\u00a0service cannot come even close to closing the access gap for the poor.\u00a0\u00a0 How are we going to meet those needs?\u00a0 Convocations were held around the State last year to consider the problem, and the Report discusses other possible solutions, especially unbundling.\u00a0 First, however, here&#8217;s\u00a0the <em>only<\/em> mention of what I would call the &#8220;facilitated self-help option&#8221;:\u00a0 <\/font><\/div>\n<div><font face=\"Arial\">\u00a0<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p align=\"left\"><em><font size=\"2\"><font face=\"Arial\">Placing emphasis on programs and <\/font><font face=\"Arial\">materials that provide an elementary degree of legal education and training to those who are <\/font><font face=\"Arial\">without a lawyer, while useful, has practical limitations and begs the fundamental unfairness of leaving the poor to fend for themselves in New York\u2019s challenging legal arenas.<\/font><\/font><\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p \/><\/font><\/div>\n<div><font face=\"Arial\"><font size=\"2\">It&#8217;s no secret that <em>ethicalEsq <\/em>believes there is no solution to the access gap for low- and middle-income consumers that does not embrace the significant use of self-help\u00a0 information, technology and facilitation, especially through court-related programs (online and on site).\u00a0 [See, <em>e.g.,<\/em><font face=\"Arial\"><strong> <\/strong><\/font><font face=\"Arial\"><a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2003\/07\/15\"><em>Pro Bono<\/em> is Not the Answer<\/a><em>,\u00a0<\/em><\/font><font face=\"Arial\"><a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2003\/12\/13#a380\">Improving Self-Help<\/a><\/font><em>,<\/em><font face=\"Arial\"><em> <a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2003\/12\/10#a377\">Pro Se Techniques<\/a><\/em><em><a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2003\/12\/10#a377\"> for Judges<\/a>, \u00a0<\/em>and much more on our<\/font>\u00a0<\/font><a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/stories\/storyReader$36\"><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\">Access<\/font><\/a><font face=\"Arial\"><font size=\"2\"> Resources Page.]\u00a0\u00a0 Paula Hannaford Agar, the author <font color=\"#000000\">of &#8220;<\/font><font face=\"Arial\" color=\"#000000\" size=\"2\"><a href=\"http:\/\/aja.ncsc.dni.us\/courtrv\/cr39_4\/CR39-4Hannaford.pdf\">Helping the Pro Se Litigant: A Changing Landscape<\/a><\/font><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\">,&#8221; was apparently not speaking of New York State, when she recently wrote:<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/div>\n<blockquote>\n<div><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\">&#8220;In recognition of the reality of litigants\u2019 needs, the courts and the legal community have slowly shifted from insistence on full-representation for every litigant as a fundamental requirement of equal justice to a more pragmatic approach, offering information and limited counsel for those litigants who are capable of managing their own cases and reserving full-representation for those with more complex cases or fewer personal resources.&#8221;<\/font><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div dir=\"ltr\"><font face=\"Arial\"><font face=\"Arial\"><font size=\"2\">The failure of New York&#8217;s judicial administrators to seriously consider the facilitated-self-help option, or to even mention successful self-help programs in states like <\/font><a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2003\/08\/21#a206\"><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\">California<\/font><\/a><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\"> and <\/font><a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2003\/06\/05\"><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\">Nevada<\/font><\/a><font size=\"2\">, suggests an active aversion to such programs, apparently fueled by judicial and court staff resistance to change and (from my experience) lawyer reluctance to promote programs that would also be\u00a0available to\u00a0the non-poor.<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/div>\n<div align=\"left\"><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\"><img decoding=\"async\" alt=\"closed sm\" src=\"http:\/\/cyber.law.harvard.edu\/blogs\/static\/ethicalesq\/Closedsm.gif\" \/> . . .<\/font><\/div>\n<div><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\">The Report does explore discrete task representation &#8212; <strong>unbundling<\/strong> &#8212; in far more detail, but the results and recommendations are not auspicious.\u00a0 The Report notes that at least six other states have made rule changes to accommodate unbundling and that unbundled <font face=\"Arial\"><font size=\"2\">legal services can apparently &#8220;be beneficial in promoting pro bono service by attorneys.&#8221;\u00a0 But, it goes on to say (emphasis added):<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/div>\n<blockquote>\n<div><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\"><font face=\"Arial\"><font size=\"2\">However, because there <\/font><\/font><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\">are <strong>many unreconciled viewpoints<\/strong> throughout the State, we <strong>do <em>not <\/em>recommend that rule changes be <\/strong><\/font><font face=\"Arial\"><font size=\"2\"><strong>implemented<\/strong> at this time to allow for limited appearances by attorneys in litigated matters.<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div dir=\"ltr\"><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\">Instead, a Standing Committee on <em>pro bono<\/em> service should report back &#8220;within the first two years of its formation&#8221; on whether or not rule changes should be made to permit unbundling in litigated matters.