Read on Twitter
RTing b/c this is a debate worth having. I agree with many points @BobGlaves makes, but I’m not sure they aren’t just “volunteering.” My concern with “pro bono” is that bars (like Texas) spend excessive resources promoting it, to the exclusion of systemic solutions. https://twitter.com/bobglaves/status/1354766905039613953
By promoting pro bono heavily through the years, bars have altered their culture in a way that causes (some) lawyers to do a little volunteer work, brush off their hands, and say to themselves, "well, I've done my part" before going back to work within the systemic status quo.
A couple of years ago I watched my law school dean Jennifer Johnson argue against regulatory changes meant to increase A2J in Oregon by telling the Bar's BOG, "I don't know why you need to do all this, you should just mandate pro bono for every lawyer in Oregon."
Hopefully I don't have to explain, again, how stupid an idea that is. But my point here is that busy lawyers (people) aren't thinking deeply about the systemic inequities of the profession and the industry. Bathing in the glow of "pro bono" gives them further excuse not to.
By questioning pro bono I seek to shake lawyers out of the stupor, and start asking the deeper questions around "how did we get here and how can I help change it" instead of focusing on "what can I do this weekend." I don't want the latter to stop, but we need the former more.
So I hold to my original thesis. Are individual attys doing pro bono dangerous? No. Helpful? Mostly. But bar associations & lawyer orgs promoting pro bono as an excuse to avoid taking concrete steps to change our regulatory structure to increase access and equity is dangerous.