\u00a0 This paragraph explains the lack of enthusiasm for unbundling (emphasis added):<\/font><\/div>\n<blockquote>\n<div dir=\"ltr\"><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\"><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\">&#8220;Even in the most ideal situation, participants saw obstacles in implementing limited representation in New York. In particular, concerns were raised about the <strong>unfamiliarity of attorneys and judges<\/strong> regarding unbundling. Many participants were not convinced that attorneys would more readily perform pro bono under an unbundled system because it is <strong>contrary to their training<\/strong>. They believed that attorneys would be<strong> unwilling to step into a case<\/strong> after a litigant has appeared pro se or where work was done by another attorney, and for fear of not being able to step out of it. <strong>Concerns about malpractice and ethics<\/strong> also were repeatedly voiced.&#8221;<\/font><\/font><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div dir=\"ltr\" align=\"left\"><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\">With all due respect, this sounds like over-cautious foot-dragging and paternalism &#8212; the\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2003\/09\/16#a273\"><font size=\"2\">guild mentality<\/font><\/a><font size=\"2\"> that we\u00a0complained about\u00a0last September.<\/font>.\u00a0\u00a0 The Report does, in the end, recommend that a very limited\u00a0 <strong>unbundling\u00a0pilot program<\/strong> be established in four diverse settings across the State. &#8220;At each location, one type of proceeding (<em>i.e., <\/em>housing, <font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\">custody and visitation, child support or matrimonial proceedings) would be selected for a pilot. The <\/font><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\">four pilots would be monitored to identify common problems, issues and outcomes, and to assess the <\/font><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\">reactions and perceptions of litigants, attorneys and judges.<\/font>&#8220;<\/font><\/div>\n<div dir=\"ltr\" style=\"margin-right: 0px\"><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\"><\/p>\n<div dir=\"ltr\" style=\"margin-right: 0px\"><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\">From the <em>ethicalEsq<\/em> perspective, &#8220;The Future of <em>Pro <\/em>Bono in New York State,&#8221; and correspondingly of accessibility to the justice system for all, looks bleak.\u00a0 Perhaps it will take a legislative push (a mandate and adequate funding) for bench and bar to work harder to achieve universal legal access.\u00a0 Traditional <em>pro bono<\/em> service is clearly not the answer, or even a small part of the answer, and mandating such <em>pro bono<\/em> would only make a tiny dent in the problem.\u00a0\u00a0<\/font><\/div>\n<div dir=\"ltr\" style=\"margin-right: 0px\"><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\"><\/p>\n<div dir=\"ltr\" style=\"margin-right: 0px\"><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\">It will take a determined judiciary and a committed and organized bar.\u00a0\u00a0 Bar associations who are serious about improving access to the legal system could help fund, tailor\u00a0and produce, in their own states and locales, self-help programs similar to the online and courthouse resources available in <a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2003\/08\/21#a206\"><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\">California<\/font><\/a><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\"> and <\/font><a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2003\/06\/05\"><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\">Nevada<\/font><\/a><font face=\"Arial\"><font size=\"2\">,\u00a0\u00a0 Local bar groups could also recruit and train volunteers for hands-on assistance in programs similar to those in <a href=\"http:\/\/www.duluthsuperior.com\/mld\/duluthsuperior\/news\/7407193.htm\">Duluth, MN<\/a>, and <a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2003\/08\/21#a206\">Santa Clara, CA<\/a>., where lawyers\u00a0help persons with legal problems represent themselves.\u00a0\u00a0 Much more can and must be done.\u00a0 I wish the judges in New York State had leaned a lot harder on the Bar and\u00a0taken a lot\u00a0broader perspective\u00a0from their benches.<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/div>\n<p><\/font><\/div>\n<p><\/font><\/div>\n<p><\/font><\/div>\n<p><\/font><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>New York lawyers provided less pro bono service for the poor in 2002 than they had when last surveyed\u00a0five years ago, despite promises by the bar\u00a0of increased voluntary efforts in order to avoid mandatory pro bono\u00a0requirements.\u00a0\u00a0 The administrative judge whose office released\u00a0The Future of Pro Bono in New York,\u00a0on January 15, 2004, said she was [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":94,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[2926],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3548","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pre-06-2006"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6kP1R-Ve","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3548","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/94"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3548"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3548\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14045,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3548\/revisions\/14045"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3548"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3548"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3548"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}